quote:

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

Actually we've seen that the US withdrawl from Beirut in the 1980's was one of Osama's great inspirations...

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Actually we've seen that the US withdrawl from Beirut in the 1980's was one of Osama's great inspirations...

Yes quite, but not as great an inspiration as the US setting up al-Qaida in the 1980's in the first place...

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Actually we've seen that the US withdrawl from Beirut in the 1980's was one of Osama's great inspirations...

Well a similar example would be to look at what happened with Hezbollah's popularity following the Israeli pullout of Lebanon in 2000.

quote:

But Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, who we met in Beirut, insists that his group no longer poses a threat to the U.S. Unlike the leadership of al-Qaeda, he isn't hiding from anyone. You may never have heard of Nasrallah before, but he is a hugely popular figure, not just in the region but also among Arabs living in the West “ I believe the Americans are just saying what the Israelis want them to say. I consider this to be an Israeli accusation coming out of an American mouth and nothing more,” says Nasrallah. When he became its leader ten years ago, Nasrallah turned Hezbollah into a formidable fighting force. Few people know more about him than journalist Nick Blanford, who has covered Lebanon for eight years and is now writing a book about Hezbollah and Sheikh Nasrallah. “People adore him. I mean, I talked to some Hezbollah fighters that speak of him almost as they would a wife or a mother,” says Blanford. “They think of him before they go to sleep at night, that he's always in their thoughts, so he has this tremendous power over the rank and file.” The militant Islamic group has enough power and trained skilled commandos who are specialized in attacking Israeli forces that have occupied southern Lebanon for 22 years. Their most effective weapon: remote-controlled roadside bombs that were detonated when Israeli patrols passed by -- as in the 1983 attack in southern Lebanon. All told, Israel lost more than 900 soldiers in Lebanon. In May 2000, the Israeli Army withdrew. What did Israel's withdrawal do for Hezbollah in the eyes of the Arab world? “Well, there's enormous boost for Hezbollah,” says Blanford. “I mean, this was a small Arab organization that had defeated the mightiest military force the Middle East has ever seen.” With the Israelis out of Lebanon, Nasrallah encouraged, and assisted, the Palestinian uprising against Israel. He has acknowledged sending secret agents carrying weapons to the West Bank, where he is considered a hero. Some kids in the Gaza Strip even dress like him, down to the beard and the glasses. At one event, a boy playing Nasrallah was flanked by one child who played a security guard, and another child dressed as a suicide bomber. In Lebanon, where Hezbollah runs a network of schools and hospitals and participates in local elections, Nasrallah, a Muslim, is a hero even to the country's Christian President, Emile Lahoud. “For us Lebanese, and I can tell you a majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement,” says Lahoud. “If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement.” President Lahoud has such high esteem for Hezbollah, he's ceded control of the border with Israel to them -- a border where Hezbollah and Israeli soldiers now confront each other just a few yards apart. This side is controlled by Hezbollah. The other side is controlled by Israel. Hezbollah has already fired rockets across the border, and U.S. officials believe that in the past two years they've been stockpiling rockets in this area hidden in caves and underground bunkers -- higher quality Iranian rockets that could reach Haifa about fifty miles away. Openly calling for terrorism against Israel, Nasrallah is also urging on suicide operations. "In Palestine, these operations are the only way to root out the Zionists," says Nasrallah during a speech. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain550000.shtml

___________________
Retro ...

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

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

___________________
*** Sig will be edited -> see rule #5 regarding political/religious content
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization: "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

quote:

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

So maybe if they no longer have hope of winning this little war, they'll actually try to make peace... With Yassin gone the PA can crack down on Hamas and exert some control over the territories for once...

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

do you realy believe those empty arguments of yours?

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

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

quote:

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

you have just proved my point again.

___________________

Best Album Ever:
* Infected Mushroom - B.P.Empire

quote:

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

...oh wait, they already have those.

quote:

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

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

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

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

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


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

quote:

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

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

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

quote:

Where does that stop?

It doesn't...

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here