NationStates Jolt Archive

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?

It is undeniably true. Both terms are just labels.

depends on one mans definitions

-----


Personally I can see how that would be true but other times I can see how a terrorist is not a freedom fighter. It all depends on the situation :)

Hell ya that's true. Did you see the news footage in Pakistan after 9/11? They were cheering and celebrating that 9/11 happened. They praised Usame Bin Laden for the attacks as well. Think of it this way, when the Revolutionary war was happening the British though of the revolutionary army (some what like the insurgeancy in Iraq) as cowardly and just plain annoying. The Americans thought of them as heroes and liberators.

It all depends on your point of view.

often true, but not always.

It is undeniably true. Both terms are just labels.
Yes and no.

A terrorist indiscriminately attacks noncombatants and non-government/oppressor installations.

A "Freedom Fighter" attacks the oppressor directly - even if doing so in unconventional/ununiformed ways.

Big difference.

Yes and no.

A terrorist indiscriminately attacks noncombatants and non-government/oppressor installations.

A "Freedom Fighter" attacks the oppressor directly - even if doing so in unconventional/ununiformed ways.

Big difference.

Agreed!

Yes and no.

A terrorist indiscriminately attacks noncombatants and non-government/oppressor installations.

A "Freedom Fighter" attacks the oppressor directly - even if doing so in unconventional/ununiformed ways.

Big difference.
I agree. I wouldn't call a guy flying a plane full of civilians into a skyscraper full of civilians a freedom fighter.

I agree. I wouldn't call a guy flying a plane full of civilians into a skyscraper full of civilians a freedom fighter.
but nobody flew the planes into a building. bush bombed the buildings. So your argument is invalid.

I agree. I wouldn't call a guy flying a plane full of civilians into a skyscraper full of civilians a freedom fighter.
But I would call a Palestine suicide bomber a freedom fighter.

But I would call a Palestine suicide bomber a freedom fighter.

Yeah, those pizza places are big threats to their freedom. :rolleyes:

But I would call a Palestine suicide bomber a freedom fighter.If and only if s/he blows up a government facility like a police station, govt office or even some infrastructure liile a petrol depot.

Since when does blowing up children in a market = fighting the oppressors?

but nobody flew the planes into a building. bush bombed the buildings. So your argument is invalid.

You can't be serious. There was news footage and witnesses showing the planes impacting the WTC. There were witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon. Hell, I was watching the broadcast live.

but nobody flew the planes into a building. bush bombed the buildings. So your argument is invalid.
The facts of the case don't support your argument. Your position has been debunked many, many times on this forum. Find a hobby. Get a girlfriend/boyfriend. Do something constructive with your time instead of spreading bullshit. This is a forum, not a farm.

But I would call a Palestine suicide bomber a freedom fighter.
Not if he blows himself up in a market or a bus. How does killing women and children help his people? It's just murder for the sake of vengence.

You can't be serious. There was news footage and witnesses showing the planes impacting the WTC. There were witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon. Hell, I was watching the broadcast live.
Those weren't planes. Those were really flying saucers flown by aliens hired by Bush.
:rolleyes:

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
Depends upon who's saying it. :p

You can't be serious. There was news footage and witnesses showing the planes impacting the WTC. There were witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon. Hell, I was watching the broadcast live.
A little advice I got from a former employer "You can't argue with a sick mind".

Oh, and he was Jewish, so I'm sure Swilatia will find a place for that quote in his conspiracy theory.

but nobody flew the planes into a building. bush bombed the buildings. So your argument is invalid.
Congratulations! You are now persona non grata. Go find some sewer to crawl back into.

Not if he blows himself up in a market or a bus. How does killing women and children help his people? It's just murder for the sake of vengence.
Meh, to me it's just a freedom-fighter using unconvetional tactics.

Meh, to me it's just a freedom-fighter using unconvetional tactics.


Question: How does killing women and children aid in bringing freedom?

Question: How does killing women and children aid in bringing freedom?
Beats me. But they think it works.

Question: How does killing women and children aid in bringing freedom?
For terrorists, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "Freedom."

Beats me. But they think it works.
Which explains their current state.

but nobody flew the planes into a building. bush bombed the buildings. So your argument is invalid.

Then what the hell were those big metal things that crashed into the buildings if not airplanes? There is no hard evidence that I'm aware of that the Bush administration orchestrated 9-11.

Question: How does killing women and children aid in bringing freedom?


Well to a desperate mind it could possibly be the terror factor - not that I agree with the tactic (nor do I believe it will ever yield positive results), but they probably think that it will scare them into leaving Palestine alone

Meh, to me it's just a freedom-fighter using unconvetional tactics.
Ok, I'm opposed to gun control, the drug war, mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent crimes, and campaign contributions from major corporations. Those are things the US government supports. Would I be a freedom fighter if I broke into your house and shot your family? Of course the question assumes that you're an American citizen. If not I'll come up with another example.

Then what the hell were those big metal things that crashed into the buildings if not airplanes? There is no hard evidence that I'm aware of that the Bush administration orchestrated 9-11.

Evidence? Ha! Who needs evidence when you've got shaky mounds of conspiracy?

Ok, I'm opposed to gun control, the drug war, mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent crimes, and campaign contributions from major corporations. Those are things the US government supports. Would I be a freedom fighter if I broke into your house and shot your family? Of course the question assumes that you're an American citizen. If not I'll come up with another example.
No you're not being occupied by a foreign power.

Well to a desperate mind it could possibly be the terror factor - not that I agree with the tactic (nor do I believe it will ever yield positive results), but they probably think that it will scare them into leaving Palestine alone
Almost right. Here is the proper, corrected phrase.

...but they probably think that it will scare them into leaving Palestine.

That is their stated objective. Get 'dem ebil Joos out of Arab Palestine. :rolleyes:

No you're not being occupied by a foreign power.
No, but it can be argued that our government has violated the constitution on occasion, so that's reason enough.

No you're not being occupied by a foreign power.
Clue: Neither are they.

Not if he blows himself up in a market or a bus. How does killing women and children help his people? It's just murder for the sake of vengence.

Well a lot of them seem to go for off-duty IDF soldiers.

Well a lot of them seem to go for off-duty IDF soldiers.
Really? Because I mostly hear about them hitting markets and busses. Not many of them blow themselves up at the checkpoints manned by Israeli troops. In fact, I think those who blow themselves up at checkpoints are a very small minority.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
Was it really M. Gandhi who said it? (I'm curious...)

The short answer to your question: Yes and no.
A long answer would have to come later ;)

Well a lot of them seem to go for off-duty IDF soldiers.
Oh yay. And that justifies killing children exactly how?

If they want to kill off duty IDF, then they should do it where there are only IDF to kill, not innocents.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
Yes, in general.
Take the IRA for example. From the British, and even some Irish, perspectives they are/were terrorists. From their perspective, they were freedom fighters.

Not if he blows himself up in a market or a bus. How does killing women and children help his people? It's just murder for the sake of vengence.
The martyrs of Palestine are 100% freedom fighters. They are the Army of Palestine are the only way to end the illegal occupation. Can they do it politically? no, they elect a democratic government thats the will the people, and that government is shunned by much of the world, including the occupiers. can they do it socially? not really when you have a foreign power controlling your every move, the two intifadas have had only limited results in ending the oppression. But when one becomes a martyr, they force the occupiers to fear for their life and experience the pain Palestines go through daily. This is the only thing the illegal israeli government understands, and it will one day, lead to a peaceful and free Palestine.

It is undeniably true. The fact is, rather you agree with their tactics or not, and I don't, the people who flew those planes into those towers are freedom fighters to a vast population in the Muslim world. I call them terrorists, but a Palestinian calls them freedom fighters. That's just the way it is. I think they'd be more succesful were they to read a little bit about Mandela and Ghandi and Biko, but that doesn't change what they think.

Oh yay. And that justifies killing children exactly how?

If they want to kill off duty IDF, then they should do it where there are only IDF to kill, not innocents.
the Israelis kill innocents on a daily basis for fun.

the Israelis kill innocents on a daily basis for fun.
Uh huh. :rolleyes:

I am the most disliked poster on NS! A recent poll gave me that honor woot!

You don't need polls with posts like this. Time to readjust your white tinfoil Hood. Your idiocy is showing.

Yes and no.

A terrorist indiscriminately attacks noncombatants and non-government/oppressor installations.

A "Freedom Fighter" attacks the oppressor directly - even if doing so in unconventional/ununiformed ways.

Big difference.
So where does that put the Partisans of the WW2 Eastern Front?

So where does that put the Partisans of the WW2 Eastern Front?
Who were they killing? What were they destroying? Therein lies the difference.

So where does that put the Partisans of the WW2 Eastern Front?
The Nazis called them terrorists...but we wouldn't want to agree with them...

Terrorists target civilians, while freedom fighters target combatants and those aiding the oppressors. It's a simple difference, logically sound and easy to remember.

Depends upon who's saying it. :p
Gandhi said it.

Beats me. But they think it works.
You don't think that civilian-killing brings freedom because you don't understand how it could. Thus you don't believe that bombers of civilians are freedom fighters.

Who were they killing? What were they destroying? Therein lies the difference.
Oh, would that things were so clear and that good and evil were objectively defined.

The martyrs of Palestine are 100% freedom fighters. They are the Army of Palestine are the only way to end the illegal occupation. Can they do it politically? no, they elect a democratic government thats the will the people, and that government is shunned by much of the world, including the occupiers. can they do it socially? not really when you have a foreign power controlling your every move, the two intifadas have had only limited results in ending the oppression. But when one becomes a martyr, they force the occupiers to fear for their life and experience the pain Palestines go through daily. This is the only thing the illegal israeli government understands, and it will one day, lead to a peaceful and free Palestine.
I call bullshit on that whole post.

Can they do it politically? Maybe. It requires that a government that 1, isn't corrupt, and 2, isn't dedicated to the destruction of Israel is elected. It also requires that such a government be willing to seriously crack down on terrorist organization in it's territory. So far no Palestinian group fits that description. If such a group emerges, it's possible politically.

No nation is under any obligation to fund Hamas. You vote in terrorists, don't be surprised if foreign aid dries up.

Hint: nobody is more dangerous than someone who fears for his life and the lives of his family. Attacking Israel, a nation of people who were almost exterminated, is suicide.

It is undeniably true. The fact is, rather you agree with their tactics or not, and I don't, the people who flew those planes into those towers are freedom fighters to a vast population in the Muslim world. I call them terrorists, but a Palestinian calls them freedom fighters. That's just the way it is. I think they'd be more succesful were they to read a little bit about Mandela and Ghandi and Biko, but that doesn't change what they think.
If a vast number of people call a square a circle does that eliminate the corners?

the Israelis kill innocents on a daily basis for fun.
proof?

Uh huh. :rolleyes:



You don't need polls with posts like this. Time to readjust your white tinfoil Hood. Your idiocy is showing.
You have no clue what goes on there, so until you do, go away. Ever see an Israeli soldier use a Palestinian kid as target practice and laugh about it when they hit them? Didnt think so, this kind of shit goes on daily, and if you think the israelis are the victims in all this, you are sorely misguided.

You have no clue what goes on there, so until you do, go away. Ever see an Israeli soldier use a Palestinian kid as target practice and laugh about it when they hit them? Didnt think so, this kind of shit goes on daily, and if you think the israelis are the victims in all this, you are sorely misguided.
Have you ever seen such a thing? I don't think so.

Terrorists target civilians, while freedom fighters target combatants and those aiding the oppressors. It's a simple difference, logically sound and easy to remember.


Gandhi said it.


You don't think that civilian-killing brings freedom because you don't understand how it could. Thus you don't believe that bombers of civilians are freedom fighters.
No, I'm saying I think it's a dumb tactic, but I still consider them freedom-fighters.

You have no clue what goes on there, so until you do, go away. Ever see an Israeli soldier use a Palestinian kid as target practice and laugh about it when they hit them? Didnt think so, this kind of shit goes on daily, and if you think the israelis are the victims in all this, you are sorely misguided.
Uh huh.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/crazy2.gif

I call bullshit on that whole post.

Can they do it politically? Maybe. It requires that a government that 1, isn't corrupt, and 2, isn't dedicated to the destruction of Israel is elected. It also requires that such a government be willing to seriously crack down on terrorist organization in it's territory. So far no Palestinian group fits that description. If such a group emerges, it's possible politically.

No nation is under any obligation to fund Hamas. You vote in terrorists, don't be surprised if foreign aid dries up.

Hint: nobody is more dangerous than someone who fears for his life and the lives of his family. Attacking Israel, a nation of people who were almost exterminated, is suicide.
Oh ok, I see, elect a democractic government, but only one that the the west and in particular, Israel loves. And not one that reflects the will of the Palestinian people. That would work out great:rolleyes:

They arent terrorists and they do a lot of good for Palestinians. Of course I wouldnt expect you to know about that, to know about the oraphanages, schools, etc. that they have provided at a regional level for a long time that had made them popular in regional elections, now they can do this at a federal level.

If the west wants to dry up funds, fine. But they do this at their own peril. If Palestinian society can not function and people suffer because while Israel gets large sums of aid from the west, dont be surprised if even more people lash in more attacks not only on the illegal occupation forces, but also against other western nations.

Have you ever seen such a thing? I don't think so.
yeah, actually I have so dont me it doesnt happen

Oh ok, I see, elect a democractic government, but only one that the the west and in particular, Israel loves. And not one that reflects the will of the Palestinian people. That would work out great:rolleyes: And the will of the Palis it to kick out the ebil Joos. :rolleyes:
They arent terrorists and they do a lot of good for Palestinians. Of course I wouldnt expect you to know about that, to know about the oraphanages, schools, etc. that they have provided at a regional level for a long time that had made them popular in regional elections, now they can do this at a federal level.Yeah, and Al Capone gave a lot of money to his neighborhood too. So what? That gives you the right to kill innocents?
If the west wants to dry up funds, fine. But they do this at their own peril. If Palestinian society can not function and people suffer because while Israel gets large sums of aid from the west, dont be surprised if even more people lash in more attacks not only on the illegal occupation forces, but also against other western nations.
Lovely. I guess we should all pale at this wonderfully ethical threat to kill even MORE innocents, this time world wide. http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/crazy2.gif

Have you taken your meds recently?

yeah, actually I have so dont me it doesnt happen
Proof?

Your delusions don't count.

Oh ok, I see, elect a democractic government, but only one that the the west and in particular, Israel loves. And not one that reflects the will of the Palestinian people. That would work out great:rolleyes:

They arent terrorists and they do a lot of good for Palestinians. Of course I wouldnt expect you to know about that, to know about the oraphanages, schools, etc. that they have provided at a regional level for a long time that had made them popular in regional elections, now they can do this at a federal level.

If the west wants to dry up funds, fine. But they do this at their own peril. If Palestinian society can not function and people suffer because while Israel gets large sums of aid from the west, dont be surprised if even more people lash in more attacks not only on the illegal occupation forces, but also against other western nations.
Don't assume anything about me. I know a bit about Hamas. I know that it's an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and that it runs charities and schools like Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I also know that Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are very anti-secular theocratic organizations that support violence in the cause of spreading Islam. I know that Hamas doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist and that Hamas members joke that they have a "thousand year plan" to eliminate the nation of Israel. That means they're willing to work as long as it takes to destroy Israel.

Hamas is a charity, but it's also a terrorist organization that sees killing Israeli civilians as it's right. The Palestinians chose to vote for them, and they're in power. The west has no obligation, however, to fund such an organization any more than we were obliged to trade with South Africa under apartheid.

You said "dont be surprised if even more people lash in more attacks not only on the illegal occupation forces, but also against other western nations". So what? Let them. We'll stand up for our allies against terrorists.

Proof?

Your delusions don't count.

You know he doesn't have proof. He'll probably ignore this post or make up some story that has no credibility.

yeah, actually I have so dont me it doesnt happen
If it happens on occasion Israel disciplines the criminal. When a palestinian terrorist sniper kills a woman and her children he's treated like a hero.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelpalestineterrorism127691.html

If it happens on occasion Israel disciplines the criminal. When a palestinian terrorist sniper kills a woman and her children he's treated like a hero.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelpalestineterrorism127691.html
Now now DCD. You know you aren't allowed to cite a Jooooish news source. :rolleyes:

You know he doesn't have proof. He'll probably ignore this post or make up some story that has no credibility.
He know's it's true. He read it in his signed copy of the Protocols of Zion. :rolleyes:

You know he doesn't have proof. He'll probably ignore this post or make up some story that has no credibility.
You want proof? fine give me a sec
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/erasevideo.html Im going to find more.

You want proof? fine give me a sec
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/erasevideo.html Im going to find more.

Okay, cool. That's right, find it.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
Wel... yeah.. I guess I do. If I had been born in the mid east I'd be dead or in Iraq fighting the Americans right about know. Odd isn't it? Oh well kill them all.
edit
By them I mean the terrorists.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi


I don't think Gandhi ever said anything like that. The word terrorist was not even in vogue during his times.

Regardless of who said that, the phrase itself has become a useful tool in obfuscating the issues of terrorism by engaging in relativism.

The correct saying is

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..

You kill unarmed non-combatants to further your cause, you are a terrorist, no matter what your cause is.

I don't think Gandhi ever said anything like that. The word terrorist was not even in vogue during his times.

Regardless of who said that, the phrase itself has become a useful tool in obfuscating the issues of terrorism by engaging in relativism.

The correct saying is

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..

You kill unarmed non-combatants to further your cause, you are a terrorist, no matter what your cause is.
In your opinion.

here's another one http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4C7EE88-101A-4633-85C7-ECFD909E9BA8.htm
and some more...
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/02/15/handicapped-palestinian-child-killed-by-israeli-troops-really/
dont tell me I dont proof. I have seen more graphic stuff than this, but I those links are hard to find and I dont think I can show them on here

You want proof? fine give me a sec
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/erasevideo.html Im going to find more.

You make it seem like because Israelis go over and shoot these children, Hamas was created. I think Hamas created these Israeli war criminals. After years and years of seeing your own people slaughtered, I can understand why the Israeli soldiers did that, given, it is not right, but I can understand.

Was Washington’s insurgency raid against a British garrison, after they were sleeping off Christmas celebrations anything more than a terrorist act? Such a raid today against a US garrison by Iraqis might well be labelled as a terrorist act.

Were acts of butchery by irregulars during the Civil War against civilian populations anything more than state sponsored terrorism? The US referred to the Mujahideen, the same kind of people who are now considered terrorists, as freedom fighters when they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. When Jewish settlers conducted terrorist acts against the British occupation of Palestine, they certainly thought of themselves as freedom fighters. And then when the Palestinians fought them they became terrorists. Labels like terrorist and freedom fighter are all spin. What it comes down to is desperate people driven to extreme measures against the people they see as their oppressors.

here's another one http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4C7EE88-101A-4633-85C7-ECFD909E9BA8.htm
and some more...
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/02/15/handicapped-palestinian-child-killed-by-israeli-troops-really/
dont tell me I dont proof. I have seen more graphic stuff than this, but I those links are hard to find and I dont think I can show them on here

Funny how you said every day. From that number on the video, it seems like they are isolated events. And also, how the fuck were the Israeli soldiers supposed to know that toy gun wasn't real? It's not like they really have a chance to go up and inspect it. Jesus.

You make it seem like because Israelis go over and shoot these children, Hamas was created. I think Hamas created these Israeli war criminals. After years and years of seeing your own people slaughtered, I can understand why the Israeli soldiers did that, given, it is not right, but I can understand.
Bullshit, dont try to justify Israeli warcrimes. Hamas, other resistance groups, the intifada, all spawned from the illegal occupation and of crimes that I have shown. understand history and the situation before you try to protect the occupiers.

Think of it this way, when the Revolutionary war was happening the British though of the revolutionary army (some what like the insurgeancy in Iraq) as cowardly and just plain annoying. The Americans thought of them as heroes and liberators.

It all depends on your point of view.

Errrr...no. Actually about a 1/3 of Americans were considered Patriots, 1/3 Tories and the remainder didn't care either way.

Other than some irregulars, the vast majority of the Colonial Army was modeled after the Brits and adhered to the conduct of war at the time and fought standup battles. It was hardly on par with the insurgency in Iraq or any other 'insurgency' for that matter.

here's another one http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4C7EE88-101A-4633-85C7-ECFD909E9BA8.htm
and some more...
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/02/15/handicapped-palestinian-child-killed-by-israeli-troops-really/
dont tell me I dont proof. I have seen more graphic stuff than this, but I those links are hard to find and I dont think I can show them on here
Hmmm. A Blog, a self referential activist site and Aljazeera.

Yep. I'm convinced. The Web Tells All. The Truth about the Ebil Joos and their Conspiracy has been embedded in my consciousness by an anonymous Moonbat on a Forum. :rolleyes:

Try again.

Funny how you said every day. From that number on the video, it seems like they are isolated events. And also, how the fuck were the Israeli soldiers supposed to know that toy gun wasn't real? It's not like they really have a chance to go up and inspect it. Jesus.
It does happen everyday, just not always reported. Im sure I could find links of edvince all day long, but I do have other things to do.

Question: How does killing women and children aid in bringing freedom?

Well the prevailing concept is that if you kill enough of them, they'll pull out of the West Bank and Gaza. I guess in one respect it's working.

Hmmm. A Blog, a self referential activist site and Aljazeera.

Yep. I'm convinced. The Web Tells All. The Truth about the Ebil Joos and their Conspiracy has been embedded in my consciousness by an anonymous Moonbat on a Forum. :rolleyes:

Try again.
Jesus Christ, you think the fucking western news is going to cover this? Of course not they are too baised to Israel, so dont play that game. It was the AP who refused to show that video, remember? Why do you think that is? Its not a conspiracy, its fact whether you accept that or not, Im sure you wont because you want Israel to fit into your little worldview that they do nothing wrong. Grow up and stop that "ebil Joos" bull.

Well the prevailing concept is that if you kill enough of them, they'll pull out of the West Bank and Gaza. I guess in one respect it's working.
of course it is, Israel and its people are weak, without the US they would have been destroyed long ago.

Bullshit, dont try to justify Israeli warcrimes. Hamas, other resistance groups, the intifada, all spawned from the illegal occupation and of crimes that I have shown. understand history and the situation before you try to protect the occupiers.
Don't try to justify Hamas war crimes either. Both groups have blood on their hands, but only the Palestinians make up massacres to win public support, as they did in Jenin. Also the Palestininas almost exclusively target civilians, while Israel tends to target members of terrorist organizations.

The Nazis called them terrorists...but we wouldn't want to agree with them...

Actually the Nazis called them partisans. Actually created a badge for troops who particpated in anti-partisan operations. It was called the Anti-Partisan badge not the Anti-terrorist badge.

The vast majority of partisan groups in WW2 were focused directly on attacking the German armed forces or disrupting their lines of supply and communication. Quite different than say, self detonating yourself on a bus loaded with civilians.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?

Perspective is everything. By definition, a terrorist attacks civilian targets and a freedom fighter attacks "the machine". However, I'm sure that any given separatist is feeling little or not guilt for any dead members of the civilian population of the country they are trying to split from. Civilian casualties are "collateral damage"(Colin Powell), after all.
Certainly, Ghandi has a point.

Jesus Christ, you think the fucking western news is going to cover this? Of course not they are too baised to Israel, so dont play that game. It was the AP who refused to show that video, remember? Why do you think that is? Its not a conspiracy, its fact whether you accept that or not, Im sure you wont because you want Israel to fit into your little worldview that they do nothing wrong. Grow up and stop that "ebil Joos" bull.Have you ever read the Hamas Charter? They aren't doing this to have a state, they are physically attempting to drive the Jews, not "Israel" but the Jews, into the sea.

That is what you are supporting. The continued attempt to exterminate a group of people because of their religion &/or ethnicity, NOT to overthrow the occupiers.

But anyway, if you love the PA & Hamas so much, why don't you go over there and join St. Pancake in pathetically dying for the cause of genocide. :upyours:

of course it is, Israel and its people are weak, without the US they would have been destroyed long ago.

Actually you might want to take some of your own advice and read a little history because Israel pretty much won every war they were in without US support which really only came in earnest in the form of free military aid after the Egypt/Israeli peace accord in the late 1970s.

Prior to that, the biggest arms supplies to the Israelis were the French and Brits. 1948, Israel wins. 1956, Israel was on the way to Cario when they were forced to pull back due to diplomatic pressure. 1967, major win against three Arab nations. Essentially destroyed the Egyptian airforce in a matter of hours. 1973, another win althought it was a close one mainly because they were caught sleeping.

In none of these wars did Israel receive any direct support from the US or anyone else. Oh sure they were supplied with Western arms but then again, the Arab states were lavished with Soviet arms so that point is moot.

The Israelis are hardly weak and probably pound for pound has one of the best fighting forces on the planet. Talk to anyone who has participated in maneuvers with them.

Nice try anyway.

<snip>

He's a troll. Don't get worked up.

I don’t have much respect for Hamas. They were a group backed by Israel to undermine the PLO and Israel lost control of them (sound familiar like the Mujahideen?). I think understanding the origins of these groups helps understand the mess today that a bunch of screw ups help make possible yesterday.

"Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Islamist movement in Palestine, returning from Cairo in the seventies, established an Islamic charity association. Prime Minister Golda Meir, saw this as a an opportunity to counterbalance the rise of Arafat’s Fatah movement. .According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad."

The Islamists set up orphanages and health clinics, as well as a network of schools, workshops which created employment for women as well as system of financial aid to the poor. And in 1978, they created an "Islamic University" in Gaza. "The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza." At the end of 1992, there were six hundred mosques in Gaza. Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) , the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression.

In 1984, Ahmed Yassin was arrested and condemned to twelve years in prison, after the discovery of a hidden arms cache. But one year later, he was set free and resumed his activities. And when the Intifada (‘uprising’) began, in October 1987, which took the Islamists by surprise, Sheik Yassin responded by creating the Hamas (The Islamic Resistance Movement): "God is our beginning, the prophet our model, the Koran our constitution", proclaims article 7 of the charter of the organization.

Ahmed Yassin was in prison when, the Oslo accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government) were signed in September 1993. The Hamas had rejected Oslo outright. But at that time, 70% of Palestinians had condemned the attacks on Israeli civilians. Yassin did everything in his power to undermine the Oslo accords. Even prior to Prime Minister Rabin’s death, he had the support of the Israeli government. The latter was very reluctant to implement the peace agreement.

The Hamas then launched a carefully timed campaign of attacks against civilians, one day before the meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, regarding the formal recognition of Israel by the National Palestinian Council. These events were largely instrumental in the formation of a Right wing Israeli government following the May 1996 elections.

Quite unexpectedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered Sheik Ahmed Yassin to be released from prison ("on humanitarian grounds") where he was serving a life sentence. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, together with President Bill Clinton, was putting pressure on Arafat to control the Hamas. In fact, Netanyahu knew that he could rely, once more, on the Islamists to sabotage the Oslo accords. Worse still: after having expelled Yassin to Jordan, Prime Minister Netanyahu allowed him to return to Gaza, where he was welcomed triumphantly as a hero in October 1997.

Arafat was helpless in the face of these events. Moreover, because he had supported Saddam Hussein during the1991 Gulf war, (while the Hamas had cautiously abstained from taking sides), the Gulf states decided to cut off their financing of the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, between February and April 1998, Sheik Ahmad Yassin was able to raise several hundred million dollars, from those same countries. The the budget of The Hamas was said to be greater than that of the Palestinian Authority. These new sources of funding enabled the Islamists to effectively pursue their various charitable activities. It is estimated that one Palestinian out of three is the recipient of financial aid from the Hamas. And in this regard, Israel has done nothing to curb the inflow of money into the occupied territories.

The Hamas had built its strength through its various acts of sabotage of the peace process, in a way which was compatible with the interests of the Israeli government. In turn, the latter sought in a number of ways, to prevent the application of the Oslo accords. In other words, Hamas was fulfilling the functions for which it was originally created: to prevent the creation of a Palestinian State. And in this regard, Hamas and Ariel Sharon, see eye to eye; they are exactly on the same wave length."

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

Don't try to justify Hamas war crimes either. Both groups have blood on their hands, but only the Palestinians make up massacres to win public support, as they did in Jenin. Also the Palestininas almost exclusively target civilians, while Israel tends to target members of terrorist organizations.
They dont have to make up massacres when the Israelis are so willing to them carry them out for real. Israelis target civilians just as much as anyone else.

Have you ever read the Hamas Charter? They aren't doing this to have a state, they are physically attempting to drive the Jews, not "Israel" but the Jews, into the sea.

That is what you are supporting. The continued attempt to exterminate a group of people because of their religion &/or ethnicity, NOT to overthrow the occupiers.

But anyway, if you love the PA & Hamas so much, why don't you go over there and join St. Pancake in pathetically dying for the cause of genocide. :upyours:
They just want a state, everything else they say is just hot air. Their leaders have stated recently that all they want is state and have they will even recognize Israel once they end their illegal occupation.

I doubt the Israelis would let me in even if I wanted to.

Was Washington’s insurgency raid against a British garrison, after they were sleeping off Christmas celebrations anything more than a terrorist act? Such a raid today against a US garrison by Iraqis might well be labelled as a terrorist act.

You're kidding right? The Colonial army at the time and even by today's standards was a recognized standing army. They engaged Hessian mercenaries and won in a fair fight and took them prisoner not behead them yelling God is Great.

Were acts of butchery by irregulars during the Civil War against civilian populations anything more than state sponsored terrorism?

Well I would argue that the irregulars you refer to were not under the mandate of either government but were nothing more than loose formations of individuals who had a vested interest in thier respective sides.

The US referred to the Mujahideen, the same kind of people who are now considered terrorists, as freedom fighters when they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Well again where you're fighting against a military target you're considered a combatant as opposed to a terrorist who specifically targets the civilian population.


Labels like terrorist and freedom fighter are all spin. What it comes down to is desperate people driven to extreme measures against the people they see as their oppressors.

Well its spin if you want it to be. I don't understand why it is so hard to make a distinction between the two. Attacking military forces to rid yourself of an occupying power is IMO, acting as a legitimate combatant. When you avoid the military and go blow up a coffee shop, that's being a terrorist. It really isn't rocket science.

He's a troll. Don't get worked up.

Oh I knew that but I couldn't resist giving a history lesson anyway. :p

Actually you might want to take some of your own advice and read a little history because Israel pretty much won every war they were in without US support which really only came in earnest in the form of free military aid after the Egypt/Israeli peace accord in the late 1970s.

Prior to that, the biggest arms supplies to the Israelis were the French and Brits. 1948, Israel wins. 1956, Israel was on the way to Cario when they were forced to pull back due to diplomatic pressure. 1967, major win against three Arab nations. Essentially destroyed the Egyptian airforce in a matter of hours. 1973, another win althought it was a close one mainly because they were caught sleeping.

In none of these wars did Israel receive any direct support from the US or anyone else. Oh sure they were supplied with Western arms but then again, the Arab states were lavished with Soviet arms so that point is moot.

The Israelis are hardly weak and probably pound for pound has one of the best fighting forces on the planet. Talk to anyone who has participated in maneuvers with them.

Nice try anyway.
Do really think without the 15million dollars a day the US gives, or the F-16s, or the M-16s, or all the times the US has blocked UN resolutions that target Israel, that they would be the "country" they are now? please.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
Well not everything can be slapped a color of either black or white and everything fits under that wide umbrella.

I mean, I don't see how one can justifiably say "Yeah, that man beheading that defenseless and unarmed 50 year old man is fighting for my justice."

Now if it was a simple, "Yeah, that man that killed that American is fighting for my freedom..." then it's understandable.

Bullshit, dont try to justify Israeli warcrimes. Hamas, other resistance groups, the intifada, all spawned from the illegal occupation and of crimes that I have shown. understand history and the situation before you try to protect the occupiers.
Who, are the "occupiers"? How is it illegal? You have shown precicely Jack. How about a history lesson?

Palestine 101:

1917: British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour makes the following declaration in a letter to Lord Rothschild:

"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object."

1922: The U.S. Congress passes a resolution supporting the Balfour Declaration.

1922: Great Britain administers the area referred to as "Palestine" – which includes present day Jordan – following the defeat of Turkey in the First World War.

1922-1946: Great Britain divides Palestine in two, intending for the territory west of the Jordan River to be a Jewish state and the area east to be an Arab state.

1947: The United Nations approves by a 2/3 majority the British proposal to create a Jewish and an Arab State. However, unlike the original British proposal, the Jewish State would only exist in a fraction of the land west of the Jordan and the Negev Desert. Jerusalem was designated as an "International City."

1948 The Creation of the State of Israel: The Zionist movement accepted the U.N. plan to divide the area historically referred to as "Palestine" into a Jewish and an Arab nation. The Arabs rejected the plan and immediately attacked Israel.

1948: Israel proclaims its independence. Within 24 hours, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq attacked. The newly formed, poorly equipped Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repulses the invaders in fierce intermittent fighting, which lasts some 15 months and claims over 6,000 Israeli lives (nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time).

1949: Fighting ends. According to the resulting armistice agreements, the coastal plain, Galilee and the entire Negev falls within Israel's sovereignty. Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) come under Jordanian rule, and the Gaza Strip comes under Egyptian administration. The international community refuses to recognize Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Jerusalem is divided, with Jordan controlling the eastern part, including the Old City, and Israel the western sector. (The line demarcating the Arab and Jewish cease-fire positions is today referred to as the "Green Line." It was never intended to serve as an international border.)

1949-1956: The 1949 armistice agreements are constantly violated by the surrounding Arab nations. Israeli shipping is prevented from passing through the Suez Canal; the blockade of the Straits of Tiran tightens; incursions into Israel of terrorist squads from neighboring Arab countries occurs with increasing frequency; and the Sinai peninsula is the scene of a huge Egyptian military build-up.

1955: Egypt seals off access to the Israeli port of Eilat, effectively stopping Israel's sea trade with much of Africa and the Far East. On July 26, 1956 Egyptian President Nasser announced Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal, most of whose shares were held by Britain and France. Britain, France, and Israel launch a military operation in the Sinai Peninsula. Four and a half months later, on March 16, 1957, Israel withdraws her troops from the Sinai and Gaza Strip after receiving international reassurances that Israel's vital waterways would remain open. 3,300 United Nations troops replace them. Despite Israel's withdrawal, the Egyptians refuse to open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping.

1967 The Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars: Israel Survives and Ends Up in Control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Faced with imminent attack and actions that legally constituted acts of war, Israel was forced to take pre-emptive action against numerically superior forces. The result was that Israel ended up in military control of Jerusalem and many areas that had never been part of any state.

1967: Israel is faced with Arab terrorist raids across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, persistent Syrian artillery bombardment, and massive military build-ups by the neighboring Arab states. Egypt moves troops into the Sinai desert, expels the UN peacekeeping forces, blockades the Straits of Tiran and enters into a military alliance with Jordan. In response, Israel launches pre-emptive strikes against Egypt and then Syria. Despite Israeli pleas, Jordan belatedly joins Egyptian and Syrian war efforts. When the war is over, Israel controls Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Jerusalem, divided since 1949, is reunified under the Israeli flag.

1968: Egypt initiates a 'war of attrition', with sporadic, static actions along the banks of the Suez Canal, which escalates into full-scale, localized fighting, causing heavy casualties on both sides. Hostilities end in 1970 when Egypt and Israel accept a renewed cease-fire along the Suez Canal.

1973: On Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Egypt and Syria launch a coordinated surprise assault against Israel. In three weeks, the Israel Defense Forces turn the tide of battle and repulse the attackers, crossing the Suez Canal into Egypt and advancing to within 20 miles of Damascus. After two years of negotiations, a cease-fire was agreed upon and Israel withdraws from parts of the territories captured during the war.

Israel Strives for Peace with Arab States and Palestinians. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO that were supposed to permanently end the Arab-Israel conflict. There has never been any serious attempt by any Palestinian leader to reign in terrorist groups.

1977: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visits Jerusalem. The visit was followed in 1978 by the Camp David Accords. The accords brought the 30-year state of war between Israel and Egypt to an end. In accordance with the terms of the treaty, Israel withdraws from the Sinai Peninsula, exchanging former ceasefire lines and armistice agreements for mutually recognized international boundaries.

1982: The Palestine Liberation Organization perpetrates repeated terrorist actions against northern Israel from Lebanon. The Israel Defense Forces cross into Lebanon ("Operation Peace for Galilee"). The defeated PLO is forced to relocate to Tunisia.

1987: The PLO launches the first Intifada. Over the next four years, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. Under Arafat's direction, the violence eventually turned inward against suspected "collaborators." Nearly 1,000 Palestinians were killed by PLO-inspired violence during this period.

1993: "Oslo" Accords. Declaration of Principles (DOP) between Israel and the PLO signed in Oslo. The PLO renounces the use of terrorism, pledges to invalidate those articles in its Covenant denying Israel's right to exist and commits itself to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In return, Israel recognizes the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and begins withdrawing military forces from the main Palestinian population centers.

1994: Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan signed in the presence of U.S. President Bill Clinton.

1995: Beginning of a wave of suicide bomb attacks which claim hundreds of lives throughout Israel.

2000: Israel completes withdrawal of all military forces from the Security Zone in Southern Lebanon.

2000: President Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat attend a summit at Camp David in July 2000 to resume peace negotiations. Barak offers to withdraw from most of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem. Arafat rejects Barak's offer and makes no counter-proposal.

2000: Under Arafat's leadership, the Palestinians initiate a new Intifada, a campaign of indiscriminate terror and violence, causing heavy loss of life and suffering to both sides. Numerous efforts to end the violent confrontation and renew the peace process fail due to the ongoing and escalating Palestinian terrorism supported by the Palestinian Authority.

2003: Israel accepts the "Road Map to Peace", accompanied by comments that Israel considers integral to its implementation and a U.S. commitment to address these comments.

Lacking Palestinian "Peace Partner", Israel Takes Unilateral Steps to Achieve a Separation Between Israelis and Palestinians.

2003: Israel begins to construct a security barrier to prevent terrorist infiltration.

2005: Israel withdraws from all settlements in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the northern West Bank. Israeli military forces are completely removed from Gaza.

2005-2006: Hundreds of Kassam rockets are fired from land Israel handed over to the Palestinians in Gaza.

2005: Iranian President threatens to "wipe Israel off the map." Affirms that Iranian nuclear program will continue in the face of international opposition.

2006: Hamas Terrorist Organization wins elections for Palestinian Authority legislature. Pledges not to recognize Israel or halt violent attacks. Vows to create Islamic society to liberate all of Palestine. Embraces Iran.

---------------------

So, Mr. UN Ambassador Troll, Why isn't the Intefada attacking the Brits or the UN for their plight? Could it be because it has nothing to do with borders and everything to do with hating Jews?

They dont have to make up massacres when the Israelis are so willing to them carry them out for real. Israelis target civilians just as much as anyone else.
Are you denying that the Jenin "massacre" was faked?

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/jenin.htm
The link has footnotes for its facts.

They just want a state, everything else they say is just hot air.

Bullshit. I've already proven that false.

Their leaders have stated recently that all they want is state and have they will even recognize Israel once they end their illegal occupation.Wait, I thought you just said everything they say is hot air. Which is it?
I doubt the Israelis would let me in even if I wanted to.
Too bad. I'm sure you would make a lovely suicide bomber.

Take the IRA for example. From the British, and even some Irish, perspectives they are/were terrorists. From their perspective, they were freedom fighters.As someone from Belfast who witnessed some of their acts, I see them as terrorists - and I loosely support Irish unity. Without wanting to generalise, I think your average person on the Northern Ireland street, regardless of their political or religious affliation, probably agrees...though of course diehard republicans are unlikely to share that sentiment. In fairness, the Provisional IRA at least were more likely to attack the British armed forces and the then RUC than civilians, but regardless of their positions as agents of the British state, they were still human beings.

Then, I come from the marriage of a Catholic and a Protestant (moderately nationalist father, slightly unionist mother - interesting combination in 1960s NI), so perhaps that taught me to see things from both sides. I did go through a phase of blind support for what the IRA were doing when I was very young (and incapable of completely understanding it), but over the past number of years, I've grown to have as much contempt for them as their loyalist counterparts. As far as I'm concerned, the whole lot of them are terrorists.

Actually you might want to take some of your own advice and read a little history because Israel pretty much won every war they were in without US support which really only came in earnest in the form of free military aid after the Egypt/Israeli peace accord in the late 1970s.

Prior to that, the biggest arms supplies to the Israelis were the French and Brits. 1948, Israel wins. 1956, Israel was on the way to Cario when they were forced to pull back due to diplomatic pressure. 1967, major win against three Arab nations. Essentially destroyed the Egyptian airforce in a matter of hours. 1973, another win althought it was a close one mainly because they were caught sleeping.

In none of these wars did Israel receive any direct support from the US or anyone else. Oh sure they were supplied with Western arms but then again, the Arab states were lavished with Soviet arms so that point is moot.

The Israelis are hardly weak and probably pound for pound has one of the best fighting forces on the planet. Talk to anyone who has participated in maneuvers with them.

Nice try anyway.

Facts regarding US transfers and financing of Israel

In 1997 Israel officially receives 3 billion plus another 525 million beyond that from the foreign aid budget and the US gov threw in another 2 billion in Federal Loan Guarantees. So really the number is actually closer to 5.5 billion. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has these figures for review. Israel also receives these yearly transfers in the first 30 days of the fiscal year instead of the 3-4 payment installments like all other foreign aid by the US. AID officials have estimated that it costs the US an additional 50-60 million to borrow funds to provide Israel with this lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, as opposed to a installment payment plan. There was another 10 billion in government backed loans sent to Israel to settle the large migrations of Russian and Ethiopian immigrants. It should be noted that a lot of these government backed loans have the repayment waived including this 10 billion (actually the Israelis only actually spent just over 9 billion of this allocated amount).

On top of this money the US government frequently tosses in extra funds to support the Israeli arms industry and additional defence programs. Between 1988-2000, the US gov gave 628 million to help with the Arrow anti-missile system, plus an additional 53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program, and 139 million to develop the high energy laser anti-missile system in a related project. Clinton added 50 million to fund the Arrow program in 1996 and another 45 million to this in 1998. Another 107 million to help develop the Merkava tank; 1.3 billion to help develop the Lavi aircraft and then were given 450 million by the US to help pay for cancelled contracts of that failed project; plus another 1.2 billion to help fund the Wye program. In 2000, Clinton allocated an additional 450 million tossed at Israel, 250 million of which was earmarked to aid in Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.

The US gives about The closest part of having a condition to their billions transferred every year to Israel from the US is that they not share US military technology bought with 3rd parties, but have since been charged with sharing tech with Lebanon, Ethiopia, China, South Africa, and others (this includes a 1992 investigation into transferring patriot missile tech to China). The last time a US President, Clinton, even considered questioning this sacred budget cow the strong voting block of Jewish Americans were on him so fast he backed away from the idea of placing conditions or lowering the amount as fast as he could, under immense political pressure. There is a similar problem regarding relations with Cuba and the ex-pat Cuban voting block in Florida.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/11062.pdf

The Bruce

They just want a state, everything else they say is just hot air. Their leaders have stated recently that all they want is state and have they will even recognize Israel once they end their illegal occupation.

I doubt the Israelis would let me in even if I wanted to.
No, they've never said that they will recognize Israel. What they've said is that a temporary truce can be made if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders. They've never mentioned that they would recognize Israel's right to exist.

Do really think without the 15million dollars a day the US gives, or the F-16s, or the M-16s, or all the times the US has blocked UN resolutions that target Israel, that they would be the "country" they are now? please.
Israel, despite Arab boycotts and Arab pressure on other nations not to trade with them, has developed a high-tech economy. The computer you're using right now probably has software in it that was developed in Israel.

Israel, despite Arab boycotts and Arab pressure on other nations not to trade with them, has developed a high-tech economy. The computer you're using right now probably has software in it that was developed in Israel.
Because of all the US aid.

Because of all the US aid.
Alot of nations recieve US aid. Egypt, Jordan, and other middle eastern nations as well. Plus some of those nations have natural resources like oil. Israel has few natural resources, is boycotted and threatened by it's neighbors, yet still manages to produce and patent new inventions.

Because of all the US aid.

and the fact that Israel has great institutes of science, e.g. at Haifa.

Snyiks:
Who, are the "occupiers"? How is it illegal?
Israel occupies Palestinian land builds settlements illegally. This has been deemed illegal by the international community numerous times.

1947: The United Nationsapproves by a 2/3 majority the British proposal to create a Jewish and an Arab State. However, unlike the original British proposal, the Jewish State would only exist in a fraction of the land west of the Jordan and the Negev Desert. Jerusalem was designated as an "International City."

1948 The Creation of the State of Israel: The Zionist movement accepted the U.N. plan to divide the area historically referred to as "Palestine" into a Jewish and an Arab nation. The Arabs rejected the plan and immediately attacked Israel.
Israel has just 6% of the land prior, and the UN gave them 56% of land. Is this fair? would you accept this if you were the Arabs? Of course they attacked them, Israel was on their land.


2003: Israel begins to construct a security barrier to prevent terrorist infiltration.
Actually, its a land grab and has been deemed illegal by the international community and the Israeli surpreme court.

2006: Hamas Terrorist Organization wins elections for Palestinian Authority legislature. Pledges not to recognize Israel or halt violent attacks. Vows to create Islamic society to liberate all of Palestine. Embraces Iran.
"Past statements by assassinated Hamas leader Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi pointed to an acceptance of Israel within its borders before 1967, in return for ending the armed struggle and Hamas' recognition of Israel." to quote the BBC or

"The mere fact of their taking seats in the Palestinian parliament - a body formed under PLO auspices in the context of the Oslo peace process - can be taken as de facto acceptance of Israel." again, bbc

So, Mr. UN Ambassador Troll, Why isn't the Intefada attacking the Brits or the UN for their plight? Could it be because it has nothing to do with borders and everything to do with hating Jews?
Actually they did, as did the Jews. To quote NPR;"Underground armed Jewish groups began to attack the British army."

The US referred to the Mujahideen, the same kind of people who are now considered terrorists, as freedom fighters when they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

What is so [deleted] hard in understanding that it is not terrorism when you fight against an armed force but it is terrorism when you blow up unarmed non-combatants.

And for the nth frigging time mujahideen != taliban. Just because both the groups have some people in common, does not make mujahideen = taliban.

Alot of nations recieve US aid. Egypt, Jordan, and other middle eastern nations as well. Plus some of those nations have natural resources like oil. Israel has few natural resources, is boycotted and threatened by it's neighbors, yet still manages to produce and patent new inventions.
Not nearly as much as Israel, come on, you know that. You basically ignored my response of US assistance and just claimed that since they dont trade with poor, arabs nations, they must be able to exsist all by themselves. Thats bull, you know it and I know it, but if thats the way you want to spin it to make Israel look good, fine, whatever lets you sleep at night.

What is so [deleted] hard in understanding that it is not terrorism when you fight against an armed force but it is terrorism when you blow up unarmed non-combatants.

And for the nth frigging time mujahideen != taliban. Just because both the groups have some people in common, does not make mujahideen = taliban.

it is not terrorism when you blow up unarmed non-combatants, unless you're on the side with unarmed non-combatants. otherwise it is freedom fighting. these are flipside terms of the same political coin.

Terrorism:
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=139946&Sn=WORL&IssueID=29015
BAGHDAD: More than 10 people were killed and 30 injured in a truck bomb blast near a Shi'ite mosque in northeastern Baghdad last night.

The blast happened at about 8pm as worshippers left the Al Shroofi mosque after evening prayer in the mostly Shi'ite neighbourhood of Shaab, police Captain Ali Al Obaidi said.

The truck, which was carrying dates, was driven by a suicide bomber, he said.

"Freedom Fighting":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3674478
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. soldier was fatally wounded and two others were hurt in a blast near the flashpoint Iraqi town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Friday. It was the second confirmed death of a U.S. soldier in about 24 hours as Iraqi rebels stepped up their resistance to a massive counteroffensive the U.S.-led coalition launched last month.

Simple enough, isn't it?

Because of all the US aid.

The Israeli developments in the high tech sector and industry are not all the result of US government aid (despite having the most generous foreign aid package in the World), they have a lot to do with religious and cultural migration from nations that have developed high tech sectors and industry. There is a lot of immigration to Israel from the US and other first world nations, by the Jewish community. Some of these immigrants only live there part time (some even just to do their service in the IDF, despite being citizens of a foreign state).

The rest of the Arab community tends to have people trying to flee the poverty to get economic opportunities in the West. There is not a large, sustained immigration driven by the Arab community to return to the Promised Land and make it better. The Arab States do not have the advantage of the singular cultural-religious immigration driving force to sustain them the way Israel does. Arab States are more likely to suffer a brain drain, because of people trying to escape dictatorships (usually puppets established by colonial powers or the result of violent revolutions against the puppets of colonial powers) to gain some sense of free speech.

The Bruce

Are you denying that the Jenin "massacre" was faked?

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/jenin.htm
The link has footnotes for its facts.
"Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one.

Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank." To quote the BBC.

Edvince of massacres by the Israelis is all over place, this is just one of them. Even if as you claim, the Jenin massacre was "fake" you cant deny the many other real massacres where many died at the hands of the Israelis.

What is so [deleted] hard in understanding that it is not terrorism when you fight against an armed force but it is terrorism when you blow up unarmed non-combatants.

And for the nth frigging time mujahideen != taliban. Just because both the groups have some people in common, does not make mujahideen = taliban.

Do you really believe that the Mujahideen only targeted Soviet military targets and did not wage a harsh terror campaign against the civilian population in Afghanistan? I don't think that there are many instances of guerrilla warfare where the civilians were ever left out of the killing, by either side. It never seems to work out that way. It's the nature of the beast.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?

No. If you want to be freedom fighter, fine. Stick with targets of legitimate military significance. Intentionally targeting civilians is dishonorable cowardice.
Besides which, before starting a career as a "freedom fighter", you had better be darn sure that your cause is just, and don't hide behind your religion

You don't think that civilian-killing brings freedom because you don't understand how it could. Thus you don't believe that bombers of civilians are freedom fighters.

The effectiveness of the tactic is irrelevant, ethically, it is murder

Do you really believe that the Mujahideen only targeted Soviet military targets and did not wage a harsh terror campaign against the civilian population in Afghanistan?

before 1989 and the Soviet withdrawal - yes, most of the mujahideen activities were carried against the soviet and the army of the soviet puppet. Sure there was intimidation and coercion of the population here and there, but no targetted killings of civilians.

Now the events after 1989, the formation of taliban after the failure of Gulbudin Hekmatyar to capture Kabul, and the actions of the taliban against the ethnic Hazaras etc etc......those are entirely different matters.....and the taliban was an entirely different org than the mujahideen that fought the soviets....the taliban was a proxy foisted on the Afghans by the Paki establishment....the obfuscation of the issue by equating the muhahideen as taliban is a propoganda that many in the west have bought..

Simple enough, isn't it?

Apparenty not for some who insist in finding moral equalism between targetted and intentional killing of an armed combatant and an unarmed civilian.

before 1989 and the Soviet withdrawal - yes, most of the mujahideen activities were carried against the soviet and the army of the soviet puppet. Sure there was intimidation and coercion of the population here and there, but no targetted killings of civilians.

Now the events after 1989, the formation of taliban after the failure of Gulbudin Hekmatyar to capture Kabul, and the actions of the taliban against the ethnic Hazaras etc etc......those are entirely different matters.....and the taliban was an entirely different org than the mujahideen that fought the soviets....the taliban was a proxy foisted on the Afghans by the Paki establishment....the obfuscation of the issue by equating the muhahideen as taliban is a propoganda that many in the west have bought..

The Taliban came directly from the religious schools established by the Mujahideen. Bin Laden wasn’t Taliban, he was Mujahideen.

The Taliban came directly from the religious schools established by the Mujahideen. Bin Laden wasn’t Taliban, he was Mujahideen.
That's an interesting way of putting it...

The "Taliban", as I understand it, are just one particular religious group. Some of them were fighting among the Mudjahedeen (which is just the word for a religious fighter), of which Bin Laden was one.

When the Soviets were kicked out, the different factions that had fought them started turning on themselves. The Taliban came out on top, while other groups kept resisting and ultimately became what we know as the "Northern Alliance".

"Freedom fighter" is killing good guys accidentally, while "terrorist" is doing it on purpose.

I hate when I accidentally kill thirty thousand people, don't you?

The Taliban came directly from the religious schools established by the Mujahideen. Bin Laden wasn’t Taliban, he was Mujahideen.

No.

Taliban came from the religious school called Deoband. The "father of Taliban" is a Pakistani mullah. Go figure that one out.

The Mujahideen consisted of several prominent non-Pushtoon fighters like Massoud of the Panjshir valley and several ethnic Uzbeki and Tajiki militia and many of them viewed it as a nationalistic struggle.

The taliban was not even formed as a group until Paki backed Hekmatyar could not take Kabul. It was only after that taliban was formed. Just because the taliban had in its ranks many pushtun fighters who were mujahideen some years back, DOES NOT mean that the taliban were freedom fighters.

Bin Laden was a guest fighter. His and his fellow Arab fighters contribution to the Afghan jihad is overblown.

Oh yay. And that justifies killing children exactly how?

If they want to kill off duty IDF, then they should do it where there are only IDF to kill, not innocents.

Nuh uh. If kids weren't the target but happened to be around, they are what's often termed as collateral damage. Does it make it any nicer? No. Not really. But does it make you a terrorist? Only if you include whoever it is presses the button that launches missiles at a terrorist in a crowded place.

That would include both the IDF and the US Military. Or the CIA if it was them that pressed the button. Predator drones armed with hellfires have been documented to do exactly what I specified. The only difference is that there was a lack of a human carrier. End result was the same. Target hit, lots of collateral.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
I-I-IRA...I-I-IRA...

I wish I had been born to an "oppressed" faction so I could have carte blanch authority to massacre unarmed members of the "oppressor" faction and be lionized as a freedom fighter by troglodytes. Apparently it's just fine to commit mass murder when you're the so-called little guy, but it's a crime against humanity when the big guy does it. :rolleyes:

If killing civilians is wrong for the Israelis, Americans, British, etc., it's wrong for the Palestinians, the insurgency, etc.

If killing civilians is wrong for the Israelis, Americans, British, etc., it's wrong for the Palestinians, the insurgency, etc.

Oh I agree, but that's the big question isn't it?

IS it wrong to kill civilians?

IS it wrong to kill civilians?

Dunno about that, but it is not wrong to call those who kill civilians as terrorists (add the intentional targetting etc etc...)

You make it seem like because Israelis go over and shoot these children, Hamas was created. I think Hamas created these Israeli war criminals. After years and years of seeing your own people slaughtered, I can understand why the Israeli soldiers did that, given, it is not right, but I can understand.

"Years and years of seeing your own people slaughtered"?

Hamas has a far greater justification for its atrocities - and yes, I think they're atrocities - by that logic than the IDF does.

The record of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians since 1948 is very extensive and far outweighs any atrocities the Palestinians have committed in response.

Oh I agree, but that's the big question isn't it?

IS it wrong to kill civilians?
Is it wrong to commit murder?

Hamas has a far greater justification for its atrocities - and yes, I think they're atrocities - by that logic than the IDF does.

The record of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians since 1948 is very extensive and far outweighs any atrocities the Palestinians have committed in response.
You can argue statistics all you like but murder is still murder. How does one justify an atrocity anyway? I can understand how people can rationalize their crimes, but actually make them just? I don't know. I suppose we would have to ask what justice is.

You can argue statistics all you like but murder is still murder. How does one justify an atrocity anyway? I can understand how people can rationalize their crimes, but actually make them just? I don't know. I suppose we would have to ask what justice is.

It is, and it definitely cannot be justified, regardless of how much they've seen "[their] own people slaughtered."

It also runs directly contrary to the interests of the Palestinian people.

Is it wrong to commit murder?
yes, thus, what the Israelis do is wrong


You can argue statistics all you like but murder is still murder. How does one justify an atrocity anyway? I can understand how people can rationalize their crimes, but actually make them just? I don't know. I suppose we would have to ask what justice is.
I dont believe what Palestinians do is an atrocity, nor do I see their resistance movement as murder. I view the victims of their actions as collateral damage, much as a bomb being dropped in packed market, as the US is known to do. I them view as collateral damage because they aren't the main target or goal, that distinction goes to the illegal occupation. They are sad, but acceptable losses in the struggle for a free Palestine, which will be true justice.

Yes, Gandhi's statement is true, though not necessarily. Many of the terrorists we are fighting right now aren't freedom fighters by any definition of the word. They are fighting to establish a theocracy throughout the entire world. They want less freedom, not more.
Off-topic but Guy Fawkes fought because he was ticked that the Protestants were in power, not because he wanted freedom of religion or anything. He was a terrorist, but not a freedom fighter.

They're basically just what someone already said. Labels. I'm fairly certain that the suicide bombers in Israel don't consider themselves terrorists, but people fighting for Palestinean independence. Then again, some are just fighting to get Israel out, but they still are fighting for, in their minds, some form of freedom. Not that I'm condoning them.

And Swilatia, I hate Bush and his administration to the highest degree, but frankly, the evidence points to planes. Conspiracy theorists have a way of showing you the evidence that supports their side, and nothing else. Just like Bill O'Reilly.

Is it wrong to commit murder?



Are you saying killing a civilian = murder?

If so, do you believe USAF pilots should be charged with it?

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?

it depends on their actions, whos looking at them, and when they'r looked at. blowing up unarmed civilians to make a point is terrorism. blowing up a military convoy to further your cause is freedom fighting (even if the freedom you'r fighting for is the freedom to install your own crackpot dictatorship or fundamentalist state). one person can be doing the first thing one day and the second the next - they'r just words in the end.

Are you saying killing a civilian = murder?

If so, do you believe USAF pilots should be charged with it?
They should be, along with all combatants from all nations who kill those who didn't make war on them. Just War Theory in almost all forms says that you and your state at war only has a right to kill in self-defense those individuals who are hostile and take up arms against you (or possibly your neighbor or ally).

It doesn't happen very often but sometimes countries will prosecute their own soldiers for war crimes and take responsibility for the murders their troops committed.

I view the victims of their actions as collateral damage, much as a bomb being dropped in packed market, as the US is known to do. I them view as collateral damage because they aren't the main target or goal, that distinction goes to the illegal occupation. They are sad, but acceptable losses in the struggle for a free Palestine, which will be true justice.
Ends do not justify means, and no cause is just that relies upon unjust actions. If you really want to go down that road I'm sure there are Israelis who believe an exclusionary state is entirely just and regard any acts that include "collateral damage" as justified if they bring about their desired end. Doesn't make it right though and likewise for anyone else with a cause.

<snip>
Well said, thank you. That's why one must always ask who/what the intended target was, and if the intent was to kill innocents then it's clearly murder.

Personally, I think that once you target civilian populations you become a terrorist, but by that definition a lot of governments suddenly become terrorist governments (Darfur or former Yuguslavia come to mind). I think that targeting the military makes you a rebel, although the people in control of the media will call you what they want.

I think that suicide bombing is a perversion of faith. I have a hard time getting my head around the fact that successful suicide bombers being celebrated the same way we venerate athletes and actors in the West (many of whom are completely undeserving of respect either). They paint murals and dedicate them to suicide bombers as their childhood heroes of the slums, because for them they don’t believe in a future.

I have to think that some extreme crappiness to your fellow man was done to get these people into that mindset. I mean when was the last time you went to the store and it was closed, so you decided it was time to protest this injustice by blowing yourself up. To push a people so hard that they are willing to blow themselves up as a form of protest has to have involved some pretty terrible things. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it’s an indictment of everyone involved: Israeli (government, military, and secret service); the US for backing them to the hilt; the Palestinians who use the conflict for personal gain and to build their power base, and who likely don’t give a damn for the people they get killed; and the British for their completely incompetent management of the Palestine colony that really made the current crisis possible.

The Bruce

I dont believe what Palestinians do is an atrocity, nor do I see their resistance movement as murder. I view the victims of their actions as collateral damage, much as a bomb being dropped in packed market, as the US is known to do. I them view as collateral damage because they aren't the main target or goal, that distinction goes to the illegal occupation. They are sad, but acceptable losses in the struggle for a free Palestine, which will be true justice.

Wow, that's truly moronic. The "target" of a bomb is who/whatever you intend for it to kill. Do you mean that if the packed market had been deserted, then they would still have bombed it? If not then the civilians are the targets, not collateral damage.
Put another way, if the civilians in the market are merely collateral damage, and not integral to the terrorist operation, then a terrorist attack on an empty market would be every bit as useful for them as an attack on a packed market. By that idea, the terrorist, by not attacking at night when the market was empty, are guilty of gross negligence leading to mass murder. Hardly any better.

I don't think it was Gandihs statement... I've seen Margaret Thatcher being credited with it, but I don't think it was her either.

What?

You mean to tell me that's not the cornerstone of the current debate? It's more a debate of Guerilla tactics Vs. Terrorism and the likes? Nevermind then...
*runs away*

Terrorism is simply another form of warfare. Most acts of war are morally reprehensible, unlike most justifications for war. Most justifications for war bare little resemblance to the actual motives for war. All of these put together have to be seen through the eyes of which side of the fence a person sits on in any particular issue as well as how directly they are affected by acts of terrorism or the nation attacked.

Facts regarding US transfers and financing of Israel
The Bruce

Not denying US support of Israel now. The other poster claimed that the Israelis were weak and without US support would have been destroyed long ago. My post was pointing out the falsity of his statement by showing Israeli victories in past wars without massive US military aid.

None of what you listed has any bearing on their victories from 1948 on.

Because of all the US aid.

Well it doesn't say much for what the Palestinians have accomplished despite the billions in aid from the US and the EU. Except of course of fattening Arafat's bank account.

I guess one would argue that at least the Israelis are making something out of what they get.

Do really think without the 15million dollars a day the US gives, or the F-16s, or the M-16s, or all the times the US has blocked UN resolutions that target Israel, that they would be the "country" they are now? please.

Errrr. yes. Did you read my post at all? They pretty much survived 4 major wars without our F-16s and M-16s and did pretty well.

If you are a freedom fighter you do not intentionally kill civilians. You kill those attempting to opress you. That means millitary or governmnet buildings only. Terrorists cause terror by targeting civilians.

Hamas are not freedom fighters. Hamas are terrorists, pure and simple. Any intentional targeting of civilians is terrorism and immoral. If they walked into an Israeli army base and detonated their bombs, I would still despise them but I could see why some would consider them freedom fighters. Getting on a bus and killing lots of innocent civilians is not going to advance your cause. I was pretty pro-Israel, but I supported the Palestinian people's rights to their own state. Unfortunately that has kinda gone out the window with them electing crazy terrorist leaders.

If you are a freedom fighter you do not intentionally kill civilians. You kill those attempting to opress you. That means millitary or governmnet buildings only. Terrorists cause terror by targeting civilians.

Um. I don't defend the targeting of civilians in general. No one does. But that does not create such an easy dividing line.

What if the civilians are part of those trying to oppress you?

The world doesn't neatly divide into military or government vs. civilian.

And what if you lack the ability to effectively attack military or government targets. Does that mean you must surrender?

And, what about when governments kill civilians? Was Hiroshima a terrorist attack?

Not denying US support of Israel now. The other poster claimed that the Israelis were weak and without US support would have been destroyed long ago. My post was pointing out the falsity of his statement by showing Israeli victories in past wars without massive US military aid.

None of what you listed has any bearing on their victories from 1948 on.

MYTH

“The West's support of Israel allowed the Jews to conquer Palestine.”

FACT

The Jews won their war of independence with minimal help from the West. In fact, they won despite efforts to undermine their military strength.

Although the United States vigorously supported the partition resolution, the State Department did not want to provide the Jews with the means to defend themselves. "Otherwise," Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett argued, "the Arabs might use arms of U.S. origin against Jews, or Jews might use them against Arabs."14 Consequently, on December 5, 1947, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on the region.

Many in the State Department saw the embargo as yet another means of obstructing partition. President Truman nevertheless went along with it hoping it would be a means of averting bloodshed. This was naive given Britain's rejection of Lovett's request to suspend weapons shipments to the Arabs and subsequent agreements to provide additional arms to Iraq and Transjordan.15

The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining all the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan's Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.16

The Jews, on the other hand, were forced to smuggle weapons, principally from Czechoslovakia. When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, the army did not have a single cannon or tank. Its air force consisted of nine obsolete planes. Although the Haganah had 60,000 trained fighters, only 18,900 were fully mobilized, armed and prepared for war.17 On the eve of the war, chief of operations Yigael Yadin told David Ben-Gurion: "The best we can tell you is that we have a 50-50 chance."18

The Arab war to destroy Israel failed. Indeed, because of their aggression, the Arabs wound up with less territory than they would have had if they had accepted partition.

The cost to Israel, however, was enormous. "Many of its most productive fields lay gutted and mined. Its citrus groves, for decades the basis of the Yishuv's [Jewish community] economy, were largely destroyed."19 Military expenditures totaled approximately $500 million. Worse yet, 6,373 Israelis were killed, nearly one percent of the Jewish population of 650,000.

Had the West enforced the partition resolution or given the Jews the capacity to defend themselves, many lives might have been saved.

The Arab countries signed armistice agreements with Israel in 1949, starting with Egypt (Feb. 24), followed by Lebanon (March 23), Jordan (April 3) and Syria (July 20). Iraq was the only country that did not sign an agreement with Israel, choosing instead to withdraw its troops and hand over its sector to Jordan's Arab Legion. None of the Arab states would negotiate a peace agreement.

The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but it could not persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions. Still, right before the war, Johnson warned: "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone."16 Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed."17

Moreover, while the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel's other main arms supplier, also embargoed arms to Israel).

By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.18

Still want to claim Israel has won its wars because of the US?

What if the civilians are part of those trying to oppress you?

By definition a civilian is someone not involved in the conflict.


And what if you lack the ability to effectively attack military or government targets. Does that mean you must surrender?

Just because you cant attack millitary does not make attacking civilians justified.


And, what about when governments kill civilians? Was Hiroshima a terrorist attack?

Thats a completely diffrerent catagory. That's conventional warfare. We arnt talking about conventional warfare. If you want to make a thread about hiroshima please do, but this isnt the place for it.

Still want to claim Israel has won its wars because of the US?

Nice objective source you've got there. :rolleyes:

By definition a civilian is someone not involved in the conflict.

Cute "by definition." Then, by definition, those that are part of the occupying citizenry are not civilians. They cannot be said to not be involved in the conflict.

Just because you cant attack millitary does not make attacking civilians justified.

It did for Hiroshima. It did for Dresden.

Why should the cause of freedom be stifled by your arbitrary rules of warfare? We didn't let the rules of warfare limit our Revolutionary War.

Thats a completely diffrerent catagory. That's conventional warfare. We arnt talking about conventional warfare. If you want to make a thread about hiroshima please do, but this isnt the place for it.

So its OK to kill civilians in conventional warfare? It is even all right to deliberately target civilians.

What was your definition of terrorism again?

do you agree..?yes. 100%

Cute "by definition." Then, by definition, those that are part of the occupying citizenry are not civilians. They cannot be said to not be involved in the conflict.

Indeed. If you are a freedom fighter, target the ocupying army.


It did for Hiroshima. It did for Dresden.

Why should the cause of freedom be stifled by your arbitrary rules of warfare? We didn't let the rules of warfare limit our Revolutionary War.


Conventional warfare is differnt from asymetircal warfare. If you are truely a freedom fighter then you target the millitary or governmnet instalations of your enemy. Thats what happend at Hiroshima and Dresden. They targeted those because they had industrial and millitary targets. They didnt target them because they were civillian targets. The allies did not intentionally target civilians. When they did kill civilians it was useually because they were part of the infrastructure around millitary bases. The same is true with freedom fighters. If freedom fighters kill civilians while trying to destroy millitary instalations, it is diffrent from intentionally killing civilians.


So its OK to kill civilians in conventional warfare? It is even all right to deliberately target civilians.

What was your definition of terrorism again?

Hiroshima was not intentionally killing civilians. I suppose you are aware that the millitary pressured Truman to drop the bomb on Kyoto because more civilians were there. Truman didnt. Hiroshima was targeted because of its millitary and industrial nature.

Nice objective source you've got there. :rolleyes:

Can you or can you not criticise the soucre material. If you can only criticse the source then dont pretend like you have an argument when you dont.


“Israel is the only state in the world today, and the Jews the only people in the world today, that are the object of a standing set of threats from governmental, religious, and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. And what is most disturbing is the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence, in the face of such genocidal anti-Semitism.”

— Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General Irwin Cotler35


MYTH

“Supporters of Israel only criticize Arabs and never Israelis.”

FACT

Israel is not perfect. Even the most committed friends of Israel acknowledge that the government sometimes makes mistakes, and that it has not solved all the problems in its society. Supporters of Israel may not emphasize these faults, however, because there is no shortage of groups and individuals who are willing to do nothing but focus on Israel’s imperfections. The public usually has much less access to Israel’s side of the story of its conflict with the Arabs, or the positive aspects of its society.

Israelis themselves are their own harshest critics. If you want to read criticism of Israeli behavior, you do not need to seek out anti-Israel sources, you can pick up any Israeli newspaper and find no shortage of news and commentary critical of government policy. The rest of the world’s media provides constant attention to Israel and the coverage is far more likely to be unfavorable than complimentary.

Myths and Facts also pulls no punches when it comes to addressing Israel’s responsibilities for events and policies that tarnish its image, including Israel’s role in the Palestinian refugee problem, the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, and social and economic inequalities between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel.

Israel’s supporters believe Israel has a right to exist and that close relations between Israel and other nations in the world is in everyone’s best interest. When friends criticize Israel, it is because they want the country to be better. Israel’s detractors do not have that goal; they are more interested in delegitimizing the country, placing a wedge between Israel and its allies, and working toward its destruction.

Friends of Israel do not try to whitewash the truth, but they do try to put events in proper context. That is also our goal.

Can you or can you not criticise the soucre material. If you can only criticse the source then dont pretend like you have an argument when you dont.

All hail Adriatica II's ability to cut and paste mass arguments from a dubious source.

:headbang:

Indeed. If you are a freedom fighter, target the ocupying army.



Conventional warfare is differnt from asymetircal warfare. If you are truely a freedom fighter then you target the millitary or governmnet instalations of your enemy. Thats what happend at Hiroshima and Dresden. They targeted those because they had industrial and millitary targets. They didnt target them because they were civillian targets. The allies did not intentionally target civilians. When they did kill civilians it was useually because they were part of the infrastructure around millitary bases. The same is true with freedom fighters. If freedom fighters kill civilians while trying to destroy millitary instalations, it is diffrent from intentionally killing civilians.



Hiroshima was not intentionally killing civilians. I suppose you are aware that the millitary pressured Truman to drop the bomb on Kyoto because more civilians were there. Truman didnt. Hiroshima was targeted because of its millitary and industrial nature.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not count as targeting civilians, then neither do most "terrorist" attacks.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not count as targeting civilians, then neither do most "terrorist" attacks.

Yes they do. There is a disctinct differnce. Terrorists intend to kill civilians. Hiroshima and Dresden intended to destroy industial and millitary facilities. The world trade centre was not a millitary target. Nor was it a govenment target. The pentegon and whitehouse were legiamate targets but not the WTC.

All hail Adriatica II's ability to cut and paste mass arguments from a dubious source.

:headbang:

All hail The Cat-Tribe and his inability to deal with the evidence presneted by a source but his amazing power to criticise providence only.

Hiroshima and Dresden intended to destroy industial and millitary facilities.
That's questionable.

For Hiroshima, it was obvious that they simply needed a target for the new bomb. Had it really been that important, it would have been attacked earlier by conventional forces.

Dresden...well, part of it was that the place was a major traffic hub, another part was that the city hadn't been attacked yet and it simply had to be ticked off the list. Plus there was the thing that they had to try to look like they were helping the Soviets. At any rate, it was a rather callous thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Reasons_for_the_attack

Yes they do. There is a disctinct differnce. Terrorists intend to kill civilians. Hiroshima and Dresden intended to destroy industial and millitary facilities. The world trade centre was not a millitary target. Nor was it a govenment target. The pentegon and whitehouse were legiamate targets but not the WTC.

When did I defend the attack on the WTC?

Amazing that you would say that ramming a commercial jet into the pentagon wouldn't count as terrorism. There were civilians aboard, you know.

Your question of "intent" is playing semantics, when killing some 200,000 odd civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are simply written off as collateral damage.

For Hiroshima, it was obvious that they simply needed a target for the new bomb. Had it really been that important, it would have been attacked earlier by conventional forces.

It was only a few weeks before the dropping of the bomb that America had the ability to drop bombs that far into the Japanese mainland. So no, it wasnt nessecarly an experiment


Dresden...well, part of it was that the place was a major traffic hub, another part was that the city hadn't been attacked yet and it simply had to be ticked off the list. Plus there was the thing that they had to try to look like they were helping the Soviets. At any rate, it was a rather callous thing to do.

The city hadnt been attacked yet and needed to be. Why is that? To support the continuing advance. It was a major industrial production area.

"The Air Staff have now arranged that, subject to the overriding claims of attacks on enemy oil production and other approved target systems within the current directive, available effort should be directed against Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig or against other cities where severe bombing would not only destroy communications vital to the evacuation from the east, but would also hamper the movement of troops from the west."

When did I defend the attack on the WTC?

Amazing that you would say that ramming a commercial jet into the pentagon wouldn't count as terrorism. There were civilians aboard, you know.

I said legitamate targets. I did not specify the method of attack. Don't put words into my mouth.


Your question of "intent" is playing semantics, when killing some 200,000 odd civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are simply written off as collateral damage.

There is a world of moral diffrence between choosing a target because you want to inflict maximium civilian damage or choosing a target because you want to create massive damage to an industrial sector or to a centre of millitary opperations. If you cant see that you are quite blind.

There is a world of moral diffrence between choosing a target because you want to inflict maximium civilian damage or choosing a target because you want to create massive damage to an industrial sector or to a centre of millitary opperations. If you cant see that you are quite blind.

So if you have some rationale for your target other than maximum civilian damage, you are justified -- even if you do cause maximum civilian damage?

BTW, it has not gone unnoticed that "industrial" targets have been deemed legitimate.

One might say one would have to be blind not to see the a world of moral difference between targeting 20 civilians and targeting 200,000 civilians. Yet you'd condemn the former and not the latter.

The city hadnt been attacked yet and needed to be. Why is that? To support the continuing advance. It was a major industrial production area.The American POW's in the city at the time would disagree with you.

EDIT: But then again, targetting civilians was the big strategy of the British at least. The idea was to kill as many as possible with incendiary bombs to make the Germans war weary.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?

No.

It's a bit like the whole "one man's trash is another man's treasure" (or however it goes) thing. Sure, one person might value an old milk carton in a garbage can as being just as good as a chest full of rubies and gold and that one high-heeled shoe with jewels encrusted in it that such chests always seem to contain. And fair play to them.

Fact is, though, that whatever the individual perception might be, it's still the treasure that's treasure and the trash that's trash.

No.

It's a bit like the whole "one man's trash is another man's treasure" (or however it goes) thing. Sure, one person might value an old milk carton in a garbage can as being just as good as a chest full of rubies and gold and that one high-heeled shoe with jewels encrusted in it that such chests always seem to contain. And fair play to them.

Fact is, though, that whatever the individual perception might be, it's still the treasure that's treasure and the trash that's trash.

But isn't that the point: thats just your perception.

Not nearly as much as Israel, come on, you know that. You basically ignored my response of US assistance and just claimed that since they dont trade with poor, arabs nations, they must be able to exsist all by themselves. Thats bull, you know it and I know it, but if thats the way you want to spin it to make Israel look good, fine, whatever lets you sleep at night.
So Israel gets more aid. Much of that is military aid and they pay us back by helping to develop new weapons, like the arrow missile that is being developed by Israeli and American researchers. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/arrow.htm

Also Israel is poorer in terms of resources than other nations in the region, and makes up for that by creating and patenting new technologies.

"Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one.

Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank." To quote the BBC.

Edvince of massacres by the Israelis is all over place, this is just one of them. Even if as you claim, the Jenin massacre was "fake" you cant deny the many other real massacres where many died at the hands of the Israelis.
Everyone who's not blindly supporting the Palestinian cause agrees that the Jenin "massacre" was fake. A group of people who would fake a massacre for public relations purposes aren't particularly trustworthy to me.

Everyone who's not blindly supporting the Palestinian cause agrees that the Jenin "massacre" was fake. A group of people who would fake a massacre for public relations purposes aren't particularly trustworthy to me.

It did look suspicious at the time in fairness. It was vastly overblown and exaggerated for PR purposes; something that made a lot of people pause and re think their opinions.

That said, I still feel sorry for those people who were left homeless, like I feel sorry for those living on the end of rocket attacks into their homes.

I pity the people of both sides, and feel contempt for the rulers of both.

But isn't that the point: thats just your perception.

Well, I suppose it is, yeah.

But dosen't that make the whole question is meaningless? So what if one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? If said "freedom fighter" has set himself against you and against innocents, what does it matter? Such intellectual quandaries are a waste of time. As simplistic as it might sound, the enemy is the enemy. If they hate you and what you stand for, or are willing to shed your blood to make a point to higher powers, it isn't in the least bit helpful to sympathise with them or make excuses for them.

It is their responsibility to justify themselves. It is your responsibility to guard yourself against them.

As simplistic as it might sound, the enemy is the enemy. If they hate you and what you stand for, or are willing to shed your blood to make a point to higher powers, it isn't in the least bit helpful to sympathise with them or make excuses for them.



The IRA, ETA and Banda Aceh rebels would beg to differ.

By finally listening to those groups, the govternments in charge solved the problem. Not by trying to kill them, eradicate them or ignore their points... by listening to them.

The IRA, ETA and Banda Aceh rebels would beg to differ.

By finally listening to those groups, the govternments in charge solved the problem. Not by trying to kill them, eradicate them or ignore their points... by listening to them.

Killing babies, women and random guys just to make yourself heard is always wrong. Always. It's like shooting the secretary at a board meeting to make everyone listen to what you want and address your needs, even if they only concern a minority of shareholders.

Terror tactics are not necessary in order for you to fight for freedom.

And what were the IRA's "points", exactly? Please, enlighten me.

Killing babies, women and random guys just to make yourself heard is always wrong. Always. It's like shooting the secretary at a board meeting to make everyone listen to what you want and address your needs, even if they only concern a minority of shareholders.

Terror tactics are not necessary in order for you to fight for freedom.


Did the above do that as a part of a concerted campaign?

Whose says civilians aren't legitimate targets anyway... (devil's advocate)

Everyone who's not blindly supporting the Palestinian cause agrees that the Jenin "massacre" was fake. A group of people who would fake a massacre for public relations purposes aren't particularly trustworthy to me.

Face it DCD, we have a lot of INDYpendant DUmb, blind Pali supporters here who don't care. Moral Relativisim is the rule. Jooooos and other Evil Capitalist Pigs are the enemy and killing/exterminating them is totally OK. :headbang:

Never mind that the UN, for all its inability to be useful, CAN'T censure the PA for the atrocities committed against Israelies because the attacks are not done by "the PA". They are done by Hezbullah or other "unaffiliated" terrorist orgs, whereas the "UN Censured" Israeli incidents are committed by people "officially" affiliated with the Israeli government, no matter how out of line they were, or how much the Israeli government punished them.

It's like the double standard that suporters of Pali Terrorisim can use Arab news sites to support their position but all hell breaks loose if people who oppose Pali terror use Joooooish news.

Or like comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima. Hiroshima has less to compare with 9/11 than it does to London, Dresden, Tokyo, or any of the myriad of other cities bombed into rubble during WWII. A state of insane global war is in no way comprable to flying a plane into a building...

Unless, of course, those who would make the comparison are suggesting that we are in a state of total war against the NGO of Radical Ummahist/Fundamentalist Islam and are thereby sanctioning WWII-like bombings/reprisals against U/F Islamic Cities... :rolleyes:

I'm sick of this discussion and the blind hatred of the US and Jews.

Losers always whine about the successful. But it appears that now it is OK to kill them to make a point. I'm glad I can shoot back.

To all you future Pancakes and Splodydopes, :upyours:

Whose says civilians aren't legitimate targets anyway... (devil's advocate)
I thought I already covered this. It is only just to kill someone who is making war on you, and the fact that someone lives in a nation that is at war with you does not mean that they themselves are a part of that war effort. Killing is only justifiable in self-defense (or possibly in defense of someone who is being attacked without provocation and cannot sufficiently protect themselves), whether that be in the state of war between two or more nations or between two or more people. If we say otherwise then we open the door to justifying any ordinary murder.

I thought I already covered this. It is only just to kill someone who is making war on you, and the fact that someone lives in a nation that is at war with you does not mean that they themselves are a part of that war effort. Killing is only justifiable in self-defense (or possibly in defense of someone who is being attacked without provocation and cannot sufficiently protect themselves), whether that be in the state of war between two or more nations or between two or more people. If we say otherwise then we open the door to justifying any ordinary murder.

I don't know if you did or not- I'm going reading back over 12 pages to find out.

Ok, this theory: (not mine, just saying...)

The military is an apparatus of the State, yes?
The State funds the military.
How is the State funded? By monies.. or 'taxes'.
Who pays these monies and in turn helps fund the machine (military/State)?
Taxpayers, also known as civilians.

Attacking the economic structure of the State would in effect, by attacking the very root of the State and the military it has.

The basic building blocks of the State's economic structure is.... civilian tax payers.

Hence you see why some groups would justify attacks on civilians, as they are feeding the machine (albeit unintentionally and maybe unwittingly).

Some groups, not many.

Tax money goes to lots of things, much of which people disagree about as to how their representatives spend their money. Also not everyone works or pays taxes and not every person's tax dollars have been spent on military aggression (as opposed to defense).

Of course you could say that by electing representatives who use their tax dollars to fund aggressive military policy that transfers the guilt back to the voter, but that presumes unanimity on the part of voters and we all know that not everyone voted for who was elected and even those who did elect the winning candidate may not agree with his/her policy on war. Plus there's the fact that not everyone votes or is even able to vote--certainly children can't choose their leaders.

Like I said, that argument opens up lots of doors that are best left closed. For instance, I could agrue that there are police officers who target people who have committed no crime. Police receive their money from the taxpayers. Are taxpayers just as guilty when an officer abuses his authority and beats or jails an innocent man? If I'm guilty of no crime and am the target of an unjust cop, do I have a right to make war on the people who pay his salary?

'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

I think there is some gray area where both terms can apply. But certainly not always, and certainly not to the 9/11 attacks.

A freedom fighter is somebody who only makes attacks that are going to help them achieve some kind of goal. The cold blooded murder of innocent civilians with no strategic gain can not be rationally considered the actions of a freedom fighter.

A terrorist is a person who commits random murders without logic or strategic gain for the sake of bringing about a state of fear, and attempts to use that fear as leverage in negotiation.

A freedom fighter is a person who does whatever is necessary to achieve the liberation of his people.

There is an area where both definitions could apply to the same people, but there are some areas where attempting to do so is pure sophistry.

That 'Taxpayers are responsible for the actions of the state' argument doesn't work very well.

5000 people out of 300,000,000 aren't really going to stop the military from making war, are they?

5000 people out of 300,000,000 aren't really going to stop the military from making war, are they?Maybe not (or vice versa)..
Now let me give you some other numbers to consider..
It took only 19 peoples.. to put my world up-side down.. and (in a way) achieve more Damage to US.. than the Soviet, German or Japanese Empires..

EDIT: But then again, targetting civilians was the big strategy of the British at least. The idea was to kill as many as possible with incendiary bombs to make the Germans war weary.

So was the Blitz.

Still want to claim Israel has won its wars because of the US?

Just to clarify my position, I never did claim that Israel won its battles due to US support, quite the contrary.

Tax money goes to lots of things, much of which people disagree about as to how their representatives spend their money. Also not everyone works or pays taxes and not every person's tax dollars have been spent on military aggression (as opposed to defense).

Of course you could say that by electing representatives who use their tax dollars to fund aggressive military policy that transfers the guilt back to the voter, but that presumes unanimity on the part of voters and we all know that not everyone voted for who was elected and even those who did elect the winning candidate may not agree with his/her policy on war. Plus there's the fact that not everyone votes or is even able to vote--certainly children can't choose their leaders.

Like I said, that argument opens up lots of doors that are best left closed. For instance, I could agrue that there are police officers who target people who have committed no crime. Police receive their money from the taxpayers. Are taxpayers just as guilty when an officer abuses his authority and beats or jails an innocent man? If I'm guilty of no crime and am the target of an unjust cop, do I have a right to make war on the people who pay his salary?

Hey, I'm just stating some dogma of some groups (probably more Communist groups now that I think about it). I don't agree with it- but I can understand it.

Other groups gain "credibility" by only hitting military targets or direct agents of the State (ie police) or even financial districts (Canary Warf springs to mind)


5000 people out of 300,000,000 aren't really going to stop the military from making war, are they?

How do you know? If the 5000 people are influential or important enough, yeah, they will.

Everyone who's not blindly supporting the Palestinian cause agrees that the Jenin "massacre" was fake. A group of people who would fake a massacre for public relations purposes aren't particularly trustworthy to me.
Did you not read my post? Alright fine, Jenin was faked, it doesnt mean other REAL massacres didnt happen at the hands of Israelis.

You really dont want to get into PR spin in this debate. Israel is the master at PR spin in the western media. They put enormous pressure on western media outlets to spin it there way. Like having the AP not show an Israeli soldier intenionally shooting a Palestinian child without cause, this is just one of many, many examples. And if cover-up or exgerrating stories for PR purposes is your grounds for not being trustworthy, then I dont see how you can believe a single word the Israelis say.

Never mind that the UN, for all its inability to be useful, CAN'T censure the PA for the atrocities committed against Israelies because the attacks are not done by "the PA". They are done by Hezbullah or other "unaffiliated" terrorist orgs, whereas the "UN Censured" Israeli incidents are committed by people "officially" affiliated with the Israeli government, no matter how out of line they were, or how much the Israeli government punished them.
Those groups are unafliliated and the UN has targeted Israel 65 TIMES through resolutions that they get away with because of US support. The resolutions go after everything from the illegal wall and settlements to prisoner abuse.


Or like comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima. Hiroshima has less to compare with 9/11 than it does to London, Dresden, Tokyo, or any of the myriad of other cities bombed into rubble during WWII. A state of insane global war is in no way comprable to flying a plane into a building...
Both targeted civilians and Hiroshima killed FAR MORE than 9/11. Niether were justified or right, other than those things, they have nothing in common.

I'm sick of this discussion and the blind hatred of the US and Jews.
Bullshit, I love this country and I dont have anything against jews. I hate when anyone questions Israel, thier supporters automatically go to the anti-semetic or holocaust card. Is that like an automatic response or something?


To all you future Pancakes and Splodydopes, :upyours:
what the hell is a Pancake andSplodydope?:upyours:

Errrr. yes. Did you read my post at all? They pretty much survived 4 major wars without our F-16s and M-16s and did pretty well.
Good, so lets cut all economic and diplomatic support, take back our weapons, forced them to pay us back for all the money they didnt need, and watch them stand on their own two feet without making the US a further target for attack.

what the hell is a Pancake?:upyours:

http://festivals.iloveindia.com/images/pancake.jpg


....what?

http://festivals.iloveindia.com/images/pancake.jpg


....what?
oh, I had no idea, thank you. What exactly doesnt one do with a pancake?

oh, I had no idea, thank you. What exactly doesnt one do with a pancake?

http://www.simplifiedsigns.org/eat.jpg

Clearer now? :p

http://www.simplifiedsigns.org/eat.jpg

Clearer now? :p
Much clearer, thank you:p

what the hell is a Pancake and Splodydope?:upyours:
SAINT PANCAKE:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/rachel-corrie-flag-02.jpg

SPLODEYDOPE:

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/pal-kids-splodeydope.jpg

ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

SAINT PANCAKE:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/rachel-corrie-flag-02.jpg

SPLODEYDOPE:

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/pal-kids-splodeydope.jpg

ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
So they're Palestinians? Your pictures didnt really describe what they are

:d

http://festivals.iloveindia.com/images/pancake.jpg

Mmmm... Pancakes :fluffle:

So they're Palestinians? Your pictures didnt really describe what they are

"St. Pancake" is a disgusting slur against Rachel Corrie.

I'm not familiar with the other one, yet it is likely on a similar level of decency.

I'm not familiar with the other one, yet it is likely on a similar level of decency.

i think it's winger for 'suicide bomber', but i'm not sure

Good, so lets cut all economic and diplomatic support, take back our weapons, forced them to pay us back for all the money they didnt need, and watch them stand on their own two feet without making the US a further target for attack.

Actually, Hamas sent the money back to the US.

It seems that rather than wait on Congress to ask for the money back, they decided just to refuse it.

Or maybe they won't accept aid from infidels and misbelievers.

"St. Pancake" is a disgusting slur against Rachel Corrie.

I'm not familiar with the other one, yet it is likely on a similar level of decency.
Wow, thats really, really horrible considering Rachel was just standing up for what she believed in, and then the Israelis murdered her. For someone make a joke about that or whatever they were doing, wow, just wow.

Wow, thats really, really horrible considering Rachel was just standing up for what she believed in, and then the Israelis murdered her. For someone make a joke about that or whatever they were doing, wow, just wow.
Standing up in front of a bulldozer is just dumb.

Standing up in front of a bulldozer is just dumb.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/300px-Tianasquare.jpg

Standing up in front of a bulldozer is just dumb.
Running over someone with a bulldozer because they are protesting an injustice is not only dumb, its murder, and it shows the true character of the Israelis. Was the man who stood in front of a tank in tiananmen square dumb?

Running over someone with a bulldozer because they are protesting an injustice is not only dumb, its murder, and it shows the true character of the Israelis. Was the man who stood in front of a tank in tiananmen square dumb?
1) Do we know for a fact that it was intentional?

2) Yes, but it's a good PR move. Neither he not St. Pancake have been forgotten even though she should be.

Standing up in front of a bulldozer is just dumb.
Dumb guy?
http://www.pro-networks.org/GALLERY/Tiananmen.jpg

Dumb guy?
http://www.pro-networks.org/GALLERY/Tiananmen.jpg
Yep. Incredably brave, coragious and fighting for what he wanted, but also dumb.

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter-Gandi

So do agree with this saying?
Sure, I agree. Doesn't mean I like it, though.

1) Do we know for a fact that it was intentional?

2) Yes, but it's a good PR move. Neither he not St. Pancake have been forgotten even though she should be.
1) All the reports point to that it was

2) How was it dumb? I always thought standing up for what you believed in like freedom was good. Apparently to you thats just dumb.
She had a name and she doesnt need to forgotten, she needs to be remembered for standing up for justice. btw, why dont you learn to have some respect for those died. Or do you not have any compassion for those who help those "evil" Palestinians?

Yep. Incredably brave, coragious and fighting for what he wanted, but also dumb.

Not really. Dumbness implies that he didn't know (or couldn't understand) he would die.

Not really. Dumbness implies that he didn't know (or couldn't understand) he would die.
Foolish then, he could ahve done more to fight for freedom by handing out millions of panthlets than by being crushed by a tank. What does that threly do for freedom?

Foolish then, he could ahve done more to fight for freedom by handing out millions of panthlets than by being crushed by a tank. What does that threly do for freedom?

It's a symbol. It inspires others to work towards freedom in the way a million pamphlets doesn't.

2) How was it dumb? I always thought standing up for what you believed in like freedom was good. Apparently to you thats just dumb.
She had a name and she doesnt need to forgotten, she needs to be remembered for standing up for justice. btw, why dont you learn to have some respect for those died. Or do you not have any compassion for those who help those "evil" Palestinians?

Damn it, you're scaring me - because I find myself agreeing with you! :eek:

Running over someone with a bulldozer because they are protesting an injustice is not only dumb, its murder, and it shows the true character of the Israelis.
It shows the true character of the driver of the bulldozer. Or does a Palestinian who blows up a school bus also show the true character of the Palestinian people?

Damn it, you're scaring me - because I find myself agreeing with you! :eek:
really? are you turning into......a republican? :eek:

1) All the reports point to that it was

2) How was it dumb? I always thought standing up for what you believed in like freedom was good. Apparently to you thats just dumb.
She had a name and she doesnt need to forgotten, she needs to be remembered for standing up for justice. btw, why dont you learn to have some respect for those died. Or do you not have any compassion for those who help those "evil" Palestinians?
1) Was the driver given a medal?

2) It's dumb unless you use a strategy that will likely result in success. She didn't care about justice for people blown up in markets by Palestinian terrorists, only about making sure that the terrorist's family wouldn't be inconvenienced. That makes her a scumbag in my book. Not all people are worthy of respect and that applies to the dead as well as the living.

It shows the true character of the driver of the bulldozer. Or does a Palestinian who blows up a school bus also show the true character of the Palestinian people?
No, the fact that they as a society celebrate suicide bombers and encourage their children to blow themselves up and dance in the streets when 3000 Americans are killed shows their character.

really? are you turning into......a republican? :eek:
Or maybe it's you that's turning into.... a penguin? :eek:
:p

Foolish then, he could ahve done more to fight for freedom by handing out millions of panthlets than by being crushed by a tank. What does that threly do for freedom?
What DrunkenDove said... Also, this is the sign of a true freedom fighter. He was willing to die for what he believed in (without killing anybody else even).

Or maybe it's you that's turning into.... a penguin? :eek:
:p

yay for penguins!:p
What DrunkenDove said... Also, this is the sign of a true freedom fighter. He was willing to die for what he believed in (without killing anybody else even).
good point

No, the fact that they as a society celebrate suicide bombers and encourage their children to blow themselves up and dance in the streets when 3000 Americans are killed shows their character.
Thats a result of the illegal occupation. The occupation creates every martyr and every person that supports them. Would you rather suffer at the hands of an foreign occupier for many, many years or would rather find peace in death while having a quick taking out a few of the people that oppress you? Same goes for kids.

Would you rather have your child suffer and be in pain, or would rather them be at peace? Thats what you dont get, life for Palestinians is basically hopeless thanks to the Israelis, why would one want to continue in a hopeless life?

1) Was the driver given a medal?

2) It's dumb unless you use a strategy that will likely result in success. She didn't care about justice for people blown up in markets by Palestinian terrorists, only about making sure that the terrorist's family wouldn't be inconvenienced. That makes her a scumbag in my book. Not all people are worthy of respect and that applies to the dead as well as the living.
Was he put in prison for life or executed?

Israel doesnt just bulldoze the homes of martyrs, they do it to anyone they want to. And terrorists' families? Why should the family a martyr be punished for the actions of their son or daughter? What she did makes her a hero in my book.

Thats a result of the illegal occupation. The occupation creates every martyr and every person that supports them. Would you rather suffer at the hands of an foreign occupier for many, many years or would rather find peace in death while having a quick taking out a few of the people that oppress you? Same goes for kids.

Would you rather have your child suffer and be in pain, or would rather them be at peace? Thats what you dont get, life for Palestinians is basically hopeless thanks to the Israelis, why would one want to continue in a hopeless life?
Partly, and partly it's a result of being too dumb and violent to use proven methods, like Gandhi and MLK jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience. By blowing up bus passengers and shooting carloads of women and little girls they only make things worse on themselves. Personally I don't care if things ever get any better for them. They don't deserve my sympathy. Oh, and their behavior on 9/11 was sickening.

Was he put in prison for life or executed?

Israel doesnt just bulldoze the homes of martyrs, they do it to anyone they want to. And terrorists' families? Why should the family a martyr be punished for the actions of their son or daughter? What she did makes her a hero in my book.
The families of murderous terrorist scum raised them to be what they are. Also they recieve money for raising a human bomb. By destroying their house you eliminate the financial reward for bringing such an animal into the world.

The families of murderous terrorist scum raised them to be what they are. Also they recieve money for raising a human bomb. By destroying their house you eliminate the financial reward for bringing such an animal into the world.

Yes, every child turns out exactly like their parents planned. Well done.

The families of murderous terrorist scum raised them to be what they are. Also they recieve money for raising a human bomb. By destroying their house you eliminate the financial reward for bringing such an animal into the world.
no, the occupation raised them to be what they were. By demolishing the families homes you only punish the innocent and drive them into becoming martyrs themselves. They just lost their loved one, then you take away their home? Whats the point of living then, why not blow yourself up. What would you do given the situation. btw, the only animals are the heartless Israelis.

The families of murderous terrorist scum raised them to be what they are. Also they recieve money for raising a human bomb. By destroying their house you eliminate the financial reward for bringing such an animal into the world.
What about not being persecuted for others actions?

Civilians are fair game.

The british in WW2 applied a strategy of "de-housing", intentionally targeting the houses of german industrial workers, following the reasoning that a dead worker can't make war planes and such.

In the same sense, attacking the financial center of a country, its headquarters, makes one hell of a sense. 9/11 costed billions to the US, and many enemy workers were killed. It was a brilliant stratagem.

Partly, and partly it's a result of being too dumb and violent to use proven methods, like Gandhi and MLK jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience. By blowing up bus passengers and shooting carloads of women and little girls they only make things worse on themselves. Personally I don't care if things ever get any better for them. They don't deserve my sympathy. Oh, and their behavior on 9/11 was sickening.
Do you really think civil disobedience will work with the Israelis? of course not, they only understand violence and action. Their tactics have worked, it got the Israelis to face up to the fact they cant do whatever they want to the Palestinians without punishment, and it got their sorry asses out of Gaza. Personally, I dont care if every Israeli dies, they dont deserve my sympathy.

I never have nor never will defend 9/11, however Im sure they wouldnt have been so happy had the US not been the main aid giver to their oppressors.

Civilians are fair game.

The british in WW2 applied a strategy of "de-housing", intentionally targeting the houses of german industrial workers, following the reasoning that a dead worker can't make war planes and such.

In the same sense, attacking the financial center of a country, its headquarters, makes one hell of a sense. 9/11 costed billions to the US, and many enemy workers were killed. It was a brilliant stratagem.
Meanwhile if the US decided to start carpet bombing cities with no regard for civilian lives I'm sure you'd be screaming about how evil we are.

Do you really think civil disobedience will work with the Israelis? of course not, they only understand violence and action. Their tactics have worked, it got the Israelis to face up to the fact they cant do whatever they want to the Palestinians without punishment, and it got their sorry asses out of Gaza. Personally, I dont care if every Israeli dies, they dont deserve my sympathy.

I never have nor never will defend 9/11, however Im sure they wouldnt have been so happy had the US not been the main aid giver to their oppressors.
Even if I agreed with your position on Israelis, which I don't, it still would work. Racists and Klansmen down south were defeated because non-violent protesters earned the sympathy of the rest of the nation. Apartheid was stopped in part because Mandella and his people didn't engage in very much violence, and earned the sympathy of the world. The Palestinians kill women and children, so it's no surprise nobody gives a shit about them.

The US is also a major aid provider to the Palestinians (at least until they elected genocidal terrorists) and has consistently tried to broker peace agreements.

Almost right. Here is the proper, corrected phrase.

...but they probably think that it will scare them into leaving Palestine.

That is their stated objective. Get 'dem ebil Joos out of Arab Palestine. :rolleyes:

1930's style racist "black talk" to paraphrase your concept of the objectives of the Palestinians.....saves me the problem of wondering where you're coming from, I suppose. Don't delay going back there either.

So, Mr. UN Ambassador Troll, Why isn't the Intefada attacking the Brits or the UN for their plight? Could it be because it has nothing to do with borders and everything to do with hating Jews?:

Your potted histoy omitted the expulsions of 48, 67 and the Un resloution, plus 33 vetoed motions against Israel and countless votes of over 98% to have Israel withdraw. The settelments also breach the Geneva convention.


Really? Because I mostly hear about them hitting markets and busses. Not many of them blow themselves up at the checkpoints manned by Israeli troops. In fact, I think those who blow themselves up at checkpoints are a very small minority:

Some people only hear what suits them. As Palestinian civillian dead outnumber Israeli by 4 to one, I'd say that thats the case here.


Can they do it politically? Maybe. It requires that a government that 1, isn't corrupt, and 2, isn't dedicated to the destruction of Israel is elected. It also requires that such a government be willing to seriously crack down on terrorist organization in it's territory.:

They've been occupied for 37 years. Why should they elect any group that isnt dedicated to armed struggle? The only thing that happens during lulls in killing is more settlements on their land. But thats the American double standard - Arabs must lie down, despite the fact that the law says Israel should withdraw. And if you undermine the law often enough, and make people desperate enough...well you might get something like suicide bombers. They're the product of the US veto.


The west has no obligation, however, to fund such an organization any more than we were obliged to trade with South Africa under apartheid..:

O theres Irony...there was a few US vetoes defending Apartheid South Africa "back in the day" too...and of course theres Settler only areas in the occupied territories...the idea that the colonist is superior to the colonised native...


If it happens on occasion Israel disciplines the criminal.

Didn't happen here and he was turned in by his own troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html

Nobody charged.
http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/two_Jabaliya_girls_headshots.htm

Nobody charged
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm

Nobody charged
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

And why have 750 Arab children been killed compared to 123 Israeli if the Arabs are the "baby killers"? The truth is if a child is killed in the occupied territories its more than likely a Palestinian.



You make it seem like because Israelis go over and shoot these children, Hamas was created. I think Hamas created these Israeli war criminals. After years and years of seeing your own people slaughtered, I can understand why the Israeli soldiers did that, given, it is not right, but I can understand.

I find it amazing that you can apply this logic to the nation that is militarily occupying the area and the one doing the "slaughter" for nearly 40 years (and the numbers prove it) but not the suicide bomber or Palestinian gunman.

Standing up in front of a bulldozer is just dumb.

Well...you're one of the ones that wants them to renounce violence aren't you? Thats what happens when you rely on the "other side" being peaceful back. I reckon the only place to be with a similar bulldozer is to oneside with an RPG...but thats "terrorism" according to you lot....

Even if I agreed with your position on Israelis, which I don't, it still would work. Racists and Klansmen down south were defeated because non-violent protesters earned the sympathy of the rest of the nation. Apartheid was stopped in part because Mandella and his people didn't engage in very much violence, and earned the sympathy of the world. The Palestinians kill women and children, so it's no surprise nobody gives a shit about them.

The US is also a major aid provider to the Palestinians (at least until they elected genocidal terrorists) and has consistently tried to broker peace agreements.

O thats fucking rich....They went to the world for help long before the suicide bombing phenomena and since the early 70's any attempt to settle the problem has a fucking American spanner thrown in it....then when they act out of desperation, you whine.

The families of murderous terrorist scum raised them to be what they are. Also they recieve money for raising a human bomb. By destroying their house you eliminate the financial reward for bringing such an animal into the world.


Thats it...get out that anti-"A-rab" venom...why not do some racist talk like "Syniks"?

<snipped response to another person>

Some people only hear what suits them. As Palestinian civillian dead outnumber Israeli by 4 to one, I'd say that thats the case here.



They've been occupied for 37 years. Why should they elect any group that isnt dedicated to armed struggle? The only thing that happens during lulls in killing is more settlements on their land. But thats the American double standard - Arabs must lie down, despite the fact that the law says Israel should withdraw. And if you undermine the law often enough, and make people desperate enough...well you might get something like suicide bombers. They're the product of the US veto.



O theres Irony...there was a few US vetoes defending Apartheid South Africa "back in the day" too...and of course theres Settler only areas in the occupied territories...the idea that the colonist is superior to the colonised native...



Didn't happen here and he was turned in by his own troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html

Nobody charged.
http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/two_Jabaliya_girls_headshots.htm

Nobody charged
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm

Nobody charged
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

And why have 750 Arab children been killed compared to 123 Israeli if the Arabs are the "baby killers"? The truth is if a child is killed in the occupied territories its more than likely a Palestinian.




I find it amazing that you can apply this logic to the nation that is militarily occupying the area and the one doing the "slaughter" for nearly 40 years (and the numbers prove it) but not the suicide bomber or Palestinian gunman.
1) Why are there more Palestinian civilian deaths? Because a terrorist looks just like a civilian. They don't wear uniforms. Because a 15 year old throwing rocks and short lengths of rebar at Israeli troops is somehow a civilian. That's why.

2) Because armed resistence against Israel will only result in more Palestinian deaths and other methods might bring about a just peace. But then the Palestinians don't want peace, they want victory. Victory for them would be destroying Israel and slaughtering it's people.

3) South Africa was a source of valuable materials. Moneyed interests wanted to maintain access to them. In the US money talks.

The guardian link says the teenage girl was in a security zone carrying a bookbag. Since the Palestinians have been known to use women and teens to blow people up, it seems they've brought such things on themselves. If I thought someone was going to blow me up I'd shoot him or her regardless of the person's age.


The second link gives only the Palestinian version of events. I'd like to hear the other side of the story as well.

In the third link it appears that a crowd of protesters were moving toward an area where the Israeli military was conducting an operation. A large mass of people moving toward your troops in a combat area? You're supposed to kill them.

I'll agree that the fourth link sounds like criminal behavior.

And the truth is that a Palestinian child might be carrying a bomb too. The terrorists haven't shyed away from using kids as suicide bombers. That makes those kids legitimate targets.

1) Why are there more Palestinian civilian deaths? Because a terrorist looks just like a civilian. They don't wear uniforms. Because a 15 year old throwing rocks and short lengths of rebar at Israeli troops is somehow a civilian. That's why.

2) Because armed resistence against Israel will only result in more Palestinian deaths and other methods might bring about a just peace. But then the Palestinians don't want peace, they want victory. Victory for them would be destroying Israel and slaughtering it's people.

3) South Africa was a source of valuable materials. Moneyed interests wanted to maintain access to them. In the US money talks.

The guardian link says the teenage girl was in a security zone carrying a bookbag. Since the Palestinians have been known to use women and teens to blow people up, it seems they've brought such things on themselves. If I thought someone was going to blow me up I'd shoot him or her regardless of the person's age.


The second link gives only the Palestinian version of events. I'd like to hear the other side of the story as well.

In the third link it appears that a crowd of protesters were moving toward an area where the Israeli military was conducting an operation. A large mass of people moving toward your troops in a combat area? You're supposed to kill them.

I'll agree that the fourth link sounds like criminal behavior.

And the truth is that a Palestinian child might be carrying a bomb too. The terrorists haven't shyed away from using kids as suicide bombers. That makes those kids legitimate targets.


And somehow I think that if get out all 750 plus of the deaths - you'll say they was justified. It strikes me as typical that the only one you thought "criminal behaviour" involved a european.

Had you botherd to look into the case of the officer you might have discovered that his own men had said the girl was no threat. But it doesnt matter. And should i dredge up the case of the other girls shot with a single through the head, you'll justify that too. Because you've decided, for reasons of your own, that the Israelis are "right".

By the way, being a muslim country, and male dominated, (as you've no doubt lovingly pointed out on some weekly "bash the muslim" thread) Palestinian women are very very rarely involved in suicide boming, let alone female minors. But of course I'm sure you've another excuse in place of that one anyway.



A large mass of people moving toward your troops in a combat area? You're supposed to kill them..

Unarmed protestors in broad daylight. You did say the following...


Partly, and partly it's a result of being too dumb and violent to use proven methods, like Gandhi and MLK jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience. By blowing up bus passengers and shooting carloads of women and little girls they only make things worse on themselves

Yet when they protest peacefully its "supposed to kill them" time. When somebody stands in front of a bulldozer its "St Pancake".....and a quick whine about "9/11" to justify it all.

Thats what I was talking about earlier. The American double standard.

Partly, and partly it's a result of being too dumb and violent to use proven methods, like Gandhi and MLK jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience. By blowing up bus passengers and shooting carloads of women and little girls they only make things worse on themselves. Personally I don't care if things ever get any better for them. They don't deserve my sympathy. Oh, and their behavior on 9/11 was sickening.

Yes, because of course all the Palestinians are the same, and match perfectly with your analysis.

And somehow I think that if get out all 750 plus of the deaths - you'll say they was justified. It strikes me as typical that the only one you thought "criminal behaviour" involved a european. Yeah, go ahead and play that race card.


Had you botherd to look into the case of the officer you might have discovered that his own men had said the girl was no threat. But it doesnt matter. And should i dredge up the case of the other girls shot with a single through the head, you'll justify that too. Because you've decided, for reasons of your own, that the Israelis are "right".

By the way, being a muslim country, and male dominated, (as you've no doubt lovingly pointed out on some weekly "bash the muslim" thread) Palestinian women are very very rarely involved in suicide boming, let alone female minors. But of course I'm sure you've another excuse in place of that one anyway. Rarely, but it happens. The precedent is set. Now a girl with a bag in a security zone is a threat.




Unarmed protestors in broad daylight. You did say the following...



Yet when they protest peacefully its "supposed to kill them" time. When somebody stands in front of a bulldozer its "St Pancake".....and a quick whine about "9/11" to justify it all.

Thats what I was talking about earlier. The American double standard. There's a difference between civil disobedience and terminal stupidity. Had the Palestinians peacefully blocked streets or something before the latest intifada when they were able to go into Israel to work, they would have drawn attention from the media and if the Israelis used violence it would look horrible. Marching people toward a military unit engaged in operations on hostile territory is just dumb. It's a guarantee that you'll get shot.

Yes, because of course all the Palestinians are the same, and match perfectly with your analysis.
I was speaking in broad generalizations.

I was speaking in broad generalizations.

That sort of collective logic is exactly what allows suicide bombings to happen. The enemy is not a group of irrational savage killers craving your blood, but a group of people with similar motives and desires as you. The Palestinian people want freedom, and the Israeli people want security, and if their roles were reversed they would both want what the other does now.

Had the Palestinians peacefully blocked streets or something before the latest intifada when they were able to go into Israel to work, they would have drawn attention from the media and if the Israelis used violence it would look horrible.

There have most definitely been non-violent protests by the Palestinians. They were extensive during the First Intifada and have been scattered throughout the Second. Mostly, Israel has responded with repression and brutality, a tactic that to a significant degree sparked the Second Intifada when it was used against Palestinian protesters in 2000.

There is a fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters. One thing that distinguishes terrorists is that their actions usually make their aims unachievable. Take the IRA for example - northern ireland might be free by now if not for them. (not that its exactly oppressed)

As for the palestinian suicide bombers, it depends on where they are and who they blow up. blowing up a cafe or bus in israel itself is an act of terror. blowing up and army checkpoint is more like a freedom fighter. But how about blowing up a cafe in occupied territory? id say its excessive but still freedom fighting. Like the french resistance.

other than when you are killing members of an invading force, (including israeli settlers in palestine), to be a freedom fighter you need to be fighting towards an aim. ie freedom. Its terrorism if there is nothing to be gained from doing it. essentially just murdering innocent people for no reason.

I would also class the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists. But theyre fighting an invading force you say! are they bollocks. The sunni insurgents know that when the americans leave they will be outnumbered and not control the oil or the government. The insurgency aims to keep the coutry unstable and necessitate the americans presence for as long as possible. if they stopped the americans could leave. Instead they kill americans, other iraqis, just random people it would seem. They dont want freedom they want power at the expense of freedom. they seek to become the oppressors they claim to despise.

There is a fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters. One thing that distinguishes terrorists is that their actions usually make their aims unachievable. Take the IRA for example - northern ireland might be free by now if not for them. (not that its exactly oppressed)


Elaborate on this.

I would also class the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists. But theyre fighting an invading force you say! are they bollocks. The sunni insurgents know that when the americans leave they will be outnumbered and not control the oil or the government. The insurgency aims to keep the coutry unstable and necessitate the americans presence for as long as possible. if they stopped the americans could leave. Instead they kill americans, other iraqis, just random people it would seem. They dont want freedom they want power at the expense of freedom. they seek to become the oppressors they claim to despise.

It's meaningless to speak of "the insurgents." They are not a monolithic bloc. The groups that target US soldiers and the groups that target innocent people are not necessarily linked.

And the groups that are targeting US soldiers most definitely do want an end to the occupation. That's why they do it. If they stopped, the US would stay; there are plenty of other causes of instability. The US only intends to leave when it "wins," that is to say, when puppets willing to support its domination of the country are securely in power.

And the truth is that a Palestinian child might be carrying a bomb too. The terrorists haven't shyed away from using kids as suicide bombers. That makes those kids legitimate targets.

Eh... No, not exactly. A child would not be a "legitimate target", although it might be justifiable to kill one in self-defence. But only as a last resort...

I often wouner if Britian had gave the Palestinian's independance insted of the Jews the middle-east might be a more peaceful place?

Yeah, go ahead and play that race card..

But the fact is that the fourth and last example is the one you chose. You're in a better position to judge what significance that has yourself.


Rarely, but it happens. The precedent is set. Now a girl with a bag in a security zone is a threat...

Which ignores the radio message by his own men that the girl was no threat. And the others killed either sitting in a class room, hanging out washing on the roofs of their house...The IDF seem to like sniping at UNRWA schools a lot. Has an UNRWA school lept off its foundations and "suicide bombed" any Israelis of late?

And, for that matter, have any six foot tall red haired Irish women?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,848369,00.html

Where volunteers from foriegn countries have to walk alongside children to prevent them being shot by soldiers, I think it fairly obvious "theres something up". You've doubtless a wonderful reason why theres nothing whatsoever abnormal about it, and that even though its Arab children dying, its really the Israeli occupiers who are the victims of it all.


There's a difference between civil disobedience and terminal stupidity. Had the Palestinians peacefully blocked streets or something before the latest intifada when they were able to go into Israel to work, they would have drawn attention from the media and if the Israelis used violence it would look horrible. Marching people toward a military unit engaged in operations on hostile territory is just dumb. It's a guarantee that you'll get shot.

O....but the area is occupied...they aren't there "engaged in operations"..they're there to control the population...and if they had done as you suggested, and been slaughtered, you'd have a little "St. Pancake" remark to throw out...maybe something about "stew" or "4 and 20 A-rabs, lying in a pile" as you'd have more numbers involved. But don't worry. A few of them cheered at "9/11" so its "all good" as you Americans say.

Eh... No, not exactly. A child would not be a "legitimate target", although it might be justifiable to kill one in self-defence. But only as a last resort...
Thats what I was thinking. But that shouldnt really surprise me considering Israelis and their supporters love to kill kids, maybe its in their genes or something.

But that shouldnt really surprise me considering Israelis and their supporters love to kill kids, maybe its in their genes or something.

What would be your response if someone said that about the Palestinians?

Thats what I was thinking. But that shouldnt really surprise me considering Israelis and their supporters love to kill kids, maybe its in their genes or something.
I recall you posting that you think it's ok to torture them to death in a different thread. And considering the fact that palestinians send kids with bombs strapped to them to kill kids enjoying a bus ride I'd say that statement applies to Palestinians and their supporters.

I recall you posting that you think it's ok to torture them to death in a different thread. And considering the fact that palestinians send kids with bombs strapped to them to kill kids enjoying a bus ride I'd say that statement applies to Palestinians and their supporters.


Actually it would apply to both. Unless you apply your double standard again.

A terrorist attacks civilians, acts out of hate, and kills unarmed people. A freedom fighter attacks soldiers and military establishments, government HQs, and while they may take hostages, they do not kill them.

Killing the little girl was obviously wrong. If they were worried about a bomb, they should have issued a warning. Then, if she proceeded, they should have fired a warning shot. If she still came forward, they could shoot to disable, (and don't tell me that they arn't good enough marksmen) and have palestinian medical people collect her. The only way shooting to kill could be justified would be if she rushed the wall. "Confirming the kill" outside of a complete warzone is just barbaric.

I don't know about the protesters. if they were advancing on the troops, (which is what it sounds like) causing the soldiers to worry about being enveloped, then it might be justified but only at a certain range. However, being justified doesn't make it right, and perhaps the soldiers should have retreated rather than be forced to kill unarmed, peaceful civilians. (yes, I know that this is untenable from a military point of view.)

The only difference I see between Israeli and Palestinian terrorists is that Israeli Terrorists wear uniforms. not that ALL Israeli soldiers are this barbaric, but many are. Peace may be impossible now that Hamas has moved into office, but that was a result of the slowly building anger of the Palestinian people. Electing Hamas may be there way of telling the world that peace doesn't matter anymore, that if Israel is going to make war with them, then damn it, they'll make war back.

I'd personally give a lot to see things calm down over there.

It's undeniable that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it's all a matter of perception. But it's also completely irrelevant in the long run. I'm not concerned about wether people like Al Quaeda, or other islamic extremist groups are seen as freedom fighters. All I'm concerned about is defeating them through absolutely any means necessary. Because if these people and their supporters are in a state of complete brutal subjugation then who really cares about semantics? As far as I'm concerned they could scream all they like about how they're fighting for the freedom of their people as they're wired up to the mains or awaiting execution.