|
Israel Kills Sheikh Yassin (Leader of Hamas) (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | 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. |
Here you go again! Totally twisting my words into silly little analogies that bear no relation whatsoever to anything I have said. Murder is murder, theft is theft, and terrorism is terrorism.
| quote: | | Israel isn't a theocracy. They aren't even supported by "Orthodox" Jews. |
I said that because you stated that the goal of Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. So I said the goal of Israelis was the destruction of the occupied territories to make the 'Greater Israel'. IE both are unfounded speculation but both can quite easily be argued for. Also, I believe 10% of the Knesset are settlers no? They are a very powerful voice in Israeli politics, and the fact that they are settlers suggests they are religious fundamentalists who's aim is the creation of this 'Greater Israel' (or why else would they have settled where they have?)
| quote: | | Of course it "forced them to surrender" - not by terrorizing them, but by destroying a huge chunk of their military. |
I suppose there would have to be people still alive to feel terrorised? Destroying large chunks of their military in the way that it was, whether that was the intention or not, terrorised the Japanese government into surrendering (out of fear more nuclear bombs would be dropped). And that is terrorism.
| quote: | 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?) |
Can you give me some examples of state terrorism so I can see what your definitions are?
Why do you mention 11/9 while talking about state terrorism?? Whether al-Qaida has backing from a state or not, it is still a non-state actor. I am talking about states doing the dirty work themselves
Can I give you a few quotes out of one of my books, "An Anatomy of Terror: A History of Terrorism" by Andrew Sullivan, from the introduction?
| quote: | The philosophers of terrorism, from Machiavelli to Robespierre, from Lenin to Hitler, advocated its limited use, until the state was taken over. All terrorist groups were forgiven, once they had become the government; in the persuit of power, success leaved few enemies. The horror of modern times, however, has been the scale of the use of state terror, which has managed to massacre in the last century more than 100,000,000 people.
...
Ten principles of Terror have emerged:
Terror is warfare by extreme means
Terror is the lifeblood of tyranny
Terror is the weapon of the outlaw against the oppressor
Terror is murder on the cheap
Terror is the lash on the back of the refugee
Terror is victory by stealth for the few
Terror is defeat by cowardice for the coward
If we are terrorised, we may become terrible to those who make us fear
Terror is measured by the scale of its victims, not the merit of its cause
Tolerance of terror is no vertue |
I cannot see why we should call different acts of blatent terrorism different names? All acts of terrorism are just that. The only difference is we support some of those acts, but call them different names to either justify it to others, or to justify it to ourselves.
| quote: | | "the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to bring about political change." |
Thats what I am saying too, altho I would also include the unnecessary killing of civilians as well.
| quote: | | since israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians it is not a terrorist, or state terrorist |
Maybe if that were true, but how does the demolishing of people's homes fall under your description above? |
|
|
| mps242 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I suppose there would have to be people still alive to feel terrorised? Destroying large chunks of their military in the way that it was, whether that was the intention or not, terrorised the Japanese government into surrendering (out of fear more nuclear bombs would be dropped). And that is terrorism. |
No. The application of force by one nation intending to cause the capitulation of another nation is the definition of "war." War is not terrorism. Sorry. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Here you go again! Totally twisting my words into silly little analogies that bear no relation whatsoever to anything I have said. Murder is murder, theft is theft, and terrorism is terrorism. |
Murder is murder, theft is theft, and terrorism is terrorism, but let's try to keep those three separate, shall we?
| quote: | | I said that because you stated that the goal of Palestinians is the destruction of Israel. So I said the goal of Israelis was the destruction of the occupied territories to make the 'Greater Israel'. IE both are unfounded speculation but both can quite easily be argued for. Also, I believe 10% of the Knesset are settlers no? They are a very powerful voice in Israeli politics, and the fact that they are settlers suggests they are religious fundamentalists who's aim is the creation of this 'Greater Israel' (or why else would they have settled where they have?) |
Look, we've been over this too many times already. Hamas, supported by Arafat, has the publicly stated goal of destroying Israel. Read their charter. It's right in there. There can be no argument on this subject. Israel assassinated a figurehead of Hamas, not a Palestinian peacemaker. And no, there is no central figurehead in Israel with the publicly stated goal of eliminating Palestine. Of course there are some religious fundamentalists but they don't control the state.
| quote: | | I suppose there would have to be people still alive to feel terrorised? Destroying large chunks of their military in the way that it was, whether that was the intention or not, terrorised the Japanese government into surrendering (out of fear more nuclear bombs would be dropped). And that is terrorism. |
NO, IT IS NOT TERRORISM. Will you understand if I write it in REALLY BIG LETTERS?
Are you completely and utterly stupid or do you just love equivocation? It is NOT terrorism unless the INTENTION is to terrorize. It is NOT correct to imply that ANY act which causes fear is terrorism! I can think of dozens of acts which have this effect on people and are obviously not terrorist acts, not the least of which would be anything falling under the category of domestic crime!
| quote: | | Can you give me some examples of state terrorism so I can see what your definitions are? |
Other people in this thread already have. I agree with them.
| quote: | | Why do you mention 11/9 while talking about state terrorism?? Whether al-Qaida has backing from a state or not, it is still a non-state actor. I am talking about states doing the dirty work themselves |
What the hell are you talking about? No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point. It's not like Israel's pavement is suddenly going to come to life and form a big Earth Demon that crushes Palestine in a single blow.
| quote: | | Can I give you a few quotes out of one of my books, "An Anatomy of Terror: A History of Terrorism" by Andrew Sullivan, from the introduction? |
Sure. What was the point though?
| quote: | | I cannot see why we should call different acts of blatent terrorism different names? All acts of terrorism are just that. The only difference is we support some of those acts, but call them different names to either justify it to others, or to justify it to ourselves. |
Once again your misguided rhetoric taking over without any logic. They are acts of terrorism because YOU consider them to be acts of terrorism, and others merely "justify" them. To many of us with half a brain, it is quite clear that they are anything but terrorism. You are the one twisting words to suit your personal agenda, not us. If you think you have a rational argument by forcibly insisting that such acts ARE terrorism by using a fallacious definition of terrorism, and proceeding to tell us that we simply justify those acts, well then there can be no rational argument with you.
| quote: | | Thats what I am saying too, altho I would also include the unnecessary killing of civilians as well. |
"You" would, yes, but that would be totally incorrect, because not every unnecessary killing of a civilian is terrorism. If a man robs a bank and shoots people while trying to get away, I suppose he committed an act of terrorism? Because that's an unnecessary killing of civilians.
| quote: | | Maybe if that were true, but how does the demolishing of people's homes fall under your description above? |
Because its motivation isn't terror and it's not specifically targeting innocent bystanders. For the 500th time. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | It is NOT terrorism unless the INTENTION is to terrorize |
Its intention WAS to terrorise. The bomb was intended to terrorise the Japanese government into surrendering.
| quote: | | It is NOT correct to imply that ANY act which causes fear is terrorism! I can think of dozens of acts which have this effect on people and are obviously not terrorist acts, not the least of which would be anything falling under the category of domestic crime! |
| quote: | | You" would, yes, but that would be totally incorrect, because not every unnecessary killing of a civilian is terrorism. If a man robs a bank and shoots people while trying to get away, I suppose he committed an act of terrorism? Because that's an unnecessary killing of civilians. |
I thought we had already agreed that the act had to be for political aims?
| quote: | | What the hell are you talking about? No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point. It's not like Israel's pavement is suddenly going to come to life and form a big Earth Demon that crushes Palestine in a single blow. |
I am debating with my self whether to use the laughing smiley or the confused one! What on Earth are you talking about? What's with the pavement coming to life and killing people?! And what do you mean that "No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point"? You have already stated that states can commit terrorism earlier. Now you are saying only non-state actors can do it? :conf:
| quote: | | Sure. What was the point though? |
It was a definition of terrorism, or acts of terrorism. I was wondering if you agreed with it? And if not, which points did you disagree with?
| quote: | | Because its motivation isn't terror and it's not specifically targeting innocent bystanders |
Er...so the bulldozers just acidently knocked their houses over? And those houses didn't belong to "innocent bystanders"?
| quote: | | War is not terrorism. Sorry. |
Why? Are you saying that some acts that happen during war could not be clasified as terrorism by the definitions that not I have put forward, but ones that others have put forward? When the Germans bombed Britsh cities, was that not intentional targetting of civilians? For the same reasons that every terorrist group have? To manipulate public opinion to suit their own needs? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Its intention WAS to terrorise. The bomb was intended to terrorise the Japanese government into surrendering. |
According to who? You? They dropped it on a military city, and the general consensus is that the bomb killed less people than an all-out invasion would have.
| quote: | | I thought we had already agreed that the act had to be for political aims? |
Yes, but you seem to omit that detail whenever it suits your purposes.
| quote: | | I am debating with my self whether to use the laughing smiley or the confused one! What on Earth are you talking about? What's with the pavement coming to life and killing people?! And what do you mean that "No matter what kind of terrorism it is, it always has to come from a "non-state actor" at some point"? You have already stated that states can commit terrorism earlier. Now you are saying only non-state actors can do it? :conf: |
Alright, I'll try to dumb it down a shade for ya. States commit terrorism through the support and/or instruction of non-state actors. The "state" isn't a physical being so obviously it can't act out the violence itself. That has to be done by people who are in simply involved with the state in some way. But realistically, everybody within a state is in some way involved with that state - so how exactly do we define the difference between a "state actor" and a "non-state actor"? What level or degree of involvement with state affairs is required to be considered a "state actor?"
| quote: | | It was a definition of terrorism, or acts of terrorism. I was wondering if you agreed with it? And if not, which points did you disagree with? |
It wasn't a definition, it was more like a series of examples, none of which I really would consider to be true. I haven't read that book but those quotes seem like they'd come from a handbook on the philosophy of terrorism written by and for terrorists.
| quote: | | Er...so the bulldozers just acidently knocked their houses over? And those houses didn't belong to "innocent bystanders"? |
I could better address this comment if you'd kindly tell me exactly which events you are referring to and where and when they occurred. Bulldozing the homes of civilians in Palestine is not exactly an everyday happening.
| quote: | | Why? Are you saying that some acts that happen during war could not be clasified as terrorism by the definitions that not I have put forward, but ones that others have put forward? When the Germans bombed Britsh cities, was that not intentional targetting of civilians? For the same reasons that every terorrist group have? To manipulate public opinion to suit their own needs? |
I am saying that the definitions you put forward and continue to put forward bear no resemblance to what terrorism actually is and represents. Moreover, your definitions seem to change whenever it seems convenient for you to change them.
You cannot simply redefine words to mean whatever you'd like them to mean and expect others to abide by your definition in order to give validity to your argument. Your definition of terrorism (which seems to change all the time) is severely flawed (no matter how you change it) and isn't going to lead to anything constructive in this forum. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | Alright, I'll try to dumb it down a shade for ya. States commit terrorism through the support and/or instruction of non-state actors. The "state" isn't a physical being so obviously it can't act out the violence itself. That has to be done by people who are in simply involved with the state in some way. But realistically, everybody within a state is in some way involved with that state - so how exactly do we define the difference between a "state actor" and a "non-state actor"? What level or degree of involvement with state affairs is required to be considered a "state actor?" |
Its quite a basic concept. When someone refers to 'the state' or 'state-actors' that includes such people as politicians, police or the armed forces. A non-state actor includes people who are not connected to the state apparatus (ie Hamas, the IRA or ETA for example)
| quote: | | Yes, but you seem to omit that detail whenever it suits your purposes. |
I have never once said that a terrorist act is not politically motivated. Your the one leaving that out of what you think I have said...
| quote: | | I could better address this comment if you'd kindly tell me exactly which events you are referring to and where and when they occurred. Bulldozing the homes of civilians in Palestine is not exactly an everyday happening. |
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-10-30-robot-destruction_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
There's two examples to help you. I also believe Palestinian homes and farm land are being bulldozed to make way for the wall?
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
My whole point, which am going to stop promoting now as we both are entitled to our own beleifs, is that terrorism does not have to be committed, and more often than not, is committed by states. The word terrorism is designed to create an opinion in our minds. It is a prejudged opinion. We could easily say that all non-state actors that take up arms against the state and its population are terrorists. But the problem with that is that for a start, we may argue that the terrorists are in the right (and therefore, if we do not want to create a negative opinion about the group, we would not use the negative word 'terrorist') Then there is the fact that we may find acts committed by a state just as disturbing as suicide bombings against innocent Israelis for example, so we would want to use a negative word like terrorism to describe the act. The use of the word 'terrorism' is designed purely to describe an act (a politically violent one ;)) in a negative light, therefore, it should be made to apply to all acts we consider that way... |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Maybe if that were true, but how does the demolishing of people's homes fall under your description above? |
easily, israel has a policy of demolishing homes that have been used as sniper nests, ammo depots and homes of suicide bombers. all are the opposite of innocent ( = guilty) therefore it does not fit my description |
|
|
| Izzy |
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 :p
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 |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| 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 ;) |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| 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 .
| 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.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
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? ;) |
|
|
|
|
