Tel Aviv bombing is part of self-defense: Hamas

[Sirotnikov]

Example of Canadian hamas related charities.

It was closed, and simply restarted under a different name... under the same manager with the same address and phone no. and all.

Good job enforcing ;-)

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia//ENGLISH/MARKETING%20TERRORISM/PDF/NOV13_04.PDF

Most of the money for terrorism actually comes from the west. You guys need to make a better job of ridding Hamas and Hezbullah of their money.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Winston


You also said they were only responsible to the extent that they could have prevented it. This is where I disagree, since by their applauding the attack, the question of whether they could have stopped it becomes rather pointless. They wouldn't have, even if they could, which bestows upon them equal responsibility for the killings.

No, it doesn't. Just like me applauding what the Nazis did in WWII wouldn't make me responsible for it.

Now stop apologizing for these bastards.

I haven't once apologised for them, and you're an ******* for suggesting that I have. Personally, I think that Hamas is filled with homicidal *******s, and that the world would be much better off if they all jumped off a cliff. I also feel that your "contribution" to this discussion has been nothing but a series of vapid personal attacks on those who are not as deliberately ignorant as yourself. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=KH]I also feel that your "contribution" to this discussion has been nothing but vapid personal attacks on those who are not as deliberately ignorant as yourself.[/q]

Welcome to the world that is "Winston".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Example of Canadian hamas related charities

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal...F/NOV13_04.PDF

Like I said, it's a law-enforcement question. If the organisations sufficiently obscure their ties to Hamas then prosecution becomes difficult.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=KH]I also feel that your "contribution" to this discussion has been nothing but vapid personal attacks on those who are not as deliberately ignorant as yourself.[/q]

Welcome to the world that is "Winston".

What is that supposed to mean?

And where did I "contribute" personal attacks in this discussion?

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Siro

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You really don't want to go that far back, kid.

Sure I do. No one remembers exactly what happenned there

Actually I don't mind going there at all.
I'm just trying to prove that there is a state of 'war', in which Israel has been very much limiting itself, while the Palestinian (government supported or condoned) terrorist groups have given enough pretext for launching war.

[lord of the mark]

Well, it looks like the IDF will continue to focus on IJ, and will spare Hamas and its leadership.

"Security officials said Monday night that the recommendations would focus on targeting the Islamic Jihad, sealing off Samaria from the rest of the West Bank and cracking down on Palestinians illegally residing in Israel.

"Don't expect to see tanks rolling into Nablus," one official said. "But we will launch more widespread operations against the Islamic Jihad." '

I hope the govts of Canada, the EU states, the US, and other responsible countries will support Israel in taking the necessary steps against Islamic Jihad.

I also hope that Russia will desist from providing support to Hamas. And that other govts, including those mentioned above, will take this issue up with Russia in no uncertain terms.

[Harry Tuttle]

Yeah I don't see one personal attack, just refutes of KH's argument.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, by the way, apparently IRFAN has been the subject of questions in Parliament, so I don't think you can claim we're ignoring the problem.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Yeah I don't see one personal attack, just refutes of KH's argument.

The personal attack is to claim that I was "apologising" for Hamas. I haven't once in this thread (or any other) defended Hamas' actions either as a terrorist group or when supporting other terrorist groups. I have not justified their actions in any way. I have condemned their actions, and stated that they even bear some responsibility for attacks which are carried out by other groups, due to their political position. I'm tired of his baiting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed... since when has calling someone an 'apologist' not been a personal attack?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

"Secondly, of course Hamas is responsible for its own actions. If it condones such attacks and does nothing to prevent them, then as the purported government of the PA it takes some responsibility for the damage inflicted. "


To be fair to Winston, the above, conflated two rationales for Hamas responsibility. And gave the impression that KH had missed the point. Hamas already has SOME responsibility, by tacitly approving attacks, as Arafat did. By going farther and explicitly condoning the attack, they accept MORE responsibility, to the point where it is, arguably, not that much less than had they actually coordinated the attack.

KH, have you ever seen "Murder in the Cathedral"?

Alternatively, are you aware that Ariel Sharon was investigated by the govt of Israel, and fired as Defense Minister, for actions taken by the Lebanese Phalange Minister, which no one in the IDF condoned, because of issues related to negligence in preventing and stopping it? Do you think if he had condoned it, that would have made him MORE responsible? I do.



"Who will rid me of this insolent priest?"

[Winston]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Yeah I don't see one personal attack, just refutes of KH's argument.

It must have been an attempt to cover up for all the names I got called.

Anyway, brilliant tactic announcing that you're putting the opponent on ignore. He's effectively cut me off, since now there's no point in arguing any of what he posts.

Maybe he should widen it to everyone who disagrees with him. What a swell debater.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Siro

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm just trying to prove that there is a state of 'war', in which Israel has been very much limiting itself, while the Palestinian (government supported or condoned) terrorist groups have given enough pretext for launching war.

The fact is that a low-level state of war has existed for a long time. I don't particularly care about the pretexts needed for Israel to carry out military operations in the PA. My real concern is that there is some sort of actual net benefit to be achieved by anything you guys choose to do. Would an invasion of the West Bank actually do anything, or would it be just another exercise in futility. Do you have some sort of endgame planned, or is this all just running around with your head cut off.

[Harry Tuttle]

Well I'm going back to the M&M thread. Things are more "black and white" there, barring Crispy of course.