nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You're wasting your time, chum. I have no intention of engaging with obsessives like you. Now do yourself a favour and crawl back under whatever stone you crawled from under.
Summary of Israeli Casualties from Terrorism
- Thread starter Johnny Canuck3
- Start date
You're wasting your time, chum. I have no intention of engaging with obsessives like you. Now do yourself a favour and crawl back under whatever stone you crawled from under.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Nino seems to think I'm responding to him. This would be pointless as I am aware that he has me on ignore.
I do however intend to flag up his idiocy as and when it occurs for the benefit of other observers, as I've done here.
"Why? Is Spymasters behaviour obsessive?" <<<<<<< geddit
I'm not obsessed but certainly intrigued, their behaviour in hounding another poster is truly obsessive. Check out any posts by Rachamim and you'll find a slew of posts by Nino hot on its heels generally doing nothing but abusing
. We have seen posters abused for their beliefs on bulletin boards before, that's nothing new, but what intrigues me about this is the almost universal condemnation that Zionism recieves here and the ways in which posters choose to express it.
Of the Zionist state of Israel, Urban75 is undoubtedly one of the most aggressively contemptuous BB's around, and I'm sure Zionist posters accept that a level of disdain from many quarters is inevitable. However, posters like Nino and one or two others who contribute nothing but odium and aggression amuse me.
I also have an inherent sense of fair play and have often felt uncomfortable with bulletin board lynch mobs so yes! whilst it amuses me I shall continue to keep a weather-eye on Nino and his chums and post when I see fit to do so.
I do however intend to flag up his idiocy as and when it occurs for the benefit of other observers, as I've done here.
"Why? Is Spymasters behaviour obsessive?" <<<<<<< geddit
I'm not obsessed but certainly intrigued, their behaviour in hounding another poster is truly obsessive. Check out any posts by Rachamim and you'll find a slew of posts by Nino hot on its heels generally doing nothing but abusing
. We have seen posters abused for their beliefs on bulletin boards before, that's nothing new, but what intrigues me about this is the almost universal condemnation that Zionism recieves here and the ways in which posters choose to express it. Of the Zionist state of Israel, Urban75 is undoubtedly one of the most aggressively contemptuous BB's around, and I'm sure Zionist posters accept that a level of disdain from many quarters is inevitable. However, posters like Nino and one or two others who contribute nothing but odium and aggression amuse me.
I also have an inherent sense of fair play and have often felt uncomfortable with bulletin board lynch mobs so yes! whilst it amuses me I shall continue to keep a weather-eye on Nino and his chums and post when I see fit to do so.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Although I am actively for a one state solution, this pits me against the Zionist State, which I consider to be an archaic idea with no place in the modern world, I always try to maintain balance where possible. I certainly feel that the Palestinians are also being intransigent in their attitude to compromise, but this is not too surprising seeing as the Israelis seem so keen to divi up the land for themselves and pen in the others who inconveniently live on the land in pens to control them.
The Israelis seem to think that continual violence will solve the situation in the long run, yet at the bottom line it is about freedom of religion and movement in one's land of birth, so this is just wishful thinking.
Peace will not break out until the Israelis compromise on their hugely discriminatory ideals underlying the Zionist State, and the Palestinians accept that they have the Jews on what they considered to be their land.
Both sides must compromise and the only two peace plans which might work are the one and two state plans. The two state plan would just polorise the conflict thus leading to further conflict in the future, thus the one state plan, despite its relative difficulty for both sides must be the way forward.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
If you believe that, then your experience of what is out on the net is sadly lacking. At least on here issues are addressed, facts set out, information linked to.
The only time I disdain Zionists (and I'm proud to oppose nationalist Zionism) is when they use spurious arguments to support oppression, or when they claim to act for the good of all Jews but in fact act only for the good of their ideology. If they represent their aims with honesty then I'll respect them.
However, posters like Nino and one or two others who contribute nothing but odium and aggression amuse me.
I also have an inherent sense of fair play and have often felt uncomfortable with bulletin board lynch mobs so yes! whilst it amuses me I shall continue to keep a weather-eye on Nino and his chums and post when I see fit to do so.
Everyone will be so happy knowing they've got you to watch over them.
Nino: I am curious. Why would you place Spy on ignore and not me? I feel neglected...all dressed up and nowhere to go type of thing...
Spy: I too respond to points made by posters who have placed me on Ignore. I agree, others read posts so it is worthwhile to do so.
As for Zionists on U745...There are a fair number of people, Jews, Zionists, and many others who PM and tell me they agree with this, that, or the other but most often ask me why I even bother.
The so called "New Testament" has nothing original. Any religious point, aside from Revelation is just rehash Judaisim and usually without the deeper context but that is neither here nor there. The point though, is that one saying in particular comes to mind (from the NT), "Do not cast pearls amongst swine." The meaning of course is that one should not place one's iner thoughts , or simply the truth on display for ridicule by idiot savants. Why use the lable "idiot savant?"
Idiot Savants of course are people of very low intelligence, usually retarded people, who have one particuar skill that not only meets normal expectations but actually far exceeds them. Who could possibly be an Idiot Savant here? All I know is that SOME COULD SAY that there are alot of reatards who can type really well.
So, people will think what people will think. What do I answer the people who PM me and ask why I bother? I quote the Talmud where it says that
"To save one man is to save the world." I also often remind them that genocide happens via many paths but one of these paths is crreated when one takes the usual Jewish attitude.
Most Jews would never imagine responding to ignoramuses who harp on nonsense and have no understanding of their own lives let alone the lives of others in a different part of the world. However, enemies of Jews and Israel do not remain mute. If Jews and/or Israelis remain mute than many will take note of the voluminous arguments made by haters and say to themselves and others, "Damn! Jews have nothing to say to those long and drawn out arguments! The arguments must be true!"
I believe gentle confrontation with relevant facts is the best way to deal with this issue. In addition Israel has a new civic pride initiative called "Hasbara," which translates more or less as "Truth Telling." When we see patently false propaganda or just inaccuracy we should take it upon ourselves to rectify the inaccuracy.
Spy: I too respond to points made by posters who have placed me on Ignore. I agree, others read posts so it is worthwhile to do so.
As for Zionists on U745...There are a fair number of people, Jews, Zionists, and many others who PM and tell me they agree with this, that, or the other but most often ask me why I even bother.
The so called "New Testament" has nothing original. Any religious point, aside from Revelation is just rehash Judaisim and usually without the deeper context but that is neither here nor there. The point though, is that one saying in particular comes to mind (from the NT), "Do not cast pearls amongst swine." The meaning of course is that one should not place one's iner thoughts , or simply the truth on display for ridicule by idiot savants. Why use the lable "idiot savant?"
Idiot Savants of course are people of very low intelligence, usually retarded people, who have one particuar skill that not only meets normal expectations but actually far exceeds them. Who could possibly be an Idiot Savant here? All I know is that SOME COULD SAY that there are alot of reatards who can type really well.
So, people will think what people will think. What do I answer the people who PM me and ask why I bother? I quote the Talmud where it says that
"To save one man is to save the world." I also often remind them that genocide happens via many paths but one of these paths is crreated when one takes the usual Jewish attitude.
Most Jews would never imagine responding to ignoramuses who harp on nonsense and have no understanding of their own lives let alone the lives of others in a different part of the world. However, enemies of Jews and Israel do not remain mute. If Jews and/or Israelis remain mute than many will take note of the voluminous arguments made by haters and say to themselves and others, "Damn! Jews have nothing to say to those long and drawn out arguments! The arguments must be true!"
I believe gentle confrontation with relevant facts is the best way to deal with this issue. In addition Israel has a new civic pride initiative called "Hasbara," which translates more or less as "Truth Telling." When we see patently false propaganda or just inaccuracy we should take it upon ourselves to rectify the inaccuracy.
G: So you feel the Zionist State is archaic...Dopo you feel ALL nations are archaic? Do you feel Arab States are archaic? Or is it just the Jewish State that you find so disturbing?
"The Israelis seem to think continual violence will solve the issue.":I want you to honestly think about what I will next ask you and to then asnwer me truthfully; If a operson came to your home and kicked you in the genitasls and bit^% slapped you and told you they want your home, what would you do?
Then let us imagine, you being the emphatic and compasionate person you are,, that you allow them to take one bedroom and one bathroom and live with you in that home. What if they kepotkicking you and beating the vinegar out of you because they want ALL of the home? Are you still going to remain totally accomodating?
Again, please answer honestly. Thank you in advance.
"Discriminatory ideals underlie the Zionist Character of Israel.": AGAIN, please detail exactly what they are. AGAIN, blanket codnemnations are worthless.
Panda: As a person seemingly obsesed with smeantics I hope you will not find it too cloying to answer my short question concerning YOUR semantics. You state that you rarely disdain Zionists (as in th"the only time Panda disadains,etc") and yet oppose Nationalist Zionism. How do you not ALWAYS disdain Zionists when you oppose them unflinchingly? Also, you take pains to specifiy "Nationalist Zionism."
Indeed there is a distinction between Religious Zionism and Nationalist Zionism but both have the same ultimate realisation, a Jewish majority and control of the land now called Israel. Indeed, Religious Zionism is much more extrem in nature in that IT envisons a Jewish State stretching from Sinai to the Euphrates in what is now Iraq.
So, you oppose Nationaist Zionism with its mainstream vision of coexistence with the "Palestinians" involving ceding of the lion's sahre of the historic Jewish Homeland...while NOT opposing the establishment of a Jewish Homeland stretching from Egypt to Iraq. interesting.
You tell us that were Zionists to honestly represent their views that you would respect them. Great. however, what makes you feel that they do not do so already? Just because most Zionists do not share YOUR Views does not mean that they are any less honest than you (perish the thought).
Indeed, ALL strains of Zionism DO work for the good of all Jews. See, if Jews anywhere in the world have dire circumstances only one entity in the world can be relied on to save them...ISRAEL, the Zionist State. Ethiopia? Sudan? The entire Arab World? The entire former USSR? Afghanistan?Only Israel gave a damn and only Israel backed up concern with prompt action.
As I once told you, along time ago, while you might not care for Israel at all, I still offer my life to give you the oppostunity to do so. Whether or not any Jew (full Jew or not) accepts their birthright it is there and that, G-D willing, will not change.
Jews are not secure anywhere in the world save Israel.
"The Israelis seem to think continual violence will solve the issue.":I want you to honestly think about what I will next ask you and to then asnwer me truthfully; If a operson came to your home and kicked you in the genitasls and bit^% slapped you and told you they want your home, what would you do?
Then let us imagine, you being the emphatic and compasionate person you are,, that you allow them to take one bedroom and one bathroom and live with you in that home. What if they kepotkicking you and beating the vinegar out of you because they want ALL of the home? Are you still going to remain totally accomodating?
Again, please answer honestly. Thank you in advance.
"Discriminatory ideals underlie the Zionist Character of Israel.": AGAIN, please detail exactly what they are. AGAIN, blanket codnemnations are worthless.
Panda: As a person seemingly obsesed with smeantics I hope you will not find it too cloying to answer my short question concerning YOUR semantics. You state that you rarely disdain Zionists (as in th"the only time Panda disadains,etc") and yet oppose Nationalist Zionism. How do you not ALWAYS disdain Zionists when you oppose them unflinchingly? Also, you take pains to specifiy "Nationalist Zionism."
Indeed there is a distinction between Religious Zionism and Nationalist Zionism but both have the same ultimate realisation, a Jewish majority and control of the land now called Israel. Indeed, Religious Zionism is much more extrem in nature in that IT envisons a Jewish State stretching from Sinai to the Euphrates in what is now Iraq.
So, you oppose Nationaist Zionism with its mainstream vision of coexistence with the "Palestinians" involving ceding of the lion's sahre of the historic Jewish Homeland...while NOT opposing the establishment of a Jewish Homeland stretching from Egypt to Iraq. interesting.
You tell us that were Zionists to honestly represent their views that you would respect them. Great. however, what makes you feel that they do not do so already? Just because most Zionists do not share YOUR Views does not mean that they are any less honest than you (perish the thought).
Indeed, ALL strains of Zionism DO work for the good of all Jews. See, if Jews anywhere in the world have dire circumstances only one entity in the world can be relied on to save them...ISRAEL, the Zionist State. Ethiopia? Sudan? The entire Arab World? The entire former USSR? Afghanistan?Only Israel gave a damn and only Israel backed up concern with prompt action.
As I once told you, along time ago, while you might not care for Israel at all, I still offer my life to give you the oppostunity to do so. Whether or not any Jew (full Jew or not) accepts their birthright it is there and that, G-D willing, will not change.
Jews are not secure anywhere in the world save Israel.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
They might disagree with you, given the extremely medieval thing that happened to them only 60 years ago approx.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Do you actually know what an insult is?
"
You see its this apologist bollocks that makes my blood boil. The IDF have a duty of care to civilians as they are the people with the guns-they are the trained army. Whether patrolling a war zone or a civilian area the onus of safety is on them because they are the ones carrying lethal weapons.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That was sarcasm that somebody with not an ounce of knowledge about the subject would tell somebody else to do some research
When I make a claim, I back it up with evidence should it be disputed. The Palestinian ministers issue was given up by yourself as you could not provide any evidence to back up your incorrect claims, as opposed to me who provided plenty. I have no given you the actual UN website which states there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism, yet you continue to claim otherwise but tellingly, never never provide any sources. Tell me, what greater source can you get than the UN website confirming my claim?!
The League of Nations?! Your country wasn't even formed by the time that had been binned! And no, it is not "accepted" by the UN
Right, good, you admit "IHR" (whatever it is you mean by this) has no definition
UN website>Find the 3 official definitions>Post link here
None of those conventions defines terrorism, try again (and try harder)
Don't try and change the subject to the 13 (12 actually that are still in existence) conventions, none of which are relevant as none define terrorism. You said there is an accepted definition in international law, so show me. Put links on this page. If not, I shall assume, like in the Palestinian ministers thread, you're just plucking things out of your arse because you lack the ability to hold your hands up and admit when you're wrong...
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Kiss my hairy white arse!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
NO I abhor many of the archaic practices in whatever country or book they exist in.
I've heard this one before, but your story always has the Israelis as the one in the house, when actually historically the Jews were driven out and so it is the Palestinian in the house. With that addendum it is an accurate metaphor. However the Palestinians have always tried to show their visitor the door, even when they forced their way in with guns and started taking all the land which they insisted was theirs in about 4000 BC.
But lo, your metaphor continues:
Quick note here I'm not that nice...
Which is where it falls down because you feel that the Israelis were there first, and that the people who were there when you arrived, shouldn't count coz they didn't claim their land properly according to you.
I always do, and your metaphor makes it abundantly clear why there is so much sympathy for the Arabs. Everyone identifies with the urge to protect their home, their religion and their family. Lawyers can't change the fact that they were born in that land and thus should be as free as any other person to make something of themselves.
"Discriminatory ideals underlie the Zionist Character of Israel.": AGAIN, please detail exactly what they are. AGAIN, blanket condemnations are worthless.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I thought it was quite clear. Do you claim that all the residents of Israel, WB and Gaza have the same rights of movement? Everyone have the same rights to vote?
Express a willingness to negotiate withdrawal of a bunch of settlements. Move the barrier back to the west some. Let them have a real country, like Israel is a real country. Israel would be far more secure than it is now if the Palestinians had a country. It seems so obvious. Is Israel so under the the control of the extreme right religious parties that it can't negotiate properly for it's own security?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The only person that appears to think that is you.
Of course, there's no possible reason why it would serve you to perpetuate that particular myth, is there?
Perhaps, if you could have been bothered to quote my post properly, rather than merely posting your own representation of it, your near-endless maundering on Zionism would have been unnecessary.
Do you?
You may have done as a "side-effect" of serving in the IDF, as it goes without saying that the state of Israel offers a refuge to those Jews who choose to be there, and that the members of a "defence force" might be called upon to give their lives to protect others, but please don't imply that you endanger yourself to deliberately widen my choices.
"Full Jew"?
We are Jews or we are not, Rachamim, no "halfway house".
The Jews are secure nowhere.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
A logical response, but remember Rachamin is not here to learn, he is here to teach, and the compromise your solution entails is the same as the compromise my suggestion entails. He is not interested in the idea of compromise because he is convinced absolutely that the Palestinians should behave and accept the status quo without a whimper. And why does he hold such an extreme position? Because to accept even one bit that the Palestinians might be justified in their unhappiness would send his house of cards tumbling. So he argues his case and simply denies anything which doesn't fit.
Note his language, he quotes the Talmud, which talks of saving people. From what?
Grandma: "The IDF has the onus of safety. THEY are the ones representing a lawful nation and the tacit authority.": Well Grandma, let us imagine the following: You are a soldier in the IDF, you are on patrol with your mates and turn a corner and lo and behold...a spur of the moment (they almost alla re) street demonstration is taking place.
Your reponsibility now is to the law abiding people of that sector and since demos always bring vioplence, including to locals, you try and contain it without actively engaging the actors.
Other units come on scene and you set up a perimeter. As you man your positions you come under fire. Somehwere in back of the first several rows of youths people are firing AKs and throwing incedinary devices. This is one of the most densely populated spots on Earth and as such it presents an incredibly danger to the locals, not to mention you and your mates.
You cannot leave because it might spin out, you cannot do anything but try and neutralise the violence. What do you do? Now you are taking closer fire and on top of the bullets, Molotovs, and rocks, the crowd is growing.
You imagine it is so easy to just avoid non-combatants when the enemy wheres no fatigues and uses locals as shields as they snipe. International Law actually requires us to try and quell the disturbance by any means neccessary. If they are just spinning rocks we can use rubber or gas but if they are firing rounds and throwing fire we have no choice but to handle it.
In those cases we take proper aim but bullets are not intelligent. Even with rifles you need to be close on to be accurate and even then all kinds of non-combatants are running to and fro, the crowdd moving up and down with smoked all over the place, screaming, radio screaming, it is not so cut and dry and you like to think.
Rose: "Rose was being sarcastic because of course Rachamim does not have an ounce of knowledge about the referenced subject.": Sure Rose. Give me a shout when you figure out what Ministry handles Security for the PA. Gosh, at least you can make me laugh and that IS valuable in THIS forum.
"The PA issue was brought up by Rachamim and he could not even bring up any proof on it!": Except that I did, and also about a second portfolio you never knew existed (Jewish Affairs) but that is neithere here nor there since I told you in THAT thread that it was getting silly and I weould just allow you to have the last word.
I know that you do not think the PA's own lists are not sources, and that you think you never denied the existence of a State Ministry for Security Affairs (within the PA), but reality shows a different version of events. You also thought that that the PA has a Constitution and that HAMAS was "elected into the Govt. aside form the Legislature."
None of your assumptions are correct of course, they do not have a Constitution although the Basic Law is fine. Still it does not address the subjects you spoke on. But what about HAMAS? Was HAMAS elected into the Cabinet? AS I told you Rose, only the President is elected, he THEN appoints Ministers who must in turn be ratified by the Legilature. Ergo, HAMAS won a MODERATE majority in the Legislature but did not win the PM or any Ministry. They served at the discretion of the President, point blank.
To review...
There IS a State Ministry of Security Affairs and IT covered Security for the time periods in question, not Interior.
There IS NO Constitution.
HAMAS WAS NOT elected into higher govt., that is impossible as noone is elected into the PA Govt. except for the President.
I hope that we can now leave THOSE subjects in their respective thread and concentrate on this one.
"Rose has said that the UN does not agree on a definition on terrorisdm.": As I told you before, they actually agree on 3. One is the L. of Nations definition which I posted verbatim when you asked one of them. I told you the other two. I do not know which site you are looking at but I suggest you check out the 13 UN Conventions on Terrorism, that might be a good place for you to start.
"What greater source can you get than the UN website to show that there is no definition of the word 'terrorism'?": Well, I would not be surpised as inept as the UN is but I will find you a UN site that shows it, ok? Then what will you do? Obviously you have not even bothered to research the 3 definitions I told you about. I quoted the one in its entirety and told you the information on the other two. If you want to go out on another intellectual limb I will play once again.
"The L. Of Nations defintion on 'terrorism' has not even been binned by the time Israel was founded.": I am not sure what the turn of phrse means but I suspect you are saying the definition has been shelved? If so, you will have to prove that one to me.
"The UN does not accept the definition.": First, your original argument was that no deifnition existed period. Now, you do the same thing you did in the thread on the PA. You switch tacts when confronted with irrefutable truth and say "Well it is not accepted by the UN" as if that negates what you said before. Tell you what, wrong on both counts. Not only is it a valid and Internationally accepted defintion but is also accepted by the UN.
"IHR has no deifnition on 'terrorism'.": It should read "IHL" and that of coursde means "International Humanitarian Law." As usual you are playing games . YES, I "admit" it does not define it, even though the UN,et al DOES. However, as my post ALSO says, it gives tacit defintion by clearly defining prohibited acts under the title of "terrorism" so you will not be able to shuffle and jive on the issue.
Rose, before you get too cocky, remember, as despised as I apparently am in this forum noone came to your defence in that PA thread. You wonder why? Need to think about it a bit? Maybe ...you...were...WRONG. AS I SHOWED AGAIN ABOVE.
LET US REVIEW AGAIN:
DID THE PA HAVE A CONSTITUTION?
WAS THERE A STATE MINISTRY OF SECURITY AFFAIRS?
WAS THERE A MINSTRY OF JEWISH AFFAIRS?
WHO WAS THE MINISTER OF JEWISH AFFAIRS?
WAS HAMAS ELECTED INTO ANY MINISTRIES?
THE PRIME MINSTER'S CHAIR?
While you wallow in those questions that you messed up on in that thread you talk about, I will go find a link to prove you wrong in this one.
Your reponsibility now is to the law abiding people of that sector and since demos always bring vioplence, including to locals, you try and contain it without actively engaging the actors.
Other units come on scene and you set up a perimeter. As you man your positions you come under fire. Somehwere in back of the first several rows of youths people are firing AKs and throwing incedinary devices. This is one of the most densely populated spots on Earth and as such it presents an incredibly danger to the locals, not to mention you and your mates.
You cannot leave because it might spin out, you cannot do anything but try and neutralise the violence. What do you do? Now you are taking closer fire and on top of the bullets, Molotovs, and rocks, the crowd is growing.
You imagine it is so easy to just avoid non-combatants when the enemy wheres no fatigues and uses locals as shields as they snipe. International Law actually requires us to try and quell the disturbance by any means neccessary. If they are just spinning rocks we can use rubber or gas but if they are firing rounds and throwing fire we have no choice but to handle it.
In those cases we take proper aim but bullets are not intelligent. Even with rifles you need to be close on to be accurate and even then all kinds of non-combatants are running to and fro, the crowdd moving up and down with smoked all over the place, screaming, radio screaming, it is not so cut and dry and you like to think.
Rose: "Rose was being sarcastic because of course Rachamim does not have an ounce of knowledge about the referenced subject.": Sure Rose. Give me a shout when you figure out what Ministry handles Security for the PA. Gosh, at least you can make me laugh and that IS valuable in THIS forum.
"The PA issue was brought up by Rachamim and he could not even bring up any proof on it!": Except that I did, and also about a second portfolio you never knew existed (Jewish Affairs) but that is neithere here nor there since I told you in THAT thread that it was getting silly and I weould just allow you to have the last word.
I know that you do not think the PA's own lists are not sources, and that you think you never denied the existence of a State Ministry for Security Affairs (within the PA), but reality shows a different version of events. You also thought that that the PA has a Constitution and that HAMAS was "elected into the Govt. aside form the Legislature."
None of your assumptions are correct of course, they do not have a Constitution although the Basic Law is fine. Still it does not address the subjects you spoke on. But what about HAMAS? Was HAMAS elected into the Cabinet? AS I told you Rose, only the President is elected, he THEN appoints Ministers who must in turn be ratified by the Legilature. Ergo, HAMAS won a MODERATE majority in the Legislature but did not win the PM or any Ministry. They served at the discretion of the President, point blank.
To review...
There IS a State Ministry of Security Affairs and IT covered Security for the time periods in question, not Interior.
There IS NO Constitution.
HAMAS WAS NOT elected into higher govt., that is impossible as noone is elected into the PA Govt. except for the President.
I hope that we can now leave THOSE subjects in their respective thread and concentrate on this one.
"Rose has said that the UN does not agree on a definition on terrorisdm.": As I told you before, they actually agree on 3. One is the L. of Nations definition which I posted verbatim when you asked one of them. I told you the other two. I do not know which site you are looking at but I suggest you check out the 13 UN Conventions on Terrorism, that might be a good place for you to start.
"What greater source can you get than the UN website to show that there is no definition of the word 'terrorism'?": Well, I would not be surpised as inept as the UN is but I will find you a UN site that shows it, ok? Then what will you do? Obviously you have not even bothered to research the 3 definitions I told you about. I quoted the one in its entirety and told you the information on the other two. If you want to go out on another intellectual limb I will play once again.
"The L. Of Nations defintion on 'terrorism' has not even been binned by the time Israel was founded.": I am not sure what the turn of phrse means but I suspect you are saying the definition has been shelved? If so, you will have to prove that one to me.
"The UN does not accept the definition.": First, your original argument was that no deifnition existed period. Now, you do the same thing you did in the thread on the PA. You switch tacts when confronted with irrefutable truth and say "Well it is not accepted by the UN" as if that negates what you said before. Tell you what, wrong on both counts. Not only is it a valid and Internationally accepted defintion but is also accepted by the UN.
"IHR has no deifnition on 'terrorism'.": It should read "IHL" and that of coursde means "International Humanitarian Law." As usual you are playing games . YES, I "admit" it does not define it, even though the UN,et al DOES. However, as my post ALSO says, it gives tacit defintion by clearly defining prohibited acts under the title of "terrorism" so you will not be able to shuffle and jive on the issue.
Rose, before you get too cocky, remember, as despised as I apparently am in this forum noone came to your defence in that PA thread. You wonder why? Need to think about it a bit? Maybe ...you...were...WRONG. AS I SHOWED AGAIN ABOVE.
LET US REVIEW AGAIN:
DID THE PA HAVE A CONSTITUTION?
WAS THERE A STATE MINISTRY OF SECURITY AFFAIRS?
WAS THERE A MINSTRY OF JEWISH AFFAIRS?
WHO WAS THE MINISTER OF JEWISH AFFAIRS?
WAS HAMAS ELECTED INTO ANY MINISTRIES?
THE PRIME MINSTER'S CHAIR?
While you wallow in those questions that you messed up on in that thread you talk about, I will go find a link to prove you wrong in this one.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
See, that's one of the things with this forum. I sense that some people would far rather that other perspectives were not set out here.
If you say something that deviates from the accepted line - especially if you don't post lots and lots - you are treated as a "troll" for being deliberatively provocative and an outsider and, as in this case, misrepresented. Saying saomething different to the majority isn't trolling, and in the context and the history of this forum to accuse someone of trolling is just to try to shut down discussion.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Not the only one, though!
Well looking through my school things I found the relevant information, although I have not yet even begun looking online and do not know if I will. I will give you all relevant info though, as I did on the other thread, and what you will do with it is up to you.
Aside from the League of Nations Definition which I spelled out for you, and which by the way is still completely valid unless soemthing has happened with it over the last year or so and I highly doubt that...
There is... SPECIFICALLY VIA THE UN since you are caught up on that for some reason:
I) UN Resolution Language Definition, 1999.
II) UN Academic Consensus Definition , 1988 and coutesy of the UN's then Terror Honcho Alex P. Schmid. It was floated to the world's leading academcs and I believe 81% agreed it was fitting (it was the 80th percentile even if I remember 81 incorrectly).
III) UN Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change Definition (as articulated in Art. 164 d), 2004.
IV) UN General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism Definition, 1973 (28th Session/A/9028/1973).
V) UN Measures To Prevent International Terrorism Definition, 1972.
VI) UN General Assembly Report Definition of 1987, 1987 (General Assembly/94th Metting/12/07/87/Repoert: A/42/832).
I need to also add that aside from these 6 which are ALL VALID UN DEFINITIONS, there are 7 others that were submitted and considered in 1987 along with #VI. Not suprisingly they are all just about the same.
So Rose, aside from the other thread, you have another cup of come uppance, enjoy.
Aside from the League of Nations Definition which I spelled out for you, and which by the way is still completely valid unless soemthing has happened with it over the last year or so and I highly doubt that...
There is... SPECIFICALLY VIA THE UN since you are caught up on that for some reason:
I) UN Resolution Language Definition, 1999.
II) UN Academic Consensus Definition , 1988 and coutesy of the UN's then Terror Honcho Alex P. Schmid. It was floated to the world's leading academcs and I believe 81% agreed it was fitting (it was the 80th percentile even if I remember 81 incorrectly).
III) UN Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change Definition (as articulated in Art. 164 d), 2004.
IV) UN General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism Definition, 1973 (28th Session/A/9028/1973).
V) UN Measures To Prevent International Terrorism Definition, 1972.
VI) UN General Assembly Report Definition of 1987, 1987 (General Assembly/94th Metting/12/07/87/Repoert: A/42/832).
I need to also add that aside from these 6 which are ALL VALID UN DEFINITIONS, there are 7 others that were submitted and considered in 1987 along with #VI. Not suprisingly they are all just about the same.
So Rose, aside from the other thread, you have another cup of come uppance, enjoy.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Oh please, you've spent the last few days demonstrating your lack of knowledge about terrorist issues, you really think what you said above bares any resemblance of truth?!
FYI: None of the definitions you listed above have been agreed or incorporated by the UN, they are proposals
As for the 13 conventions (of which 12 are still valid) none define "terrorism" (as I have already said)
Now, what did I say about providing me with sources? Which part of that do you not understand and which part of that translates into "copy out of your old school books because everybody will think that what you did at school is definitely an authority on the subject"? Don't lie to me and tell me you don't know how to use a computer cos you use this site fine and ffs weren't you supposed to be in an "advanced" army!? So, provide me with links to sources or please just shut up
Here's an example of evidence, fully backed up with a source you can authenticate yourself:
Here's another example of evidence backed up this time by the official site of the UN. Now tell me, who would you believe knows more about whether or not the UN has an agreed upon definition - the UN itself, or you who refuses to provide any evidence to back up what you say?
As no doubt you will be reading the UN's official source with interest, you'll also see that it confirms that the definitions you claim are accepted in the UN above are in fact mere proposals. It also confirms what I have been telling you for the last few days: That your knowledge of terrorism issues is not only appalling but probably that way because of your "education"United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said:
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Would you like to explain to me where I said this and how can anyone construe this as paraphrasing
To be fair the only thing cut and dry for you is the spin you attribute to the actions of the IDF. Why would I expect any different from a man who has, in the past-suggested there is no evidence that civilian deaths have arisen as a direct result of the action of the IDF.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
I dont call one post with one sentence and just a link a 'different perspective'-inviting discussion around the issues would be more appropriate do you not think?
You only have to look at one of JCs previous efforts were he did the exact same thing and suggested that forum users dont care about dead jews in a follow up post.
However you look at thats trolling.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I guess I'm just mithering abnout the way that people with a different point of view are made unwelcome here.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'd say that people with a differing point of view who can substantively support that point of view aren't made unwelcome. The doctrinaire and those that post up unsupported assertions (or are unwilling to support their assertions when requested) are questioned.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
...... but only if they're Zionists.
Anyone conforming to the standard lefty "Zionist are scumbags" line, is free to post whatever they like, as long as they can support their assertions with a link or two from Btzelem or some other equally neutral source.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Oh? How did you work that out? But it's the "standard lefty" bit that amuses me...it's merely another way of trying to shut down any discourse that you are either ideologically opposed to, or find unpalatable.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
The more you post on the 'dynamics' of the ME forum the more I realise that you haven't really spent that much time reading this forum have you?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Indeed. Its the most lazy way of debating on this and any other forum. It easier to throw labels than it is to discuss the issues at hand.
Similar threads
