[erratus]

Originally posted by Rictor
Why is terrorism only defined in terms of what "they" do to "us"? 100,00 civilians dead in Iraq, and you're telling me thats not terrorism?

Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3000 innocent people.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ (remember Afghanistan?) innocent people.

Which one is the terrorist again? The same applies to Israel/Palestine. According to every statistic available, including Israeli sources, Israel has killed more innocents since the start of the second intifada than suicide bombers have killed Israeli civies.

'Fraid not. I won't comment on alleged US crimes. But a working definition of terrorism is deliberate violence or the threat of violence against civilian targets in order to affect government policy.

I'll admit that Israel can be heavy handed in its military responses, but its targets are combatants.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the murderous Pallies target Israeli civilians.

Israeli actions are not terrorism. Most violent Palestinian actions are.

[erratus]

Originally posted by Bobboau
"To use an American example, targeting the Pentagon is legitmate but targeting Capitol Hill is not."

actualy I'd say both of those whould be legitimate targets, what wouldn't be a legitimate target would be like cafès and ****.

Well the Pentagon is part of the military establishment and is thus a target. The White House, seat of the Commander-in-Chief, might also be considered a target, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Congress is not part of the military establishment and should thus not be considered a target.

[Bobboau]

it's part of the government, therefore legitimate.

killing off congress would be quite an effective means of shuting down our government.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by erratus


'Fraid not. I won't comment on alleged US crimes. But a working definition of terrorism is deliberate violence or the threat of violence against civilian targets in order to affect government policy.

I'll admit that Israel can be heavy handed in its military responses, but its targets are combatants.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the murderous Pallies target Israeli civilians.

Israeli actions are not terrorism. Most violent Palestinian actions are.

I think maybe the question is whether the Israeli response/s and the inevitable civillian casualties - unintentional as they may be - is proportionate to the act or threat they are in reprisal too.

To me - and I'll admit I'm far from being in a position of first hand knowledge - it often seems as if the IDF actions do very little that will actually reduce the threat of terrorism; i.e. that any operation has a reciprocal effect through both what happens and what is seen to happen in the media (including neutral sources) which acts as a stimulant for continuing 'revenge' attacks.

I'm all for killing terrorists - but I don't think you can 'win' (achieve security and peace) by simply doing that, and especially not if innocent people get caught in the middle. People don't give a **** about intent, but about consequences; maybe that's unfair, but I think it's true.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I think maybe the question is whether the Israeli response/s and the inevitable civillian casualties - unintentional as they may be - is proportionate to the act or threat they are in reprisal too.

To me - and I'll admit I'm far from being in a position of first hand knowledge - it often seems as if the IDF actions do very little that will actually reduce the threat of terrorism; i.e. that any operation has a reciprocal effect through both what happens and what is seen to happen in the media (including neutral sources) which acts as a stimulant for continuing 'revenge' attacks.

Allow me.

As most of us know, the current intifada started in the fall of 2000. Things really escalated drastically at the end of 2001 / beginning of 2002. Then the IDF sent soldiers - myself among them - into Jenin, to eradicate the terrorist infrastructure.

The results? A couple of dozen IDF reservists (legitimate targets, however, as am I when drafted) killed during house-to-house operations. Around twice that many Palestinian "millitants" killed as well - the final number was between 50 and 75, IIRC. And the results? Goals attained? Look here.  Even the graph of a person who openly is not "in love" with Israel shows clearly an immense drop in attacks after the operation in Jenin, which ended around April 2002.

Terrorism CAN be eradicated through wise and careful use of force. Overwhelming force, such as bombarding a building to get one sniper (*ahem*) isn't required. Simply tender loving care when planning things.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Allow me.

As most of us know, the current intifada started in the fall of 2000. Things really escalated drastically at the end of 2001 / beginning of 2002. Then the IDF sent soldiers - myself among them - into Jenin, to eradicate the terrorist infrastructure.

The results? A couple of dozen IDF reservists (legitimate targets, however, as am I when drafted) killed during house-to-house operations. Around twice that many Palestinian "millitants" killed as well - the final number was between 50 and 75, IIRC. And the results? Goals attained? Look here.  Even the graph of a person who openly is not "in love" with Israel shows clearly an immense drop in attacks after the operation in Jenin, which ended around April 2002.

Terrorism CAN be eradicated through wise and careful use of force. Overwhelming force, such as bombarding a building to get one sniper (*ahem*) isn't required. Simply tender loving care when planning things.

But - does that graph also account for changes in the living standards of the Palestinian population? Or, for example, how the civillian casualties due to IDF operations correlate to civillian casualties due to terrorist attacks? (as a matter of interest) I feel these may be important with regard to the long-term 'success' of stopping terrorism; as that graph shows, the frequency of attacks does have a tendency to wax & wane.

Because, to be clear, what it'd like to see is a solution of some sort which is mutually beneficial.  Now, I know that this big wall thing is credited in particular with reducing attacks, but it's also been condemned as a breach of human rights-stroke-international law in the effect it has on ordinary Palestinians.  Because I think that the situation is that you will always have terrorism if it's only a military response; even if that terrorism is reduced to a comparative trickle.  I realise this will need to be on the part of whoever takes control of the PA, of course.

I have to be honest; regardless of frequency of attacks, all I've seen - again from my own distant perspective - is a constant spiral of tit-for-tat reciprocal violence that appears to be perpetual. i.e. no long term solution or peace.

I hope I'm wrong.

EDIT; what i mean is, even if the wall or the mentioned op in Jenin reduced terrorist attacks then, have they actually done anything which still stop would be terrorists wanting to join up?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Because I think that the situation is that you will always have terrorism if it's only a military response; even if that terrorism is reduced to a comparative trickle.  I realise this will need to be on the part of whoever takes control of the PA, of course.


EDIT; what i mean is, even if the wall or the mentioned op in Jenin reduced terrorist attacks then, have they actually done anything which still stop would be terrorists wanting to join up?

I agree 100% there - change has to begin at home. But until we can educate virus writers to not write viruses, we have to use anti-viruses, don't we?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich


I agree 100% there - change has to begin at home. But until we can educate virus writers to not write viruses, we have to use anti-viruses, don't we?

Yep, it's a fair point.  It just seems to me, that it oftens seems to do more harm than good (or at least in the eyes of the world it does).

I'll admit, it's hard to suggest alternative strategies (well, except the wall; I think that really will cause a hell of a lot of problems in future); but I can't shake my own doubts about whether it'll do any good.

To be honest, I've kind of given up on thinking the various Palestinian groups or the PA will make any move towards peace.  But I think Israel still has some capability to make 'the first move', because the IDF is the dominant power...I think Israel has more leeway to be pro-active, but I'm not sure that would happen because of politics.

[Rictor]

no settlements=no necessity for military occupation=no more terrorism

...or something like that. It might not work that way, but I don't think peace is possible with the ongoing occupation.

The way I see it, the reason for killing are such
Israelis: they kill us (suicide bombers etc)
Palestinains: they kill us + they oppress and humiliate us + they're occupying our land.

So, equally harsh acts on both sides, but to be fair the Palestinains have a better reason for doing it.

[aldo_14]

The problem is that Israel won't pull out whilst terrorist attacks go on (it would be seen as a retreat, which isn't politically - and probably not morally - acceptable), and it's near(near?) impossible to get the terrorist groups to stop & negotiate as long as the Israelis are still occupying the territories....

[vyper]

Short term gains are still short term. If you're willing to live in a perpetual state of war Sandwich then carry on, but I doubt your children nor history will approve of that choice.

[FireCrack]

^history always approves of the choice that is made

[Rictor]

Thats why Hitler is such a popular guy, eh?

[Gank]

Originally posted by vyper
Short term gains are still short term. If you're willing to live in a perpetual state of war Sandwich then carry on, but I doubt your children nor history will approve of that choice.

 You forget Sandwichs religious views here:
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p15s01-lire.html
Short term and long term gains are irrelevant, because Jesus is coming shortly to kill us all anyways.

[FireCrack]

Originally posted by Rictor
Thats why Hitler is such a popular guy, eh?

(Dont tell anyone, but i think the allies won the war)

[Rictor]

Mien gott!
Quickly, we must hurry back to avenge the Motherland!

...you never said history is written by the victor, you said "history always approves of the choice that is made"

[delta_7890]

Originally posted by FireCrack


(Dont tell anyone, but i think the allies won the war)

Oho, touche!

And Rictor, you're right.  He didn't say that the victors wrote history.  He was merely pointing out that, in the end, Hitler's regime did fail, which most of society sees as desirable.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that Israel won't pull out whilst terrorist attacks go on (it would be seen as a retreat, which isn't politically - and probably not morally - acceptable), and it's near(near?) impossible to get the terrorist groups to stop & negotiate as long as the Israelis are still occupying the territories....

Thus the whole fiasco in the gov't over Sharon's adamant moving forward with pulling out of (ironic combination of words there) Gaza.

And Rictor, did't you just read the past page and a half? You cannot simply call it "killing" and expect to be taken seriously. Well, actually you probably could since most people are evidently ignorant of what happens here. But it's like the bad translation of the King James version one of the ten commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill", when the actual word in "murder", not "kill". There's a massive difference, one that removes much percieved hypocrisy in the bible.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Like I said, you're only reading one article, where the soldiers opened fire immediately. I happened to read an article that reported that the girl - who was actually a shape-shifting monster with dripping fangs and tentacles - pulled a handheld howitzer out of her backback and started firing at the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who just so happened to be in the area. The Israeli soldiers in the nearby outpost saw this, shouted at the girl/monster-with-drippy-fangs-and-tentacles to stop her belligerent actions, but she/it didn't respond. So after 15 minutes of shouting to stop, the soldiers opened fire and killed the girl/monster.

That's the only version I read, so it must be true. Those must be the events exactly as they occurred, and it's unthinkable that any details were modified or ommitted from the account of the eye-witness reporter who was there and caught it all on his newfangled holographic 3D-video recorder.

...I hope I've made my point.

Nope. You didn't. In any version there is the girl allways ends up dead. Like I said - they could have shoot her in the arms or legs.

And she was alive when that commander shot at her again.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Thus the whole fiasco in the gov't over Sharon's adamant moving forward with pulling out of (ironic combination of words there) Gaza.

And Rictor, did't you just read the past page and a half? You cannot simply call it "killing" and expect to be taken seriously. Well, actually you probably could since most people are evidently ignorant of what happens here. But it's like the bad translation of the King James version one of the ten commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill", when the actual word in "murder", not "kill". There's a massive difference, one that removes much percieved hypocrisy in the bible.

Is it really? The bible was passed over verbally for generation before being writen down. Are you sure it made it in the written form 100% unchanged? Religios/political leaders and people in general have been known to do such things in the past, wether intentional or not. Are you sure there wasn't a "kill" there before?

On the other hand, even if it was murder, does it mean government/law defined term of murder, or God's definition?

Killing a 10 year old (WHEN YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO) is murder in my book anyday.