comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
I am Gooner, your arguments are inane and demonstrably useless. How on earth does your analogy work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that but have an obvious lack of knowledge of history. For example when the land was bought to reinstate Israel it was little more than a wasteland, which I believe places like Bethlehem still are because they haven't had investment, but the Jews with their wealth paid for a lot to be done including irrigation in the area which transformed the land into the fertile and rich land we see today.
And that was after the land had been bought and paid for by the Allies following WW2 in order to re-establish Israel. The problem with a lot of the pro-Palestinian posters on here is you seem to have double standards. Let me out it the other way around to match SAFs comment. I bought my house legally and it is now mine. If SAF (Hamas) who has no legal claim comes to my house to try to take it off me I will use whatever force is necessary to stop him and if he tries to kill me and my family I will kill him to defend my family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh course, the Israeli rhetoric that they took the desert and made it bloom. Which makes total sense because before that there was millennia of fighting over a small area of land because it was infertile and useless.
You could be a Likud mouthpiece you know, the stuff you come out with is astonishing.
I think freedom fighter and terrorist are mutually exclusive. It's not a subjective thing.
Once you resort to terrorist actions you're a terrorist and relinquish your freedom fighter status.
.................................................
Kaiser a terrorist is simply a non government led (as in not a military) carrying out military actions.
What you are referring to is actually deliberate targeting of civilians.
The actual definition of the word does not link it to deliberate targeting of civilians.
It seems to be something in the West that has been deliberately confused by governments for political purposes.
The British gave the mandate to form israel in the first place, didn't stop the terrorist brigades in Israel targeting British personnel and stringing British soldiers up.
One of the leaders of these terrorist brigades was elected president of Israel and was one of the biggest influences on Netenyahu.
They're no different to Hamas.
Also, it's so ironic to see people like Mark Regev refer to the United Nations when Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country... and yet this Israel is one of the youngest countries on earth.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 seconds ago
The British gave the mandate to form israel in the first place, didn't stop the terrorist brigades in Israel targeting British personnel and stringing British soldiers up.
One of the leaders of these terrorist brigades was elected president of Israel and was one of the biggest influences on Netenyahu.
They're no different to Hamas.
Also, it's so ironic to see people like Mark Regev refer to the United Nations when Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country... and yet this Israel is one of the youngest countries on earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be fair now, Israel has existed for nearly the entirety of the UN's life.
but those people the terror groups have killed in Markets, disco's and buses didn't take the land or anything else, thats the government and its buddies.
So why take it out on the general public?
..........................................................
You can use the exact argument the other way around as well...
Without even referring to the Israeli military strikes, why do the Palestinians are live in grinding poverty, why do they have much less water than the Israeli's despite a larger population.
Why can the Israeli's water their lush green gardens whilst 90% of the small water supply in the Gaza strip is undrinkable. If there is collective punishment being carried out on one side it is on the Palestinians.
"Kaiser a terrorist is simply a non government led (as in not a military) carrying out military actions."
that's a freedom fighter.
no one has any moral issues about attacks on military targets.
terrorists (by conventional wisdom / general consensus) put bombs on non-military trains and planes and buses and in markets and other pure civilian targets.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except possibly politicians) calling people who snuck up to a militiary base and started launching grenades and RPGs at the barracks a terrorist.
Oh course, the Israeli rhetoric that they took the desert and made it bloom. Which makes total sense because before that there was millennia of fighting over a small area of land because it was infertile and useless.
You could be a Likud mouthpiece you know, the stuff you come out with is astonishing.
..................................................
It really is incredible the power of propaganda.....
side point,
having non-contiguous areas like Gaza split off just seems like a recipe for disaster.
I'm sure (hope) they had some really, really good reason for it but just looking at the map it seems nuts
terrorists (by conventional wisdom / general consensus) put bombs on non-military trains and planes and buses and in markets and other pure civilian targets.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except possibly politicians) calling people who snuck up to a militiary base and started launching grenades and RPGs at the barracks a terrorist.
.......................................
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 6 minutes ago
A one state solution maybe fine in principle but I can never see it getting off the ground.
....................................
Probably the only thing we have agreed on so far.... although tbh I struggle to see anything that would work short of one side being wiped out but maybe I am a bit pessimistic...
...................................................
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the final solution (phrasing, sorry) to this conflict is eventually a single state. I think the two state solution is necessary in the relative short term so say thirty years while the wounds heal a bit. I think Israel should probably stop their Aliyahs, as it will only serve to eventually achieve ethnic dominance of the area though, of course, this is a policy that would benefit them hugely.
...................................................
TBH I thought the Palestinian population had actually grown more than the Israeli one since the founding of Israel. Mainly because people in poverty tend to have more children, would have to check the figures on that one as I am not sure.
Not that I wouldn't want the two state solution but there are so many little issues that the two sides can't agree on. Jerusalem being a big one, that would at the very least have to be shared for both sides to agree I think.
Both sides probably always see themselves losing out in peace deals, the Israeli's by giving back what they have taken and the Palestinians by signing away their right to what was previously theirs. Its a difficult deal for both sides to make.
You can understand the siege mentality given what happened to the Jews in Europe but it is very unfortunate that all that mistreatment is being taken out on a innocent group of people. I imagine the Palestinians have built up their own sort of siege mentality in the decades since Israels creation... 2 sets of people facing off who both feel like they have been wrong is always a recipe for disaster.
........................................
I personally find it convenient that they just so happen to have their promised land in an area that is highly fertile but also within the known world at the time. Surely their God would have been aware of even more fertile lands, such as Britain or Ukraine. Weird huh.
...............................................
People's gods always look after their people first, merely coincidence though can't understand your conspiratorial attitude towards it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has it? I suppose I just have a real unease about their "right to return" ideals in the context of things. They're actively trying to grow their population in an already densely populated country and the reason for that is to grow its strength and to justify larger borders. I think maybe you can say that's different to the population growth of Palestinians being the result of a lack of wealth.
I can understand the siege mentality all right. But it must end somewhere or it tumbles down the generations. Peace takes a determination. You have to put aside your grievances and vision of justice for the sake of your sons and daughters. You cannot carry anger for the Holocaust through the generations, no good will come of it. All we can do is say "never again" and that is good enough for humanity (provided it never happens again).
TKT are you asking why the Palestinian areas are split up from each other?
West bank and Gaza, to be precise?
I think officially they are a security buffer zone against future invasions, or at least I have heard that is the reason they have been kept previously... if not that then spoils of war I guess.
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
Interestingly, Gaza is the same rough geographical area as Philistine. I wonder if that has an effect on the attitudes of the more pious and historically focused in Israel. After all, to call someone a Philistine is to say they lack intelligence and culture.
TBH I think there is a slight irony in the fact they have kept the Palestinians so poor it has meant that they cannot outbreed them or bring enough in to keep up, would have to check the figures to be sure though.
I was not trying to justify the siege mentality, merely saying I understand it. Although they haven't been invaded by a foreign power for 53 years and their only enemy they do battle with is a beaten poverty stricken people who offer a token resistance back to what they receive.
The siege mentality they have is started to quickly become completely unjustifiable and based purely on their own propaganda.
In the Israeli's own interest I think they need to make peace soon unless they really are going to get rid of them all. I can't imagine their power relative to everyone else in the region and the political backing from the powers in the world is going to get any better than it is in the present.
Whereas in terms of ground and backing, they have a lot to lose. Make peace whilst your at your strongest... you get the best deal.
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
............................................
Of course it bloody is!!
Are you telling me you don't support the actions of the resistance in WW2?!
Those guys were heros fighting one of the most evil regimes in the modern age!
What whacko wouldn't support those terrorists?!?!
Just read that the initial claim by Hamas regarding an Israeli soldier being kidnapped is that it is Israel "retreating from the truth and a cover up for massacres". If they admit they have attacked and captured an Israeli soldier it is an admission that they are lying and as the attack when it happened was minutes after the ceasefire started it will prove that they were the ones who broke it. Time will tell.
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 26 seconds ago
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
............................................
Of course it bloody is!!
Are you telling me you don't support the actions of the resistance in WW2?!
Those guys were heros fighting one of the most evil regimes in the modern age!
What whacko wouldn't support those terrorists?!?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Were they killing innocent people to get even?
If so then they were wrong also.
Killing innocents is never OK in any circumstance.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 11 minutes ago
terrorists (by conventional wisdom / general consensus) put bombs on non-military trains and planes and buses and in markets and other pure civilian targets.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except possibly politicians) calling people who snuck up to a militiary base and started launching grenades and RPGs at the barracks a terrorist.
.......................................
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you don't think people who attack innocent civilians without any military target are terrorists then? There is no hope for you.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
TBH I think there is a slight irony in the fact they have kept the Palestinians so poor it has meant that they cannot outbreed them or bring enough in to keep up, would have to check the figures to be sure though.
I was not trying to justify the siege mentality, merely saying I understand it. Although they haven't been invaded by a foreign power for 53 years and their only enemy they do battle with is a beaten poverty stricken people who offer a token resistance back to what they receive.
The siege mentality they have is started to quickly become completely unjustifiable and based purely on their own propaganda.
In the Israeli's own interest I think they need to make peace soon unless they really are going to get rid of them all. I can't imagine their power relative to everyone else in the region and the political backing from the powers in the world is going to get any better than it is in the present.
Whereas in terms of ground and backing, they have a lot to lose. Make peace whilst your at your strongest... you get the best deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had an open border policy and allowed Palestinians free access until they started to use that to bomb Israel including buses, markets and other public places that contained innocent women and children.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 6 minutes ago
TBH I think there is a slight irony in the fact they have kept the Palestinians so poor it has meant that they cannot outbreed them or bring enough in to keep up, would have to check the figures to be sure though.
I was not trying to justify the siege mentality, merely saying I understand it. Although they haven't been invaded by a foreign power for 53 years and their only enemy they do battle with is a beaten poverty stricken people who offer a token resistance back to what they receive.
The siege mentality they have is started to quickly become completely unjustifiable and based purely on their own propaganda.
In the Israeli's own interest I think they need to make peace soon unless they really are going to get rid of them all. I can't imagine their power relative to everyone else in the region and the political backing from the powers in the world is going to get any better than it is in the present.
Whereas in terms of ground and backing, they have a lot to lose. Make peace whilst your at your strongest... you get the best deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good mantra, but they are pretty happy chipping away at the West Bank. Perhaps once that is fully assimilated Israel will seek peace with Gaza.
I don't think me and you need to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Israeli mentality towards this, as we'll be on the same page. Speculation about how this will progress is another matter.
I wonder if, in three hundred years, the land will be fought over by ethnic groups wearing a different banner. Perhaps that's what makes the area bloom. Is blood good for growing? For the rivers flow red and the soil is stained there.
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Hamas are terrorists They have targeted innocent civilians for years.
Were they killing innocent people to get even?
If so then they were wrong also.
Killing innocents is never OK in any circumstance
................................................
They probably killed plenty of innocents.
Do you take back your original crazy statement?
__________________________
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
_______________________________
Do you really think its a sad state of affairs that people backed the resistance movements against the Na.zi's in world war 2?
Because that one's crazy road to go down in your desperation to support the Israelis...
Slightly ironic that in your desperation to back the Jewish state you have hinted that one of the biggest enemies of the faction who tried to wipe the Jews out could not be justified for turning to terrorism.
You do realise most Israeli supporters would probably disagree with you on that one as well?
Benayoun is a Disgrace
Page 102 of 146
103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107
posted on 1/8/14
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
I am Gooner, your arguments are inane and demonstrably useless. How on earth does your analogy work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that but have an obvious lack of knowledge of history. For example when the land was bought to reinstate Israel it was little more than a wasteland, which I believe places like Bethlehem still are because they haven't had investment, but the Jews with their wealth paid for a lot to be done including irrigation in the area which transformed the land into the fertile and rich land we see today.
And that was after the land had been bought and paid for by the Allies following WW2 in order to re-establish Israel. The problem with a lot of the pro-Palestinian posters on here is you seem to have double standards. Let me out it the other way around to match SAFs comment. I bought my house legally and it is now mine. If SAF (Hamas) who has no legal claim comes to my house to try to take it off me I will use whatever force is necessary to stop him and if he tries to kill me and my family I will kill him to defend my family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh course, the Israeli rhetoric that they took the desert and made it bloom. Which makes total sense because before that there was millennia of fighting over a small area of land because it was infertile and useless.
You could be a Likud mouthpiece you know, the stuff you come out with is astonishing.
posted on 1/8/14
I think freedom fighter and terrorist are mutually exclusive. It's not a subjective thing.
Once you resort to terrorist actions you're a terrorist and relinquish your freedom fighter status.
.................................................
Kaiser a terrorist is simply a non government led (as in not a military) carrying out military actions.
What you are referring to is actually deliberate targeting of civilians.
The actual definition of the word does not link it to deliberate targeting of civilians.
It seems to be something in the West that has been deliberately confused by governments for political purposes.
posted on 1/8/14
The British gave the mandate to form israel in the first place, didn't stop the terrorist brigades in Israel targeting British personnel and stringing British soldiers up.
One of the leaders of these terrorist brigades was elected president of Israel and was one of the biggest influences on Netenyahu.
They're no different to Hamas.
Also, it's so ironic to see people like Mark Regev refer to the United Nations when Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country... and yet this Israel is one of the youngest countries on earth.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 seconds ago
The British gave the mandate to form israel in the first place, didn't stop the terrorist brigades in Israel targeting British personnel and stringing British soldiers up.
One of the leaders of these terrorist brigades was elected president of Israel and was one of the biggest influences on Netenyahu.
They're no different to Hamas.
Also, it's so ironic to see people like Mark Regev refer to the United Nations when Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country... and yet this Israel is one of the youngest countries on earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be fair now, Israel has existed for nearly the entirety of the UN's life.
posted on 1/8/14
but those people the terror groups have killed in Markets, disco's and buses didn't take the land or anything else, thats the government and its buddies.
So why take it out on the general public?
..........................................................
You can use the exact argument the other way around as well...
Without even referring to the Israeli military strikes, why do the Palestinians are live in grinding poverty, why do they have much less water than the Israeli's despite a larger population.
Why can the Israeli's water their lush green gardens whilst 90% of the small water supply in the Gaza strip is undrinkable. If there is collective punishment being carried out on one side it is on the Palestinians.
posted on 1/8/14
"Kaiser a terrorist is simply a non government led (as in not a military) carrying out military actions."
that's a freedom fighter.
no one has any moral issues about attacks on military targets.
terrorists (by conventional wisdom / general consensus) put bombs on non-military trains and planes and buses and in markets and other pure civilian targets.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except possibly politicians) calling people who snuck up to a militiary base and started launching grenades and RPGs at the barracks a terrorist.
posted on 1/8/14
Oh course, the Israeli rhetoric that they took the desert and made it bloom. Which makes total sense because before that there was millennia of fighting over a small area of land because it was infertile and useless.
You could be a Likud mouthpiece you know, the stuff you come out with is astonishing.
..................................................
It really is incredible the power of propaganda.....
posted on 1/8/14
side point,
having non-contiguous areas like Gaza split off just seems like a recipe for disaster.
I'm sure (hope) they had some really, really good reason for it but just looking at the map it seems nuts
posted on 1/8/14
terrorists (by conventional wisdom / general consensus) put bombs on non-military trains and planes and buses and in markets and other pure civilian targets.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except possibly politicians) calling people who snuck up to a militiary base and started launching grenades and RPGs at the barracks a terrorist.
.......................................
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 6 minutes ago
A one state solution maybe fine in principle but I can never see it getting off the ground.
....................................
Probably the only thing we have agreed on so far.... although tbh I struggle to see anything that would work short of one side being wiped out but maybe I am a bit pessimistic...
...................................................
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the final solution (phrasing, sorry) to this conflict is eventually a single state. I think the two state solution is necessary in the relative short term so say thirty years while the wounds heal a bit. I think Israel should probably stop their Aliyahs, as it will only serve to eventually achieve ethnic dominance of the area though, of course, this is a policy that would benefit them hugely.
...................................................
TBH I thought the Palestinian population had actually grown more than the Israeli one since the founding of Israel. Mainly because people in poverty tend to have more children, would have to check the figures on that one as I am not sure.
Not that I wouldn't want the two state solution but there are so many little issues that the two sides can't agree on. Jerusalem being a big one, that would at the very least have to be shared for both sides to agree I think.
Both sides probably always see themselves losing out in peace deals, the Israeli's by giving back what they have taken and the Palestinians by signing away their right to what was previously theirs. Its a difficult deal for both sides to make.
You can understand the siege mentality given what happened to the Jews in Europe but it is very unfortunate that all that mistreatment is being taken out on a innocent group of people. I imagine the Palestinians have built up their own sort of siege mentality in the decades since Israels creation... 2 sets of people facing off who both feel like they have been wrong is always a recipe for disaster.
........................................
I personally find it convenient that they just so happen to have their promised land in an area that is highly fertile but also within the known world at the time. Surely their God would have been aware of even more fertile lands, such as Britain or Ukraine. Weird huh.
...............................................
People's gods always look after their people first, merely coincidence though can't understand your conspiratorial attitude towards it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has it? I suppose I just have a real unease about their "right to return" ideals in the context of things. They're actively trying to grow their population in an already densely populated country and the reason for that is to grow its strength and to justify larger borders. I think maybe you can say that's different to the population growth of Palestinians being the result of a lack of wealth.
I can understand the siege mentality all right. But it must end somewhere or it tumbles down the generations. Peace takes a determination. You have to put aside your grievances and vision of justice for the sake of your sons and daughters. You cannot carry anger for the Holocaust through the generations, no good will come of it. All we can do is say "never again" and that is good enough for humanity (provided it never happens again).
posted on 1/8/14
TKT are you asking why the Palestinian areas are split up from each other?
West bank and Gaza, to be precise?
I think officially they are a security buffer zone against future invasions, or at least I have heard that is the reason they have been kept previously... if not that then spoils of war I guess.
posted on 1/8/14
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
posted on 1/8/14
Interestingly, Gaza is the same rough geographical area as Philistine. I wonder if that has an effect on the attitudes of the more pious and historically focused in Israel. After all, to call someone a Philistine is to say they lack intelligence and culture.
posted on 1/8/14
TBH I think there is a slight irony in the fact they have kept the Palestinians so poor it has meant that they cannot outbreed them or bring enough in to keep up, would have to check the figures to be sure though.
I was not trying to justify the siege mentality, merely saying I understand it. Although they haven't been invaded by a foreign power for 53 years and their only enemy they do battle with is a beaten poverty stricken people who offer a token resistance back to what they receive.
The siege mentality they have is started to quickly become completely unjustifiable and based purely on their own propaganda.
In the Israeli's own interest I think they need to make peace soon unless they really are going to get rid of them all. I can't imagine their power relative to everyone else in the region and the political backing from the powers in the world is going to get any better than it is in the present.
Whereas in terms of ground and backing, they have a lot to lose. Make peace whilst your at your strongest... you get the best deal.
posted on 1/8/14
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
............................................
Of course it bloody is!!
Are you telling me you don't support the actions of the resistance in WW2?!
Those guys were heros fighting one of the most evil regimes in the modern age!
What whacko wouldn't support those terrorists?!?!
posted on 1/8/14
Just read that the initial claim by Hamas regarding an Israeli soldier being kidnapped is that it is Israel "retreating from the truth and a cover up for massacres". If they admit they have attacked and captured an Israeli soldier it is an admission that they are lying and as the attack when it happened was minutes after the ceasefire started it will prove that they were the ones who broke it. Time will tell.
posted on 1/8/14
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
posted on 1/8/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 26 seconds ago
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
............................................
Of course it bloody is!!
Are you telling me you don't support the actions of the resistance in WW2?!
Those guys were heros fighting one of the most evil regimes in the modern age!
What whacko wouldn't support those terrorists?!?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Were they killing innocent people to get even?
If so then they were wrong also.
Killing innocents is never OK in any circumstance.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 11 minutes ago
terrorists (by conventional wisdom / general consensus) put bombs on non-military trains and planes and buses and in markets and other pure civilian targets.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except possibly politicians) calling people who snuck up to a militiary base and started launching grenades and RPGs at the barracks a terrorist.
.......................................
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you don't think people who attack innocent civilians without any military target are terrorists then? There is no hope for you.
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
TBH I think there is a slight irony in the fact they have kept the Palestinians so poor it has meant that they cannot outbreed them or bring enough in to keep up, would have to check the figures to be sure though.
I was not trying to justify the siege mentality, merely saying I understand it. Although they haven't been invaded by a foreign power for 53 years and their only enemy they do battle with is a beaten poverty stricken people who offer a token resistance back to what they receive.
The siege mentality they have is started to quickly become completely unjustifiable and based purely on their own propaganda.
In the Israeli's own interest I think they need to make peace soon unless they really are going to get rid of them all. I can't imagine their power relative to everyone else in the region and the political backing from the powers in the world is going to get any better than it is in the present.
Whereas in terms of ground and backing, they have a lot to lose. Make peace whilst your at your strongest... you get the best deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had an open border policy and allowed Palestinians free access until they started to use that to bomb Israel including buses, markets and other public places that contained innocent women and children.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 6 minutes ago
TBH I think there is a slight irony in the fact they have kept the Palestinians so poor it has meant that they cannot outbreed them or bring enough in to keep up, would have to check the figures to be sure though.
I was not trying to justify the siege mentality, merely saying I understand it. Although they haven't been invaded by a foreign power for 53 years and their only enemy they do battle with is a beaten poverty stricken people who offer a token resistance back to what they receive.
The siege mentality they have is started to quickly become completely unjustifiable and based purely on their own propaganda.
In the Israeli's own interest I think they need to make peace soon unless they really are going to get rid of them all. I can't imagine their power relative to everyone else in the region and the political backing from the powers in the world is going to get any better than it is in the present.
Whereas in terms of ground and backing, they have a lot to lose. Make peace whilst your at your strongest... you get the best deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good mantra, but they are pretty happy chipping away at the West Bank. Perhaps once that is fully assimilated Israel will seek peace with Gaza.
I don't think me and you need to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Israeli mentality towards this, as we'll be on the same page. Speculation about how this will progress is another matter.
I wonder if, in three hundred years, the land will be fought over by ethnic groups wearing a different banner. Perhaps that's what makes the area bloom. Is blood good for growing? For the rivers flow red and the soil is stained there.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Hamas are terrorists They have targeted innocent civilians for years.
posted on 1/8/14
Were they killing innocent people to get even?
If so then they were wrong also.
Killing innocents is never OK in any circumstance
................................................
They probably killed plenty of innocents.
Do you take back your original crazy statement?
__________________________
Well i think in sumation then, most on this thread seem to suggest that terrorism is ok so long as there is justified cause.
A sad state of affairs if you ask me.
_______________________________
Do you really think its a sad state of affairs that people backed the resistance movements against the Na.zi's in world war 2?
Because that one's crazy road to go down in your desperation to support the Israelis...
Slightly ironic that in your desperation to back the Jewish state you have hinted that one of the biggest enemies of the faction who tried to wipe the Jews out could not be justified for turning to terrorism.
You do realise most Israeli supporters would probably disagree with you on that one as well?
Page 102 of 146
103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107