[Sandwich]

You all heard about Israel's assasination of the top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, right? If not, uh... read the news somewhere.

Anyways, due to bad intel, etc etc, the attack also killed 9 Palestinian children.

Israel has, of course, apologized... which is where the "not quite sure..." part comes in. Read the following quote and you'll see what I mean:

In response to American and international criticism of the Israeli assassination of arch-terrorist Salah Shehada that led to the deaths of nine Arab children, analyst Yoram Ettinger, Israel's former liaison to the U.S. Congress, has prepared a list of United States attacks in which civilian lives were not taken into consideration.

"The list actually goes beyond Afghanistan," Ettinger told Arutz-7 today. "For instance, in 1989, the US invaded Panama City in order to free [the ruling strongman] Noriega, using jets and helicopters. Six hundred civilians were killed in that raid, according to American estimates, and thousands were wounded. Then U.S-Chief of Staff, whose name was Colin Powell, said at the time that the appropriate amount of force was used 'and we have no need to apologize.' The Attorney General at the time, Dick Thornburg, said that the U.S. was operating according to the UN's clause 51 allowing self-defense…

"In 1993, in response to the killing and mutilation of 15 US soldiers, the USAF bombed Somalia, turning an entire area basically into a parking lot, killing over 1,000 citizens. Again the U.S. said that it was self-defense.

"In this current war against Al-Qaeda [in which sources say 400-800 civilians have been killed - ed. note], when Rumsfeld was asked about the American attack on Red Cross offices and on other civilian areas in Afghanistan, he said, and I agree with him, 'This is a war that has been forced upon us by terrorists… We are making great efforts not to hurt civilians, but if civilians are hurt, the entire responsibility for such is upon the terrorists who use them as cover…'"

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that the Israeli raid against Shehada was "heavy-handed" and "not consistent with dedication to peace." Ettinger was not upset, however, saying that the U.S. response was only a "weak condemnation." He noted that Congress yesterday approved an extra $200 million in aid to Israel, and "Bush has not threatened to withhold it."

Also, I don't recall ever hearing the Palestinian terorists issue apologies for killing Israeli civillians...

Thoughts?

[CP5670]

Third option definitely; civilian casualties are unavoidable in any conflict, and what these terrorist gangs do is to run for cover in densely-populated areas so that they will take down some civilians with them if they die, but that of course should not get in the way of any dedicated military operation. No apology should be given.

[Unknown Target]

What I bet the guy did was take those kids into there, as sort of a fail-safe device. If he was bombed, the bomber would be extremeley discredited. Why else would he have all of those kids in there?!

[Stryke 9]

Problem is, what with the draft laws in Israel, the line between civilian and army is kinda blurry...

And the Palestinians make no pretence that their tactics are anything but unpleasant. From where I see it, countries like the US and Israel keep claiming that they have these benevolent military codes that demonize civilian casualties and enable said countries to justify pretty much any assault, so they should be upheld to their own codes. The Palestinian militants ask no quarter and give none. The Israelis act like it is a horrible crime for civilians to get involved in this fight- which it may well be, I refuse to form an opinion on whether they're necessary or not. Anyway- I wouldn't criticize Israel for going in there and bombing all the refugee camps to bits. It's when countries pretend they're any better than that sort of thing and continue doing it that it's revolting. I mean, the US's insistence that our war criminals get immunity? How does that work with our outrage at other nations' war criminals, and insistence on wiping them out even at the cost of killing a bunch of innocent people in the process? Same thing.

[CP5670]

Good propaganda technique, though.

What I bet the guy did was take those kids into there, as sort of a fail-safe device. If he was bombed, the bomber would be extremeley discredited. Why else would he have all of those kids in there?!

Yes, that is a common terrorist tactic.

[Mad Bomber]

IIRC they used a much larger bomb than was necessary. They should have used a smaller weapon, like a rocket, not a big bomb.

This from me, the patron saint of bombs. I know. But there it is.

[Styxx]

I'm behind Israel on this one. Anyone that uses terrorism as means to advance a cause, no matter what the cause is, deserves to die. If some civilian casualties are unavoidable, so be it - if I was one of the civilians, I'd be doing my damned best to stay very far away from any such individuals.

And as it was said, he was probably using the children as shield - if Israel backed down this time because of that, they'd open a precedent that would only cause even more deaths of civilians on their side.

[Stryke 9]

Define "terrorism", then.

Have you noticed the recent ads on TV? The ones that say that drug users are all terrorists? Or the misuse of the term in describing Iraq? Exactly. It's a buzzword. Used to have meaning, now it doesn't (at least here). Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists". Lucky George W. McCarthy, it obviously works so well...

[CP5670]

Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists

Yeah, but that's all that matters. To them, we are the terrorists, but that makes no difference since they cannot do much about it. As I have said before, it is not a conflict of "good" and "bad," but of opposing interests.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Define "terrorism", then.

Have you noticed the recent ads on TV? The ones that say that drug users are all terrorists? Or the misuse of the term in describing Iraq? Exactly. It's a buzzword. Used to have meaning, now it doesn't (at least here). Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists". Lucky George W. McCarthy, it obviously works so well...

My definition of terrorist is "anyone who deliberately attacks civilians".

And I don't know of any of the other stuff you mentioned, since I live on Brazil and don't watch any american (or any purely international, for that matter) channel. If you have another definition of terrorism, then that's not my problem - I still see the Palestinians as terrorists and the Israeli as not, despite anmy motive they might have.

[Stryke 9]

So the police forces are all terrorist. Can't argue with that.

[Unknown Target]

I think once you commit a crime, you forfeit all privelages given to you by the state.

I don't think the war on terrorism will ever end, because the entire world is too plush. For some bizzarre reason, they forgot everything about previous generations (a testament to this is that most of my classmates don't know what Pearl Harbor was). So they forgot the lessons in previous wars that civilian casualties are, unfortunately, unavoidable. So a single "inoccent" casualty can put an entire military campaign in the moral eye of the rest of the world. Imagine WWII, or even Iraq. Cities were decimated, oil pipelines were burst (albeit by the "bad guys" not us), but they kept on going. Now most of the world (and, in my opinion, especially the US) have been sissified.

[Stryke 9]

Once again, just plain silly, and unpracticeable. If you're caught speeding, you should forfeit the right to a jury or ability to use public roads? Nobody would get anything. Remember: the government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. If we were all expected simply to be slaves of the government, you'd better believe there'd be a popular uprising and that not a SINGLE government worker would be left alive within a week. People only take so much out-and-out crap from the System.

And yes, it is a little absurd. But not necessarily that bad, and only because killing is killing, and whenever we get involved in something like that, we're just killing more people

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
So the police forces are all terrorist. Can't argue with that.

Talk about twisted logic...

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Styxx


My definition of terrorist is "anyone who deliberately attacks civilians".

Police forces deliberately attack civilians- that's their job, whether they are civilians committing crimes or not (they often aren't, and when they are, they're still civilians). Thus, they are terrorist. Moreover, the government who allows police to operate is "aiding and abetting". Your definition, not mine. Perhaps you wish to be more clear, or think it over more?

[Stryke 9]

[Edit: No fair! How come moderators can delete their mistakes, and I can't delete my responses?]

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Police forces deliberately attack civilians- that's their job, whether they are civilians committing crimes or not (they often aren't, and when they are, they're still civilians). Thus, they are terrorist. Moreover, the government who allows police to operate is "aiding and abetting". Your definition, not mine. Perhaps you wish to be more clear, or think it over more?

You have to check your definition of "civilian". Those you mentioned are not civilians, they are criminals. There's a huge difference there.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stryke 9


Police forces deliberately attack civilians- that's their job, whether they are civilians committing crimes or not (they often aren't, and when they are, they're still civilians). Thus, they are terrorist. Moreover, the government who allows police to operate is "aiding and abetting". Your definition, not mine. Perhaps you wish to be more clear, or think it over more?

Police forces have a job of protecting civillians from each other.

According to your logic, terrorists - since they are civillians, after all - are simply commiting crimes against others. Therefore, by definition, anyone warring against those terrorist/civillains is a police force?

Ugh, now I'm confused.

[Stryke 9]

So... what is a criminal? Does he carry a badge or a special ID? Are you exempt from the human race for shoplifting? When it comes to lawbreaking, I'm a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone we know is a criminal. It's simply impossible to stay fully within the law all your life. We're also civilians. Or is the Civilian a mythical beast, the theoretical innocent, one who only exists after he has been consumed by the dynamite explosion, like a saint?

[Stryke 9]

See the danger of over-broad definitions? Lots of people attack civilians. I didn't mention wife-beaters, parents who spank their kids, or myself, none of whom are terrorists.