1:
yet-another-anon : 19 Apr 2010 2:59:22am
Re: Anon @ 18Apr'10,12:06pm, who wrote:
"Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups. Ergo, it does support terror groups."
It is incorrect to term Hamas, Hezbollah etc. terror groups.
Consider, in neutral language, the definition of theft:
"... the crime of taking the property ... without consent. ... Robbery is an aggravated form ... involving violence or the threat of violence directed against the victim ..."
[answers.com/topic/theft]
Consider, again in neutral language, a particular situation:
Entity-A begins taking the property of Entity-B without their consent, including using violence, resulting in many deaths amongst Entity-Bs (the erstwhile legal owner/occupiers; ELO/Os). Usually, causing death during the commission of a crime is termed murder. This process continues 62+ years long, down to the present.
Almost all of the Entity-As lived elsewhere until shortly before the above-described theft-process began.
Groups attempting to resist such alien invader Entity-As and their associated violent, murdering theft of Entity-Bs' property, groups also attempting to reclaim *their own land* are the actual, true defenders. As proof, I offer the real world, free of the deceit of self-serving propagandists.
2:
Anon : 19 Apr 2010 12:42:51pm
Consider, in neutral language, the following:
That 'theft' in its natural form, requires the unlawful taking of property. And that 'unlawful' requires the existence of a relevant domestic law to be broken.
That regardless of where the people of Entity-A lived prior to the fact, they lived as part of Entity-B at the time of independence.
That when the Entity-A's declared independence from Entity-B, the result was civil war. That Entity-A, through legal act and later military strength, became independent.
That 'independence' and 'sovereignty' were gained by entity-A. And that those terms have legal implications for the land that was taken.
That Entity-B ceased to exist as a nation when it was divided between Israel, Jordan and Egypt. That it no longer existed because it had no government, land or sovereignty.
That as a result of further war, Jordan and Egypt both lost the territory that they held. And later gave up their claims to both regions when making peace with Entity-A.
That Entity-A as the only legitimate government over all regions once held by Entity-B, is the only successor state recognised by the UN.
That Entity-B, as it does not legally exist, cannot legally be at war. And so cannot legally be a defender.
And that even if any of the above was incorrect, it does not stop the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah use terrorist tactics. Which makes them terror groups by default.
apparently censored:
1:
Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, alien invaders.
No, no, a 1000 times no.
Anon: "a relevant domestic law" - no.
Presumably, the hapless, dispossessed ELO/Os are not interested in pettifogging (1 practise legal trickery. 2 quibble or wrangle about trivial points. [POD]). The expression ELO/Os - erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, perfectly describes the pre-existing situation, *before* the Entity-As began mass-infiltrating/invading. The definition of theft perfectly describes the resulting situation, whereby great swathes of ELO/O land are now occupied against the wishes of those ELO/Os, and the dispossession having been carried out by armed force including killing, what may perfectly be described as murdering-theft for soil.
Any unbiased observer can see it; as proof consider that even the greatest supporter refers to 'illegal settlements.'
That should be enough, but more:
Anon: "they lived as part of Entity-B ... when the Entity-A's declared independence from Entity-B, the result was civil war" - no.
What is under discussion was the British Mandate of Palestine, administered by an alien power, which (funnily enough) had tried to limit if not stop Entity-As immigrating. It was when UNGA181 (*non-binding*, "was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947. ... the passage of the partition plan immediately instigated a civil war in Palestine.")
One can posit that any 'civil war' was either by the ELO/Os trying to resist the Entity-A's invasion - legitimate defence, AND/OR the Entity-A's attacking both the authorities and ELO/Os - illegitimate terrorism; as proof see Plan Dalet, Deir Yassin massacre etc..
[257 words, to be continued...]
2:
Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, seeking legitimacy.
Anon: "That Entity-A, through legal act and later military strength, became independent." - no.
Anon, kindly provide substantiation of your assertion: "legal act."
Again, Anon's 'narrative' does not accord with observable facts: "and later military strength."
In part-one, I documented the 'crime-scene,' (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_mandate_of_Palestine) and showed that the vicious lawlessness against the authorities by the Entity-As had begun after the *non-binding* UNGA181 and before 14May'48.
Proof: Einstein wrote a letter dated 10Apr'48:
"When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organizations build up from our own ranks.
I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people."
[lettersofnote.com/2010/03/when-real-and-final-catastrophe-should.html]
Notice the words above the photocopy: "two militant Zionist groups - Lehi and Irgun - as part of an effort to cleanse the area of its Arab population."
Anon's 'military strength' were terrorist gangs.
Those gangs 'became independent' by unilateral declaration - it's not just like robbers, having broken into a property, declare the property to be theirs, it is *exactly* that...
(At least one of Anon or Zing has acknowledged that land may not be legally seized by military action.)
.. and the land illegally seized by Entity-A's terrorism - to this day - prevents the formation of the promised Palestinian state.
[235 words, to be continued...]
3:
Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, more pettifogging.
Anon admits that: "land ... was taken." - OK.
At least that's part of what we can observe in the real world.
Then Anon's 'narrative' discusses various wars, Jordan and Egypt etc. down to: "Entity-A as the only legitimate government over all regions." - no.
The lie is given to this risible nonsense by the so-called 'world community,' *including* the US, all deploying the term 'illegal settlements' in 'occupied territories.'
There are UN rules as to what one may or may not do in occupied territories; both by driving Entity-Bs out and letting Entity-As in, the Entity-As are in breach of these rules. Risking some repetition for effect, being "in breach of these rules" = law-breakers = outlaws, aka criminals. (Some of us *know* this already.)
Anon: "That Entity-B, as it does not legally exist, cannot legally be at war. And so cannot legally be a defender."
Here, I repeat kenj's words: "Oh, please! There has to be at least a pretence of rationality in this discussion column."
IF someone's land is stolen AND they try to reverse that theft THEN they are defenders. Just how obvious?
[198 words, conclusion to come...]
4:
Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, morals and musing.
Anon: "Entity-B, as it does not legally exist, cannot legally be at war."
Q: Who would choose to be?
A: *Only* aggressive villains; wars are started by someone trying to take advantage. A notable reason given (then as now): Lebensraum.
Anon: "And that even if any of the above was incorrect, it does not stop the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah use terrorist tactics. Which makes them terror groups by default."
Me: Oh, really? I do believe we've had this before - and frighteningly similar, all through the last 62+ years. "Us good - them bad!"
As in the invader-aggressor, referring to 'regrettable collateral deaths' - of complete innocents - saying: "Oh, well, that's war."
And yet when the invaded (validly!) object, they're to be called terrorists?
Again, I repeat kenj's words: "Oh, please! There has to be at least a pretence of rationality in this discussion column."
And a not-so BTW: War has been described as 'politics by other means' - or whatever; I don't care for sophistry. The Entity-As failed in their bid to buy their way in, they failed in their bid to sneak in - cf. legitimate resistance by ELO/Os - from day-one - and so, Entity-As went to war (always alleging attack but in fact provoking all conflict) - the alien invader Entity-As are the aggressors - trying to seize land-not-theirs, the situation that still exists.
Violence, for the slow thinkers, is what some people do when they lose the intellectual contest.
[259 words, all for now]
Fazit: Make of it what you will. The AusBC does, and it's called censorship - but worse, it's in favour of criminals, against democracy - they take our taxes then they lie to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment