"I have never seen someone as wrong as you are --- so often as you are."
Uhhh, have you forgotten about Tinmore, Rocco?
The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga
- Thread starter Daniyel
- Start date
"I have never seen someone as wrong as you are --- so often as you are."
Uhhh, have you forgotten about Tinmore, Rocco?
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Go **** yourself! I've never seen you win one debate, with all your bullshit data dumps. Every time you argue with Tinny or Monte, they make you their *****!
This is not an armed conflict. How can you have an armed conflict, when one side is not allowed to have arms? Furthermore, an armed conflict infers there are two competing army's of equal strength. That is not what we have here. What we have, is the only nuclear power in the ME on one side, versus a population under occupation that isn't allowed to have weapons, a police force, a government, a military, etc...
Okay, I'll give you this one.
Uh oh, things are going to get rocky...
No it is not nonsense. You haven't posted one thing that says you can have a blockade in international waters.
"The quarantined area may not extend too far beyond the coast, although the law isn't specific on distance. (Many scholars interpret the language of the London Declaration to limit blockades to the standard 12 nautical miles that define territorial waters.)"
By all means, mention them. Because they prove my argument right and your argument full of shit.
Well, they're certainly not doing that.
Israel doesn't do that either.Most of what you posted as the requirements for a legal blockade, Israel does not meet.
Is Israel's blockade of Gaza against the law?
"Many consider Israel's blockade to be on very shaky legal ground. Its status in the West Bank and Gaza is widely viewed as a belligerent occupation, despite the 2005 disengagement. Belligerent occupation is different from a true state of war and may not confer the technical right to form a blockade. Second, Sunday's incident occurred 40 miles off the coast of Gaza, well outside the traditional blockade range. Finally, Israel has allegedly been firing on Palestinian fisherman, which is absolutely illegal."
"Many consider Israel's blockade to be on very shaky legal ground. Its status in the West Bank and Gaza is widely viewed as a belligerent occupation, despite the 2005 disengagement. Belligerent occupation is different from a true state of war and may not confer the technical right to form a blockade. Second, Sunday's incident occurred 40 miles off the coast of Gaza, well outside the traditional blockade range. Finally, Israel has allegedly been firing on Palestinian fisherman, which is absolutely illegal."
Now get this through your fuckin' head, Israel is not the king of the world. You cannot do whatever you ******* please.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Isn't it time for another "Mufti Moment"?Is Bigmouth with the low IQ playing with his toy boats again?
Huge fail on that impotent response.
"This is not an armed conflict" seems to typify your cluelessness and refusal to understand objective data.
Flailing your Pom Poms in support of your Islamist terrorist heroes is standard fare for you but really, shortstop, get a clue.
Challenger
Gold Member
So your position is --- It's ISRAEL's fault that this guy only lasted 7 months???
That you would believe his seizure of power was ruined by only by his failure to cuddle up to
"the Zionist Entity".. This is entertaining.. For sure..
Ben Gurion could have been as reality challenged as our John Fraud Kerry and STILL realized that this guy was a "dead man walking" and NOT an opportunity for peace.
Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? Nobody knew then how long he'd last. My position is that "peace loving" Zionist Israel never made the effort. What could they have lost if the deal went south? They were at war with their neighbours already, so nothing lost there if it did. If, however, the deal held they'd have a stable northern border, a split amongst their enemies and no Palestinian refugee problem to worry about in the future. The prospect would be worth exploring to any politician who really desired to live in peace with his neighbours; unfortunately Ben Gurion and Zionist Israel had no intention of making peace, then or since.
Lot of if's, there Mouseman.. You could GUARANTEE there would be no Palestinian Zionist movement today if only this clown had made that deal.. ??? Grant you -- it's an interesting historical oddity.. But so was that coupe and this guy who left office in a casket...
Oh, ye gods and little fishes, you cannot be that naive! The only thing in life you an ever GUARANTEE is death...and taxes, of course.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
I'm not sure you are a true observer.
Oh, I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it is an armed conflict. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) does not deny that they fire rockets and mortars into Israel; nor do they deny that they conduct cross-border operations (kidnapping, murder, bombings, ambushes, etc) into Israel. The debate centers on two aspects questions:
1) Are these activities terrorist and jihadist activities?
2) Are these armed actions constitute either international or non-international armed conflicts?
Yes, this is always an arguable point. The Arab Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, nearly always play the part of the innocent victim ravaged by the Jewish Regional Power.
Relative to Customary International Humanitarian Law, the terminology (as stated previously) is either "international or non-international armed conflicts;" without regard to formal declarations.
Protocol II, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (GCIV) without modifying its existing conditions of application, applies to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the GCIV, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
Non-international armed conflicts do not include conflicts in which two or more States are engaged against each other. Nor do they encompass conflicts extending to the territory of two or more States.
The conflict between the State of Israel and HAMAS (Government of the Gaza Strip) is not truly a "belligerent Occupation" because the accused Occupying Force (Israel) does not meet the criteria:
Hague Convention of 1907 --- Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The key here is that Israel must mount a full scale military operation to entry the Gaza Strip and exercise the authority of the Occupation Force. The Gaza Strip is not under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force as HAMAS clearly agrees with; and Israel does not have such authority as to exercise preventative law enforcement objectives such as the prevention of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel.
Yes the limit of Territorial Waters is defined in:
PARt II --- SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA; UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982)
Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
This does not effect the armed conflict (exchange of hostile fire between forces) and the rules outlined in the San Remo Manual. The UNCLOS and San Remo Manual are two entirely different set of rules for two entirely different sets of conditions: UNCLOS for innocent passage, and San Remo Manual for Armed Conflicts. Don't make the mistake of trying to mix and match. As a vessel sails from one zone to another, so must the rules change.
Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft ---
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
I mentioned them in the effort of clarity and honesty --- BUT --- sure, let's go into them.
Whether or not you believe that is "exactly what this blockade is doing" is irrelevant. The standard is whether or not the "blockade" has it as the "sole purpose" of the objective. Which is not the case. Israel is not, as its "SOLE PURPOSE," attempting to starve the civilian population or deny it other objects essential for its survival. In point of fact, it is not a purpose of the blockade at all.
The objective of the Blockade is to prevent contraband weapons from being smuggled into Gaza and being fired into the sovereignty of Israel. Since the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is still firing rockets and mortars into Israel, it is obvious that the overall strategy is not yet strong enough to achieve a decisive military advantage.
The perception, on the part of the Gazians, that the Blockade is a punishment is entirely wrong. It is, and unfortunate and unintended consequence of the Gazian supported HAMAS Government opening up hostilities against Israel. At some point, the people of Gaza must take responsibility for the consequences of their governments action.
In any armed conflict, there will bound to be hardships experienced by one side or the other; if not both. The Rules of Conflict (Land, Sea or Air) do not demand that parties to the conflict ensure a specific standard of living for the opponent. The standard is "essential for survival."
Again, this is absolute nonsense! If you want to read the International Committee of the Red Cross blog from the ICRC resources actually in country and on station in Gaza, one needs only to read ICRCBLOG --- Israel, Golen, West Bank and Gaza. There is a nice little article on the pro-Palestinian Propaganda piece on the recent efforts.
“Reconstruction of the Strip is grindingly slow,” said Mamadou Sow, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza. “This isn’t helped by restrictions on the import of building materials. Relief is being provided by the ICRC and Palestine Red Crescent but it’s not enough, and thousands are still struggling to cope. The impact of the conflict is still being acutely felt by civilians. It will take decades to rebuild Gaza but right now our priority is to meet the urgent humanitarian needs.”
Again, this is the difference between what is "essential for survival" and what is nice to have.
You may call the ICRC Representative in Gaza @: Suhair Zakkout, ICRC Gaza, tel: +972 59 925 5381 (English, Arabic)
A list of Gaza Based NGOs can be found at: WEBGAZA.Net
Alternative land based routes have been established to expedite the passage process. The objective of Paragraph 104 is to ensure that if essential port arrangement are required, that they are provided. In this case, the ICRC and other NGOs do not have the port and gantry equipment necessary for container operations (loading and off-loading).
I'm not sure you understand what "traditional blockade range" means. Hell, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, that asserted jurisdiction over waters as well as shelf for as much as 200 nautical miles (370 km) offshore.
It is not uncommon for interdiction patrol craft to fire shots across the bow of ships and boats that fail to heave-to for boarding and inspection. As you already know, vessels that are believed, on reasonable grounds, to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; may be fired upon. In the enforcement of the blockade, the Israeli Navy seldom does that. Usually, the Israeli Navy fires across the bow and the vessel complies. BUT, under Section V, Paragraph 67a, failure to comply can result in the vessel being fired upon. Hostile media coverage usually reports that unarmed fishermen were shot at by the Israeli Navy when in fact, it was merely the standard --- firing across the bow.
The same might be said of the Palestinians. Although, I believe the Arab-Palestinians are in fact the Queens of self-victimization.
Most Respectfully,
R
I'm not sure you are a true observer.
(COMMENT)
Oh, I don't think there is any question as to whether or not it is an armed conflict. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) does not deny that they fire rockets and mortars into Israel; nor do they deny that they conduct cross-border operations (kidnapping, murder, bombings, ambushes, etc) into Israel. The debate centers on two aspects questions:
1) Are these activities terrorist and jihadist activities?
2) Are these armed actions constitute either international or non-international armed conflicts?
(COMMENT)
Yes, this is always an arguable point. The Arab Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, nearly always play the part of the innocent victim ravaged by the Jewish Regional Power.
(COMMENT)
Relative to Customary International Humanitarian Law, the terminology (as stated previously) is either "international or non-international armed conflicts;" without regard to formal declarations.
Protocol II, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (GCIV) without modifying its existing conditions of application, applies to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the GCIV, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
Non-international armed conflicts do not include conflicts in which two or more States are engaged against each other. Nor do they encompass conflicts extending to the territory of two or more States.
The conflict between the State of Israel and HAMAS (Government of the Gaza Strip) is not truly a "belligerent Occupation" because the accused Occupying Force (Israel) does not meet the criteria:
Hague Convention of 1907 --- Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The key here is that Israel must mount a full scale military operation to entry the Gaza Strip and exercise the authority of the Occupation Force. The Gaza Strip is not under the authority of the Israeli Defense Force as HAMAS clearly agrees with; and Israel does not have such authority as to exercise preventative law enforcement objectives such as the prevention of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel.
(COMMENT)Yes the limit of Territorial Waters is defined in:
PARt II --- SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA; UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982)
Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
This does not effect the armed conflict (exchange of hostile fire between forces) and the rules outlined in the San Remo Manual. The UNCLOS and San Remo Manual are two entirely different set of rules for two entirely different sets of conditions: UNCLOS for innocent passage, and San Remo Manual for Armed Conflicts. Don't make the mistake of trying to mix and match. As a vessel sails from one zone to another, so must the rules change.
Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft ---
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
(COMMENT)
I mentioned them in the effort of clarity and honesty --- BUT --- sure, let's go into them.
(COMMENT)
Whether or not you believe that is "exactly what this blockade is doing" is irrelevant. The standard is whether or not the "blockade" has it as the "sole purpose" of the objective. Which is not the case. Israel is not, as its "SOLE PURPOSE," attempting to starve the civilian population or deny it other objects essential for its survival. In point of fact, it is not a purpose of the blockade at all.
(COMMENT)
The objective of the Blockade is to prevent contraband weapons from being smuggled into Gaza and being fired into the sovereignty of Israel. Since the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is still firing rockets and mortars into Israel, it is obvious that the overall strategy is not yet strong enough to achieve a decisive military advantage.
The perception, on the part of the Gazians, that the Blockade is a punishment is entirely wrong. It is, and unfortunate and unintended consequence of the Gazian supported HAMAS Government opening up hostilities against Israel. At some point, the people of Gaza must take responsibility for the consequences of their governments action.
(COMMENT)
In any armed conflict, there will bound to be hardships experienced by one side or the other; if not both. The Rules of Conflict (Land, Sea or Air) do not demand that parties to the conflict ensure a specific standard of living for the opponent. The standard is "essential for survival."
(COMMENT)
Again, this is absolute nonsense! If you want to read the International Committee of the Red Cross blog from the ICRC resources actually in country and on station in Gaza, one needs only to read ICRCBLOG --- Israel, Golen, West Bank and Gaza. There is a nice little article on the pro-Palestinian Propaganda piece on the recent efforts.
“Reconstruction of the Strip is grindingly slow,” said Mamadou Sow, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza. “This isn’t helped by restrictions on the import of building materials. Relief is being provided by the ICRC and Palestine Red Crescent but it’s not enough, and thousands are still struggling to cope. The impact of the conflict is still being acutely felt by civilians. It will take decades to rebuild Gaza but right now our priority is to meet the urgent humanitarian needs.”
Again, this is the difference between what is "essential for survival" and what is nice to have.
You may call the ICRC Representative in Gaza @: Suhair Zakkout, ICRC Gaza, tel: +972 59 925 5381 (English, Arabic)
A list of Gaza Based NGOs can be found at: WEBGAZA.Net
(COMMENT)
Alternative land based routes have been established to expedite the passage process. The objective of Paragraph 104 is to ensure that if essential port arrangement are required, that they are provided. In this case, the ICRC and other NGOs do not have the port and gantry equipment necessary for container operations (loading and off-loading).
(COMMENT)
I'm not sure you understand what "traditional blockade range" means. Hell, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, that asserted jurisdiction over waters as well as shelf for as much as 200 nautical miles (370 km) offshore.
It is not uncommon for interdiction patrol craft to fire shots across the bow of ships and boats that fail to heave-to for boarding and inspection. As you already know, vessels that are believed, on reasonable grounds, to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; may be fired upon. In the enforcement of the blockade, the Israeli Navy seldom does that. Usually, the Israeli Navy fires across the bow and the vessel complies. BUT, under Section V, Paragraph 67a, failure to comply can result in the vessel being fired upon. Hostile media coverage usually reports that unarmed fishermen were shot at by the Israeli Navy when in fact, it was merely the standard --- firing across the bow.
(COMMENT)
The same might be said of the Palestinians. Although, I believe the Arab-Palestinians are in fact the Queens of self-victimization.
Most Respectfully,
R
Pointless. It's pretty clear that your tender sensibilities are offended when facts are presented delineating your Islamic terrorist heroes for precisely what they are.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Typical Hollie. Personally attacking other posters without providing a shred of topical content.
Typical Loinboy response. Nothing approaching a coherent response.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
Oh! Just wait a minute here.
Our friend "Hollie" did not make an ad hominem attack at all. "Hollie" made a legitimate critique of the commentary provided. The fact that someone (anyone) could possibly suggest (as Hollie points out) that HAMAS (representing the population of the Gaza Strip) is unarmed and not involved in an armed conflict, is simply totally unaware of the ground truth and reality of the situation.
Not only do I think the observation "Hollie" made --- is quite accurate; but, it was also clear, concise and to the point. I was absolutely on target as an appropriate response to the comment made.
Most Respectfully,
R
Oh! Just wait a minute here.
(COMMENT)
Our friend "Hollie" did not make an ad hominem attack at all. "Hollie" made a legitimate critique of the commentary provided. The fact that someone (anyone) could possibly suggest (as Hollie points out) that HAMAS (representing the population of the Gaza Strip) is unarmed and not involved in an armed conflict, is simply totally unaware of the ground truth and reality of the situation.
Not only do I think the observation "Hollie" made --- is quite accurate; but, it was also clear, concise and to the point. I was absolutely on target as an appropriate response to the comment made.
Most Respectfully,
R
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
I am sure, you don't care about the truth.
There is a very big question, when one side is not allowed to have arms.
In response to Israeli aggression.
Both sides are guilty of that, with Israel taking the lions share of attacks.
"After the withdrawal comes a period of low-intensity warfare by different Palestinian organizations against Israel and from the Israeli military against Gaza. During 2005-2007 approximately 2700 locally manufactured rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel, resulting in 4 dead and 75 wounded Israelis. During the same period the IDF fires approximately 14600 shells into Gaza, killing 57 and wounding 270. There were also raids performed by both parties and repeated Israeli air attacks. Israeli blockades of commerce and travel is a repeatedly used instrument."
The answer is no, on both counts.They aren't playing the part, they are innocent victims. Listen asshole, 1.5 million Gazans, are not terrorists.
Blah, blah, blah.........spare me your unrelated data dumps.
When people are prevented from leaving the area to go to work, that is "under the authority" of a foreign force."The 2005 disengagement supposedly signaled the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. But, in reality, it brought more Israeli limitations on the movement of both people and goods. While the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access -- brokered by the US and signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- should have eased those restrictions, it didn’t.
The number of day laborers exiting Gaza via the Erez crossing offers a dramatic example. In January of 2000, before the Second Intifada began, an average of 17,635 day laborers passed through Erez every day. In January of 2005, that number had dropped to 49."
If there was no authority, how could restrictions possibly increase after the disengagement?The number of day laborers exiting Gaza via the Erez crossing offers a dramatic example. In January of 2000, before the Second Intifada began, an average of 17,635 day laborers passed through Erez every day. In January of 2005, that number had dropped to 49."
You're full of shit! If that was true, then why did Israel start the blockade back in 1991, long before Hamas hit the scene.
"...the gradual closure of Gaza began in 1991, when Israel canceled the general exit permit that allowed most Palestinians to move freely through Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It was then that non-Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank were required to obtain individual permits."
Oh yes it is and the Israeli's already admitted this.
"during the First Intifada. While the mere mention of the word invokes the image of suicide bombers in the Western imagination, it’s important to bear in mind that the First Intifada began as a non-violent uprising comprised of civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts of Israeli goods.
So, that the general exit permit was canceled during this time suggests that this early hit on Palestinian freedom of movement was not rooted in security concerns. It seems, rather, a retributive act, intended to punish Palestinians for daring to resist the Israeli occupation."
In addition to that, you have no right telling Gazans they can't have weapons.So, that the general exit permit was canceled during this time suggests that this early hit on Palestinian freedom of movement was not rooted in security concerns. It seems, rather, a retributive act, intended to punish Palestinians for daring to resist the Israeli occupation."
Again, Gazans have a right to have weapons to defend themselves.
You're a ******* hypocrite! Why don't you take responsibility for Israeli aggression, which is causing all the rocket fire?
This is ridiculous. It's taken almost an your to respond to your fucked up , inhuman posts.
**** you!
Respectfully,
billo
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
And nothing in yours, comply's the the forums zone 2 rules.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
O' contraire Mr. R,
Who's "impotent response", was she referring to?
Who's "cluelessness", was she referring to?
Who's "refusal to understand objective data", was she referring to?
Who's "pom poms", was she accusing of "flailing"?
Who was she calling "shortstop"?
Where, in any of that post, did she state "why" the response was "impotent"? Why, was I "clueless"? What, "objective data" did I not understand?Who's "cluelessness", was she referring to?
Who's "refusal to understand objective data", was she referring to?
Who's "pom poms", was she accusing of "flailing"?
Who was she calling "shortstop"?
Everything she posted, was directed at me personally. There was no relevant content in regards to the OP.
You poor little short boy.
On the contrary, little short boy, your flaming and name-calling was addressed and you were unable to respond without your usual pointlessness.
"Go **** yourself! I've never seen you win one debate, with all your bullshit data dumps. Every time you argue with Tinny or Monte, they make you their *****!"
Hahahahahaha !!!! Really now ? This statement could not be more false. you know very well that Rocco has DESTROYED Tinmore on many occasions. You're such a lying Palestinian ass kisser.
It is fun however watching you have a break down
You're the one who just attacked Rocco for no reason other than that he made you look like the fool that you are.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,390
- 4,876
- 1,815
Relative to Customary International Humanitarian Law, the terminology (as stated previously) is either "international or non-international armed conflicts;" without regard to formal declarations.
That is the question. Is this an international conflict or not?
I don't see that as necessarily the question. The question is: "do we take a position of uninterested observer as a virulently hateful politico-religious ideology seeks to completely cleanse an entire portion of the globe of all competing religious/ethnic/ideological entities."
Whats missing from the rhetoric of the usual Joooooo haters is any wailing about the "poor, oppressed moslems" being systemmatically slaughtered by their co-religionists across Iraq and Syria. It's moslems who are slaughtering their way through moslems. Threads such as this one exist only to placate the IJH Syndrome that oozes from a relative few and we all know who they are. The Arab/Moslem institutionalized hatred of Jews is used by arabs/moslems who seek to use the “plight of the Palestinians”™ they spurned from their own nations and lands many, many times as fodder to further their own agendas.
The institution of insensate Jew hatred (which is a function of moslem orthodoxy), was furthered by other Arabs who care less about “Palestinians” than what the “Palestinian” arabs could mean for their own political, financial, and social positions.
All of that provides a fitting context in which to consider the advent of modernity in the Middle East, and how it has contributed in its way to the Islamic extremism we now face. Make no mistake, Islamic extremism far pre-dates the dawn of the modern age in the Arab World. However, one unifying feature of these pre-modern groups, however, is that their violence was generally directed toward the Dar al-Islam itself, rather than the Western world, much like the numerous Protestant-Catholic conflicts major and minor that characterized the age following the death of Luther. Today's Islamic terrorist groups still mostly kill other Moslems, but they have acquired a new target in the modernized West, and these days the various governments of the Middle East and their enablers in the general population really are clueless as to the damage thay are causing themselves.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
What is missing, is you specifically addressing Israeli atrocities. Instead, you constantly try to hijack the topic of discussion, away from said atrocities.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Woman in U.K. sentenced to 17 years because she killed man raping her. The 2nd Amendment.- Started by 2aguy
- Replies: 7
-
-
A curious attempt in Israel to snuff out a probe of 10/7- Started by EMH
- Replies: 0
-
Trump admin invokes Defense Production Act, directs oil company to restart California operations- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 5
