Tel Aviv bombing is part of self-defense: Hamas

[DRoseDARs]

Wait, if the Palestinians are now some sort of quasi-independant nation/state, wouldn't Israel's recent attacks/strikes against targets in Palestinian lands constitute acts of war? Must be since Hamas voicing support for the actions of other groups constitutes an "act of war" against Israel. So technically, Israel already declared war. So how's about stfu before KH school's you some more?

[Winston]

I don't get this apologetic attitude at all.

I say demand that they outright condemn any attacks against civilians, or hold them responsible for such attacks made under their watch.

[Sirotnikov]

and there is far less communication between them than I think you imagine

I imagine you have good sources on this ;-)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Winston
I don't get this apologetic attitude at all.

It's not an apologetic attitude, and **** you for saying that it is.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

and there is far less communication between them than I think you imagine

I imagine you have good sources on this ;-)

Do you really think that they told Hamas ahead of time what they were up to?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Winston
I say demand that they outright condemn any attacks against civilians, or hold them responsible for such attacks made under their watch.

"Hold them responsible"?

I don't know what your country's up to, but mine cut off all aid to the government of the PA a month ago...

[Sirotnikov]

First off, while IJ, al-aqsa and Hamas may share similar goals and tactics, they are not merely parts of a larger organization. They are also rivals for support among the palestinian population, they have separate leaderships,

In this part you are mostly right - however it shouldbe noted that both Islamic Jihad and Hamas have deep roots within the Islamic "Muslim Brootherhood" movement - so they are to an extent - a part of a larger organizations, though they are autonomous.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Winston
I don't get this apologetic attitude at all.

Spoken like a true, strawman-spewing rightwing shill.

I say demand that they outright condemn any attacks against civilians, or hold them responsible for such attacks made under their watch.

That'd be nice, wouldn't it. Ain't going to happen, but dare to dream. Meanwhile, take realistic measures and cut aid.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's nice to know that you wish to be deliberately ignorant of the differences between rival terrorist organizations operating out of the PA

Yep, because they operate out of the PA and receive open support from the PA.

Tomato, Tomato.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


"Hold them responsible"?

I don't know what your country's up to, but mine cut off all aid to the government of the PA a month ago...

Did your country also stop known hamas-related charities from operating inside its territory?
serious question.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No, it doesn't.

It places upon them responsibility commensurate with their ability to prevent such attacks.

They ALREADY have such responsibility, by virtue of being the govt of the PA.

If, for instance, I were to celebrate this attack then I would be an *******, but not necessarily responsible for it. As an individual living half a world away, I can do very little to prevent such attacks. Hamas, as an organisation operating in the same territory and with pretensions to forming a national government is somewhat more responsible. The actual group(s) which carried out the attack are, of course, most responsible.

Lets say, the Kurdish workers party, operating out of bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, (Iraqi Kurdistan being under US protection) attacks and kills Turkish civilians. A US responsibility, to the extent the US can prevent such attacks. Now supposing the next day Donald Rumsfeld says that the attack by the PKK was simply self defense, and that the Turks brought this on themselves. That would change things, dont you think? It would not only impact Turkish - US relations, but would impact the entire worlds view of the US govt.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


Yep, because they operate out of the PA and receive open support from the PA.

and Iran

[Winston]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"Hold them responsible"?

I don't know what your country's up to, but mine cut off all aid to the government of the PA a month ago...

Temporarily, as did mine.

But that doesn't mean they should be free to support or carry out suicide bombings.

The responsibility I'm referring to is in the basic, conceptual sense firstly.

The consequences arising from this responsibility is a separate matter, on which I haven't spoken.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's nice to know that you wish to be deliberately ignorant of the differences between rival terrorist organizations operating out of the PA

Hamas has no more control over the actions of IJ and al-aqsa than it can exercise by force of arms.

well considering that Fatahs excuse for not acting against IJ was the threat of opposition by Hamas. I dont see what stops the Hamas run PA from having sufficient force to address this. Seems more likely that the fact that they approve of it has more to do with it.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

and Iran

But hey, that's just another example of detached responsibility so they must get a "get out of jail free card". Not like we can fault or blame someone because they openly support terrorists! That's balderdash!