Jordanian pilot burned alive by IS

[Morch]

Morch "There's a binding and comprehensive list of terrorist organizations agreed upon by the UNGA? Or perhaps you're confusing the EU terrorism list thing? (and no, Hamas was not really taken off the list). Could cite Hezbollah (and previously in southern Lebanon, Fatah) as candidates, Boko Haram springs to mind as well.Taliban could possibly be mentioned (albeit it seems that they are now insurgents)."

Sorry, you're wrong on just about every count in your comment. The EU has taken Hamas off of their terrorist list http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30511569 I was talking about EU, not America, Japan nor the UN who still (thankfully) accept Hamas for what it is is, a terror group! Hezbollah have not seized land in Lebanon, they're from Lebanon, formed from the old Shia block within the Lebanese society. Boko Haram, again they have not seized any land and formed their own cities etc, they're from Nigeria and based in Nigeria although they do go and kill and kidnap in Chad and of course just a couple of weeks ago, Cameroon. Fatah? They're a policital party based in Ramalah!! Founded by Arafat in the 50's as a political movement.

I'll just copy the PM reply, if that's alright -

The EU court did not really change the Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization. It was a formal move, originating from a previous case concerning the Tamil Tigers. The restrictions on Hamas were left in place and the appeal is already in motion. The issue was mostly procedural, nothing actually changed - and when the appeal is accepted it will cement Hamas status as a terrorist organization. This was discussed in length on two previous topics.

As far as I am aware, there is no accepted and official UN designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. There is, in fact, no unified list of terrorist organizations as such, but rather several lists which pertain to specific UN resolutions. The UN is effectively cooperating with Hamas via UNRWA.

Hezbollah physically and politically control areas in southern Lebanon, often operating parallel services to the local population. Lebanese government control over south Lebanon is mostly nominal. They have not constructed their own towns and such, but effectively control some (not to mention certain areas of Beirut). IS did not set up towns as well, it took over existing settlements, towns and cities. The fact that they have access to oil got more to do with their geographical location, the Hezbollah involvement in Lebanese drug trade and smuggling operations over the Syrian border is well known. Each uses what's available.

Boko Haram did not seize any land? Is this why Nigerian government forces been fighting their battles on more and more southerly locations? Those raids where they kidnap people are just the front lines, as it were. Boko Haram being mostly Nigerian, well....by now its a good bet that the majority of IS is Iraqi and Syrian.

As for Fatah, you're talking nowadays. In the late 70' and early 80' Fatah was mostly based in southern Lebanon, which was used as grounds for attacks on northern Israel. Pretty much as Hezbollah is doing nowadays. Back then southern Lebanon was nicknamed "Fatahland".

[hawker9000]

Burning someone alive is barbaric, bombing people while you are in a plane is too.

...unless the people you're bombing happen to be the people doing the burning (or aiding or abetting or otherwise supporting or providing aid & comfort to them).

[snarky66]

Egypt & Jordan could certainly lead the charge against IS. obama in a classic lie said he was going to arm the Pashmerga. They are still waiting. The US has given them MRE'S & blankets. The US needs to be an active partner in military operations. But Barry doesn't have the stomach for it.

[Morch]

Egypt & Jordan could certainly lead the charge against IS. obama in a classic lie said he was going to arm the Pashmerga. They are still waiting. The US has given them MRE'S & blankets. The US needs to be an active partner in military operations. But Barry doesn't have the stomach for it.

Egypt got enough trouble with IS-affiliated and other Jihadi organizations in its backyard, not to mention the outlawed MB. Not that close, geographically, to the main fighting areas. The USA needs to tread carefully when dealing with the Kurds, as it still needs the cooperation of Turkey (airbases, border control) - such as it is. Arming the Kurds might also cause additional friction with whatever passes for Iraq these days (and which the USA still hopes to have a stake in when the fog clears). How is the USA not an active partner in military operations? It carries the lion's share of the coalition efforts.