quote:

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

I heard he turned into an action figure

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

quote:

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

Are you Saeb Erakat's son?

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

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.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

I wonder why more people haven't adopted your definiton

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

DigiNut...nice!

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

___________________
1+1=10

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
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