• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:682] Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, rights group says

Screw the Jew haters of the world, annex Palestine and drive the terrorist and there supporters out once and for all. Be the Jews you were in the Six Day
War ..put your foot down with the terrorist scum. Do that and the world will do nothing but watch, some will bitch, but who cares. Take Control!!

That's an unhinged post imho
 
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about in the above and every time things are explained you reply the same way anyhow lol

Maybe some other poster will be able to decipher your arguments/ wild inaccurate comparisons based on ignorance etc etc and be able to have an adult discussion. It's obviously a bridge too far for you imho

TRANSLATION: You are hoist upon your own petard.

And what is "dressed up" while engaging in hostilities? There is a Hamas terrorist uniform?

Does this mean Hamas personnel not in uniform are illegal combatants and can be dealt as such?
 
The levels of perversion to which logic is being taken here are actually quite astounding. Quite apart from the idiotic claim that anyone is not a military target while engaging in acts of combat but NOT wearing a uniform, the idea that any political body that sends out "combatants" (in uniform or out of it) should thus be excluded from retaliatory consequences is so laughingly absurd that it's only use lies in showing what posts really are an embarrassment on and to any serious forum.

The equally silly notion that a terror cell like AQ is fair game only on account of not ever having been a political party (elected), would lead to the conclusion that all those democratically elected are thus sacrosanct. Which, conceivably in conflict with the poster's actual desire, would give even the Israeli government a get out of jail card over anything it engages in.

Such leaps of logic all being pretty much in line with the argument proffered elsewhere of Hamas never targeting civilians on account of lacking the instruments for targeting.

So "yeah, yer honor, I DID set my neighbor's house on fire but of the charge of intentional homicide I'm not guilty, seeing how I had no way of knowing if he'd be affected by the conflagration".

Geeezazz H.
 
Last edited:
The levels of perversion to which logic is being taken here are actually quite astounding. Quite apart from the idiotic claim that anyone is not a military target while engaging in acts of combat but NOT wearing a uniform, the idea that any political body that sends out "combatants" (in uniform or out of it) should thus be excluded from retaliatory consequences is so laughingly absurd that it's only use lies in showing where the posts really come from that are an embarrassment on and to any serious forum.

The equally silly notion that a terror cell like AQ is fair game only on account of not ever having been a political party (elected), would lead to the conclusion that all those democratically elected are thus sacrosanct. Which, conceivably in conflict with the poster's actual desire, would give even the Israeli government a get out of jail card over anything it engages in.

Such leaps of logic all being pretty much in line with the argument proffered elsewhere of Hamas never targeting civilians on account of lacking the instruments for targeting.

So "yeah, yer honor, I DID set my neighbor's house on fire but of the charge of intentional homicide I'm not guilty, seeing how I had no way of knowing if he'd be affected by the conflagration".

Geeezazz H.

Oneworld2 basically created his own personal Kobayashi Maru.
 
The levels of perversion to which logic is being taken here are actually quite astounding. Quite apart from the idiotic claim that anyone is not a military target while engaging in acts of combat but NOT wearing a uniform, the idea that any political body that sends out "combatants" (in uniform or out of it) should thus be excluded from retaliatory consequences is so laughingly absurd that it's only use lies in showing what posts really are an embarrassment on and to any serious forum.

The equally silly notion that a terror cell like AQ is fair game only on account of not ever having been a political party (elected), would lead to the conclusion that all those democratically elected are thus sacrosanct. Which, conceivably in conflict with the poster's actual desire, would give even the Israeli government a get out of jail card over anything it engages in.

Such leaps of logic all being pretty much in line with the argument proffered elsewhere of Hamas never targeting civilians on account of lacking the instruments for targeting.

So "yeah, yer honor, I DID set my neighbor's house on fire but of the charge of intentional homicide I'm not guilty, seeing how I had no way of knowing if he'd be affected by the conflagration".

Geeezazz H.

Obviously if you are engaging in hostilities/combat you are a legitimate target even if you are not wearing regular military uniforms. That much was obvious in what followed it regarding the status of IDF personnel not engaging in combat and/or not wearing uniforms, IE not being on duty.

Like with any political party charged with cxontrolling/running a society, there is the civilian element to their duties and a military element . The point being that not everyone associated with or working for Hamas is a legitimate target. Only those leading and/or engaged in combat themselves.

It isn't really hard to understand but if it's all you want to focus on, which given your penchant for childish postings, it's hardly a surprise.

It's noticeable that you refer to AQ as a terror cell. On that alone they are legitimate targets. When a political party has a military wing that sometimes engages in terrorism/war crimes only the people involved in those acts are legitimate targets. The people running the civil economic duties are not. No doubt there would have been government workers in the twin towers but that doesn't mean they were legitimate targets, nor that everyone else that died could be deemed human shields

You see, you have to be consistent. I applied the same standing to Hamas combatants as I did the IDF combatants. That's what reading the views and words of reputable HRs groups does for you. Evidently your postings show yourself to be trapped in ignorance and bias, so much so, that any notion of applicating the same standards is impossible for you. It was the same with that junk about the Wall and the fact that you care not about how it scoops in 80% of the ILLEGAL settlers.


Not knowing the US voting at the UNGA for around 4 decades but believing Bidens hollow words lol The list is pretty much endless


Your attempts at duping people that you are some sort of objective observer are completely bogus and it all becomes apparent when you post , each and every time.

Hamas have targeted civilians in acts of terrorism but the rockets from Gaza constitute indiscriminate actions within the framework of an ongoing conflict. You not understanding the difference is a you problem. Your comparisons are as rubbish as the other ones found in Fledermaus posts.
 
TRANSLATION: You are hoist upon your own petard.

And what is "dressed up" while engaging in hostilities? There is a Hamas terrorist uniform?

Does this mean Hamas personnel not in uniform are illegal combatants and can be dealt as such?

You are trying to compare a solely terror cell organisation to a legitimate political party that has civilian workers and military personnel in it's ranks.

If you are engaging in hostilities you are a legitimate target. If you are not, and are a civilian worker working for a legitimate political party then you are not a legitimate target. You people seem to think that ANYONE working for and/or associated with Hamas is a legitimate target just because of the association. They are not.
 
No more unhinged than supporting arming terrorists.

You have no problem arming state terrorists so are in no position to claim any moral high ground. Especially when state terrorism is much more vicious and costly, in both lives and destruction
 
Hamas is a terror organization, the declared goal of which is the destruction of the State of Israel. Trying to divide it up into one innocent faction (civilian) and another"targetable" (military) shows the desperation displayed here.

It's like saying the Allies should not have bombed German factories and Albert Speer should never have been convicted of war crimes. Nor, for that matter, Josef Goebbels (had he not topped himself most timely), since he never (to the best of anyone's knowledge) waved a gun around in WWII.

One can dress these silly assumptions in whatever bag of lies about another poster as one wishes (like the claim of not caring about where the Wall was built), nothing detracts from the fact that one's frenzied attempts to white-wash Hamas at all cost brings to mind Leeroy Jenkins.

Nor does it hide the attempts at duping people into believing that the source of such ridiculous "assessments" :rolleyes: wants to sell itself as an objective observer, while failing miserably at even that.
 
From the source so conveniently cited when it fits the pro-Hamas narrative, but just as conveniently ignored when it doesn't:

The purpose of the laws of war is not to create parity between parties to a conflict, or to assess their violations in light of their relevant capacities, but to minimize the harm to the civilian population. Violations of the laws of war are not measured in the number of civilian casualties, but whether each side is taking all feasible precautions to minimize civilian loss. Using unsophisticated weapons does not justify failure to respect the laws of war, nor does an adversary’s use of sophisticated weapons provide a pass to its opponents to ignore those laws.

HRW


Hamas is taking no precautions whatsoever, on the contrary, it's ensuring that it causes the maximum damage.
 
You have no problem arming state terrorists so are in no position to claim any moral high ground. Especially when state terrorism is much more vicious and costly, in both lives and destruction

"STATE TERRORISTS... STATE TERRORISTS...."

Your knee jerk response to getting cornered.

And a veiled "not enough dead Jews" reference.

If Hamas gave a shit about the people of Palestine they would protect them instead of making them unwilling targets.

Obviously if you are engaging in hostilities/combat you are a legitimate target even if you are not wearing regular military uniforms. That much was obvious in what followed it regarding the status of IDF personnel not engaging in combat and/or not wearing uniforms, IE not being on duty.

What is the "Hamas uniform"?


Like with any political party charged with cxontrolling/running a society, there is the civilian element to their duties and a military element . The point being that not everyone associated with or working for Hamas is a legitimate target. Only those leading and/or engaged in combat themselves.

Terrorists ARE legitimate targets. Always. And Hamas is a terrorist organization.

It isn't really hard to understand but if it's all you want to focus on, which given your penchant for childish postings, it's hardly a surprise.

The Hamas "uniform"?

It's noticeable that you refer to AQ as a terror cell. On that alone they are legitimate targets. When a political party has a military wing that sometimes engages in terrorism/war crimes only the people involved in those acts are legitimate targets. The people running the civil economic duties are not. No doubt there would have been government workers in the twin towers but that doesn't mean they were legitimate targets, nor that everyone else that died could be deemed human shields

But Osama Bin Laden wasn't a fighter at the time of 9/11. He was an administrative figurehead.

You see, you have to be consistent. I applied the same standing to Hamas combatants as I did the IDF combatants. That's what reading the views and words of reputable HRs groups does for you. Evidently your postings show yourself to be trapped in ignorance and bias, so much so, that any notion of applicating(sic) the same standards is impossible for you. It was the same with that junk about the Wall and the fact that you care not about how it scoops in 80% of the ILLEGAL settlers.

Did anyone ask any of the dead Palestinians if they agreed to be human shields?

Not knowing the US voting at the UNGA for around 4 decades but believing Bidens hollow words lol The list is pretty much endless

Your attempts at duping people that you are some sort of objective observer are completely bogus and it all becomes apparent when you post , each and every time.

Hamas have targeted civilians in acts of terrorism but the rockets from Gaza constitute indiscriminate actions within the framework of an ongoing conflict. You not understanding the difference is a you problem. Your comparisons are as rubbish as the other ones found in Fledermaus posts.

The rockets were targeting civilian centers. Hamas in a nutshell. Terrorism for the sake of terrorism.
 
You are trying to compare a solely terror cell organisation to a legitimate political party that has civilian workers and military personnel in it's ranks.

If you are engaging in hostilities you are a legitimate target. If you are not, and are a civilian worker working for a legitimate political party then you are not a legitimate target. You people seem to think that ANYONE working for and/or associated with Hamas is a legitimate target just because of the association. They are not.

Osama Bin Laden was the putative leader, financier and figurehead. He wasn't the one "dressed up and engaging in hostilities".
 
Back
Top Bottom