TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israel Kills Sheikh Yassin (Leader of Hamas)
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Israel's destruction and colonization of Palestinian land destroyed hope in many Palestinians. Sheikh Yassin provided a counter to that. Although he murdered many Israelis, he also fed and clothed many Palestinians. He gave them hope. This is a fact that cannot be denied. He was there when people had little hope left. He gave them a boost. After all, he preached independence to them. You can say he preached hate, destruction of the Jews etc etc, but he also preached independence. Assassinating Yassin killed this hope for freedom. Only blood can come out of this.

do you realy believe those empty arguments of yours?

Germany was destroyed after WW1, its economy was ruined and people had no HOPE. Then came Hitler! He gave people hope! hope that the extermination of all jews on earth will save them from their problems. he gave them hope that if Germany will take over all Euorpe than Germany's problems will come end. You say Yassin fed and clothed many palestinians? Hitler did much more for the poor and starving germans.

Yassin is the opposite of Hope and you know it. In Oslo & Kamp David peace talks palestinians almost had all their hopes come true - Yassin and his organization were the first to destroy this dream.

quote:

As for Sharon, he's a war criminal, responsible for numerous massacres since his early career in Unit 101. I do hope they cut his head off. That's just my personal desire for vengeance against the fat pig.

you have just proved my point again.

quote:

Originally posted by Flotser this is an interesting theory.... but after reading it i realy felt i need to ask you if you think the same about USA going into Iraq trying to make it a democracy.... are you against what is being done in iraq now? or am i missing something in your theory

No, you're right, you're the first person to ask me directly but I think that establishing a democracy in a place like Iraq is shakey at best.

However, in this case, I would deem it to be the lesser of two evils. The problem is that Iraq was ALREADY "halfway" into the modern world, knowing of modern technology and modern ideas but not knowing how to use them responsibly. Probably because of the USA's relations with them, but that's not the point really (The USA gave them certain things and they did not use those things responsibly, so action had to be taken).

And it seems to be working, as we see. We've seen indications that most Iraqis feel better about their lives, but let's keep in mind that "better" may not be as good as most other democratic states.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Of course all violence cannot be defined as 'terrorism'. Terrorism for me merely means terrorising people to obtain a political objective. Fair enough with the Americans, but if you dont think that happened to the French or the Russians then well, what can I say?

What you miss is that terrorism is broadly defined (as in dictionary definition, not my personal opinion) as the use of terror to intimidate or coerce in this way. Other rebellions and revolutions have merely hinged upon overthrowing the State - but suicide bombers and other terrorists do not target the State, they target innocent bystanders, and that is a pure attempt at coercion/intimidation. It differs from organized rebellion in the sense that their attitude is basically "give us what we want or else", whereas a real rebellion is generally a "this state is oppressing us, we must fight to gain power." The marked difference is the death of innocents, and good luck finding me historical papers on the French revolution that document the mass killing of innocents by the "rebels".

quote:

Appeasing or not appeasing has had no effect on terrorism as far as I can see. If there is a cause, just or not, that certain groups of people feel the need to figh tfor then they will, no matter what the consequences are for them or their people.

Appeasing or not appeasing doesn't have an effect on the ideologies of those people, but like any criminal justice system, it has an effect on the actions of those people by making them believe that those actions either do, or do not accomplish their objectives.

quote:

Answer me this...if you deem a 'terrorists' cause to be just, would you support efforts to give them what they want?

Absolutely not. You do not reward terrorism no matter what the logic behind it is. I think that was the whole point of this argument. Rewarding such a methodology of hate and senseless violence will only serve to indicate that it is effective in achieving specific goals, and you may find that those same terrorists, later on after achieving their "just" cause, may want to achieve a considerably less "just" cause and try to use the same methods.

You seem to be operating on the short-sighted idea that once terrorists get what they want, they'll stop. But terrorists have already proven to us that they'll stop at nothing to get whatever they want, and if you give them what they want in the short term, they will almost certainly want something else later (just look at ourselves as individuals - we get a new toy, we play with it for a few days or a few weeks or a few months, and then eventually we're tired of it and we want something new).

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Israel's destruction and colonization of Palestinian land destroyed hope in many Palestinians.

GOOD STUFF! We're starting off on the right foot here I see. Destroyed hope for what exactly? What did Palestinians hope for before Israel came along? Their own state? Was Jordan going to give them that? Perhaps they were hoping for a modernized state complete with health care and a good economy - oh wait, Israel DID give them that, until the Palestinians screwed it up by attacking them constantly?

quote:

Sheikh Yassin provided a counter to that. Although he murdered many Israelis, he also fed and clothed many Palestinians. He gave them hope.

Ah yes! He fed and clothed them by giving money to the families of Palestinians that "martyred" themselves by blowing up lots and lots of Israelis. I think perhaps there is a reason you left that part out?

quote:

This is a fact that cannot be denied. He was there when people had little hope left. He gave them a boost. After all, he preached independence to them. You can say he preached hate, destruction of the Jews etc etc, but he also preached independence.

Oh yes indeed, he gave them hope by blaming everything on the Israelis and saying that they would be a proud nation once again (or rather, for the first time, since Palestine never existed historically) if they could just get rid of that Zionist Entity. Sound familiar? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an H and rhymes with "itler". Only difference is, that guy actually bothered to rally the people and start up a military, rather than strapping bombs to little children and telling them to blow themselves up.

On the humanitarian scale I'd put Yassin right up there with Hitler - on the bravery and strategic scale, though, I think he'd be considerably lower.

quote:

Assassinating Yassin killed this hope for freedom. Only blood can come out of this.

I suppose this is true, but only because "freedom" to his brainwashed followers meant "getting rid of Israel once and for all."

As for the second sentence in that paragraph, there's only been blood coming out of it so far, so I don't see how this is an issue here. Although I suppose if your attitude is an insight into the way that the Palestinians in Palestine think, we can expect more suicide bombings against innocent bystanders in the near future.

...oh wait, they already have those.

quote:

As for Sharon, he's a war criminal, responsible for numerous massacres since his early career in Unit 101. I do hope they cut his head off. That's just my personal desire for vengeance against the fat pig.

To be honest, I'd prefer that you folks went off and killed Sharon as opposed to killing hundreds of completely innocent Israelis on buses and in restaurants. But that might actually take some effort, right?

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Yep, and we've gotta get that scumbag Arafat too. Lop their heads off in public together and stop the fussin' and the feudin'

First of all I would never call Arafat a war criminal, because he's a terrorist. He doesn't have a nation or a military, therefore he can be little else but a terrorist. (although admittedly he does wear that military uniform.... )

Second, Sharon has never been termed a war-criminal by anybody except his enemies. He has never been found guilty of war crimes, so this is is a false accusation so long as you believe the principle of innocent before proven guilty.

This would be comparable for me calling Bush a war criminal because he killed little children in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Kerry a war criminal because he massacred Vietnamese.

We have two more points that help Sharon against Arafat, allegedly when Sharon committed war crimes he was never the numero uno, the guy on the top in command of the state of Israel, he was 'a soldier following orders' as the cliche goes. Arafat can never use such a statement, he has always been at the very head of his terrorist organizaiton for as long as he has been committing attacks. In some instances Sharon was as much a war criminal as the "occupation soldiers" are today.

Last point is a simple numbers game, Arafat has probably been linked to terrorist incidents killing 1000 of Israeli and Jews. Sharon, is alleged to have only 'war crimed' 100s.

Regardless however, comparing Sharon to Yassin is quiet silly.
If you think he is your enemy, ok fine, hes a legit target. But then you must be admit to an all-out war, of which Israel has not yet come to realize (for Israel it is a LIC - low intensity conflict), if a high-intensity conflict becomes through a decleration of war via the head of Sharon, you realize the Palestinians arne't going to be there for much longer, right?

Furthermore equating Sharon to Arafat imply that they share equal burden for the misery in the middle east. Arafat has been there for 30 years, with 8+ different Israeli PMs, Sharon has been there for 3 years, since 2001 at the end, the failures, of the land for peace process.

quote:

and good luck finding me historical papers on the French revolution that document the mass killing of innocents by the "rebels"

You taking the piss mate? Go type "French Revolution" and "the Terror" into Google and take a peep at what comes up.....


Back to the argument...I'm curious. For everything I have heard people tell me about appeasment, about how it should never be even considered as a way of dealing with terrorism, let alone actually used, why is it that all those people are arguing for exactly that when we discuss Israel? Just this week, the US vetoed a UN Security Resolution denouncing the use of extra dudicial killings (a resolution that would also have denounced all acts of terrorism). That is appeasment of Israel. All the time I hear members saying how Israel has a right to do what it is doing, yet what it does very often amounts to little more than violent acts of terrorism against a civilian target. How can you sit there and criticise me for daring to suggest that in some cases appeasment may be considered, whilest all the time arguing for the appeasment of Israel? A little hypocritical dont you think? If you believe we should come down hard on terrorists, then the same must apply to Israel...yet nobody who has called for tough action against Islamic terrorism has also called for tough action against Israel...why is that?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You taking the piss mate? Go type "French Revolution" and "the Terror" into Google and take a peep at what comes up..... Back to the argument...I'm curious. For everything I have heard people tell me about appeasment, about how it should never be even considered as a way of dealing with terrorism, let alone actually used, why is it that all those people are arguing for exactly that when we discuss Israel? Just this week, the US vetoed a UN Security Resolution denouncing the use of extra dudicial killings (a resolution that would also have denounced all acts of terrorism). That is appeasment of Israel. All the time I hear members saying how Israel has a right to do what it is doing, yet what it does very often amounts to little more than violent acts of terrorism against a civilian target. How can you sit there and criticise me for daring to suggest that in some cases appeasment may be considered, whilest all the time arguing for the appeasment of Israel? A little hypocritical dont you think? If you believe we should come down hard on terrorists, then the same must apply to Israel...yet nobody who has called for tough action against Islamic terrorism has also called for tough action against Israel...why is that?

So you suppose for once that Terrorism should never be appeased and that a war on it is legitimate (even necessary). Okay, I agree. Then you call the very fight against it(Terror) Terror as well. Which must be answered with a war against it - again terror? Where does that stop?

quote:

Where does that stop?

It doesn't...

(And I dont call killing unarmed civilians, often women and children, "fighting terrorism", I call it terrorism...)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Back to the argument...I'm curious. For everything I have heard people tell me about appeasment, about how it should never be even considered as a way of dealing with terrorism, let alone actually used, why is it that all those people are arguing for exactly that when we discuss Israel? Just this week, the US vetoed a UN Security Resolution denouncing the use of extra dudicial killings (a resolution that would also have denounced all acts of terrorism). That is appeasment of Israel. All the time I hear members saying how Israel has a right to do what it is doing, yet what it does very often amounts to little more than violent acts of terrorism against a civilian target. How can you sit there and criticise me for daring to suggest that in some cases appeasment may be considered, whilest all the time arguing for the appeasment of Israel? A little hypocritical dont you think? If you believe we should come down hard on terrorists, then the same must apply to Israel...yet nobody who has called for tough action against Islamic terrorism has also called for tough action against Israel...why is that?

Because Israel isn't committing terrorist acts to accomplish political objectives. Therefore your whole appeasement theory in this case belongs in the garbage.

If you can find me any indication that Israel is specifically targeting innocent Palestinian bystanders in order to intimidate Palestine, be my guest. Otherwise there's no way I'm going to equate Israel's violence to Palestine's. War crimes? Maybe, *IF* you put a certain spin on it, but certainly not terrorism.

You have a weird definition of Terrorism, George. The fact that the victims are "unarmed" means absolutely nothing, nor does the fact the Yassin was in a wheelchair, nor does the fact that Palestine doesn't have a strong military. Sorry, but Israel does NOT commit acts of terrorism. As for you calling them "civilians", I believe the issue has finally come to light that this is not a very accurate way of depicting the conflict, since military service is mandatory in Israel and Palestine doesn't have a military at all, therefore any given Palestinian is far more likely to be considered a "civilian" than any given Israeli.

quote:

Because Israel isn't committing terrorist acts to accomplish political objectives

How can Israel not be seeking political objectives?!

quote:

If you can find me any indication that Israel is specifically targeting innocent Palestinian bystanders in order to intimidate Palestine, be my guest

Jenin

quote:

You have a weird definition of Terrorism, George

Whats yours? I think terrorism is the terrorising of civilians. Thats it. I also think the word 'terrorism' is used by certain groups to impose opinions onto us as 'terror' is merely a negative buzz word used by our ruling elites to get us on side. Whats the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

quote:

fact that the victims are "unarmed" means absolutely nothing

Why? Did Hitler not commit terrorism against the Jews? Does it mean "absolutely nothing" that the Jews were unarmed?

quote:

Sorry, but Israel does NOT commit acts of terrorism

Killing children is not terrorism?! Explain please...

quote:

As for you calling them "civilians", I believe the issue has finally come to light that this is not a very accurate way of depicting the conflict, since military service is mandatory in Israel and Palestine doesn't have a military at all, therefore any given Palestinian is far more likely to be considered a "civilian" than any given Israeli

I am not sure who exactly you think I am calling 'civilians' but it is certainly not Palestinian militants as you are trying to make out. I mean women, children or anyone else who has had their lives ended premeturely by an apache, an airstrike (an airstrike for fucks sake) or being picked off by the IDF who have had no part in any militant activity.

Why is it not ok in your mind to kill an Israeli child, yet you go out of your way to defend the murder of a Palestinian child? Both are innocent. Niether deserve their fate. Yet while you feel outrage at the murder of an innocent Israeli child, you appease the actions of the state of Israel when it commits exactly the same crime...

Please explain because from here you sound either like one hell of a hypocrite, a total idiot, or maybe there is some other agenda you are trying to promote here?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley How can Israel not be seeking political objectives?!

First of all, I didn't say that they don't have political objectives, I said that they aren't committing acts of terrorism to accomplish them.

Besides which, what "objectives" are you referring to? Wanting to stay where they are without being terrorized by a neighbouring state?

quote:

Jenin

Elaborate?

quote:

Whats yours? I think terrorism is the terrorising of civilians. Thats it. I also think the word 'terrorism' is used by certain groups to impose opinions onto us as 'terror' is merely a negative buzz word used by our ruling elites to get us on side. Whats the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Quite clearly you didn't bother to read my response to you a few posts up. Read it. Israel's methods do not correspond with those of terrorists - they are conducting almost all of their operations in a military sense, none of what they do is designed to intimidate or coerce. The biggest irony is that you're bitching about all this in a thread which is essentially about a hairline operation that took out no Palestinian civilians whatsoever, just a well-known terrorist leader.

quote:

Why? Did Hitler not commit terrorism against the Jews? Does it mean "absolutely nothing" that the Jews were unarmed?

I'd call that genocide, not terrorism. And for fuck's sake, I'm getting a little sick of people comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Are you really that short-sighted?

quote:

Killing children is not terrorism?! Explain please...

When those children are carrying bombs? Or when they're caught in the crossfire of someone else who attacked a soldier? Come on now, it's not like Israeli soldiers waltz into Palestine and shoot innocent children. Palestine has killed more Palestinian children than Israel has, even forgetting about the Israeli children.

You think "children" cannot be considered combatants? I think the growing number of reports of child suicide bombers might clash with that.

quote:

I am not sure who exactly you think I am calling 'civilians' but it is certainly not Palestinian militants as you are trying to make out. I mean women, children or anyone else who has had their lives ended premeturely by an apache, an airstrike (an airstrike for fucks sake) or being picked off by the IDF who have had no part in any militant activity.

Occrider posted the article on this earlier. Unfortunately when you read the reports, "militant" or "civilian" doesn't really tell the whole story. You're using your own definition of "civilian", but you're relying on someone else's definition to come up with your figures - that was the whole point of the article he posted, to differentiate between civilians (non-militants) and non-combatants (who were actually not involved in any fighting).

quote:

Why is it not ok in your mind to kill an Israeli child, yet you go out of your way to defend the murder of a Palestinian child? Both are innocent. Niether deserve their fate. Yet while you feel outrage at the murder of an innocent Israeli child, you appease the actions of the state of Israel when it commits exactly the same crime...

Sigh. How many times do I have to say that it's because those Palestinian children ARE NOT innocent. Neither are SOME of the Israeli children, I agree, but the ratio of dead Israeli children who were innocent bystanders to dead Palestinian children who were innocent bystanders is quite high. Israelis are not intentionally murdering children to accomplish a political objective - Palestinians are.

It is not "exactly the same crime", and people in this forum have been over this same issue a hundred times with you already. You merely look at the moment of death, and not the surrounding circumstances, which again, can only be called totally short-sighted. Every death in the world is not equal, and neither is every killing. They may all be the loss of a human life, but it's absolutely ridiculous to imply that Israel is conducting motivated first-degree murder of Palestinian children to scare them like Palestine is doing to Israel. That doesn't mean to imply that an Israeli life is worth more than a Palestinian life, but it does mean that the Palestinians doing the kill are not in immediate danger, whereas the Israelis doing the killing often ARE.

quote:

Please explain because from here you sound either like one hell of a hypocrite, a total idiot, or maybe there is some other agenda you are trying to promote here?

Same to you.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley How can Israel not be seeking political objectives?! Jenin Whats yours? I think terrorism is the terrorising of civilians. Thats it. I also think the word 'terrorism' is used by certain groups to impose opinions onto us as 'terror' is merely a negative buzz word used by our ruling elites to get us on side. Whats the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Why? Did Hitler not commit terrorism against the Jews? Does it mean "absolutely nothing" that the Jews were unarmed? Killing children is not terrorism?! Explain please... I am not sure who exactly you think I am calling 'civilians' but it is certainly not Palestinian militants as you are trying to make out. I mean women, children or anyone else who has had their lives ended premeturely by an apache, an airstrike (an airstrike for fucks sake) or being picked off by the IDF who have had no part in any militant activity. Why is it not ok in your mind to kill an Israeli child, yet you go out of your way to defend the murder of a Palestinian child? Both are innocent. Niether deserve their fate. Yet while you feel outrage at the murder of an innocent Israeli child, you appease the actions of the state of Israel when it commits exactly the same crime... Please explain because from here you sound either like one hell of a hypocrite, a total idiot, or maybe there is some other agenda you are trying to promote here?

LOL you're so full of shit, forgive me.

Jenin? Even the PA that started the "massacre" myth itself later denied that there was a systematic killing of civilians! A UN commission that investigated reached the same conclusion. There was a massive battle going on between Palestinian militans (of which around 20 were killed) and Israelis soldiers (13 dead). Since the militants decided to draw the fighting to populated area collateral damage was inevitable yet kept to a minimum. I think some 3 or 4 civilians were killd as a result. How's that "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"(dictionary.com) ?

I'll tell you what the difference between "Freedom Fighter" and Terrorist is. Freedom Fighters will have probably tried any diplomatic path before choosing violence as a means to reach their political goals. They might also use Civil Disobedience to demonstrate their claims. They'd even take the violent approach provided that it was aimed at military targets only, always keeping in mind that it'd be a temporary startegy (creating pressure on the opposite side) and that eventually a compromise would have to be reached. Terrorism on the other hand is looking for maximal destruction. Mass killings of civilians ************ of political developemtns, or even aimed against them (See Hamas bombings during the years of the Oslo peace process). Terrorism knows no politics, it grows on a perverted ideology that only uses politics as legitimation and mask behind which the sheer hatred and racism is hidden. I kill, therefore I am.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I'll tell you what the difference between "Freedom Fighter" and Terrorist is. Freedom Fighters will have probably tried any diplomatic path before choosing violence as a means to reach their political goals. They might also use Civil Disobedience to demonstrate their claims. They'd even take the violent approach provided that it was aimed at military targets only, always keeping in mind that it'd be a temporary startegy (creating pressure on the opposite side) and that eventually a compromise would have to be reached. Terrorism on the other hand is looking for maximal destruction. Mass killings of civilians ************ of political developemtns, or even aimed against them (See Hamas bombings during the years of the Oslo peace process). Terrorism knows no politics, it grows on a perverted ideology that only uses politics as legitimation and mask behind which the sheer hatred and racism is hidden. I kill, therefore I am.

Actually, most of the time the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is who wins.

quote:

the ratio of dead Israeli children who were innocent bystanders to dead Palestinian children who were innocent bystanders is quite high

Got a link for that?

quote:

I'd call that genocide, not terrorism

Genocide is not terrorism?!

quote:

And for fuck's sake, I'm getting a little sick of people comparing Israel to Nazi Germany

Dont recall ever comparing the actions of the state of Israel to those of Nazi Germany?

quote:

methods do not correspond with those of terrorists - they are conducting almost all of their operations in a military sense, none of what they do is designed to intimidate or coerce

So the bulldozing down of Palestinian houses does not lead to cohercement? Or the curfews and blockades? How about the confiscation of Palestinian land to construct the illegal fence? How the fuck can you justify any of that? It is called appeasement...

You are a hypocrite. You criticise one group for acts of violence and terror towards innocents, yet defend the same actions by another group. I can only assume that you only define terrorism to mean acts carried out only by non-state actors, as your views on Nazi Germany suggest.

You appease the terrorist acts of the State of Israel, you are a hypocrite (and to prove that you are not, explain how the demolition of civillian houses are not considered acts of terrorism)

I am starting to warm to your views on appeasement as it is clear that the more Israel has been appeased (by its sponsor the US) the more it feels it can get away with any act of terrorism it pleases...

hehe Georegy, ever the comic

The world appeases Israel, thats clever.
So when the US cuts funding to Israel beacuse it builts a fence that it doesn't agree with, thats appeasement?

When Israel launched its operation, "defensive shield", and European nations put on military sanctions, thats appeasement?

Nope its not.

Appeasement isn't neutrality (i.e.i the US not caring what Israel does). No, appeasement would be the US or Europe paying Israel in some fashion or another to stop its attacks against the Palestinians. I haven't seen them do that yet, if anything they have only taken funding away.



As for terrorism, you know its definition and meaning quiet clealry, though you wish to blur it. If I drive over a kid that ran into the street right infront of my car and kill him, I am not a terrorist. No one would argue it here. But you seem to think I would be, because I killed an innocent civilian, which is your definition of hte word terror

I wonder why more people haven't adopted your definiton

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley

Yes, that all made sense... except for the fact that it didn't.

Link here - I take no credit for this, it was posted by another - and don't start with the biased-source crap unless you've got logic to back it up.

Israel TARGETS CIVILIANS

The Occupation is terrorism. Israel demolishes homes of Palestinians.
Since 1967 Israel has used Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish nearly 9,000 Palestinian homes, leaving more than 50,000 people homeless. Since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, Israel has razed the homes of 12,737 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the past two years the Israeli army deployed Caterpillar bulldozers to uproot 200,000 Palestinian olive trees. In April 2002 Caterpillar D9s demolished an entire neighborhood in the Jenin refugee camp. This is terrorism.

Israeli soldiers TARGET CIVILIANS. Get that through your heads. I have repeatedly provided documented evidence of this fact. They intentionaly target civilians. Israel's policy in Gaza and the West Bank TARGETS CIVILIANS. There is numerous evidence out there.

The MAIN PROBLEM is that zionists cannot accept the fact that a trained military indiscriminately shoots at innocent civilians. YES, ISRAEL WALTS INTO PALESTINIAN LAND AND SHOOTS AT INNOCENT CHILDREN. YES.

Your brain can never accept that fact. This is the main issue here. This is the problem. End of goddam story.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian The MAIN PROBLEM is that zionists cannot accept the fact that a trained military indiscriminately shoots at innocent civilians. YES, ISRAEL WALTS INTO PALESTINIAN LAND AND SHOOTS AT INNOCENT CHILDREN. YES. Your brain can never accept that fact. This is the main issue here. This is the problem. End of goddam story.

its true, because we don't think its a fact. Our brain can't accept this myth. Reference link Diginut posted above... the numbers just don't add up to your statement. If Israel was targeting civilians in the manner you describe, Palestinian civilian fatalities should be 10-1 against combatants.

Apparently, Israel shoots at 1 terrorist leader and his 2 bodyguards, not thousands of innocent civilians.

Maybe the media is lying to us? Is Yassin still alive?

Israel targets civilians

Israel won't kill thousands of innocent civilians all at once. In the words of the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

Slow transfer is the goal.

The current thesis of Zionism and the Likud government is this:

Make life for Palestinians ultimately unbearable until they leave by voluntary transfer. Place them into ghettos and isolated areas so that we can maintain control over them. This is the only solution for the long term security, survival, and expansion of the Jewish state.

I will say it again: Israel targets civilians. Stop denying it. Do your research. They target civilians and that's that.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Maybe the media is lying to us? Is Yassin still alive?

I heard he turned into an action figure

Re: Israel TARGETS CIVILIANS

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian The Occupation is terrorism. Israel demolishes homes of Palestinians. Since 1967 Israel has used Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish nearly 9,000 Palestinian homes, leaving more than 50,000 people homeless. Since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, Israel has razed the homes of 12,737 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the past two years the Israeli army deployed Caterpillar bulldozers to uproot 200,000 Palestinian olive trees. In April 2002 Caterpillar D9s demolished an entire neighborhood in the Jenin refugee camp. This is terrorism. Israeli soldiers TARGET CIVILIANS. Get that through your heads. I have repeatedly provided documented evidence of this fact. They intentionaly target civilians. Israel's policy in Gaza and the West Bank TARGETS CIVILIANS. There is numerous evidence out there.

Are you Saeb Erakat's son?

I must agree with diginut here. The fact that Israel too does violent acts and kills palestinian people does not mean it is commiting acts of terrorism. Yes, Israeli soldiers kill palestinian civilians, but it's not an intentional strategy planned by the government and it can therefore not be considered an act of terror. George, I believe that you have a problem differentiating between terrorism and violence. The fact that Hitler killed huge amount of jews doesn't mean he committed a terrorist act, as the goal of exterminating jews was not to coerce some other government into submission. The goal was, well, just that, to exterminate the jews and to take all their money. In other words, attack Israel for bulldozing houses and opressing palestinians all you want, but you can't accuse them of terrorism.

quote:

No, appeasement would be the US or Europe paying Israel in some fashion or another to stop its attacks against the Palestinians

You what?! What a load of shit! Appeasement would be paying for Israel to carry on doing what it is doing...which is exactly what the US is doing with all the funding and vetoing any UN Security Council Resolution that is anti-Israel. If America cut Israel's funding (somewhere between $3 - $5 billion!!!) Israel would be fucked, proper fucked.

quote:

As for terrorism, you know its definition and meaning quiet clealry, though you wish to blur it. If I drive over a kid that ran into the street right infront of my car and kill him, I am not a terrorist

Of course you would not be a terrorist as one, it was an accident and two, you didn't do it for political reasons.

quote:

I wonder why more people haven't adopted your definiton

Well if they have the same perception of what I post as you do then I wonder, I really do!

DigiNut...nice!

I can only assume that by ignoring the main points of my post you couldn't really find any counter arguments. At least Yoepus had a pop!

Well I not giving up even if you have. What is the difference between Chamberlin appeasing Hitler over the Suddatenland and the US (and you) appeasing Israel over the occupied territories? And no I am not comparing Nazi Germany to Israel, I am using Germany as an obvious example which I hope you are aware of, just like before I used the holocaust as an obvious example of terrorism committed by a state to show you it can happen (I also earlier tried to use the French revolution as a totally obvious use of terror but you were seemed oblivious to the major event of the French revolution, the Terror)

The only difference I can see between appeasing Germany and Israel, is that the Germans were actually welcomed into the Suddentenland.

Now DigiNut......you were about to tell me how bulldozing down people's homes (people who are not militants by anyones definiton) is not terrorism...(dont worry mate, I'm not holding my breath!)

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I must agree with diginut here. The fact that Israel too does violent acts and kills palestinian people does not mean it is commiting acts of terrorism. Yes, Israeli soldiers kill palestinian civilians, but it's not an intentional strategy planned by the government and it can therefore not be considered an act of terror. George, I believe that you have a problem differentiating between terrorism and violence. The fact that Hitler killed huge amount of jews doesn't mean he committed a terrorist act, as the goal of exterminating jews was not to coerce some other government into submission. The goal was, well, just that, to exterminate the jews and to take all their money. In other words, attack Israel for bulldozing houses and opressing palestinians all you want, but you can't accuse them of terrorism.

Your just trying to make excuses up by calling different acts of political violence different names to sugar coat it. What the hell is terrorism if its not the terrorisation of civilians for political goals and objectives?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Your just trying to make excuses up by calling different acts of political violence different names to sugar coat it. What the hell is terrorism if its not the terrorisation of civilians for political goals and objectives?!

Well, I guess that in that case you can say that every war is a form of terrorism because it is always the civilians who suffer the most for someone else's political goals and objectives.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.