BF2S Forums Hamas arrests Fatah militants

Used to be vs are now...hmmmm

Once Arafat renounced terrorism, he was able to accomplish something.

Fatah was actually making progress (slow, but progress nonetheless) until Hamas got into power in Gaza. Hamas is following the old model which clearly did not gain the Pals anything but suffering and the "terrorist" label by the international community. But it makes them feel better, so I guess it's all good.

If Hamas renounced terrorism, they would make progress with the Israelis. As long as Hamas keeps violating the ceasefire (which Israel didn't...not even to react to Hamas' attacks on civilians), they will get nowhere.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Used to be vs are now...hmmmm

The Israelis acheived their objectives through terrorism, why shouldn't anyone else?

Because it's terrorism. So now you're saying the ends justify the means?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fatah was actually making progress

It was only progress according to the Israelis.
Fatah were seen to be giving way too many concessions in return for practically zip, which is why they were democratically removed.

Seems the West Bank Pals don't have an issue with Fatah. I'm betting the Gazans wish they could have their votes back, too.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If Hamas renounced terrorism, they would make progress with the Israelis.

I expect they will, shortly after they have achieved THEIR objectives. See, same rule for everyone.
Perhaps America would like to renounce terrorism and agree only to work according to UNSC resolutions in future?

Not having a UNSC resolution for a specific action doesn't equate to terrorism. Having 17 UNSC resolutions to back up your actions doesn't, either.

Dilbert_X wrote:

which Israel didn't.

Very funny.

How so? Did Israel launch attacks into Gaza since the ceasefire was agreed to? Is that the Jew-controlled media suppressing things again?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because it's terrorism. So now you're saying the ends justify the means?

No I said you're being one sided, its fine for the Israelis to use terrorism but not for the Palestinians.
Anyhow, fighting to get your country back isn't terrorism.

They're getting their country back by targeting civilians? Riiiiiight....

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because it's terrorism. So now you're saying the ends justify the means?

No I said you're being one sided, its fine for the Israelis to use terrorism but not for the Palestinians.
Anyhow, fighting to get your country back isn't terrorism.

So, when the Israelis did it, it's wrong and it's terrorism. But when the Pals do it, it's OK.

Who's being one-sided again? At least one of us admits that both sides have erred here (note: that one wouldn't be you).

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Having 17 UNSC resolutions to back up your actions doesn't, either.

The Saudis didn't seem to think so. As the '17 resolutions' were based on wholly bogus intel they fall too.
Not one of them authorised an invasion, occupation or dismantling the govt or Army of Iraq.

They did authorize the use of force, though. Damn those pesky facts.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not having a UNSC resolution for a specific action doesn't equate to terrorism.

You're right, silly me, its a war crime - unless you were attacked or threatened first, which you weren't.

You're right...you are silly.

Not having UNSC resolution for an action taken by a given country, in defense of that country's national interests (whether you agree with those interests or not), is not a war crime. No matter how much you want it to be.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm simply arguing the opposite of you, you say whatever the Israelis do is fine, the Palestinians aren't allowed to fight back.

I've never said any such thing. What I have said is that if Hamas wants to make progress for the Palestinian people, they need to stop performing what the world sees as terrorist acts. Those give the Israelis justification for what they do, whether you like it or not. If the Israelis don't have justification, they either won't behave in that way or will be seen as bullies vice a country protecting its people against terrorists.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Except they didn't.
The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

Except as we know this never happened and the various UN resolutions, including 1441, were used as pretexts for invasion when they authorised no such thing, and the UNSC had been promised a further vote before military action would be taken.
It was never brought back the UNSC as the US knew they would lose the vote.

You're talking about one resolution. There are 16 others out there.

Dilbert_X wrote:

BTW Its long enshrined in law that the intention behind a law or resolution is as important as the specific wording itself.

So you're a legal historian now, are you? Just how is the intent of a law or resolution going to be known if it's not in the wording?

Dilbert_X wrote:

And how exactly did Iraq threaten America's national interest? You're on the other side of the world FFS.

What exactly do you think national interests are? Is it limited solely to attacks on the homeland in your view?

Dilbert_X wrote:

It was the Saudis who attacked the US

Really? Did I miss something? Or did you mean "The majority of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis?" Probably not, since what I wrote was factually accurate and doesn't support your argument.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iran has heaps of WMD and does actually sponsor terror groups which regularly attack US interests

But I thought they were peaceful and should be left alone...

Dilbert_X wrote:

where is Bin Laden BTW?

Marginalized and irrelevant...that's where.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If its energy security you're arguing - how is the price of oil these days?

I'm not. And I still pay less for gas than you do.

sergeriver wrote:

Hamas security forces in the Gaza Strip are said to have arrested 160 Fatah supporters and set up checkpoints after an explosion killed six people.

Now that there are two Palestines, how do you consider Fatah and Hamas?
Is Hamas a police force?  A government?  Just terrorists?  What the hell are those guys?

I consider them a terrorist organization.  BUT, they are in politcal power of the nation.  If they act enough like the actual leaders of the nation, and do it responsibly, then I may start to slide them in the catagory of an actual, honest-to-goodness goverment.

Oh, but some of those other resolutions DID authorize force...which is all that is needed

They authorised force to acheive specific limited objectives, not wholesale invasion and dismantling of the country.
They were based on bogus information and were in any case invalid.
Why did the US promise another vote before the UNSC if they didn't need it?

No...the WORDING of the law or resolution is critical. That is the only thing that is official record. Anything else is pure speculation unless the party was actually taking part in the drafting of said law/resolution.

Exactly my point. The wording is improtant but also if the person involved in sponsoring, drafting a law or resolution says 'This is what I mean by this document and I intend it to have consequence X' then thats relevant and can be relied on legally. It does happen occasionally, I know, a relative made a clossal amount of money in court relying pretty much on that alone.

'Part of the reason we went into Iraq, uh, was, uh the main reason we went into Iraq....'
We can argue about it forever, it suggests to me the WMD were only a part and not the main part, so presumably there is some other part we still haven't been informed about.
As it fits neatly with my tin-foil hat conspiracy theory - which most of the world outside the US also believes - I'm going to stick with it.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-31 03:36:06)

Doesn't matter what I consider them to be. Joe Citizen doesn't determine what the national interests are...that's the job of the elected officials.

I find it ironically humorous that you excoriate Bush for his shit-poor public speaking skills

Interesting that you can't rely on your President to string a sentence together but you're comfortable with invading foreign countries on his say-so alone.

then latch on to something he says in public as exactly what he intended to say.

He didn't intend to say it, it was an obvious slip - which is why its interesting.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Doesn't matter what I consider them to be. Joe Citizen doesn't determine what the national interests are...that's the job of the elected officials.

I find it ironically humorous that you excoriate Bush for his shit-poor public speaking skills

Interesting that you can't rely on your President to string a sentence together but you're comfortable with invading foreign countries on his say-so alone.

If only public speaking skills were the sole determinant of one's ability to make decisions.

If only you put more thought into your arguments.

If only the real world were as simple as your hate-filled one, Dilbert.

If only my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

then latch on to something he says in public as exactly what he intended to say.

He didn't intend to say it, it was an obvious slip - which is why its interesting.

Ah, there's that omniscience kicking in again. You really should market it.

So, according to your "logic", all of Bush's misstatements in public speaking were intentional. Have you really let your hate warp your world view that much?

Dilbert_X wrote:

So, according to your "logic", all of Bush's misstatements in public speaking were intentional. Have you really let your hate warp your world view that much?

Gaaah! Its a freudian slip. He didn't intend to say it, it was an UNintentional slip, thats why its interesting.

Or it could just be a guy who can't speak in public for shit stepping on himself like he normally does. You find meaning where you want to, dismiss it when it doesn't suit you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If only public speaking skills were the sole determinant of one's ability to make decisions.

And you're saying Duhbya has taken a series of inspired decisions?

I've never said anything of the sort.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If a guy can't think on his feet and then say what he's thinking no I don't trust him to make important decisions.

Being able to speak in public well doesn't have anything to do with thinking on your feet. There's a reason that, next to death, most people fear public speaking more than anything else.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If he were honest he wouldn't have so much trouble stringing things together, the reason he can't speak is he can't keep track of his own lies.

So because he speaks poorly in public, he's lying? Do you apply that "logic" to other people as well?

I've never said anything of the sort.

So he can't speak in public and he's taken a series of poor decisions.
But still you trust him to think on his feet and determine what is in national and by extension your best interests?

Being able to speak in public well doesn't have anything to do with thinking on your feet.

I say it does - quite litereally it is thinking on your feet.

So because he speaks poorly in public, he's lying?

Its not so much a case of speaking poorly as tripping over his own lies.

What exactly have those extremist "gotten done"? I mean, other than further worsening the Gazan Pals' lives?

The extremist Israelis managed to take someone elses country and expel the indigenous population through violence, maybe Hamas are just following suit.
For example, the Israelis blub about the hostages Hamas and Hezbollah have taken, the Israelis introducded the concept to Palestine.
'After the three's death sentence was final the Irgun tried to save them by kidnapping hostages - two British sergeants, in the streets of Netanya. British forces closed off and combed the area in search of the two, but did not find them. On July 29, 1947 in the afternoon Meir Nakar, Avshalom Haviv, and Yaakov Weiss were hanged. Approximately thirteen hours later the sergeants' death sentence was read before them, and Sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin were hanged in a forest south of Netanya. This action caused an outcry in Britain and was condemned both there and by leaders of the Yishuv.'

Those brave Israelis, abducting and murdering soldiers? How can it be true?

This is worth a read too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
'"In the houses there were dead, in all about a hundred men, women and children. It was terrible. I did not see any signs of defilement, mutilation, or rape. ... It was clear that they (the attackers) had gone from house to house and shot the people at close range. I was a doctor in the German army for 5 years, in World War I, but I had not seen such a horrifying spectacle."'

Those brave Israelis shooting women and children?

As for your gallant IDF
http://www.washington-report.org/backis … 407072.htm
'The initial attack against Lydda-Ramleh was led on April 11 by Lt. Col. Moshe Dayan, who was later Israel's defense minister and foreign minister. Israeli historians describe him as driving at the head of his armored battalion "full speed into Lydda, shooting up the town and creating confusion and a degree of terror among the population.'
'Two American news correspondents witnessed what happened in the ensuing assault. Keith Wheeler of the Chicago Sun Times wrote in an article titled "Blitz Tactics Won Lydda" that "practically everything in their way died. Riddled corpses lay by the roadside." Kenneth Bilby of the New York Herald Tribune wrote that he saw "the corpses of Arab men, women and even children strewn about in the wake of the ruthlessly brilliant charge."'

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-03 06:15:53)

Valiant Hamas

Both sides are engaged in terrorism, neither side values human life.
The Israelis are the aggressors who brought genocide and terrorism to the Middle East, the actions of Hamas are simply a response to this.
Anyone who believes otherwise is either ignorant of historical facts or deluded by Zionist propaganda.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've never said anything of the sort.

So he can't speak in public and he's taken a series of poor decisions.
But still you trust him to think on his feet and determine what is in national and by extension your best interests?

And no other western leader has made bad decisions?

Yes, he's made bad decisions and can't speak in public. So? Does that make him inherently evil?

Again, thinking on your feet does not equate to speaking well in public. And the last thing I want my country's leader to do is make all his decisions "on the fly" as he's "thinking on his feet". That may be important to you, but I'd rather have a bit more thought put into it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Being able to speak in public well doesn't have anything to do with thinking on your feet.

I say it does - quite litereally it is thinking on your feet.

You're wrong. One can think quite well on one's feet and still be a shit-poor public speaker.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So because he speaks poorly in public, he's lying?

Its not so much a case of speaking poorly as tripping over his own lies.

Only if you choose to see every misstep as having nefarious intent instead of being honest mistakes. Unfortunately, your world view is so skewed that if it's at all possible for you to find evil intent, you will...whether it's there or not.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What exactly have those extremist "gotten done"? I mean, other than further worsening the Gazan Pals' lives?

The extremist Israelis managed to take someone elses country and expel the indigenous population through violence, maybe Hamas are just following suit.

Because Hamas is expelling anyone from anywhere? They've accomplished nothing except to get themselves labeled as terrorists because they target civilians nearly exclusively.

You still seem to be under the delusion that I think the IDF is "gallant". I don't. The difference is that I don't see an entire military force as inherently evil based on the actions of a few individuals. You do.