The Democrat Party Hates America

[FlashDangerpants]

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).

So here we go again I guess.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ahem

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

No it doesn't

[Immanuel Can]

So here we go again I guess.

No, we're done. There's nothing more to debate with you.

[Immanuel Can]

Ahem

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

No it doesn't

I'd ask "which process," but you don't know.

No point in drilling a hole in water.

[Gary Childress]

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?

Israel didn't start the shooting, if we stick to a starting point as the day the rockets were fired and Hamas crossed into Israel. However, Gaza is not Israel's land and Gazans have not been able to develop their land. Just before the shooting started there were water shortages. It's difficult to live without water.

...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.

Genocide and removal of people from their lands seem to have a connection. The Nazis started off deporting Jews. It's not that they wanted them dead just to be dead, they wanted them out of Germany. Other countries didn't want to take them in, so, having nowhere to send them, they sent them to concentration camps to get them out of their homes.

"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.

the "river to the sea" is as much a call to genocide as any other call to remove people from a land. Had Jews willingly left, Hamas would have been happy and non-genocidal. But no one expects all of Israel to pack up and leave. Why should we expect Gazans to? They were there longer. I mean, I'm happy to see Israel defend itself and hope Israel continues to exist, but ultimately, I don't see a leg to stand on in an argument with Gazans over their land. It seems to me that if Israel wants to remove Gazans, then they are morally opening themselves up to similar treatment someday. Why would I want Israel to dig their own potential future grave?

[FlashDangerpants]

So here we go again I guess.

No, we're done. There's nothing more to debate with you.

Indeed, your grasp of language is on a level with Age's and you reserve the special right to mean anything at all by any phrase. Debate isn't really something you could ever manage.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ahem

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

No it doesn't

I'd ask "which process," but you don't know.

No point in drilling a hole in water.

Henry already supplied the details of Federal due process in the immigration courts system.
By definition that is due process that isn't for citizens.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... west/E.pdf

[mickthinks]

I don't much care, either way.

… about truth, honesty, the law, human rights, other people’s freedom, making sense …

lol. We know, Manny; we know.

[Immanuel Can]

Israel didn't start the shooting, if we stick to a starting point as the day the rockets were fired and Hamas crossed into Israel.

Well, if you want to keep going back, it's ultimately the Pharaoh of Egypt's fault for releasing his slaves to wander in the desert. But that might be a bit silly.

The truth is that Israel owned the territory you call Gaza from well before 1,000 BC, and continuously until AD 70, when the nation was officially smashed by the Romans; but Jews remained on the land throughout the modern era, until Israel was officially reconsituted in 1948. Jews were removed from the area we now call "Gaza" only by Israel itself, in order to give the land to the Palestinians, in In May 1994, following the Palestinian-Israeli agreements known as the Oslo Accords. By generous estimate, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" before 1834, when the Peasants' Revolt for the first time established that identity.

A little history helps a lot. What you may think is the case is decidedly not the case. Otherwise, why would you assume...

However, Gaza is not Israel's land

At what time in history? It certainly was, at one time, and for much longer, from much older, than it was ever in "Palestinian" hands.

Just before the shooting started there were water shortages.

Actually, Gaza was perfectly capable of taking care of its own needs, including water, sewage, and development projects...if they hadn't already been robbed by Hamas in order to buy rockets and tunnels instead. Hamas has an annual budget of 2 billion dollars, and has stolen countless millions more from Gazans. The New York Times figures Hamas skimmed a further billion from UN aid. No part of that can be blamed on Israel. Gaza had home rule; why did they pick Hamas to rule them?

the "river to the sea" is as much a call to genocide as any other call to remove people from a land.

So you're in favour of ethnic cleansing, so long as they promise only to deport, not to kill?

But no one expects all of Israel to pack up and leave.

Hamas does.

Why should we expect Gazans to?

We don't, and Israel didn't. That's why they gave them their own homeland.

[/quote]It seems to me that if Israel wants to remove Gazans, then they are morally opening themselves up to similar treatment someday. Why would I want Israel to dig their own potential future grave?[/quote] They didn't want, or try, to move the Gazans. They didn't want the war, either. But Hamas started it, Hamas is keeping it going, and only Hamas can shut it down...and they simply won't. Even the Gazans are now sick of Hamas, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c175z14r8pro and want them gone. But it's too late: they're entrenched, and they won't leave. And they want either Israel dead, or all their own people dead, so the world will hate Israel. So death serves their turn.

Hamas is the genocidal regime...genocidal against Israel, and totally indifferent to the suffering and death of their own people. Even Gazans are saying so. Find somebody who supports Hamas, and you find somebody who supports genocide.

[Immanuel Can]

Debate isn't really something you could ever manage.

No, you're just boring and silly. And I only have so many hours in a day.

[Gary Childress]

Israel didn't start the shooting, if we stick to a starting point as the day the rockets were fired and Hamas crossed into Israel.

Well, if you want to keep going back, it's ultimately the Pharaoh of Egypt's fault for releasing his slaves to wander in the desert. But that might be a bit silly.

The truth is that Israel owned the territory you call Gaza from well before 1,000 BC, and continuously until AD 70, when the nation was officially smashed by the Romans; but Jews remained on the land throughout the modern era, until Israel was officially reconsituted in 1948. Jews were removed from the area we now call "Gaza" only by Israel itself, in order to give the land to the Palestinians, in In May 1994, following the Palestinian-Israeli agreements known as the Oslo Accords. By generous estimate, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" before 1834, when the Peasants' Revolt for the first time established that identity.

A little history helps a lot. What you may think is the case is decidedly not the case. Otherwise, why would you assume...

However, Gaza is not Israel's land

At what time in history? It certainly was, at one time, and for much longer, from much older, than it was ever in "Palestinian" hands.

Just before the shooting started there were water shortages.

Actually, Gaza was perfectly capable of taking care of its own needs, including water, sewage, and development projects...if they hadn't already been robbed by Hamas in order to buy rockets and tunnels instead. Hamas has an annual budget of 2 billion dollars, and has stolen countless millions more from Gazans. The New York Times figures Hamas skimmed a further billion from UN aid. No part of that can be blamed on Israel. Gaza had home rule; why did they pick Hamas to rule them?

the "river to the sea" is as much a call to genocide as any other call to remove people from a land.

So you're in favour of ethnic cleansing, so long as they promise only to deport, not to kill?

But no one expects all of Israel to pack up and leave.

Hamas does.

Why should we expect Gazans to?

We don't, and Israel didn't. That's why they gave them their own homeland.

It seems to me that if Israel wants to remove Gazans, then they are morally opening themselves up to similar treatment someday. Why would I want Israel to dig their own potential future grave?

They didn't want, or try, to move the Gazans. They didn't want the war, either. But Hamas started it, Hamas is keeping it going, and only Hamas can shut it down...and they simply won't. Even the Gazans are now sick of Hamas, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c175z14r8pro and want them gone. But it's too late: they're entrenched, and they won't leave. And they want either Israel dead, or all their own people dead, so the world will hate Israel. So death serves their turn.

Hamas is the genocidal regime...genocidal against Israel, and totally indifferent to the suffering and death of their own people. Even Gazans are saying so. Find somebody who supports Hamas, and you find somebody who supports genocide.
[/quote]

We can't go back and pick an arbitrary date to assign ownership to a piece of land because many peoples have been all over the place. However, we can start from the present and go forward and say that Israel now has a right to exist. That of course sets a dangerous precedent for would be conquerors to do the deed while they can get away with it and hope for tomorrow's spoils. So that's a reason the world needs to guard against aggressive behavior. We don't live in a world bequeathed to anyone by God. The world contains us all and we cannot rely on divine ordinances or past histories to grant rights to conquest or takeover. (At least not if we want to world to survive for much longer. Nuclear proliferation makes the world more dangerous by the day and humanity can no longer approach things with reckless regard.

[FlashDangerpants]

Debate isn't really something you could ever manage.

No, you're just boring and silly. And I only have so many hours in a day.

If only we had some way to know what you mean when you use words like "day".

[Immanuel Can]

Israel didn't start the shooting, if we stick to a starting point as the day the rockets were fired and Hamas crossed into Israel.

Well, if you want to keep going back, it's ultimately the Pharaoh of Egypt's fault for releasing his slaves to wander in the desert. But that might be a bit silly.

The truth is that Israel owned the territory you call Gaza from well before 1,000 BC, and continuously until AD 70, when the nation was officially smashed by the Romans; but Jews remained on the land throughout the modern era, until Israel was officially reconsituted in 1948. Jews were removed from the area we now call "Gaza" only by Israel itself, in order to give the land to the Palestinians, in In May 1994, following the Palestinian-Israeli agreements known as the Oslo Accords. By generous estimate, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" before 1834, when the Peasants' Revolt for the first time established that identity.

A little history helps a lot. What you may think is the case is decidedly not the case. Otherwise, why would you assume...

However, Gaza is not Israel's land

At what time in history? It certainly was, at one time, and for much longer, from much older, than it was ever in "Palestinian" hands.

Just before the shooting started there were water shortages.

Actually, Gaza was perfectly capable of taking care of its own needs, including water, sewage, and development projects...if they hadn't already been robbed by Hamas in order to buy rockets and tunnels instead. Hamas has an annual budget of 2 billion dollars, and has stolen countless millions more from Gazans. The New York Times figures Hamas skimmed a further billion from UN aid. No part of that can be blamed on Israel. Gaza had home rule; why did they pick Hamas to rule them?

the "river to the sea" is as much a call to genocide as any other call to remove people from a land.

So you're in favour of ethnic cleansing, so long as they promise only to deport, not to kill?

But no one expects all of Israel to pack up and leave.

Hamas does.

Why should we expect Gazans to?

We don't, and Israel didn't. That's why they gave them their own homeland.

It seems to me that if Israel wants to remove Gazans, then they are morally opening themselves up to similar treatment someday. Why would I want Israel to dig their own potential future grave?

They didn't want, or try, to move the Gazans. They didn't want the war, either. But Hamas started it, Hamas is keeping it going, and only Hamas can shut it down...and they simply won't. Even the Gazans are now sick of Hamas, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c175z14r8pro and want them gone. But it's too late: they're entrenched, and they won't leave. And they want either Israel dead, or all their own people dead, so the world will hate Israel. So death serves their turn.

Hamas is the genocidal regime...genocidal against Israel, and totally indifferent to the suffering and death of their own people. Even Gazans are saying so. Find somebody who supports Hamas, and you find somebody who supports genocide.

We can't go back and pick an arbitrary date to assign ownership to a piece of land because many peoples have been all over the place.[/quote]
It's not arbitrary. It's history. We know who was there, when, and for how long, because the Middle East has been a high-traffic area, historically speaking. It turns out to be very, very relevant, in fact.

However, we can start from the present and go forward and say that Israel now has a right to exist.

Certainly. But why would we abandon the past, since we also know it?

...the world needs to guard against aggressive behavior.

That's the problem: the world didn't guard against Hamas. They're still not. And they were, and are, certainly being aggressive. What else can you call torturing and murdering hostages, while making your own people human shields in a war they don't want?

We don't live in a world bequeathed to anyone by God.

Well, I certainly think that's the only place the world could even be "bequeathed" from. Certainly, if God doesn't give us the world, then the world is a wide-open forum for anybody to do anything, and neither you nor I has anything at all to say about it, because we're just another meaningless pawn in a wide-open field governed by nothing but raw power dynamics. The powerful win, and the powerless lose, and nobody can even protest, because no grounds of protest can be found.

If nobody has a right to anything in the Middle East, then what gives the Gazans any right to it? And if nobody has a right to survive, what gives either side the right to survive...and America any right to survive, for that matter?

You're going down a long, dark corridor...not solving the issue, Gary.

[Gary Childress]

Well, if you want to keep going back, it's ultimately the Pharaoh of Egypt's fault for releasing his slaves to wander in the desert. But that might be a bit silly.

The truth is that Israel owned the territory you call Gaza from well before 1,000 BC, and continuously until AD 70, when the nation was officially smashed by the Romans; but Jews remained on the land throughout the modern era, until Israel was officially reconsituted in 1948. Jews were removed from the area we now call "Gaza" only by Israel itself, in order to give the land to the Palestinians, in In May 1994, following the Palestinian-Israeli agreements known as the Oslo Accords. By generous estimate, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" before 1834, when the Peasants' Revolt for the first time established that identity.

A little history helps a lot. What you may think is the case is decidedly not the case. Otherwise, why would you assume...

At what time in history? It certainly was, at one time, and for much longer, from much older, than it was ever in "Palestinian" hands.
Actually, Gaza was perfectly capable of taking care of its own needs, including water, sewage, and development projects...if they hadn't already been robbed by Hamas in order to buy rockets and tunnels instead. Hamas has an annual budget of 2 billion dollars, and has stolen countless millions more from Gazans. The New York Times figures Hamas skimmed a further billion from UN aid. No part of that can be blamed on Israel. Gaza had home rule; why did they pick Hamas to rule them?


So you're in favour of ethnic cleansing, so long as they promise only to deport, not to kill?
Hamas does.
We don't, and Israel didn't. That's why they gave them their own homeland.

It seems to me that if Israel wants to remove Gazans, then they are morally opening themselves up to similar treatment someday. Why would I want Israel to dig their own potential future grave?

They didn't want, or try, to move the Gazans. They didn't want the war, either. But Hamas started it, Hamas is keeping it going, and only Hamas can shut it down...and they simply won't. Even the Gazans are now sick of Hamas, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c175z14r8pro and want them gone. But it's too late: they're entrenched, and they won't leave. And they want either Israel dead, or all their own people dead, so the world will hate Israel. So death serves their turn.

Hamas is the genocidal regime...genocidal against Israel, and totally indifferent to the suffering and death of their own people. Even Gazans are saying so. Find somebody who supports Hamas, and you find somebody who supports genocide.

We can't go back and pick an arbitrary date to assign ownership to a piece of land because many peoples have been all over the place.

It's not arbitrary. It's history. We know who was there, when, and for how long, because the Middle East has been a high-traffic area, historically speaking. It turns out to be very, very relevant, in fact.

However, we can start from the present and go forward and say that Israel now has a right to exist.

Certainly. But why would we abandon the past, since we also know it?

...the world needs to guard against aggressive behavior.

That's the problem: the world didn't guard against Hamas. They're still not. And they were, and are, certainly being aggressive. What else can you call torturing and murdering hostages, while making your own people human shields in a war they don't want?

We don't live in a world bequeathed to anyone by God.

Well, I certainly think that's the only place the world could even be "bequeathed" from. Certainly, if God doesn't give us the world, then the world is a wide-open forum for anybody to do anything, and neither you nor I has anything at all to say about it, because we're just another meaningless pawn in a wide-open field governed by nothing but raw power dynamics. The powerful win, and the powerless lose, and nobody can even protest, because no grounds of protest can be found.

If nobody has a right to anything in the Middle East, then what gives the Gazans any right to it? And if nobody has a right to survive, what gives either side the right to survive...and America any right to survive, for that matter?

You're going down a long, dark corridor...not solving the issue, Gary.
[/quote]

This is wearing me out. And the misunderstandings and abuses of history are getting to be too much for me to keep addressing. If you go back and read what I've written, I've covered everything already.

[Alexiev]

No, we don't. They're just different categories. But some people are both, expecially among the people being deported right now, so you can choose your term.

You seem to think you understand what terrorists think and feel.

Nope. I just understand words, and what they refer to.

"Terrorist" is a different category from "criminal" and "combatant." But all three can overlap, of course.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether terrorists would prefer to be known as "criminals" or "enemy combatants", or whether these labels would encourage or discourage terrorism. Remember Bobby Sands?