quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Cannot believe this thread is still going. Hooray, Yassin the leader of the sicko terrorist Hamas group is dead! Wonder who will step up to bat to be the next target of opportunity? Wish the sick f*cks would stop wiring teenagers and young mothers with C4 and heading them towards Israeli lines as well. Real manly group; not. [[[smoke]]]

Next target should be red necks like you!

Its sad how people like Smoke-ass see the world in the way Bush and CO. want them too.

How else should they resist the occupation? These suicide bombings occur becuase Israel has implemented a military-style culture in the lives of these Palestinians. They are brought up in a very violent society. They are de-sensitized to the whole notion of murder seeing that they expect and experience it very often.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Unfortunately, you're bringing up the same fallacious arguments that have already been debunked in this thread for the most part.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow - A parallel I see between Israel’s assassination of Yassin and Hamas’ suicide attacks on civilians is that type of targets while different are chosen for similar reasons. They are both targets of convenience and they’re both highly visible to the public for maximum impact. For the Palestinians why attack well armed superior military forces that won’t get the media’s attention as blowing up a bus load of civilians. As for the Israel it’s easier to go after a cripple in a wheel chair and make quite dramatic impression, blowing him up in the middle of the street, than it is to try to track down the terrorist that are in charge of carrying out the missions.

The reasons this is not a parallel are:
1. Yassin was not a target of convenience; Israel had actually attempted to get rid of him in the past but failed in those attempts. He was surrounded by bodyguards.
2. On a similar note, publicity had little to do with Israel's motivation for killing him because Israel's attempts to get rid of him in the past had been, for the most part, rather quiet.
3. Although this doesn't specifically characterize Yassin as an innocent, the clear differentiation between himself and "the terrorist(s) that are in charge of carrying out the missions" seems to make that implication. Regardless, Yassin was personally responsible for many bombings even if he himself did not "supervise" them, and Israel considered him as a target with military value, not shock value.

quote:

Even if Israel doesn’t fit the definition of terrorist, their military actions have resulted in many more civilian deaths than the Palestinian suicide attacks. The word terrorist is highly charge negative term. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”.

I'll again point out that:
1. The numbers skew the truth, because in most instances it is virtually impossible for a Palestinian not to be considered a civilian because they have no military to speak of. And since Israeli policy consists of mandatory military service, many non-combatants can be considered military even though they were doing less actual fighting at the time of death than the Palestinian civilians.
2. Classification of a freedom fighter generally implies that one has exhausted other means of political rectification. Without getting into any arguments about the validity of their goals, I think it's safe to say that that although there may be some peaceful Palestinian protestors and negotiators, the average suicide bomber does not fall among those, has not attempted peaceful means of rectitude, and generally does not fit the description of a freedom fighter.
3. Again we have to be clear about the definition of terrorism we are using. Terrorist is a highly charged negative term because of its narrow definition (targeted attacks on civilians in order to intimidate a population or government to accomplish a political objective). While it may be an acceptable definition (according to some) to apply the term, to include a broader degree of violence and hence include Israel's own violence, we must then re-evaluate our own emotional response to the word and seriously think about whether that kind of "terror" might be an acceptable means of dealing with the problem at hand.

Just a few thoughts. Hope it's emotionally aloof enough for you, igottaknow. I tried to wipe the foam before I posted.

___________________
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

yes that was a logical civil response

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

yes that was a logical civil response

One thing I don't agree with is your definition of a freedom fighter. The term doesn't dictate whether they use violence to achieve their goals, which is to over throw the current regime, and thus win "freedom" for its people. All I am saying is depending on whether you favor the group will determine what word you use to describe them and whether you view their means as legitimate.

Here's an example to illustrate my point. In WWII the French and other "resistance fighters" used sabotage tactics against the Germans, which many of us view as acts of bravery. However, today in Iraq when the "insurgents" or "terrorist" use similar tactics like blowing up oil pipelines they are view by us as cowardly acts.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

it worked! i've been changed!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

If you are playing the devil's advocate when you suggest appeasement as a possible strategy, then why do you have so much trouble seeing that it doesn't matter whether or not "‘terrorists’ have a 'point'?"

If the goal of any 'war on terror' is to stop it (ie thinking of the safety of your citizens), then whether or not terrorists "have a point" is very much important. If you acknowledge this fact in a certain case, then that gives you a base for stopping terrorism (as if the terrorists do have a point then it would be you who were at fault for said terrorism. It is you who has created that situation by pursuing a certain course of action. Stop that action and you have a great chance of stopping terrorism and therefore winning your war on terror - that, is if the terrorists do have a point. Al-Qaida for example, IMO, do not have a point)

quote:

Where is your proof that a united Ireland can't be brought about through diplomacy? What evidence do you have to suggest that the subjugation of the Chechens necessitates terrorist activity?

These conflicts can be worked out diplomatically! Just not while the governments of those regions are pursing the course of action they are (have) doing. Whilest ever a government oppresses, then the oppressed have no choice but to fight by whatever means available to them (with whatever strategy they can use to have a chance of succeeding - ie not conventional force as they would be annihalated), otherwise, they wouldn't be 'oppressed' would they?!

quote:

If the tactics weren't having any positive effect, they wouldn't do it.

What possitive affects?! Israel takes an extremely hard line against terrorism - if what you are suggesting is true, that form of terrorism would have dissappeared all together. However, it hasn't, which suggests what I said about always being terrorism no matter what is true. And history also shows this (there has been terrorism since the dawn of mankind)

quote:

The supposed "inevitability" of terrorism is not an argument

Wow. Impressive. You gave me about 4 examples of where there was no resistance to a state. And you claim this is representative of the entire history of man?! I dont need to say any more do I?

quote:

However, it seems to me that the only purpose that such a broad definition serves is to obfuscate the issue by equivocating blatantly immoral acts with policies designed to prevent those acts.

Not true at all. To me, it seems you are only saying that because you actually agree with some of these "blatently immoral acts" and try to justify them. None of them can be justified under my definition, which is, I suspect, why it has been rejected by so many on this thread...

quote:

According to a broad definition of terrorism, a war against terrorism, which necessitates attacks against terrorist leaders, is likely to inspire some sort of terror in certain people, and therefore is terrorism.

Again, not true at all! If the actions during this war on terror necessitates attacks against terrorist leaders then I would not call that terrorism at all. I dont think (and if I have I shouldn't have) that I have labelled this killing of Yassin as a 'terrorist act' have I? Because I do not consider it to be so. However, if during military operations there was an unnecessary killing of civilians that could have been avoided, then yes, I would call that terrorism...

quote:

Smokeape has got exactly the right idea: terrorist leaders are cowards. Start giving them consequences for their actions, and pretty soon they'll think twice about undertaking those risks to begin with. Without leadership, terrorism won't amount to much. Cut off the head and the body will die.

Could not agree more, only if the terrorists do NOT have a point. If they do have a point (if they are oppressed) what you and Smoke are implying would give a free hand to all dictators and the like to carry on oppressing peoples and never give up...





DigiNut, nice of you to show your face again in this thread!

I do believe me and Cyrus King raised a few issues with you that you may want to reply to? Only if you want mind you...!

I LOVE ISREAL




Fuck those "spoiled little palestinian brats"

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King I LOVE ISREAL Fuck those "spoiled little palestinian brats"

hehe, that made me chuckle. I stopped posting on this thread on page one, post two. You guys tired of repeating yourselves yet?

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut, nice of you to show your face again in this thread! I do believe me and Cyrus King raised a few issues with you that you may want to reply to? Only if you want mind you...!

You, I stopped replying to because you're merely paraphrasing the same repetitive ideas we've already seen. I do not think it serves any purpose to continue to reply as I feel very strongly that you continue to equivocate in your arguments, and as of now we seem to be involved in a mere battle of semantics. Thus I propose you carefully read This thread and see if we can come to an agreement on an objective definition of these words, in order for the debate to actually go in some kind of direction rather than in circles.

Apologies to Kaveh for not replying; I can only post so much every day and I seem to be up to my ears in rhetoric. You did have some valid points, and I just haven't had time to think carefully and address them.

As for the water issue in particular, this sounds like a policy of Israel which I would disagree with if it's causing harm to the Palestinians in general; however I also have to point out that I just don't know the whole story - for example - is it possible that Israel actually built this water piping system and that Palestinians would be having the same problem if Israel wasn't around? I'm not suggesting that this is actually the truth of the matter, just that I don't have enough background information to actually make a judgment call. Yes, it sounds morally wrong at face value, but I don't want to resign myself to any particular position until I've heard the other side of the story. As I've witnessed several times, numbers and statistics can be used to skew the truth, so I'd like to see who came up with these numbers and how, and specifically what they mean.

Also, regardless of the entire set of facts, I would still not call the water issue "terrorism" - although perhaps oppression might be appropriate.

By the way Cyrus, I can't help noticing you spelled "Isreal" wrong.

___________________
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:

You, I stopped replying to because you're merely paraphrasing the same repetitive ideas we've already seen

And there was me thinking you didn't reply cos we took all of your facts (sorry, "facts") and totally ripped them apart with our own "facts" (damn, done it again, I mean facts!) leaving you no chance whatsoever to reply to them!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And there was me thinking you didn't reply cos we took all of your facts (sorry, "facts") and totally ripped them apart with our own "facts" (damn, done it again, I mean facts!) leaving you no chance whatsoever to reply to them!

Sorry to disappoint you.

Do I need to add "fact" to the definition thread?

___________________
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 Cyrus King Next target should be red necks like you! Its sad how people like Smoke-ass see the world in the way Bush and CO. want them too. How else should they resist the occupation? These suicide bombings occur becuase Israel has implemented a military-style culture in the lives of these Palestinians. They are brought up in a very violent society. They are de-sensitized to the whole notion of murder seeing that they expect and experience it very often.

And I suppose Hamas would use their women and kids strapped with C4 to carry out their suicide attacks against us rednecks (one word, not two) as well. Like I said, they're a cowardly lot.


[[[smoke]]]