Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I face investigation for terrorism

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#261

Post by hef19898 »

xdennis wrote: post #256
cheeseomlit wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't the Philistines in the old testament the ancestors of the Palestinians? Meaning they were there first presumably, since the Israelites had to fight them to take the region in the first place

The Philistines settled in a small part of modern Israel at around 1175 BC, and disappeared (were assimilated) by the 5th century BC. Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers. It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last…

So we can go back to antiquity to make territorial claims? Hell, better not tell that the Persians, Romans and Mongols! Or the British... Maybe Macedonia wants another shot at conquering India so, who knows?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#262

Post by hef19898 »

xdennis wrote: post #257
Kudos wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to suggest that it's the Jews who are oppressed?

I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say it's an apartheid state when Israel has Muslims with full citizenship, but if Jew crossed into Gaza unarmed he would be slaughtered on the spot. Palestine is an apartheid state. Israel is not.

The better metric would be how many Arabs, including in the occupied territories, are Israelian citizens. By the way, apartheid doesn't depend on citizenship per se.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#263

Post by matthewdgreen »

xdennis wrote: post #253
matthewdgreen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's also possible they read his Tweet and looked at his background and said "this dangerous person really is going to conduct violent acts in this country, we have no choice but to thwart him by seizing all his electronic devices using the most powerful law in the land, even if it de-legitimizes our use of this law for more serious matters." But since that hypothesis is so obviously cartoonish, it's hard to bl…

> it's hard to blame folks who look for more rational explanations like "the government is harassing a political opponent" (whether they're right or wrong.) No, it's not, because he's clearly being investigated for supporting Hamas' actions (which classified as a terrorist organization by the UK).

I don't know anything about this person other than what's on his Wikipedia. And what that says is: he's a 65-year old former diplomat and noted human rights activist with (as far as I can tell) zero history of violence or terrorist acts.

If the government seriously thinks he's capable of following through on violent acts because he wrote a Tweet saying "I support Hamas", I suspect the government is badly mismanaging its anti-terrorism resources. If the government doesn't think he's going to follow up that Tweet with action and is "merely doing it because the law says they can", that's pretty much the definition of harassment.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#264

Post by hef19898 »

bawolff wrote: post #210
hef19898 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hamas attack was as despicable as they get. As far as terror attacks go, it is right up there with 9/11. As is Israels reaction.

In case its not clear, i agree. Actually i think it was much worse than 9/11. If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.

I guess we can put that on list of all those other crimes that never got prosecuted in Den Hague. Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#265

Post by bawolff »

hef19898 wrote: post #259
xdennis wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent Insurgents are people who are fighting their own government (with guns) so they are armed, but they're not fighting Hamas, they're fighting Israel, so they're not insurgents. Many of them don't even wear military uniforms in combat, that makes them unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and don't have rights. They almost always attack civilians…

Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them. That makes fighting them a police action, one that has to follow basic human rights (detention, fair trials, the works). Unless you are fine being the baddy, in which case go full out Soviet Uniom in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam or SS on the Eastern Front rear…

> Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them

??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#266

Post by bawolff »

hef19898 wrote: post #264
bawolff wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case its not clear, i agree. Actually i think it was much worse than 9/11. If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.

I guess we can put that on list of all those other crimes that never got prosecuted in Den Hague. Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?

> Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?

Brundi and the Philippines? Maybe i misunderstand your question as i don't know what you are getting at.

Israel has never ratified. However Palestine did ratify so the ICC does have juridsiction here.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#267

Post by t0bia_s »

rmbyrro wrote: post #121
kypro wrote: post #4

> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act > I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer. > I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information. > I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this. This is what I find so terrifyin…

Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy. No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world". Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly…

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#268

Post by hwillis »

xdennis wrote: post #255
hwillis wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murray wrote Zionism is Bullshit in 2017. It's just as old as his pro-independence stuff. > Humanity shouldn't wait for another holocaust. Agreed. An international coalition must militarily intervene to repeal rules such as Military Order 158 (blocking construction of water infrastructure), rebuild important infrastructure (like the airport blown up by israel), restore critical life services like hospitals (which hav…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#269

Post by sharno »

xdennis wrote: post #164
Kudos wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you unfamiliar with the oppression Palestinians experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

18% of Israelis are Muslim. How many Jews are allowed in Gaza?

Have you read the linked page?

> Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans".[237] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."

Post reply on HN