When I read this article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mideast24.html
I felt the history will always repeat, in one way or other way, but the humans will make the same errors.
For example, think about Napoleon and Hitler. They wanted to conquer Russian, and together attacked them in the worse winter they had.
I think there are a lot of coincidential success in other differents time, and this success will repeat in short or long time.
I dont mean Jewish are making the same errors that Nazis did because the situation is so different, but this situation remember these errors, Israel is a rich nation like Germany was then moreover Israel have a powerfull army like Germany was. Israel have palestian refugees camp of Palestian like nazis had... Could be a coincidence?
What do say the old jewish refugees if they could see that their sons is making?
Moreover If they could watch in tv the same news we can, what do you believe they would think when they watched these imagens?, they would say these imagens is about second world war.

What do you think about friends?
Is the history repeting?

Shaide

I don't think its repeating as such, although I'd seen that story a few days ago. I'm sorry for all the flak he's taking, he didn't equate Israel with the Nazi's, just said that a Palestinian woman reminded him of his mother in the Ghetto.

This tells us two things about the current situation.

1) The criticism by the Israeli government of his comments shows their reluctance to value a palestinian life in the same way they would a jewish one.

2) A ghetto is of course what most of the Palestinian people now live in. Palestinians territory has been sliced into pieces by Israeli roads and checkpoints, the result being that they live in small cantons, easily controlled by the Israeli army. Some Palestinians are living under a week long curfew, allowed out only for a few hours a week to get food and bare living essentials whilst Jewish settlers walk around with impugnity.

So no, history isn't repeating itself....yet. The number of Palestinian deaths hasn't been on the scale of the holocaust, but I dare say we could give it another ten or twenty years.

We will often fail to apply the lessons from history, IMO. We may "learn" them but when we are "in the moment" of a situation where they should be applied, we are highly unlikely to recognize it and adapt accordingly.

Yeah, I'm a cynical bugger.

An "incorrect" article to say the very least.

"and yeilded 1 tunnel". Bravo, ser "incorrect information". We found 3 tunnels already. Needles to say that since 3 is not 1, the rest of the article is one big lie. The author did not even bother to check out the facts!

http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//547595


There is lots of stuff there and about the tunnels too. Look at the "bold" underlined first paragraph. you will see the number 3 there.

Now about the post.

Hitler attacked at 22.61941. High summer, hardly any snow. [img]smile.gif[/img]


Israel is not rich at all. Believe me, i should know. We are rather poor.

When Hitler had refugee camps that non german or their allies dwelt there?

The situation is different, you said it yourself.
We do it because these little ************* smuggle katiushas, rpgs and whatnot. Did you ever live in a state or a city when each day without getting down to basement was a extraordinary one? We cannot brook such a situation. We destroy these homes because we have to, not because we want to and not because we enjoy it. If they did not smuggle weapons or fought the smugglers, then their homes could be intact by now.

I just don't see history repeating when comparing Israel/Palesine with Hitlers Germany... if the Jews of 1930's europe had been suicide bombing the wazoo out of Hitler's folks and Adolf had to stuff them into camps to keep them from killing his people, well I guess then it'd be closer to a valid comparison.

[ 05-24-2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Sharp conclusion!

You're wrong, here's my proof www.sohu.com


חייל ברפיח. "שן קשת ענן" (צילום: רויטרס)צה"ל: במבצע "קשת בענן" נהרגו 41 מחבלים
ו-12 אזרחים, נהרסו 56 בתים ואותרו 3 מנהרות להברחת נשק


Wow, there IS something I can read. It's a "3". It could be 3 apples, 3 fighter planes or 3 dictionaries, but there are most certainly three of them.


Now about the post:

I think it's rude to prove your point by linking a page most of the IWF members and very possibly none of the posters on this thread (save you) understands. I almost never link pages in German and that's at least the same script. I cannot even guess what's in this article and so I feel a bit puzzled.

Disproving an article is not as simple as finding one wrong number and automatically assuming everything else is wrong too.

Of course it's a poor comparison and this can be proven quite easily by debating calmly.
The main problem with large-scale wars or military actions risking civilian collaterals is obvious.
For every terrorist you catch you incite two new ones.
You may stop the weapon smugglers today but if you destroy some homes in the course you've just made the most effective PR for every terrorist in the area and doubled their numbers tomorrow.

I'm a little bored and a little sick of hearing this argument. It is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing. If you kill terrorists and their sympathizers, you will eventually get them all. If along the way, all Palestinians become terrorist based on the reasoning you state above, then the equation simply becomes one where killing all the terrorists also equals killing all the Palestinians. If that is their choice, so be it. But it is wrong to cowtow to terrorists. There is only one right answer -- overwhelming and brutal reactionary force in opposition to any terrorist activity.

MY OPINION.

Terrorists are criminals. Period.
If I want to catch criminals I use the police and not the army. For a simple reason, to avoid doing more damage while catching the criminal than he poses a danger in the first place.
Extreme example:
Crime rates in LA are high and my fellow countryman Arnold, aka The Terminator ;) , decides to do something about it. He starts bulldozing districts with high crime rates using tanks thus killing a lot of criminals. In the course of this destruction a lot of innocent people (also from neighbouring districts) lose their homes and fall below the poverty line. Some of them become criminals (some for the money they lack, some because they now hold a grudge against society). So Arnie starts taking out mob bosses with Apache helicopters thus eliminating them but also destroying more homes and killing innocent people. LA citizens begin to riot. Arnie orders firing in the crowd ... and eventually carpet bombs LA.
facit:
problem solved - mission accomplished
of the millions of dead people some already had it coming (they were criminals from the start) some made a wrong choice (the became criminal in the course of events) and some wer completely innocent all the way.
In addition to the lives lost there's also a lot of economical potential going to hell, etc.

Now I know this is over the top (that's just my cynical self ;) ) but the bottom line is "violence breeds violence"
There's a reason they don't teach recruits how to become "Dirty Harry" or "John McLane" in police academy and it's not about ethics, but about effiency and law.
A hand-grenade is not an appropriate weapon for self-defence, a gun is.
I'm not saying do nothing, but respond appropriately in the manner of a country with a modern and working justice system.
my 2c

[ 05-24-2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

I disagree. When a "criminal" is sporting RPGs and bombs, you call in the National Guard, just like they did to poor Johnnie Rambo in the backwoods of Kentucky. Besides, if you look to SWAT and other types of police responses appropriate for terrorist situations, I think you'll find that you're splitting hairs and that there's little difference.

SWAT is an excellent example of using (para)military resources while acting as a exceptionally trained police force. When have you last seen SWAT use a mortar in a hostage situation?
The point is to respond accordingly to the threat and the situation.
If there's some loonie on the lose driving a tank of course they'll call the national guard and use anti-tank launchers if the situation requires it.
If the same loonie however has exited the tank and retreated to the woods or escaped to a safehouse there's no more need for anti-tank weaponry and SWAT will go in with MP5s and M3s instead of LAWs and air support from AH64s.
It's not only safer for the public, but also more cost-effective ;)

One thing that extremely bothered me with the Israeli approach has always been the assassination of confirmed but not convicted terrorist leaders (especially when done with combat helicopters).

Ask yourself: "Would Chicago (and the US) have been better off if Al Capone had been shelled with artillery at his estate or during an opera visit?"

[ 05-24-2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

You cannot treat terrorists as simple criminals. They require stronger methods than going after them with warrants. They laugh at those tactics.

TL, didn't Rambo take place in the state of Washington?

Movie (Actually "First Blood") = Pacific NW, Washington seems correct
Book = Kentucky (And Rambo dies at the end)

History repeats if you are unaware of it. The Jews are and have always been very mindful of tradition, history and matters of the past.

Faceman i posted it in hebrew merely because i failed to find anything else in english. as you have noticed i try to post english articles. Alas i am not good with the searching bit, i know only 3 sources of info-haarez, maariv, ediot ahronot, but when i search for "yesterday's news" i am required to pay money in order to see them. I apologize if i gave any offence. :D
Your link told me about the stock markets, 10 kittens and a bag of wool. :D It is beside the point. ;)

Now to the matters at hand.

We cannot use other forces than military or SWAT (which we use in Jenin, Nablus, Hevron etc.)
When you have land mines and snipers SWAT is not enough by itself. It cannot stay i a place for too long. Best to use IDF-More efective and far more cheaper, then go-enter-go-enter of the SWAT. Also we have much more IDF troops than SWAT ones.
Terrorrists will not meekly say-i am sorry, i surender. Use of force is a neseccity.
The mentality of people is different. You cannot compare between the reaction of Palestinian and resident of USA who is let's say english. The reasons and the motives as well as the reaction itself are different.


Assassinations-Rantisi was a part of HAMAS. What proof do you need? He was guilty, and had to be executed. The same with Yasin.
BTW-did any one notice any mega TA against civilians here? These little ******* cannot carry out anything. The gates to hell are closed. :D

Ok, but Ariel Sharon is equally guilty, and has to be executed too. Likewise, when you next enter your compulsary military service and take up arms you deserve to die too. It has been nice hearing your opinions though. I hope your death will be quick and painless and that you will never know what hits you.

History doesn't repeat itself, ignorant morons repeat history.

Agreed.
Don't know about your situation, probably not true here in the USA.
Agreed again.
Well, to detract for a moment -- wouldn't capturing them and bringing them to trial be better? Of course, there are the logistics of the capture, the amount of lives lost in the capture, and the ensuing political embroglio, because a captured terrorist causes more bombings and hijackings in order to bargain for their release. In short, I wish all first world countries had the BALLS (or chutzpah, if you prefer) to deal with terrorists with such finality. Bringing them to justice can be a bloddy affair in and of itself.

That's real thoughtful. Thanks for the input -- even though it can be refuted by common sense, research, and the posts on this forum. But, thanks so much anyway for your words of wisdom.

Agreed.

Quote:

Also we have much more IDF troops than SWAT ones.

Don't know about your situation, probably not true here in the USA.

Quote:

Terrorrists will not meekly say-i am sorry, i surender. Use of force is a neseccity. The mentality of people is different.

Agreed again.

Quote:

Assassinations-Rantisi was a part of HAMAS. What proof do you need? He was guilty, and had to be executed. The same with Yasin.

Well, to detract for a moment -- wouldn't capturing them and bringing them to trial be better? Of course, there are the logistics of the capture, the amount of lives lost in the capture, and the ensuing political embroglio, because a captured terrorist causes more bombings and hijackings in order to bargain for their release. In short, I wish all first world countries had the BALLS (or chutzpah, if you prefer) to deal with terrorists with such finality. Bringing them to justice can be a bloddy affair in and of itself.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree to some extent, however the flaw in your argument is that you automatically assume that 90% of all Palestinians are terrorists. Of course you need excessive force when attacking a fortification or hideout of some sort. But you just can't raze an entire village just because there are a certain number of criminals (organised and heavily armed criminals, but criminals nonetheless) hiding there.
For the assassination:
Terrorists will terrorize, that's what they do. Now I don't see the point in compromising one's integrity and justice system because you fear that terrorists may start terrorizing.
Again I say use the appropriate force instead of excessive force.

It's also an ideological problem and of course a problem of law (regional and international). Israel is in a constant civil war state and AFAIK there's not one prominent historical example where this has worked out for the ones in power.
Israel and the US tend to respond to the terrorist threat with inappropriate and (strictly called) illegal methods and support this decisions with ideology.
Let's go way back: Some years ago (pre 9/11) Clinton administration got word of a terrorist camp in Sudan. They immediately attacked it with Cruise missiles.
Now Sudan is an independent country and in my book this was an act of war. However since nobody inthe Western world (speak US, Canada, Europe) really cares and they don't have the force (and stupidity) to respond they let it slide.
Back to my mob analogy:
Some regions of Sicily are almost completely under control of the mafia and Italy does little or nothing about it.
Now if there was a "terrorist incident" involving the mob and intelligence could prove that the ones involved have ties to the Sicilian mob would the US start bombing Sicily?
And don't tell me the situation there is different, because it isn't. The mafia rules the island and although there are many innocents living there they don't dare to cross her. I dare to day that it's not a lot different in Gaza. Many Palestinians don't agree with the terrorists but they fear the Hamas.
How would you feel if you were surrounded by criminals (who don't wish you harm, but don't really care about you or if you get killed) and the police (who don't wish you harm, but don't really care about you or if you get killed)
I'd feel pretty shitty.

Faceman- your grasp of the situation in israel is somehow flawed. We do not have any civil war. We fight terrorrists that are not our civilians.

What amount of force would you suggest, having years of military and antiguerilla warfare experience? ;)
Sooner or later you will reach the conclusion that we use what is necessary, not because we like them, but because we have a severe lack of funds.


We raised only these buildings that were necessary to raise. We do not go and kill them because we like to, nor we damage their property because we like to. If we wanted to kill them all, one (!!!) artillery strike-No Gaza. One artillery strike- no tunnels, no Rafah, nothing.
The fact that we do not do it shows something.


Hierophant-I am puzzled. The ideology of Israel is different from Hamase's ideology. I do what i do because i defend my country against peop..no sorry, barbarians, that their official agenda is to kill me. They claim that i am a jew and a zionist, things that i am conspiciously guilty of. Since that it is their extent of the proof agains me and Sharon, i find that it is my right to "bullet spray" the ****** until they reconsider. My proof is something else. I look at their agenda and see number 1: "kill the jews". i look at number 2 and see: "destroy the zionist state!!!!". I am sorry but they declared war on us. Suits me, i was never a pacifist.
Regarding my death- WTF?? According to your logic the americans also had to die when they attacked hitler. He was not trialed. Yet i am sure that he would have been assassinated if the opportunity presented itself.

no civil war eh?
terrorists are not your civilians?
In my understanding when people of two nations/countries engage in a heavy conflict like this it's war.
If the armyis on the streets for several years in a row it's war.
however if this all happens within a country it is civil war.
If it is not a civil war then it is a police action and if so collateral damage is not acceptable and culprits must be tried and convicted.
Of course the Americans did the right thing in attacking Hitler and of course they should have assassinated him if possible (whatever the outcome may have been). But that was war!
Since there's no war (or civil war) in your country you can't just go aroun eliminating people you disapprove of (even if you know they are mass murderers). You can do that in war and under martial law, but since none of these seems to apply here...

Without any practical expierence in warfare ;) I can tell you from my history textbooks that the way Israeli forces are taking won't work. It never has and never will.
Unless of course - as Timber remarked - you nearly eradicate the Palestinian people (worked fine with the Native Americans for example).

So if I got you right Israel does not have a civil war situation but merely a very creative justice system ;)

Black baron: We quite literally live in different worlds, and will never understand each other, although not for lack of wanting or trying. Nevertheless, I wish you all the best.

Faceman-they are not our civilians, they do not have the papers they are civilians of the PA. Gaza is PA it is not Israel. When 2 sides engage in a martial conflict it is caleld war. Your claim that we have no war here is groundless. We killed people, they killed people. What is it then if not a war? By the way you manage to contradict yourself. We have (according to your post)in a state of war because: "If the army is on the streets for several years in a row it's war". Operation "defensive shiled" etc, are ok according to your defenition.
BTW-where does war happen? In outer space? ;) it happens in a country so your claim for a civil war is unacceptable. Israel is small and territories and gaza even smaller. It does not means that we fight in the same country. We have PA Vs Israel.

Your history books are wrong. I will not go far-America vs Tunis war. Or how the english dealt with uprisings in their muslim colonies. Your history books are too selective.

So Gaza is a different country then?
Then why are there still Israeli troops.
War for territorial gain? This has been outlawed since the mid 20ies (Briand-Kellog).
Are the English still controlling this colonies?
Did they economically gain by quelling the uprisings with force?
Especially when it comes to colonism there's a simple formula:
Oppression+peace=profit
Oppression+unrest+cooperation=profit
Oppression+uprising+bloodyconflict=civil war=loss of resources => retreat

So tell me as I am confused:
1. What state is Israel in? War, Civil War, Peace?
2. Which country do Gaza and the Westbank belong to?
3. What do you call a conflict that is confined to 1 country?

IMHO Israel has two ways out:
1. Leave. (which is unrealistic, hardly feasible and IMO not the best solution)
2. Give the Palestinians Israeli passports. Let politics sort it out!

Either Gaza and Westbank are part of Israel then their inhabitants are too, or they are not then what the hell are Israeli troops doing there?

I answer by points:

We are there because terrorists have their arms supply there, as well as arms route and they atack us from there.

English do not controll the colonies, yes, but not because they failed to annahilate the resistanse.

We ar at war with PA.

certain areas of the westbank belong to PA, gaza belongs to PA.

PA is not israel, therefore the conflict is between 2 states-Palestinian autonomy and Israel.

Israel has 2 ways indeed. The second is unrealistic. They are not wanted here. We do not wish to have such a "marvelous" neighbors that wish to kill us.(I do not talk about palestinians, i talk about terrorists.)

The first is realistic. It is the same situation as France had with Algiria. France annahilated and obliterated the "resistance" (read-guerilla warfare terrorists). Then France pulled away.

Gaza is not part of israel. We are there due to reasons listed above. Sharon is also willing to pull the civilians out of there.

Westbank areas where there are no palestinians (or almost none) and where is total majority of jews are parts of israel. Such territories are less then 10% of all occupied territories.

I hope that now you understand the situation a bit more. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm a little bored and a little sick of hearing this argument. It is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing. If you kill terrorists and their sympathizers, you will eventually get them all. If along the way, all Palestinians become terrorist based on the reasoning you state above, then the equation simply becomes one where killing all the terrorists also equals killing all the Palestinians. If that is their choice, so be it. But it is wrong to cowtow to terrorists. There is only one right answer -- overwhelming and brutal reactionary force in opposition to any terrorist activity.

MY OPINION. </font>[/QUOTE]TL, what I will say may shock you (so I apologize in advance) but, if you were born palestinian, seeing how you talk and how you react, seeing your position and words about certain topic, I am 99% sure that you would have carried yourself a bomb in an israeli crowded place. Brutal force in opposition to brutal force...yay... :(
But we'll never know, and that's maybe better this way.

(And I'm sorry if I shocked you or hurted you)

You will fail to annihilate the resistance too Black Baron. You will never, ever win this war. It's not pacifism, it's prophecy ;) It's not too late for you to walk away though. Leave the greedy fools to their land grabs. Do you really love the land you live on? Or do you just want to belong to a gang? Just walk away. There are plenty of places you can move to. Don't kill yourself over someone else's nationalist hallucinations.
Israel? What is Israel? A name. A series of squiggly lines on a map. Just like every other 'nation' that ever was or ever will be. It's a political and economic deal, a f**king series of handshakes, nothing more. 'The body and soul of Israel will go the way of all other bodies and all other souls'. Judging by your sig I assume you are a Dune fan, surely you understand those words then? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Is that what you guys told the Maoris? Is that why there are more of them in Sydney than your New Zealand? Wow. Strong words from an English speaker who has plenty of the world to go and speak English and feel at home in an English culture.

When and if you choose to live as an alien, totally at odds with the culture around you, you may feel why, to some, having a homeland is an important thing.

You devalidate so many peoples cares, pains and sufferings with your words. The Armenian, the Kurd, the Gypsie, the Jew. Try and see outside your Anglo-Saxon, new world perspective and be a little more sensative mate.

If one is not willing to die for his country he has no right for this country. I can say the same to you, regarding your state. It is mine state, why should i move? I will not give ************************* the pleasure of seeing me go. I will take my pleasure in staing. i will kill those that want to kill me.
Anyway iin 100 years the "oil rule" will be over. Then we will deal with this resistance (if it will exist till then) as we see fit. I predict our victory at the same moment when a barrel will cost 1/2 dollar.It will take some time, but we are patient, unlike you that want easy solution.

Black Baron said they are in war with Palestina, then Israel is invaded Palestina (there are israelis troops in Gaza)...
Why the ONU didnt do something?
When Iraq invaded Kuwait the rich nations vomited troops to protect Kuwait, but what is the difference between Kuwait and Palestina?...
Ah! I forget, the difference is the oil.
In this way It's seems If you have oil and you are friend of rich nations then your civilians are good persons (not terrorist).
Really the money is who rules in this world.
It's a pity.
What should we do?

Shaide for the peace

Help us in fighting terrorrists. And Eu does do things. it does too much. It condemns and it threatens us with embargo, which we will not survive.

I'm a little bored and a little sick of hearing this argument. It is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing. If you kill terrorists and their sympathizers, you will eventually get them all. If along the way, all Palestinians become terrorist based on the reasoning you state above, then the equation simply becomes one where killing all the terrorists also equals killing all the Palestinians. If that is their choice, so be it. But it is wrong to cowtow to terrorists. There is only one right answer -- overwhelming and brutal reactionary force in opposition to any terrorist activity.

MY OPINION. </font>[/QUOTE]There's a word for that, it's called genocide. I thought it was the Arabs that were supposed to be the barbaric ones? Furthermore, there's no regard for law in your reasonsing, which is the basis for civilization.


@ Black Baron

Nice to see a diverse selection of news there from all political spectra and points of view.

Also, comparing Britain and the colonies is completely different. After colonialism was no longer fashionable, Britain and France both had international legitimacy in the form of League of Nations Mandates and created viable and fully-functional states where none had previously existed. The day I see Israel work for a viable Palestinian state I will eat my hat.

If you ask people in every country around the world who the greatest threats to world peace are, they will say American, Israel and North Korea. It is just not possible for all these countries, with all their completely different cultures and news agencies to agree on something without there being some grain of truth in it. America and Israel are rogue states that pay no regard to international law.

IMHO your cause proves just IF
you are willing to die for it,
but you are unwilling to kill for it.

Gandhi and King succeeded because that was exactly their point.
We Europeans are losers because we won't kill or die for anything and the US, Israel and the Islamic fundamentalists won't succeed because they're willing to do both.

Faceman-I am ready to kill if the need will arise, but i would not want to do it.

Shamrock-common knowledge and what people think are, excuse for my bluntness, a trash heap. They forget to mention iran and syria, that act accordingly to the international law only in parralel universe and even than it will be less than israel. Besides-the international law is something that suits a number of influental states that do not face islamic terrorrism (i do not say that islam=terror, i merely say that there is such kind of terrorrism). They have no say in that matter. So b***** them and their law. When buses will explode on daily basis i will listen to the song that you will sing.


You also miss TL's point. He says that if everyone of them will want to kill us, than each one of them should be killed. Genocide is made regardless of political views of the killed.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/431683.html


LOL

Look at this article. IDF claims that we destoyed 56 buildings.

UN claims that only 45.
Before they claimed 180. Bunch of stupid big mouthed idiots. Say something, destroy our image, than apologize.
So much for IDF being a "terror organization" and other monstrous tales.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/431841.html


and that is a link that will show you why we delay ambulances on their way.

Maybe you "holy" critics will now understand something. :D

Wrong on 2 counts. First, killing Palestinians because they are terrorists who commit or attempt to commit terrost acts is not genocide -- genocide is killing them *because* they are Palestinian. Two very different things -- one based on behavior, the other on identity.

"All terrorists will forfeit their life, with or without a trial as the need arises" actually IS an example of a rule of law. It's just not *your* preferred law. But it would be a fair and just law if fairly and justly applied.

Okay, two strikes. Next? ;)

Like which guys told the Maoris? I didn't ask for the actions of my ancestors. The world I live in bears their marks, but whether or not I let that define who I am is all up to me.
OK, I guess we have different ideas of what life is. It's not that I'm insensitive, just that my sensitivity follows a different basis. I do think I understand what you're saying though. But I don't mean to hijack this thread with my ravings so I guess we should go to pm....

[ 05-25-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Ok Timber, I have a friend who's been following this thread closely and has actually done a reply for you which I shall post now. Would be interesting to hear your response. All the following is Kulveer's writing, with the odd edit from me for clarity:

Replace ‘terrorists’ with ‘crusaders’, and ‘Palestinians’ with ‘Westerners’, and that statement doesn’t look out of place coming from Osama Bin Laden. Sad to see just how much similarity there is in the narrow minded thinking!

First of all, let’s analyse this argument premise by premise.

NOT using ‘brutal’ and ‘overwhelming’ force does not mean you should do nothing. First mistake by Timber. It is the technique people like him use to justify their violence and aggression, by wrongly defining any dissenter’s argument. It is also dependent on the idea that ‘might makes right’, and just because we are better at organized violence, [i.e. through an army], we can use that to justify our deeds. Returning to the point, any fool knows that it is not ‘an excuse to do nothing’, it simply means a different MEANS should be used to achieve the ENDS. And why so? Simply because the other means would be more effective, nothing more, nothing less.

‘Terrorism’ is not a disease, it is the SYMPTOM of a disease. And until that disease is cured from its causes, the symptoms will persist ad infinitum, no matter how much you try and remove them. Unless of course you could pursue genocide and wipe out all Palestinians, but then I’m sure other enemies would rise to replace them.

I doubt it very much that becoming a terrorist is simply a matter of choice. Another false justification used by Timber and people with similar views to justify their military excesses. Just how much free-will goes into the decision to become a terrorist? If all the conditions which exist in Palestine, poverty, humiliation, oppression, were removed, then I’m sure the ‘choice’ to become a terrorist would be different. Suicide bombing is despicable, but then if the Palestinians do not have an army to defend themselves, what should they do? No doubt, if they did have an army, it would be deemed ‘terrorist’.

What we are looking at here is a distributional problem. Because Israel is the most powerful state in the region, with its 200+ stockpile of nukes and huge American funding, they have the power to ‘define’ what a terrorist is, and what ‘legitimate’ military action is. Simply assuming that Palestinians should accept their fate because they are weaker is very arrogant of Israel and the US. Of course, they will not accept their fate and so they are called terrorists. I’d rather call them freedom fighters.

Imagine this situation:

There is a big bully in a playground who abuses other children. When scolded by his mother for doing so, the bully justifies his action by saying the other were making fun of him or were not friendly to him or whatever. Now, most of the children just shut up and let the bully do what he wants, and they don’t get punched. A few of the other children though, don’t want to take the bully’s s***, and so, even though much weaker, try and stand up to the bully, which results in them being punched in the face. Of course, no one will say the bully was wrong for punching the kid in the face, because that kid shouldn’t have stood up to him.

But seeing that one kid stand up for himself, others start to follow, fed up of being abused by the bully. One by one, all these kids attempt to resist the bully, but since he is so big and strong and ruthless, he punches them all in the face one by one. Eventually we have a situation where all the kids stand up to the bully, and he punches all of them one by one and justifies his actions by saying they are all now being mean to him. It was the kids’ fault of course, for standing up to him. Who do they think they are? So now they all deserve their big fat punch in the face.

I hope you see the analogy I am trying to make, but that is the sort of thing Timber suggests would justify wiping out the Palestinians if they became ‘terrorist’. I’d like Timber to define what a terrorist is. What is it essentially about the actions of a terrorist that make him a terrorist? We will carry on the argument from there. When people with a political will are excluded from the political process, terrorism usually results.

[ 05-26-2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Well, first reply is he's certainly good at talking something to death.

I'm not real fond of taking up for the US being a bully, but I will say that at some point it's time to divy up teams and have the good fight. All his analogies lead to one conclusion -- pick a side and join the fray. If we're the bully who punched you in the face, get the other kids to join you and do something about it.

Anyway, off-the-cuff to be sure -- I have so much to do today and so little time. I will try to post more thoughtful stuff later.

In the meantime, I'll leave it to other "people like me" to take up the fray -- whatever that means.

Kulveer, I don't agree with your reasoning.

It seems that i will join the fray.
First of all-Let's say that OBL says the "crusaders" stuff. So? I hardly find these things wrong. From his point of view he is right, because short of killing us one by one he and his organization have no hope of emerge victorious from the war. We have no other way of dealing with terrorrists except killing them, or throwing them into prison for life, which is almost the same. I will say yet another thing-If all the people of "tumbo yumbo" state will become rapers and murderers and thieves (not or. and) the police of "tumbo yumbo" will have to deal with them all according to the law. The law says-death sentence. So be it.
Therefore the point of Kulveer is irrelevant.

Secondly-explain what is "owherwelming" and "too much" force. Colonels and generals have their priorities set in that way when the life of their soldier is far more valued than life of all enemy combatant troops. USA and Israel are very liberal. We could have bombed them from the air thus making 100% sucsess and 0 casualties from our side. We do not do it. USA and Israel do not use owherwelming force, merely because we have casualties. Again the point of your friend is an incorrect one.

Thirdly-About their free will. You always have free will. They can easily resist ala Gandi. Stop going to work at our facilities . Our economy could have suffered tremendous losses. Average israely is too lazy to go to work. Their mentality is however the mentality of the region (including ours)-No force, no results. They chose the way of the bombers. Their problems.

Foursly (sp?)-Terrorist here is a person that: 1)Kills (or does his best to) civilians on purpose. 2)Belongs to organization that says-death to all the x and destroy state y for good.

Terrorist in general is dictionary defeniton. Here however we have an islamic terrorrism. This terrorrism is now the major kind in the world.