Ahhhhh .... The French.

[Darat]

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

No I have explained it as best as I can, you just don;t accept my defintion. I.e. a group that is a terroist group becomes a legitimate government with the same mandate and goals, therefore it is a terrorist government.

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.

And why don't I like "Hamas"? Because they carry out terrorist activities.

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

When have I ever said it is anything but a subjective judgement, the converse of this of course is you should not pretend that your observation is objective either.

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

No you can't.

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.

Totally untrue.

I apply my label consistently based on the criteria I have already explained to you. That criteria allows me to state for instance that the USA is not a terrorist government, nor is Cuba nor is Switzerland or even North Korea, however if the current pronouncements from the Iranian president are the policy of the Iranian state and people I would label that a terrorist government.

 

[Tony]

No I have explained it as best as I can, you just don;t accept my defintion. I.e. a group that is a terroist group becomes a legitimate government with the same mandate and goals, therefore it is a terrorist government.

That is circular reasoning. They are a terrorist group because they have a terrorist stance. But their stance is a terrorist stance because they are a terrorist group. That is essentially your explanation.

And why don't I like "Hamas"? Because they carry out terrorist activities.

Really? I dislike them for being Fascists, religious fanatics, jew-haters and people who want to destroy Israel. Does that mean that if they stopped "terrorist activities", you'd like them?

When have I ever said it is anything but a subjective judgement, the converse of this of course is you should not pretend that your observation is objective either.

I shouldn't? Why not?

No you can't.

Yes I can (if we limit the labels to the English language).

Totally untrue.

I apply my label consistently based on the criteria I have already explained to you. That criteria allows me to state for instance that the USA is not a terrorist government, nor is Cuba nor is Switzerland or even North Korea, however if the current pronouncements from the Iranian president are the policy of the Iranian state and people I would label that a terrorist government.

It only works if you ignore certain facts. You're being dishonest in your evaluation.

 

[Darat]

That is circular reasoning. They are a terrorist group because they have a terrorist stance. But their stance is a terrorist stance because they are a terrorist group. That is essentially your explanation.

...snip...

No it isn't - please go back and re-read my posts.

...snip...

I shouldn't? Why not?

...snip...

You shouldn't because it will mean you are applying different standards to your subjective judgments then you do to others.

Yes I can (if we limit the labels to the English language).

Glad to see you spotted one of the reasons your statement was wrong.

It only works if you ignore certain facts. You're being dishonest in your evaluation.

That you do not agree with my criteria is not the same as me being dishonest. For instance I do not believe you are being dishonest when you say you do not consider Hamas a terrorist organisation, you are just wrong.

 

[Tony]

No it isn't - please go back and re-read my posts.

Yes, it is circular. I've read them all. You've done a piss poor job of explaining what makes Hamas a terrorist organization but not others who have used the same tactics. You've done a piss poor job of explaining why wanting a country destroyed is a terrorist stance in this case when it isn't in others.

edit to add. I just re-read your posts again. You didn't even attempt to explain why wanting a country destroyed is a terrorist stance. You just re-asserted it over and over.

Glad to see you spotted one of the reasons your statement was wrong.

But that's a silly reason. I just covered that base because I knew you'd go there.

That you do not agree with my criteria is not the same as me being dishonest.

I agree with your criteria. You and almost everyone just don't apply it honestly or consistently, which is why I say that the labels in question are useless.

For instance I do not believe you are being dishonest when you say you do not consider Hamas a terrorist organisation, you are just wrong.

This doesn't make sense.

 

[Darat]

Yes, it is circular. I've read them all. You've done a piss poor job of explaining what makes Hamas a terrorist organization but not others who have used the same tactics. You've done a piss poor job of explaining why wanting a country destroyed is a terrorist stance in this case when it isn't in others.

I have explained to you the criteria I used to determine that whether Hamas is a terrorist government or not. As I have explained wanting another country destroyed is only one of the factors involved. If the only criteria you use is the wish to destroy another country then more then likely we will come to different conclusions since we are not using the same criteria.

But that's a silly reason. I just covered that base because I knew you'd go there.

Generally when someone makes a universal claim they often are silly, you are the one who made the universal claim not me.

I agree with your criteria. You and almost everyone just don't apply it honestly or consistently, which is why I say that the labels in question are useless.

You don't agree with my criteria - if you did you would agree with me that Hamas is a terrorist government. You use different subjective criteria to me.

This doesn't make sense.

That you are wrong? It makes sense to me - your conclusion that Hamas is not a terrorist government is wrong.

 

[Tony]

I have explained to you the criteria I used to determine that whether Hamas is a terrorist government or not. As I have explained wanting another country destroyed is only one of the factors involved.

You NEVER said that. You just said that, in this case, wanting another country destroyed is a terrorist stance without giving a reason why.

If the only criteria you use is the wish to destroy another country then more then likely we will come to different conclusions since we are not using the same criteria.

I don't even use that in my criteria. I think wanting another country destroyed is irrelevant to determining what a "terrorist organization" is.

Generally when someone makes a universal claim they often are silly, you are the one who made the universal claim not me.

Umm...like the claim that all things are subjective?

You don't agree with my criteria - if you did you would agree with me that Hamas is a terrorist government.

Your criterion keeps changing. It was a group that doesn't respect the rule of law (like the US government) and attacks innocent people (like the US government), now you're saying that wanting to destroy another country (like the IS government) is part of your criteria. You seem to not even know what your own criteria are. And I DO agree, you just can't accept the fact that you apply these criteria in a dishonest and inconsistent manner.

You use different subjective criteria to me.

Like what?

That you are wrong? It makes sense to me - your conclusion that Hamas is not a terrorist government is wrong.

No, your whole statement didn't make sense. And how can you say I'm wrong when you said, a few posts ago, that every label is subjective? You can't even maintain consistency in this thread, it's no wonder you can't maintain it other arenas.

I'm finished, this is getting boring. It was a mistake to think this forum had returned to intellectual honesty.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

There are still a few die-hards who don't understand that.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Unless you consider that anyone who voices an opinion supporting peace or reconciliation with Israel gets killed as a collaborator, then you realize that the Palestinian people were effectively denied a moderate choice on the ballot.

It's kinda like Iran where they have the trappings of democracy, but their candidates are all screened and approved by the council of Mullahs. In Palestinian areas, the candidates are not officially screened in the same way, but unofficially they are, with the rejects not being in any position ever to seek power again.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

...and that the terrorist state is at war.

 

[Darat]

You NEVER said that. You just said that, in this case, wanting another country destroyed is a terrorist stance without giving a reason why.

I did: I.e. a group that is a terroist group becomes a legitimate government with the same mandate and goals, therefore it is a terrorist government.

I don't even use that in my criteria. I think wanting another country destroyed is irrelevant to determining what a "terrorist organization" is.

So as I said your subjective criteria are not the same as mine so it is not suprising we come to different conclusions.

Umm...like the claim that all things are subjective?

Please re-read what I said.

Your criterion keeps changing. It was a group that doesn't respect the rule of law (like the US government) and attacks innocent people (like the US government), now you're saying that wanting to destroy another country (like the IS government) is part of your criteria. You seem to not even know what your own criteria are. And I DO agree, you just can't accept the fact that you apply these criteria in a dishonest and inconsistent manner.

Again that I use differnet criteria to you does not mean that I am being dishonest.

As for agreeing with my criteria - you do not, there is proof just a few lines up that shows you use differnet criteria to me.

Like what?

Look above you reject one of the criteria I use.

No, your whole statement didn't make sense. And how can you say I'm wrong when you said, a few posts ago, that every label is subjective? You can't even maintain consistency in this thread, it's no wonder you can't maintain it other arenas.

Because like you I make my own judgements based on my own criteria and reasoning and by that reasoning you are, in this instance wrong because Hamas is a terrorist government (or to be more accurate may become one).

Unlike you however I do not make any claim to that being an objective truth, I recognise the limits of knowledge.

I'm finished, this is getting boring. It was a mistake to think this forum had returned to intellectual honesty.

I have responded to you with civility and addressed all your relevant comments and questions. That we disagree does not mean that either of us are being dishonest either intellectually or otherwise it simply means we do not agree.