Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

This is another case where the Arab Palestinians are trying to make a case based on emotion and not on acts in the furtherance of peace ⇒ with the restoration of public order and safety.

In this case the complaint of "siege" → is an operation, → in which the requirements of the Hague Regulation, International Humanitarian Law under Article 43, → conducted within that territory that was abandon into the hands of the Israeli Government, with the aim of forcing Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter to surrender; adopting a peaceful posture. Such Article 43 operations include those actions conducted to prevent "criminal acts" directed against Israel (or any other State) → intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons (Israelis) or any group of persons or populations.

You are foolishly arguing that continuing to put resources towards arms smuggling and tunnels in a futile attempt to destroy Israel is an improvement over working with Israel to provide water, sewage treatment, electricity, trade and employment opportunities to the citizens of Gaza.

Madness.

Israel wants its siege. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians maintain a mistaken belief and strong conviction that they are the victims in the conflict; that they are the aggrieved party and defending their nation; harmed by the Jewish People (State of Israel). The Arab Palestinians, among other concepts, justify the current nature of their struggle against Israel, in terms of the liberation of the entirety of the territory to with the Order in Council applied in 1922 --- what they call Palestine. The armed struggle, while granting legitimacy to the existence and activity of the “struggle organizations” – namely, the Palestinian terror organizations and their activity.

No matter what the belief --- held by the Arab Palestinians, the central issue for the Israelis is the furtherance of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the Jewish People. This includes the striking the necessary political posture to protect against credible threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of The State of Israel; The Jewish National Homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

This is another case where the Arab Palestinians are trying to make a case based on emotion and not on acts in the furtherance of peace ⇒ with the restoration of public order and safety.

In this case the complaint of "siege" → is an operation, → in which the requirements of the Hague Regulation, International Humanitarian Law under Article 43, → conducted within that territory that was abandon into the hands of the Israeli Government, with the aim of forcing Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter to surrender; adopting a peaceful posture. Such Article 43 operations include those actions conducted to prevent "criminal acts" directed against Israel (or any other State) → intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons (Israelis) or any group of persons or populations.

You are foolishly arguing that continuing to put resources towards arms smuggling and tunnels in a futile attempt to destroy Israel is an improvement over working with Israel to provide water, sewage treatment, electricity, trade and employment opportunities to the citizens of Gaza.

Madness.

Israel wants its siege. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians maintain a mistaken belief and strong conviction that they are the victims in the conflict; that they are the aggrieved party and defending their nation; harmed by the Jewish People (State of Israel). The Arab Palestinians, among other concepts, justify the current nature of their struggle against Israel, in terms of the liberation of the entirety of the territory to with the Order in Council applied in 1922 --- what they call Palestine. The armed struggle, while granting legitimacy to the existence and activity of the “struggle organizations” – namely, the Palestinian terror organizations and their activity.

No matter what the belief --- held by the Arab Palestinians, the central issue for the Israelis is the furtherance of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the Jewish People. This includes the striking the necessary political posture to protect against credible threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of The State of Israel; The Jewish National Homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

This is another case where the Arab Palestinians are trying to make a case based on emotion and not on acts in the furtherance of peace ⇒ with the restoration of public order and safety.

In this case the complaint of "siege" → is an operation, → in which the requirements of the Hague Regulation, International Humanitarian Law under Article 43, → conducted within that territory that was abandon into the hands of the Israeli Government, with the aim of forcing Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter to surrender; adopting a peaceful posture. Such Article 43 operations include those actions conducted to prevent "criminal acts" directed against Israel (or any other State) → intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons (Israelis) or any group of persons or populations.

Israel wants its siege. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians maintain a mistaken belief and strong conviction that they are the victims in the conflict; that they are the aggrieved party and defending their nation; harmed by the Jewish People (State of Israel). The Arab Palestinians, among other concepts, justify the current nature of their struggle against Israel, in terms of the liberation of the entirety of the territory to with the Order in Council applied in 1922 --- what they call Palestine. The armed struggle, while granting legitimacy to the existence and activity of the “struggle organizations” – namely, the Palestinian terror organizations and their activity.

No matter what the belief --- held by the Arab Palestinians, the central issue for the Israelis is the furtherance of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the Jewish People. This includes the striking the necessary political posture to protect against credible threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of The State of Israel; The Jewish National Homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

This is another case where the Arab Palestinians are trying to make a case based on emotion and not on acts in the furtherance of peace ⇒ with the restoration of public order and safety.

In this case the complaint of "siege" → is an operation, → in which the requirements of the Hague Regulation, International Humanitarian Law under Article 43, → conducted within that territory that was abandon into the hands of the Israeli Government, with the aim of forcing Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter to surrender; adopting a peaceful posture. Such Article 43 operations include those actions conducted to prevent "criminal acts" directed against Israel (or any other State) → intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons (Israelis) or any group of persons or populations.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians maintain a mistaken belief and strong conviction that they are the victims in the conflict; that they are the aggrieved party and defending their nation; harmed by the Jewish People (State of Israel). The Arab Palestinians, among other concepts, justify the current nature of their struggle against Israel, in terms of the liberation of the entirety of the territory to with the Order in Council applied in 1922 --- what they call Palestine. The armed struggle, while granting legitimacy to the existence and activity of the “struggle organizations” – namely, the Palestinian terror organizations and their activity.

No matter what the belief --- held by the Arab Palestinians, the central issue for the Israelis is the furtherance of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the Jewish People. This includes the striking the necessary political posture to protect against credible threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of The State of Israel; The Jewish National Homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

The tunnels built by Hamas and extending into Egyption territory obviously refutes your fallacious claim.

Egyptian soldiers killed by Hamas obviously refutes your other fallacious claim.

You throw around falsehoods like the typical islamic terrorist propagandist.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

This is another case where the Arab Palestinians are trying to make a case based on emotion and not on acts in the furtherance of peace ⇒ with the restoration of public order and safety.

In this case the complaint of "siege" → is an operation, → in which the requirements of the Hague Regulation, International Humanitarian Law under Article 43, → conducted within that territory that was abandon into the hands of the Israeli Government, with the aim of forcing Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter to surrender; adopting a peaceful posture. Such Article 43 operations include those actions conducted to prevent "criminal acts" directed against Israel (or any other State) → intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons (Israelis) or any group of persons or populations.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians maintain a mistaken belief and strong conviction that they are the victims in the conflict; that they are the aggrieved party and defending their nation; harmed by the Jewish People (State of Israel). The Arab Palestinians, among other concepts, justify the current nature of their struggle against Israel, in terms of the liberation of the entirety of the territory to with the Order in Council applied in 1922 --- what they call Palestine. The armed struggle, while granting legitimacy to the existence and activity of the “struggle organizations” – namely, the Palestinian terror organizations and their activity.

No matter what the belief --- held by the Arab Palestinians, the central issue for the Israelis is the furtherance of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the Jewish People. This includes the striking the necessary political posture to protect against credible threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of The State of Israel; The Jewish National Homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

Hamas as much as al-Qaida doesn't have any borders.

Israeli civilians are protected persons, Hamas operatives are not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

The tunnels built by Hamas and extending into Egyption territory obviously refutes your fallacious claim.

Egyptian soldiers killed by Hamas obviously refutes your other fallacious claim.

You throw around falsehoods like the typical islamic terrorist propagandist.

Those are not attack tunnels.

I have seen that allegation but never any proof.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you still pimping that terrorist crap?

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

Hamas as much as al-Qaida doesn't have any borders.

Israeli civilians are protected persons, Hamas operatives are not.

Hamas is a Palestinian resistance group. They operate inside Palestine's borders.

 

[Hollie]

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

The tunnels built by Hamas and extending into Egyption territory obviously refutes your fallacious claim.

Egyptian soldiers killed by Hamas obviously refutes your other fallacious claim.

You throw around falsehoods like the typical islamic terrorist propagandist.

Those are not attack tunnels.

I have seen that allegation but never any proof.

Actually, they are attack tunnels. Your apologetics for islamic terrorists was expected.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

The tunnels built by Hamas and extending into Egyption territory obviously refutes your fallacious claim.

Egyptian soldiers killed by Hamas obviously refutes your other fallacious claim.

You throw around falsehoods like the typical islamic terrorist propagandist.

Those are not attack tunnels.

I have seen that allegation but never any proof.

Actually, they are attack tunnels. Your apologetics for islamic terrorists was expected.

The tunnels into Egypt are only for trade.

 

[rylah]

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

Hamas as much as al-Qaida doesn't have any borders.

Israeli civilians are protected persons, Hamas operatives are not.

Hamas is a Palestinian resistance group. They operate inside Palestine's borders.

Do they even have "Palestine" in their name?
It's an Islamist group aimed at "liberating" any land they reach from Jewish presence.
Everything else is excuses.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

Hamas as much as al-Qaida doesn't have any borders.

Israeli civilians are protected persons, Hamas operatives are not.

Hamas is a Palestinian resistance group. They operate inside Palestine's borders.

Do they even have "Palestine" in their name?
It's an Islamist group aimed at "liberating" any land they reach from Jewish presence.
Everything else is excuses.

You are grasping at straws.

 

[rylah]

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

Hamas as much as al-Qaida doesn't have any borders.

Israeli civilians are protected persons, Hamas operatives are not.

Hamas is a Palestinian resistance group. They operate inside Palestine's borders.

Do they even have "Palestine" in their name?
It's an Islamist group aimed at "liberating" any land they reach from Jewish presence.
Everything else is excuses.

You are grasping at straws.

Yet couldn't refute any of that.
Your definitions play against You once applied equally.

I'm hitting at the root.

 

[Hollie]

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

The tunnels built by Hamas and extending into Egyption territory obviously refutes your fallacious claim.

Egyptian soldiers killed by Hamas obviously refutes your other fallacious claim.

You throw around falsehoods like the typical islamic terrorist propagandist.

Those are not attack tunnels.

I have seen that allegation but never any proof.

Actually, they are attack tunnels. Your apologetics for islamic terrorists was expected.

The tunnels into Egypt are only for trade.

Except when they're used to attack Egyptian soldiers. If you ignore the facts, the facts don't go away.

 

[Hollie]

He's spot on, and that's why You can't refute anything rationally.

Q.Since when did #BDS-holes become terrorism experts?

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

As far as I found, You're correct that there's no universal definition.

Yet I disagree that it's merely a name calling, simply because terrorism today is usually discussed in political conversations is the result of specific example of how terrorism is used with the aim to evade political means in any possible situation.

It doesn't mean that terrorism in most of these cases in regards to Israel isn't primarily rooted in historic racism against Jews as a whole in the middle east, without connection to any political argument.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

The tunnels built by Hamas and extending into Egyption territory obviously refutes your fallacious claim.

Egyptian soldiers killed by Hamas obviously refutes your other fallacious claim.

You throw around falsehoods like the typical islamic terrorist propagandist.

Those are not attack tunnels.

I have seen that allegation but never any proof.

How Hamas uses its tunnels to kill and capture Israeli soldiers

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Paul: this is another misconception based on a poor understanding of universal law; wherein the law makes it impossible for a set of prohibitions to be to have been violated → and yet → the legal judgment nevertheless conclude otherwise.

Whether we talk civil or criminal law, the codification of most every set of criminal statues has variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Robbery is not a crime that has the same elements of the offense in every jurisdiction (ie Universally Defined) And as a matter of fact, there is no universally accepted statue that is accepted internationally that defines the elements of Robbery. YET! you would be hard pressed to point out a sovereignty that does not understand the concept of Robbery and that does not pursue prosecutorial action (excluding failed states and rogue nations).

The California statute Penal Code 211 (Robbery) requires the assailant accomplished the crime "by means of force or fear." However, the Ohio Revised Code 2911.02 (Robbery) has the element that the assailant has a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control. Under your logic, the two states have different definitions of "Robbery." The concept of a universal definition is not a key component.

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

(COMMENT)

The argument that the last half century of hostile Arab Palestinian activity are not terrorist acts is based on the absence of a "universally recognized definition" of terrorism. The act of terrorism need only be a violation of law within the venue the act was committed.

Any sovereignty (self-governing territory) can define its own laws regarding such criminal acts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Paul: this is another misconception based on a poor understanding of universal law; wherein the law makes it impossible for a set of prohibitions to be to have been violated → and yet → the legal judgment nevertheless conclude otherwise.

Whether we talk civil or criminal law, the codification of most every set of criminal statues has variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Robbery is not a crime that has the same elements of the offense in every jurisdiction (ie Universally Defined) And as a matter of fact, there is no universally accepted statue that is accepted internationally that defines the elements of Robbery. YET! you would be hard pressed to point out a sovereignty that does not understand the concept of Robbery and that does not pursue prosecutorial action (excluding failed states and rogue nations).

The California statute Penal Code 211 (Robbery) requires the assailant accomplished the crime "by means of force or fear." However, the Ohio Revised Code 2911.02 (Robbery) has the element that the assailant has a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control. Under your logic, the two states have different definitions of "Robbery." The concept of a universal definition is not a key component.

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

(COMMENT)

The argument that the last half century of hostile Arab Palestinian activity are not terrorist acts is based on the absence of a "universally recognized definition" of terrorism. The act of terrorism need only be a violation of law within the venue the act was committed.

Any sovereignty (self-governing territory) can define its own laws regarding such criminal acts.

Most Respectfully,
R

Can they export their definition outside of their territory?

 

[Shusha]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person.

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

 

[Hollie]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person.

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

“The law applies or not depending on the situation.”

Another remarkable legal brief from Mullah Tinmore.

 

[rylah]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person.

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?