Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Alli View Post
    Notwithstanding your poor grammar, retaliation is not a terrorist act.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. there is no such assertion or distinction on retaliation in either in international law, or in the historiography of terrorism. One doesnt even find that in in some of the more ridiculous and highly politicized definitions that are not accepted by mainstream peopel at the army war college, rand or other serious u.s. institutions that house experts and do studies

    No one uses such a definition because this means you are asserting that Hamas and Hezbollah actions, were not a terrorist acts, since the violence in the Middle East is inherently cyclical, and in the case of the boarder at Gaza, quite specifically so.

    Serious people define terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare characterized by either group punishment to an ends, specific targeting of individuals who are outside the normal targeting (US forces targeting of British officers during the US revolution, US targeting of Yugoslav media in the Balkans), or acts of extreme or even little violence aimed at garnering media attention.

    By this correct set of definitions, it is hard to find a group or state engaged in either conventional warfare or non conventional warfare in the entire century not guilty of terrorism, and endemically so. It has been done as a matter of documented policy and when not policy has been done by actors within forces with little to no punishment. Certainly the allies and central powers did so in World War one. Certainly the allies and the axis did so in World War Two, we certainly did so in various military acts since World war Two.

    Mostly those accused are those on the lower end of the symmetry equation.

    From the point of view of the group on theelower end of the symmetry equation, they are simply not only not accepting the outcome wished or fought for by the more powerful side, they are also resisting the rules of conduct imposed by the more powerful side --and imposed to enhance the conventionally more powerful side's advantages.

    Sides even do it when symmetrical. The United States specifically targeted civilian populations in the millions for annihilation during the cold war. WE refused to renounce first use. The clear implication and doctrine was that an attack, say on US nuclear submarine assets, military target, would result in massive killing of soviet citizens. (I am not asserting moral equivalence between US and Soviet political systems, but if we assert the soviet system as a tyranny, which we did, then the civilians are not proper targets, and arguably civilians within democracies are more to blame for policy then citizens of tyranny such as in the Iraq or the USSR)

    Labels like terrorism have been used in such a way as to become meaningless. A condition of retaliation is perhaps the most point of view bias that illustrates one of the problem. Al Queda is "retaliating" for US policy in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt in Israel, for Egyptian government actions, for Israeli government actions, etc.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG View Post
    You would be correct there. But I don't think you know much about what you're talking about. Back before the 1967 war (a war the ARABS started), Jerusalem was controlled by the Arabs.
    If you think this conflict started in the 1967 it would be a mistake. Irgun and the Stern gang targeted Palestinian civilians in violent ethnic cleansing campaigns decades earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG View Post
    Jews were not allowed in, they couldn't worship at the Wailing Wall, their holiest site. In fact, they couldn't find it if they were allowed in, because the Arabs had desecrated it so much and built homes all around it using it as a wall to their homes. I don't know what religion you are, but how would you like it if you were Christian and they desecrated and resided in the Church of the Holy Selpulcur (sp?)?

    The problem is you are not applying that principal universally ,meaning you don't know of situations where the case exists or think it applies more to one people than another.

    I think there are hundreds of millions of Easter Orthodox who are not exactly allowed to pray at the oldest Orthodox cathedral on the world, the Ayia Sophia in Istanbul.

    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG View Post
    If you're talking about pre-1948, there wasn't such a thing as a Palestinian.
    this is a loaded, incorrect and point of view statement. Before 1948 there wasn't such a thing as an Israeli either. There were also no such thing as scores of nationalities created in the post colonial world after World War Two.

    On Palestine this is a term going back to ancient times. In the modern world the peace conferences following World War one included official Palestinian delegations, recognized as such, so I don' t know where you get 1948 from?
    Also by these type of distinctions definition the label Kosovar, Macedonian, Tibetan are illegitimate
  3. #43  
    [QUOTE=BARYE;1536076]
    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG View Post
    As Golda Meir said:

    Quote:
    We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.
    Seriously, Golda Meir was one tough and smart lady, but you could easily reverse it. (with politicians constant plagiarizing she probably got it from somewhere else anyway). You could just have the head of Hamas say:

    We can forgive the Israelis for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Israelis when they love their children more than they hate us.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by Alli View Post
    Notwithstanding your poor grammar, retaliation is not a terrorist act.
    I have to agree with aero's post above on the same subject. The present war in Gaza is, to a large extent (but not exclusively of course), about terrorizing the Palestinian population (women, children, men) in order to reduce support for Hamas.

    Gaza is a huge prison populated by 1.4 million people on 5x25 miles of land. The guards are outside of the prison, nobody can leave. Life sentence for everybody. Had I been born there and be 20 now, what would I do? What would you do?

    The tragedy of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is that both sides are wrong, to some extent, and right, to some extent.
    Last edited by clulup; 01/18/2009 at 12:21 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Seriously, Golda Meir was one tough and smart lady, but you could easily reverse it. (with politicians constant plagiarizing she probably got it from somewhere else anyway). You could just have the head of Hamas say:

    We can forgive the Israelis for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Israelis when they love their children more than they hate us.
    Good point.
    Last edited by clulup; 01/18/2009 at 12:25 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #46  
    If you're Israel and Hamas is sending missiles into your land killing innocent women and children, merely to terrorize, what are you supposed to do? You've exhausted all efforts for peacekeeping. You've even surrendered an entire strip of land to Palestine to try to appease them, and they're still not happy. They simply want you eradicated and off the map. Are YOU the terrorist or is Palestine, who continues to shoot their rockets into your land?

    Do you think you (Israel) would be justified in saying "enough is enough", taking military action in order to answer all the terroristic actions after years and years of continuing attacks on your women and children?
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    If you're Israel and Hamas is sending missiles into your land killing innocent women and children, merely to terrorize, what are you supposed to do? You've exhausted all efforts for peacekeeping. You've even surrendered an entire strip of land to Palestine to try to appease them, and they're still not happy. They simply want you eradicated and off the map. Are YOU the terrorist or is Palestine, who continues to shoot their rockets into your land?

    Do you think you (Israel) would be justified in saying "enough is enough", taking military action in order to answer all the terroristic actions after years and years of continuing attacks on your women and children?
    The current Gaza war may indeed be the only way of stopping the rocket attacks on Israel.

    However, the situation with Hamas and the situation with the Palestinians in general is partly due to Israels actions in the first place, e.g. by creating an atmosphere of hopelessness among Palestinians, continuing to take Palestinian land in the West Bank, not closing settlements in the West Bank even if illegal according to Israeli law, etc.

    "Surrendered an entire strip of land to Palestine to try to appease them" is really not what has happened. Israel just pulled out the prison guards and now controls from the outside. There was nothing to win for Israel in Gaza, an extremely densely populated strip of land, so they left.

    Both sides in this conflict don't shy away from killing children and terrorizing civilians, that's a fact.

    What if the situation was opposite, 1.5 million yews on 5x25 miles of land, a strip totally under control of Arabs, no way of building up an economy due to largely closed borders, no way of leaving the area?

    I'm not saying it is all Israel's fault, it's not, but the opposite isn't true either.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    The current Gaza war may indeed be the only way of stopping the rocket attacks on Israel.

    However, the situation with Hamas and the situation with the Palestinians in general is partly due to Israels actions in the first place, e.g. by creating an atmosphere of hopelessness among Palestinians, continuing to take Palestinian land in the West Bank, not closing settlements in the West Bank even if illegal according to Israeli law, etc.

    "Surrendered an entire strip of land to Palestine to try to appease them" is really not what has happened. Israel just pulled out the prison guards and now controls from the outside. There was nothing to win for Israel in Gaza, an extremely densely populated strip of land, so they left.

    Both sides in this conflict don't shy away from killing children and terrorizing civilians, that's a fact.

    What if the situation was opposite, 1.5 million yews on 5x25 miles of land, a strip totally under control of Arabs, no way of building up an economy due to largely closed borders, no way of leaving the area?

    I'm not saying it is all Israel's fault, it's not, but the opposite isn't true either.
    The US intervened into WW1 with the delusion that it was the war to end all wars.

    No one -- not even most especially the Israelis themselves have that delusion about their bloody Gazan adventure.

    I don't dissagree with almost any of what you've written.

    Were I was a Gazan I'd be a part of Hamas.

    Were I was an Israeli I'd want to crush Hamas.

    What makes me especially sad that had I been an Israeli I would likely have supported this attack -- maybe even advocated for it.

    It is the nature of the feed back loop that is greivance, reaction, suppression, terrorism, hatred, hyper violence...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    If you're Israel and Hamas is sending missiles into your land killing innocent women and children, merely to terrorize, what are you supposed to do? You've exhausted all efforts for peacekeeping. You've even surrendered an entire strip of land to Palestine to try to appease them, and they're still not happy. They simply want you eradicated and off the map. Are YOU the terrorist or is Palestine, who continues to shoot their rockets into your land?

    Do you think you (Israel) would be justified in saying "enough is enough", taking military action in order to answer all the terroristic actions after years and years of continuing attacks on your women and children?
    Are you saying the women and children of both sides haven't been dying for a long time?

    You make it seem these rocket attacks came out of nowhere. They are part of a cycle.

    Can't you see you just have to take you won words and look form the other side:

    If you're Palestinian in Gaza and Israel is s sending missiles (+artillery, phosphorus shells) into your land killing innocent women and children, merely to terrorize, what are you supposed to do? You've exhausted all efforts for peacekeeping. You've even surrendered an entire strip of land to Israel to try to appease them, and they're still not happy. They simply want you eradicated and off the map. Are YOU the terrorist or is Israel, who continues to shoot their rockets into your land?

    The civilian deaths of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces have long dwarfed those of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian forces.

    this is a conflict. As others have noted I agree if I were Israeli I would be attacking and if I were Palestinian I would be attacking. they are both acting predictably on rational actor theory.

    Injecting morality into war is always a problem and has been a documented one since the Melian debate.

    The question is how to get to a situation where you don't have a mass concentration camp in Gaza and a Palestinian Israeli settlement that is going to work
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    The civilian deaths of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces have long dwarfed those of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian forces.

    this is a conflict. As others have noted I agree if I were Israeli I would be attacking and if I were Palestinian I would be attacking. they are both acting predictably on rational actor theory.
    Indeed. In contrast to what logmein wrote, Hamas is not "sending missiles into [Israel] killing innocent women and children, merely to terrorize". They don't want to merely terrorize and kill, but make life in Israel more difficult.

    Again, I don't support that, and I have no doubt that Hamas is a group of totally religious extremists, but one has to say that their actions are not without effect. Due to Hamas and the Palestinian intifadas, life in Israel indeed did become much more difficult, and this has prevented many (yews) from moving into Israel, thus decreasing the "need" of Israel for even more settlements in the West Bank.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #51  
    Here's an interesting story about reality in Palestine from the "liberal" media I thought was worth sharing:

    Is Peace Out of Reach?
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Here's an interesting story about reality in Palestine from the "liberal" media I thought was worth sharing:

    Is Peace Out of Reach?
    (coincidentally, I had just watched that 60 Minutes story, just before seeing your link to it.)

    It was powerful indictment of Israel's settlements, and of the policies that have alienated many potential Palestinian friends.

    Unfortunately I know and understand too much of this history to have any optimism for solutions or confidence in ascribing blame to any one side.

    The problems there have always been irreconcilable -- of two people wanting the same land, both believing themselves entitled. The prospects for peace, for negotiated compromise and long term mutual recognition have always been difficult. But after 8 years of junior things have never been so dark, so bleak.

    In 2000 Clinton, Barak, and Arafat were potentially near an agreement on a legitimate 2 state solution.

    That was when Sharon reignited the Intifada. That was September 2000.

    Sharon's knowingly provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque deliberately provoked the riots that followed. He did not want the peace compromise that the 3 principles were negotiating -- a compromise that would have entailed the dismantlement of much of the west bank settlements, and some form of co-habitation and shared sovereignty over Jerusalem.

    Nevertheless there was still the prospect of an agreement in the final weeks of his Presidency -- and Clinton appealed to junior to authorize his continued work on finding a mutually acceptable definition of coexistence and peace.

    One of junior's first catastrophic acts as "the decider", was to dismantle Clinton's peace effort.

    The Intifada's protest and its suppression beget the savagery of buses and cafes being bombed.

    Suicide terrorists converted leftist Israelis into hard core conservatives and militarists.

    In reaction a consensus in Israel developed that peace was impossible, that Palestinians could not be trusted, and that they all needed to be walled off from ever entering into Israel, of ever being able to blow up Israelis again.

    junior reenforced the Israeli instinct to not compromise with terrorists.

    Hamas similarly also fought against any compromise that could have lead to 2 states -- to anything other than a restoration of the original Palestinian land.

    Sharon, Hamas and junior all gained power subsequent to September 2000 --

    As of now it certainly seems as though the extremists have won – Palestinian, Israeli, and american -- peace has never seemed so distant ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 01/26/2009 at 11:20 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Here's an interesting story about reality in Palestine from the "liberal" media I thought was worth sharing:

    Is Peace Out of Reach?
    Interesting. It shows quite a rare (but very valid) criticism of Israel. Namely in the US, support for Israel seems to be bordering the naive.

    Regarding one argument of the settlers: I used to work in East Africa, home of the Maasai, an African ethnic group. As Wikipedia rightly points out, the Maasai are monotheistic and believe that "god gave them all the cattle on earth, leading to the belief that rustling cattle from other tribes is a matter of taking back what is rightfully theirs".

    Of course it would be absurd to allow members of the ethnic group of the Maasai to take away cattle from their rightful owners based on the religious beliefs of the Maasai - Just as it is absurd to allow members of another ethnic group (this time in the Middle East) to take away land from the rightful owners based on the religious beliefs of that ethnic group.
    Last edited by clulup; 01/27/2009 at 10:44 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions