Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack III

[Suspense]

They shot and killed them when they did a non-violent demonstration if they got too close to the border fence. Slaughtered them in their dozens.

Non-violent demonstrations in prisons also tend not to work very well.

Seriously, you think if you were living in Gaza you think there would be any point at all in doing a non-violent demonstration?

Yes - they demonstrate Palestinian solidarity and a genuine commitment to non-violence.

They sat down nowhere near the border fence, but the Israelis shot them anyway for being too close.

You're living in a fantasy land.

No fantasy land - real world reports suggest that the peaceful protest which was away from the border fence became violent when some protestors splintered off and moved towards the border fence, hurling abuse, throwing rocks and Molotov's.

Of course, this didn't justify the proportionality of Israeli's response, but my point was that it was no longer a 'non-violent' demonstration at that point.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You mean like October 7th? I think that was terrorism.

I think the definition of "terrorism" centres around the purpose. US invaded Iraq to change the regime, not to commit terror.

Israel openly admit that their doctrine of disproportionate force is to instill fear into the population. They're openly saying it daily about Lebanon. That's the proper definition of terrorism. Use of violence to instill fear in a civilian population.

Yes. I don't agree that the invasion of Iraq , made little Johnny Howard a terrorist. Which was inferred by the post i was responding to.
Usually terrorists :
:Indiscriminately attack random or innocent targets.
:Are not a sovereign military force.

In the case of the west bank, that would make the IDF a brutal regime, and the settlers, terrorists.

 

[ferball]

Yes. I don't agree that the invasion of Iraq , made little Johnny Howard a terrorist. Which was inferred by the post i was responding to.
Usually terrorists :
:Indiscriminately attack random or innocent targets.
:Are not a sovereign military force.

In the case of the west bank, that would make the IDF a brutal regime, and the settlers, terrorists.

In Australia the definition of terrorism doesn't explicitly exclude invasion. Its this:

A terrorist act is an act, or a threat to commit an act, that is done with the intention to coerce. or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or. ideological cause, and the act causes: • death or serious harm or endangers life.

So technically an invasion could qualify given its only purpose was to influence a government to no longer exist. People consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine terrorism and its as close to the Iraq invasion as anything we've seen so little Johnny can be seen as a terrorist by some definitions. (And there is no one universally accepted definition so its up for debate.)

 

[Suspense]

Weasel words.

Nothing 'weasel' about it - I said that "The land theft and random shootings are justified by the Israelis as a response to an idealist, violent resistance guided by a leadership with no willingness to compromise."

This was part of a broader conversation where I said: "My view is that violence only escalates tensions and perpetuates cycles of retaliation - part of which we are seeing at the moment."

Quite clearly, given the context, I never intended to say that the Israelis are justified in their actions.

Do you condemn the genocide Israel is currently committing?

The scale of Israel's retaliatory violence and continued violations of human rights are condemnable.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Hamas is a state power, runs a government, provides services and its military wing launched a cross border incursion a little over a year ago. So technically you are saying what Hamas did isn't terrorism.

A lot of people like to play semantics with the issues in the middle east.
Mislabeling things.
You seem to be one of them.

Hamas are not the government of a country.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

In Australia the definition of terrorism doesn't explicitly exclude invasion. Its this:

A terrorist act is an act, or a threat to commit an act, that is done with the intention to coerce. or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or. ideological cause, and the act causes: • death or serious harm or endangers life.

So technically an invasion could qualify given its only purpose was to influence a government to no longer exist. People consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine terrorism and its as close to the Iraq invasion as anything we've seen so little Johnny can be seen as a terrorist by some definitions. (And there is no one universally accepted definition so its up for debate.)

If you want to take the Australian legislation out of context sure.

 

[blackcat]

There's a whole library shelf full of research on the way the use of language thru generalisation enabled the genocide of Jewish (and other) people during the 30s and 40s in Europe. The most educated people would be aware of that. Obviously you're not.

otherisation is a <boiling frog> practice

 

[ferball]

A lot of people like to play semantics with the issues in the middle east.
Mislabeling things.
You seem to be one of them.

Hamas are not the government of a country.

It was the effectively the elected (once nearly 20 years ago) government of the Gaza strip. They operated as a state, to a degree. plenty of ****ed up states on earth as bad or worse than Hamas.

If you want to take the Australian legislation out of context sure.

I'm happy to just call him a war criminal and leave the other stuff out of it.

 

[IlovethePies]

A lot of people like to play semantics with the issues in the middle east.
Mislabeling things.
You seem to be one of them.

Hamas are not the government of a country.

Hamas is an elected political party, just like Hezbollah has seats in the Lebanese Parliament.

A "terrorist organisation" is whatever imperialism deems to be its next target.

 

[IlovethePies]

Been saying all along, they have had the most to gain out of the Hamas attack and subsequent war.

Complete reversal of reality.
The US and Israel had most to gain out of the Hamas attack.
That is why Israel deliberately allowed it to happen, by standing down border security despite having intelligence about the impending incursion.
It is also why the Biden administration is providing all of Israel's weapons and providing it with total political support.

 

[IlovethePies]

Yes. I don't agree that the invasion of Iraq , made little Johnny Howard a terrorist. Which was inferred by the post i was responding to.
Usually terrorists :
:Indiscriminately attack random or innocent targets.
:Are not a sovereign military force.

In the case of the west bank, that would make the IDF a brutal regime, and the settlers, terrorists.

Maybe not a "terrorist" in the narrow defintion of the term (balaclava, machine gun, suicide bomb)
More like a "super terrorist", meaning an individual involved in creating the conditions of mass death and destruction, but on a scale millions of times greater, and on a criminal political basis.

Or...even simpler still, Howard - like Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc - are war criminals of the same kind as those who were hanged at Nuremburg.

 

[sdfc]

It was the effectively the elected (once nearly 20 years ago) government of the Gaza strip. They operated as a state, to a degree. plenty of ****ed up states on earth as bad or worse than Hamas.




I'm happy to just call him a war criminal and leave the other stuff out of it.

Gaza is not a state. it's 6% the size of the Perth metro area with about the same population. It's a reservation. Just like the reservations Israel has Palestinians living on in the West Bank.

And some people think the Palestinians should just accept it.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]