Why Fatah and Hamas have lost the right to speak for the Palestinians

[Fledermaus]

You miss the point again lol seems to be an occupational hazard you cannot seem to stop yourself from doing

People have no issue with others , like the US , bankrolling and arming an Israeli govt led by Likud which has had a platform of stating there will be no " other Palestinian state " ( them seeing Jordan as the Palestinian state ) that , despite your resistance, is guilty of employing state terrorist tactics to keep the Palestinians down and stateless in complete violation of international laws

Hey, look.

A question about arming a PALESTINIAN TERROR ORGANIZATION is replied to with Whataboutism about Israel and who funds them.

The PTPS* is in full working order.

*Palestinian Terrorist Protection System.

 

[Fledermaus]

:lamo

Such a cowardly response. You cannot answer it because it outs your strawman

I accept your defeat but you should learn to lose gracefully.

The question that scares you to death again......



That's ISIL note, not



Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad - Wikipedia

See the truth, you know that thing you seem so averse to , is that ISIL ( note no Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad ) was created in 2006 and as you know..........2003 precedes 2006.

Hey we got there in the end, even despite you dishonest tactics of misrepresentation

Time to first ad hominem... First sentence.

 

[bomberfox]

And that would be whom?

Oneworld2 appears to be Crawfishing on the term.

Probably though ill have to look up crawfishing thanks

 

[oneworld2]

As to the King David Hotel. You appear confused as to what constitutes a military target and what convention was violated. You also don't seem to understand that attempts were made to reduce civilian casualties.

There is no confusion with me here. The confusion is with you and your lack of knowledge about indiscriminate attacks and their legality or not.

Nor do you seem to understand that if and when a warning is given in time to allow for an evacuation, everybody leaves not just the civilians which undermines your claim further imo

You don't seriously think the soldiers stay there and say " this bomb is meant for us so we will stay for it " !! Or then again maybe you do :lol:

Your commentary is illogical and based on ignorance of the laws of war/IHL

 

[oneworld2]

Time to first ad hominem... First sentence.

Can't deal with the content of a post so you cry that you are being attacked when someone is just telling you the truth. Don't want to be called out for engaging in cowardly tactics, easy don't engage in them in the first place.

You could have addressed the post and the question in it but you chose not to because ?.............. it would expose the dishonest misrepresentation you had concocted in a bid to fool people you actually had an argument in the first place

The truth is that ISIL was created in 2006 which is predated by 2003. Your ridiculous strawman is dead and you can only now cry that you have been called out for your ridiculous actions here.

 

[oneworld2]

Hey, look.

A question about arming a PALESTINIAN TERROR ORGANIZATION is replied to with Whataboutism about Israel and who funds them.

The PTPS* is in full working order.

*Palestinian Terrorist Protection System.

Whataboutism is okay, it outs the bigotry in the texts of others by applying the same standards to all. No wonder you object to it

 

[Fledermaus]

Whataboutism is okay, it outs the bigotry in the texts of others by applying the same standards to all. No wonder you object to it

More ad hominem.

 

[Fledermaus]

Can't deal with the content of a post so you cry that you are being attacked when someone is just telling you the truth. Don't want to be called out for engaging in cowardly tactics, easy don't engage in them in the first place.

You could have addressed the post and the question in it but you chose not to because ?.............. it would expose the dishonest misrepresentation you had concocted in a bid to fool people you actually had an argument in the first place

The truth is that ISIL was created in 2006 which is predated by 2003. Your ridiculous strawman is dead and you can only now cry that you have been called out for your ridiculous actions here.

1999 still predates 2003.

Live with it.

 

[Fledermaus]

At least they took the time to look up the relevant laws which makes them less of a hack than yourself

YOUR claim.

YOUR burden of proof.

Ball is in YOUR court.

 

[Fledermaus]

There is no confusion with me here. The confusion is with you and your lack of knowledge about indiscriminate attacks and their legality or not.

Nor do you seem to understand that if and when a warning is given in time to allow for an evacuation, everybody leaves not just the civilians which undermines your claim further imo

You don't seriously think the soldiers stay there and say " this bomb is meant for us so we will stay for it " !! Or then again maybe you do :lol:

Your commentary is illogical and based on ignorance of the laws of war/IHL

Ah, trotting out the "indiscriminate" pony.

Except the King David Hotel was not "indiscriminate".

It was an very direct attack targeting command, control and communication for what was perceived to be an occupying power.

Command, Control, Communication. The ultimate military target.

And warnings were given in order to decrease the likelihood of civilian casualties.

So you have a LEGITIMATE military target in which steps were taken to decrease civilian casualties.

What "war crime" was committed and under what convention?

 

[Fledermaus]

:lamo

Such a cowardly response. You cannot answer it because it outs your strawman

I accept your defeat but you should learn to lose gracefully.

The question that scares you to death again......



That's ISIL note, not



Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad - Wikipedia

See the truth, you know that thing you seem so averse to , is that ISIL ( note no Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad ) was created in 2006 and as you know..........2003 precedes 2006.

Hey we got there in the end, even despite you dishonest tactics of misrepresentation

Changing names does not change the fact 1999 precedes 2003.

 

[oneworld2]

1999 still predates 2003.

Live with it.

It doesn't pertain to the argument though and that's the whole poiint :lol:

You may as well say 1998 preceded 1999

ISIL was created in 2006 fact

Learn to debate honestly and learn to lose gracefully.

 

[oneworld2]

Changing names does not change the fact 1999 precedes 2003.

:lamo

Changing names, amalgamating with other groups also involved in the Iraqi insurgency is crucial and that's why most historians agree that ISIL ( note not Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad ) was created in 2006 . And if you had bothered to look at the link supplied it has Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad years active as being from 1999-2004. As you know 2004 precedes 2006.

You continue to clutch at straws , denying all the evidence , so you can try to dupe others that your strawman is something other than your latest dishonest attempt to try to rubbish a very easily verifiable claim I made.

Own that dishonesty

 

[Fledermaus]

:lamo

Changing names, amalgamating with other groups also involved in the Iraqi insurgency is crucial and that's why most historians agree that ISIL ( note not Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad ) was created in 2006 . And if you had bothered to look at the link supplied it has Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad years active as being from 1999-2004. As you know 2004 precedes 2006.

You continue to clutch at straws , denying all the evidence , so you can try to dupe others that your strawman is something other than your latest dishonest attempt to try to rubbish a very easily verifiable claim I made.

Own that dishonesty

Changing names doesn't change point and time of origin.

Please continue to deny reality.

 

[Fledermaus]

It doesn't pertain to the argument though and that's the whole poiint :lol:

You may as well say 1998 preceded 1999

ISIL was created in 2006 fact

Learn to debate honestly and learn to lose gracefully.

You believe mergers and name changes negate where and when the movement originated.

That is false.

 

[oneworld2]

Ah, trotting out the "indiscriminate" pony.

Except the King David Hotel was not "indiscriminate".

It was an very direct attack targeting command, control and communication for what was perceived to be an occupying power.

Command, Control, Communication. The ultimate military target.

And warnings were given in order to decrease the likelihood of civilian casualties.

So you have a LEGITIMATE military target in which steps were taken to decrease civilian casualties.

What "war crime" was committed and under what convention?

And sure if AQ were to drop a bomb that destroyed the quarter of a million people living in Arlington county to knock out the Pentagon you would support that as a legitimate attack too. :roll:

When there is a military target ,imo, the charge of terrorism is out of the window but when the military target is in amongst civilians then it becomes indiscriminate. If it is just a military target , like the annexe of the one at the King David Hotel was a military police would have been then it is legitimate resistance to an occupying power imo

You will see me stick to this religiously REGARDLESS of who is involved because I try to apply the same standards to all parties. You opt to pick and choose depending on who the perpertators are

 

[oneworld2]

You believe mergers and name changes negate where and when the movement originated.

That is false.

The mergers and name changes were the result of MANY groups amalgamating into firstly AQ in Iraq ( the official end of ) and then in 2006 to ISIL.

Recall what the article said about the activity of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.................... years active as being from 1999-2004. As you know 2004 precedes 2006.

ISIL was created from a mish mash of groups and fighters from all over the world in 2006 NOT 1999. That's just an inconvenient fact for your dishonest misrepresentations

 

[Fledermaus]

The mergers and name changes were the result of MANY groups amalgamating into firstly AQ in Iraq ( the official end of ) and then in 2006 to ISIL.

Recall what the article said about the activity of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.................... years active as being from 1999-2004. As you know 2004 precedes 2006.

ISIL was created from a mish mash of groups and fighters from all over the world in 2006 NOT 1999. That's just an inconvenient fact for your dishonest misrepresentations

1999.......

 

[Fledermaus]

And sure if AQ were to drop a bomb that destroyed the quarter of a million people living in Arlington county to knock out the Pentagon you would support that as a legitimate attack too. :roll:

When there is a military target ,imo, the charge of terrorism is out of the window but when the military target is in amongst civilians then it becomes indiscriminate. If it is just a military target , like the annexe of the one at the King David Hotel was a military police would have been then it is legitimate resistance to an occupying power imo

You will see me stick to this religiously REGARDLESS of who is involved because I try to apply the same standards to all parties. You opt to pick and choose depending on who the perpertators are

Still can't provide the convention violated.....

 

[oneworld2]

1999.......

Dodge 1

 

[oneworld2]

Still can't provide the convention violated.....

dodge 2

already provided in other thread

 

[CJ 2.0]

I don't expect a right wing hack such as yourself to undertsand the point I was making

I understood it. You oh noble one are at the vanguard of progress. And like Antifa is cracking skulls for a better future and the Bolshevik radicals ushered in a worker’s utopia, you too are among the most noble of people - radicals not afraid to stand up with unpopular opinions and shout them (anonymously) from the mountaintops so that all may be humbled by the revelation.

It’s actually pretty funny. I understood the point perfectly. Probably better than you did.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Finally someone who at least bothered to look, even if they will try to misrepresent it.

Explain what the Israeli Dahiya Doctrine is ? :roll:

Deterrence against efforts to capture a military hostage who will be abused under the laws of war and leveraged for significant tactical advantage by the enemy. Thereby justifying significant military force to limit egress for those seeking to gain that advantage.

The consequences of failing in that mission are about as severe as can be for a country like Israel, so the military objective of denying the enemy the ability to gain that strategic position justifies the broad approach to neutralizing those attempted captures.

 

[CJ 2.0]

And sure if AQ were to drop a bomb that destroyed the quarter of a million people living in Arlington county to knock out the Pentagon you would support that as a legitimate attack too. :roll:

When there is a military target ,imo, the charge of terrorism is out of the window but when the military target is in amongst civilians then it becomes indiscriminate. If it is just a military target , like the annexe of the one at the King David Hotel was a military police would have been then it is legitimate resistance to an occupying power imo

You will see me stick to this religiously REGARDLESS of who is involved because I try to apply the same standards to all parties. You opt to pick and choose depending on who the perpertators are

Your IMO re when things become indiscriminate is clearly and objectively wrong here. So I assume we are done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fledermaus]

Dodge 1

Still can't change the origin date. 1999.