Thread: US Warns Hamas 'Don't Shield Terrorists'

We don't harbour terrorists, we harbour freedom fighters. They harbour terrorists.
[/b]

Bosch and Constant are actually unashamedly defined as being terrorists:

Orlando Bosch is a Cuban exile and former CIA-backed fighter, head of CORU organization, which the FBI has described as "an anti-Castro terrorist umbrella organization".[/b]

He was arrested in Florida for an attack on a Polish freighter with a 57mm recoilless rifle in 1968. Bosch was freed from Venezuelan charges and went to the United States in 1987, assisted by US Ambassador to Venezuela Otto Reich. Bosch was pardoned of all American charges by President George H.W. Bush on July 18, 1990.[/b]

Emmanuel Constant (nicknamed "Toto") is the founder of FRAPH, a Haitian death squad organized in mid-1993 to terrorize supporters of exiled president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.[/b]

in a December 1995 interview with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, Constant threatened to divulge secrets about his relationship with the CIA during the early '90s. After this threat, as well as receiving intelligence that there was a plot to assassinate Constant should he return to Haiti, the Clinton administration ordered the INS to release Constant in May 1996.

He currently lives in Queens, New York. He must check in with the INS every day and is not allowed to make statements regarding Haitian politics.[/b]

(So not only is this guy the organiser of a death squad, it could also be quite reasonably assumed that his threats to go public about the CIA have enabled him to live safely in Queens, which is, again, according to the definition, terrorism.)

The government doesn't even pretend for one second that these men are anything other than terrorists, but because they were helping American interests, it's all good. As long as you're killing Cubans, or Haitians, you will be shielded by the government. Which, of course, is a million miles away from Hamas's stance, 'as long as you're killing supporters of American foreign policy, you will be shielded by the government.'

To be fair issues like that don't seem to be solved in a peaceful and mature way. I mean they tried and failed miserably even after Arafat died,it still didn't change a thing , those 2 are just doomed to have a big middle - east war. Anyway Hamas is the new version of Al-Qaeda.

Anyway Hamas is the new version of Al-Qaeda.
[/b]

Oh for fuck sake, can't you just die already?

<div class='quotemain'>
Anyway Hamas is the new version of Al-Qaeda.
[/b]

Oh for fuck sake, can&#39;t you just die already?
[/b][/quote]
Did I say something wrong?lol

Bosch and Constant, who apparently reside in the USA and haven&#39;t been able to do pretty much anything over the last ten years are pretty weak examples when you have the mujahideen still running around out there. And as far as Nicaragua goes, it&#39;s not clear whether this "international court" even has jurisdiction (and honestly I reject out of hand any body which claims sovereignty over nations), plus I don&#39;t think that the contras, no matter how awful they were, are quite the same thing as a suicide bomber.

But your attempt to distract attention from the issue here -- that Hamas is explicity supporting what is an act of war against Israel -- ain&#39;t gonna work. Why is is that you seem to be entirely unable to condemn the Palestinian government for this? You dance around the corners, but you never quite come out and say it -- and here you attempt to belittle attempts to wake Hamas up to reality by joking about the situation and unleashing unrelated personal attacks against Bush.

Is this the child-President&#39;s last fun little twist before he fucks off back to the frat house? Will the destruction of &#39;Palestine&#39; be the last present he gives to his buddies before he gets back to learning how to ride a bike?[/b]

I mean, am I supposed to take you seriously? Never mind the fact that one of the goals of Bush&#39;s administration has been a two-state solution, it&#39;s clear that you have zero ability to rationally discuss any issue dealing with Bush. I welcome a discussion about this topic with anybody who doesn&#39;t become a raving lunatic whenever the name "Bush" is mentioned.

Bosch and Constant, who apparently reside in the USA and haven&#39;t been able to do pretty much anything over the last ten years are pretty weak examples when you have the mujahideen still running around out there.[/b]

That might excuse it for you, but as far as I&#39;m concerned, it&#39;s a clear double-standard. The government denounced ALL countries which harbor terrorists. The USA harbors terrorists. "You&#39;re either with us, or against us, or...uh...us?" Plus I don&#39;t think comparisons of this sort justify anything. According to that logic, everything bad is relative only on a scale with something far worse, and on that scale, it&#39;s therefore good. Totally ignores what&#39;s actually going on.

And as far as Nicaragua goes, it&#39;s not clear whether this "international court" even has jurisdiction (and honestly I reject out of hand any body which claims sovereignty over nations), plus I don&#39;t think that the contras, no matter how awful they were, are quite the same thing as a suicide bomber.[/b]

Again, relative morality is pointless. By that logic, a guy&#39;s allowed to kill another guy, as long as somewhere else in the world, a different guy rapes and then kills a guy. It&#39;s stupid.

it&#39;s not clear whether this "international court"[/b]

World court, you mean.

even has jurisdiction[/b]

Of course it doesn&#39;t. This is yet another example where a country was allowed to get away with atrocious acts because of universal refusal to comply with any international law. It&#39;s no different to the standards of Israel, Iran, Palestine, Iraq, even North Korea. According to your logic, as long as it&#39;s legal, or at least, as long as law doesn&#39;t apply, anything goes. And that&#39;s great, for you, but I find that notion to be pretty twisted.

But your attempt to distract attention from the issue here -- that Hamas is explicity supporting what is an act of war against Israel -- ain&#39;t gonna work.[/b]

I&#39;ve already clearly reported on Hamas&#39;s desires to shield terrorists, why would I hide something that I have no qualms with discussing? Do a search, it&#39;s already been discussed. You even posted in the topic. In fact, you didn&#39;t complain at all about this anti-Bush disease I&#39;ve somehow been afflicted with, which implies quite clearly to me that I reported the original issue in a perfectly acceptable manner.

Don&#39;t take your lack of short-term memory out on me.

The actual issue news here is that the US has warned a democratically elected government not to shield terrorists. This, to me, sounds like a warning, and even more so because it&#39;s come directly from the mouth of globe&#39;s largest bully.

Why is is that you seem to be entirely unable to condemn the Palestinian government for this?[/b]

Stop leaping to conclusions, your ignorance is almost embarassing. Do a search on this topic.

You dance around the corners, but you never quite come out and say it -- and here you attempt to belittle attempts to wake Hamas up to reality by joking about the situation and unleashing unrelated personal attacks against Bush.[/b]

Once again, you&#39;re there right away with the standard Republican rhetoric "This is all an anti-Bush campaign." Well, if you check the facts, W wasn&#39;t President when these terrorists were harboured, and he wasn&#39;t President when Nicaragua was raped, so he&#39;s got absolutely nothing to do with my point. Yet again, check your facts.

I mean, am I supposed to take you seriously? Never mind the fact that one of the goals of Bush&#39;s administration has been a two-state solution, it&#39;s clear that you have zero ability to rationally discuss any issue dealing with Bush.[/b]

It was a question, designed to provoke discussion, and to announce outright that such a question shouldn&#39;t even be asked, based on my supposed loathing of the boy-wonder, is to stifle an point of view purely because it&#39;s not yours. If you don&#39;t think it&#39;s what the government will do, say that, don&#39;t turn this into a direct personal attack on me, simply because I&#39;ve pointed the hypocrisy of the government you would happily die defending.

And, for the record, I think Bush isn&#39;t capable of doing anything even remotely clever. I think he&#39;s a willing vessel, a useful idiot if you will, who is controlled very strictly by an incredibly slick, and ruthlessly efficient spin machine, operated by Karl Rove and licenced by Dick Cheney. Why on earth would I have animosity for someone who I consider to be genuinely lacking intelligence? I don&#39;t scamper around beating disabled people for kicks, and this utter bullshit that you keep spewing about my issue lying solely with Bush is so facile and academic that I can&#39;t believe someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself would try to use it, not once, but twice, without any reason for doing so other than to stifle dissent.

If you don&#39;t want to discuss the actions of the US, get the fuck out of a topic that&#39;s about the actions of the US. If you don&#39;t like being shown the hypocrisy of your government, do us all a favour, and go let FOX news sing you back to sleep.

The reason he can not condemn them is clear. He is unable to think anything other than "Arab good, Jew bad", so if anything does not jive with that view, it drives him nuts. [/b]

Trolling again. Poor. Once again, trying to bring up your obsession with your view that Tri is a no-good anti-Semite. Give it a rest.

Anyway.....

Harbouring terrorists eh????



*cough* That&#39;d be Gerry Adams MP, suspected member of the Provisional IRA&#39;s army council and suspected commander of IRA forces in Belfast during the 1970s.....terrorist?



*cough cough* Martin McGuinness MP, convicted member of the IRA and caught with 5000 rounds of ammunition and 250lbs of explosives in his car.....yeeeeah.....terrorist.

These guys aren&#39;t just being &#39;harboured&#39;. They&#39;re members of our parliament.

It&#39;s so hard to take the whole &#39;zero-tolerance towards terrorists&#39; approach when there&#39;s so much hypocrisy in our own countries.

I&#39;m pretty worried about the situation with Hamas at the moment. There&#39;s absolutely no way that their hardline stance on refusing to condemn terrorism against Israel is going to do anything to help the Palestinian people. I think the face of growing anti-Islamism and repeated ignorance of Israel&#39;s attacks against civilians, the Palestinian people who managed to get Hamas elected made a grave mistake.

Oh, and I fixed Archer&#39;s question....

Tri, I have a question for you:
If someone from the US commited a terrorist attack against Russia, would Russia be committing a wrong action if they attacked America?[/b]

I have condemned all terrorists, on all sides of all wars. I have never supported terrorist action, ever, nor have I ever condoned the actions or decisions of Hamas.

The fact that you think otherwise illustrates, quite simply, that you want to set me up as some mythical creature, who automatically thinks exactly the opposite of what you think, who you can come and attempt to beat whenever you get bored/lonely/horny.

Quite why, every single time I criticise Israel, I must criticise every other terrorist on the planet, is beyond me, and frankly it takes away dramatically from the point at hand. It&#39;s nothing more than a subversion tactic on both of your parts, because, as we&#39;ve established time and again, you refuse to accept that Israel has ever acted inappropriately.

Once more, your childish tactics of accusing me of anti-Semitism further demonstrates that you&#39;ve got nothing to throw at your pretend arch-nemesis, so instead you&#39;re resorting to even more pathetic subversion tactics.

And look, it&#39;s working. This is what happens when you both do this bullshit, I have to defend whatever mud you&#39;ve thrown, totally side-tracking any kind of reasonable conversation.

Do neither of you get bored?

Seriously did none of that sink in? Like, at all?

If the US invaded/launched airstrikes/whatever against Russia, would Russia be committing a wrong action if they counterattacked?[/b]

This is so transparent it&#39;s laughable, and the contexts aren&#39;t even remotely the same. To draw any comparison between the US and Russia, and Israel and Palestine would be so wildly inaccurate, so I&#39;m afraid I refuse to participate in your loaded little farce.

The question wouldn&#39;t be viable, physical distance, religion, standing armies and nuclear weapons are all parts of the equation for the US and Russia, but not for Israel and the Hamas.

A more viable question would be:

"Since Hamas is shielding terrorist cells, refusing to bring them to justice or cracking down on them in any way, is it right for Israel to take action to stop further attacks?"