Well that worked out well!

[Deleted member 63160]

Lance Corporal Wrong Hangar is ready to accept his new anus shortly I feel.
Please tear it gently Mr Searle.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

I'm getting an overpowering sense of déjà vu.

Are you on the right subject? The Groundhog subject is a few subjects down.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I'm getting an overpowering sense of déjà vu.

Are you on the right subject? The Groundhog subject is a few subjects down.

I'm glad my posts make such a lasting impression on you coathanger.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

Therefore by your definition

I never defined anything.

I asked you, do you consider hamas to be a terrorist organisation.

Yes/No.

I await with baited breath reams of inconsequential arguments and wriggling, then you'll just disappear (again).

You also use the "affirming the consequent" claim again when I suggest that the election of a government is not sufficient or acceptable reason to punish a whole nation.

If you collectively punish a people, that's tantamount to a humanitarian crime.

You are correct, you are instead begging the question, with a dash of affirming the consequent.

Looks like RH's argumentative formulas have received a software upgrade.

Your making some very vague statements which leave me completely baffled as to your arguments.
You asked the question: "Do I believe that an organisation that targets civilians and is committed to the destruction of Israel as a terrorist organisation?" Therefore, that must be your definition of a terrorist organisation.

Well I would answer that any organisation that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist organisation. So that must apply to both Hamas and Israel.
The qualifying clause about being committed to the destruction of Israel is your way of eliminating any other organisation fom the possibility of being a terrorist organisation. Therefore, you have put your definition on the label. I don't agree with your definition.

The rest of your comments appear to be a trifle confusing: bated breath, inconsequential arguments, wriggling, disappearances, etc. If I don't respond as quickly as you would like, well sorry about that. It is the consequence of a chatroom type conversation.
Can you try to discuss this calmly without recourse to vague inferences?

You suggest that I'm "correct," but I'm "instead begging the question, with a dash of affirming the consequent".
What kind of gibberish is that? How can I be correct, and begging a question, and affirming the consequent. Surely at least one of those conditions must be false. Or should I suggest that your providing the contrapositive of "affirming the consequent."
Sounds like your doing the inconsequential arguments and wriggling.
Then the remainder of your comments are equally baffling. Could you help me out with an explanation, but only if it is worthy of an explanation.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

Why am I being given new nicknames? Coathanger, Lance Coporal Wrong Hangar, Mr Searle, RH, Lifesagasman and some other vague suggestions.
I am me and I've never been anybody else.
Is this some kind of initiation that newbies have to endure?
What nomally happens, accept a new nickname, respond by using other new nicknames to others, refuse to accept any new nickname and insist on the one I've chosen?

Is this some kind of gladiatorial style of discussion? In which case, I'm gone.

 

[collisioni]

what about peter perfection ? I wouldn't worry about a few names, you ain't that weak are you ? Trouble is nobody can win with an argument that's got no support or doesn't mean a whole tin of beans, lol.

 

[jockscott]

Surely all governments have a political wing and a military wing. You don't normally negotiate with the military wing, but you do with the political wing. .

The big problem out there for Hamas is that the military side of it won't listen to the political side (ie government) of Hamas. Even if the Palestinian government negotiated a ceasefire, it's doubtful if the fighters/terrorists on the ground would recognise it. (I'm basing this on previous ceasefire agreements) Hamas are that stupid , they can't see the woods for the trees. They secrete weapons in schools and close to hospitals, then wonder why the Israelis target them. As has already been said earlier, why don't they place their rocket launchers away from civilians??

 

[collisioni]

round and round in circles. Just like them

Surely all governments have a political wing and a military wing. You don't normally negotiate with the military wing, but you do with the political wing. .

The big problem out there for Hamas is that the military side of it won't listen to the political side (ie government) of Hamas. Even if the Palestinian government negotiated a ceasefire, it's doubtful if the fighters/terrorists on the ground would recognise it. (I'm basing this on previous ceasefire agreements) Hamas are that stupid , they can't see the woods for the trees. They secrete weapons in schools and close to hospitals, then wonder why the Israelis target them. As has already been said earlier, why don't they place their rocket launchers away from civilians??

 

[JBR]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Just words that determine the viewpoint of the observer.

Accepting that hamas are, in fact, freedom fighters rather than terrorists, may I ask what 'freedoms' they are fighting for?

The freedom to lob missiles at Israel without any response?

The freedom to scuttle through secret tunnels to bomb Israel?

The freedom to take control of Israel and convert all the Jews to muslims?

 

[Norcon]

You'll also note that the blockade was because Hamas was elected and for no other reason, at the time. That's justified?

You must be rouge hamsters brother, inane arguments that have nothing to do with fact.

Hamas was firing rockets before they were elected, why, I can't possibly imagine why isreal would blockade the country when an organization that wishes to destroy isreal is elected.

Jews gonna jew.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more precise;
"the blockade was tightened because Hamas was elected".

The reason was contained in that same article:

Israeli government officials now acknowledge the food restrictions were partly intended to put pressure on Hamas by making the lives of people in Gaza difficult, says the BBC's Jon Donnison in Gaza City

To punish the people was the reason for tightening the blockade when Hamas was elected.
If you collectively punish a people, that's tantamount to a humanitarian crime. It's probably also counter-productive and encourages further emnity.

It is obvious that the two sides are both warring factions and nothing short of a real and lasting settlement will end the contiuous circle of violence.

The 'inherent' hatred of each other is surely born of their shared history and continuous violence breeds more violence. I suspect that only by going back into the historical situation and resolving those historical problems, possibly beginning with the original Balfour Declaration, will any possible real peace be found.

Hamas isn’t looking to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel.
Before you comment any further on the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, you really have to read the charter upon which the terrorist group Hamas was founded.....
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Just a few excerpts...

"Praise be unto Allah, to whom we resort for help, and whose forgiveness, guidance and support we seek"

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees."

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement"

"O true believers, contract not an intimate friendship with any besides yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you. They wish for that which may cause you to perish: their hatred hath already appeared from out of their mouths"

 

[collisioni]

sounds ok to me, then there is only one pest

 

[JBR]

Hamas isn’t looking to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel.
Before you comment any further on the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, you really have to read the charter upon which the terrorist group Hamas was founded.....
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Just a few excerpts...

"Praise be unto Allah, to whom we resort for help, and whose forgiveness, guidance and support we seek"

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees."

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement"

"O true believers, contract not an intimate friendship with any besides yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you. They wish for that which may cause you to perish: their hatred hath already appeared from out of their mouths"

Quite an eye-opener.

Who coined the epithet: The Religion of Peace? Surely, they were being sarcastic.

 

[ellal]

Accepting that hamas are, in fact, freedom fighters rather than terrorists, may I ask what 'freedoms' they are fighting for?

A state of their own on land that belongs to them?

I believe that was the goal of Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang in the forties...

They were called terrorists then

 

[collisioni]

Whatever it was they wanted then didn't work with terror methods , why would it work now ? As stated before primitive minds

 

[ellal]

Still no Israeli apologist here will say if they have visited Gaza or not...

I wonder why?