Hamas, Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?

I will try and put this simply for you, because you seem hell bent on disapplying all methods of legal construction.

Murder is where you kill another with the intention to kill or cause GBH. The "intention to kill or cause GBH" shows premeditation as far as the law is concerned. There is absolutely no requirement for you to sit and plan it in intricate detail beforehand. If you attack someone intending to injure them and they die you are de facto guilty of murder.

Self defence is only available when in genuine fear of your life from a threat by the person you killed where you have no option to retreat, or if they are about to kill another person. If you are trying to argue an armed soldier is in genuine fear of their life from an unarmed man crouched over a child, then you have simply lost the plot.

As for the IDF targeting civilians, what exactly would you call the "indiscriminate firing" into a refugee camp? I cannot honestly believe you would argue an independent UN observer is wrong and an Israeli Army spokesman is correct.

So far from reading your posts, I have noted the following:
- anyone who criticises Israel is at best wrong, and at worst an Islamic fundamentalist.
- you question someone who has legal training on a point of law, because the application of the law would not lead to the reuslt you wish and go on to suggest the person with legal training somehow doesn't know the law
- you cannot accept Israel, through actions of its armed forces, has killed civillian non-combatants.

Therefore, I would say you are incredibly biased. Furthemore, the "clearly murder" statement stands, and you just refuse to acknowledge this because it would mean an IDF member shot and killed someone in cold blood.

Reply 63

Bismarck

Our brother Sayed's post in the TSR Muslim Society thread:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4479025&postcount=11969

Just in case he ever decides to argue from a moral high ground.

Does his cause no good at all :rolleyes:

Reply 64

MRNO

OP

Ethereal

As for the IDF targeting civilians, what exactly would you call the "indiscriminate firing" into a refugee camp? I cannot honestly believe you would argue an independent UN observer is wrong and an Israeli Army spokesman is correct.

And of course Hamas would never indiscriminately blow people up, would they?
Hamas is Arabic for "dumb f--ks with explosives
I don't like to loosely throw around charges of anti-Semitism, but I don't think Hamas members like Jews.
Hamas again and again has demonstrated that it is a vile, hateful and evil muslim organization that views the death of Jewish women and children as something to celebrate. It is fascist in its intolerance of others and offers nothing but death and destruction for those who follow its path to hell. It does not matter in the least what Hamas members have suffered in the past. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can justify their consuming, murderous, hate-driven, genocidal behavior towards the Jewish people.

Reply 65

I haven't at any point in this discussion denied Hamas and other Palestinian organizations have killed innocents. I have repeatedly said that. My point is simply that Israel are not as lacking in such actions as certain posters on here would have you believe.

Both sides have killed innocents. Both sides are wrong.

Reply 66

Bismarck

13

Ethereal

I haven't at any point in this discussion denied Hamas and other Palestinian organizations have killed innocents. I have repeatedly said that. My point is simply that Israel are not as lacking in such actions as certain posters on here would have you believe.

Both sides have killed innocents. Both sides are wrong.

Why are nearly all Israeli casualties civilians, while only a small portion of Palestinian casualties are civilians?

Reply 67

Longshoredrift80

Ethereal

The "intention to kill or cause GBH" shows premeditation as far as the law is concerned.

If that were true why are crimes of passion carried out in the heat of the moment still usually classified as manslaughter? There's still an intention to seriously harm the people, but the perpetrator is not automatically guilty of murder, are they?

Ethereal

If you attack someone intending to injure them and they die you are de facto guilty of murder.

Not so. If that were true, then would you care to point out the difference with manslaughter? In most manslaughter cases the person attacks and kills the victim, but they're obviously not de facto murderers.

Ethereal

Self defence is only available when in genuine fear of your life...

I've already explained that I was pointing out that your original construction was incorrect, not saying that self-defence was applicable in this case. The fact you're still pushing the point is kinda sad.

Ethereal

I cannot honestly believe you would argue an independent UN observer is wrong and an Israeli Army spokesman is correct.

I honestly cannot believe you think that a UNRWA spokesman who wasn't there at the time is "independent" and automatically correct. Do you know anything about the conflict or the UN, at all?!

Ethereal

you question someone who has legal training on a point of law, because the application of the law would not lead to the reuslt you wish and go on to suggest the person with legal training somehow doesn't know the law

I'm a law student (at a better Uni for Law than yours, incidentally) as anyone who has been on the forum any length of time will tell you. So I've had legal training on the point as well. And I still disagree with you. I believe I just scuppered that whole point of yours, as you have claimed that I somehow don't know the law, despite my legal training on the point.
Nice trap I set you there, wasn't it? You just walked in to it. :smile:

Ethereal

- you cannot accept Israel, through actions of its armed forces, has killed civillian non-combatants.

Obviously I can. The IDF has killed civilians. My arguments are on INTENTION and POLICY not whether it has happened or not.

Ethereal

Furthemore, the "clearly murder" statement stands

Despite your refusal to define manslaughter and constant attempts to decontextualise the situation and your numerous pathetic false-starts in explaining why it was murder, which I batted down?

Reply 68

Hamas don't have the pinpoint technology, nor the means to ba as accurate? I'm not going to get into a sheer numbers argument for a number of reasons

1) no one knows the true proportion of deaths caused by either side
2) all life holds intrinsic worth - that one innocent should die is bad enough, and therefore one innocent's death is all that is needed to have blood on their hands.

I fail to see how you can attempt to justify the deaths of Palestinian civilian non-combatants by saying "but they killed more civilians". Somehow, that just doesn't make it right.

Reply 69

Lawz-

14

They deliberately set out to kill innocent civilians. They are therefore, terrorists.

Reply 70

Bismarck

13

Ethereal

Hamas don't have the pinpoint technology, nor the means to ba as accurate? I'm not going to get into a sheer numbers argument for a number of reasons

1) no one knows the true proportion of deaths caused by either side
2) all life holds intrinsic worth - that one innocent should die is bad enough, and therefore one innocent's death is all that is needed to have blood on their hands.

I fail to see how you can attempt to justify the deaths of Palestinian civilian non-combatants by saying "but they killed more civilians". Somehow, that just doesn't make it right.

So because Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Fatah don't have better technology, they almost exclusively target civilians? And if Israel doesn't care about civilian casualties, why doesn't it do a few bombing runs over civilian areas?

Saying that two sides make mistakes is not the same as saying both sides are equally wrong. Or is a thief and a murderer morally equivalent?

Reply 71

The intention is the key factor. It is possible to cause someone's death without ever have intended to cause them harm. As for "crimes of passion", I do not seriously think you can argue a person who levels a sight on someone and take the time to aim at their head is acting in the heat of the moment.

In this case, there isno feasible defence to a crime of murder.

You are merely blinded by the fact it was an IDF member whi fired the killing shot. I wonder if you would argue it was manslaughter had this particular person been shot dead by a Hamas sniper?

Reply 72

Lawz-

14

Ethereal

The intention is the key factor. It is possible to cause someone's death without ever have intended to cause them harm. As for "crimes of passion", I do not seriously think you can argue a person who levels a sight on someone and take the time to aim at their head is acting in the heat of the moment.

In this case, there isno feasible defence to a crime of murder.

You are merely blinded by the fact it was an IDF member whi fired the killing shot. I wonder if you would argue it was manslaughter had this particular person been shot dead by a Hamas sniper?

I have already had the intention debate years ago on here with another 1st year law student who had just sat through some HL cases on murder...

The fact of the matter is that the distinction here is easy:

a) Israel do not DESIRE civilian deaths
b) Hammas DESIRE civilian deaths

Whether you want to debate the legal niceties of moral culpability and intent is fine... but for the purposes of the distinction, the above suffices.

A terrorist in this context is someone who aims to kill as many civilians as possible. That does not apply to Israel, as, as I have many times pointed out, and as Bismark has on this thread, if Israel had the DESIRE to kill as many Palestinian civilians as it could, they would simply do it. They have the capability.

Reply 73

Longshoredrift80

Ethereal

The intention is the key factor. It is possible to cause someone's death without ever have intended to cause them harm. As for "crimes of passion", I do not seriously think you can argue a person who levels a sight on someone and take the time to aim at their head is acting in the heat of the moment.

Dear sweet lord. Which part of...

JonathanH

... I was throwing examples at you of the many things a shot to the head COULD BE. I also mentioned an accident and a crime of passion in the same sentence as 'self defence', did I not? So why would you now be claiming that I in any way claimed that self-defence was available in this case? I clearly did not. I was clearly just showing how shooting someone is not necessarily murder and can be a whole variety of things, ranging from accident through self-defence and manslaughter to murder.

...did you not understand?

Ethereal

In this case, there isno feasible defence to a crime of murder.

The lack of premeditation. If you were so sure of yourself you wouldn't be refusing my repeated requests for you to define manslaughter as opposed to murder. Is it because you know that the facts would easily fit the definition of manslaughter if you did?

Ethereal

You are merely blinded by the fact it was an IDF member whi fired the killing shot.

You do realise that it is widely considered quite pathetic to repeatedly play the "you're more biased than me" card in the course of trying to fairly argue a debate, right? Anyway, night night.

Reply 74

Bismarck

13

And our buddy Sayed outdoes himself in one of the other society threads::

sayed_samed

What ashame its only neg rep and one... How about the evil soc with zionist members! They always seem to stick together, i mean no wonder they all become lawyers, they could defend satan itself during judgement day. I mean give satan a place in heaven those schizter lawyers! Those scum have their evil seed in every high up political position, financial etc etc. E.g. like Mr US senator's grand parent was of j** decent [highlighted by me] etc etc!

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4478708&postcount=491

But no, he's clearly not an anti-Semite.

Reply 75

Lawz-

14

Bismarck

And our buddy Sayed outdoes himself in one of the other society threads::

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4478708&postcount=491

But no, he's clearly not an anti-Semite.

Good lord. Can you save up these links. It would be an interesting thread to start... to out some of these supposedly objective people.

Reply 76

2026

15

Terrorists of coarse, what a bloody stupid question.

Turkey should be punished for holding talks with them.

Reply 77

Howard

5

Ethereal

Terrorist/Freedom Fighter? They are both. How? Quite simple - one man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter .... it depends entirely upon which side of the argument they are fighting over you come down on.

I wondered who would be the first person to run that one out. I'm surprized it didn't happen before the ninth post.

Reply 78

MRNO

OP