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 George Smiley 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

two points:

1) in my definition this is not terrorism, because this 'theft' of water is not done to acheive a political purpose, israel is doing this because it needs water

2) Our favorite internationl body, the UN (hehe) says its ok, so its not theft in the first place. resolution 242 "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved".

full text of resolution: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20P...esolution%20242

Heh, neither of those bulldozing actions were taken in order to induce terror. They were taken because of the palestinian gunmen residing in that area.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, neither of those bulldozing actions were taken in order to induce terror. They were taken because of the palestinian gunmen residing in that area.

yea you'd think he'd pick better exampels to make his point, not some that specifically say:

quote:

The Israeli military regularly demolishes suicide bombers' homes and other buildings militants are suspected of using for cover to attack Israelis.

But thats Georegy for you, ever in denial

quote:

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

Israel is a democratic theocracy (as ironic as that is). Las time I checked, wasnt it the JEWISH state?

quote:

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.

HE could say the exact same thing as you? PEOPLE LIKE YOU enjoy defining terrorism to suit your own right-winged argumentative objectives.

quote:

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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism&r=67

That definition seems to apply to what ISrael is doing to the palestinians as well.

quote:

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.

Many times palestinians have attacked checkpoints, and soldiers. You just like to think they dont for the sake of your argument.

Although most of them arent specifically suicide bombing, it still shows they are trying to resist.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dai...2002022019.html
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Londo.../19/261966.html

quote:

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

But it has helped the palestinians bring about a two state ssolution to end the occuptation and this mess. If they didnt go to this extreme, maybe the pals would be forever occupied and treated like shit.

quote:

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.

AHAHHHA

Palestinians have MANY peaceful protests... its never mediated becuase its not newsworthy. If you have international satellite, you would see it with your own eyes how many of them they actually have.

Its only the violent clashes that make the headlines.

quote:

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

The mere fact that you dont beleive that invading a nation, causing harm to a populace, killing thousands in a "war" is terror, only shows that your perception of the term is so specific that it hardly happens in your eyes.

quote:

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?)

You dont think that the treatment of the vietnamese caused terror???
Napalming villiages? Villiage rapes?

You only look at the what is "officially" declared by the government w accuse of terrorist acts, and turn a blind eye at the actual nature and result of these pre-emtive strike type wars.

quote:

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.

Ive already proved to you how deadly and HARMFUL rubber bullets are.

To be perfectly honest Yoepus, I just typed in 'bulldozer' and 'Palestinian' into Yahoo! and took the first things that came up. Someone seemed totally unaware of the use of bulldozers in the conflict so those two articles were just to give him an example of what I was talking about. Still, I thought the USAToday article had quite a few good points from both sides...

quote:

The Israeli military regularly demolishes suicide bombers' homes and other buildings militants are suspected of using for cover to attack Israelis.

quote:

The gray, heavily armored machines, which stand as tall as a small house, already have turned hundreds of buildings into dusty rubble heaps and ancient olive groves into wastelands with their powerful shovel blades

quote:

With a deafening roar, the bulldozer plowed through narrow alleys, shearing the fronts off homes, to cut a path for advancing soldiers

quote:

Ramadan Nawaf, 52, watched his house and groves of olives and oranges flattened by a D-9 four months ago, during a large-scale army raid of the town of Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip. "It was moving like a monster," said Nawaf. "It was very big and destroyed everything in front of it."

Is this man a terrorist?

quote:

American peace activist Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash., who was crushed to death by a bulldozer � not a D-9 � on March 16 while trying to block a house demolition in the Gaza Strip.

Ooooooh! Nasty American terrorist!

quote:

Dror said the operation had a parallel goal: to induce civilians to pressure the Palestinian Authority, which controls part of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, to stop using arms. "If I were a Palestinian, I would demonstrate at the authority offices to end the violence."

Now that one is interesting. Does that mean that the demolition of houses has one of its aims to change the behaviour of civilians? What? By terrorising them?

quote:

After the troops withdrew, occupants of the houses drifted back to claim furniture, clothing and other household goods buried in the rubble. The two green bulldozers were visible beyond the border toward the Mediterranean Sea. Women balanced dented pots and pans on their heads and boys scavenged for lost toys

Damn! Yet more terrorists!

Now I could go and find some really juicy sources but to be honest, I cant be arsed, and you know as well as I what they will say

The only way this kind of action can not be defined as terrorism is if there was a sniper in the building at the time of demolition. What exactly does demolishing the house of a suicide bomber achieve, unless the aim is to terrify other civilians not to take the same path? Its not like the suicide bomber still wants it! Whether or not suicide bombers used to live there, or in the past Israel has claimed snipers have used them, it does not excuse the fact that THEY ARE PEOPLE'S HOMES. The people who live in those houses are just ordinary people. By taking that action Israel is simply terrorising those ordinary people into submission (well thats the plan, if you ask me it breeds many times more suicide bombers...)

Any comments on the water link? Or was that one a little tougher to argue against than the stories from the American media?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Israel is a democratic theocracy (as ironic as that is). Las time I checked, wasnt it the JEWISH state?

It's a Jewish state, yes, but I think that's more of a cultural definition than a religious one. If you want to call Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Iran, etc. all Islamic theocracies then okay, as long as we're all playing with the same set of cards... but I still wouldn't call this a war of religions. Is that what you see it as, Kaveh?

quote:

HE could say the exact same thing as you? PEOPLE LIKE YOU enjoy defining terrorism to suit your own right-winged argumentative objectives.

Well explain to me what's wrong with my definition? Do you disagree that terrorism should be defined as something that inherently targets civilians, and is used as a means of coercion by fear?

quote:

That definition seems to apply to what ISrael is doing to the palestinians as well.

That's essentially the same definition I'm going by but I don't see the logic in your conclusion. Applying the definition to Israel would again, be requiring them to be using force as a means to coercion by fear, but only the stupidest government wouldn't have realized by now that it's not scaring or coercing anyone. There is no logic to their actions if interpreted as a means to fear. If they're targeting militants (in large part, at least), then it is easy to see what their real motivation is (to get rid of the militants!)

quote:

Many times palestinians have attacked checkpoints, and soldiers. You just like to think they dont for the sake of your argument.

What what what!? No, I think they DO attack checkpoints and soldiers!!! That's why they get fired on! This is where the numbers come from on Palestinian civilian deaths!

quote:

Although most of them arent specifically suicide bombing, it still shows they are trying to resist. http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dai...2002022019.html http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Londo.../19/261966.html

Resist what though? And please don't say "the occupation."

quote:

But it has helped the palestinians bring about a two state ssolution to end the occuptation and this mess. If they didnt go to this extreme, maybe the pals would be forever occupied and treated like shit.

Actually, believe it or not, I agree with you. It probably WAS the existence of Hamas and the "intifada" that paved the way for a potential Palestinian state alongside Israel.

But aren't we ignoring the obvious here? The PA rejected a two-state solution, and even spoke of it as merely a part of a "phased plan" to eliminate Israel. They didn't even make a counter-offer. If they had accepted the two-state solution and stopped the terrorism, I might even be able to concede that it had been an effective (although highly immoral) plan.

After all, it's unfair to apply a double-standard here - Israel expelled the Palestinians in early days for the survival of their own state, so if Palestine had merely wanted a state without wanting to destroy Israel, it would have made sense in a kind of perverted way. If they were living peacefully side-by-side now, some of us might even look back and call them freedom fighters (well, I'm pushing the envelope here but anything's possible). But it is precisely their unwillingness to stop - their unwillingness to compromise - their incessant murder of civilians for no real goal except to push Israel into giving in to MORE demands so as to put Palestine in a strong enough position to get rid of them completely - it is that sick mentality that makes them terrorists and not freedom fighters at all.

quote:

Palestinians have MANY peaceful protests... its never mediated becuase its not newsworthy. If you have international satellite, you would see it with your own eyes how many of them they actually have.

Actually I've watched a few videos of Palestinian protests and they don't seem to be all that peaceful. While it's true that they aren't actually killing anyone, the protests seem to be filled with anger and hostility. A friend sent me this link:

http://brain-terminal.com/video/rut...0-11/index.html

Admittedly they didn't seriously injure anyone, and admittedly this didn't happen in Israel, but if this is characteristic of what you call "peaceful" protests, I'd hate to see their not-so-peaceful ones...

quote:

Its only the violent clashes that make the headlines.

Again this may be true, but it is also only the violent clashes that Israel responds to with violence. I have sincere doubts that soldiers have killed many Palestinians in peaceful protests.

quote:

The mere fact that you dont beleive that invading a nation, causing harm to a populace, killing thousands in a "war" is terror, only shows that your perception of the term is so specific that it hardly happens in your eyes.

Well again, I'm not going to keep arguing on the definition of terror because that's been done already. I would, however, like to hear your definition of "invading." History seems to record that the Jews weren't violent when they first entered the middle east; and our own country, Canada, has no trouble whatsoever letting in thousands of refugees. But Palestine - or what we now call Palestine, because it didn't exist when the Jews first entered - was largely hostile to the Jews, and that is precisely what forced the kind of violence that we're now calling an "invasion." If the Jews hadn't been attacked, they probably would have felt no need to occupy or "expand."

It's not that the Jews went in there with the intention of taking over the land. They only did so when they were faced with a genuine fear for their own survival. I'm not saying that it's "right" - but both groups of people were in the "wrong" and Israel did what was necessary for its survival. Again, self-preservation is the overriding factor here, and no good leader would ever willingly let his own people die in order to avoid the death of people from another nation. Yes it's harsh, yes it's brutal, yes it's not a very peace-loving attitude, but that is life, and that is reality. When you are faced with either the death of yourself (or your country) or the death of another, you choose the other.

quote:

You dont think that the treatment of the vietnamese caused terror??? Napalming villiages? Villiage rapes?

Caused terror, yes. Intended to cause terror? No, those things were more like war crimes, and war crime <> terrorism.

quote:

You only look at the what is "officially" declared by the government w accuse of terrorist acts, and turn a blind eye at the actual nature and result of these pre-emtive strike type wars.

I'm not looking at what is officially declared, I'm looking at what their motivation logically COULD be. For Palestine, terror is the only option because they don't have a strong enough military presence to fight an all-out war. For Israel, terror isn't a logical option at all, because (first of all) they have enough military to wipe Palestine out completely if they want, and secondly, what the Palestinians observe as "terror" does not scare them at all, it only encourages them to intensify the violence.

So if Israel is clearly not doing what is in the best interests of their state, then we have to ask, why? Why don't they just wipe out Palestine completely? Why these pitiful retaliations and bulldozings? Why don't they just nuke the place? Why indeed - because it goes against what they know to be "right", because they don't want to kill, they just want to be left alone. And if they just want to be left alone, it does not stand to reason that they would have any want or need to intentionally threaten or use force to intimidate Palestinians.

quote:

Ive already proved to you how deadly and HARMFUL rubber bullets are.

I don't recall specifically where you proved that, although to be honest I'm not disagreeing with you. But I wouldn't say that they're any more dangerous than heavy rocks or molotov cocktails, would you?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Ive already proved to you how deadly and HARMFUL rubber bullets are.

Perhaps you'd prefer them to be shot with 5.56x45 or 7.62x51?

Consider what the purpose of the rubber bullets is. It's not giving them a sponge bath.

quote:

quote: American peace activist Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash., who was crushed to death by a bulldozer � not a D-9 � on March 16 while trying to block a house demolition in the Gaza Strip. Ooooooh! Nasty American terrorist!

Isn't this the same chick who was photographed with burning a Yank flag?

Silly of her of trying to pull a Tianamen Square and get whacked instead.
Give her the Darwin award.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Is this man a terrorist? Ooooooh! Nasty American terrorist! Now that one is interesting. Does that mean that the demolition of houses has one of its aims to change the behaviour of civilians? What? By terrorising them? Damn! Yet more terrorists! Now I could go and find some really juicy sources but to be honest, I cant be arsed, and you know as well as I what they will say

The problem is, we have absolutely no information on who or what was inside these buildings when they were demolished. If there were terrorist activities afoot, how can you call it terrorism to demolish the working-places of the terrorists?

quote:

The only way this kind of action can not be defined as terrorism is if there was a sniper in the building at the time of demolition.

Your opinion, once again... *sigh* You need to stop speaking of it in absolute terms like this.

quote:

What exactly does demolishing the house of a suicide bomber achieve, unless the aim is to terrify other civilians not to take the same path?

Um, to get rid of the suicide bomber so he doesn't blow anything up, perhaps?

quote:

Its not like the suicide bomber still wants it! Whether or not suicide bombers used to live there, or in the past Israel has claimed snipers have used them, it does not excuse the fact that THEY ARE PEOPLE'S HOMES. The people who live in those houses are just ordinary people. By taking that action Israel is simply terrorising those ordinary people into submission (well thats the plan, if you ask me it breeds many times more suicide bombers...)

Wow you seem to be totally confused as to what's going on here. They aren't demolishing homes that were once occupied by suicide bombers. They are demolishing homes that are PRESENTLY being used as "bases" for suicide bombers, i.e. to make the bombs!

quote:

Any comments on the water link? Or was that one a little tougher to argue against than the stories from the American media?

Actually I believe that was commented on already. Pay attention much?

quote:

The problem is, we have absolutely no information on who or what was inside these buildings when they were demolished

quote:

According to testimonies collected and researched by B'tselem, an Israeli human rights group, on April 6, 2002, the huge bulldozers demolished houses in the Al Quarim neighbourhood. The A-Sha'abi family were trapped inside their house, whose exits were blocked by the debris remaining from the neighbouring houses demolished earlier. The Sha'abis shouted and signalled to the bulldozer driver, but to no avail. Nine members of the family died under the rubble. Their bodies were recovered six days later, when the army had left, together with the survivors, Abdallah A-Sha'abi and his wife, who gave the testimony Taken from "Israel/Palestine: How To End The War Of 1948" by Tanya Reinhart

Sad, isn't it? Makes you wonder why Palestinians do the things they do to the people who support this kind of action doesn't it? There are countless other examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour.

quote:

Um, to get rid of the suicide bomber so he doesn't blow anything up, perhaps?

Er, isn't the suicide bomber already otherwise desposed of? Unless you are promoting the Orwellian concept of the 'thought police'?

quote:

They aren't demolishing homes that were once occupied by suicide bombers

Yes they are as the articles stated (from Israeli military sources presumabally which others here have also accepted)

quote:

Actually I believe that was commented on already. Pay attention much?

That was aimed at Yoepus, and since you have taken an interest, care to comment yourself? If you were a Palestinian, and saw illegal settlements with SWIMMING POOLS ( ) in their back yards, while you consumed a fraction of the amount of water that Israelis consume (considering most of their water comes from Palestinian territories), wouldn't you be just a little bit pissed off? Or do they deserve it?

quote:

It's not that the Jews went in there with the intention of taking over the land

This is brilliant! You ever heard of something called Zionism?

quote:

But Palestine - or what we now call Palestine, because it didn't exist when the Jews first entered - was largely hostile to the Jews, and that is precisely what forced the kind of violence that we're now calling an "invasion."

Not entirely true. For a start, there was no such thing as Israel as well as Palestine when independence was declared and before that time, Jewish and Arab terrorism was rife, both towrds the British and towards each other.

quote:

Caused terror, yes. Intended to cause terror? No

quote:

From the memoirs of Lieutenant William Calley (in command during the massacre of My Lai Our mission in My Lai wasn't perverted, though. It was simply 'Go and destroy it'. Remember the Bible: The Amalikites? God said to Saul, 'Now go...and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass'.

Please please tell me you have made a mistake, and do not actually believe that the intention here was not to terrorise. And if you do still stick to your guns, what the fuck was the intention then?!

quote:

war crime <> terrorism

I am sorry, but war crimes are most certainly acts of terrorism, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sad, isn't it? Makes you wonder why Palestinians do the things they do to the people who support this kind of action doesn't it? There are countless other examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour.

Heartbreaking. And where's your evidence that these people were innocent?

quote:

Er, isn't the suicide bomber already otherwise desposed of? Unless you are promoting the Orwellian concept of the 'thought police'?

Now where would you get that idea? Do you think Israel is incapable of collecting intelligence on where suicide bombers are gathering and creating their bombs? Oh, but I suppose it's wrong to put a pre-emptive stop to them before they actually blow anything up? I suppose you think it's only acceptable if they're caught in the act? Seriously though, this isn't "thought police", even in North America you can easily be arrested for conspiring to commit a crime if there is evidence for that.

quote:

Yes they are as the articles stated (from Israeli military sources presumabally which others here have also accepted)

The articles stated that they were demolishing homes of suicide bombers, but NOT, as you so quaintly put it, the homes of the innocent families of suicide bombers that have already committed their attrocious acts. Again, where's your proof? These places are analogous to military bases considering that Palestine has no army.

quote:

That was aimed at Yoepus, and since you have taken an interest, care to comment yourself? If you were a Palestinian, and saw illegal settlements with SWIMMING POOLS ( ) in their back yards, while you consumed a fraction of the amount of water that Israelis consume (considering most of their water comes from Palestinian territories), wouldn't you be just a little bit pissed off? Or do they deserve it?

Even the U.N. whom you love so much says that it's Israel's water to do what they please with. Yes I'd be pissed about the swimming pools - hell, I'd be pissed to see them living in any kind of luxury, period - but that doesn't give me the right to try to kill them.

quote:

This is brilliant! You ever heard of something called Zionism?

Again...

quote:

Not entirely true. For a start, there was no such thing as Israel as well as Palestine when independence was declared and before that time, Jewish and Arab terrorism was rife, both towrds the British and towards each other.

There never was any Jewish terrorism. Early settling Jews just tried to live their lives while the neighbouring Arabs tried to kill them, circa 1948. That's what set it all in motion.

quote:

Please please tell me you have made a mistake, and do not actually believe that the intention here was not to terrorise. And if you do still stick to your guns, what the fuck was the intention then?!

Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. In any event, the relevance to the current situation in the middle east is nil. What you posted is completely immaterial.

quote:

I am sorry, but war crimes are most certainly acts of terrorism, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise

No, they are not, you are still trying to impose YOUR definition of "terrorism" on us, but no matter how many times you try to do that, you're still wrong.

I thought you said you were giving up on this. One form of violence is not equal to another, you cannot simply write them all off as terrorism. All violence causes terror to an extent, that doesn't make it terrorism - it's a very specific term that people like you are trying to pervert in order to make a false analogy come true.

Arafat, Al Aqsa, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all depend on a conflict for their existence.
Each has a vested interest in continuing the conflict. Meanwhile, back in the refugee camps, the vast majority of the Palestinian people are living in squalor because it is politically necessary that they do so. It would be difficult for any of the PLO groups to obtain the sympathy of the world, if the Palestinians were living in three-bedroom condos instead of poverty.

quote:

Heartbreaking. And where's your evidence that these people were innocent?

That is pathetic! Where's the proof they are guilty?! You assume that because they are Palestinian they must have done something to deserve to die?

quote:

Again...

You clamimed that the Jews did not move to that area of the world with the intentions of taking over the land. Not one person here will argue that that is true as Israel was created out of the Zionist ideology. (You know, for a Jewish homeland?)

quote:

There never was any Jewish terrorism

Well in that case I'd go get some history books out about the creation of Israel. You may also be surprised to find out that Jewish terrorism still exists.

quote:

Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. In any event, the relevance to the current situation in the middle east is nil. What you posted is completely immaterial.

Ah so now your back's to the wall my comments were irrelevent? My comments were part of the sub argument we are having about definitions of terrorism, which is blatently not irrelevent as you carry on the argument in your next paragraph by claiming war crimes can not be considered acts of terrorism, which is a complete joke.

quote:

Even the U.N. whom you love so much says that it's Israel's water to do what they please with. Yes I'd be pissed about the swimming pools - hell, I'd be pissed to see them living in any kind of luxury, period - but that doesn't give me the right to try to kill them.

Sod what anyone has decreed on the matter, do you think that it is fair that Israelis consume much per water per head than Palestinians (even tho most of the water comes from Palestine)?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 1. There never was any Jewish terrorism. 2. Early settling Jews just tried to live their lives while the neighbouring Arabs tried to kill them, circa 1948.

Well, well. Some would see it differently but for me Irgun and Stern were what I would "really" call freedom fighters. Their attacks, like the one against the King David Hotel, were indeed targeted at militaries (one part of the hotel being a military basis of the British) and solely motivated by the fight for independence and not the desire for mass killings (which is underlined by the fact that there have been THREE telephonic warnings before the explosion - to avoid casualties). A classic example for a different target-motivation from the current Palestinian one.

2. First anti-Jewish riots go back to the early 1920s when Arab nationalists and those who were incited by the Mufti of Jerusalem (btw.: a big friend of a certain Austrian A. H.) began the first riots and attacks against Jewish citizens in cafe's, markets, kibbutzin and cinemas.

The Stern Gang also attacked Arabs tho, and I could quite esily argue that the Jews weren't exactly oppressed by the British until attacks against it took place...

oh my, what have i started
Even if Stern and others weren't totally "clean" the Zionist leadership actively fought them and ended their actions as opposed to today's PA which mourns about the death of a Terrorist mastermind.

Funnily enough, Zionism was originally going to be a socialist experiment! No idea why I feel the need to tell you that but I did!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Funnily enough, Zionism was originally going to be a socialist experiment! No idea why I feel the need to tell you that but I did!

Herzl a socialist? I think you'd rather mean that the first villages were built based on the Soviet "commune" model. Today's Kibbuzim still have a communist touch.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That is pathetic! Where's the proof they are guilty?! You assume that because they are Palestinian they must have done something to deserve to die?

No, I assume that because Israel saw fit to demolish their home that they "must have done something." Why else would Israel bulldoze it? Of what benefit is it to Israel to demolish the homes of the completely innocent?

quote:

You clamimed that the Jews did not move to that area of the world with the intentions of taking over the land. Not one person here will argue that that is true as Israel was created out of the Zionist ideology. (You know, for a Jewish homeland?)

Oh and you know all the people here so well? Zionism says nothing about how much land they are supposed to occupy (the "greater Israel" you like to speak of has nothing to do with Zionism). Sure, they wanted a homeland, but there was no stipulation that it had to occupy that entire land mass - that only occurred because the neighbouring Arabs originally tried to kill them all.

quote:

Well in that case I'd go get some history books out about the creation of Israel. You may also be surprised to find out that Jewish terrorism still exists.

No, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed. I know about the history of Israel's creation and that's why I speak freely of the original expulsion by Ben Gurion, but I don't consider that to be terrorism as Israel really and truly was fighting for its survival. Terrorism implies a political or ideological motive - I don't think that survival is one of them.

quote:

Ah so now your back's to the wall my comments were irrelevent? My comments were part of the sub argument we are having about definitions of terrorism, which is blatently not irrelevent as you carry on the argument in your next paragraph by claiming war crimes can not be considered acts of terrorism, which is a complete joke.

It is irrelevant, because your definition of terrorism is wrong. This isn't worth debating at this point because it's already been explained to you, yet you continue to use your perverted definition and refuse to back down because it makes your argument look like it holds water. Sorry - it doesn't.

quote:

Sod what anyone has decreed on the matter, do you think that it is fair that Israelis consume much per water per head than Palestinians (even tho most of the water comes from Palestine)?

What difference does it make where it comes from? Any outrage that stems from this would have to be based on the premise that Israel's occupation of the territories is illegal and therefore they don't *really* have control of the water. Good luck convincing me of that! Yes, I do think it is fair - if the Palestinians were dying of thirst then that would be a different story, but Israel isn't trying to kill them by taking away their water - they just need water!

Mate! Think about what your saying cos your posts are deteriorating into a load of crap and it is making you look very silly indeed!

quote:

No, I assume that because Israel saw fit to demolish their home that they "must have done something." Why else would Israel bulldoze it? Of what benefit is it to Israel to demolish the homes of the completely innocent?

Like the Israeli general (or whatever he was), to scare them into not committing acts of terrorism (also, your sick little comments that you agree with anyone Israel has killed cos they must have done something makes you look like a complete and utter twat, and a very stupid one at that)

quote:

Oh and you know all the people here so well? Zionism says nothing about how much land they are supposed to occupy (the "greater Israel" you like to speak of has nothing to do with Zionism). Sure, they wanted a homeland, but there was no stipulation that it had to occupy that entire land mass

Who ever said anything about the entire land mass
Zionism wanted to control land in an area that they previously had no control over whatsoever - therefore - they went there with intentions of taking over the land there (as much or as little as they could get, makes no difference, they wanted land for the Jews and Jews only) By the way, the ideology 'Neo-Zionism' does call for the 'Greater Israel'

quote:

No, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed

Again, this makes you look extremely stupid. You dont actually know much about the Israel-Arab conflict at all do you? (its all emotionally charged rhetoric isnt it and nothing more?)

We have already discussed Rabin's assassination (and if I recall correctly, it was even YOU who brought it up!!!!!!!!!)

After that, I assume you have heard of the massacre at the mosque in Hebron?

And if you are still not happy, and you would like more proof of the level of your knowledge of this conflict then here's a nice little link for you to take a look at...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,714421,00.html

(You try and justify this attempt, or in any way try to tell me that this is not terrorism and you will have lost all credibility in the ability to engage in this debate further, not just by me, but by every person in this thread with half a brain...)

I expect in your next post to address your claim that "Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed"

quote:

Yes, I do think it is fair - if the Palestinians were dying of thirst then that would be a different story, but Israel isn't trying to kill them by taking away their water - they just need water!

Yet more idiotic statements. You think that it is fair that one Israeli consumes four more times as much water as one Palestinian? Even if the water itself comes from Palestine?

I'm sorry to drop to the level of insults, but in your last post you have made yourself look like a total idiot, and it is becoming more and more obvious that you actually know very little of this subject you are trying to discuss.

Oh, and here's the quote you ignored from the link I posted earlier concerning water...

quote:

While Israelis have received a continuous supply of water throughout the drought, largely from Palestinian resources, millions of Palestinians have suffered from an intermittent supply of water, especially during summer months. The Bethlehem area, for example, should receive 1,200 cubic meters of water per hour, but Israel has reduced this to 300 cubic meters per hour, forcing most Palestinian neighborhoods to wait weeks for piped water. Moreover, there are some 180 Palestinian communities with 300,000 residents in the West Bank not yet linked to public water distribution systems, and Israel is hampering the efforts of the Palestinian Water Authority to provide them with this essential service

George agreed with your post. I've always had high opinion of Diginut, but lately he's gone off the deep end with some pretty illogical arguments in favor of Israel, almost to the point of foaming at the mouth. I enjoy a good debate, but these issues are becoming a shouting match of who is morally and intellectually superior. Like the acknowledgement that you could be right on any single point would be the admission of defeat. In another thread I was besieged by a hungry pack of dogs on the same subject.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma]No, I assume that because Israel saw fit to demolish their home that they "must have done something." Why else would Israel bulldoze it? Of what benefit is it to Israel to demolish the homes of the completely innocent?

BLAH BLAH BLAH.they were terrorists housed in their homes,, they were conducting plans to kill all israeli's... this is gettting lame.

I have several palestinian friends, specifically a girl who was living with her mother ALONE in her house who experienced this injustice. One day a group of guards kicked her door open, told them they had ten mintues to get out of their homes... caus they were to crush her house.

Not only did they demolish her home for "security reasons" but they also BURNT her belongings in the middle of the street. They do it to humiliate and destroy their hope in living. If they have no home, they will go somewhere else... "VOLUNTARY" transfer.

To this day, she has no idea why they did that. It was her and her mother... thats it. Shes a PHD student, and her mother cooked for her during her breaks.

quote:

Oh and you know all the people here so well? Zionism says nothing about how much land they are supposed to occupy (the "greater Israel" you like to speak of has nothing to do with Zionism). Sure, they wanted a homeland, but there was no stipulation that it had to occupy that entire land mass - that only occurred because the neighbouring Arabs originally tried to kill them all.

Ben Gurion once put it eloquently:

quote:

[COLOR=ORANGE] We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.

They want that land. These zionists beleive they must rid the palestinians from it.


Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969:

quote:

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, �What is to be done with the Palestinian population?� Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'"

quote:

No, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed. I know about the history of Israel's creation and that's why I speak freely of the original expulsion by Ben Gurion, but I don't consider that to be terrorism as Israel really and truly was fighting for its survival. Terrorism implies a political or ideological motive - I don't think that survival is one of them.

ISRAEL didnt exist during Irgun's massacres. What were they surviving? they were trying to create!

You dont think TARGETTING INNOCENTS, for the MOTIVE of CAUSING fear isnt terrorism??? thats how you defined it before.... and this is what these terrorists essentially did.

quote:

It is irrelevant, because your definition of terrorism is wrong. This isn't worth debating at this point because it's already been explained to you, yet you continue to use your perverted definition and refuse to back down because it makes your argument look like it holds water. Sorry - it doesn't.

How come your definition somehow refutes everyone elses?

quote:

What difference does it make where it comes from? Any outrage that stems from this would have to be based on the premise that Israel's occupation of the territories is illegal and therefore they don't *really* have control of the water...

Why does it have to be that they should be dying of theirst unitl you become considerate? Why cant you acknowledge the fact that they arent recieving enough of their deserved resource becuase ISraeli's are taking it for themselves?

Im sure you wouldnt apply this selfish notion to Africans who have no food becuase they dont act like "spoiled little" palestinian "brats" as you put it so nicely in the TO forums.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King How come your definition somehow refutes everyone elses?

In order to understand the problem with the definition of terrorism that some board members have been proposed, you need to look at the context in which it is being used in the argument. Here�s a brief recap of the arguments which have led up to this point:

Yoepus asked the question �what�s your alternative [to the war against terrorism]?� In response to this, George Smiley proposed that, in the case of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, appeasement might be an appropriate solution.

At this point, I felt obligated to point out the same thing that I have in countless other threads on similar topics � namely that the appeasement of terrorism is likely to promote the use of terrorism throughout the world, resulting in even more violence than could have possibly been averted by appeasement in the first place.

Apparently realizing that his appeasement proposal was a dead end, George redefined his position when he wrote the following:

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?

From this point on, no longer did he argue that appeasement was a viable strategy to combat terrorism. Instead, he focused on the idea that the �appeasement of Israel� was likewise problematic. His argument took the following form:

1. Terrorism should never be appeased. [premise 1]
2. Israel carries out terrorism. [premise 2]
3. Israel should not be appeased. [conclusion]

This argument, however, is guilty of equivocation. In premise 1, terrorism is used in the narrow sense � the definition which DigiNut has been insistent upon. Otherwise, the premise would require further proof beyond what I had offered, since my argument against appeasement was dependent upon specific characteristics of terrorism which means that it can only apply to terrorism in the narrow sense.

In the second premise, terrorism is used in a broader sense. Because the word terrorism is used in two completely separate ways between the two premises, the conclusion does not follow and the argument is unsound.

DigiNut attempted to point this out in the face of ad nauseum accusations of hypocrisy, but his points were largely ignored. In order to fix the above argument, one of two things could be established:

1. Terrorism in the broad sense should never be appeased.
Or
2. Israel carries out terrorism in the narrow sense.

Establishing the first would be difficult, since it almost invariably leads to a contradiction as TranceGiant pointed out:

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant 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?

The following statements:

1. The war against terrorism is necessary.
2. The war against terrorism is terrorism.
3. It is necessary to never carry out terrorism.

are self-contradictory.

Therefore, the only viable alternative is to try to establish that Israel carries out terrorism in the narrow sense.

Both George Smiley and yourself have made attempts to do so. However, you�ve sometimes made the mistake of using the broad definition of terrorism in your arguments. Given that what you need to do is establish that Israel carries out terrorism according to the narrow definition (at least if you want the argument that we shouldn�t appease Israel to hold), using the broad definition of terrorism amounts to another fallacious example of equivocation.

It isn�t that there is anything inherently wrong with your definition. However, when you use the word terrorism in that sense, your claims have no bearing towards establishing the truth of the claim that we should not �appease� Israel.

I think I have made it clear (three or four times if I'm not mistaken) that I said terrorists should be appeased as tongue in cheek (ie playing devil's advocate). The reason being is that some times, the people you define as 'terrorists' have a 'point'.

Diginut says that terrorist's objective is to cause terror. Simply not true. Terrorists do cause terror, but that is simply a means to acheiving their stated objectives, rather than their actual objectives. They cause terror as this is the only option available to them to achieve their objectives (be that a united Ireland or an independent Chechnya)

In the two cases I stated above, both the Irish (at the start of the uprising) and the Chechnyans have been oppressed and nobody will argue they dont (didn't) deserve to have their objectives. However, the only way to achieve that is through terrorism. There is simply no other way for these groups. So how would you end that particular terrorist situation? By giving them what they want cos everybody knows that is what is 'right'.

Now your side to that is that it will increase the terrorist actions of other groups. Well my counter argument is that that would happen no matter what.

The war on terror is an unwinable war. There has been terrorism since the first humans, and there will be terrorism till the last. Nothing will ever stop terrorism as long as there is oppression and inequality in the world.

Would giving certain oppressed groups what they want increase terrorism? No. Will oppressing even more those who are oppressed decrease terrorism? Not a chance mate! In fact, in my opinion, it is the latter that will acount for the bigger increase in terrorism, not the former. But thats just mine and your opinion. Thats all it is. Neither of us can prove our theories right or wrong.

I do not think terrorism should be appeased as a matter of policy. I also think that we cannot defeat terrorism. The rise in religious fundamentalism in the world (in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions) has also seen a rise in the type of terrorism that will attack for purely ideological reasons (not for defencive reasons, ie, the oppressed). This type of terrorism will attack us no matter what, nothing we can do about it.

However, it can be contained by not giving them exactly what they want - a huge support base (which is exactly what you are proposing....)

I have a very broad definition of terrorism yes, but I think that is perfectly justified when you look at the attrocities committed by states and non-state actors alike, and by those with 'just' causes and those with causes that are blatently 'unjust'

quote:

The war against terrorism is terrorism.

Sorry, who ever said that?

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