|
Israel Kills Sheikh Yassin (Leader of Hamas) (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Funnily enough, Zionism was originally going to be a socialist experiment! No idea why I feel the need to tell you that but I did! :p ;) |
Herzl a socialist? I think you'd rather mean that the first villages were built based on the Soviet "commune" model. Today's Kibbuzim still have a communist touch. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
That is pathetic! Where's the proof they are guilty?! You assume that because they are Palestinian they must have done something to deserve to die? |
No, I assume that because Israel saw fit to demolish their home that they "must have done something." Why else would Israel bulldoze it? Of what benefit is it to Israel to demolish the homes of the completely innocent?
| quote: | | You clamimed that the Jews did not move to that area of the world with the intentions of taking over the land. Not one person here will argue that that is true as Israel was created out of the Zionist ideology. (You know, for a Jewish homeland?) |
Oh and you know all the people here so well? Zionism says nothing about how much land they are supposed to occupy (the "greater Israel" you like to speak of has nothing to do with Zionism). Sure, they wanted a homeland, but there was no stipulation that it had to occupy that entire land mass - that only occurred because the neighbouring Arabs originally tried to kill them all.
| quote: | | Well in that case I'd go get some history books out about the creation of Israel. You may also be surprised to find out that Jewish terrorism still exists. |
No, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed. I know about the history of Israel's creation and that's why I speak freely of the original expulsion by Ben Gurion, but I don't consider that to be terrorism as Israel really and truly was fighting for its survival. Terrorism implies a political or ideological motive - I don't think that survival is one of them.
| quote: | | Ah so now your back's to the wall my comments were irrelevent? My comments were part of the sub argument we are having about definitions of terrorism, which is blatently not irrelevent as you carry on the argument in your next paragraph by claiming war crimes can not be considered acts of terrorism, which is a complete joke. |
It is irrelevant, because your definition of terrorism is wrong. This isn't worth debating at this point because it's already been explained to you, yet you continue to use your perverted definition and refuse to back down because it makes your argument look like it holds water. Sorry - it doesn't.
| quote: | | Sod what anyone has decreed on the matter, do you think that it is fair that Israelis consume much per water per head than Palestinians (even tho most of the water comes from Palestine)? |
What difference does it make where it comes from? Any outrage that stems from this would have to be based on the premise that Israel's occupation of the territories is illegal and therefore they don't *really* have control of the water. Good luck convincing me of that! Yes, I do think it is fair - if the Palestinians were dying of thirst then that would be a different story, but Israel isn't trying to kill them by taking away their water - they just need water! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Mate! Think about what your saying cos your posts are deteriorating into a load of crap and it is making you look very silly indeed!
| quote: | | No, I assume that because Israel saw fit to demolish their home that they "must have done something." Why else would Israel bulldoze it? Of what benefit is it to Israel to demolish the homes of the completely innocent? |
Like the Israeli general (or whatever he was), to scare them into not committing acts of terrorism (also, your sick little comments that you agree with anyone Israel has killed cos they must have done something makes you look like a complete and utter twat, and a very stupid one at that)
| quote: | | Oh and you know all the people here so well? Zionism says nothing about how much land they are supposed to occupy (the "greater Israel" you like to speak of has nothing to do with Zionism). Sure, they wanted a homeland, but there was no stipulation that it had to occupy that entire land mass |
Who ever said anything about the entire land mass :conf:
Zionism wanted to control land in an area that they previously had no control over whatsoever - therefore - they went there with intentions of taking over the land there (as much or as little as they could get, makes no difference, they wanted land for the Jews and Jews only) By the way, the ideology 'Neo-Zionism' does call for the 'Greater Israel'
| quote: | | No, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed |
Again, this makes you look extremely stupid. You dont actually know much about the Israel-Arab conflict at all do you? (its all emotionally charged rhetoric isnt it and nothing more?)
We have already discussed Rabin's assassination (and if I recall correctly, it was even YOU who brought it up!!!!!!!!!)
After that, I assume you have heard of the massacre at the mosque in Hebron?
And if you are still not happy, and you would like more proof of the level of your knowledge of this conflict then here's a nice little link for you to take a look at...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,714421,00.html
(You try and justify this attempt, or in any way try to tell me that this is not terrorism and you will have lost all credibility in the ability to engage in this debate further, not just by me, but by every person in this thread with half a brain...)
I expect in your next post to address your claim that "Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed"
| quote: | | Yes, I do think it is fair - if the Palestinians were dying of thirst then that would be a different story, but Israel isn't trying to kill them by taking away their water - they just need water! |
Yet more idiotic statements. You think that it is fair that one Israeli consumes four more times as much water as one Palestinian? Even if the water itself comes from Palestine?
I'm sorry to drop to the level of insults, but in your last post you have made yourself look like a total idiot, and it is becoming more and more obvious that you actually know very little of this subject you are trying to discuss. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Oh, and here's the quote you ignored from the link I posted earlier concerning water...
| quote: | | While Israelis have received a continuous supply of water throughout the drought, largely from Palestinian resources, millions of Palestinians have suffered from an intermittent supply of water, especially during summer months. The Bethlehem area, for example, should receive 1,200 cubic meters of water per hour, but Israel has reduced this to 300 cubic meters per hour, forcing most Palestinian neighborhoods to wait weeks for piped water. Moreover, there are some 180 Palestinian communities with 300,000 residents in the West Bank not yet linked to public water distribution systems, and Israel is hampering the efforts of the Palestinian Water Authority to provide them with this essential service |
|
|
|
| igottaknow |
| George agreed with your post. I've always had high opinion of Diginut, but lately he's gone off the deep end with some pretty illogical arguments in favor of Israel, almost to the point of foaming at the mouth. I enjoy a good debate, but these issues are becoming a shouting match of who is morally and intellectually superior. Like the acknowledgement that you could be right on any single point would be the admission of defeat. In another thread I was besieged by a hungry pack of dogs on the same subject. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma]No, I assume that because Israel saw fit to demolish their home that they "must have done something." Why else would Israel bulldoze it? Of what benefit is it to Israel to demolish the homes of the completely innocent? |
BLAH BLAH BLAH.they were terrorists housed in their homes,, they were conducting plans to kill all israeli's... this is gettting lame.
I have several palestinian friends, specifically a girl who was living with her mother ALONE in her house who experienced this injustice. One day a group of guards kicked her door open, told them they had ten mintues to get out of their homes... caus they were to crush her house.
Not only did they demolish her home for "security reasons" but they also BURNT her belongings in the middle of the street. They do it to humiliate and destroy their hope in living. If they have no home, they will go somewhere else... "VOLUNTARY" transfer.
To this day, she has no idea why they did that. It was her and her mother... thats it. Shes a PHD student, and her mother cooked for her during her breaks.
| quote: |
Oh and you know all the people here so well? Zionism says nothing about how much land they are supposed to occupy (the "greater Israel" you like to speak of has nothing to do with Zionism). Sure, they wanted a homeland, but there was no stipulation that it had to occupy that entire land mass - that only occurred because the neighbouring Arabs originally tried to kill them all. |
Ben Gurion once put it eloquently:
| quote: | [COLOR=ORANGE]
We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population. |
They want that land. These zionists beleive they must rid the palestinians from it.
Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969:
| quote: |
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" |
| quote: |
No, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and never existed. I know about the history of Israel's creation and that's why I speak freely of the original expulsion by Ben Gurion, but I don't consider that to be terrorism as Israel really and truly was fighting for its survival. Terrorism implies a political or ideological motive - I don't think that survival is one of them. |
ISRAEL didnt exist during Irgun's massacres. What were they surviving? they were trying to create!
You dont think TARGETTING INNOCENTS, for the MOTIVE of CAUSING fear isnt terrorism??? thats how you defined it before.... and this is what these terrorists essentially did.
| quote: |
It is irrelevant, because your definition of terrorism is wrong. This isn't worth debating at this point because it's already been explained to you, yet you continue to use your perverted definition and refuse to back down because it makes your argument look like it holds water. Sorry - it doesn't. |
How come your definition somehow refutes everyone elses?
| quote: |
What difference does it make where it comes from? Any outrage that stems from this would have to be based on the premise that Israel's occupation of the territories is illegal and therefore they don't *really* have control of the water... |
Why does it have to be that they should be dying of theirst unitl you become considerate? Why cant you acknowledge the fact that they arent recieving enough of their deserved resource becuase ISraeli's are taking it for themselves?
Im sure you wouldnt apply this selfish notion to Africans who have no food becuase they dont act like "spoiled little" palestinian "brats" as you put it so nicely in the TO forums. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
How come your definition somehow refutes everyone elses? |
In order to understand the problem with the definition of terrorism that some board members have been proposed, you need to look at the context in which it is being used in the argument. Here’s a brief recap of the arguments which have led up to this point:
Yoepus asked the question “what’s your alternative [to the war against terrorism]?” In response to this, George Smiley proposed that, in the case of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, appeasement might be an appropriate solution.
At this point, I felt obligated to point out the same thing that I have in countless other threads on similar topics – namely that the appeasement of terrorism is likely to promote the use of terrorism throughout the world, resulting in even more violence than could have possibly been averted by appeasement in the first place.
Apparently realizing that his appeasement proposal was a dead end, George redefined his position when he wrote the following:
| 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?
|
From this point on, no longer did he argue that appeasement was a viable strategy to combat terrorism. Instead, he focused on the idea that the “appeasement of Israel” was likewise problematic. His argument took the following form:
1. Terrorism should never be appeased. [premise 1]
2. Israel carries out terrorism. [premise 2]
3. Israel should not be appeased. [conclusion]
This argument, however, is guilty of equivocation. In premise 1, terrorism is used in the narrow sense – the definition which DigiNut has been insistent upon. Otherwise, the premise would require further proof beyond what I had offered, since my argument against appeasement was dependent upon specific characteristics of terrorism which means that it can only apply to terrorism in the narrow sense.
In the second premise, terrorism is used in a broader sense. Because the word terrorism is used in two completely separate ways between the two premises, the conclusion does not follow and the argument is unsound.
DigiNut attempted to point this out in the face of ad nauseum accusations of hypocrisy, but his points were largely ignored. In order to fix the above argument, one of two things could be established:
1. Terrorism in the broad sense should never be appeased.
Or
2. Israel carries out terrorism in the narrow sense.
Establishing the first would be difficult, since it almost invariably leads to a contradiction as TranceGiant pointed out:
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
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? |
The following statements:
1. The war against terrorism is necessary.
2. The war against terrorism is terrorism.
3. It is necessary to never carry out terrorism.
are self-contradictory.
Therefore, the only viable alternative is to try to establish that Israel carries out terrorism in the narrow sense.
Both George Smiley and yourself have made attempts to do so. However, you’ve sometimes made the mistake of using the broad definition of terrorism in your arguments. Given that what you need to do is establish that Israel carries out terrorism according to the narrow definition (at least if you want the argument that we shouldn’t appease Israel to hold), using the broad definition of terrorism amounts to another fallacious example of equivocation.
It isn’t that there is anything inherently wrong with your definition. However, when you use the word terrorism in that sense, your claims have no bearing towards establishing the truth of the claim that we should not “appease” Israel. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
I think I have made it clear (three or four times if I'm not mistaken) that I said terrorists should be appeased as tongue in cheek (ie playing devil's advocate). The reason being is that some times, the people you define as 'terrorists' have a 'point'.
Diginut says that terrorist's objective is to cause terror. Simply not true. Terrorists do cause terror, but that is simply a means to acheiving their stated objectives, rather than their actual objectives. They cause terror as this is the only option available to them to achieve their objectives (be that a united Ireland or an independent Chechnya)
In the two cases I stated above, both the Irish (at the start of the uprising) and the Chechnyans have been oppressed and nobody will argue they dont (didn't) deserve to have their objectives. However, the only way to achieve that is through terrorism. There is simply no other way for these groups. So how would you end that particular terrorist situation? By giving them what they want cos everybody knows that is what is 'right'.
Now your side to that is that it will increase the terrorist actions of other groups. Well my counter argument is that that would happen no matter what.
The war on terror is an unwinable war. There has been terrorism since the first humans, and there will be terrorism till the last. Nothing will ever stop terrorism as long as there is oppression and inequality in the world.
Would giving certain oppressed groups what they want increase terrorism? No. Will oppressing even more those who are oppressed decrease terrorism? Not a chance mate! In fact, in my opinion, it is the latter that will acount for the bigger increase in terrorism, not the former. But thats just mine and your opinion. Thats all it is. Neither of us can prove our theories right or wrong.
I do not think terrorism should be appeased as a matter of policy. I also think that we cannot defeat terrorism. The rise in religious fundamentalism in the world (in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions) has also seen a rise in the type of terrorism that will attack for purely ideological reasons (not for defencive reasons, ie, the oppressed). This type of terrorism will attack us no matter what, nothing we can do about it.
However, it can be contained by not giving them exactly what they want - a huge support base (which is exactly what you are proposing....)
I have a very broad definition of terrorism yes, but I think that is perfectly justified when you look at the attrocities committed by states and non-state actors alike, and by those with 'just' causes and those with causes that are blatently 'unjust'
| quote: | | The war against terrorism is terrorism. |
Sorry, who ever said that? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
One of the major beef I have with terrorists that they use wrong methods to achieve their goals, no matter how just or right their objectives are.
It's not just what you say, but also how you say.
| quote: | | The war on terror is an unwinable war. There has been terrorism since the first humans, and there will be terrorism till the last. Nothing will ever stop terrorism as long as there is oppression and inequality in the world. |
So, should we just give up and let the terrorists win?
How do we fight terrorism then?
As far as I'm concerned, if you're a terrorist, I'm all for eliminating you from the gene pool. |
|
|
| 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.
:whip:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I think I have made it clear (three or four times if I'm not mistaken) that I said terrorists should be appeased as tongue in cheek (ie playing devil's advocate). The reason being is that some times, the people you define as 'terrorists' have a 'point'. |
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'?"
| quote: | Diginut says that terrorist's objective is to cause terror. Simply not true. Terrorists do cause terror, but that is simply a means to acheiving their stated objectives, rather than their actual objectives. They cause terror as this is the only option available to them to achieve their objectives (be that a united Ireland or an independent Chechnya)
In the two cases I stated above, both the Irish (at the start of the uprising) and the Chechnyans have been oppressed and nobody will argue they dont (didn't) deserve to have their objectives. However, the only way to achieve that is through terrorism. There is simply no other way for these groups. So how would you end that particular terrorist situation? By giving them what they want cos everybody knows that is what is 'right'. |
The only option available to them to achieve their objectives?
Bull Puckey!
The independence of most of the world from colonialism and the civil rights movement weren't brought about by sending suicide bombers to kill the innocent citizens of the "oppressors." They were carried out by at most conventional military versus military conflict, and in many cases through entirely diplomatic or peaceful means. 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? Do you have an argument, or are you just going to keep making broad and unsubstantiated claims which stand diametrically opposed to available evidence instead?
| quote: | Now your side to that is that it will increase the terrorist actions of other groups. Well my counter argument is that that would happen no matter what.
The war on terror is an unwinable war. There has been terrorism since the first humans, and there will be terrorism till the last. Nothing will ever stop terrorism as long as there is oppression and inequality in the world.
Would giving certain oppressed groups what they want increase terrorism? No. Will oppressing even more those who are oppressed decrease terrorism? Not a chance mate! In fact, in my opinion, it is the latter that will acount for the bigger increase in terrorism, not the former. But thats just mine and your opinion. Thats all it is. Neither of us can prove our theories right or wrong.
I do not think terrorism should be appeased as a matter of policy. I also think that we cannot defeat terrorism. The rise in religious fundamentalism in the world (in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions) has also seen a rise in the type of terrorism that will attack for purely ideological reasons (not for defencive reasons, ie, the oppressed). This type of terrorism will attack us no matter what, nothing we can do about it.
However, it can be contained by not giving them exactly what they want - a huge support base (which is exactly what you are proposing....)
|
That would be a very good counter argument except for the fact that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support it.
The most basic principles of human behavior disagree with the claim that people will continue to undertake in acts requiring great sacrifice when the result of their acts fails to produce the desired effect and in fact produces the opposite effect. If people actually behaved in that way, we would have gone extinct a long time ago from our own ineptitude. It is precisely because terrorists have made political headway - the widespread and irrational vilification of Israel being a prime example - that they continue to use the same tactics. If the tactics weren't having any positive effect, they wouldn't do it. It's very, very simple. What you are suggesting makes no sense at all.
History, too, disagrees with the idea that "oppressed" people will always resist violently. The expansion of many empires: those of the Mongols, the Romans, Alexander the Great, and even the Third Reich were not significantly hindered by violent resistance by the oppressed or subjugated people of the empire. If the people resisted, the resistance was put down. There were no negotiations and no careful weighing of the legitimacy of the complaint. They could submit or be killed. And do you know what they did? With very few exceptions, they submitted.
The supposed "inevitability" of terrorism is not an argument. It is a completely faith-based claim that flies in the face of all available historical and scientific evidence. In terms of validity, it holds the same amount of water as "God said so."
| quote: | | I have a very broad definition of terrorism yes, but I think that is perfectly justified when you look at the attrocities committed by states and non-state actors alike, and by those with 'just' causes and those with causes that are blatently 'unjust' |
I don't have a problem with your definition of terrorism, per se. 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.
| quote: | | Sorry, who ever said that? |
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.
I’m beginning to see a striking parallel between terrorist apologists and theistic apologists. Both seem to require absolute proof of any claim which stands in opposition to their indoctrinated views. Both offer little or no evidence to support their own claims. Both try to obscure the picture by interpreting relevant concepts in as broad a manner as possible.
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. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Wow you guys are really going at it, nice arguments on both sides, hats off to you. I’m just going to stick my head in for a second to make a few points.
- 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.
- On the definition of terrorist: Most governments who are well armed and have the luxury of complete military superiority, don’t usually need to resort to terrorism, but some of the Israeli action walk a fine line. They describe bulldozing houses and assassinations as sending the terrorist a message. I think inflicting fear in your enemy could be viewed as a form of terror to dissuade. 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”. |
|
|
|
|
