The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

Enemy Combatant is a term thrown together to justify...

No. It's just a descriptor. That's all.

From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/enemy-combatant

enemy combatant, extraordinary legal status developed by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush (2001–09) that permitted U.S. military authorities to detain indefinitely and without charge individuals so designated and to deny them other rights and protections afforded under the international law of war, including rights guaranteed to prisoners of war by the Third Geneva Convention (1949).

I'm not an American, and not using the term in a Bush way. I'm just saying "enemies" and "in combat." If you want to load the term with special idiomatic meaning, that's up to you. It has nothing to do with the words in the term itself.

[Gary Childress]

Did you vote for Kamala in the end Gary?

I did. Not that I thought Harris would be a great improvement but Trump seemed like a loose cannon, much worse.

Hmm, it looks like it took you the length of one sentence to disagree with yourself. Is that a record or can you pull that trick off in two words?

It's called voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Gary Childress]

Hamas seems to have the view that Israel should not exist. At this point, it would require genocide to make that vision a reality. If that is so, then we can accuse Hamas of being genocidal in intent.

Well, and don't forget the attempt: they actually tried to make it reality. It was they who started the whole war. But also, don't forget the cruelty they've used with both the hostages and with their own people. Lives don't seem to matter to them; deaths seem to be more valuable, even if it's their own people.

However, their actual deeds haven't reached a point anywhere near the definition above.

Every single thing I listed above is something they've actually done, and more. Do I have to show you the picture of a half dozen of them sitting on the dead body of the young woman they raped and murdered in the back of their truck? Just how bad do they have to be before you recognize them as serious about declaring exactly what they want to do?

Israel, however, seems to have a substantial lead in body count.

It depends how you count. If you include having caused the entire war in the first place, and having pushed their own people into the line of fire to serve as human shields, and not letting refugees out of the war zone, the count is actually much higher on Hamas.

So is Hamas genocidal, Gary? Is their preferred slogan, "from the river to the sea," likely to include enough dead Jews to convince you?

It would be genocide if Hamas pulled it off, however, Israel is doing the same thing and two wrongs don't seem like a right. Or are two wrongs a right?

[FlashDangerpants]

What if he's (1) a member of a terrorist organization, or (2) a drug running operation, or (3) a human trafficking operation?

1) That would literally fall under the category of terrorist, enemy combatant, etc. He would be arrested obviously but there may be some legal differences under military law, if it applied.

Note that this is why the Trump administration attempts to classify Tren de Aragua members as “enemy combatants”. The administration has much more freedom in how they treat them. A few hundred were handed over to El Salvador.

And the problem with this is...exactly what?

I have now explained for you what the phrase "enemy combatant" in Jacobi's post means. You are now up to speed. No need to thank me.

I am not American either.

[Immanuel Can]

It would be genocide if Hamas pulled it off, however, Israel is doing the same thing and two wrongs don't seem like a right. Or are two wrongs a right?

No, of course not.

But you realize that, by your above standard, you've made "genocide" out not to be an intention, but merely an outcome? In that case, even the Nazis were not "genocidal," and the Turks weren't "genocidal" against Armenians, because they didn't get to finish the job. Is that a sensible thing to think?

[Gary Childress]

It would be genocide if Hamas pulled it off, however, Israel is doing the same thing and two wrongs don't seem like a right. Or are two wrongs a right?

No, of course not.

But you realize that, by your above standard, you've made "genocide" out not to be an intention, but merely an outcome? In that case, even the Nazis were not "genocidal," and the Turks weren't "genocidal" against Armenians, because they didn't get to finish the job. Is that a sensible thing to think?

I separated genocide into intentions and deeds. Yes. That seems sensible to me.

[Immanuel Can]

1) That would literally fall under the category of terrorist, enemy combatant, etc. He would be arrested obviously but there may be some legal differences under military law, if it applied.

Note that this is why the Trump administration attempts to classify Tren de Aragua members as “enemy combatants”. The administration has much more freedom in how they treat them. A few hundred were handed over to El Salvador.

And the problem with this is...exactly what?

I have now explained for you what the phrase "enemy combatant" in Jacobi's post means.

Since it's got your panties in a bunch, let's change the term to "enemy soldiers," or "agents of the enemy." It all works.

[Immanuel Can]

It would be genocide if Hamas pulled it off, however, Israel is doing the same thing and two wrongs don't seem like a right. Or are two wrongs a right?

No, of course not.

But you realize that, by your above standard, you've made "genocide" out not to be an intention, but merely an outcome? In that case, even the Nazis were not "genocidal," and the Turks weren't "genocidal" against Armenians, because they didn't get to finish the job. Is that a sensible thing to think?

I separated genocide into intentions and deeds. Yes. That seems sensible to me.

Well, here's your additional problem, then: by your standard, you can't call the Israelis "genocidal," because there are still Gazans alive. So their "outcome" was no more "pulled off" than Hamas's. So now, you've made "genocide" a pretty useless term, haven't you?

The truth is much simpler: the Israelis were not "genocidal." They didn't want the war, they didn't start the war, and it would be much better for Israel if they could end the war. Hamas definitely is genocidal in intent, by it's own declarations. They're not shy about that. Israel would never have been in the war if Hamas had not invaded and taken hostages. And if Hamas had given back the hostages, the war would have been over right away. Israel might still have hunted down the kidnappers individually, but they would not have had to invade Gaza, which would have been much easier to sell to the Western press, and would have cost Israel a lot less in danger and lives. And millions of Palestinians would not have ended up dead or homeless.

But Hamas didn't want the war over...and they still don't. They want it to go to the bitter death.

All they have to do to end the war tomorrow is to give back the hostages. They don't even have to surrender the terrorists, because Israel would be quite happy -- indeed, would prefer -- to deal with them individually. But Hamas won't do it.

So which is really genocidal?

[FlashDangerpants]

What if he's (1) a member of a terrorist organization, or (2) a drug running operation, or (3) a human trafficking operation?

1) That would literally fall under the category of terrorist, enemy combatant, etc. He would be arrested obviously but there may be some legal differences under military law, if it applied.

Note that this is why the Trump administration attempts to classify Tren de Aragua members as “enemy combatants”. The administration has much more freedom in how they treat them. A few hundred were handed over to El Salvador.

You were using the term “enemy combatants” deliberately there to mean the same thing that Alexiev and I have been using it to mean - the military non POW status that has fewer rights to not get tortured than any civilian or proper military prisoner - right?

Immanuel Can wants you to change it to something else so that he can feel like the guy who knows most stuff again. On the one hand, maybe the request should be denied because stuff like "Note that this is why the Trump administration attempts to classify Tren de Aragua members as “enemy combatants”. The administration has much more freedom in how they treat them" which obviously make no sense if we change the meanings.

But on the other hand, you know how he gets about feelings of inferiority...

[FlashDangerpants]

And the problem with this is...exactly what?

I have now explained for you what the phrase "enemy combatant" in Jacobi's post means.

Since it's got your panties in a bunch, let's change the term to "enemy soldiers," or "agents of the enemy." It all works.

You are petitioning to change the meaning of what Jacobi wrote to fit your personal fear of learning new things from people you don't like. So I guess we'll see if Alexis wants to grant your needy little request rather than just correct your misunderstanding.

[Immanuel Can]

I have now explained for you what the phrase "enemy combatant" in Jacobi's post means.

Since it's got your panties in a bunch, let's change the term to "enemy soldiers," or "agents of the enemy." It all works.

You are petitioning to change the meaning of what Jacobi wrote...

No. I'm just clarifying a term, as I'm using it. I'm not responsible for AJ...he's responsible for himself.

[Gary Childress]

No, of course not.

But you realize that, by your above standard, you've made "genocide" out not to be an intention, but merely an outcome? In that case, even the Nazis were not "genocidal," and the Turks weren't "genocidal" against Armenians, because they didn't get to finish the job. Is that a sensible thing to think?

I separated genocide into intentions and deeds. Yes. That seems sensible to me.

Well, here's your additional problem, then: by your standard, you can't call the Israelis "genocidal," because there are still Gazans alive. So their "outcome" was no more "pulled off" than Hamas's. So now, you've made "genocide" a pretty useless term, haven't you?

The truth is much simpler: the Israelis were not "genocidal." They didn't want the war, they didn't start the war, and it would be much better for Israel if they could end the war. Hamas definitely is genocidal in intent, by it's own declarations. They're not shy about that. Israel would never have been in the war if Hamas had not invaded and taken hostages. And if Hamas had given back the hostages, the war would have been over right away. Israel might still have hunted down the kidnappers individually, but they would not have had to invade Gaza, which would have been much easier to sell to the Western press, and would have cost Israel a lot less in danger and lives. And millions of Palestinians would not have ended up dead or homeless.

But Hamas didn't want the war over...and they still don't. They want it to go to the bitter death.

All they have to do to end the war tomorrow is to give back the hostages. They don't even have to surrender the terrorists, because Israel would be quite happy -- indeed, would prefer -- to deal with them individually. But Hamas won't do it.

So which is really genocidal?

I stated that Israel is closer to achieving genocide in deed than Hamas is. Is that not true? Neither Hamas nor Israel have achieved it, however, both seem to desire to remove the other from the land, which ultimately means either removal/deportation or otherwise extermination. I mean, some have suggested buying the Gazans out of their land, however, the fact that pressure is being exerted on Gazans to do so makes it dubious in nature also.

[FlashDangerpants]

Since it's got your panties in a bunch, let's change the term to "enemy soldiers," or "agents of the enemy." It all works.

You are petitioning to change the meaning of what Jacobi wrote...

No. I'm just clarifying a term, as I'm using it. I'm not responsible for AJ...he's responsible for himself.

Well I have told you what the well known term "enemy combatant" means. The term AJ used was appropriate for the situation he described, and he appears to understand the well known term that he used correctly.

I am sorry that you didn't understand it, but that's a you problem now.

[Immanuel Can]

I separated genocide into intentions and deeds. Yes. That seems sensible to me.

Well, here's your additional problem, then: by your standard, you can't call the Israelis "genocidal," because there are still Gazans alive. So their "outcome" was no more "pulled off" than Hamas's. So now, you've made "genocide" a pretty useless term, haven't you?

The truth is much simpler: the Israelis were not "genocidal." They didn't want the war, they didn't start the war, and it would be much better for Israel if they could end the war. Hamas definitely is genocidal in intent, by it's own declarations. They're not shy about that. Israel would never have been in the war if Hamas had not invaded and taken hostages. And if Hamas had given back the hostages, the war would have been over right away. Israel might still have hunted down the kidnappers individually, but they would not have had to invade Gaza, which would have been much easier to sell to the Western press, and would have cost Israel a lot less in danger and lives. And millions of Palestinians would not have ended up dead or homeless.

But Hamas didn't want the war over...and they still don't. They want it to go to the bitter death.

All they have to do to end the war tomorrow is to give back the hostages. They don't even have to surrender the terrorists, because Israel would be quite happy -- indeed, would prefer -- to deal with them individually. But Hamas won't do it.

So which is really genocidal?

I stated that Israel is closer to achieving genocide in deed than Hamas is. Is that not true?

No. I don't see any evidence that Israel was even aiming at genocide. I think they never wanted the war at all, in fact. What's your evidence that Israel even started it?

...both seem to desire to remove the other from the land, which ultimately means either removal/deportation or otherwise extermination.

Deportation and genocide are miles apart, of course: one kills you, the other doesn't. But to be fair, Israel doesn't even seem to want deportation; they gave Gaza to the Gazans as independent territory, and even let them elect Hamas to run it, though it was not wise, in retrospect. I think it's obvious that Israel has been desperate to secure a peaceful two-state settlement, and nearly had one. But Hamas was not having that.

"From the river to the sea," Gary. What does that phrase mean? Do you know? It means, "Ethnically cleanse all of Israel, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean."

Ask yourself, Gary: why hasn't Hamas released all the hostages? That's the obvious first move, if Hamas has any interest in peace at all. But it doesn't. It wants war -- ideally, all the Jews dead, but if not, then even more of its own people dead, so the world will hate Israel. Either way, they think they'll win.

You asked how anybody could be supportive of a genocidal regime: now you know.

[Immanuel Can]

You are petitioning to change the meaning of what Jacobi wrote...

No. I'm just clarifying a term, as I'm using it. I'm not responsible for AJ...he's responsible for himself.

Well I have told you what the well known term "enemy combatant" means.

No, you've only told me what your use of it means. But honestly, I really don't much care what you mean. What I mean is what I mean. Take it or leave it...I don't much care, either way.