Donating To Hamas is like Donating to the KKK

Alright, my attempt at making a point was ill recieved by our moderator, so here’s a thread involving no irony or humor whatsoever (lest I be accused of “trolling.”)

Here’s what I think: Hamas may have charitable purposes. However, the moral righetousness of any such thing is completely negated by the fact that Hamas is essentially a terrorist group. Donating to it on the grounds of contributing to charity is the same as donating to a charitable wing of the KKK (if one even exists.)

In fact, it’s far worse. The KKK doesn’t send suicide bombers into buses or nightclubs.

Here’s the new thread, irony-free and without any attention-getting device like the one I used before. If anyone has anything to say about this issue, say it here.

How is that worse? Personally, I think it would be better if members of the KKK committing acts of violence would off themselves in the process.

At least suicide bombers only get to do it once.

My point is that the KKK doesn’t commit many acts of violence anymore.

How many is ok?

What’s wrong with donating to Kühnle, Kopp & Kausch? :confused:

Cunning, those Germans. They call themselves the* KK&K* Group of Companies.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the war.

And just about everybody else who responded, near as I could tell.

The situation may be a little more nuanced than you choose to believe, but overall, I agree.

Sorry, you expected maybe some disagreement on this?

You said in the other thread that your purpose was to expose the hypocricy of persons on this board who you claimed supported the idea of donating money to a charitable wing of Hamas. Well, how about if you name some names, and link some links, so we can decide for ourselves whether these hypocrites actually exist?

Y’see, that’s the problem with the kids joining the Klan today. Sure they got the hate. But they lack that sense of committment to the cause.

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!

I couldn’t agree more. Indeed the social work Hamas does is actually exceedingly dangerous in the long run, because it generates sympathy and political capital for Hamas, undermining the corrupt, incompetent, violent, but not quite as insane PA.

Like El_Kabong, I can’t imagine you’d get much serious disagreement on this.

  • Tamerlane

I can think of maybe one poster here who MIGHT argue that donating to Hamas was “OK” for charity reasons, but only one. And I’m not even certain that he would.

Vague statements about what “some people claim” do not a good OP make.

If someone strongly advocates donating money to Hamas, probably the best reaction would be to Pit that person and link to the post.

IOW, give us some evidence that you are not just posting a strawman.

Just mark me down as one more liberal, generally-Islam-friendly poster who thinks that donating to Hamas in any way, shape, or form is morally unacceptable.

For that matter, I also think it’s a shame they landed that plane before they threw Cat Stevens off of it.

Did your last thread involve irony or humour? I must have missed it. It struck me more as a lie told in an attempt to provoke people.

“I’m being followed by a moon shadow; moon shadow, moon shadow…”

Dude was good, back in the day.

I don’t know if there’s any who disagree on SDMB, certainly there’re those that disagree in world politics. The EU has at some time donated money to the so called political wing of Hamas. And still, even as the US, Britain and Israel insist, refuse to act against it.

Exactly, Rune. I’m ashamed to admit that the Netherlands - among others in the EU - did indeed donate to the Hamas.

It makes me nauseous.

The fact that the parties are Hamas and Israel is a secondary consideration.

The issue is essentially whether terrorism can ever be a legitimate tactic.

And if yes, then when?

So, must we answer “Never.” in every case? I think not.

Some may disagree. I venture to suggest some who advance that answer would nonetheless support the contribution to history of the Stern Gang

Secondly, as SimonX has demonstrated in this discussion, apparently rational people can have some pretty odd reasons for the causes they support.

  1. Yes.

  2. When it works. See how the provisional Iraqi government was all set to release that biological warfare woman after a mere two videotaped beheadings.

Terrorism is a tool toward a political end. Any tool, be it a hammer or a car bomb, is only legitimate when it accomplishes the task for which it is being used. Contrary to what many politicians say, striking fear in the heart of a population is only a means to an end, not the end itself.

Israel itself used to be a covert donator to Hamas, which was a registered charity in Israel (or at least the Muslim Bortherhood which wa sthe charity from which it emerged at the end of 1987).

The original premise of the OP is flawed (with refernce to Cat Stevens that is) as Hamas in 1988 had not carried out any terrorist attacks and was not seen as a terrorist organisation and outlawed by Israel until 1989.