In incredible Irony, italian pro gaza/hamas activist killed by even more extreme muslim sect

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Sure it does, it means maybe people will think twice about helping terrorists/terrorist supported governments when there is a danger of the terrorists of said terrorists/terrorist supported governments killing them.

There's gotta be a "Yo dawg.." joke in there somewhere.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:If you considered your opinions in even the slightest you would never say that it was a warning to people. That makes no sense.

As long as the The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades exist as part of Hamas, they will be at least complicit in Terrorism.

ShumaGorath wrote:That inference was just your tone. What the issue here is is what you and matty directly said.

Yes, working with terrorist organizations is inherently dangerous. I would think that was common sense.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Sure it does, it means maybe people will think twice about helping terrorists/terrorist supported governments when there is a danger of the terrorists of said terrorists/terrorist supported governments killing them.

So I'm not taking crazy pills today.

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:If you considered your opinions in even the slightest you would never say that it was a warning to people. That makes no sense.

As long as the The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades exist as part of Hamas, they will be at least complicit in Terrorism.

Cool. So now we're backpedaling? Now their complicit? Was the U.S. government complicit for working with the people who perpetrated the mai lai massacre? Is the CIA a terrorist organization for funding and equipping extremist groups in Iraq and afghanistan? Hell, is china a terrorist government because it legitimatly and commonly commits acts of terrorism against its own people?

I mean, I'm sure this is a special case because the Canadian government said so. But honestly, try to consider things on the periphery of what the EU tells you.

Yes, working with terrorist organizations is inherently dangerous. I would think that was common sense.

Yes, I'm sure working with meaningless war on terror era buzzwords is dangerous. I'll tell that to the oil workers living in saudi arabia the next time they deal with the police who are "terrorists".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Sure it does, it means maybe people will think twice about helping terrorists/terrorist supported governments when there is a danger of the terrorists of said terrorists/terrorist supported governments killing them.

There's gotta be a "Yo dawg.." joke in there somewhere.

So when a U.S. aid worker is killed it should be a warning because we were propping up Mubarak? Should we avoid dealing with Pakistan entirely? They complicity support terrorism and are a military ally receiving immense amounts of aid.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:Cool. So now we're backpedaling? Now their complicit?

Nope, not backpedaling.

They're complicit in terrorism, which makes them guilty of being involved with terrorism, which makes them terrorists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, I'm sure working with meaningless war on terror era buzzwords is dangerous. I'll tell that to the oil workers living in saudi arabia the next time they deal with the police who are "terrorists".

You act as if you think I like the fact that the US is so friendly with Saudi Arabia.

Also, "Terrorist Organization" has a meaning independent of the War on Terror.

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Cool. So now we're backpedaling? Now their complicit?

Nope, not backpedaling.

They're complicit in terrorism, which makes them guilty of being involved with terrorism, which makes them terrorists.

Ahh. So the CIA is too. As is the Chinese government. As are the American border minutemen. As is the Egyptian protest group. As is the isreali government. As is the European union.

Glad we sorted this out.

You act as if you think I like the fact that the US is so friendly with Saudi Arabia.

I act as if you refuse to see the world as anything but black/white good/evil. As I've accused you of in the past. Your cognitive dissonance concerning where to draw the line with things like "terrorist entities" is very visible and it tends to fall along religious lines.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Cool. So now we're backpedaling? Now their complicit?

Nope, not backpedaling.

They're complicit in terrorism, which makes them guilty of being involved with terrorism, which makes them terrorists.

Ahh. So the CIA is too. As is the Chinese government. As are the minutement. As is the Egyptian protest group. As is the isreali government. As is the European union.

Glad we sorted this out.

Wait, so you're admitting that Hamas is a Terrorist organization now?

What was all that ranting about back there, then?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:I act as if you refuse to see the world as anything but black/white good/evil. As I've accused you of in the past. You're cognitive dissonance concerning where to draw the line with things like "terrorist entities" is very visible and it tends to fall along religious lines.

I'm not Jewish.

Also, the IRA are terrorists and so was Timothy McVeigh. Your argument is invalid.

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Cool. So now we're backpedaling? Now their complicit?

Nope, not backpedaling.

They're complicit in terrorism, which makes them guilty of being involved with terrorism, which makes them terrorists.

Ahh. So the CIA is too. As is the Chinese government. As are the minutement. As is the Egyptian protest group. As is the isreali government. As is the European union.

Glad we sorted this out.

Wait, so you're admitting that Hamas is a Terrorist organization now?

What was all that ranting about back there, then?

Oh, I still don't think so. I think they have a militant terrorist wing, but I'm not going to label the de facto controlling government of an entire country as such because I'm willing to use some level of perspective when using the term. I mean, if I did that that would imply every single person in Palestine receiving a government paycheck is a terrorist. I'm not willing to say bridge builders and school teachers are the same as suicide bombers.

I'm just trying to develop a common ground meaning for the term "terrorist" and "terrorism". You want it to be meaninglessly watered down and useless. I'd prefer it have a value.

I'm not Jewish.

Also, the IRA are terrorists and so was Timothy McVeigh. Your argument is invalid.

Are the chinese or Saudi governments terrorist organizations? My argument isn't invalid. You labeled one self styled terorrist group and a confessed and wanton terrorist as terrorists. All you proved was that you can successfully type the word. When you manage to elucidate a functioning definition that separates the government of palestine from the governments in china or burma that makes them somehow specially "terrorist" you'll manage to actually invalidate my argument.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:Are the chinese or Saudi governments terrorist organizations? My argument isn't invalid.

No?

Yes?

Blue?

If you have a wing of your government specifically committed to Terrorism, it's not unreasonable to call your government a Terrorist Organization.

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Are the chinese or Saudi governments terrorist organizations? My argument isn't invalid.

No?

Yes?

Blue?

So you don't have an opinion on the matter of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization unless the European union tells you it?

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:So you don't have an opinion on the matter of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization unless the European union tells you it?

See above, first of all.

Also, it's not just the European Union.

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:So you don't have an opinion on the matter of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization unless the European union tells you it?

See above, first of all.

Also, it's not just the European Union.

Don't equivocate or avoid the question. Do you consider china, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or Pakistan to be led by terrorist organizations? I mean, aside from the fact that it is unreasonable to label non terrorist entities as terrorists when they are affiliated only organizationally since you are labeling people who are likely not terrorists, who do not implicitly support terrorism, and who could very well frown upon its use entirely (note how the wings are not the controlling entities in Hamas), I just want to know if you consider other equivalent organizational ties in other places to be the same? I suspect you'll label specific Muslim dominant countries as being terrorist led, but not other (non muslim) countries. It's been your modus operandi in discussion relating to such issues as global security in the past.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:Don't equivocate or avoid the question. Do you consider china, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or Pakistan to be led by terrorist organizations?

I'll answer with a question:

Are any of those places recognized by other international organizations as Terrorists? You know, like Hamas is?

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Don't equivocate or avoid the question. Do you consider china, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or Pakistan to be led by terrorist organizations?

I'll answer with a question:

Are any of those places recognized by other international organizations as Terrorists? You know, like Hamas is?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Are the chinese or Saudi governments terrorist organizations? My argument isn't invalid.

No?

Yes?

Blue?

So you don't have an opinion on the matter of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization unless the European union tells you it?

So your definition of what constitutes a terrorist is purely political/economic?

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Don't equivocate or avoid the question. Do you consider china, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or Pakistan to be led by terrorist organizations?

I'll answer with a question:

Are any of those places recognized by other international organizations as Terrorists? You know, like Hamas is?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Are the chinese or Saudi governments terrorist organizations? My argument isn't invalid.

No?

Yes?

Blue?

So you don't have an opinion on the matter of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization unless the European union tells you it?

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:So you don't have an opinion on the matter of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization unless the European union tells you it?

See above, first of all.

Also, it's not just the European Union.

**ShumaGorath**

As I said at the start, you're unwilling to interface with your own opinions in even the most basic of ways and your logic is baseless and circular. The fact that we could go in a full circle like this without you elucidating at all what you think the term actually means pretty directly implies you just take national labels at face value and don't bother yourself with the difficulties of considering them.

Like I said at the start. Anyway, I'm done. I can see a circle after I've run it.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:As I said at the start, you're unwilling to interface with your own opinions in even the most basic of ways and your logic is baseless and circular.

My logic is circular because it's flawless.

**Emperors Faithful**

People on this thread are handing out the term 'terrorist' like free candy.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Sure it does, it means maybe people will think twice about helping terrorists/terrorist supported governments when there is a danger of the terrorists of said terrorists/terrorist supported governments killing them.

If Hamas is the "terrorists/terrorist supported government" that you're talking about how does your arguement make any sense? The activist wasn't killed by Hamas. I'm gonna have to call you out here and ask you to read the article.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and my knowledge on the origins of Hamas are a little shaky (I know they decried 9/11 but before that?), could anyone tell me what they actually did to be labelled a terrorist organization?

**Monster Rain**

Emperors Faithful wrote:People on this thread are handing out the term 'terrorist' like free candy.

Indeed. Apparently Lichtenstein, Kentucky Fried Chicken and my local Kiwanis Club are also terrorists organizations.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:If Hamas is the "terrorists/terrorist supported government" that you're talking about how does your arguement make any sense? The activist wasn't killed by Hamas. I'm gonna have to call you out here and ask you to read the article.

I think you're over-complicating it.

The main point is that getting involved with terrorists is a rather bad idea, and even if you support their organization's aims they still might kill you. Distancing oneself from the entire situation is likely to significantly reduce the likelihood of physical harm from any of the parties involved (Palestinian terrorist or Israeli carpet bombing.)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh, and my knowledge on the origins of Hamas are a little shaky (I know they decried 9/11 but before that?), could anyone tell me what they actually did to be labelled a terrorist organization?

Department of Homeland Security wrote:10. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Description
Formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both political and violent means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel. Loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others working openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS's strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Also has engaged in peaceful political activity, such as running candidates in West Bank Chamber of Commerce elections.
Activities
HAMAS activists, especially those in the Izz ai-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks - including large-scale suicide bombings - against Israeli civilian and military targets. In the early 1990s, they also targeted suspected Palestinian collaborators and Fatah rivals. HAMAS increased its operational activity during 2001-2002 claiming numerous attacks against Israeli interests. The group has not targeted US interests - although some US citizens have been killed in HAMAS operations - and continues to confine its attacks to Israelis inside Israel and the territories.
Strength
Unknown number of official members; tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers.

Location/Area of Operation
HAMAS currently limits its terrorist operations to Israeli military and civilian targets in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel. The group's leadership is dispersed throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with a few senior leaders residing in Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States.
External Aid
Receives some funding from Iran but primarily relies on donations from Palestinian expatriates around the world and private benefactors in moderate Arab states. Some fund raising and propaganda activity take place in Western Europe, North America, and South America (specifically in the Tri-Border Area of Argentina/Brizil/Paraguay).

source

Granted, it's a little old (2004)so it doesn't take into account their current relatively good behavior.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Emperors Faithful wrote:

If Hamas is the "terrorists/terrorist supported government" that you're talking about how does your argument make any sense? The activist wasn't killed by Hamas. I'm gonna have to call you out here and ask you to read the article.

Well my argument is that when Hamas has there own form of Terrorists working against their more moderate ideals, killing people who are associated with them, it may send a signal that associating with any of these crazy fethwads is a bad idea. Which is a good thing.

Watch the language please! ~Manchu

Whenever I hear about some new crazy terrorist group that split off of another (usually because they're more insane than the first) I always think of this:

**ShumaGorath**

Salafism is not sourced from hamas and is foreign to the nation of palestine.

**Emperors Faithful**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:

If Hamas is the "terrorists/terrorist supported government" that you're talking about how does your argument make any sense? The activist wasn't killed by Hamas. I'm gonna have to call you out here and ask you to read the article.

Well my argument is that when Hamas has there own form of Terrorists working against their more moderate ideals, killing people who are associated with them, it may send a signal that associating with any of these crazy fuckwads is a bad idea. Which is a good thing.

Which doesn't make sense. If the guy had been killed by a terrorist group associated with (rather than opposed by) Hamas then you'd be on to something. As it is, Hamas' reaction is similar to what a legitimate government's response would be. And I think they are in fact a legitimate government.

Whenever I hear about some new crazy terrorist group that split off of another (usually because they're more insane than the first) I always think of this:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Monster: So they're a Palestinian movement that (shock/horror) has attacked Israel?

I mean, does this mean the state of Israel is a terrorist organisation?

**Monster Rain**

Emperors Faithful wrote:I mean, does this mean the state of Israel is a terrorist organisation?

I'm going to go with no.

I'm looking at a list of Terrorist Organizations and they aren't on it.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I mean, does this mean the state of Israel is a terrorist organisation?

I'm going to go with no.

I'm looking at a list of Terrorist Organizations and they aren't on it.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

We get it, you're lock step in line with the government. I hear they have some great budget proposals comin' up and since nothing they ever do is wrong, contradictory, or damaging I'm sure you're looking forward to it.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I mean, does this mean the state of Israel is a terrorist organisation?

I'm going to go with no.

I'm looking at a list of Terrorist Organizations and they aren't on it.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

We get it, you're lock step in line with the government. I hear they have some great budget proposals comin' up and since nothing they ever do is wrong, contradictory, or damaging I'm sure you're looking forward to it.

The assumptions you make are hysterical, friend. I won't say that you make me "lol", but I do smile quite a bit.

I don't trust the government completely, but I consider the State Department to be a somewhat reliable source when it comes to sorting out what a Terrorist is.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Monster: So they're a Palestinian movement that (shock/horror) has attacked Israel?

Disliking Israeli policy does not a terrorist make. Suicide bomb and rocket attacks specifically aimed at civilian targets kind of does.

**Sir Pseudonymous**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Whenever I hear about some new crazy terrorist group that split off of another (usually because they're more insane than the first) I always think of this:

As I recall, Salafism/Wahabism dates back to the 19th century, at least. They're the heretical sect that backs the House of Saud as the rightful rulers of Arabia, and are backed by the Saudi royalty and nobility as a result. It's their (heretical) tenets that are enforced by Saudi religious police, and it's Salafist terrorists who are funded by wealthy Saudis.

**ShumaGorath**

I don't trust the government completely, but I consider the State Department to be a somewhat reliable source when it comes to sorting out what a Terrorist is.

And yet you're not happy when they rub shoulders with pakistan or saudi arabia (two states proven to institutionalize support of terrorism). Yet another confliction sighted! Glad they're so trustworthy yet apparently not very trustworthy.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't trust the government completely, but I consider the State Department to be a somewhat reliable source when it comes to sorting out what a Terrorist is.

And yet you're not happy when they rub shoulders with pakistan or saudi arabia (two states proven to institutionalize support of terrorism). Yet another confliction sighted! Glad they're so trustworthy yet apparently not very trustworthy.

The world is a conflicted place.

Surely someone with such an knowledgeable and nuanced worldview wouldn't need that explained to them.

I can't think that they know what a terrorist is and not care for every decision then make? Where is that written?

**ShumaGorath**

I can't think that they know what a terrorist is and not care for every decision then make? Where is that written?

Well it just makes it seem like you're exercising incredibly bad judgement if you're fully aware that what they do and do not teem a terrorist organization has no framework and is often an ill considered outpouring of party politics or the request on an economic ally state rather then a true expression of U.S. security concerns and yet you still defer to them when asked if something is terroristy to the exclusion of giving it actual thought.

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:Well it just makes it seem like you're exercising incredibly bad judgement if you're fully aware that what they do and do not teem a terrorist organization has no framework and is often an ill considered outpouring of party politics or the request on an economic ally state rather then a true expression of U.S. security concerns

I think that the argument could be made that the two are interrelated.

ShumaGorath wrote:... and yet you still defer to them when asked if something is terroristy to the exclusion of giving it actual thought.

Attacking sources really doesn't make your point, Shuma.

Do you have something other than your own opinion to support your argument?

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Well it just makes it seem like you're exercising incredibly bad judgement if you're fully aware that what they do and do not teem a terrorist organization has no framework and is often an ill considered outpouring of party politics or the request on an economic ally state rather then a true expression of U.S. security concerns

I think that the argument could be made that the two are interrelated.

ShumaGorath wrote:... and yet you still defer to them when asked if something is terroristy to the exclusion of giving it actual thought.

Attacking sources really doesn't make your point, Shuma.

Do you have something other than your own opinion to support your argument?

Logical theory? Though as we've previously covered (and the reason I quit the thread before (why do I keep coming back (BRACKETS!))) you don't seem to use rational logic when forming or at the very least "debating" your opinions. I mean, we haven't really covered anything that needs to be sourced. You haven't actually objected to any facts I have stated, or even asked for any of them to be sourced. What do you want me to to do suport my arguments other then using common rational logic? Puppet tricks?