ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Do we really have to discuss whether or not Einstein was always right?

I think it's pretty well established that Irgun was a terrorist organisation. The fact that they perpetrated terrorist attacks should be hint.

Back to the discussion we had before. I found an interesting little story. It's set during the 1982 Lebanon War. As we know, Israel had invaded and occupied southern Lebanon in what was called "Operation Peace of the Galilee."

Quote:

On November 11, 1982, a new method of warfare debuted: the first human bomb. Seventeen-year-old Ahmad Qassir, a Shi'i from southern Lebanon, drove a white Mercedes filled with explosives into the Israeli military headquarters in the Lebanese city of Tyre, killing 141 people. This was the beginning of new era, the inception of a deadly trend of suicide bombings.

source

There seems to be some confusion about the number of victims, and different sources give the number of victims at between 75 and 141.

Nevertheless, I'd like to ask Advocate this question: As this was a military HQ, and the IDF were occupying a foreign country, and there was a conflict in progress, with Palestinians and Israelis pitted against each other - in your opinion, was the attack on the military headquarters legal?

0 Replies

I think that Irgun was similar to groups of colonists here before and during our Revolutionary War, who fought the Brits. There were similar groups in India, and other countries, fighting the British rulers. I think all those groups did terrible things on occasion. Before Israel was formed, the Arabs regularly attacked and murdered Jews. Why haven't you mentioned this?

Israel was forced to invade Lebanon because it was used by the Palestinians as a base for attacks on Israel. Israel subsequently pulled out of Lebanon.

OE, give me your answer, with detailed reasons, to your question. You should be willing to answer any question asked of me.

0 Replies

<sigh>

My answer is: no, the terrorist attack on the Israeli military headquarters was illegal. Just as the Irgun terrorist attack on the British military headquarters.

Your turn.

0 Replies

CI, I haven't said anything about old Europe. Were you dreaming?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

As this was a military HQ, and the IDF were occupying a foreign country, and there was a conflict in progress, with Palestinians and Israelis pitted against each other - in your opinion, was the attack on the military headquarters legal?

Waiting for an answer..........

0 Replies

old europe, You ain't gonna get one. What you will get are obfuscations and diversions.

0 Replies

OE, don't ask me rhetorical questions to make your points. Just make your points, which are almost always wrong, and I will, or will not, reply.

0 Replies

Keep in mind that Einstein was a pacifist. Thus, he was bound to criticize Irgun, or any similarly-acting organization.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OE, don't ask me rhetorical questions to make your points. Just make your points, which are almost always wrong, and I will, or will not, reply.

It's not a rhetorical question. My point is that terrorism is illegal, no matter which side or party commits an act of terrorism.

You, on the other hand, stated that terrorism is legal, under certain circumstances. One qualifier you added was that an attack on a military HQ would make such an act of terrorism legal. Another qualifier was that the military HQ was one of an occupying force rather than some kind of legitimate, elected government. And a third qualifier was that some kind of conflict was in progress. (I'm paraphrasing here, but we all can easily go back and look at your statement.)

Now, I'm giving you an example of a terrorist attack on a military HQ of an occupying force during an ongoing conflict.

According to what you have said before, that kind of attack should be legal. Would you agree?

0 Replies

OE, you are interested in whether something or the other is legal. Where do we go to find the laws being violated?

0 Replies

I'm not asking you to quote me some laws, I'm asking about your opinion.

You really seem to have considerable problems stating your opinion, Advocate. Must be a recent thing.

0 Replies

Advocate: Where do we go to find the laws being violated?

Obfuscation/diversion.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

old europe wrote:
As this was a military HQ, and the IDF were occupying a foreign country, and there was a conflict in progress, with Palestinians and Israelis pitted against each other - in your opinion, was the attack on the military headquarters legal?

Waiting for an answer..........

0 Replies

You know, Advocate, you didn't seem to be all shy and have a problem with the term "legal" when you said that the Irgun attack on the King David Hotel was legal. Should we have asked you what laws you based you opinion on? Or do you have a problem answering the question because the situation in the Tyre bombing was reverted, and it was an Israeli military HQ?

0 Replies

OE, CI, you deemed certain acts as being illegal. What body of law are you relying on in your determinations?

0 Replies

Advocate, Don't you understand what it means when asked "in your opinion?"

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OE, CI, you deemed certain acts as being illegal. What body of law are you relying on in your determinations?

Advocate, you deemed the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel as legal. What body of law are you relying on in your determination?

0 Replies

Can you quote what I said?

0 Replies

Sure.

Advocate wrote:

When the hotel was attacked, there was an internal war in progress, with the Jews and Brits pitted against each other, in an area with no recognized country. Thus, the attack on the military headquarters was legal.

(emphasis added)

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know