Hamas legitimate?

[logroller]

Well, I'd agree with you, but it's a moot point. The Palestinians got Gaza as a part of a peace treaty with Israel. When HAMAS attacked Israel, they voided that agreement, meaning they obviated their separate state deal. Israel is entirely within their rights to reclaim the land, period.

Maybe HAMAS should try, you know, honoring peace treaties.

So is/was hamas legitimate? If they weren't legitimate, then they has no authority to enter into a treaty, let alone be held accountable for breaking it.

[Gaffer]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

hamas is a terrorist organization. It's in their charter. They don't have a sovereign country.

taliban are an affiliate of al qaeda. They don't have a sovereign country.

ISIS are bunch of animals out to conquer the world. They don't have a sovereign country.

Why don't we throw hezbollah in there too. They have something in common with the others, they don't have a sovereign country.

None of them have legitimacy. But the people in sovereign nations that support them are responsible and will be held so.

[fj1200]

We offer opinions on subjects here, day in and day out, and 99% of them we have really no power to make a difference. Why with this thread is it somehow people validating their own opinions? Isn't that pretty much in every thread? It's almost like saying that there is no point to the thread, that people are only offering their meaningless opinions - which is kinda what I thought the point was. I honestly have no idea why you've harped on this from page one. Can people not simply offer their opinions on a matter with offering cures to make some sort of difference?

Is Al Qaeda legitimate? I don't offer an opinion yet - as why bother, as I am powerless to make any kind of difference, no?

It's a red herring because nothing will come of the answer. We can all feel good and say they're not legitimate because, "er'm terrorist," but at the end of the day there is no difference in outcome. The question I've been asking is "now what?" If you don't at least acknowledge that there might be a change in strategy or thinking based on the legitimacy question then that reinforces the red herring status in my mind.

Is AQ legitimate? AFAIK they haven't sought out a governing role, they just have a cause.

[Gunny]

You've been in Gaza? Interesting perspective them I'm sure you have to add. Nevertheless the question is a red herring because it's just people validating their own opinion with absolutely no power to make any difference.

And why would this need to be in the cage other than some anger issues?

What exactly different do you think you are trying to do? Well, besides validate an illogical stance. Once again, lest we forget history, last time I was near Lebanon the Israeli's had kicked the PLO's so THAT far north. They didn't have to let them come back. What those Arabs claiming they are Palestinians have was given to them by those they are trying to destroy. I wouldn't have given them shit, and I'd have run their asses into the Red. In half a heartbeat.

The word "Palestine" is a red herring all unto itself. Me? I'd get tired of getting my ass kicked every time I pulled some shady crap. And raise my children to hate when they don't even know why? Beneath contempt.

[Gunny]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

Sure you can. The people voted a known international terrorist organization in as their government. The people lost their legitimacy then, but are STILL accountable for their actions. I'm not a government nor a nation, but if I go out and commit murder, my ass gets held accountable by higher authority. Correct?

[Gunny]

If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

hamas is a terrorist organization. It's in their charter. They don't have a sovereign country.

taliban are an affiliate of al qaeda. They don't have a sovereign country.

ISIS are bunch of animals out to conquer the world. They don't have a sovereign country.

Why don't we throw hezbollah in there too. They have something in common with the others, they don't have a sovereign country.

None of them have legitimacy. But the people in sovereign nations that support them are responsible and will be held so.

Oh. I see you already said that.

[fj1200]

If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

When did the US gain sovereignty?

What exactly different do you think you are trying to do? Well, besides validate an illogical stance. Once again, lest we forget history, last time I was near Lebanon the Israeli's had kicked the PLO's so THAT far north. They didn't have to let them come back. What those Arabs claiming they are Palestinians have was given to them by those they are trying to destroy. I wouldn't have given them shit, and I'd have run their asses into the Red. In half a heartbeat.

The word "Palestine" is a red herring all unto itself. Me? I'd get tired of getting my ass kicked every time I pulled some shady crap. And raise my children to hate when they don't even know why? Beneath contempt.

All I'm doing is stating that there are different ways to be legitimate and that the question isn't really leading to anything. Logic states that if Hamas is illegitimate because "er'm terrorist" then the Nazis weren't legitimate. I'm willing to state that, no one else has so far.

And I agree totalitarians are beneath contempt.

[Gunny]

When did the US gain sovereignty?



All I'm doing is stating that there are different ways to be legitimate and that the question isn't really leading to anything. Logic states that if Hamas is illegitimate because "er'm terrorist" then the Nazis weren't legitimate. I'm willing to state that, no one else has so far.

And I agree totalitarians are beneath contempt.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but does not the US have a list of "why's" and "why not's" as far as legitimacy is concerned? I will agree about the Nazi's; however, the people that put them in power SUFFERED. They paid the price for blindly following promises without considering them. We can take this as far as you want.

Clash of cultures? You bet. I got attacked by every lefty on a board calling me racist for simply stating Arabs don't think like us. There's no judgement there, just a fact. They'll kill you standing on the sand dune on the left rather than the one on the right because by God ... or Allah ... the one on the left is theirs.

But someone has to draw a line somewhere. They hide behind noncombatants and wage war against them indiscriminately. So we can stand there and do nothing, or stand for something. Someone takes ME hostage? I know the rules. Good luck with that idea, but just saying .... I hope some hard ass Marine kills them, even if I die.

You want to call an international terrorist organization legit? They're not legit. The people that back them and put them in power lost their legitimacy by doing so.

So let's cut to the chase. If there was no contrived hatred and no war, WHO would be out of business?

[fj1200]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but does not the US have a list of "why's" and "why not's" as far as legitimacy is concerned? I will agree about the Nazi's; however, the people that put them in power SUFFERED. They paid the price for blindly following promises without considering them. We can take this as far as you want.

Clash of cultures? You bet. I got attacked by every lefty on a board calling me racist for simply stating Arabs don't think like us. There's no judgement there, just a fact. They'll kill you standing on the sand dune on the left rather than the one on the right because by God ... or Allah ... the one on the left is theirs.

But someone has to draw a line somewhere. They hide behind noncombatants and wage war against them indiscriminately. So we can stand there and do nothing, or stand for something. Someone takes ME hostage? I know the rules. Good luck with that idea, but just saying .... I hope some hard ass Marine kills them, even if I die.

You want to call an international terrorist organization legit? They're not legit. The people that back them and put them in power lost their legitimacy by doing so.

So let's cut to the chase. If there was no contrived hatred and no war, WHO would be out of business?

I'm not sure we need to go very far. If terrorist is your benchmark then we can rattle off quite a few regimes that are not/were not legitimate. If your going to draw the line use it consistently.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure we need to go very far. If terrorist is your benchmark then we can rattle off quite a few regimes that are not/were not legitimate. If your going to draw the line use it consistently.

I am consistent. You like to play dishonest games with words. Not going to work on me. "Terrorist" in the modern definition is a person or people that use terror as a weapon. They wage war on noncombatants because in a stand up fight they'd get waxed. They scare the noncombatants they wage war against. They don't scare those that will stand up to them.

DO not I used the word modern. You on the other hand probably want to go back in time somewhere, as you did with the Nazi's, and judge those people by today's standard. Dishonest. Different world. Different rules. Different reasons.

I asked a question you didn't bother answer. If there is no hatred and/or war, WHO is out of business?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

More circular reasoning to avoid the reality that the truth presents.
Legitimate or not they are terrorist organizations and as such we have Federal laws giving our government specific guidelines in actions we are to take. BAMPUNK ignores those laws and funds some of the terrorists groups. That's called treason but you will use some bull crap circular reasoning to try to prove that it is not.
If it quacks like a duck , walk likes a duck , swims like a duck then it is a chicken according to you because it lays an egg like a duck.
I suggest you stick to using Google like you usually do. .

Note, when terrorist groups that are on our government terrorist list manage to take control of foreign governments it DOES NOT suddenly make them legitimate nor does it serve our interests to appease them as they are still our avowed enemies. A fact that your supposed brilliance ignores!
Elephant in the room would step on you while you thought it STILL wasn't there. -Tyr

[Gaffer]

It all depends on what your definition of "is" is right Bill?

ISIS is a terrorist organization that has taken over a lot of territory and declared themselves a caliphate and sovereign state. Does that give them legitimacy?

[DragonStryk72]

So is/was hamas legitimate? If they weren't legitimate, then they has no authority to enter into a treaty, let alone be held accountable for breaking it.

Irrelevant. If HAMAS was legit, then they broke the peace, Gaza goes back to Israel. If HAMAS isn't legit, then Gaza is a rogue nation, with a mission of genocide against, making Israel 100% justified in occupying them.

[Drummond]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but does not the US have a list of "why's" and "why not's" as far as legitimacy is concerned? I will agree about the Nazi's; however, the people that put them in power SUFFERED. They paid the price for blindly following promises without considering them. We can take this as far as you want.

Clash of cultures? You bet. I got attacked by every lefty on a board calling me racist for simply stating Arabs don't think like us. There's no judgement there, just a fact. They'll kill you standing on the sand dune on the left rather than the one on the right because by God ... or Allah ... the one on the left is theirs.

But someone has to draw a line somewhere. They hide behind noncombatants and wage war against them indiscriminately. So we can stand there and do nothing, or stand for something. Someone takes ME hostage? I know the rules. Good luck with that idea, but just saying .... I hope some hard ass Marine kills them, even if I die.

You want to call an international terrorist organization legit? They're not legit. The people that back them and put them in power lost their legitimacy by doing so.

So let's cut to the chase. If there was no contrived hatred and no war, WHO would be out of business?

I'm unsure whether FJ's rubbish is worth answering in detail. I'm fascinated by his hinted position that the US's Nation State status is open to question (.. his question about the US's sovereignty ..). The hinted position seems to be that the US is somehow comparable to Hamas's own position ??

And FJ claims not to be a Leftie ......

Anyway, I'm mainly replying because I'm curious about the forum where you got attacked by Lefties calling you a racist ? I'm tempted to join it myself to take on some of these characters. Please PM if you've information you want to give me.

I was once a member of a Left-wing forum (a home-grown one in the UK). I managed to last six weeks there before they decided they couldn't take any more of me, & banned me ... and I sometimes wonder how I lasted that long ...

[Gunny]

I'm unsure whether FJ's rubbish is worth answering in detail. I'm fascinated by his hinted position that the US's Nation State status is open to question (.. his question about the US's sovereignty ..). The hinted position seems to be that the US is somehow comparable to Hamas's own position ??

And FJ claims not to be a Leftie ......

Anyway, I'm mainly replying because I'm curious about the forum where you got attacked by Lefties calling you a racist ? I'm tempted to join it myself to take on some of these characters. Please PM if you've information you want to give me.

I was once a member of a Left-wing forum (a home-grown one in the UK). I managed to last six weeks there before they decided they couldn't take any more of me, & banned me ... and I sometimes wonder how I lasted that long ...

If you don't know what forum it was I'm wondering what rock you've been living under? We don't need to go there. Talking about other forums is bad for business.

I guess you might be missing the point. I have no problem with destroying FJ's arguments. Let him talk. He's not making ME look dumb. But at least he tries to make his argument from his POV. He doesn't attack me personally. Remember what this used to be about? Debate? So we disagree? Big deal. I slept fine last night.