|
Israel Kills Sheikh Yassin (Leader of Hamas) (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Interesting, this sounds suspiciously like the "phased plan" that Hamas and Arafat were found talking about so often... :disbelief
Never heard of it being used in a Zionist context. I'll have to think about that one (not).
Thank you.
This is true. I couldn't find any counter arguments because you had no argument to begin with. :p
Because it's not terrorism. Again, I know English isn't your first language ( :rolleyes: ) but try to understand that the meaning of terrorism is comprised of two components:
1) Action, and
2) Motivation
The acts of violence committed by Israel do not correspond well with the political goals which you say they possess. As a state, Israel has no use for intimidation. If they really wanted to get rid of the Palestinians, why would they pick a "slow transfer" as Palestinian stated above? We've already seen that Israel is fully capable of a mass expulsion in a very short time.
The notion that that they are destroying homes and killing civilians specifically to intimidate or make living conditions unbearable is completely ridiculous as it provides no benefit whatsoever to their state. Such a strategy only benefits those with no military power whatsoever - like Palestine. It is 100% counterproductive to a state like Israel which has one of the strongest militaries in the world.
No, I do not call Israel's actions terrorism at all, let alone state-sponsored, and you can argue the point all you want but you simply have no basis for calling it terrorism. Terrorist acts are committed for the sole purpose of inducing (duh) terror - there's no evidence of this here. |
You still do not understand how these people feel on a day to day basis.
People FEAR for their lives....they are TERRORISED when misiled and tanks infiltrate their lives.
They feel terror when they see their family memebers or friends getting shot.
All you are doing is looking at definitions and applying them to situations without really looking deeper into the psyche and experience of these oppressed people. |
|
|
| tathi |
I propose a new reality TV show
5 families from each side of the wall need to swap places (refugee camps including) |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
You still do not understand how these people feel on a day to day basis.
People FEAR for their lives....they are TERRORISED when misiled and tanks infiltrate their lives.
They feel terror when they see their family memebers or friends getting shot.
All you are doing is looking at definitions and applying them to situations without really looking deeper into the psyche and experience of these oppressed people. |
Well, sucks for them that few bad Palestinians ruin it for the rest. |
|
|
| mps242 |
This is something a friend of mine wrote recently in regards to this situation...
Timeline:
1987 - Hamas is born from the Muslim Brotherhood. Registers with Israel, is accepted as a social entity to help in Gaza. All happy, Israel included (as it works against the PLO)
1988 - Hamas covenant (available in one of these posts) written calling for the destruction of Israel. (Intifada I is raging, but it is the Israelis who are violent.)
1991 - Hamas begins military activity against Palestinians allegedly collaborating with Israel. Still not attacking Israel. No Israeli attacks on Hamas.
1996-97 - After being sidelined as a political entity by the PA and Israel in 1993 with Oslo, Hamas attacks Israelis in Jerusalem in the first suicide bombings. Continue again in 1999.
This is the key timeframe to pay attention to.
Motive: To derail the PLO/PA from settlement in what Hamas believes to be a sellout of the Palestinian cause.
Result: Success, of course with the help of hardline Israelis elected after the initial attacks. Predictable response exploited by Hamas to weaken the PA.
The Second Intifada was for two reasons:
1) To respond to the notion that Israel was weak due to the IDF pullout of Lebanon in 2000.
2) For Arafat (who directed the opening rounds of the Intifada) to show Hamas and its supporters that the fight was still in them. By matching attack for attack, while using plausible deniability (the murky attachments of the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade and Arafat’s Fatah being one example) Arafat could play both sides of the table; appease Hamas’ growing following that wanted violent resistance and play at being the peacemaker to the Western world.
You still buy it… ;)
2004 - Yassin killed after 50+ suicide attacks from Hamas in the Intifada - again ALL CIVILIAN TARGETS. Even Hezbollah attacks the IDF most of the time and they have no legitimate beef!
Verifiable.
Hamas attacked Israel first. Hamas continues to attack Israeli civilians. Hamas declared the war, and set the precedent of violence; suicide bombings. Israel has responded to Hamas in Gaza with targeted killings of militants.
What is wrong with that?
Hamas asked (begged?) for a Hudna last summer. We learned the concept of a Hudna from both Islamic history and from the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. Temporary truces to rebuild. It’s like calling “Time out”. Do you think any entity at war (and not being bled comparably in a military sense) would stop? That’s bad warmaking. And again…it’s war.
Hamas chose the tactics, Israel is adapting successfully at minimal cost to civilians and at minimal cost to their forces. Israel does not target civilians. Considering the constant carnage (Israeli to America ratio: 1 Israeli dead would equal 47 American dead. Do the math.) Israel has been remarkably restrained.
This is not “the occupation”. Hamas does not fight for a two-state solution. Hamas is not recognized by anyone in the so-called “Quartet” or the UN as a legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Arafat and the PA are. Even the Europeans consider Hamas a terrorist entity. Why are you arguing for them?
Regular Joe and Jane Palestine aren’t Hamas. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
You still do not understand how these people feel on a day to day basis.
People FEAR for their lives....they are TERRORISED when misiled and tanks infiltrate their lives.
They feel terror when they see their family memebers or friends getting shot.
All you are doing is looking at definitions and applying them to situations without really looking deeper into the psyche and experience of these oppressed people. |
Oh Cyrus, why do you think so little of me. You think I can't imagine how the Palestinian people have to suffer when they see people getting killed?
Yes, I can place myself there mentally and emotionally... I'd be terrified, I'd be lost, I'd probably believe anything anyone told me about how to end it all and finally be free.
But compassion isn't the issue here for a very simple reason. I'll freely concede that many Palestinians are probably completely and utterly terrified and do fear for their lives. BUT - and here's the tricky part! Terror isn't Israel's motivation! It's merely a side effect. I too would feel terror if I saw my brother gunned down by police - but if he shot at them first... what alternatives are there?
I do not expect Israel to tailor their acts specifically to make Palestinians feel safe - that isn't their responsibility and I'd say it's nearly impossible to do anyway. While their actions may result in terror, it is not correct to call it terrorism unless terror is actually the motivation for those acts. Many many things in the world instil fear, but they are not all terrorism... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? Maybe in the Crusades? You will be motivated by whatever the end is, your motivation will not be the means in which you will achieve those ends. In this case terror is the means, not the end. The motivation for Palestinian 'terrorists' is not the killing of Israels (which would be the terror part) but the creation of an independent state and a withdrawal of Israel's military from the land they live in.
| quote: | | Well, I guess that in that case you can say that every war is a form of terrorism because it is always the civilians who suffer the most for someone else's political goals and objectives. |
Yes, you can. How anyone could argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city killing thousands is not terrorism I dont know!
| quote: | | Personally I don't. I believe "state terrorism" are either war crimes, or war |
This is what I have been trying to get at. Why do we have different names for acts of violence? All it does is create the false impression that one form is better or worse than another. Using different words cunjures up different emotions inside us. 'Terrorism' has become a buzz word that we use against those who take to violence (as they have no other realistic option) but it also implies 'an enemy'. It does not cunjure up the same emotions as when you say 'revolutionary' or even 'rebel'. Those two have neutral feelings attached to them (or even slightly positive). But the actions of a what some will call a revolutionary may be no different than those of what we may call a terrorist. The same actions can be carried out by a state too, but if we do not also call this terror then it somehow makes it different in our minds, when it should be thought of exactly the same. Violence or terrorisation, no matter what it is done for, should not be cut up and divided into sub catagories to appease our consciences and allowing us to justify certain acts. It is all the same, where ever people who have no part in militancy are caught up, it is all terrorism and should be opposed by all decent people. Just as you rightfully oppose attacks against Israelis, you should oppose attacks on Palestinians. Yet you dont. You make excuses. You try to justify it...
| quote: | | Again. Appeaseing is doing something extra.. changing your pattern of conduct FOR this or that cause, NOT doing the same thing. |
Appeasing does not mean changing your pattern of conduct. It merely means allowing whoever to do what it wants. In this case, Israel has been allowed to do what it wants since its creation, due to American support (and like we saw this week when it vetoed yet another resolution aimed at Israel) All the people on here who support letting Israel do what it likes, or make excuses for Israel's actions support the appeasement of Israel... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? Maybe in the Crusades? You will be motivated by whatever the end is, your motivation will not be the means in which you will achieve those ends. In this case terror is the means, not the end. |
You're absolutely right - terror is not the end, it is the means to an end. A terrorist act, however, is a means to terror, which is then a means to an end. The motivation for terrorism IS STILL simply to instil fear, which they would then be using to accomplish a more long-term goal.
Israel has got no use for terror, no reason to scare anyone, it doesn't help them accomplish any of their long-term goals, so it makes no sense to assume that terror itself could be one of their short-term goals. Their acts are not terrorism.
| quote: | | The motivation for Palestinian 'terrorists' is not the killing of Israels (which would be the terror part) but the creation of an independent state and a withdrawal of Israel's military from the land they live in. |
No, their motivation is the elimination of the state of Israel. But that was a nice try, really.
| quote: | | Yes, you can. How anyone could argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city killing thousands is not terrorism I dont know! |
Because once again (god how many times do we have to tell you this!?), you're ignoring the motivation!
If someone drops a bomb on an area that's practically deserted, killing maybe a few hundred instead of thousands or millions of people, in order for them to say "hey look what we can do to you, you'd better surrender now before we drop another one!" then that could reasonably be called terrorism.
If they drop the bomb on a military target, or in a large area with many military targets, and wipe out all those targets but also wipe out a lot of civilians with them, that is simply not terrorism. Their objective was to destroy the military, not intimidate the state.
| quote: | | This is what I have been trying to get at. Why do we have different names for acts of violence? All it does is create the false impression that one form is better or worse than another. |
Because one form IS better or worse than another. What is it that you're trying to pull here? Catering to our "emotional" side? Equality for all people and all forms of death? Give me a break!
| quote: | | Using different words cunjures up different emotions inside us. |
As it should.
| quote: | | 'Terrorism' has become a buzz word that we use against those who take to violence (as they have no other realistic option) but it also implies 'an enemy'. It does not cunjure up the same emotions as when you say 'revolutionary' or even 'rebel'. Those two have neutral feelings attached to them (or even slightly positive). But the actions of a what some will call a revolutionary may be no different than those of what we may call a terrorist. The same actions can be carried out by a state too, but if we do not also call this terror then it somehow makes it different in our minds, when it should be thought of exactly the same. Violence or terrorisation, no matter what it is done for, should not be cut up and divided into sub catagories to appease our consciences and allowing us to justify certain acts. It is all the same, where ever people who have no part in militancy are caught up, it is all terrorism and should be opposed by all decent people. Just as you rightfully oppose attacks against Israelis, you should oppose attacks on Palestinians. Yet you dont. You make excuses. You try to justify it... |
Blah blah blah blah, it's all just the same old bull George. Terrorists and freedom fighters may commit the same actions but they do not have the same motivation, so how can we possibly lump them into the same category!? Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?
Maybe if I repeat it to you.
Motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation motivation
Oh, and also:
Target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target target
THAT is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Get it? The motivation behind their acts, and the people they target. A freedom fighter targets the military in order to obtain political power. A terrorist targets civilians in order to intimidate the state.
| quote: | | Appeasing does not mean changing your pattern of conduct. It merely means allowing whoever to do what it wants. |
LOL - do you think Israel can allow Palestine to do whatever it wants without changing their conduct?
| quote: | | In this case, Israel has been allowed to do what it wants since its creation, |
:rolleyes:
| quote: | | due to American support |
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
| quote: | | (and like we saw this week when it vetoed yet another resolution aimed at Israel) All the people on here who support letting Israel do what it likes, or make excuses for Israel's actions support the appeasement of Israel... |
*sigh*
I've explained this as best I could. Honestly I can't figure out why you are unable to tell the difference between terrorism and any other act of violence, but it's obviously useless to argue with you until you figure it out.
"Political correctness" has really made a mess of people's minds these days... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? Maybe in the Crusades? |
Mongols, Greeks, or Alexander, come closer. Crusades simply wanted to capture the holyland. They really didn't care how they do it.
Mongols, Greeks, and Alexander would slaughter the inhabitants of a city who chose not to surrender to them. The idea was to terrorize other states into surrendering to avoid long sieges.
| quote: |
Yes, you can. How anyone could argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city killing thousands is not terrorism I dont know! |
Try to think a few reasons how someone could argue this even if you don't agree with them:
Heres one to start you off; the bombs were dropped on military city (why wasn't Tokyo nuked?)
| quote: | This is what I have been trying to get at. Why do we have different names for acts of violence?
All it does is create the false impression that one form is better or worse than another. |
Why do we have different names for criminal acts? Murder, theft, running off after your meal before paying your waiter, running over someone accidently, flying without your glasses, driving while your drunk, these are all crimes! Why should we call them by their specific names???
We should just call everyone a criminal!!!
You understand the ridicilousness of this argument?
You want to call a murder a criminal and a guy who flew wihtout his glassess the same thing to make a 'murderer' look less bad and a 'guy who flew without his glasess' look more bad. Because thats what you end up doing - you equate them, without terms.
This is your goal, this is why you propose everything should be called terrorism. Well, why not lets call everything murder then too ok? Why not stick to violence, surely both sides are purpotrating violence??
Why do you decide we should call both sides terrorists, instead of violence instigators??
You made that judgement based on the emotions of that word, because you don't like the word. It gives you a bad feeling (as well it should) and therefore you want to apply it to everything you think is bad.
It might work this way in your mind Georegy, but it doesn't work this way in the real world. I pray you never enter a courtroom in your life. :(
| quote: | | Just as you rightfully oppose attacks against Israelis, you should oppose attacks on Palestinians. Yet you dont. You make excuses. You try to justify it... |
No I don't oppose attacks on Palestinians, nor believe I should. I don't make excuses for the reason Israel acts, I explain to you the reasons. I don't try to justify it, I do justify it.
| quote: |
Appeasing does not mean changing your pattern of conduct. All the people on here who support letting Israel do what it likes, or make excuses for Israel's actions support the appeasement of Israel... |
Obviously you have no clue what the word appeasement means.
Since your two lazy to look it up, click here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=appeasement
Thats rights, its the (2) "The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace. " Or (1) the act of bringing peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe".
Lets see you wiggle the definition around this time... you always seem to do it somehow. ;) :eyespop: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | No, their motivation is the elimination of the state of Israel. But that was a nice try, really. |
Yes and the motivation of Israel is to create the 'Greater Israel' as invisioned in the Bible or whatever they have...
The reason groups are put into the terrorist category or the freedom fighter category is simply due to the means available to them. The only way for what you would label a terrorist to achieve their aims is through attacking civilians (aswell as state targets). They have no other option. Do you think anybody just wants to kill for no reason as you are suggesting? No. But there is no other way for these people. The UK was never going to give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, so the IRA took up arms. Just as Israel has no intention of giving up the occupied territories (otherwise they would have as they create so much trouble for Israel)
| quote: | | If they drop the bomb on a military target, or in a large area with many military targets, and wipe out all those targets but also wipe out a lot of civilians with them, that is simply not terrorism. Their objective was to destroy the military, not intimidate the state. |
Jesus Christ! I despair! Why the hell would you use nuclear bombs to take out military targets in the middle of a big city?! And you say that that was not to intimidate the state?!?!?!? Dont people like you defend the decision to use nuclear bombs by saying that it was neccessary in order to force Japan to surrender? That my friend, is terrorism...
| quote: | | A freedom fighter targets the military in order to obtain political power. A terrorist targets civilians in order to intimidate the state |
Your telling me that anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, but also say that states cannot commit acts of terrorism? :conf:
| quote: | | I've explained this as best I could. Honestly I can't figure out why you are unable to tell the difference between terrorism and any other act of violence, but it's obviously useless to argue with you until you figure it out. |
Groups are labelled 'terrorist' to suit political needs. There is no difference between any act of political violence and none should be acknowledged. If it is neccessary then fair enough, but I cannot think of any 'neccessary' killings of civilians... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yes and the motivation of Israel is to create the 'Greater Israel' as invisioned in the Bible or whatever they have... |
Israel isn't a theocracy. They aren't even supported by "Orthodox" Jews.
| quote: | | The reason groups are put into the terrorist category or the freedom fighter category is simply due to the means available to them. |
Totally, totally incorrect. That is how people like YOU enjoy defining terrorism, but as I've explained what seems like hundreds of times already, they are put into different categories by virtue of their motivation and targets.
| quote: | | The only way for what you would label a terrorist to achieve their aims is through attacking civilians (aswell as state targets). They have no other option. |
I'm sorry... they have "no other option" but to kill civilians? What does killing civilians accomplish? Other than terror I mean? Suicide bombers don't attack state targets, just kill as many people as possible. Israel DID attack a "state" target when they assassinated Yassin.
| quote: | | Do you think anybody just wants to kill for no reason as you are suggesting? No. |
Did I say "no reason?" I said to cause terror, to intimidate the state, to wear them down.
| quote: | | But there is no other way for these people. The UK was never going to give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, so the IRA took up arms. Just as Israel has no intention of giving up the occupied territories (otherwise they would have as they create so much trouble for Israel) |
Ah yes, there's no such thing at all as nonviolent protesting, or even demonstrations or civil disobedience. Nope, can't be done. And I suppose Camp David wasn't an opportunity either, was it.
| quote: | | Jesus Christ! I despair! Why the hell would you use nuclear bombs to take out military targets in the middle of a big city?! |
I'm not arguing for the morality of it. I'm simply explaining to you how there is no validity whatsoever in calling it an act of terrorism.
| quote: | | And you say that that was not to intimidate the state?!?!?!? |
Destroying a state's military is not trying to intimidate it. Can you honestly not see the difference?
| quote: | | Dont people like you defend the decision to use nuclear bombs by saying that it was neccessary in order to force Japan to surrender? That my friend, is terrorism... |
What do you know of "people like me?" You don't even know me. When did I say it was necessary in order to "force Japan to surrender?"
Of course it "forced them to surrender" - not by terrorizing them, but by destroying a huge chunk of their military.
| quote: | | Your telling me that anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, but also say that states cannot commit acts of terrorism? :conf: |
Please point to the spot where I said that states cannot commit acts of terrorism?
Many states can and do commit acts of terrorism. Admittedly those are most typically committed on their own people, but it can certainly be committed on foreign states (need I say 9/11?)
| quote: | | Groups are labelled 'terrorist' to suit political needs. There is no difference between any act of political violence and none should be acknowledged. If it is neccessary then fair enough, but I cannot think of any 'neccessary' killings of civilians... |
Well that is an interesting opinion George, but not a very practical or logical one.
Once again: THERE ARE differences between various acts of violence, and ALL should be "acknowledged". If you do cannot think of any "necessary" killings of civilians then that is probably why the Israeli military (in the general sense) tries to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Rubber bullets hurt a lot less than shrapnel from a molotov. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I cant think of many examples in history where terror has been the actual motivation? |
the vikings! now there's a damn cool group of people :toocool:
but ya seriously, george the way you define terrorism is way to broad to use in an practical manner. all that yoepus and diginut are saying is that terrorism is this:
"the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to bring about political change."
since israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians it is not a terrorist, or state terrorist. where as the hamas who goes about planning attacks on innocent lives is guilty of terrorism. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
"the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to bring about political change."
|
I wouldn't even agree on that definition. In my opinion a terrorsit's mind knows nothing like "politics". Politics is just a way to justify his crimes, based on nothing but pure hate, racism and fascist fanatism. |
|
|
|
|
