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 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.

Just out of curiosity: Is the term "state terrorism" compatible with your definition? If yes, can you give a pointer to somewhere/sometime it has been practiced?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley 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.

Again. Appeaseing is doing something extra.. changing your pattern of conduct FOR this or that cause, NOT doing the same thing.

For instance: Spain did not appease the terrorist, till it pulled out troops.

Essential we agree .. I agree with your statement.

The USA has been paying Israel lots and lots of mullah consistantly since 1978. That was before any 'state sponsored terrorism', wouldn't you agree?

The part I differ with you form is your conclusion, and this is why:

The USA has been cutting funds for Israel for the past 10 years, and as a reuslt Israel is "fucked, proper fucked". If you like I can provide you with links proving this fact, however I think it is fairly well known and has been posted in another Israel-Pal thread a while back.

I won't waste my time however, if you now all of a sudden change your premise and say that if the US still cuts funds to Israel it is appeasing.


As I said, and I'll say again. Appeasing is changing your initial position to accomadate that side. The USA has not changed its position to Israel, it has always accomadated it and believed in its right of existance. Just as many European nations have not appeased terrorism when they have no accomadated Israel or believed in its right of existance.


And WTF does hitler have to do with this

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Just out of curiosity: Is the term "state terrorism" compatible with your definition? If yes, can you give a pointer to somewhere/sometime it has been practiced?

Personally I don't. I believe "state terrorism" are either war crimes, or war.

I mean I don't call North Korea a state terrorist, even though it most defintely terrorizes its own people. I think state terrorism has to be a term reserved for nations that terrorize other people of different nations, and not their own (which would just be criminal).

Aside from terrorist, which often times have state-support, I can't see any reculection of "state terrorism" that couldn't be termed war, or war crimes in my memory. But I may be blanking.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Just out of curiosity: Is the term "state terrorism" compatible with your definition? If yes, can you give a pointer to somewhere/sometime it has been practiced?

Kinda agree with Yoepus here (god, I'm agreeing with those zionists more and more these days ). The term "state terrorism" would mean that the government of that state is intentionally killing either it's own civilians or those living in other countries to propagate its own goals. So, if Israel was to intentionally target civilians in order to coerce palestinian government to decrease their requests, then it would be conducting state terrorism. A good example would be some CIA actions in Cuba after Fidel Castro came to power.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley 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)

Gosh, I guess the difference would be that invading the Suddatenland was unprovoked, while Israeli occupatin of the territories was provoked by its neighbors, and the violence was continued by proxy and terrorists.

Perhaps a more parallel example would be if you compared the US occupation of germany after WWII to Israeli occupation of the territories.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian 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.

Interesting, this sounds suspiciously like the "phased plan" that Hamas and Arafat were found talking about so often...

Never heard of it being used in a Zionist context. I'll have to think about that one (not).

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut...nice!

Thank you.

quote:

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!

This is true. I couldn't find any counter arguments because you had no argument to begin with.

quote:

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!)

Because it's not terrorism. Again, I know English isn't your first language ( ) but try to understand that the meaning of terrorism is comprised of two components:
1) Action, and
2) Motivation
The acts of violence committed by Israel do not correspond well with the political goals which you say they possess. As a state, Israel has no use for intimidation. If they really wanted to get rid of the Palestinians, why would they pick a "slow transfer" as Palestinian stated above? We've already seen that Israel is fully capable of a mass expulsion in a very short time.

The notion that that they are destroying homes and killing civilians specifically to intimidate or make living conditions unbearable is completely ridiculous as it provides no benefit whatsoever to their state. Such a strategy only benefits those with no military power whatsoever - like Palestine. It is 100% counterproductive to a state like Israel which has one of the strongest militaries in the world.

No, I do not call Israel's actions terrorism at all, let alone state-sponsored, and you can argue the point all you want but you simply have no basis for calling it terrorism. Terrorist acts are committed for the sole purpose of inducing (duh) terror - there's no evidence of this here.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Interesting, this sounds suspiciously like the "phased plan" that Hamas and Arafat were found talking about so often... Never heard of it being used in a Zionist context. I'll have to think about that one (not). Thank you. This is true. I couldn't find any counter arguments because you had no argument to begin with. Because it's not terrorism. Again, I know English isn't your first language ( ) but try to understand that the meaning of terrorism is comprised of two components: 1) Action, and 2) Motivation The acts of violence committed by Israel do not correspond well with the political goals which you say they possess. As a state, Israel has no use for intimidation. If they really wanted to get rid of the Palestinians, why would they pick a "slow transfer" as Palestinian stated above? We've already seen that Israel is fully capable of a mass expulsion in a very short time. The notion that that they are destroying homes and killing civilians specifically to intimidate or make living conditions unbearable is completely ridiculous as it provides no benefit whatsoever to their state. Such a strategy only benefits those with no military power whatsoever - like Palestine. It is 100% counterproductive to a state like Israel which has one of the strongest militaries in the world. No, I do not call Israel's actions terrorism at all, let alone state-sponsored, and you can argue the point all you want but you simply have no basis for calling it terrorism. Terrorist acts are committed for the sole purpose of inducing (duh) terror - there's no evidence of this here.

You still do not understand how these people feel on a day to day basis.

People FEAR for their lives....they are TERRORISED when misiled and tanks infiltrate their lives.

They feel terror when they see their family memebers or friends getting shot.

All you are doing is looking at definitions and applying them to situations without really looking deeper into the psyche and experience of these oppressed people.

I propose a new reality TV show

5 families from each side of the wall need to swap places (refugee camps including)

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You still do not understand how these people feel on a day to day basis. People FEAR for their lives....they are TERRORISED when misiled and tanks infiltrate their lives. They feel terror when they see their family memebers or friends getting shot. All you are doing is looking at definitions and applying them to situations without really looking deeper into the psyche and experience of these oppressed people.

Well, sucks for them that few bad Palestinians ruin it for the rest.

This is something a friend of mine wrote recently in regards to this situation...

Timeline:

1987 - Hamas is born from the Muslim Brotherhood. Registers with Israel, is accepted as a social entity to help in Gaza. All happy, Israel included (as it works against the PLO)
1988 - Hamas covenant (available in one of these posts) written calling for the destruction of Israel. (Intifada I is raging, but it is the Israelis who are violent.)
1991 - Hamas begins military activity against Palestinians allegedly collaborating with Israel. Still not attacking Israel. No Israeli attacks on Hamas.
1996-97 - After being sidelined as a political entity by the PA and Israel in 1993 with Oslo, Hamas attacks Israelis in Jerusalem in the first suicide bombings. Continue again in 1999.

This is the key timeframe to pay attention to.
Motive: To derail the PLO/PA from settlement in what Hamas believes to be a sellout of the Palestinian cause.
Result: Success, of course with the help of hardline Israelis elected after the initial attacks. Predictable response exploited by Hamas to weaken the PA.
The Second Intifada was for two reasons:
1) To respond to the notion that Israel was weak due to the IDF pullout of Lebanon in 2000.
2) For Arafat (who directed the opening rounds of the Intifada) to show Hamas and its supporters that the fight was still in them. By matching attack for attack, while using plausible deniability (the murky attachments of the Al Aqsa Martyr�s Brigade and Arafat�s Fatah being one example) Arafat could play both sides of the table; appease Hamas� growing following that wanted violent resistance and play at being the peacemaker to the Western world.

You still buy it�

2004 - Yassin killed after 50+ suicide attacks from Hamas in the Intifada - again ALL CIVILIAN TARGETS. Even Hezbollah attacks the IDF most of the time and they have no legitimate beef!

Verifiable.

Hamas attacked Israel first. Hamas continues to attack Israeli civilians. Hamas declared the war, and set the precedent of violence; suicide bombings. Israel has responded to Hamas in Gaza with targeted killings of militants.
What is wrong with that?
Hamas asked (begged?) for a Hudna last summer. We learned the concept of a Hudna from both Islamic history and from the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. Temporary truces to rebuild. It�s like calling �Time out�. Do you think any entity at war (and not being bled comparably in a military sense) would stop? That�s bad warmaking. And again�it�s war.

Hamas chose the tactics, Israel is adapting successfully at minimal cost to civilians and at minimal cost to their forces. Israel does not target civilians. Considering the constant carnage (Israeli to America ratio: 1 Israeli dead would equal 47 American dead. Do the math.) Israel has been remarkably restrained.

This is not �the occupation�. Hamas does not fight for a two-state solution. Hamas is not recognized by anyone in the so-called �Quartet� or the UN as a legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Arafat and the PA are. Even the Europeans consider Hamas a terrorist entity. Why are you arguing for them?
Regular Joe and Jane Palestine aren�t Hamas.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You still do not understand how these people feel on a day to day basis. People FEAR for their lives....they are TERRORISED when misiled and tanks infiltrate their lives. They feel terror when they see their family memebers or friends getting shot. All you are doing is looking at definitions and applying them to situations without really looking deeper into the psyche and experience of these oppressed people.

Oh Cyrus, why do you think so little of me. You think I can't imagine how the Palestinian people have to suffer when they see people getting killed?

Yes, I can place myself there mentally and emotionally... I'd be terrified, I'd be lost, I'd probably believe anything anyone told me about how to end it all and finally be free.

But compassion isn't the issue here for a very simple reason. I'll freely concede that many Palestinians are probably completely and utterly terrified and do fear for their lives. BUT - and here's the tricky part! Terror isn't Israel's motivation! It's merely a side effect. I too would feel terror if I saw my brother gunned down by police - but if he shot at them first... what alternatives are there?

I do not expect Israel to tailor their acts specifically to make Palestinians feel safe - that isn't their responsibility and I'd say it's nearly impossible to do anyway. While their actions may result in terror, it is not correct to call it terrorism unless terror is actually the motivation for those acts. Many many things in the world instil fear, but they are not all terrorism...

I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? Maybe in the Crusades? You will be motivated by whatever the end is, your motivation will not be the means in which you will achieve those ends. In this case terror is the means, not the end. The motivation for Palestinian 'terrorists' is not the killing of Israels (which would be the terror part) but the creation of an independent state and a withdrawal of Israel's military from the land they live in.

quote:

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.

Yes, you can. How anyone could argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city killing thousands is not terrorism I dont know!

quote:

Personally I don't. I believe "state terrorism" are either war crimes, or war

This is what I have been trying to get at. Why do we have different names for acts of violence? All it does is create the false impression that one form is better or worse than another. Using different words cunjures up different emotions inside us. 'Terrorism' has become a buzz word that we use against those who take to violence (as they have no other realistic option) but it also implies 'an enemy'. It does not cunjure up the same emotions as when you say 'revolutionary' or even 'rebel'. Those two have neutral feelings attached to them (or even slightly positive). But the actions of a what some will call a revolutionary may be no different than those of what we may call a terrorist. The same actions can be carried out by a state too, but if we do not also call this terror then it somehow makes it different in our minds, when it should be thought of exactly the same. Violence or terrorisation, no matter what it is done for, should not be cut up and divided into sub catagories to appease our consciences and allowing us to justify certain acts. It is all the same, where ever people who have no part in militancy are caught up, it is all terrorism and should be opposed by all decent people. Just as you rightfully oppose attacks against Israelis, you should oppose attacks on Palestinians. Yet you dont. You make excuses. You try to justify it...

quote:

Again. Appeaseing is doing something extra.. changing your pattern of conduct FOR this or that cause, NOT doing the same thing.

Appeasing does not mean changing your pattern of conduct. It merely means allowing whoever to do what it wants. In this case, Israel has been allowed to do what it wants since its creation, due to American support (and like we saw this week when it vetoed yet another resolution aimed at Israel) All the people on here who support letting Israel do what it likes, or make excuses for Israel's actions support the appeasement of Israel...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? Maybe in the Crusades? You will be motivated by whatever the end is, your motivation will not be the means in which you will achieve those ends. In this case terror is the means, not the end.

You're absolutely right - terror is not the end, it is the means to an end. A terrorist act, however, is a means to terror, which is then a means to an end. The motivation for terrorism IS STILL simply to instil fear, which they would then be using to accomplish a more long-term goal.

Israel has got no use for terror, no reason to scare anyone, it doesn't help them accomplish any of their long-term goals, so it makes no sense to assume that terror itself could be one of their short-term goals. Their acts are not terrorism.

quote:

The motivation for Palestinian 'terrorists' is not the killing of Israels (which would be the terror part) but the creation of an independent state and a withdrawal of Israel's military from the land they live in.

No, their motivation is the elimination of the state of Israel. But that was a nice try, really.

quote:

Yes, you can. How anyone could argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city killing thousands is not terrorism I dont know!

Because once again (god how many times do we have to tell you this!?), you're ignoring the motivation!

If someone drops a bomb on an area that's practically deserted, killing maybe a few hundred instead of thousands or millions of people, in order for them to say "hey look what we can do to you, you'd better surrender now before we drop another one!" then that could reasonably be called terrorism.

If they drop the bomb on a military target, or in a large area with many military targets, and wipe out all those targets but also wipe out a lot of civilians with them, that is simply not terrorism. Their objective was to destroy the military, not intimidate the state.

quote:

This is what I have been trying to get at. Why do we have different names for acts of violence? All it does is create the false impression that one form is better or worse than another.

Because one form IS better or worse than another. What is it that you're trying to pull here? Catering to our "emotional" side? Equality for all people and all forms of death? Give me a break!

quote:

Using different words cunjures up different emotions inside us.

As it should.

quote:

'Terrorism' has become a buzz word that we use against those who take to violence (as they have no other realistic option) but it also implies 'an enemy'. It does not cunjure up the same emotions as when you say 'revolutionary' or even 'rebel'. Those two have neutral feelings attached to them (or even slightly positive). But the actions of a what some will call a revolutionary may be no different than those of what we may call a terrorist. The same actions can be carried out by a state too, but if we do not also call this terror then it somehow makes it different in our minds, when it should be thought of exactly the same. Violence or terrorisation, no matter what it is done for, should not be cut up and divided into sub catagories to appease our consciences and allowing us to justify certain acts. It is all the same, where ever people who have no part in militancy are caught up, it is all terrorism and should be opposed by all decent people. Just as you rightfully oppose attacks against Israelis, you should oppose attacks on Palestinians. Yet you dont. You make excuses. You try to justify it...

Blah blah blah blah, it's all just the same old bullshit George. Terrorists and freedom fighters may commit the same actions but they do not have the same motivation, so how can we possibly lump them into the same category!? Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?

Maybe if I repeat it to you.

Motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation

Oh, and also:

Target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target

THAT is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Get it? The motivation behind their acts, and the people they target. A freedom fighter targets the military in order to obtain political power. A terrorist targets civilians in order to intimidate the state.

quote:

Appeasing does not mean changing your pattern of conduct. It merely means allowing whoever to do what it wants.

LOL - do you think Israel can allow Palestine to do whatever it wants without changing their conduct?

quote:

In this case, Israel has been allowed to do what it wants since its creation,

quote:

due to American support

quote:

(and like we saw this week when it vetoed yet another resolution aimed at Israel) All the people on here who support letting Israel do what it likes, or make excuses for Israel's actions support the appeasement of Israel...

*sigh*

I've explained this as best I could. Honestly I can't figure out why you are unable to tell the difference between terrorism and any other act of violence, but it's obviously useless to argue with you until you figure it out.

"Political correctness" has really made a mess of people's minds these days...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? Maybe in the Crusades?

Mongols, Greeks, or Alexander, come closer. Crusades simply wanted to capture the holyland. They really didn't care how they do it.

Mongols, Greeks, and Alexander would slaughter the inhabitants of a city who chose not to surrender to them. The idea was to terrorize other states into surrendering to avoid long sieges.

quote:

Yes, you can. How anyone could argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city killing thousands is not terrorism I dont know!

Try to think a few reasons how someone could argue this even if you don't agree with them:
Heres one to start you off; the bombs were dropped on military city (why wasn't Tokyo nuked?)

quote:

This is what I have been trying to get at. Why do we have different names for acts of violence? All it does is create the false impression that one form is better or worse than another.

Why do we have different names for criminal acts? Murder, theft, running off after your meal before paying your waiter, running over someone accidently, flying without your glasses, driving while your drunk, these are all crimes! Why should we call them by their specific names???

We should just call everyone a criminal!!!

You understand the ridicilousness of this argument?

You want to call a murder a criminal and a guy who flew wihtout his glassess the same thing to make a 'murderer' look less bad and a 'guy who flew without his glasess' look more bad. Because thats what you end up doing - you equate them, without terms.

This is your goal, this is why you propose everything should be called terrorism. Well, why not lets call everything murder then too ok? Why not stick to violence, surely both sides are purpotrating violence??

Why do you decide we should call both sides terrorists, instead of violence instigators??

You made that judgement based on the emotions of that word, because you don't like the word. It gives you a bad feeling (as well it should) and therefore you want to apply it to everything you think is bad.

It might work this way in your mind Georegy, but it doesn't work this way in the real world. I pray you never enter a courtroom in your life.

quote:

Just as you rightfully oppose attacks against Israelis, you should oppose attacks on Palestinians. Yet you dont. You make excuses. You try to justify it...

No I don't oppose attacks on Palestinians, nor believe I should. I don't make excuses for the reason Israel acts, I explain to you the reasons. I don't try to justify it, I do justify it.

quote:

Appeasing does not mean changing your pattern of conduct. All the people on here who support letting Israel do what it likes, or make excuses for Israel's actions support the appeasement of Israel...

Obviously you have no clue what the word appeasement means.
Since your two lazy to look it up, click here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=appeasement

Thats rights, its the (2) "The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace. " Or (1) the act of bringing peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe".

Lets see you wiggle the definition around this time... you always seem to do it somehow.

quote:

No, their motivation is the elimination of the state of Israel. But that was a nice try, really.

Yes and the motivation of Israel is to create the 'Greater Israel' as invisioned in the Bible or whatever they have...

The reason groups are put into the terrorist category or the freedom fighter category is simply due to the means available to them. The only way for what you would label a terrorist to achieve their aims is through attacking civilians (aswell as state targets). They have no other option. Do you think anybody just wants to kill for no reason as you are suggesting? No. But there is no other way for these people. The UK was never going to give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, so the IRA took up arms. Just as Israel has no intention of giving up the occupied territories (otherwise they would have as they create so much trouble for Israel)

quote:

If they drop the bomb on a military target, or in a large area with many military targets, and wipe out all those targets but also wipe out a lot of civilians with them, that is simply not terrorism. Their objective was to destroy the military, not intimidate the state.

Jesus Christ! I despair! Why the hell would you use nuclear bombs to take out military targets in the middle of a big city?! And you say that that was not to intimidate the state?!?!?!? Dont people like you defend the decision to use nuclear bombs by saying that it was neccessary in order to force Japan to surrender? That my friend, is terrorism...

quote:

A freedom fighter targets the military in order to obtain political power. A terrorist targets civilians in order to intimidate the state

Your telling me that anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, but also say that states cannot commit acts of terrorism?

quote:

I've explained this as best I could. Honestly I can't figure out why you are unable to tell the difference between terrorism and any other act of violence, but it's obviously useless to argue with you until you figure it out.

Groups are labelled 'terrorist' to suit political needs. There is no difference between any act of political violence and none should be acknowledged. If it is neccessary then fair enough, but I cannot think of any 'neccessary' killings of civilians...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes and the motivation of Israel is to create the 'Greater Israel' as invisioned in the Bible or whatever they have...

Israel isn't a theocracy. They aren't even supported by "Orthodox" Jews.

quote:

The reason groups are put into the terrorist category or the freedom fighter category is simply due to the means available to them.

Totally, totally incorrect. That is how people like YOU enjoy defining terrorism, but as I've explained what seems like hundreds of times already, they are put into different categories by virtue of their motivation and targets.

quote:

The only way for what you would label a terrorist to achieve their aims is through attacking civilians (aswell as state targets). They have no other option.

I'm sorry... they have "no other option" but to kill civilians? What does killing civilians accomplish? Other than terror I mean? Suicide bombers don't attack state targets, just kill as many people as possible. Israel DID attack a "state" target when they assassinated Yassin.

quote:

Do you think anybody just wants to kill for no reason as you are suggesting? No.

Did I say "no reason?" I said to cause terror, to intimidate the state, to wear them down.

quote:

But there is no other way for these people. The UK was never going to give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, so the IRA took up arms. Just as Israel has no intention of giving up the occupied territories (otherwise they would have as they create so much trouble for Israel)

Ah yes, there's no such thing at all as nonviolent protesting, or even demonstrations or civil disobedience. Nope, can't be done. And I suppose Camp David wasn't an opportunity either, was it.

quote:

Jesus Christ! I despair! Why the hell would you use nuclear bombs to take out military targets in the middle of a big city?!

I'm not arguing for the morality of it. I'm simply explaining to you how there is no validity whatsoever in calling it an act of terrorism.

quote:

And you say that that was not to intimidate the state?!?!?!?

Destroying a state's military is not trying to intimidate it. Can you honestly not see the difference?

quote:

Dont people like you defend the decision to use nuclear bombs by saying that it was neccessary in order to force Japan to surrender? That my friend, is terrorism...

What do you know of "people like me?" You don't even know me. When did I say it was necessary in order to "force Japan to surrender?"

Of course it "forced them to surrender" - not by terrorizing them, but by destroying a huge chunk of their military.

quote:

Your telling me that anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, but also say that states cannot commit acts of terrorism?

Please point to the spot where I said that states cannot commit acts of terrorism?

Many states can and do commit acts of terrorism. Admittedly those are most typically committed on their own people, but it can certainly be committed on foreign states (need I say 9/11?)

quote:

Groups are labelled 'terrorist' to suit political needs. There is no difference between any act of political violence and none should be acknowledged. If it is neccessary then fair enough, but I cannot think of any 'neccessary' killings of civilians...

Well that is an interesting opinion George, but not a very practical or logical one.

Once again: THERE ARE differences between various acts of violence, and ALL should be "acknowledged". If you do cannot think of any "necessary" killings of civilians then that is probably why the Israeli military (in the general sense) tries to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Rubber bullets hurt a lot less than shrapnel from a molotov.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation?

the vikings! now there's a damn cool group of people


but ya seriously, george the way you define terrorism is way to broad to use in an practical manner. all that yoepus and diginut are saying is that terrorism is this:

"the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to bring about political change."

since israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians it is not a terrorist, or state terrorist. where as the hamas who goes about planning attacks on innocent lives is guilty of terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy "the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to bring about political change."

I wouldn't even agree on that definition. In my opinion a terrorsit's mind knows nothing like "politics". Politics is just a way to justify his crimes, based on nothing but pure hate, racism and fascist fanatism.

quote:

You want to call a murder a criminal and a guy who flew wihtout his glassess the same thing to make a 'murderer' look less bad and a 'guy who flew without his glasess' look more bad. Because thats what you end up doing - you equate them, without terms.

Here you go again! Totally twisting my words into silly little analogies that bear no relation whatsoever to anything I have said. Murder is murder, theft is theft, and terrorism is terrorism.

quote:

Israel isn't a theocracy. They aren't even supported by "Orthodox" Jews.

I said that because you stated that the goal of Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. So I said the goal of Israelis was the destruction of the occupied territories to make the 'Greater Israel'. IE both are unfounded speculation but both can quite easily be argued for. Also, I believe 10% of the Knesset are settlers no? They are a very powerful voice in Israeli politics, and the fact that they are settlers suggests they are religious fundamentalists who's aim is the creation of this 'Greater Israel' (or why else would they have settled where they have?)

quote:

Of course it "forced them to surrender" - not by terrorizing them, but by destroying a huge chunk of their military.

I suppose there would have to be people still alive to feel terrorised? Destroying large chunks of their military in the way that it was, whether that was the intention or not, terrorised the Japanese government into surrendering (out of fear more nuclear bombs would be dropped). And that is terrorism.

quote:

Please point to the spot where I said that states cannot commit acts of terrorism? Many states can and do commit acts of terrorism. Admittedly those are most typically committed on their own people, but it can certainly be committed on foreign states (need I say 9/11?)

Can you give me some examples of state terrorism so I can see what your definitions are?

Why do you mention 11/9 while talking about state terrorism?? Whether al-Qaida has backing from a state or not, it is still a non-state actor. I am talking about states doing the dirty work themselves

Can I give you a few quotes out of one of my books, "An Anatomy of Terror: A History of Terrorism" by Andrew Sullivan, from the introduction?

quote:

The philosophers of terrorism, from Machiavelli to Robespierre, from Lenin to Hitler, advocated its limited use, until the state was taken over. All terrorist groups were forgiven, once they had become the government; in the persuit of power, success leaved few enemies. The horror of modern times, however, has been the scale of the use of state terror, which has managed to massacre in the last century more than 100,000,000 people. ... Ten principles of Terror have emerged: Terror is warfare by extreme means Terror is the lifeblood of tyranny Terror is the weapon of the outlaw against the oppressor Terror is murder on the cheap Terror is the lash on the back of the refugee Terror is victory by stealth for the few Terror is defeat by cowardice for the coward If we are terrorised, we may become terrible to those who make us fear Terror is measured by the scale of its victims, not the merit of its cause Tolerance of terror is no vertue

I cannot see why we should call different acts of blatent terrorism different names? All acts of terrorism are just that. The only difference is we support some of those acts, but call them different names to either justify it to others, or to justify it to ourselves.

quote:

"the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to bring about political change."

Thats what I am saying too, altho I would also include the unnecessary killing of civilians as well.

quote:

since israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians it is not a terrorist, or state terrorist

Maybe if that were true, but how does the demolishing of people's homes fall under your description above?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I suppose there would have to be people still alive to feel terrorised? Destroying large chunks of their military in the way that it was, whether that was the intention or not, terrorised the Japanese government into surrendering (out of fear more nuclear bombs would be dropped). And that is terrorism.

No. The application of force by one nation intending to cause the capitulation of another nation is the definition of "war." War is not terrorism. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Here you go again! Totally twisting my words into silly little analogies that bear no relation whatsoever to anything I have said. Murder is murder, theft is theft, and terrorism is terrorism.

Murder is murder, theft is theft, and terrorism is terrorism, but let's try to keep those three separate, shall we?

quote:

I said that because you stated that the goal of Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. So I said the goal of Israelis was the destruction of the occupied territories to make the 'Greater Israel'. IE both are unfounded speculation but both can quite easily be argued for. Also, I believe 10% of the Knesset are settlers no? They are a very powerful voice in Israeli politics, and the fact that they are settlers suggests they are religious fundamentalists who's aim is the creation of this 'Greater Israel' (or why else would they have settled where they have?)

Look, we've been over this too many times already. Hamas, supported by Arafat, has the publicly stated goal of destroying Israel. Read their charter. It's right in there. There can be no argument on this subject. Israel assassinated a figurehead of Hamas, not a Palestinian peacemaker. And no, there is no central figurehead in Israel with the publicly stated goal of eliminating Palestine. Of course there are some religious fundamentalists but they don't control the state.

quote:

I suppose there would have to be people still alive to feel terrorised? Destroying large chunks of their military in the way that it was, whether that was the intention or not, terrorised the Japanese government into surrendering (out of fear more nuclear bombs would be dropped). And that is terrorism.

NO, IT IS NOT TERRORISM. Will you understand if I write it in REALLY BIG LETTERS?

Are you completely and utterly stupid or do you just love equivocation? It is NOT terrorism unless the INTENTION is to terrorize. It is NOT correct to imply that ANY act which causes fear is terrorism! I can think of dozens of acts which have this effect on people and are obviously not terrorist acts, not the least of which would be anything falling under the category of domestic crime!

quote:

Can you give me some examples of state terrorism so I can see what your definitions are?

Other people in this thread already have. I agree with them.

quote:

Why do you mention 11/9 while talking about state terrorism?? Whether al-Qaida has backing from a state or not, it is still a non-state actor. I am talking about states doing the dirty work themselves

What the hell are you talking about? No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point. It's not like Israel's pavement is suddenly going to come to life and form a big Earth Demon that crushes Palestine in a single blow.

quote:

Can I give you a few quotes out of one of my books, "An Anatomy of Terror: A History of Terrorism" by Andrew Sullivan, from the introduction?

Sure. What was the point though?

quote:

I cannot see why we should call different acts of blatent terrorism different names? All acts of terrorism are just that. The only difference is we support some of those acts, but call them different names to either justify it to others, or to justify it to ourselves.

Once again your misguided rhetoric taking over without any logic. They are acts of terrorism because YOU consider them to be acts of terrorism, and others merely "justify" them. To many of us with half a brain, it is quite clear that they are anything but terrorism. You are the one twisting words to suit your personal agenda, not us. If you think you have a rational argument by forcibly insisting that such acts ARE terrorism by using a fallacious definition of terrorism, and proceeding to tell us that we simply justify those acts, well then there can be no rational argument with you.

quote:

Thats what I am saying too, altho I would also include the unnecessary killing of civilians as well.

"You" would, yes, but that would be totally incorrect, because not every unnecessary killing of a civilian is terrorism. If a man robs a bank and shoots people while trying to get away, I suppose he committed an act of terrorism? Because that's an unnecessary killing of civilians.

quote:

Maybe if that were true, but how does the demolishing of people's homes fall under your description above?

Because its motivation isn't terror and it's not specifically targeting innocent bystanders. For the 500th time.

quote:

It is NOT terrorism unless the INTENTION is to terrorize

Its intention WAS to terrorise. The bomb was intended to terrorise the Japanese government into surrendering.

quote:

It is NOT correct to imply that ANY act which causes fear is terrorism! I can think of dozens of acts which have this effect on people and are obviously not terrorist acts, not the least of which would be anything falling under the category of domestic crime!

quote:

You" would, yes, but that would be totally incorrect, because not every unnecessary killing of a civilian is terrorism. If a man robs a bank and shoots people while trying to get away, I suppose he committed an act of terrorism? Because that's an unnecessary killing of civilians.

I thought we had already agreed that the act had to be for political aims?

quote:

What the hell are you talking about? No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point. It's not like Israel's pavement is suddenly going to come to life and form a big Earth Demon that crushes Palestine in a single blow.

I am debating with my self whether to use the laughing smiley or the confused one! What on Earth are you talking about? What's with the pavement coming to life and killing people?! And what do you mean that "No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point"? You have already stated that states can commit terrorism earlier. Now you are saying only non-state actors can do it?

quote:

Sure. What was the point though?

It was a definition of terrorism, or acts of terrorism. I was wondering if you agreed with it? And if not, which points did you disagree with?

quote:

Because its motivation isn't terror and it's not specifically targeting innocent bystanders

Er...so the bulldozers just acidently knocked their houses over? And those houses didn't belong to "innocent bystanders"?

quote:

War is not terrorism. Sorry.

Why? Are you saying that some acts that happen during war could not be clasified as terrorism by the definitions that not I have put forward, but ones that others have put forward? When the Germans bombed Britsh cities, was that not intentional targetting of civilians? For the same reasons that every terorrist group have? To manipulate public opinion to suit their own needs?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Its intention WAS to terrorise. The bomb was intended to terrorise the Japanese government into surrendering.

According to who? You? They dropped it on a military city, and the general consensus is that the bomb killed less people than an all-out invasion would have.

quote:

I thought we had already agreed that the act had to be for political aims?

Yes, but you seem to omit that detail whenever it suits your purposes.

quote:

I am debating with my self whether to use the laughing smiley or the confused one! What on Earth are you talking about? What's with the pavement coming to life and killing people?! And what do you mean that "No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point"? You have already stated that states can commit terrorism earlier. Now you are saying only non-state actors can do it?

Alright, I'll try to dumb it down a shade for ya. States commit terrorism through the support and/or instruction of non-state actors. The "state" isn't a physical being so obviously it can't act out the violence itself. That has to be done by people who are in simply involved with the state in some way. But realistically, everybody within a state is in some way involved with that state - so how exactly do we define the difference between a "state actor" and a "non-state actor"? What level or degree of involvement with state affairs is required to be considered a "state actor?"

quote:

It was a definition of terrorism, or acts of terrorism. I was wondering if you agreed with it? And if not, which points did you disagree with?

It wasn't a definition, it was more like a series of examples, none of which I really would consider to be true. I haven't read that book but those quotes seem like they'd come from a handbook on the philosophy of terrorism written by and for terrorists.

quote:

Er...so the bulldozers just acidently knocked their houses over? And those houses didn't belong to "innocent bystanders"?

I could better address this comment if you'd kindly tell me exactly which events you are referring to and where and when they occurred. Bulldozing the homes of civilians in Palestine is not exactly an everyday happening.

quote:

Why? Are you saying that some acts that happen during war could not be clasified as terrorism by the definitions that not I have put forward, but ones that others have put forward? When the Germans bombed Britsh cities, was that not intentional targetting of civilians? For the same reasons that every terorrist group have? To manipulate public opinion to suit their own needs?

I am saying that the definitions you put forward and continue to put forward bear no resemblance to what terrorism actually is and represents. Moreover, your definitions seem to change whenever it seems convenient for you to change them.

You cannot simply redefine words to mean whatever you'd like them to mean and expect others to abide by your definition in order to give validity to your argument. Your definition of terrorism (which seems to change all the time) is severely flawed (no matter how you change it) and isn't going to lead to anything constructive in this forum.

quote:

Alright, I'll try to dumb it down a shade for ya. States commit terrorism through the support and/or instruction of non-state actors. The "state" isn't a physical being so obviously it can't act out the violence itself. That has to be done by people who are in simply involved with the state in some way. But realistically, everybody within a state is in some way involved with that state - so how exactly do we define the difference between a "state actor" and a "non-state actor"? What level or degree of involvement with state affairs is required to be considered a "state actor?"

Its quite a basic concept. When someone refers to 'the state' or 'state-actors' that includes such people as politicians, police or the armed forces. A non-state actor includes people who are not connected to the state apparatus (ie Hamas, the IRA or ETA for example)

quote:

Yes, but you seem to omit that detail whenever it suits your purposes.

I have never once said that a terrorist act is not politically motivated. Your the one leaving that out of what you think I have said...

quote:

I could better address this comment if you'd kindly tell me exactly which events you are referring to and where and when they occurred. Bulldozing the homes of civilians in Palestine is not exactly an everyday happening.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-10-30-robot-destruction_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

There's two examples to help you. I also believe Palestinian homes and farm land are being bulldozed to make way for the wall?

And here's another link to what I would define as terrorism...the theft of water from Palestine...

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap...19990818ib.html


My whole point, which am going to stop promoting now as we both are entitled to our own beleifs, is that terrorism does not have to be committed, and more often than not, is committed by states. The word terrorism is designed to create an opinion in our minds. It is a prejudged opinion. We could easily say that all non-state actors that take up arms against the state and its population are terrorists. But the problem with that is that for a start, we may argue that the terrorists are in the right (and therefore, if we do not want to create a negative opinion about the group, we would not use the negative word 'terrorist') Then there is the fact that we may find acts committed by a state just as disturbing as suicide bombings against innocent Israelis for example, so we would want to use a negative word like terrorism to describe the act. The use of the word 'terrorism' is designed purely to describe an act (a politically violent one ) in a negative light, therefore, it should be made to apply to all acts we consider that way...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Maybe if that were true, but how does the demolishing of people's homes fall under your description above?

easily, israel has a policy of demolishing homes that have been used as sniper nests, ammo depots and homes of suicide bombers. all are the opposite of innocent ( = guilty) therefore it does not fit my description

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