Ahhhhh .... The French.

[zenith-nadir]

That's not a reason, that's a duplicitous an excuse to ignore the democratic decisions of a people. And Hamas is no-longer a terrorist organization; it is a political party with power and a government.

I disagree. Just because Hamas was "elected" doesn't change who Hamas is, what they did or what they stand for. The only difference between before and today is "they now hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority". Don't forget Hamas has killed many americans too. One such instance was the Hamas bombing of the Frank Sinatra cafeteria at the Hebrew University in July 2002.

Any counter-action the Israeli government takes will now have more legitimacy because they are acting against a foreign government as opposed to a rag-tag rabble of Islamic fanatics.

I agree. If a government of a country allows a group of terrorists to make attacks on another country, without making a good faith effort to stop them, then they are as responsible for those attacks as if they'd ordered them. Now that Hamas is actually the Palestinian government, the Israelis can treat terrorist acts by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as acts of war.

[edited to add]

Here's "Palestine" under Hamas.

Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

Palestinian school children carry a mock coffin draped in a Danish flag during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

 

[BPSCG]

I didn't include things like money laundering and videos in their M.O. But you're right, under your terms and broad definition of M.O., Al Quaeda is not a terrorist organization.

Okay, so if you don't consider al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, can you identify any organization that you believe qualifies?

No. The only reason terrorism is employed is because they have no other options with which to make their war.

That's kinda like saying someone isn't a bank robber because he only robs banks because he can't get honest work.

 

[BPSCG]

Does Godwin's Law work when you're actually making a valid point, though?

Yes.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Note the definition does not speak to the validity of the comparison.

 

[Darat]

Okay, so if you don't consider al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, can you identify any organization that you believe qualifies?
That's kinda like saying someone isn't a bank robber because he only robs banks because he can't get honest work.

I think it more akin to saying that a bank robber is also a son and a father and plays cricket on the weekends, in other words the "bank robber" label does not define all that is relevant about the person.

For once I do want to explicitly distance myself from the initial idea - Hamas is a terrorist organisation, it is not just about the tactics a group uses but also its goals and by that definition they are 100% a terrorist organisation.

Also whilst some may claim the USA has committed terrorist acts even if it has it cannot be classed as a terrorist organisation in the same way Hamas can.

 

[Tony]

Okay, so if you don't consider al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, can you identify any organization that you believe qualifies?

I don't believe any organization qualifies. I think the label is fundamentally flawed and useless. Al Quaeda is an Islamofascist organization that uses terrorism to prosecute it's war.

That's kinda like saying someone isn't a bank robber because he only robs banks because he can't get honest work.

No it's not. It's nothing like it at all.

 

[Tony]

I disagree. Just because Hamas was "elected" doesn't change who Hamas is, what they did or what they stand for.

So? That's irrelevant to the fact that they were elected. Your beef is with democracy.

The only difference between before and today is "they now hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority". Don't forget Hamas has killed many americans too. One such instance was the Hamas bombing of the Frank Sinatra cafeteria at the Hebrew University in July 2002.

Ok.

I agree. If a government of a country allows a group of terrorists to make attacks on another country, without making a good faith effort to stop them, then they are as responsible for those attacks as if they'd ordered them. Now that Hamas is actually the Palestinian government, the Israelis can treat terrorist acts by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as acts of war.

Exactly!!

Here's "Palestine" under Hamas.

Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

Palestinian school children carry a mock coffin draped in a Danish flag during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

What is the point of posting these pictures? Do you think this type of stuff is news to me? I've long known that the fanatics is palestine brainwash their kids to become fodder for their war against the evil jooz.

 

[Tony]

Also whilst some may claim the USA has committed terrorist acts even if it has it cannot be classed as a terrorist organisation in the same way Hamas can.

Why not?

 

[zenith-nadir]

So? That's irrelevant to the fact that they were elected. Your beef is with democracy.

Not true. The Palestinians can elect Scientologists if they want, I won't stop them. But that doesn't mean I have to automatically accept Scientology cuz the Palestinians elected it.

Feb 14, 2006

JERUSALEM - Hamas protested "interference" by the United States and Israel on Tuesday following reports the nations were exploring ways to topple the militants' incoming government unless they renounced their violent ideology and recognized Israel's right to exist.

"There will be no recognition of Israel and there will be no security for the occupation and colonization forces," Mashaal told a rally in Khartoum. "Resistance will remain our strategic option."

Does a militant terrorist group change because it is elected? Given Hamas' history, extreme skepticism is in order.

What is the point of posting these pictures? Do you think this type of stuff is news to me? I've long known that the fanatics is palestine brainwash their kids to become fodder for their war against the evil jooz.

The pictures aren't directed at you. They are just a snapshot of yesterdays Hamas rally.

 

[Darat]

Why not?

Because its reason for existence is not something that can be equated to a terrorist act.

 

[Tony]

Not true. The Palestinians can elect Scientologists if they want, I won't stop them. But that doesn't mean I have to automatically accept Scientology cuz the Palestinians elected it.

Umm, who is asking you, personally, to accept Hamas or Islam? No one. But you DO, if you have any respect for democracy, have to accept them as their legitimate government.

Does a militant terrorist group change because it is elected?

Yes. By defintion it changes from "militant terrorist group" to elected government.

Given Hamas' history, extreme skepticism is in order.

I never contended Hamas was going to stop wanting war against Israel, on the contrary, I'm counting on it.

 

[Tony]

Because its reason for existence is not something that can be equated to a terrorist act.

I don't see how wanting the destruction of a country by a people is a de facto terrorist act. Can you explain how it is?

 

[Darat]

I don't see how wanting the destruction of a country by a people is a de facto terrorist act. Can you explain how it is?

Granted when a state declares such a stance we tend to call it a "war of aggression" rather then terrorism however I think when it is a terrorist organisation that has become the government, without changing anything about it's previous terrorist stance then there is no reason to change the label we apply to them.

I should add I do not disagree with you that we should recognise Hamas as the legitimate government of the proto-Palestinian state but along with that recognition comes consequences. E.g. a recognition that the proto-state is a terrorist state.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Umm, who is asking you, personally, to accept Hamas or Islam? No one. But you DO, if you have any respect for democracy, have to accept them as their legitimate government.

Strangely I've never said Hamas isn't their legitimate government, therefore that claim is dead in the water.

What I am saying is just because Hamas is the legitimate Palestinian government doesn't mean I have to automatically agree with their ideology. And if I don't agree with their ideology the way I show that disagreement is to not support them. Such is my democratic right no?

Yes. By defintion it changes from "militant terrorist group" to elected government.

Ok.

I never contended Hamas was going to stop wanting war against Israel, on the contrary, I'm counting on it.

There are those - France & Russia - who argue that if Hamas gains political responsibility it will find itself forced to weed out its militants, eventually turning from terror to moderation. I say, ya...sure....just like the fundy mullahs in Iran moderated their policies after they took power....

 

[Tony]

Granted when a state declares such a stance we tend to call it a "war of aggression" rather then terrorism however I think when it is a terrorist organisation that has become the government, without changing anything about it's previous terrorist stance then there is no reason to change the label we apply to them.

That doesn't answer the question and it's also circular reasoning. How is wanting the destruction of a country a de facto terrorist stance? You're still taking it for granted that wanting the destruction of a country is a terrorist stance, it's not.

I should add I do not disagree with you that we should recognise Hamas as the legitimate government of the proto-Palestinian state but along with that recognition comes consequences. E.g. a recognition that the proto-state is a terrorist state.

You're adding fuel to my claim that "terrorist" is simply a label used to demonize those with whom certain groups disagree. I still don't see how the US government wouldn't qualify under this exact reasoning.

 

[Tony]

What I am saying is just because Hamas is the legitimate Palestinian government doesn't mean I have to automatically agree with their ideology.

Well no ◊◊◊◊◊ Sherlock. Who the hell is saying that you do?

There are those - France & Russia - who argue that if Hamas gains political responsibility it will find itself forced to weed out its militants, eventually turning from terror to moderation.

I chalk it up to wishful thinking.

 

[kittynh]

the best hope is that the rest of the Arab world doesn't like Hammas.


Matter of fact, a lot of them really hate the Palestinians and treat the "refugees" that live within their borders as little better than immigrant pond scum.

 

[Darat]

That doesn't answer the question and it's also circular reasoning. How is wanting the destruction of a country a de facto terrorist stance? You're still taking it for granted that wanting the destruction of a country is a terrorist stance, it's not.

It doesn't necessarilybut given the starting point in this particular instance it does.

You're adding fuel to my claim that "terrorist" is simply a label used to demonize those with whom certain groups disagree. I still don't see how the US government wouldn't qualify under this exact reasoning.

Hamas has already demonised itself - it has already proved that does not respect the rule of any law, the sanctity of life and so on in particular if that person is an Israeli and so on.

See what the USA has done in the world - you see no systematic process of destruction or attempts at genocide etc., you see a state that on the whole obeys its own and others laws and so on.

May I ask you what definition you use for a terrorist or a terrorist organisation?

 

[Tony]

It doesn't necessarilybut given the starting point in this particular instance it does.

Why?

Why is it terrorism for some to want the destruction of a country, but not others?

Hamas has already demonised itself - it has already proved that does not respect the rule of any law, the sanctity of life and so on in particular if that person is an Israeli and so on.

See what the USA has done in the world - you see no systematic process of destruction or attempts at genocide etc.

Except the American Indian.

you see a state that on the whole obeys its own and others laws and so on.

Except laws against spying on its citizens, laws against censorship, laws guaranteeing religious freedom, laws guaranteeing gun ownership ect..


This is all boiling down to the fact that since you don't like Hamas, they're a terrorist organization.

May I ask you what definition you use for a terrorist or a terrorist organisation.

I don't have one. I reject the terms altogether for being objectively useless. They are only useful as a subjective label.

 

[Darat]

Why?

Why is it terrorism for some to want the destruction of a country, but not others?

I've already explained that as best as I can.

Except the American Indian.

Which strictly speaking was not an action of the USA.

Except laws against spying on its citizens, laws against censorship, laws guaranteeing religious freedom, laws guaranteeing gun ownership ect..


This is all boiling down to the fact that since you don't like Hamas, they're a terrorist organization.

No it boils down to the fact that Hamas knowingly and as a policy target non-military targets to cause terror. Which is the definition I tend to use for terrorist.

I don't have one. I reject the terms altogether for being objectively useless. They are only useful as a subjective label.

All words are subjective, all labels are subjective however as humans we seem to have found that they are useful tools to allow us to communicate with one another. That you do not wish to use a word that has accepted use is of course your prerogative, however as long as I can use the word terrorist and the person I am communicating with can understand what I mean by it I will continue to use it.

 

[Tony]

I've already explained that as best as I can.

But you haven't. You've just re-asserted that wanting a country destroyed is a terrorist stance.

Which strictly speaking was not an action of the USA.

Huh? How can you call a direct action by the US government not an action of the USA?

No it boils down to the fact that Hamas knowingly and as a policy target non-military targets to cause terror. Which is the definition I tend to use for terrorist.

So did the USA, and I'm sure the tactic would be used again if it was deemed necessary to win. Incidentally, they also attack military targets. I asay again, this simply boils down to you not liking Hamas, and thus, label them a terrorist organization.

There is nothing really wrong with that, but don't pretend that its an objective observation.

All words are subjective, all labels are subjective however as humans we seem to have found that they are useful tools to allow us to communicate with one another.

ALL? That's a big claim. I can think of plenty of labels that are objective.

That you do not wish to use a word that has accepted use is of course your prerogative, however as long as I can use the word terrorist and the person I am communicating with can understand what I mean by it I will continue to use it.

Of course, but under your criterion, you would also have to label the US government a terrorist government, but you don't. You are extremely selective in how you apply the label, only those with whom you disagree receive it. That is my point.