• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Wants its Hero Spy who Betrayed America to be Allowed to Move to Israel

oneworld2 said:
Of course it is and that's why I have never referred to the attack as a terrorist attack. But not every attack by Palestinian suicide bombers has been against civilians either , as you well knowbut still blanket address the wave of bombings as a terror war




So you support the rocket attacks from Gaza ?


It's always down to interpretations and you could be right and I could be wrong but at lest I am consistant. I set my stall out a long time back when I stated that I think there are 3 types of attacks available

An attack solely on a miltary group which is unquestionably a legitimate act of armed resistance , though I will venture that when these have been carried out by Palestinian terrorist groups you would balk at the idea of applying the same standards

Then there is the attack that aims at military but will inevitably kill large amounts of innocent people. This I refer to as indiscriminate attacks regardless as to who commits the act and indiscriminate attacks can still be deemed illegal under the laws of war.

Then there is the attack that solely aims at civilian targeting which I class as terrorist attack ( the one you cited above for example )

I don't stray from this set up but you people obviously do. I might call an indiscriminate attack differently from others here but generally apply the same standards to all acts. Can you say the same ? Have you ever acknowledged a Palestinian attack as legitimate resistance to occupation ? I don't ever recall one and have seen you back the murder of people that posed no mortal and imminant threat to those that shot them dead from a distance of 100's of metres,

If I am wrong on my interpretation on this I can live with that but at least I remain consistant and don't have to perform the somersaults people like you are forced to perform just because you don't try to apply the same standards
Click to expand...

Ok good. So we can both agree that your analysis is based on your own interpretation, nothing more. It is still wrong, cause your description of an “indiscriminate attack” is a gerrymandering of the term and objectively wrong. The discrimination is in intent. A rocket is fired at a population centre and is incapable of being fired at a military target inside that centre. A bomb targeting a military headquarter is not indiscriminate, it is in fact finely discriminating in targeting a military headquarter. Whether those attacks are illegal or not depend on what the military value of the attack is as perceived by the attacker as measured against the potential civilian collateral damage. Both are subjective and the consequences of the attack are not particularly relevant.

Attacking a military target that unbeknownst to the attacker was jam packed with human shields is not a war crime even though maybe hundreds of civilians were killed. And neither is an attack at the very centre of the British suppression efforts against the Yishuv that were placed purposefully in a civilian centre and where the attackers did what they could to reduce the prospects of civilian casualties.

So good for you, you are consistent. But you are also consistently wrong in your analysis. That’s where someone with better judgment looks to reexamine their own position rather than preening about the moral superiority of consistency.

As for the Palestinians, here is my perspective as an illustration:

1. Suicide bombings are terrorism, war crimes, and, given the objectives of the Palestinian terrorist groups, crimes against humanity.

2. Israel is perfectly justified in deploying troops to protect against those attacks.

3. Palestinians targeting Israeli troops deployed to protect against Palestinian war crimes, with the object of weakening defences and facilitating the continuation of those war crimes, is still not legitimate.

This goes back to the fundamental analogy that it remains illegitimate to start trying to stab someone holding you down if the reason they started holding you down is that you were trying to stab them. Common sense.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
It was a military target. That there were civilian administration does not change that fact.

The "enormous" civilian casualties were exacerbated by people ignoring the warnings. That too is a fact.

Under which law was this a "war crime"?
Click to expand...

He has basically admitted he is wrong but maintaining the position for “consistency” even though it is based on nothing more than his opinion detached from any actual legal analysis.

I suspect that’s the best you are going to be able to get from him.
 
oneworld2 said:
Probably either the Hague Convention or the 4th Geneva Convention seing as the ICRC link is based on a summary of IHL created by Cambridge University. That the attack preceded the 4thGC isn't relevant to how we view that attack today
Click to expand...

Ah, yes... The Oneworld2 time machine.....

No. It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
He has basically admitted he is wrong but maintaining the position for “consistency” even though it is based on nothing more than his opinion detached from any actual legal analysis.

I suspect that’s the best you are going to be able to get from him.
Click to expand...

Oh, I had gathered that.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Ok good. So we can both agree that your analysis is based on your own interpretation, nothing more. It is still wrong, cause your description of an “indiscriminate attack” is a gerrymandering of the term and objectively wrong. The discrimination is in intent. A rocket is fired at a population centre and is incapable of being fired at a military target inside that centre. A bomb targeting a military headquarter is not indiscriminate, it is in fact finely discriminating in targeting a military headquarter. Whether those attacks are illegal or not depend on what the military value of the attack is as perceived by the attacker as measured against the potential civilian collateral damage. Both are subjective and the consequences of the attack are not particularly relevant.

Attacking a military target that unbeknownst to the attacker was jam packed with human shields is not a war crime even though maybe hundreds of civilians were killed. And neither is an attack at the very centre of the British suppression efforts against the Yishuv that were placed purposefully in a civilian centre and where the attackers did what they could to reduce the prospects of civilian casualties.

So good for you, you are consistent. But you are also consistently wrong in your analysis. That’s where someone with better judgment looks to reexamine their own position rather than preening about the moral superiority of consistency.

As for the Palestinians, here is my perspective as an illustration:

1. Suicide bombings are terrorism, war crimes, and, given the objectives of the Palestinian terrorist groups, crimes against humanity.

2. Israel is perfectly justified in deploying troops to protect against those attacks.

3. Palestinians targeting Israeli troops deployed to protect against Palestinian war crimes, with the object of weakening defences and facilitating the continuation of those war crimes, is still not legitimate.

This goes back to the fundamental analogy that it remains illegitimate to start trying to stab someone holding you down if the reason they started holding you down is that you were trying to stab them. Common sense.
Click to expand...

Hehehe , just as I suspected the double standards permeate your post here. Your claim to objectivity is wholly ridiculous. What you have set out is not a standard at all it is a blanket get out of jail card for the side you support and a comdemnation of every act, regardless of the circumstances, for the other based on an obvious personal bias.

It couldn't be more obvious and am I glad this thread has brought it out without any chance of any misunderstandings. Wow! The only thing that might be worth saying now about the King David Hotel bombing is that you too defend it , despite the fact that you label attacks by Palestinians on an occupying force in a completely different light , because it was carried out by Jews. It's just that simple.

I have a set of standards that apply to actions taken that are applied equally REGARDLESS of what religion, nationality , colour or creed the perpetrators happen to be but your are based on nothing but partisan hackery and it's seldom so often seen so starkly imo

Incase you hadn't noticed the Palestinians are under Israeli military occupation/control that is denying them their right to self determination.

Therefore your stance to support the actions of Jewish terror/resistance groups fighting for their self determination and defending their acts against troops but denouncing EVERY act carried out by Palestinian terror/resistance groups in their bid to achieve their right to self determination , including actions against military targets, can only be seen for what it is................. a blatant double standard based on a personal bias. There is no other way to see it

You people and these ridiculous analogies, the must be a school somewhere pumping them out so they can be spewed all over the web to provide a smokescreen for Israeli crimes against the Palestinians

The more accurate analysis would read something like the Israeli has taken over your home and threatens to murder you if you dare to try to enter it. So you try to enter it being forced into a kill or be killed situation and the Israeli cries " they are trying to kill me " without letting on about the reason why . It's pathetic and weak imo and will only fool those who just want to be fooled by it so as to delude themselves they are on the moral side of a fence when they are not.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
He has basically admitted he is wrong but maintaining the position for “consistency” even though it is based on nothing more than his opinion detached from any actual legal analysis.

I suspect that’s the best you are going to be able to get from him.
Click to expand...

I have a set of criteria that applies regardless of who commits an action, your have one based on who it is that carries it out and not what they have done. The bias is obvious

And you will find that all of the HRs groups refer to the rocket attacks from Gaza as indiscriminate attacks in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. So they are not really just my views alone nor lack a legal backing
 
oneworld2 said:
Hehehe , just as I suspected the double standards permeate your post here. Your claim to objectivity is wholly ridiculous. What you have set out is not a standard at all it is a blanket get out of jail card for the side you support and a comdemnation of every act, regardless of the circumstances, for the other based on an obvious personal bias.

It couldn't be more obvious and am I glad this thread has brought it out without any chance of any misunderstandings. Wow! The only thing that might be worth saying now about the King David Hotel bombing is that you too defend it , despite the fact that you label attacks by Palestinians on an occupying force in a completely different light , because it was carried out by Jews. It's just that simple.

I have a set of standards that apply to actions taken that are applied equally REGARDLESS of what religion, nationality , colour or creed the perpetrators happen to be but your are based on nothing but partisan hackery and it's seldom so often seen so starkly imo

Incase you hadn't noticed the Palestinians are under Israeli military occupation/control that is denying them their right to self determination.

Therefore your stance to support the actions of Jewish terror/resistance groups fighting for their self determination and defending their acts against troops but denouncing EVERY act carried out by Palestinian terror/resistance groups in their bid to achieve their right to self determination , including actions against military targets, can only be seen for what it is................. a blatant double standard based on a personal bias. There is no other way to see it

You people and these ridiculous analogies, the must be a school somewhere pumping them out so they can be spewed all over the web to provide a smokescreen for Israeli crimes against the Palestinians

The more accurate analysis would read something like the Israeli has taken over your home and threatens to murder you if you dare to try to enter it. So you try to enter it being forced into a kill or be killed situation and the Israeli cries " they are trying to kill me " without letting on about the reason why . It's pathetic and weak imo and will only fool those who just want to be fooled by it so as to delude themselves they are on the moral side of a fence when they are not.
Click to expand...

The first sentence is comedy gold.

As is the second.
 
oneworld2 said:
I have a set of criteria that applies regardless of who commits an action, your have one based on who it is that carries it out and not what they have done. The bias is obvious

And you will find that all of the HRs groups refer to the rocket attacks from Gaza as indiscriminate attacks in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. So they are not really just my views alone nor lack a legal backing
Click to expand...

Your refusal to understand the attack on the King David Hotel was by definition a discriminate attack along with your repeated statements the Jews involved were "terrorists" (while running from that title when Hamas et all are discussed) underscores the fact you are tainted by your own biases.
 
Fledermaus said:
Your refusal to understand the attack on the King David Hotel was by definition a discriminate attack along with your repeated statements the Jews involved were "terrorists" (while running from that title when Hamas et all are discussed) underscores the fact you are tainted by your own biases.
Click to expand...

Recall I mentioned to you I have never cited the attack on the KDH as a terrorist attack? Is that correct ? Is the de facto acknowledgement that there was a definite military target. My point is that the hotel was also a civilian govt institution and , depending on where you read up , still in part a functioning hotel and thus the likelihood of mass civilian casualties was obvious.

As for the terrorist Jewish group that carried out the attack there is no contradiction, I have told you beofre that the Palestinian factions engage in both legitimate and illegitimate attacks on the citizens/soldiers of the state of Israel.

The same is true of the Irgun and Lehi etc etc they engaged in attacks on military but they also engaed in terrorist actions too. You need to misrepresent me, I understand, but I will just rubbish that every time you try it like I have here.

The biggest contradiction is in your and others none admission of the above and rejection that they should be termed as terrorists too , because they are Jewish. That's the elephant in the room
 
oneworld2 said:
Hehehe , just as I suspected the double standards permeate your post here. Your claim to objectivity is wholly ridiculous. What you have set out is not a standard at all it is a blanket get out of jail card for the side you support and a comdemnation of every act, regardless of the circumstances, for the other based on an obvious personal bias.

It couldn't be more obvious and am I glad this thread has brought it out without any chance of any misunderstandings. Wow! The only thing that might be worth saying now about the King David Hotel bombing is that you too defend it , despite the fact that you label attacks by Palestinians on an occupying force in a completely different light , because it was carried out by Jews. It's just that simple.

I have a set of standards that apply to actions taken that are applied equally REGARDLESS of what religion, nationality , colour or creed the perpetrators happen to be but your are based on nothing but partisan hackery and it's seldom so often seen so starkly imo

Incase you hadn't noticed the Palestinians are under Israeli military occupation/control that is denying them their right to self determination.

Therefore your stance to support the actions of Jewish terror/resistance groups fighting for their self determination and defending their acts against troops but denouncing EVERY act carried out by Palestinian terror/resistance groups in their bid to achieve their right to self determination , including actions against military targets, can only be seen for what it is................. a blatant double standard based on a personal bias. There is no other way to see it

You people and these ridiculous analogies, the must be a school somewhere pumping them out so they can be spewed all over the web to provide a smokescreen for Israeli crimes against the Palestinians

The more accurate analysis would read something like the Israeli has taken over your home and threatens to murder you if you dare to try to enter it. So you try to enter it being forced into a kill or be killed situation and the Israeli cries " they are trying to kill me " without letting on about the reason why . It's pathetic and weak imo and will only fool those who just want to be fooled by it so as to delude themselves they are on the moral side of a fence when they are not.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly not understand or are you just packaging your losing hand and pretending it is something different?

The Hotel bombing was not a war crime. Objectively. You have been pretending it has been through a made up framework that is purely your opinion while pretending it was something other than just your opinion.

Israeli efforts to prevent Palestinian terrorism are legitimate. Palestinian efforts to free themselves up to engage in more terrorism are not legitimate. They had an offer of independence and they rejected it to start a terror war.

This isn’t hard, you just clearly lack the framework to be able to assess it without collapsing back into your nonsense made up framework.

It’s kind if funny at this point.
 
oneworld2 said:
I have a set of criteria that applies regardless of who commits an action, your have one based on who it is that carries it out and not what they have done. The bias is obvious

And you will find that all of the HRs groups refer to the rocket attacks from Gaza as indiscriminate attacks in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. So they are not really just my views alone nor lack a legal backing
Click to expand...

Your criteria are objectively wrong and your attempts to pretend “your” criteria are the law, or even related to the law, have failed miserably.

So keep trying to goalpost shift. You undoubtedly will fail at that too.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Do you honestly not understand or are you just packaging your losing hand and pretending it is something different?
Click to expand...

Nothing of the sort
The Hotel bombing was not a war crime. Objectively. You have been pretending it has been through a made up framework that is purely your opinion while pretending it was something other than just your opinion.
Click to expand...

Nope, be honest. I have referred to it as an indiscriminate attack not a war crime.( at least I don't recall calling it this ) Correct ? Seeing as you are the one making the accusations about my position you are compelled to answer this , right? I have said that indisriminate attacks can constitute war crimes under certain conditions which is true. An indiscriminate attack can target a valid military target AND also knowingly kill a whole load of innocent people and I think that that is what happened at the KDH.

You might disagree and others too, but there is nothing wrong in what I have said and it does have it's roots in the definitions of indiscriminate attacks


Israeli efforts to prevent Palestinian terrorism are legitimate. Palestinian efforts to free themselves up to engage in more terrorism are not legitimate. They had an offer of independence and they rejected it to start a terror war.
Click to expand...

Israel has the right to defend itself , no argument but the Palestinians have the right to free themselves from occupiers that are denying them their right to self determination , just like the British were at the time of the KDH attack . And like the Jewish resistance groups had engaged in both legitimate and illegitimate ( terrorism) acts against occupiers so have the Palestinian resistance groups.

Thus your completely different standards are , and can only be put down to , application of a double standard.

I have also reminded you that you have NEVER ,and I mean NEVER ,acknowledged that the Palestinian " terror war " came after the state terrorism of the IDF in the first months of the Second Intifada had taken the lives of dozens of Palestinians and injured hundreds more. Do they not have the right to respond to the state terrorism visited upon them by the IDF ?
This isn’t hard, you just clearly lack the framework to be able to assess it without collapsing back into your nonsense made up framework.

It’s kind if funny at this point.
Click to expand...

Well, as pointed out, at least my framework is applied universally whereas your own is beset with problems regarding double standards and selecivity and thus is vastly more subjective than my own. That's why your claims of objectivity are hysterical at this point
 
oneworld2 said:
Recall I mentioned to you I have never cited the attack on the KDH as a terrorist attack? Is that correct ? Is the de facto acknowledgement that there was a definite military target. My point is that the hotel was also a civilian govt institution and , depending on where you read up , still in part a functioning hotel and thus the likelihood of mass civilian casualties was obvious.

As for the terrorist Jewish group that carried out the attack there is no contradiction, I have told you beofre that the Palestinian factions engage in both legitimate and illegitimate attacks on the citizens/soldiers of the state of Israel.

The same is true of the Irgun and Lehi etc etc they engaged in attacks on military but they also engaed in terrorist actions too. You need to misrepresent me, I understand, but I will just rubbish that every time you try it like I have here.

The biggest contradiction is in your and others none admission of the above and rejection that they should be termed as terrorists too , because they are Jewish. That's the elephant in the room
Click to expand...

Time to first irrelevant statement?

First sentence.

The fact civilian infrastructure was colocated in the Hotel is irrelevant to the fact it was a Military target.

You can keep bleating that point and it will still not matter.

And the fact multiple warnings were given indicates the civilians were not the target.

You continue to bleat about "Jewish terrorists" while avoiding the mantle for Hamas et al who intentionally target civilians.

Hypocrisy.
 
Fledermaus said:
Time to first irrelevant statement?

First sentence.

The fact civilian infrastructure was colocated in the Hotel is irrelevant to the fact it was a Military target.

You can keep bleating that point and it will still not matter.

And the fact multiple warnings were given indicates the civilians were not the target.

You continue to bleat about "Jewish terrorists" while avoiding the mantle for Hamas et al who intentionally target civilians.

Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

The difference is that that when Palestinian terror groups engage in terrorism or indiscriminate attacks I refer to them as crimes.

When Jewish terror groups ( that you cannot even accept as having existed , hence the inverted commas , dead giveaway ) in indiscriminate attacks you defend them , denying to yourself there was ever any terrorisn from them.

That's the authentic hypocrisy right there
 
oneworld2 said:
The difference is that that when Palestinian terror groups engage in terrorism or indiscriminate attacks I refer to them as crimes.

When Jewish terror groups ( that you cannot even accept as having existed , hence the inverted commas , dead giveaway ) in indiscriminate attacks you defend them , denying to yourself there was ever any terrorisn from them.

That's the authentic hypocrisy right there
Click to expand...

This wasn't an "indiscriminate" attack.

Your inability to understand that is either unintentional lack of understanding or intentional ignorance.

Either way it's a you problem, not a me problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom