Hamas legitimate?

[jimnyc]

I ask this based on a recent story where Jimmy Carter has stated as much.

Suppose it was Al Qaeda? Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Does a terror organization EVER become legitimate? My belief is, once you become such an organized group, and you start murdering people - you can NEVER be legitimate. Not even votes can make it so. Votes don't suddenly make a murderous crew innocent, nor bring back the people they terrorized and killed.

ISIS. Now what if they are voted into office in Iraq? Do we forget what they are doing right now? What about Hezbollah down the road? Islamic State?

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

[Daniyel]

I Just viewed some stuff about ISIS, they are on their way to Israel, and it is pretty obvious that terrorists make pact over mutual goals..it is time to stop this insanity and wipe'em out, completely.
Horrific rape, beheading, slaughtering and mass killing of Christians and Kurdish, getting reinforcement from Muslims all over the world, this must end, every day is a good day to kill terrorist - and the sooner the better.
Warning - Graphic!

[Jeff]

I have noticed jafar has gone missing, y'all don't think he is on his way over there ? Naa he would rather fight the war hiding behind a computer screen typing his lies.

[Gaffer]

There are two types that recognize terrorists as legitimate. Those that support and harbor them and those that live in a galaxy far, far away. Darth Vader killed the evil emperor so he's immediately granted equal status with Yoda and Obi Wan. He done a good thing all is forgiven.

There are the supporters, the perpetually stupid, and the rest of us that want to destroy these insects and everything they stand for.

[fj1200]

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

Define legitimate. :hide: Were the Nazis legitimate?

[jimnyc]

Define legitimate. :hide: Were the Nazis legitimate?

Legitimate - internationally recognized government, not defined as terrorists/murderers, committing genocide...

I suppose we could argue which groups make up those definitions till the end of time. We can argue what defines a terrorist. For the sake of this thread, I think we all know what I mean for the most part - whether groups that are labeled as terrorist organizations around the world - can turn around and be considered at the same time to be legitimate governments around the world. Never mind the nazis and such, 2 different animals and an entirely different discussion.

[Daniyel]

I Think its time for the UN to discuss a vote over international-law of terrorism.
Something like - All UN members must contribute to fight over designated terrorist organizations.

[fj1200]

Legitimate - internationally recognized government, not defined as terrorists/murderers, committing genocide...

I suppose we could argue which groups make up those definitions till the end of time. We can argue what defines a terrorist. For the sake of this thread, I think we all know what I mean for the most part - whether groups that are labeled as terrorist organizations around the world - can turn around and be considered at the same time to be legitimate governments around the world. Never mind the nazis and such, 2 different animals and an entirely different discussion.

Then you've answered my question. The Nazis were not legitimate except that they were recognized internationally. They committed acts of terror and committed genocide in reality whereas Hamas hasn't committed genocide at all and are recognized internationally. You can't say that the Nazis are a different discussion when asking that question, it needs to be asked in historical context. The Nazis sucked, the Khmer Rouge sucked, the Imperial Japanese sucked..., Hamas does suck and they were all legitimate to some extent.

But if you just want to ask a rhetorical question and be validated then...

[Gaffer]

I Think its time for the UN to discuss a vote over international-law of terrorism.
Something like - All UN members must contribute to fight over designated terrorist organizations.

I think the only ones that should be allowed in the UN should be those with actual legitimate elected govts. As it stands now three quarters of the UN members would gladly join hamas if they thought they could get away with it. Only fear of the US and EU cutting off their funds keeps them in line.

[jimnyc]

Then you've answered my question. The Nazis were not legitimate except that they were recognized internationally. They committed acts of terror and committed genocide in reality whereas Hamas hasn't committed genocide at all and are recognized internationally. You can't say that the Nazis are a different discussion when asking that question, it needs to be asked in historical context. The Nazis sucked, the Khmer Rouge sucked, the Imperial Japanese sucked..., Hamas does suck and they were all legitimate to some extent.

But if you just want to ask a rhetorical question and be validated then...

So YOUR answer is that since these others in the past were recognized - therefore current terrorists should be, or are recognized? IMO, historical context means jack shit today. If we didn't learn from our past...

Rhetorical? I think anyone in the world could answer my extremely simple question, and answer with a yes or no, without dredging out the definition before doing so. It's an opinion thread. This has shit to do with any type of validation. You can just as easily disagree with my opinion. Is disagreeing with me also validation? I just don't see the need to always have strict definitions before we are able to entertain threads that are of ones opinion.

I am NOT going to discuss nazis and other groups of the past, just so I can ask a question about current day. Now, if you want to use that as part of your reasoning in your answer, that's cool. If others want to argue what terrorism is, and how the past determines my question, they can have at it too. But my question was simple, and everyone can use their own reasoning in determining their response.

[fj1200]

So YOUR answer is that since these others in the past were recognized - therefore current terrorists should be, or are recognized? IMO, historical context means jack shit today. If we didn't learn from our past...

Disagree but nevertheless it's my answer that the question is moot. Carter can say they're legitimate and you can say that they're illegitimate but the answer doesn't change the situation. If they have the support of the people then they're essentially legitimate. If they are illegitimate and they don't have citizen support then it's immoral to cause civilian casualties. If they are legitimate and have the support of the people then civilians are a valid target a la Tokyo and Dresden. Those may not be correct but decisions don't exist in a vacuum.

If you are right, what do you expect to come of it?

[jimnyc]

Disagree but nevertheless it's my answer that the question is moot. Carter can say they're legitimate and you can say that they're illegitimate but the answer doesn't change the situation. If they have the support of the people then they're essentially legitimate. If they are illegitimate and they don't have citizen support then it's immoral to cause civilian casualties. If they are legitimate and have the support of the people then civilians are a valid target a la Tokyo and Dresden. Those may not be correct but decisions don't exist in a vacuum.

If you are right, what do you expect to come of it?

I don't expect anything to come of it. Hopefully in the long run all terrorists around the world will be dead, but I know that's hoping for too much. I was simply asking members here whether they see Hamas as legitimate. Just because their people support them, that doesn't mean we need to, or the international community.

It's obvious that the UN won't do anything about Hamas. I assume others won't do anything either, unless directly harmed by them. But if they continue on the path they have lead since taking over Gaza? I hope that eventually Israel will destroy them. The people will eventually have to understand that with sending rockets into another country, comes rockets in return. If they want to support the people sending those rockets, then they support the consequences. War is war. I would hope that if Hamas continues, Israel just full force make it so that it's nearly impossible for them to continue.

[jimnyc]

To add onto my original question, and this might sound similar - Is there anyone who does not see Hamas as a terrorist organization?

[fj1200]

[jimnyc]

^^ Your point?