As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant
to the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out of
step with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent that
we should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to those
with scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic.
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the >official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant to
the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out of step >with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent that we
should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to those with >scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
On 18/12/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the
official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
That's a pretty obvious spoof. At least, I hope it's a spoof! Someone
would have to have their brain running in neutral just to accept it at
face value.
There's no obvious clues in the source code who produced this, and there
are plenty of private individuals around the world who could knock up a website like this in a spare afternoon. I'd hope that any government
agency would be a lot more subtle.
I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN.
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been consistently anti-terrorist
for many years.
On 18/12/2023 14:26, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the
official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
That's a pretty obvious spoof. At least, I hope it's a spoof! Someone
would have to have their brain running in neutral just to accept it at
face value.
There's no obvious clues in the source code who produced this, and there
are plenty of private individuals around the world who could knock up a
website like this in a spare afternoon. I'd hope that any government
agency would be a lot more subtle.
According to Private Eye, Israel's official social media profiles have
been linking to hamas.com to provide evidence of that terrorist organisation's depravity, and the hamas.com site uses a site template
"from Israeli web company, Wix". That does not of course prove that
Israeli agents built the site.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been consistently anti-terrorist
for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
According to Private Eye, Israel's official social media profiles have
been linking to hamas.com to provide evidence of that terrorist >organisation's depravity, and the hamas.com site uses a site template
"from Israeli web company, Wix".
That does not of course prove that
Israeli agents built the site.
On 18/12/2023 14:26, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not
the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by
anti-Hamas designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli
black-ops?) to discredit Hamas.
That's a pretty obvious spoof. At least, I hope it's a spoof! Someone
would have to have their brain running in neutral just to accept it at
face value.
There's no obvious clues in the source code who produced this, and
there are plenty of private individuals around the world who could
knock up a website like this in a spare afternoon. I'd hope that any
government agency would be a lot more subtle.
According to Private Eye, Israel's official social media profiles have
been linking to hamas.com to provide evidence of that terrorist organisation's depravity, and the hamas.com site uses a site template
"from Israeli web company, Wix". That does not of course prove that
Israeli agents built the site.
On 18/12/2023 16:46, The Todal wrote:
On 18/12/2023 14:26, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not
the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by
anti-Hamas designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli
black-ops?) to discredit Hamas.
That's a pretty obvious spoof. At least, I hope it's a spoof! Someone
would have to have their brain running in neutral just to accept it
at face value.
There's no obvious clues in the source code who produced this, and
there are plenty of private individuals around the world who could
knock up a website like this in a spare afternoon. I'd hope that any
government agency would be a lot more subtle.
According to Private Eye, Israel's official social media profiles have
been linking to hamas.com to provide evidence of that terrorist
organisation's depravity, and the hamas.com site uses a site template
"from Israeli web company, Wix". That does not of course prove that
Israeli agents built the site.
I hope you are not deliberately trying to mislead, and you simply didn't
know that Wix is by far the largest website building company in the
world? They have nearly half the worldwide market. They are twice as big
as Weebly, which is the next largest.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/818598/worldwide-website-builders-market-share/
There are really only a handful of companies most people would go to if
they wanted to set up a website quickly using a pre-made template.
I must get this week's PE to view this marvel of investigative
journalism. Are you quite sure they aren't lampooning themselves this time?
Besides that, surely, any clandestine Israeli agency would avoid using
Wix like the plague, so perhaps this is a double-bluff by Hamas?
Once you start with the zany conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence, it's great fun, but it's hard to know where to stop.
I have no idea why "Israel's official social media profiles" linked to a spoof website. Can you give a couple of links please, as I'd be
interested to see.
Why does Israel have more than one official social media profile, anyway?
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been consistently
anti-terrorist
for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist". Israel uses terrorism to
terrify and subdue the Palestinians. England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue
rebels and demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am still waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent
votes at the UN.
The UK government has a conflict. It has said that the Israelis have a
right to go after Hamas. That's hardly a new stance, as the UK
government has been consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
The other half of the conflict is that Hamas has gone to ground in Gaza.
It was obvious that going after them in such circumstances would lead to massive destruction and very high civilian casualties.
If Israel stops now, what we will end up with will suit Hamas very
nicely. Israel will have killed many civilians, but not dealt Hamas a
severe blow. The Gazan civilians will have suffered badly, and many will
have lost their homes.
So, the UK government is reluctant to say stop, whilst it's reluctant
(as we all are, except Hamas) to see civilians continue to suffer.
Why does Israel have more than one official social media profile, anyway?
It's to avoid annoying the Americans. And possibly British Jews.
Even if the IDF utterly destroy Hamas, they will still have to deal with Hamas II, Hamas III and so on in perpetuity.
Of course Israel want to expel all Palestinians from their Promised
Land, but I can't see that happening.
Could lead to civil wars in quite a few countries, and it's vying with Ukraine for the cause of WW3.
Have a (possibly last) Merry Christmas.
On 2023-12-18, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Why does Israel have more than one official social media profile, anyway?
Why wouldn't it? Just looking at twitter for example, there is an
official "State of Israel" account, an official IDF account, an
official "Prime Minister of Israel" account, etc, etc. Just as we
have an official UK Prime Minister account, an official Home Office
account, an official Ministry of Defence account, an official
House of Commons account, etc.
On 18/12/2023 17:00, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
It's to avoid annoying the Americans. And possibly British Jews.
Even if the IDF utterly destroy Hamas, they will still have to deal with Hamas II, Hamas III and so on in perpetuity.
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN.
The UK government has a conflict. It has said that the Israelis have a
right to go after Hamas. That's hardly a new stance, as the UK
government has been consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
The other half of the conflict is that Hamas has gone to ground in Gaza.
It was obvious that going after them in such circumstances would lead to massive destruction and very high civilian casualties.
If Israel stops now, what we will end up with will suit Hamas very
nicely. Israel will have killed many civilians, but not dealt Hamas a
severe blow. The Gazan civilians will have suffered badly, and many will
have lost their homes.
So, the UK government is reluctant to say stop, whilst it's reluctant
(as we all are, except Hamas) to see civilians continue to suffer.
I assume this was all finely calculated by Hamas when they planned their
Oct 7 raid.
On 18/12/2023 17:53, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 16:46, The Todal wrote:
On 18/12/2023 14:26, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not
the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by
anti-Hamas designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli
black-ops?) to discredit Hamas.
That's a pretty obvious spoof. At least, I hope it's a spoof!
Someone would have to have their brain running in neutral just to
accept it at face value.
There's no obvious clues in the source code who produced this, and
there are plenty of private individuals around the world who could
knock up a website like this in a spare afternoon. I'd hope that any
government agency would be a lot more subtle.
According to Private Eye, Israel's official social media profiles
have been linking to hamas.com to provide evidence of that terrorist
organisation's depravity, and the hamas.com site uses a site template
"from Israeli web company, Wix". That does not of course prove that
Israeli agents built the site.
I hope you are not deliberately trying to mislead, and you simply
didn't know that Wix is by far the largest website building company in
the world? They have nearly half the worldwide market. They are twice
as big as Weebly, which is the next largest.
I have quoted an article in Private Eye.
I hope you, for your part, are
not deliberately trying to mislead by implying that I've misrepresented
the article. I neither know or care whether Wix is big and successful.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/818598/worldwide-website-builders-market-share/
There are really only a handful of companies most people would go to
if they wanted to set up a website quickly using a pre-made template.
I must get this week's PE to view this marvel of investigative
journalism. Are you quite sure they aren't lampooning themselves this
time?
Judge for yourself - but it's not in the current edition, it's in the
edition for 1st to 14 December, page 20.
Perhaps even with your fervent support for Israel and its heroic armed
forces you might see it as rather odd that Israeli government social
media should link to a website with gruesome pictures and videos of
Hamas atrocities,
a website which some readers (probably rather dim
ones) might actually admire and which might encourage them to support Palestinian terrorism. It would be like our government linking to a
website celebrating IRA bombings.
Besides that, surely, any clandestine Israeli agency would avoid using
Wix like the plague, so perhaps this is a double-bluff by Hamas?
Once you start with the zany conspiracy theories, without a shred of
evidence, it's great fun, but it's hard to know where to stop.
Maybe abandon zany conspiracy theories, just look at the facts?
I have no idea why "Israel's official social media profiles" linked to
a spoof website. Can you give a couple of links please, as I'd be
interested to see.
Now you seem to think that it's my own investigative journalism that is
under discussion, rather than a paragraph from Private Eye. I don't use social media very much at all. There is apparently an official IDF
account on what used to be Twitter, which you could explore, but I haven't.
Why does Israel have more than one official social media profile, anyway?
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist". Israel
uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians. England has
used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist". Israel
uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians. England has
used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and demonstrators in the
colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1) they
are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2) unlawfully
attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4) primarily to cause fear
and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
On 18/12/2023 in message <kuasgrFjhpgU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the
official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant
to the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out
of step with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent
that we should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to
those with scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
To add to the UK government being out of step the press is censoring any suggestion of support for the Palestinians, not one of my comments on
the DM web site in support of the Palestinians has been published.
I do make very clear I support the Palestinian people and NOT Hamas but
it makes no difference. I am in correspondence with my MP who agrees
that supporting the Palestinians is NOT supporting Hamas but I am still waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN.
On 18/12/2023 18:45, The Todal wrote:
On 18/12/2023 17:53, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 16:46, The Todal wrote:
On 18/12/2023 14:26, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not >>>>>> the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by
anti-Hamas designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli
black-ops?) to discredit Hamas.
That's a pretty obvious spoof. At least, I hope it's a spoof!
Someone would have to have their brain running in neutral just to
accept it at face value.
There's no obvious clues in the source code who produced this, and
there are plenty of private individuals around the world who could
knock up a website like this in a spare afternoon. I'd hope that
any government agency would be a lot more subtle.
According to Private Eye, Israel's official social media profiles
have been linking to hamas.com to provide evidence of that terrorist
organisation's depravity, and the hamas.com site uses a site
template "from Israeli web company, Wix". That does not of course
prove that Israeli agents built the site.
I hope you are not deliberately trying to mislead, and you simply
didn't know that Wix is by far the largest website building company
in the world? They have nearly half the worldwide market. They are
twice as big as Weebly, which is the next largest.
I have quoted an article in Private Eye.
You commented on an article in PE, and it wasn't clear what was PE's and
what was yours.
When you said "could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?", that
was pure Todal. It's not mentioned by PE.
I hope you, for your part, are not deliberately trying to mislead by
implying that I've misrepresented the article. I neither know or care
whether Wix is big and successful.
"I neither know or care whether Wix is big and successful."
That's a shame, because it's crucial to the credibility of the point
about black ops you were making.
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/12/2023 in message <kuasgrFjhpgU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the >>>official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas >>>designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to >>>discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant to >>>the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out of step >>>with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent that we >>>should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to those with >>>scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
To add to the UK government being out of step the press is censoring any >>suggestion of support for the Palestinians, not one of my comments on the >>DM web site in support of the Palestinians has been published.
I do make very clear I support the Palestinian people and NOT Hamas but
it makes no difference. I am in correspondence with my MP who agrees that >>supporting the Palestinians is NOT supporting Hamas but I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN.
But also make it clear that it was the Palestinian people who voted Hamas >into power in Gaza, and to a large degree supported their actions, and
have done nothing to remove them since.
Jeff
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/12/2023 in message <kuasgrFjhpgU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the
official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant
to the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out
of step with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent
that we should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to
those with scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
To add to the UK government being out of step the press is censoring any
suggestion of support for the Palestinians, not one of my comments on
the DM web site in support of the Palestinians has been published.
I do make very clear I support the Palestinian people and NOT Hamas but
it makes no difference. I am in correspondence with my MP who agrees
that supporting the Palestinians is NOT supporting Hamas but I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN.
But also make it clear that it was the Palestinian people who voted
Hamas into power in Gaza, and to a large degree supported their actions,
and have done nothing to remove them since.
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist". Israel
uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians. England has
used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and demonstrators in the
colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1) they
are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2) unlawfully
attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4) primarily to cause fear
and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN.
The UK government has a conflict. It has said that the Israelis have a
right to go after Hamas. That's hardly a new stance, as the UK
government has been consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
The other half of the conflict is that Hamas has gone to ground in Gaza.
It was obvious that going after them in such circumstances would lead to massive destruction and very high civilian casualties.
If Israel stops now, what we will end up with will suit Hamas very
nicely. Israel will have killed many civilians, but not dealt Hamas a
severe blow. The Gazan civilians will have suffered badly, and many will
have lost their homes.
So, the UK government is reluctant to say stop, whilst it's reluctant
(as we all are, except Hamas) to see civilians continue to suffer.
I assume this was all finely calculated by Hamas when they planned their
Oct 7 raid.
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist".
Israel uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians.
England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and
demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1)
they are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2)
unlawfully attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4)
primarily to cause fear and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of
terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels and
I think everyone agrees that those people could be called terrorists
but there is reason to believe that they were sponsored and financed
by Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means what? In the
official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public
inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have "personally killed"
35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged
policy to terminate "all fighting-age males" in homes raided,
"regardless of the threat they posed".
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
On 14:12 19 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist".
Israel uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians.
England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and
demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1)
they are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2)
unlawfully attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4)
primarily to cause fear and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of
terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels and
I think everyone agrees that those people could be called terrorists
but there is reason to believe that they were sponsored and financed
by Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means what? In the
official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public
inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have "personally killed"
35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged
policy to terminate "all fighting-age males" in homes raided,
"regardless of the threat they posed".
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
I would suggest regular troops can not be terrorists. Although they may
be guilty of "terrorising", in the general sense of the word.
Your first example is of Russia-backed terrorists. Russia has backed terrorist movements for years. So has Iran and present day examples
would be Hamas or the Houthis.
Your second example doesn't describe terrorists. Regular troops are
capable of deplorable behaviour without being terrorists.
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked
to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black
ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article
is obviously hinting such a thing.
But you seem to have a fit of the vapours at the very suggestion. Maybe
now you're going to tell me that it's a dastardly blood-libel. Is it
somehow your mission in life to protect Israel from criticism?
But anyway I'm not interested in
peddling any theory about Israeli black ops.
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked
to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black
ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article
is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix
is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/12/2023 in message <kuasgrFjhpgU1@mid.individual.net> The TodalBut also make it clear that it was the Palestinian people who voted
wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the
official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant
to the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out
of step with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent
that we should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to
those with scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
To add to the UK government being out of step the press is censoring
any suggestion of support for the Palestinians, not one of my comments
on the DM web site in support of the Palestinians has been published.
I do make very clear I support the Palestinian people and NOT Hamas but
it makes no difference. I am in correspondence with my MP who agrees
that supporting the Palestinians is NOT supporting Hamas but I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the
UN.
Hamas into power in Gaza, and to a large degree supported their actions,
and have done nothing to remove them since.
On 19/12/2023 15:04, Pamela wrote:
On 14:12 19 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist".
Israel uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians.
England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and
demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1) >>>>> they are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2)
unlawfully attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4)
primarily to cause fear and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of
terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels and
I think everyone agrees that those people could be called terrorists
but there is reason to believe that they were sponsored and financed
by Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means what? In the
official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public
inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have "personally killed"
35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged
policy to terminate "all fighting-age males" in homes raided,
"regardless of the threat they posed".
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
I would suggest regular troops can not be terrorists. Although they may
be guilty of "terrorising", in the general sense of the word.
Your first example is of Russia-backed terrorists. Russia has backed
terrorist movements for years. So has Iran and present day examples
would be Hamas or the Houthis.
Your second example doesn't describe terrorists. Regular troops are
capable of deplorable behaviour without being terrorists.
What do you think of the Free Syrian Army and other groups that are funded by Western
states?
Are they terrorists? Does the West fund terrorism?
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked >>> to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black
ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article
is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix
is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so
those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put
in work to keep them operational. And of course the very nature of
public websites is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down
any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
The following Guardian article cites two Israeli news sites apparently
saying that Israel was deliberately targeting residential blocks to
cause mass civilian casualties in the hope people would turn on their
Hamas rulers:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/09/civilian-toll-israeli-airstrikes-gaza-unprecedented-killing-study
'Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds
'... Haaretz published an analysis by Yagil Levy, a sociology professor
at the Open University of Israel, which found that in three earlier
campaigns in Gaza, in the period from 2012-22, the ratio of civilian
deaths to the total of those killed in airstrikes hovered at about 40%.
That ratio declined to 33% in a bombing campaign earlier this year,
called Operation Shield and Arrow.
In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron,
the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy
described as "unprecedented killing". The ratio is significantly
higher than the civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world
during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about
half the dead.
On 14:12 19 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist".
Israel uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians.
England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and
demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1)
they are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2)
unlawfully attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4)
primarily to cause fear and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of
terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels and
I think everyone agrees that those people could be called terrorists
but there is reason to believe that they were sponsored and financed
by Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means what? In the
official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public
inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have "personally killed"
35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged
policy to terminate "all fighting-age males" in homes raided,
"regardless of the threat they posed".
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
I would suggest regular troops can not be terrorists. Although they may
be guilty of "terrorising", in the general sense of the word.
Your first example is of Russia-backed terrorists. Russia has backed terrorist movements for years. So has Iran and present day examples
would be Hamas or the Houthis.
Your second example doesn't describe terrorists. Regular troops are
capable of deplorable behaviour without being terrorists.
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist". Israel
uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians. England has
used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and demonstrators in the
colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1) they >>> are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2) unlawfully
attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4) primarily to cause fear >>> and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels and I
think everyone agrees that those people could be called terrorists but
there is reason to believe that they were sponsored and financed by
Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means what? In the official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have “personally killed” 35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged policy
to terminate “all fighting-age males” in homes raided, “regardless of the threat they posed”.
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
I just think all these conspiracy theories are nonsense. I poked fun at
you before by saying:
"Besides that, surely, any clandestine Israeli agency would avoid using
Wix like the plague, so perhaps this is a double-bluff by Hamas?
Once you start with the zany conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence, it's great fun, but it's hard to know where to stop. "
On 19/12/2023 16:54, pensive hamster wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/09/civilian-toll-israeli-airstrikes-gaza-unprecedented-killing-study
'Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds
'... Haaretz published an analysis by Yagil Levy, a sociology professor
at the Open University of Israel, which found that in three earlier campaigns in Gaza, in the period from 2012-22, the ratio of civilian
deaths to the total of those killed in airstrikes hovered at about 40%. That ratio declined to 33% in a bombing campaign earlier this year,
called Operation Shield and Arrow.
In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron,
the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy
described as "unprecedented killing". The ratio is significantly
higher than the civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world
during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about
half the dead.
That sounds plausible to me. The attitude amongst Israelis I know is
that they are going all out to get Hamas. I can believe that they are
being less careful to avoid civilian casualties than they have been previously.
On Tuesday 19 December 2023 at 10:41:46 UTC, Jeff wrote:
On 18/12/2023 15:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/12/2023 in message <kuasgr...@mid.individual.net> The TodalBut also make it clear that it was the Palestinian people who voted
wrote:
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the >>>> official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant >>>> to the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out
of step with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent
that we should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to
those with scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
To add to the UK government being out of step the press is censoring any >>> suggestion of support for the Palestinians, not one of my comments on
the DM web site in support of the Palestinians has been published.
I do make very clear I support the Palestinian people and NOT Hamas but
it makes no difference. I am in correspondence with my MP who agrees
that supporting the Palestinians is NOT supporting Hamas but I am still
waiting to hear why the UK abstained from the two recent votes at the UN. >>>
Hamas into power in Gaza, and to a large degree supported their actions,
and have done nothing to remove them since.
What opportunity have they had to remove them? Hamas hasn't allowed
any elections since 2006.
On 19/12/2023 16:54, pensive hamster wrote:
The following Guardian article cites two Israeli news sites apparently
saying that Israel was deliberately targeting residential blocks to
cause mass civilian casualties in the hope people would turn on their
Hamas rulers:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/09/civilian-toll-israeli-airstrikes-gaza-unprecedented-killing-study
'Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study
finds
'... Haaretz published an analysis by Yagil Levy, a sociology professor
at the Open University of Israel, which found that in three earlier
campaigns in Gaza, in the period from 2012-22, the ratio of civilian
deaths to the total of those killed in airstrikes hovered at about 40%.
That ratio declined to 33% in a bombing campaign earlier this year,
called Operation Shield and Arrow.
In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron,
the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy
described as "unprecedented killing". The ratio is significantly
higher than the civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world
during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about
half the dead.
That sounds plausible to me. The attitude amongst Israelis I know is
that they are going all out to get Hamas. I can believe that they are
being less careful to avoid civilian casualties than they have been previously.
It's interesting to compare this to the US assault on Fallujah, as that
is quite well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah
Civilian casualties were "only" 20-25% of the total. But, the US had
two major advantages. 70-90% of the civilians had evacuated before the battle. The insurgents had not had time to prepare defensive positions, whereas Hamas has had over 10 years to do so. Plus, of course, the US military were the arbiters in deciding which of the casualties were
civilians and which were insurgents.
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they
are terrorists.
What possible basis do you have for denying the existence of
state terrorism?
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put in work to
keep them operational. And of course the very nature of public websites
is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word.
Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
On 14:12 19 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist".
Israel uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians.
England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and
demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that (1)
they are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who (2)
unlawfully attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4)
primarily to cause fear and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of
terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels and
I think everyone agrees that those people could be called terrorists
but there is reason to believe that they were sponsored and financed
by Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means what? In the
official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public
inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have "personally killed"
35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged
policy to terminate "all fighting-age males" in homes raided,
"regardless of the threat they posed".
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
I would suggest regular troops can not be terrorists. Although they may
be guilty of "terrorising", in the general sense of the word.
Your first example is of Russia-backed terrorists. Russia has backed terrorist movements for years. So has Iran and present day examples
would be Hamas or the Houthis.
Your second example doesn't describe terrorists. Regular troops are
capable of deplorable behaviour without being terrorists.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I just think all these conspiracy theories are nonsense. I poked fun at
you before by saying:
"Besides that, surely, any clandestine Israeli agency would avoid using
Wix like the plague, so perhaps this is a double-bluff by Hamas?
Once you start with the zany conspiracy theories, without a shred of
evidence, it's great fun, but it's hard to know where to stop. "
Are you seriously suggesting that governments never conduct covert operations to mislead the public and discredit their military opponents, and that therefore we should always scoff at any suggestion that any such 'conspiracy theory' is true?
Strange that people describe certain beliefs by the phrase 'conspiracy theory' in order to suggest that that belief is false.
It's as if these people think the authorities always tell the public the truth. Surely no-one really thinks that nowadays. I've never actually come across anyone who actually believed it. The only way to hold such a belief is to be completely ignorantof political and military history, or to be blinded by one's loyalty to a particular faction.
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:12 19 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 19/12/2023 01:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-18, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 18:31 18 Dec 2023, The Todal said:
On 18/12/2023 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulptr9$3jdjv$1@dont-email.me...
That's hardly a new stance, as the UK government has been
consistently anti-terrorist for many years.
Ever since the foundation of the Briitish Empire, I'd imagine.
But then you have to consider your definition of "terrorist".
Israel uses terrorism to terrify and subdue the Palestinians.
England has used terrorism to terrify and subdue rebels and
demonstrators in the colonies. Eg, Amritsar massacre.
I would say an essential requirement to be a "terrorist" is that
(1) they are irregular troops (often dressed as civilians), who
(2) unlawfully attack (3) civilian targets, and this is done (4)
primarily to cause fear and terror.
Israel or its defence forces would not qualify.
Wouldn't they?
So if they aren't "irregular troops" they cannot be guilty of
terrorism, presumably.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russia-backed rebels
and I think everyone agrees that those people could be called
terrorists but there is reason to believe that they were sponsored
and financed by Russia. But yes, irregular troops. Regular means
what? In the official uniform of a country's armed forces?
and..
Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three
separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and
2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public
inquiry.
One of the elite soldiers is believed to have "personally killed"
35 Afghans on a single six-month tour of duty as part of an alleged
policy to terminate "all fighting-age males" in homes raided,
"regardless of the threat they posed".
(Were those SAS soldiers terrorists? What if they disobeyed orders?)
I would suggest regular troops can not be terrorists. Although they
may be guilty of "terrorising", in the general sense of the word.
Your first example is of Russia-backed terrorists. Russia has backed
terrorist movements for years. So has Iran and present day examples
would be Hamas or the Houthis.
Your second example doesn't describe terrorists. Regular troops are
capable of deplorable behaviour without being terrorists.
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
What possible basis do you have for denying the existence of state
terrorism?
Do the comments quoted in the following paragraph of the Guardian
article also sound plausible to you, or not?
"The broad conclusion is that extensive killing of civilians not only contributes nothing to Israel's security, but that it also contains
the foundations for further undermining it," Levy concluded.
"The Gazans who will emerge from the ruins of their homes and
the loss of their families will seek revenge that no security
arrangements will be able to withstand."
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked >>> to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black
ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article
is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix
is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so
those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put
in work to keep them operational. And of course the very nature of
public websites is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down
any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
On 19/12/2023 20:52, Handsome Jack wrote:
Strange that people describe certain beliefs by the phrase 'conspiracy
theory' in order to suggest that that belief is false.
No, I describe conspiracies as such to suggest that there's no evidence. Believing something for which there's no evidence - does that show the believer as wise and insightful, or as a gullible fool?
It's as if these people think the authorities always tell the public
the truth. Surely no-one really thinks that nowadays. I've never
actually come across anyone who actually believed it. The only way to
hold such a belief is to be completely ignorant of political and
military history, or to be blinded by one's loyalty to a particular
faction.
So, maybe the CIA wrote the Hamas.com website? They are in authority.
On 19/12/2023 19:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked >>>> to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black >>>> ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article >>>> is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix
is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so
those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put
in work to keep them operational. And of course the very nature of
public websites is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down
any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
Quite some time ago, Mark Goodge pointed out:
"The domain is registered with Wix, but the site itself
is using Wordpress and a fairly common Wordpress theme. The theme,
though, is designed by an Israeli company. Make of that what you will."
Do you want to revise your thoughts in the light of that?
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:41:22 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so those
websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put in work to
keep them operational. And of course the very nature of public websites
is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take
down any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
None of your points apply to O365 versions of the applications hosted by
MS in their own Azure cloud
Am 19/12/2023 um 19:41 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked >>>> to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black >>>> ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article >>>> is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix
is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so
those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put
in work to keep them operational. And of course the very nature of
public websites is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down
any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
If we made hosting companies responsible for what their client say on
their website, the web wouldn't exist. And maybe it wouldn't be a bad
thing nowadays.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany ....
Maybe you should not recoil in horror at the very suggestion that
Israel's PR organisation might - probably did - create hamas.com
If it was created by some Israeli activists with no direct connection
with the Israeli government, then they have covered their tracks very effectively.
quote
Wix.com Ltd, an Israeli software company publicly listed in the US that provides cloud-based web development services, is the registered owner
of the website Hamas.com
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 19:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked >>>>> to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black >>>>> ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article >>>>> is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix >>>> is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so
those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put
in work to keep them operational. And of course the very nature of
public websites is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down
any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
Quite some time ago, Mark Goodge pointed out:
"The domain is registered with Wix, but the site itself
is using Wordpress and a fairly common Wordpress theme. The theme,
though, is designed by an Israeli company. Make of that what you will."
Do you want to revise your thoughts in the light of that?
No? Please read the last sentence of what I said.
The fact is we don't know where the website is hosted, because it's
hidden behind Cloudflare (an American company).
On 2023-12-20, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 19/12/2023 um 19:41 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/12/2023 13:49, The Todal wrote:
It's absolutely plausible that a fake website to discredit Hamas, linked >>>>> to by Israeli government social media, could be part of Israel's black >>>>> ops. I have no way of knowing, and nor do you. The Private Eye article >>>>> is obviously hinting such a thing.
You misunderstood PE, I'm afraid.
They were poking fun at the writers of the social media accounts for
quoting a spoof website. PE weren't stupid enough to fall for the 'Wix >>>> is an Israeli company' fallacy. It's like suggesting that any
incriminating Word document has been written by the CIA, because
Microsoft is a US company. Completely barking, obviously.
No, it's nothing like that at all. People install Microsoft Word on
their computers and then Microsoft have no knowledge or control over
what they do with it afterwards. Wix however *hosts* web sites, so
those websites only keep working while Wix continue to actively put
in work to keep them operational. And of course the very nature of
public websites is that by definition anyone can see what's on them.
Microsoft can't prevent people from writing whatever they like using
Word. Wix (and the Israeli government) on the other hand can take down
any Wix-hosted content they choose to.
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
If we made hosting companies responsible for what their client say on
their website, the web wouldn't exist. And maybe it wouldn't be a bad
thing nowadays.
But we *do* make them responsible. What do you think would happen to
a UK web hosting provider who was notified that there was, say, child
porn being hosted on their servers, and responded by saying that they
had no responsibility for it and refused to take it down?
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:41:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
I suspect it's not actually hosted by Wix, mainly because it isn't (as I
said earlier) using a Wix template and is running on Wordpress, which I
don't think Wix supports on their own hosting. The domain was registered using Wix, but the DNS is hosted by Cloudflare. I don't think that Wix themselves have the ability to cancel the domain registration, because they were just an intermediary in the purchase process. Verisign (the .com operator) could cancel it, but they're not an Israeli company. There's no easy way to tell where the site is really hosted, given that it's using Cloudflare as a CDN.
My gut feeling is that the site isn't run by any official part of the
Israeli state, because it seems to me that it would be too much of a rookie error to use both an Israeli-owned registrar and a Wordpress template from
an Israeli company if the intention is to be a genuine false flag operation. I think that the Israeli security forces are cleverer than that. But, equally, I'm certain that it's not an official Hamas site either.
If I was going to point the finger, I'd point it, very tentatively, in the direction of Russia, which has a vested interest in inflaming the conflict
as a means of distracting from the war in Ukraine. A site which ostensibly supports Hamas but, on a quick technical examination, is built using Israeli sourced products would be a very good way of sowing confusion. Especially given that there are many people who are preconditioned to believe that this is a genuine Hamas site, and an equally large number of people who are preconditioned to believe that it's Israeli black ops. Both groups will see this website as proof that they are right.
By the by, quite a good reason to think that the website was created by
the Israelis is that David Saranga of the Israeli Foreign Ministry said
it was:
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/bktpbd1ra
I think Wix could take it down by changing the registered nameservers.
I don't know whether they would get in trouble with ICANN if they did.
On 2023-12-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:41:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
(I don't know if the site in question is hosted by Wix or not, I'm
just addressing your general point.)
I suspect it's not actually hosted by Wix, mainly because it isn't (as I
said earlier) using a Wix template and is running on Wordpress, which I
don't think Wix supports on their own hosting. The domain was registered
using Wix, but the DNS is hosted by Cloudflare. I don't think that Wix
themselves have the ability to cancel the domain registration, because they >> were just an intermediary in the purchase process. Verisign (the .com
operator) could cancel it, but they're not an Israeli company. There's no
easy way to tell where the site is really hosted, given that it's using
Cloudflare as a CDN.
I think Wix could take it down by changing the registered nameservers.
I don't know whether they would get in trouble with ICANN if they did.
My gut feeling is that the site isn't run by any official part of the
Israeli state, because it seems to me that it would be too much of a rookie >> error to use both an Israeli-owned registrar and a Wordpress template from >> an Israeli company if the intention is to be a genuine false flag operation. >> I think that the Israeli security forces are cleverer than that. But,
equally, I'm certain that it's not an official Hamas site either.
Consider the possibility that the Israelis made it, with no intention of
that fact being particularly secret. It's supposed to fool the gullible.
If it was actually supposed to be a secret that it wasn't made by Hamas,
it would presumably be a lot more convincing.
If I was going to point the finger, I'd point it, very tentatively, in the >> direction of Russia, which has a vested interest in inflaming the conflict >> as a means of distracting from the war in Ukraine. A site which ostensibly >> supports Hamas but, on a quick technical examination, is built using Israeli >> sourced products would be a very good way of sowing confusion. Especially
given that there are many people who are preconditioned to believe that this >> is a genuine Hamas site, and an equally large number of people who are
preconditioned to believe that it's Israeli black ops. Both groups will see >> this website as proof that they are right.
Interestingly, a Russian company did host the real hamas website...
but have taken it down (or allowed it to be taken down).
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:ulsjof$4o82$1@dont-email.me...
What do you think of the Free Syrian Army and other groups that are funded by Western
states?
As with the Nicaraguan Contras and the Afghan Mujahadin they're
all "Freedom Fighters".
Are they terrorists? Does the West fund terrorism?
No. Only Freedom Fighters.
On 20/12/2023 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
By the by, quite a good reason to think that the website was created by
the Israelis is that David Saranga of the Israeli Foreign Ministry said
it was:
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/bktpbd1ra
Except he didn't quite say that, according to the article, which does say:
"It turns out that the site is an initiative by unknown Israeli entities to demonstrate
the horrors of Hamas in an unconventional way"
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany
....
I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First World War.
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
On 19/12/2023 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:ulsjof$4o82$1@dont-email.me...
What do you think of the Free Syrian Army and other groups that are funded by Western
states?
As with the Nicaraguan Contras and the Afghan Mujahadin they're
all "Freedom Fighters".
Are they terrorists? Does the West fund terrorism?
No. Only Freedom Fighters.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
I'm sure Hamas are freedom fighters to some.
To me the original raid that started this off, with rape and murder of unarmed civilians and the taking of hostages, qualifies them as
terrorists.
On 19/12/2023 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulsjof$4o82$1@dont-email.me...
What do you think of the Free Syrian Army and other groups that are
funded by Western
states?
As with the Nicaraguan Contras and the Afghan Mujahadin they're
all "Freedom Fighters".
Are they terrorists? Does the West fund terrorism?
No. Only Freedom Fighters.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
I'm sure Hamas are freedom fighters to some.
To me the original raid that started this off, with rape and murder of unarmed civilians and the taking of hostages, qualifies them as terrorists.
Andy
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany
....
I think you're forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the
First World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kuejmgFfferU1@mid.individual.net...
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they
are terrorists.
What possible basis do you have for denying the existence of
state terrorism?
That's to confuse terror tactics with terrorism.
It's possible to argue that a large proportion of almost
all arial bombing of enemy territory starts out
or ends up as terror tactics intended to demoralise
the civilian population and thus pressurise their
government. Although as with most things
people eventually become accustomed.
Thus in Goebbels final diaries written in 1945 he talks
of both the regular "terror bombing" of Berlin and other
German Cities while at the same time referring to the "customary
Mosquito Raid" (as translated) almost every night which
indeed did a lot of damage, including flattening his
own propaganda ministry. It was almost as if he were becoming
rather bored with the whole thing, assuming "customary"
is an accurate translation.
However arial terror bombing is only *one of many* tactics
open to countries with conventional forces as well.
The point about *pure* terrorists as against guerrillas
etc. is that as with the anarchists in Conrad's "Secret
Agent" their limited resources, and the available technology
are such, that they can only ever afford to use home made
bombs. Which in the public mind at least will always be
*nastier* and *sneakier* and just more *plain evil* than the
really big bombs dropped from aeroplanes capable of
killing hundreds if not thousands of men women and chidden
and destroying their homes at a stroke. Often, in not so
"surgical strikes"
bb
On 20/12/2023 11:29, The Todal wrote:
Maybe you should not recoil in horror at the very suggestion that
Israel's PR organisation might - probably did - create hamas.com
Having studied statistics for many years, I do recoil in horror from
your use of the word 'probably' there. Probability is a calculation,
based on data. It's not just a word you conjure up because it suits your particular point of view.
Could Israel have produced the website? Yes, of course. But, to go from
there to 'probably' is simply daft unless you have some evidence to back
it up.
I'm beginning to suspect that 'The lady doth protest too much', and you
did write the website. Obviously with some help on the technical aspects.
If it was created by some Israeli activists with no direct connection
with the Israeli government, then they have covered their tracks very
effectively.
Can you explain that in some detail, please. What steps do you think
have been taken?
quote
Wix.com Ltd, an Israeli software company publicly listed in the US that
provides cloud-based web development services, is the registered owner
of the website Hamas.com
Surely, even you must know that that is poppycock?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany
I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany
I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First
World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
Something to do with sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
The Nazi government was responsible for the care of its citizens.
On 20 Dec 2023 at 09:12:30 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kuejmgFfferU1@mid.individual.net...
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they
are terrorists.
What possible basis do you have for denying the existence of
state terrorism?
That's to confuse terror tactics with terrorism.
And many "terrorist" organisations also attack military targets. For instance Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Your distinction is wholly artificial, and a
self-serving distinction invented by states with powerful military resources.
It's possible to argue that a large proportion of almost
all arial bombing of enemy territory starts out
or ends up as terror tactics intended to demoralise
the civilian population and thus pressurise their
government. Although as with most things
people eventually become accustomed.
Thus in Goebbels final diaries written in 1945 he talks
of both the regular "terror bombing" of Berlin and other
German Cities while at the same time referring to the "customary
Mosquito Raid" (as translated) almost every night which
indeed did a lot of damage, including flattening his
own propaganda ministry. It was almost as if he were becoming
rather bored with the whole thing, assuming "customary"
is an accurate translation.
However arial terror bombing is only *one of many* tactics
open to countries with conventional forces as well.
The point about *pure* terrorists as against guerrillas
etc. is that as with the anarchists in Conrad's "Secret
Agent" their limited resources, and the available technology
are such, that they can only ever afford to use home made
bombs. Which in the public mind at least will always be
*nastier* and *sneakier* and just more *plain evil* than the
really big bombs dropped from aeroplanes capable of
killing hundreds if not thousands of men women and chidden
and destroying their homes at a stroke. Often, in not so
"surgical strikes"
bb
--
Roger Hayter
On 20 Dec 2023 at 22:57:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are
terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany >>
World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
Something to do with sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
The Nazi government was responsible for the care of its citizens.
That rather negates the concept of war crimes.
Or do you believe war crimes
are something that only a losing side can be found to have committed? Or, obviously a small African country bullied by the ICC.
While not claiming any particular expertise on the subject I'd
imagine any raid that started off with rape would soon lose momentum.
On 20/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/12/2023 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulsjof$4o82$1@dont-email.me...
What do you think of the Free Syrian Army and other groups that are
funded by Western
states?
As with the Nicaraguan Contras and the Afghan Mujahadin they're
all "Freedom Fighters".
Are they terrorists? Does the West fund terrorism?
No. Only Freedom Fighters.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
I'm sure Hamas are freedom fighters to some.
To me the original raid that started this off, with rape and murder of
unarmed civilians and the taking of hostages, qualifies them as
terrorists.
Andy
I think we can all agree that the actions of the Hamas terrorists on 7th October were vile war crimes.
And that some IDF actions were negligent but perhaps excusable in the
fog of war. For instance:
"An Israeli who was released in the recent prisoner swap between the occupation and Hamas said that her mother was killed as a result of the occupation army shooting at the car that was transporting them to Gaza,
as they were being taken as prisoners of war on 7 October.
In an interview broadcast on Israel’s Channel 12 yesterday, she said: “Al-Qassam Brigades fighters put the hostages in a truck on October 7,
and Israeli forces opened fire on the vehicle.”
She added, “My mother, whom I loved very much, died. I was injured in my back, and my brother was injured in his leg.”"
unquote
But it is also common knowledge that invading armies rape and murder
unarmed civilians - see eg the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. And no doubt
the Russian armies entering Berlin at the end of WW2. Do we say that
these soldiers were terrorists? Or just very badly behaved regular
soldiers? Is the latter description merely a figleaf to protect the army
from bad publicity? Incidentally, the Russians in Ukraine have also
committed murders and rapes, seemingly with no condemnation from their leaders.
On 20 Dec 2023 at 22:57:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
The Nazi government was responsible for the care of its citizens.
That rather negates the concept of war crimes. Or do you believe war crimes are something that only a losing side can be found to have committed? Or, obviously a small African country bullied by the ICC.
Am 20/12/2023 um 18:57 schrieb billy bookcase:
While not claiming any particular expertise on the subject I'd
imagine any raid that started off with rape would soon lose momentum.
The whole history of Rome was build upon the (myth of the) rape of
the Sabine women. (I know. I was there)
Am 20/12/2023 um 20:29 schrieb The Todal:
On 20/12/2023 17:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/12/2023 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ulsjof$4o82$1@dont-email.me...
What do you think of the Free Syrian Army and other groups that are
funded by Western
states?
As with the Nicaraguan Contras and the Afghan Mujahadin they're
all "Freedom Fighters".
Are they terrorists? Does the West fund terrorism?
No. Only Freedom Fighters.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
I'm sure Hamas are freedom fighters to some.
To me the original raid that started this off, with rape and murder
of unarmed civilians and the taking of hostages, qualifies them as
terrorists.
Andy
I think we can all agree that the actions of the Hamas terrorists on
7th October were vile war crimes.
And that some IDF actions were negligent but perhaps excusable in the
fog of war. For instance:
"An Israeli who was released in the recent prisoner swap between the
occupation and Hamas said that her mother was killed as a result of
the occupation army shooting at the car that was transporting them to
Gaza, as they were being taken as prisoners of war on 7 October.
In an interview broadcast on Israel’s Channel 12 yesterday, she said:
“Al-Qassam Brigades fighters put the hostages in a truck on October 7,
and Israeli forces opened fire on the vehicle.”
She added, “My mother, whom I loved very much, died. I was injured in
my back, and my brother was injured in his leg.”"
unquote
But it is also common knowledge that invading armies rape and murder
unarmed civilians - see eg the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. And no
doubt the Russian armies entering Berlin at the end of WW2. Do we say
that these soldiers were terrorists? Or just very badly behaved
regular soldiers? Is the latter description merely a figleaf to
protect the army from bad publicity? Incidentally, the Russians in
Ukraine have also committed murders and rapes, seemingly with no
condemnation from their leaders.
You also keep on forgetting the atrocities committed by the Allies in
Italy circa 1943-45, well after Italy capitulated, but who cares about
those pesky Italians?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Dec 2023 at 22:57:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are >>>>>>> terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany >>>
World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
Something to do with sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those >>>>> learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
The Nazi government was responsible for the care of its citizens.
That rather negates the concept of war crimes.
In what way? It was up to the Nazi government to put in place systems and procedures to protect its citizens, from long-range radar right down to stirrup pumps operated by air-raid wardens. It doesn’t necessarily exclude anything that doesn’t fall under that remit.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the
First World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
Just as its been decided that reducing the indigenous population
of North America from 100% to 2.9% doesn't constitute genocide. And
that anyone who wants to argue about it too strongly, is probably a
terrorist as well.
On 21/12/2023 10:08, billy bookcase wrote:
Just as its been decided that reducing the indigenous population
of North America from 100% to 2.9% doesn't constitute genocide. And
that anyone who wants to argue about it too strongly, is probably a
terrorist as well.
Wrong statistic.
The population of North America is far higher than in pre-Columbian times,
and the fact that a lower proportion of them are of indigenous ancestry
is not really significant.
The fact that smallpox and other diseases may have wiped out as manyand other diseases they introduced helped reduce the indigenous population
as 80% of the indigenous population is more relevant.
From a European perspective it was certainly convenient that the smallpox
Their numbers have since recovered to some extent, possibly as high
as they ever have been.
On 21/12/2023 09:34, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Dec 2023 at 22:57:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are >>>>>>>> terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany >>>>
World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
Something to do with sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those >>>>>> learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a >>>>>> better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
The Nazi government was responsible for the care of its citizens.
That rather negates the concept of war crimes.
In what way? It was up to the Nazi government to put in place systems and
procedures to protect its citizens, from long-range radar right down to
stirrup pumps operated by air-raid wardens. It doesn’t necessarily exclude >> anything that doesn’t fall under that remit.
I used to have a stirrup pump from WW2. When used with a bucket of water
it could just about manage to extinguish a very small fire such as from
an incendiary bomb on a flat roof which had not yet ignited neighbouring structures, I think. And the bucket would then need to be speedily refilled.
I think it is rather extraordinary that neither the Germans nor the
Japanese seem to bear a grudge against the UK for all the slaughter we carried out during the war. "You started it" is not a particularly
impressive ethical stance for us to take. As with Gaza today. Killing
people in bombing raids in Dresden or Hamburg is not morally superior to herding them into gas chambers in Auschwitz.
On 20/12/2023 19:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:One point that people forget is that in WW2 the technology was such that quite often the bombers missed Berlin. Or London. Navigation was pretty crude.
I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the >>> First World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those
learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a
better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
Andy
On 21/12/2023 09:34, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Dec 2023 at 22:57:54 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:15:57 +0000, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:27:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:I think you’re forgetting the 1940 Blitz, or the Zeppelin raids of the First
On 19 Dec 2023 at 15:04:27 GMT, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If they slaughter civilians to intimidate the population they are >>>>>>>> terrorists.
... and we're back to the allied (admittedly UK led) bombing of Germany >>>>
World War.
not quite sure what your point is ?
Something to do with sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
The city-destroying techniques of Bomber Command were based on those >>>>>> learned from the experience of the 1940 Blitz, but carried out in a >>>>>> better-researched manner with equipment more suited to the task.
But still took no care to spare civilians.
The Nazi government was responsible for the care of its citizens.
That rather negates the concept of war crimes.
In what way? It was up to the Nazi government to put in place systems and
procedures to protect its citizens, from long-range radar right down to
stirrup pumps operated by air-raid wardens. It doesn’t necessarily exclude >> anything that doesn’t fall under that remit.
I used to have a stirrup pump from WW2. When used with a bucket of water
it could just about manage to extinguish a very small fire such as from
an incendiary bomb on a flat roof which had not yet ignited neighbouring structures, I think. And the bucket would then need to be speedily refilled.
I think it is rather extraordinary that neither the Germans nor the
Japanese seem to bear a grudge against the UK for all the slaughter we carried out during the war. "You started it" is not a particularly
impressive ethical stance for us to take. As with Gaza today. Killing
people in bombing raids in Dresden or Hamburg is not morally superior to herding them into gas chambers in Auschwitz.
As Private Eye has revealed, the website hamas.com is actually not the official Hamas website but is probably a site created by anti-Hamas
designers (could they by chance be part of Israeli black-ops?) to
discredit Hamas.
Apologies to those who will say this post is off-topic. It is relevant
to the extent that our government's slavish support of Israel is out of
step with most civilised nations in the world. And to the extent that
we should not underestimate Israel's willingness to tell lies to those
with scruples about the massacre of innocent civilians.
Is there a well-respected book on this topic?
I think it is rather extraordinary that neither the Germans norwe carried out during the war.
the Japanese seem to bear a grudge against the UK for all the slaughter
As with the Palestinians now, it would be assumed that they supported
those who committed atrocities, and therefore deserved no mercy.
Another little details is that Italians, fascists or not, were not known for kidnapping
Allies' civilians or beheading them, at least not after 1943.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:kuj348Fe7pdU2@mid.individual.net...
we carried out during the war.
I think it is rather extraordinary that neither the Germans nor
the Japanese seem to bear a grudge against the UK for all the slaughter
But why would they ?
Both the US, who having benefited from the war still had the resources,
and the UK took pains to ensure that the mistakes of WW1 weren't
repeated ; whereby no reparations of any kind were demanded.
In fact quite the reverse as positive efforts were made to help
reconstruct both countries
One first thing to remember is that despite outward appearances
the rulers of neither country may have enjoyed universal support
certainly during the latter stages of the war.
In Japan, an acquiescent Emperor who the people revered, was
under the control of a militaristic junta. Who they didn't necessarily support themselves. The US, allegedly MacArthur in particular,
had the good sense to allow the Emperor to remain in place and
treated him with respect; rather than executing him as a war
criminal. Thus when a grateful Emperor explained to his people
that the US were "again" their friends, they all fell in behind.
Because it shouldn't be forgotten that Japan only embraced Western
values and "the modern world" after having been forced to do so
by the US in the shape of Commodore Matthew Perry 1853. Something
they were subsequently grateful for
In Germany, many Germans had already had misgivings abort Hitler right
from the start. And the likely consequences of his belligerence
And certainly as the war progressed and defeat became unenviable
they feared the same fate as had befallen Germany after WW1 punitive reparations. And as the fate of the Jews became more widely
known worldwide condemnation as well.
While much of the Holocaust material still showing up regularly on TV
was originally commissioned for showing in primitive post war German
Cinemas.
Whereas in fact, at the end of the war positive measures were taken to prevent
mass starvation (one of the reason for post way shortages in the UK with US supplies being diverted). One of the ironies of the decline of British Industry is that post war, all reconstituted German industrial concerns of any kind were mandated to have union representatives on their boards who *actually took part in decision making processes*, A system which survives to this day. Which when combined with the traditional German technical education system makes a deadly combination
While the Volkswagen plant which up to that stage had only produced a
few cars was indeed saved from destruction by a single British Army
Officer who realised the potential.
Unlike the British manufacturers famously William Rootes who visited
the factory but failed to see any potential in such a small car.
But somebody did; and the rest as they say is history.
While back to the Japan the camera industries of both Japan, Nikon
Canon, Germany Leica Rollie Contax Zeiss (West) etc were either saved
from extinction altogether, or kick-started back into production
by sales to US Servicemen based in those countries,
bb
Am 21/12/2023 um 15:08 schrieb The Todal:
As with the Palestinians now, it would be assumed that they supported
those who committed atrocities, and therefore deserved no mercy.
Yes I see the parallel. The difference is that these atrocities were committed after Italy's capitulation in 1943 and in parts of Italy not controlled by the Nazis.
So nobody could use the argument that they deserved it because they
supported the Fascist or the Nazi. We are talking of: deliberate bombing
of civilians in areas with no military targets, rapes, pillages, etc.
Another little details is that Italians, fascists or not, were not known
for kidnapping Allies' civilians or beheading them, at least not after
1943.
On 22/12/2023 11:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:kuj348Fe7pdU2@mid.individual.net...
we carried out during the war.
I think it is rather extraordinary that neither the Germans nor
the Japanese seem to bear a grudge against the UK for all the slaughter
But why would they ?
Because of the many deaths and life-changing injuries. Don't they count for anything
if the victorious powers then invest millions of dollars in your country, to the
benefit of greedy profiteers among you?
Both the US, who having benefited from the war still had the resources,
and the UK took pains to ensure that the mistakes of WW1 weren't
repeated ; whereby no reparations of any kind were demanded.
In fact quite the reverse as positive efforts were made to help
reconstruct both countries
One first thing to remember is that despite outward appearances
the rulers of neither country may have enjoyed universal support
certainly during the latter stages of the war.
In Japan, an acquiescent Emperor who the people revered, was
under the control of a militaristic junta. Who they didn't necessarily
support themselves. The US, allegedly MacArthur in particular,
had the good sense to allow the Emperor to remain in place and
treated him with respect; rather than executing him as a war
criminal. Thus when a grateful Emperor explained to his people
that the US were "again" their friends, they all fell in behind.
Because it shouldn't be forgotten that Japan only embraced Western
values and "the modern world" after having been forced to do so
by the US in the shape of Commodore Matthew Perry 1853. Something
they were subsequently grateful for
In Germany, many Germans had already had misgivings abort Hitler right
from the start. And the likely consequences of his belligerence
And certainly as the war progressed and defeat became unenviable
they feared the same fate as had befallen Germany after WW1 punitive
reparations. And as the fate of the Jews became more widely
known worldwide condemnation as well.
While much of the Holocaust material still showing up regularly on TV
was originally commissioned for showing in primitive post war German
Cinemas.
Whereas in fact, at the end of the war positive measures were taken to prevent
mass starvation (one of the reason for post way shortages in the UK with US >> supplies being diverted). One of the ironies of the decline of British
Industry is that post war, all reconstituted German industrial concerns of >> any kind were mandated to have union representatives on their boards who
*actually took part in decision making processes*, A system which survives >> to this day. Which when combined with the traditional German technical
education system makes a deadly combination
While the Volkswagen plant which up to that stage had only produced a
few cars was indeed saved from destruction by a single British Army
Officer who realised the potential.
Unlike the British manufacturers famously William Rootes who visited
the factory but failed to see any potential in such a small car.
But somebody did; and the rest as they say is history.
While back to the Japan the camera industries of both Japan, Nikon
Canon, Germany Leica Rollie Contax Zeiss (West) etc were either saved
from extinction altogether, or kick-started back into production
by sales to US Servicemen based in those countries,
bb
"Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:um3osg$1hdi7$2@dont-email.me...
Another little details is that Italians, fascists or not, were not known for kidnapping
Allies' civilians or beheading them, at least not after 1943.
There would have been little point in any case; as smartphones and
Youtube didn't exist in 1943.
On 22/12/2023 10:37, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 21/12/2023 um 15:08 schrieb The Todal:
As with the Palestinians now, it would be assumed that they supported
those who committed atrocities, and therefore deserved no mercy.
Yes I see the parallel. The difference is that these atrocities were
committed after Italy's capitulation in 1943 and in parts of Italy not
controlled by the Nazis.
I would like to read more about this, certainly.
Am 22/12/2023 um 12:03 schrieb The Todal:
On 22/12/2023 10:37, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 21/12/2023 um 15:08 schrieb The Todal:
As with the Palestinians now, it would be assumed that they
supported those who committed atrocities, and therefore deserved no
mercy.
Yes I see the parallel. The difference is that these atrocities were
committed after Italy's capitulation in 1943 and in parts of Italy
not controlled by the Nazis.
I would like to read more about this, certainly.
I couldn't find any sources in English, apart from a forum post: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54905&start= 30&sid=1c0b2c0097b74a184470fb1c3212df24
This seems to focus on Sicily.
In Italian, this about atrocities committed by French troops: https://www.adnkronos.com/Archivio/cronaca/marocchinate-stupri-e- rapine-perche-italia-tradi-francia_4ALz2CHENdigec7zGqqpUU
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:kulcddFsunfU2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/12/2023 11:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:kuj348Fe7pdU2@mid.individual.net...
I think it is rather extraordinary that neither the Germans nor
the Japanese seem to bear a grudge against the UK for all the slaughter >>> we carried out during the war.
But why would they ?
Because of the many deaths and life-changing injuries. Don't they count for anything
if the victorious powers then invest millions of dollars in your country, to the
benefit of greedy profiteers among you?
Good move there. Never let a personal opinion be trumped by a few inconvenient facts.
Am 22/12/2023 um 12:03 schrieb The Todal:
On 22/12/2023 10:37, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 21/12/2023 um 15:08 schrieb The Todal:
As with the Palestinians now, it would be assumed that they
supported those who committed atrocities, and therefore deserved no
mercy.
Yes I see the parallel. The difference is that these atrocities were
committed after Italy's capitulation in 1943 and in parts of Italy
not controlled by the Nazis.
I would like to read more about this, certainly.
I couldn't find any sources in English, apart from a forum post: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54905&start=30&sid=1c0b2c0097b74a184470fb1c3212df24
This seems to focus on Sicily.
In Italian, this about atrocities committed by French troops: https://www.adnkronos.com/Archivio/cronaca/marocchinate-stupri-e-rapine-perche-italia-tradi-francia_4ALz2CHENdigec7zGqqpUU
Am 22/12/2023 um 12:01 schrieb billy bookcase:
"Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:um3osg$1hdi7$2@dont-email.me...
Another little details is that Italians, fascists or not, were not
known for kidnapping Allies' civilians or beheading them, at least
not after 1943.
There would have been little point in any case; as smartphones and
Youtube didn't exist in 1943.
What?
On 2023-12-22, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 22/12/2023 um 12:01 schrieb billy bookcase:
"Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:um3osg$1hdi7$2@dont-email.me...
Another little details is that Italians, fascists or not, were not
known for kidnapping Allies' civilians or beheading them, at least
not after 1943.
There would have been little point in any case; as smartphones and
Youtube didn't exist in 1943.
What?
He's saying that fear and intimidation only works if there is some
mechanism for the general public to find out about the frightful and intimidating things you have done. Which is valid to some extent, but
the equivalent technology of the day was Esso gas stations, which
weren't *entirely* ineffective.
On 14:28 22 Dec 2023, Ottavio Caruso said:
Am 22/12/2023 um 12:03 schrieb The Todal:
On 22/12/2023 10:37, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 21/12/2023 um 15:08 schrieb The Todal:
As with the Palestinians now, it would be assumed that they
supported those who committed atrocities, and therefore deserved no
mercy.
Yes I see the parallel. The difference is that these atrocities were
committed after Italy's capitulation in 1943 and in parts of Italy
not controlled by the Nazis.
I would like to read more about this, certainly.
I couldn't find any sources in English, apart from a forum post:
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54905&start=
30&sid=1c0b2c0097b74a184470fb1c3212df24
This seems to focus on Sicily.
In Italian, this about atrocities committed by French troops:
https://www.adnkronos.com/Archivio/cronaca/marocchinate-stupri-e-
rapine-perche-italia-tradi-francia_4ALz2CHENdigec7zGqqpUU
There is this:
"During the Allied invasion in Sicily, some massacres of civilians by
US troops were reported, including the Vittoria one, where 12
Italians died (including a 17-year-old boy), and in Piano Stella,
where a group of peasants was murdered."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
On the other hand:
"Approximately 14,000 Italian non-Jewish civilians, often women,
children and elderly, have been documented to have died in over 5,300
individual instances of war crimes committed by Nazi Germany."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_war_crimes_in_Italy
Am 22/12/2023 um 23:56 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-12-22, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 22/12/2023 um 12:01 schrieb billy bookcase:
"Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:um3osg$1hdi7$2@dont-email.me...
Another little details is that Italians, fascists or not, were not
known for kidnapping Allies' civilians or beheading them, at least
not after 1943.
There would have been little point in any case; as smartphones and
Youtube didn't exist in 1943.
What?
He's saying that fear and intimidation only works if there is some
mechanism for the general public to find out about the frightful and
intimidating things you have done. Which is valid to some extent, but
the equivalent technology of the day was Esso gas stations, which
weren't *entirely* ineffective.
I would have expected the "there were no iPhones in 1943" only from a
Gen Z.
The navigational aid known as Oboe was so accurate it showed that the UK
map grid and its European equivalent had been misaligned due to an error triangulating across the Straits of Dover. It also, for example, allowed individual blast furnaces in the Ruhr, that produced speciality steels, to
be bombed.
The Germans quickly learned what the system was from observing the bombing aircraft flying a gently curved path during its bombing run, and duly found the guidance signals in the VHF/UHF bands, at which point they jammed them. They couldn’t understand why in the face of all this jamming the raids continued. What they never discovered was that we had moved the guidance signals onto centimetric wavelengths, leaving the old system running as if operational.
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:um1o9i$14m4r$2@dont-email.me...
On 21/12/2023 10:08, billy bookcase wrote:
Just as its been decided that reducing the indigenous population
of North America from 100% to 2.9% doesn't constitute genocide. And
that anyone who wants to argue about it too strongly, is probably a
terrorist as well.
Wrong statistic.
No it isn't.
Because its the *only* statistic its possible to be certain of,
assuming present day census figures are correct
The population of North America is far higher than in pre-Columbian times,
and the fact that a lower proportion of them are of indigenous ancestry
is not really significant.
Maybe not for you. But it is for the indigenous people themselves. Prior
to the arrival of the Europeans they consisted of 100% of the population
and had free use of the whole of North America. And whatever their actual population was,
a figure disputed for wholly ideological reasons, it was
the maximum population sustainable by their various cultures and
lifestyles in those particular environments
The fact that smallpox and other diseases may have wiped out as many
as 80% of the indigenous population is more relevant.
From a European perspective it was certainly convenient that the smallpoxand other diseases they introduced helped reduce the indigenous population
as that obviously saved on bullets.
Their numbers have since recovered to some extent, possibly as high
as they ever have been.
First that's highly debatable. And in any case that hardly means that
they're back to their old ways of hunting buffalo across the plains,
does it ?
Which is rather more to the point, where the question of genocide is concerned.
Their entire cultures were destroyed. Those of the population of an
entire continent.
Destroying their culture isn't genocide.
That is why I say you chose the wrong statistic.
On 21/12/2023 17:11, Spike wrote:
The navigational aid known as Oboe was so accurate it showed that the UK
map grid and its European equivalent had been misaligned due to an error
triangulating across the Straits of Dover. It also, for example, allowed
individual blast furnaces in the Ruhr, that produced speciality steels, to >> be bombed.
The Germans quickly learned what the system was from observing the bombing >> aircraft flying a gently curved path during its bombing run, and duly found >> the guidance signals in the VHF/UHF bands, at which point they jammed them. >> They couldn’t understand why in the face of all this jamming the raids
continued. What they never discovered was that we had moved the guidance
signals onto centimetric wavelengths, leaving the old system running as if >> operational.
You might want to read the very good Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe_(navigation)
which makes the points that
* Oboe wasn't in use until 1943. ~4 years into a ~6 year war.
* Berlin was out of range of Oboe
It so happens one of my schoolteachers was known as Gee, and worked on H2S...
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:umhksn$3vr7o$2@dont-email.me...
snip
Destroying their culture isn't genocide.
snip
So what to you, constitutes a person ?
What differentiates human beings from animals, is that we develop
cultures, ways of life.
Deprive a person of the only way of life they have ever known, as was
the case with the native americans, and they lose their whole reason
for living.
Driven off of their land, as was the case with the plains Indians
which was the only place they knew, and was often of religious
significance and where their ancestors still lived, and into
inhospitable places which offered them nothing, they were completely
bereft.
The northern tribes certainly were a traditional people without
writing or science - from birth to death the only thing any of them
would ever learn would be from their parents via oral culture. There
were no outside influences on them for century after century.
The Europeans came along and they were defenceless in the face of a
superior technology they couldn't possibly match, In terms of
technology they hadn't even developed the wheel If only because given
the vast resources" at their disposal and their way of life they
hadn't needed to. They were under no pressure.
So the answer you "should" have given was yes the destruction of the
North American Indians "was" genocide. But because they were making
such* limited use* of the vast resources of the continent, not even
having developed writing or the wheel it was inevitable that they
would be "swept away" by "progress" -
[SNIP]
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing. It defines genocide as an "intent to destroy" through death or serious bodily harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide
Occupying the land of another people or causing a "culture" to wither
away is not mentioned.
[SNIP]
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0E88B89AA1295D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
[SNIP]
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing.
Well it wouldn't be, would it ? *
Given that the UN was and is bankrolled by, and has headquarters
situated in, the country responsible for (along with Australia )
one of the few truly "successful" exercises in genocide, ever
accomplished. Successfully destroying an entire culture - or
rather a group of cultures.
Furthermore because they, the indigenous people didn't have a
written culture of their own, most of our knowledge of tribal
structures of the various tribes will most likely derive
from the various treaties signed with them; possibly often
drawn up on the basis of supposition and insufficient
knowledge. But then who was going to complain ?
So that for all we know, we may have actually succeeded
in physically destroying, actually killing off *entire Indigenous
Indian Nations* as tribes are now called; in addition to their
culture their history, and any evidence that they had ever
existed.
Which is handy, for some people at least.
bb
Just because you think genocide includes stealing their land
and destroying their culture doesn't make it so.
But I repeat my original assertion - there is no clear evidence that the native north American population is any lower now than it was before Columbus.
You method says that if a region has a population, and a large
number of immigrants move in reducing the _percentage_ of the natives
then it is genocide.
Deliberately spreading smallpox and other diseases may well
count as attempted genocide.
The fact that there are large numbers of people of European ancestry
in the USA does not affect it.
Of course quite a few of those Europeans fled there to escape another genocide...
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0E88B89AA1295D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
[SNIP]
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing.
Well it wouldn't be, would it ? *
Given that the UN was and is bankrolled by, and has headquarters
situated in, the country responsible for (along with Australia ) one
of the few truly "successful" exercises in genocide, ever
accomplished. Successfully destroying an entire culture - or rather a
group of cultures.
Furthermore because they, the indigenous people didn't have a written
culture of their own, most of our knowledge of tribal structures of
the various tribes will most likely derive from the various treaties
signed with them; possibly often drawn up on the basis of supposition
and insufficient knowledge. But then who was going to complain ?
So that for all we know, we may have actually succeeded in physically destroying, actually killing off *entire Indigenous Indian Nations* as
tribes are now called; in addition to their culture their history, and
any evidence that they had ever existed.
Which is handy, for some people at least.
bb
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:ummtuq$svun$2@dont-email.me...
Just because you think genocide includes stealing their land
and destroying their culture doesn't make it so.
But its not just what *I think though, is it ?
Now let's see
quote:
When Native Americans Were Slaughtered in the Name of 'Civilization'
Below, some of the most aggressive acts of genocide taken against
Indigenous Americans:
:unquote
https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states
quote:
American Genocide: The Crimes of Native American Boarding Schools
Embarks on a Quest for Truth and Healing "This is an entry point.
We hope all Americans start to learn not only the true history of
what happened, but what can be done today," cohost Crystal Echo Hawk
says of the six-episode podcast.
:unquote
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/05/american-genocide-the- crimes-of-native-american-boarding-schools-truth-and-healing
quote:
The United States Must Reckon With Its Own Genocides
:unquote
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/11/us-genocide-china- indigenous-peoples-day-columbus/
:quote:
Immigration and Relocation in U.S. History
Native American
These dislocations and changes took place across many centuries, and
each individual episode was marked by its own set of unique
circumstances, from public negotiations and careful planning to
subterfuge and deceit; from declarations of friendship to calls for
genocide
unquote
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/native-american/
But I repeat my original assertion - there is no clear evidence that
the native north American population is any lower now than it was
before Columbus.
The figures are disputed, and for fairly obvious reasons.
You method says that if a region has a population, and a large
number of immigrants move in reducing the _percentage_ of the natives
then it is genocide.
But they didn't just "move in", did they ? That's the whole point !
In Utah
quote
The Battle at Fort Utah (also known as the Provo River Massacre,[2] or
Fort Utah Massacre[3]) was a violent attack in 1850 in which 90 Mormon militiamen surrounded an encampment of Timpanogos families on the
Provo River one winter morning,[4]:?114? and laid siege for two days, eventually shooting between 40 and 100 Native American men and one
woman with guns and a cannon during the attack as well as during the
pursuit and capture of the two groups that fled the last night.[4]
[...]
Young was also concerned that losing Fort Utah would disrupt his
plans to settle other fertile valleys and have a route to California.
[19] He ordered an extermination campaign against the Timpanogos,
with orders to kill all the Timpanogos men, but to spare the women
and children if they behaved.[20][11]:?394?[21][22] General Wells
drafted the extermination order as Special Order No. 2 and sent
them to Captain George D. Grant.[16]:?224? In his letter, he told
Grant "Take no hostile Indians as prisoners" and "let none escape
but do the work up clean".[23]:
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_Fort_Utah
A nice touch there don't you think ? "spare the women and children if
they behaved"
So that's what separated the US Cavalry from the SS. The US Cavalry
were under orders to only murder women and children if they
misbehaved.
War crimes ? What war crimes ?
Now let's see how some more of your immigrants behaved,
this time in California
quote
The Round Valley Settler Massacres of 1856-1859 were a series of
massacres committed by early white settlers of California with
cooperation and funding from the government of California and the
support of prominent Californians against the Yuki people of Round
Valley, Mendocino County, California. More than 1,000 Yuki are
estimated to have been killed; many others were enslaved and only 300 survived. The intent of the massacres was to exterminate the Yuki and
gain control of the land they inhabited.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Valley_Settler_Massacres_of_
1856_-_1859
California again
quote:
!n 1859, a band of locally sponsored rangers led by Walter S. Jarboe,
called the Eel River Rangers, raided the countryside in an effort to
remove the natives from settler territory and move them onto the Nome
Cult Farm, an area near the Mendocino Indian Reservation. By the time
the Eel River Rangers were disbanded in 1860, Jarboe and his men had
killed 283 warriors, captured 292, killed countless women and
children, and only suffered 5 casualties themselves in just 23
engagements. The bill to the state for the rangers' services amounted
to $11,143.43.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendocino_War
Nice Freudian Slip there - remove the "natives" (i.e. the
people who actually belong there ) from "settler" territory
Deliberately spreading smallpox and other diseases may well
count as attempted genocide.
While a seeming obsession with disease may offer a convenient
smokescreen for apologists, it doesn't actually cut that much ice;
certainly as compared with actual examples of deliberate attempts at extermination as described above. Only 3 of many it maybe goes without saying.
The fact that there are large numbers of people of European ancestry
in the USA does not affect it.
So who exactly was it who were shooting all the Native Americans (see
above)
Of course quite a few of those Europeans fled there to escape another
genocide...
And that is relevant, how exactly ?
bb
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing. It defines genocide as an "intent to destroy" through death or serious bodily harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide
Occupying the land of another people or causing a "culture" to wither
away is not mentioned.
On 19:36 29 Dec 2023, billy bookcase said:
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ummtuq$svun$2@dont-email.me...
Just because you think genocide includes stealing their land
and destroying their culture doesn't make it so.
But its not just what *I think though, is it ?
Now let's see
quote:
When Native Americans Were Slaughtered in the Name of 'Civilization'
Below, some of the most aggressive acts of genocide taken against
Indigenous Americans:
:unquote
https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states
quote:
American Genocide: The Crimes of Native American Boarding Schools
Embarks on a Quest for Truth and Healing "This is an entry point.
We hope all Americans start to learn not only the true history of
what happened, but what can be done today," cohost Crystal Echo Hawk
says of the six-episode podcast.
:unquote
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/05/american-genocide-the-
crimes-of-native-american-boarding-schools-truth-and-healing
quote:
The United States Must Reckon With Its Own Genocides
:unquote
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/11/us-genocide-china-
indigenous-peoples-day-columbus/
:quote:
Immigration and Relocation in U.S. History
Native American
These dislocations and changes took place across many centuries, and
each individual episode was marked by its own set of unique
circumstances, from public negotiations and careful planning to
subterfuge and deceit; from declarations of friendship to calls for
genocide
unquote
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/native-american/
But I repeat my original assertion - there is no clear evidence that
the native north American population is any lower now than it was
before Columbus.
The figures are disputed, and for fairly obvious reasons.
You method says that if a region has a population, and a large
number of immigrants move in reducing the _percentage_ of the natives
then it is genocide.
But they didn't just "move in", did they ? That's the whole point !
In Utah
quote
The Battle at Fort Utah (also known as the Provo River Massacre,[2] or
Fort Utah Massacre[3]) was a violent attack in 1850 in which 90 Mormon
militiamen surrounded an encampment of Timpanogos families on the
Provo River one winter morning,[4]:?114? and laid siege for two days,
eventually shooting between 40 and 100 Native American men and one
woman with guns and a cannon during the attack as well as during the
pursuit and capture of the two groups that fled the last night.[4]
[...]
Young was also concerned that losing Fort Utah would disrupt his
plans to settle other fertile valleys and have a route to California.
[19] He ordered an extermination campaign against the Timpanogos,
with orders to kill all the Timpanogos men, but to spare the women
and children if they behaved.[20][11]:?394?[21][22] General Wells
drafted the extermination order as Special Order No. 2 and sent
them to Captain George D. Grant.[16]:?224? In his letter, he told
Grant "Take no hostile Indians as prisoners" and "let none escape
but do the work up clean".[23]:
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_Fort_Utah
A nice touch there don't you think ? "spare the women and children if
they behaved"
So that's what separated the US Cavalry from the SS. The US Cavalry
were under orders to only murder women and children if they
misbehaved.
War crimes ? What war crimes ?
Now let's see how some more of your immigrants behaved,
this time in California
quote
The Round Valley Settler Massacres of 1856-1859 were a series of
massacres committed by early white settlers of California with
cooperation and funding from the government of California and the
support of prominent Californians against the Yuki people of Round
Valley, Mendocino County, California. More than 1,000 Yuki are
estimated to have been killed; many others were enslaved and only 300
survived. The intent of the massacres was to exterminate the Yuki and
gain control of the land they inhabited.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Valley_Settler_Massacres_of_
1856_-_1859
California again
quote:
!n 1859, a band of locally sponsored rangers led by Walter S. Jarboe,
called the Eel River Rangers, raided the countryside in an effort to
remove the natives from settler territory and move them onto the Nome
Cult Farm, an area near the Mendocino Indian Reservation. By the time
the Eel River Rangers were disbanded in 1860, Jarboe and his men had
killed 283 warriors, captured 292, killed countless women and
children, and only suffered 5 casualties themselves in just 23
engagements. The bill to the state for the rangers' services amounted
to $11,143.43.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendocino_War
Nice Freudian Slip there - remove the "natives" (i.e. the
people who actually belong there ) from "settler" territory
Deliberately spreading smallpox and other diseases may well
count as attempted genocide.
While a seeming obsession with disease may offer a convenient
smokescreen for apologists, it doesn't actually cut that much ice;
certainly as compared with actual examples of deliberate attempts at
extermination as described above. Only 3 of many it maybe goes without
saying.
The fact that there are large numbers of people of European ancestry
in the USA does not affect it.
So who exactly was it who were shooting all the Native Americans (see
above)
Of course quite a few of those Europeans fled there to escape another
genocide...
And that is relevant, how exactly ?
bb
Thank you for examples of misuse of the term "genocide".
There's no need
to quote massacres so extensively from Google and you will forgive me
for reading only the first few but it's clear none would stand up as the basis of a legal understanding of genocide.
Everyday usage of the term is departing ever further from a formal
definition and becoming absurd. However this is a legal group and Humpty Dumpty definitions aren't helpful:"When I use a word it means just what
I choose it to mean neither more nor less".
To avoid misunderstanding the United Nations Office on Genocide
Prevention produced a guidance note a few years ago on this very topic.
See: "When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide".
<https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/GuidanceNote- When%20to%20refer%20to%20a%20situation%20as%20genocide.pdf>
On 17:48 28 Dec 2023, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB0E88B89AA1295D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
[SNIP]
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing.
Well it wouldn't be, would it ? *
Given that the UN was and is bankrolled by, and has headquarters
situated in, the country responsible for (along with Australia ) one
of the few truly "successful" exercises in genocide, ever
accomplished. Successfully destroying an entire culture - or rather a
group of cultures.
Furthermore because they, the indigenous people didn't have a written
culture of their own, most of our knowledge of tribal structures of
the various tribes will most likely derive from the various treaties
signed with them; possibly often drawn up on the basis of supposition
and insufficient knowledge. But then who was going to complain ?
So that for all we know, we may have actually succeeded in physically
destroying, actually killing off *entire Indigenous Indian Nations* as
tribes are now called; in addition to their culture their history, and
any evidence that they had ever existed.
Which is handy, for some people at least.
bb
It seem that rather than use the standard definition of genocide or
something similar, you have made one up to suit your argument.
The Round Valley Settler Massacres of 1856-1859 were a series of massacres committed by early white settlers of California with cooperation and
funding from the government of California and the support of prominent Californians against the Yuki people of Round Valley, Mendocino County, California. More than 1,000 Yuki are estimated to have been killed;
many others were enslaved and only 300 survived. The intent of the
massacres was to exterminate the Yuki and gain control of the land
they inhabited.
On 28/12/2023 13:43, Pamela wrote:
Eh? You quote it and no one appears to read it.
The UN Convention's own definition is not so all embracing. It
defines genocide as an "intent to destroy" through death or serious
bodily harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_
of_genocide
Occupying the land of another people or causing a "culture" to wither
away is not mentioned.
The mechanism of "intent to destroy, in whole or in part" can be
satisfied in many ways, including the one below:
'''
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
'''
Which to my mind does include causing a culture (a people) to wither
away.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0E9CA64956E15D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
On 19:36 29 Dec 2023, billy bookcase said:
Unfortunately for some reason you appear to be totally unfamiliar with provisions b,c,and e, of article II of the Genocide Convention of
1948. Which would appear to be especially applicable in this instance
[SNIP]
Everyday usage of the term is departing ever further from a formal
definition and becoming absurd. However this is a legal group and
Humpty Dumpty definitions aren't helpful:"When I use a word it means
just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less".
To avoid misunderstanding the United Nations Office on Genocide
Prevention produced a guidance note a few years ago on this very
topic.
See: "When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide".
<https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/
GuidanceNote-When%20to%20refer%20to%20a%20situation%20as%
20genocide.pdf>
And interesting link, thank you. ....
On 29/12/2023 19:36, billy bookcase wrote:
The Round Valley Settler Massacres of 1856-1859 were a series of massacres >> committed by early white settlers of California with cooperation and
funding from the government of California and the support of prominent
Californians against the Yuki people of Round Valley, Mendocino County,
California. More than 1,000 Yuki are estimated to have been killed;
many others were enslaved and only 300 survived. The intent of the
massacres was to exterminate the Yuki and gain control of the land
they inhabited.
Picking this one out of your example - comparing the status before and after that
massacre might well be proof of genocide. I am not qualified to judge.
My only point is that you need to compare the pre-Columbian status with
the post massacre status, not the status today when it appears possible
the Native American population has recovered.
Incidentally smallpox is a pretty nasty disease. I'll bet it killed more
than 1000... let's see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics>
"By 1698 the virus had crossed the Mississippi, causing an epidemic that nearly
obliterated the Quapaw Indians of Arkansas."
And the article does quote examples of deliberate attempts to spread smallpox.
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an element
that is often hard to prove, the element of intent".
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0EBED1EF20605D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an element
that is often hard to prove, the element of intent".
Which is met in full.
Unless you're denying that one of the supposed
objectives of (excuses for) the colonisation of both
North and South America was so as to convert the
Native Heathens, by completely destroying their
heathen cultures and turning them into God Fearing
Christians and thus saving their souls ?
Are you denying that that was the intention ?
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:ums72e$1pnss$3@dont-email.me...
On 29/12/2023 19:36, billy bookcase wrote:
The Round Valley Settler Massacres of 1856-1859 were a series of
massacres committed by early white settlers of California with
cooperation and funding from the government of California and the
support of prominent Californians against the Yuki people of Round
Valley, Mendocino County, California. More than 1,000 Yuki are
estimated to have been killed; many others were enslaved and only
300 survived. The intent of the massacres was to exterminate the
Yuki and gain control of the land they inhabited.
Picking this one out of your example - comparing the status before
and after that massacre might well be proof of genocide. I am not
qualified to judge.
My only point is that you need to compare the pre-Columbian status
with the post massacre status, not the status today when it appears
possible the Native American population has recovered.
"Possible".
The only incontrovertible facts here are that its clearly in the
interests of denialists to claim that the pre-Columbian population
was as small as possible; while its clearly in the interests of their accusers to claim it was in fact much larger.
And a further incontrovertible fact is that research objectives and
the funds to achieve those, will be largely determined by the
political objectives of those funding that research.
However speaking specifically of "status" rather than "quality of
life" which you seem determined to avoid, at all costs.
It's another incontrovertible fact that prior to the arrival of
Europeans the Native Americans had full use of 100% of the land area
of North America
They now occupy just 2.3%
The total area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha;
87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
However. prior to the Dawes Act of 1887 the reservations had totalled
138 million acres, so that
quote:
"The act allowed the federal government to break up reservation
land to assimilate Native Americans and make land available for
private ownership. Under the act's provisions, the United States
took two thirds of the 138 million acres held by Native Americans
prior to the act.
quote:#
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/how-a-navajo-scientist-is- helping-to-restore-traditional-peach-horticulture.htm
They took two thirds and made them "available for private ownership".
So at a wild guess, who do you think will have ended up with the 1/3
of deserts and mountains, and who have ended up with the 2/3 of
all the good land ?
Another denalist trope. Nobody denies Native American's fell prey to
Incidentally smallpox is a pretty nasty disease. I'll bet it killed
more than 1000... let's see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics>
"By 1698 the virus had crossed the Mississippi, causing an epidemic
that nearly obliterated the Quapaw Indians of Arkansas."
all sorts of diseases.
But as I've already pointed out more than once, they clearly didn't
fall prey to them in large enough numbers, or fast enough. did they ?.
As otherwise presumably the following wouldn't have been necessary.
And from the "Father of The Nation". as well
quote:
" Trapping tribes in poverty has been a federal policy objective since
the United States' founding. In fact, the United States' preferred
tactic in most wars against tribes was starvation rather than armed
conflict. For example, General George Washington ordered Major General
John Sullivan to destroy the Iroquois food supply "and prevent their
planting more" during the Revolutionary War. The United States would
go on to nearly exterminate bison in the name of subduing the Plains
Indians. In its campaign against the Navajo, the United States
slaughtered the Navajo sheep herds, razed their crops, and poisoned
their water.
Destruction of Indian food supplies was meant to break the Indian
spirit
as warriors are less brave when their families cannot eat.
unquote:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_ rights_magazine_home/wealth-disparities-in-civil-rights/federal- policies-trap-tribes-in-poverty/
And the article does quote examples of deliberate attempts to spread
smallpox.
Which is just another part of the denialist trope. It would only ever
matter if it was deliberate of not, if disease was such a big factor
in the first place.
But as I've already pointed out more than once, if disease was such a
big factor then why was it thought necessary to starve them, as
above or to shoot them in order to drive any survivors off of their
land and into reservations ?.
bb
On 19:49 1 Jan 2024, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB0EBED1EF20605D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an element
that is often hard to prove, the element of intent".
Which is met in full.
Unless you're denying that one of the supposed
objectives of (excuses for) the colonisation of both
North and South America was so as to convert the
Native Heathens, by completely destroying their
heathen cultures and turning them into God Fearing
Christians and thus saving their souls ?
Are you denying that that was the intention ?
A partial reason does not satisfy the requirement. In the Convention, "intent" refers to death of victims, not death of their culture.
Sorry but loss of culture alone does not meet the UN definition of
genocide.
On 05/01/2024 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 19:49 1 Jan 2024, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB0EBED1EF20605D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an
element that is often hard to prove, the element of intent".
Which is met in full.
Unless you're denying that one of the supposed
objectives of (excuses for) the colonisation of both
North and South America was so as to convert the
Native Heathens, by completely destroying their
heathen cultures and turning them into God Fearing
Christians and thus saving their souls ?
Are you denying that that was the intention ?
A partial reason does not satisfy the requirement. In the Convention,
"intent" refers to death of victims, not death of their culture.
Sorry but loss of culture alone does not meet the UN definition of genocide.
I think it does.
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
---
*any* of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,
as such:
---
The definition is that genocide is about destroying a group, not
necessarily the individuals, in the group.
If you want to talk about killing individuals, we have murder and
related war crimes.
The wall of text you posted in response to me earlier, explaining
genocide, doesn't clarify anything for me. It just appears to enable
the meaning of genocide to be used subjectively, at the court's
discretion.
Sorry but loss of culture alone does not meet the UN definition of
genocide.
On 15:56 6 Jan 2024, Pancho said:
On 05/01/2024 13:00, Pamela wrote:
On 19:49 1 Jan 2024, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB0EBED1EF20605D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an
element that is often hard to prove, the element of intent".
Which is met in full.
Unless you're denying that one of the supposed
objectives of (excuses for) the colonisation of both
North and South America was so as to convert the
Native Heathens, by completely destroying their
heathen cultures and turning them into God Fearing
Christians and thus saving their souls ?
Are you denying that that was the intention ?
A partial reason does not satisfy the requirement. In the Convention,
"intent" refers to death of victims, not death of their culture.
Sorry but loss of culture alone does not meet the UN definition of
genocide.
I think it does.
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
---
*any* of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,
as such:
---
The definition is that genocide is about destroying a group, not
necessarily the individuals, in the group.
That's an intriguing distinction between group and individuals. However extinction is not genocide unless the objective is intended, according
to the UN's legal definition.
See the UN's note: "When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide". None of
their examples is close to "loss of culture". See two parts, each
starting with:
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an element
that is often hard to prove, the element of "intent".
"To date, only a few events have been determined by competent
judicial bodies to constitute genocide"
If you want to talk about killing individuals, we have murder and
related war crimes.
The wall of text you posted in response to me earlier, explaining
genocide, doesn't clarify anything for me. It just appears to enable
the meaning of genocide to be used subjectively, at the court's
discretion.
You have some messages mixed up. The only post I've sent you consists of
nine spaced out lines. Not a "wall".
MID: <XnsB0EBEDD04C0D55D4AM2@135.181.20.170>
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB0F08440285305D4AM2@135.181.20.170...
Sorry but loss of culture alone does not meet the UN definition of
genocide.
quote:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
b.. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c.. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
e.. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
unquote:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
HTH
bb
On 07/01/2024 12:12, Pamela wrote:
As previously cited, the actual definition of genocide includes
[TRIMMED]
See the UN's note: "When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide". None
of their examples is close to "loss of culture". See two parts, each
starting with:
"The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an
element that is often hard to prove, the element of "intent".
"To date, only a few events have been determined by competent
judicial bodies to constitute genocide"
''' Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; '''
The main gist of the UN's note is that a classification of genocide
should only be determined by "approved of" judicial bodies. i.e.
conviction should be restricted to African, Slavic, and third world
type countries, not important people.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:10:25 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,786 |