Rules
Terms of Use

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#174220 - Thu Jun 12 2003 11:32 AM Re: On The Road To Peace?
ace_sodium Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Sep 16 2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: India
Quote:

Let me first address Ace_sodium who at least finally seems to have finally appreciated the point about an objective definition for terrorism




You haven't been listening well..... I have always stated the need for an objective analysis of the word 'terrorism'. For me, no definition (except my own ) seems to fulfill that requirement.
Look at the thread 'Are we losing blah blah.." in controversial topics.

someone said there(I think,cool) 'I know Terrorism when I see it'.

. Similar we all agree to certain 'terrorism' agents. It is only in a few that we tend to disagree (and it is these few I am concerned about).

I ain't bothered about Osama Bin Laden or Hafeez Mohammed because I ( & everyone) knows there are terrorists. But I am concerned about that poor Ali who is branded a 'terrorist' because he asked for his rightful wages.


Tiel - Could you give out your 'concise' definition or statement regarding terrorism.

Who knows, there might be people who will appreciate it and of course, if it's 'absurd', there might also be people who 'destroy' it.

But I haven't read anywhere about your objective definition
of terrorism. I would be delighted to hear it.

If you won't venture into that, could you atleast tell me which places (limit it to our earth plz) are facing 'terrorism'?
_________________________
5......

Top
#174221 - Thu Jun 12 2003 08:18 PM Re: On The Road To Peace?
chelseabelle Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10282
Loc: New York USA
I suppose that if the IRA went back to setting off bombs in London, perhaps blowing up a crowded London bus, that wouldn't be seen as terrorism either.

I suppose it's only a minor detail, but people are actually getting killed while some others can sit at a detached distance and discuss the "moral highground".

A state/government has a right to protect it's people from vigilante murderers. Just as bin Laden is a criminal, members of Hamas are criminals. Israel has the right to strike back and attempt to eliminate this criminal threat to it's national security. It is "morally bankrupt" to equate a criminal group of self-appointed mass murders with a legitimately elected government acting in defense of it's people.

Meanwhile, right now, it is Hamas who is clearly showing they do not want peace. It is Hamas who should bear the responsibility for continued loss of Palestinian life and the continuation of oppressive conditions for the Palestinians. They want the violence to continue. They want Israel obliterated. Nothing short of that will satisfy them. They really have no regard for Palestinian lives--they just want to see Israel destroyed. Nothing about that agenda seems moral to me.
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years

Top
#174222 - Thu Jun 12 2003 08:59 PM Re: On The Road To Peace?
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Tiel, tell mum to save the kick... I don't even have an arse.
As for the idea of assassinating Hitler being somehow un-British, I think history is against you there, as some very decidedly British types concocted and/or approved such a plan in or around 1944.
http://www.s-t.com/daily/07-98/07-23-98/a06wn029.htm

As for your other questions, I will gladly admit to Israelis having been terrorists-- Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, among a few others, in the 1940's.

As for the present situation, I will mince no words. The latest bus-bombing by Hamas, in which 16 Israelis were killed, was not directed at the IDF. It was directed at civilian non-combatants. Read the story in the decidedly NON-right-wing Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46924-2003Jun11.html?nav=hptop_ts

Also please take note that the Washington Post, certainly no great friend of Israel, honestly reports that in the subsequent Israeli raids in Gaza, the Israelis targeted-- and hit-- leading members of Hamas' military wing. The New York Times, again no great supporter of Israel, backs them up on this, while noting that some civilians also died.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/international/middleeast/13MIDE.html?ex=1056081600&en=8c30f57c49abd14c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

In all honesty, I believe that most of those who profess genuine difficulty making a distinction between Hamas randomly blowing up civilians on an Israeli bus and Israel blowing up a car with a Hamas bigwig in it are guided by other agendas. And I don't even want to think about what those agendas are.

Top
#174223 - Fri Jun 13 2003 06:36 AM Re: On The Road To Peace?
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Okay everyone, don't faint: I'm going to post something from the New-York Times. It's something I've been saying for a while, although I never brought it up since I couldn't be bothered to get into the historical explanations. But, since someone else has evidently done all the hard work: What Palestinians Can Learn From a Turning Point in Zionist History.
Of course, in true NYT fashion, they had to have one major historical error. Ironically, the article in the second link blames the NYT for helping to spread the original lie all those years ago.

(Tiel, how's your research into the "Saison" going?)
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#174224 - Sat Jun 14 2003 06:24 AM Re: On The Road To Peace?
DieHard Offline
Prolific

Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
I'm intrigued by the argument that Palestinians must resort to suicide bombers because they don't stand a chance against the IDF. Israel could have done to the Palestinian people long ago what the Arab world wants to do to Israel - annihilate them. Yet, they have tried to peacefully co-exist. Does anyone really believe that there would be the present conflict in the Middle East if Arabs were willing to live peacefully with Israel? Israel is not without fault but their goal has been the peaceful existance of a Jewish state, not the genocide of an entire people. Of course there are genuine cultural/religious disputes involving Jerusalem but the crux of the matter is that Arabs want to exterminate the Jews and Israel wants to be left alone.

I'm also curious as to why Israel gets bagged with responsibility for the Palestinian situation. The Palestinians have been cast-off by the Arab world and used only as a propaganda tool to fuel violence against Israel. Jordan and Egypt occupied the territory alloted the Palestinians under the UN partition resolution after WWII - why did they not form a Palestinian state? Britian also bears a great deal of responsibiIity for the present situation having bungled the mandate of Palestine in the 1930's. I am not unsympathetic to human condition of the Palestinian people, but the leaders of the Arab nations could change the future for these people if they wished. Instead they choose to use the Palestinian people as pawns in an unending quest to exterminate Israel.

I don't think there will be peace in the Middle East but I support efforts to reach that goal. I fully support the attempts by the IDF to eliminate the leaders of Hamas or any other terrorist organization that encourages the infitada. Israel cannot be expected to relinquish territory and capitulate to the demands of the Palestinian authorities when such moves would not bring peace but simply make peaceful existance for the Israelis that much more difficult and dangerous.
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Moderator:  ladymacb29, sue943