Does terrorism work? Comparing Tibetans with Palestinians

[StarvingStudent47]

I was pondering this recently. I've always liked to believe that "terrorism never actually works, it just makes things worse for the people who do it." But I'm not so sure anymore.

See, I was comparing Palestinians with Tibetans. Every justification Palestinians have for the West Bank, the Dalai Lama and buddies have for that patch of mountains. None of the justifications that Israel has for controlling the West Bank (buffer against Jordan; fighting terrorism) works for China and Tibet. So Tibetans are actually far more "deserving of a homeland" than Palestinians.

Yet the entire world is pushing for an independent Palestinian state, in one way or another (the US and Israel tend to say "not until terrorism stops;" no one else even has that qualification). No major countries are pushing for Chinese troops to leave Tibet.

What's the difference? One critical one I see. Tibetans are pacifists, whereas Palestinian terrorists blow up busses full of women and children.

So do we have to admit that terrorism actually does work? That's a depressing--and scary--thought.

[usa320]

Terrorism doesnt work- it just pisses us off and earns you a one way ticket to Gitmo...have fun.

[lefador1]

Well terrorism does indeed work some times, just ask the Israelis in 1948.....


None of the justifications that Israel has for controlling the West Bank (buffer against Jordan; fighting terrorism) works for China and Tibet. So Tibetans are actually far more "deserving of a homeland" than Palestinians.

Using your very own logic, none of the reasons that China has for controlling Tibet works for Israel. So Palestinians are far more "deserving of a homeland"


jeez.....

[Seiyuuki]

Read this...i hope it's going to explain you what is going on here better then me.





Didn't Israel drive out 600,000 Palestinians at gunpoint in 1948 and take their land?

Most Arabs who left Israel did so under the orders of the Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, to withdraw and let the Arab armies "drive the Jews into the sea," which they attempted in 1948. However Israel won that war. Not all of the Arabs left, and Israel is now 18% Arab. These Arabs have full citizenship rights, can own property, vote, and have 14 representatives in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament.

I've heard that some Israelis say there is no such thing as Palestinians. How can they say that?

Up until the 1967 war, the Arabs living in Israel did not even call themselves Palestinians -- twenty years after the founding of the modern state of Israel. The name Palestine came from the Romans who destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. To humiliate the Jews, the Romans renamed the land Palestine after their mortal enemies, the Philistines. The modern land of Palestine was given that name by the British when they took control over from the crumbling Ottoman Empire. In British Palestine, both Jews and Arabs were Palestinians.

(See "What is a Palestinian?" at Masada 2000)

Why doesn't Israel just give back the West Bank to the Palestinians? Then there will be peace.

In 1948, Israel's Arab neighbors tried to destroy the State of Israel. They rejected a Palestinian State, which the UN offered them at the same time as when Israel was founded. Prior to 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan. Currently Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel. The West Bank, which Jews call Judea and Samaria, is part of the ancient kingdom of Israel, and has been home to Arabs and Jews for thousands of years. Arafat himself said he will take back Israel in its entirety, if he has to do it all at once or piece by piece.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is looking for any excuse to invade and shoot Palestinians. Why did the Israeli people even elect him?

The directives given the IDF are strictly against the taking of innocent civilian life. Sharon withdrew ELEVEN times from the West Bank to effect a cease-fire. Each time Israel was attacked by suicide bombers. The Palestinian Authority failed to arrest them And instead paid their families awards. They even named streets after them as "martyrs". How can anyone take an enemy seriously that encourages the terror attacks? In 2000, President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak tried to offer the Palestinians a state, which included 95% of the West Bank. Arafat rejected the offer and launched the latest intifada or uprising. The sniper killings and suicide bombings are the method used to attack Israeli citizens. The Israeli people, who were angered when Arafat rejected Barak's offer, elected the hard-liner Sharon by a la! ndslide. Sharon has prevented more terror attacks than he has instigated. To blame him for the terror attacks is like blaming a woman for being raped.

Why are there so many more dead Palestinians than dead Israelis? Doesn't this prove that Israel is the aggressor here?

Several reasons combine to explain the differential death toll. First, the numbers are skewed. The Palestinians count the suicide bombers as "civilian casualties". They also count terrorists killed in shootouts with the police or IDF. Fact is, if civilians were only counted, Israeli casualties would be higher. Snipers who open fire on civilians are immediately hunted down and arrested, but many fight until they are shot. A big factor appears to be Palestinian gunmen who hide themselves in populated areas, which causes a high civilian death toll when the IDF tries to shoot back at them. The IDF has a policy of a measured response to a terrorist attack. These reprisals rarely involve death or injury. Also, given the P.A.'s problems with math, such as claiming 1,500 killed in Jenin when it was 52, their calculations are highly suspect. Israel has 10,000 people who are invalids, in comas or scarred in other ways for life.

Wait a minute! Israel has a heavily armed state-of-the-art military and the Palestinians only have rocks and a few old guns. Shouldn't our sympathies be with the Palestinians who only want their freedom from oppression and the opportunity for self-rule?

The Palestinians are using more than rocks, although stonings can be very violent too, causing death and serious injury. They have Qasem rockets. They have grenades. They have M-16's and Kalashnikovs [Ed.: Russian made assault rifles]. Arafat demanded weapons claiming he needed an armed police force to keep order. Those guns, provided by none other than Israel, have been linked with numerous terrorist attacks. Many weapons have been smuggled in from Egypt as well. The Palestinian police ARE the terrorists such as Fatah and Al Aksa. Currently the Palestinians, have self-rule under the Oslo accords yet persist in attacking Israel.

Don't the Israelis build roads and freeways that bypass Palestinian villages and they aren't allowed to use them?

They do bypass them. They were built because when Israelis drive by them they are shot at or have rocks thrown at them. Boulders dropped from heights above the roads have killed some. If the Israelis built freeways on Arab land, they'd complain the Israelis were taking Arab land or that they were damaging the environment.

Every time a Palestinian wants to go somewhere they have to go thru an Israeli checkpoint. Isn't this humiliating for the Palestinian people?

Humiliating? US citizens have to wait two hours at checkpoints at the airport. It's called security against terrorism. Suicide bombers kill Arabs too.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) regularly prevents ambulances from picking up sick and wounded people. Isn't this a crime against humanity?

They don't prevent medical care. However, time and time again the Arabs have transported bombs and terrorists in ambulances so now they must be thoroughly checked. Israel gives free medical care to many Palestinians. In Jenin last April, the IDF supplied blood to the hospital for wounded Palestinians. But the blood was rejected because the Palestinians would not use Jewish blood. So the IDF using military transports brought in blood from Jordan.

The Israelis have stopped the Palestinians from normal commerce, from employment, and now they are suffering from food shortages. How can they justify this?

Commerce and employment were higher when Israel controlled the area. In nine years with billions of dollars in aid the PA has failed even to feed its people. PA warlords under Arafat control UN food allotments and even sell it on the black market. It has been the terrorist attacks that have made business as usual impossible and have hurt the Palestinian economy.

When the Israelis say that the Arabs only wish to drive them into the sea, aren't they just being paranoid and using this excuse to justify their aggressions against the Palestinians?

5.5 million Jews. 250 million Arabs. Missiles with germ and radiological warheads on Israel's northern frontier controlled by Hizbollah. 21 terrorist attacks a day against common Israelis. The Arabs said "into the sea" in 1948 and even after Oslo. This is paranoid???

Didn't the International Conference in Durban, South Africa condemn Israel as a racist state?

The conference was made up of Arab dictatorships pushing their own agenda. The US and most of Europe boycotted the vote.

The Palestinians and the Jews have been fighting for thousands of years. Aren't they equally responsible for the violence?

They have not been fighting for thousands of years. The Arabs persecuted Jews. The difference is the Arabs won't tolerate a Jewish presence in the Muslim Middle East -- period. The Jews offer to negotiate peace but the Arabs are really just negotiating the end of Israel.

The suicide bombings are terrible, but aren't they done by a small handful of extremists? Isn't it wrong to condemn all the Palestinian people for the acts of a few?

Evidence shows that as many as twelve extremist groups conduct terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Hamas, Hezbollah, The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Fatah are a few of them. In many cases, the same individuals who are security for the Palestinian Authority conduct the terrorist attacks. Opinion polls among the Palestinian population reveal 90% approve of the suicide bombings. Thousands dance in the streets when a lethal suicide bombing is executed. The few who would work for peace run the risk of being arrested or lynched for being a collaborator with Israel. Historically, the Arabs persecuted Jews. The idea of wearing a yellow star as the mark of Jew was begun by the Arabs and copied by the Nazis. Just a note..the Arabs even have suicide bomber trading cards now like we have baseball! cards.

Why does Israel practice collective punishment against the Palestinian people?

Israel does not practice collective punishment. The security checkpoints are there solely to prevent more suicide bombings and attacks. During a reprisal, such as the bombing of a house from which sniper shots have been fired, a warning is given and THAT HOUSE is destroyed. Likewise, wanted criminals are found and executed since it is impossible to hold them accountable in a court of law under Arafat's regime. Often it is easy to determine the culprit. The Palestinians carry them on their shoulders in the street, put up posters praising them, and name streets after them. Contrast this with the almost daily attacks on Israeli civilians making all citizens fearful of going shopping for groceries, riding a bus, or stopping in for a piece of pizza.

I know that the Israelis don't want to deal with Prime Minister Yassir Arafat, but didn't the majority of the Palestinian people elect him?

Arafat ran the same type of Arab election as Saddam Hussein or Bashir Assad. He ran against one candidate, an 85 year-old woman who told everyone to vote for Arafat. When he first took control of the territories he murdered all the Arabs who administered the territories under Israel as "collaborators" in a sports stadium. Even Hitler and Stalin could claim to be democratically elected leaders the same as Arafat. But were they? The PA suspended all elections until President Bush said a "reformed" leadership was needed. Arafat's "reform" does not include his stepping down. He has postponed elections twice and now says not for a year until he can once again control the outcome.

Aren't the Jewish settlers on the West Bank just an excuse for Sharon to invade the Palestinian areas? And given how much opposition the Palestinians have to building homes on the West Bank, isn't Sharon just encouraging more suicide bombings?

Many Jews, especially the Orthodox Jews, believe the land of Judea and Samaria to be divinely given to the Jewish people. However, the Jewish settlements are on 1.7% of the West Bank. While home-building by Jews is often given as a reason for conducting more suicide bombing attacks (sadly documented in video tapes made by the teenage bombers shortly before they conducted an attack), does this sound even slightly reasonable? To commit suicide and mass murder to protest the building of homes by people of another religion? The settlements have residents who own homes and businesses as well. Why can't they stay as part of a state of Palestine and be Palestinian citizens as part of a peace settlement? The reason is the Ar! abs who accuse democratic Israel of racism repeatedly say NO JEWS may live anywhere in Palestine.

The conflict between the Muslims and the Jews is religous at its core. Isn't it really an insoluble issue marked by religious intolerance on both sides?

While there are sects of Islam which use passages in the Koran to justify the killing of infidels, there are also passages in the Koran which forbid suicide. Other passages teach that lands given by the Lord to other peoples are given for a reason known only to God. Likewise, religious Jews, who remain fixed on prophesies of the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple, the return of the Jewish people to the State of Israel, and the coming of the messiah are not likely to give in to Arab pressure to leave their holy sites. For the Arabs it is a tribal affair of honor and vengeance. Racism is at its core. Racism is a sickness and sicknesses can be cured. Israel seriously wants peace with the Arabs, but not at the expense of her existence being whittled away bit by bit through terrorism until she is destroyed. The healing will come when the world focuses its energies on helping the Arab world to come out of generations of tribal warfare, the subjugation of women, illiteracy and feudal kingdoms. These are the conditions, which spawn hatred of the Jews, which is only slightly more vehement than their hatred of the Christians

[Seiyuuki]

Do you know how many threads there are just on this subject alone?

[Saranof]

Look at the french resistance in 1944. That was terrorism. It worked.

[Gringo]

U guys r getting terrorism and fighting for freedom mixed up.

Terrorists target innocent civilians for their cause.
Freedom Fighters don't.

That is just my oppinion on the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

I hope this clears things up a little

[S'13]

[quote="lefador1"]"Well terrorism does indeed work some times, just ask the Israelis in 1948....."

Actually what the israelis did in 1948 was called fighting.

[Smintjes]

U guys r getting terrorism and fighting for freedom mixed up.

Terrorists target innocent civilians for their cause.
Freedom Fighters don't.

That is just my oppinion on the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

I hope this clears things up a little

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

[Gringo]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different.

[Haiw]

no smintjes statement is right...one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist... for example in south-africa, during apartheid.. mandela was (at least to the apartheit regime) a terrorist...while for the black population he was a freedom fighter. now fast forward to iraq. when a iraqi would blow up a truck with 10 US soldiers, he would be a terrorist to the USA...but to the ppl that want to see the US go asap, preferably in coffins, that guy is a freedom fighter.

[spier]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different. rofl Well, thanks for the comic relief!

Where terrorism has worked, from the top of my head:
Japan
Algerie
Palestine
Germany
And so on..

ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You see, there are many things that qualify as terrorism. The "Shock and Awe" operation for eample is a terrorist attack, the thing is most people don't see it that way.

[Argyll]

m,
What the Zionists,as they were yet to be called Israelis,did in 1948 was terrorism,not fighting.................this has been well documented here within this site,yes they targeted non British Military Personnel with grenade attacks,and car bombs too!
To say it was fighting is no different in saying what is happening to US Forces in Iraq,is also fighting?

[UoUo]

m,
What the Zionists,as they were yet to be called Israelis,did in 1948 was terrorism,not fighting.................this has been well documented here within this site,yes they targeted non British Military Personnel with grenade attacks,and car bombs too!
To say it was fighting is no different in saying what is happening to US Forces in Iraq,is also fighting?

What we did in 48 was not terorisem.....it was fight...and try to rember what the arabs did to us untill 48.....

[spier]

Ehm, the bombing of the King David hotel was a fight?

[Kriz]

UoUo what you did in 48 was terrorism for sure, I mean attacking non military targets with grenades and bombs is terrorism, it's just the same as Palestinians are doing now.

[UoUo]

UoUo what you did in 48 was terrorism for sure, I mean attacking non military targets with grenades and bombs is terrorism, it's just the same as Palestinians are doing now.

we bomb 1 time Hotel...and i have to remind you that jews were killed there to....and anouther thing...the groups that use "terorist" were very not suported by the people of israel....unlike the pal' hamas that the pal' people just love them.


soory about the english.

[warchild1/27scout]

killing civilians intentionally is terrorism and it is never justified. if your intent is to kill civilians you are a terrorist and isreal does not do that. palistinians are wrong and it's as simple as that there is no gray area. that's why we have a problem in the first place because of people who don't have a backbone and don't just call it what it is.

[spier]

killing civilians intentionally is terrorism and it is never justified. if your intent is to kill civilians you are a terrorist and isreal does not do that. palistinians are wrong and it's as simple as that there is no gray area. that's why we have a problem in the first place because of people who don't have a backbone and don't just call it what it is.Aha, so when the US intentionally killed 200.000(or was it 300.000?) Japanese civilians then it couldn't be justifid with the fact that an invasion would kill far more? Just checking.

[Kriz]

killing civilians intentionally is terrorism and it is never justified. if your intent is to kill civilians you are a terrorist and isreal does not do that. palistinians are wrong and it's as simple as that there is no gray area. that's why we have a problem in the first place because of people who don't have a backbone and don't just call it what it is.Aha, so when the US intentionally killed 200.000(or was it 300.000?) Japanese civilians then it couldn't be justifid with the fact that an invasion would kill far more? Just checking.

No not just chekking but calling it what it is Spier :lol:

[Argyll]

Uo Uo,
I have a lot of respect for you guys in your fight against terror as it stands right now,however that fact that you carried out a campaign of terror in the late 40's is fact,and not hearsay,the birth of your country came with a price,and innocent blood on your hands!
I'm not getting into the semantics of it all,but ,you simply cannot change the name of a type of action you suit yourselves,because it's more politically correct.I'm simply pointing out that Israel carried out acts that by todays standards are classed as terrorism!.
A fight is when you go and punch someone in the face and he hits you back,you trade punches and then you go home,victorious or licking your wounds!
A war is where instead of fists you use whatever means neccesary,with the sole aim to kill the enemy,and make sure he doesn't fu*k with you again!

[UoUo]

Uo Uo,
I have a lot of respect for you guys in your fight against terror as it stands right now,however that fact that you carried out a campaign of terror in the late 40's is fact,and not hearsay,the birth of your country came with a price,and innocent blood on your hands!
I'm not getting into the semantics of it all,but ,you simply cannot change the name of a type of action you suit yourselves,because it's more politically correct.I'm simply pointing out that Israel carried out acts that by todays standards are classed as terrorism!.
A fight is when you go and punch someone in the face and he hits you back,you trade punches and then you go home,victorious or licking your wounds!
A war is where instead of fists you use whatever means neccesary,with the sole aim to kill the enemy,and make sure he doesn't fu*k with you again!

i told that before...there was afew group which were not suported from the jews..that was act with teror...

and the state was not establish cus the teror..i have to remind who was the gov.. great britain a super power.

[Argyll]

Great Britain was not a Super Power back in 48
And I know you don't have to remind me,what you have to do is remind yourself!!
1 act of terrorism is still TERRORISM,what went on in 48 was a series of attacks related to terroirsm,not just one.
Was the Israeli army not founded by the same people who carried out these attacks?

[SOG]

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

so the french freedom fighters were not terrorists then right?

1. it was way past politics, a army had invaded thier land and they were fighting it. in fact while frances heads tried to play politics (like there was anything to do) the freedom fighters fought "german soldiers". all politics out the window down and dirty back alley fightings.

you could examine the intentions of the fighters.
a. killing german soldiers when possible to make germany pull out?
b. killing german soldiers to strike a deal with the german government?
c. realizing they could help the war effort by working on conjuction with allies?
d. killing german soldiers to simply get them out of thier homes?

i feel a. is improbable. not very likely to drive a war machine out with a band.

i feel b. is impossible. they would have never been able to secure talks with the german government. if they would have tried, germany would simply double its efforts to kill them and possibly terrorize france in retaliation.

c. they actually did later on and they grew more organized especially when the US entered the war.

d. i think this was done so at 1st as simply a reaction that grew into a greater cause.
2. i dont feel they were trying to get germany to submit to them as that was highly improbable to get a powerfull war machine to do. they were just helping the war effort in any way they could by creating back end chaos. and i dont know about creating a state of "fear" since isnt that what war creates in soldiers?

3. they did not try ruling as a group nor did they resist a government, they resisted a occupying army whos purpose was not to rule them but to push on through europe. nor did germany try and rule them, they simply policed them while occupied to maintain a very important war engine line. perhaps germany would have tried later if they would have won. yes germany built resources and heavy supplies in france but once again this was to stock a front line not assimilate frances populace into german rule.

also my oxford dictionary came out with a different definition

terrorist:n.
a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community - derivative -
terrorism n.
terroristic adj.
terroristically adv

either way terroism involves basically the attacking of a installed government ala ideology? i dont think saying someone is a terrorist because they fight you when there government doesnt officially condone just doesnt cut it enough. there seems to be in both definitions the fighting of a imposing government way, which in this case there was not. germany was 1st there to fight them and when france backed down, germany had no immediate intentions to change the face of france, germanys priorities lay in fighting multiple nations still yet.

im not sure of the technicalities but i see a overly condoned effort (france) to attack german occupying soldiers in which germany had already broken many treaties and was not a allie of france nor was france a allie of germanys. they had a truce, it was broken, that could be signed as a act of war on germanys part in which france had the right to war. france did not "surrender" they simply "backed down". that is a important difference in wording which could let the french government clandesitnely attack germany as it had never surrendered.

when germany invaded poland, france declared war on germany. later when germany came for france and walked past the ill planned magino line frnace did not surrender they talked with germany and both entered a armistice ala roughly a ceasefire. when germanys occupation of france grew so did germanys abuse of france which resulted in germans killing civilians who did not comply with the gestapo or when german soldiers abused the french. germany basically negated the armistice very quickly in which france could legally form militia groups to fight germany.

since frances army had been officially locked down (de-armed-dispersed) the militias had to fight in support of themsleves and not to supplement a regular army. i dont think it very unreasonable that former military would have been involved with the france underground groups and the organization and training of them. frances underground became very effective very fast and this was because french soldiers suplimented the underground with invaluable resources.

as for the undergound of it all, the risk of forming a open army would not be tact against the german army nor would it benefit the civilian populace. thus france could not fight in a conventional way but in a gorilla way. this may lend to the terroist image that is mmost often seen nowdays.

[UoUo]

Great Britain was not a Super Power back in 48
And I know you don't have to remind me,what you have to do is remind yourself!!
1 act of terrorism is still TERRORISM,what went on in 48 was a series of attacks related to terroirsm,not just one.
Was the Israeli army not founded by the same people who carried out these attacks?

no !!! you speaking about the "ezel" and "lehi" those were preety musch other finking from the most people....the idf founded by "palmah" mostly...and do i have to remind you what ben gorion did to "ezel" and "lehi" ? he bomb them...."altalna"

[StarvingStudent47]

Hey guys, this thread was really supposed to MAINLY be about Tibetans. I was only using Palestinians as kind of a counter-example. Could we get back to the issue of Tibet, and leave discussion of the 1948 War and stuff to the other five dozen threads on the subject?

Thanks :D

[Haiw]

tibet is in china's backyard....nothing the world can do about it eh.. i suppose terrorism wudnt really affect a country as big as china when exerted by a country as small as tibet...

[Argyll]

If you're quoting terrorism,and then use ,comparisons using anyone and the Palestinians in the same sentance,then it lends it way to other states being brought in,no matter who is behind the act TERRORISM is still TERRORISM!!!

[S'13]

[quote="spier"]"Ehm, the bombing of the King David hotel was a fight"

Actually the bombing of the King David hotel was a part of the fighting. This is because the hotel was used as headquarters for the British army in Jerusalem, making it a legitimate target. I have already mentioned this fact here and i a also mentioned the fact that the group which carryed out the attack telephoned the British headquarters before doing so and told them to evacuate all the people in the building. The British didn't do so.

[S'13]

[quote="Argyll"]"m,
What the Zionists,as they were yet to be called Israelis,did in 1948 was terrorism,not fighting.................this has been well documented here within this site,yes they targeted non British Military Personnel with grenade attacks,and car bombs too!
To say it was fighting is no different in saying what is happening to US Forces in Iraq,is also fighting?"

When Iraqis attack American soldiers it is called guerilla warfare, this is seen as fighting. When Iraqis attack a non military targets(such as the UN headquarters for example) it is called terrorism. I hope this is clear. And please give me an example of an attack made by the Zionists which was against non military targets...

[Argyll]

m,
Irgun terrorist attacks:

1937-1939 - A large number of attacks against Arabs, sometimes en masse were carried out, especially under the command of Moshe Rosenberg and David Raziel. For example, 24 Arabs were killed and 39 injured by a marketplace bomb in Haifa, Feb 27, 1939, and further casualities were caused by bombs in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv on the same day. (Sources: Palestine Post 2/28/39; Y. Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory; Memiors of the Irgun (1982))
July 22, 1946 - Irgun bombs King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters of the British civil and military administration, killing 91 people (17 Jewish) (Source: [1])
October 31, 1946 - Irgun bombs British Embassy in Rome, Italy. (Source: [2]).
September 29, 1947 - Irgun bombs police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians. (Source: [3]).
December 29, 1947 - Irgun throws grenades into cafe in Jerusalem, Palestine, killing 11 Arabs and 2 British policemen. (Source: [4]).
April 9, 1948 - The Irgun together with the Stern gang attacked the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The forces killed at least 107 civilians during this battle. The Haganah and the Jewish Agency condemned the massacre, although the perpetrators was never brought to justice. See Deir Yassin massacre for details

Pre-Statehood Jewish terrorism
In the 1940s, two Jewish underground organizations, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern gang, were responsible for a number of terrorist acts:

The King David Hotel bombing on July 26, 1946, killing 91.
The bombing of the British Embassy in Rome, also in 1946.
Assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944 for his refusal to allow Jews to flee from the Holocaust into Palestine during World War II.
Assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte in September, 1948 for his allegedly pro-Arabic conduct during the cease-fire negotiations.
Are claimed to be responsible for the massacres of hundreds of Arab villagers and the forced exile of thousands. In particular, on April 9th, 1948a military operation at Deir Yassin.
In 1947, killed two British hostages, sergeants who had been taken prisoner and later killed in response to British refusal to cancel the death sentence of two Jewish activists in Akko prison. Also, killed several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government.
Attacked British military airfields and railways several times in 1946.
Destroyed bridges over the Jordan River.
Dozens of massacres before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, see List of massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Noted Lehi attacks:


November 6, 1944 - Lehi assassinates Lord Moyne in Cairo, a British government representative blamed for the White Paper immigration policy. The two assassinators were captured, sentenced to death, and executed.

April 9, 1948 - Lehi and Irgun attacks Deir Yassin (see Deir Yassin massacre).

September 17, 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte. Bernadotte's insistence on the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes was the cause for his murder. The assassination was directed by Yehoshua Zetler and carried out by a four-man team led by Meshulam Markover. The fatal shots were fired by Yehoshua Cohen. Lehi leaders Nathan Yellin-Mor and Matitiahu Schmulevitz were arrested two months after the murder. Most of the suspects involved were released immediately and all of them were granted general amnesty on the 14th of February, 1949.

Is this enough?

[Seiyuuki]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different. rofl Well, thanks for the comic relief!

Where terrorism has worked, from the top of my head:
Japan
Algerie
Palestine
Germany
And so on..

ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You see, there are many things that qualify as terrorism. The "Shock and Awe" operation for eample is a terrorist attack, the thing is most people don't see it that way.

????????????????????????????????????

[Ratamacue]

The dictionary definition of Terrorism and the practical definition of Terrorism are very, very different.

[Seiyuuki]

killing civilians intentionally is terrorism and it is never justified. if your intent is to kill civilians you are a terrorist and isreal does not do that. palistinians are wrong and it's as simple as that there is no gray area. that's why we have a problem in the first place because of people who don't have a backbone and don't just call it what it is.Aha, so when the US intentionally killed 200.000(or was it 300.000?) Japanese civilians then it couldn't be justifid with the fact that an invasion would kill far more? Just checking.

Why was Nagasaki and Hiroshima pick?

[budanski]

Bock's Car delivering Fat Man to Nagasaki was second choice on August 9th. The city of Kokuro was only spared by cloud cover.

[Seiyuuki]

What is particular about the cities pick?

[spier]

What is particular about the cities pick?Defenceless, non-strategic and easy targets that would inflict massive civilian casualties.

[Seiyuuki]

Anyway...asking someone credible with an objective answer.

[budanski]

Don't believe the revisionist fool

Hiroshima was a military target. It was headquarters for a Japanese Army -- one that the United States would have been fighting had we had to invade the Japanese home islands. It also had numerous factories producing military goods. Both C&C and military production facilities are legitimate military targets. Since the Japanese were going to arm everyone old enough to hold a spear to fight the Americans, then critics cannot use the "innocent civilian" argument, here.

[Seiyuuki]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different. rofl Well, thanks for the comic relief!

Where terrorism has worked, from the top of my head:
Japan
Algerie
Palestine
Germany
And so on..

ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You see, there are many things that qualify as terrorism. The "Shock and Awe" operation for eample is a terrorist attack, the thing is most people don't see it that way.

????????????????????????????????????

spier...ANSWER!!!

[budanski]

I've heard alot of rantings on "civilian casualties" of late.

War is hell.

When a nation goes to war the ENTIRE nation goes to war, not just the government or military. I have no pity for "civilians" who allowed people to take control of their country that would go to war against mine. NONE! Not while fighting the war at least.

I just do not accept the premise that the population of a country is not responsible for the actions of its government or military or that there is such a thing as an "innocent" civilian. Yeah, it fits within the moral code of the US to minimize the destruction of noncombatants during a war, but our primary objective is the survival of our population, including each and every member of the military.

I find that is liberals/socialists or any other collectivist "ism" that fear reprisal on the population who supported, enabled, and in essence, gave birth to a monster. They understand that their social experimentation can go wrong and wish to insulate themselves from the repercussions. The German population gave birth to Hitler just as the Japanese culture gave birth to a militarily aggressive Japan. Lets not forget that it was the "collectivists" (socialists) that supported Hitler. Also remember that the reason the Nazis and communists were at odds is that they were fighting for the support of the same idiotic people. ( present day "socialists" would fall into this group)

I feel not a single shred of pity for the populations of those countries that were killed during the war and I would never demand that those responsible for winning the war for my country put the lives of our enemy above those of our countrymen.

my 2 cents.

[Seiyuuki]

We should not be picking on the Europeans. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US, which is the "Great Satan" after all. Every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US.

The Europeans with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the US.

[Argyll]

He He Seiyuki,what a great piece of sarcasm there!!
Don'y kid yourself on here,if you're country was more than 300 years old,you would've tried to build Empires too......oh wait a minute is this not what you did,(when the Europeans who discovered the Land),and systematically took the lands from the Native Americans,and swathed a trail of destruction across the Lands,dividing it into the Noth and South?,and drove the the bad old Redskins into reservations?
Then someone thought it would be a really cool idea to just grab a load of black folks from another continent then take them back as slaves to work on the lands!
And oddly out of this there appeared this little group,who also thought it would be cool,to wear pillow cases over their heads,and begin a systematic campaign of TERROR against these negroes,(who happened to endure this campaign right up until the 1960's)
Then along came your great war of Independance,and the birth of the United States of America,the abolition of slavery,yada yada yada!
And whilst all this was going on,the various European Empires were starting to crumble,Brits German,Turks you name it!
The problems within the Middle East have been going on for centuries before,any Empires came along!Terrorism is not something new,it also has been on the go for hundreds of years,what is kind of new is the Wetern concept of terrorism,by todays weaponry it sounds more brutal and direct,but as the name implies,there is no difference,to the rounding up of townsfolk Black and/or White,"terrorising" them,putting them into Churches and other buildings and burning them to the ground!!It was there to strike "terror"into the hearts of others!

[S'13]

Argyll, you say Deir Yassin was a massacre, well i disagree. Deir Yassin
had to be taken in order to break the siege of Jerusalem. Unfortunately Deir Yassin was full of Arab soldiers and armed civilians (what makes them combatants). This is also the reason so many "civilians" died in this battle. I hope you are aware that when you are fighting in a civilian area you are bound to have civilian casualtys. To prove my point i have writing about the battle itself:
The attack force consisted of about 132 men, 72 from Irgun and 60 from Lehi as well as a few women to serve as support. Most were teens lacking military training or experience.

From Givat Shaul a Lehi unit approached Deir Yassin, accompanied with Meir Pa'il and a photographer to watch their military performance. (Uri Milstein, Deir Yassin) One Irgun unit moved towards Deir Yassin from the east, while a second approached it from the south. At 4:45 a.m. the fighting started when concealed Irgunists encountered a village guard. (Uri Milstein, Out of Crisis Comes Decision, p.262) The road south-westward towards Ein Kerem filled with panicked villagers fleeing.

From the Sharafa rigde, villagers fire inflicted heavy casualties and drove off the Irgun. The Lehi units advance stopped at the town's center where they were only holding the eastern parts. The attacker's fighting capability matched their progress, weapons failed to work, a few tossed hand-grenades without pulling the plug and a Lehi unit commander, Amos Keynan, was wounded by his own men. (Deir Yassin, Milstein; A Jewish Eyewitness: An Interview with Meir Pa'il, McGowan)

While both Irgun and Stern commanders had anticipated many residents would flee, and the remaining would surrender after token resistance, both groups of soldiers, entering the town from different sides, immediately encountered fierce volleys of Arab rifle fire.

Irgun deputy commander Michael Harif, one of the first to enter Deir Yassin, later recalled how, early in the battle, I saw a man in khaki run ahead. I thought he was one of us, I ran after him and told him, 'Move ahead to that house!' Suddenly he turned, pointed his weapon at me and fired. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was wounded in the leg. (Milstein interview with Harif, p. 262)

Patchiah Zalivensky of Lehi recalled that among the Arab soldiers killed by his unit was a Yugoslavian Muslim officer. (Uri Milstein, Out of Crisis Came Decision p.263)

The villagers sniper fire from higher positions in the west contained effectively the attack. Especially from the mukthars (mayors) house. Some Lehi units went for help from the Haganah's Camp Schneller in Jerusalem. (Out of Crisis Comes Decision, p.262-265, Milstein)

Intense Arab firepower caused the fighters' advance into Deir Yassin to be very slow. Reuven Greenberg reported later that the Arabs fought like lions and excelled at accurate sniping. He added that [Arab] women ran from the houses under fire, collected the weapons which had fallen from the hands of Arab fighters who had been wounded, and brought them back into the houses. (Testimony of Reuven Greenberg.)


In certain cases, after storming a house, dead Arab women were found with guns in their hands, a sign they had taken part in the battle. (Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ.) Ezra Yachin recalled, To take a house, you had either to throw a grenade or shoot your way into it. If you were foolish enough to open doors, you got shot down--sometimes by men dressed up as women, shooting out at you in a second of surprise. (Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn Country: An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982), p. 62.)
Pre-battle briefings had stated that most of the Deir Yassin houses had wooden doors, so while trying to storm them, the fighters were surprised to discover the doors were made of iron, leaving no recourse but to blow them open with powerful explosives, in the process inadvertently killing or wounding some inhabitants.(Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ.) The Lehi forces slowly advanced house by house.

Meanwhile, the IZL soldiers on the other side of the village, were having a very difficult time. By 7:00 a.m., discouraged by the Arab resistance and their own increasing casualties, IZL commanders relayed a message to the Lehi camp that they were seriously considering retreating from the town.

Lehi commanders relayed back that they had already entered the village and expected victory soon.

The large number of wounded was a big problem for the guerillas, they had to be evacuated but if they did they could be fired upon. Meret called the Magen David Adom station for an ambulance that came to the battle area. The attackers took beds out of the houses, laid the wounded on them and ordered the inhabitants of the village, including women and old people, to carry the beds to the ambulance and to screen them. They believed the Arabs would not shoot their own people which however they did. (Uri Milstein, Out of Crisis Came Decision, p. 265)

The IZL quickly arranged to receive a supply of explosives from their base in Givat Shaul, and started blasting their way into house after house. In certain instances, the force of the explosions collapsed whole parts of houses, burying Arab soldiers as well as civilians who were still inside.

In numerous instances of Arabs emerged from the houses and surrendered; over 100 were taken prisoner by day's end. At least two Haganah members on the scene reported the Lehi repeatedly using a loudspeaker to implore the residents to surrender. (Milstein, p.263, interview with Uri Brenner; Daniel Spicehandler's testimony, quoted in Ralph G. Martin, Golda: Golda Meir - The Romantic Years (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), p. 329) In certain cases Arabs pretending to surrender revealed hidden weapons and shot at their would-be Jewish captors. (Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 323, n. 175.)

At about 10:00 am a sizeable Palmach unit from the Haganah arrived, they brought an armored vehicle and a two-inch mortar. (Out of Crisis Comes Decision, p.265-266, Milstein) The mortar shot tree shoots at the mukthar's house which silenced its snipers. The Palmach unit managed to clear the village of serious resistance and Lehi officer David Gottlieb saw the Palmach accomplish in one our what we could not accomplish in several hours. (Edge of the Sword, p.450, Lorch)

In your list of "terror" attacks you included the bombing of the British military headquarters in Jerusalem, also known as the bombing of the King David hotel. I have explained twice already why this is not considered as terrorism. Tell me since when is attacking an enemys headquarters seen as terrorism?!

[Argyll]

m
I took all of these sources from the net,you asked for proof,I provided the proof,stop changing the goalposts!!
As for the King David Hotel...........well how about the Barracks in Lebanon where over 300 US Marines died,blown up by suicide bomber in a truck!
The hotel had civiliains in it....end of story.Both were acts of terrorism.
If you were in a state of decalred war you might 've got away with it,but you were not
Just because there are Military personnel inside along with civilians does not make it a legit target,double standards my friends,so if Israeli soldiers are in a bus,along with civvies then it's not terrorism then?
As for Deir yassin,if it's classed in history as an act of terror,then it's good enough for me, it is your view and not the view of the rest of the Wetern world,about theses articles,you asked for proof,I delivered,you don't like,that's too bad I see Patriotism and bitterness,towards any finger pointing towards the Isralis when they are charged with acts of terror.

[S'13]

You brought your proof and i Brought mine. you said "As for Deir yassin,if it's classed in history as an act of terror,then it's good enough for me." This depends on which history book or web site you read. Before blowing up the British headquarters in Jerusalem the group which carryed out the attack telephoned the British headquarters and warned them in French, English, Hebrew, Arabic and Yiddish. Telling them to evacuate the people inside. The objective was to destroy documents which were in the building, not to kill people. Tell me, did the Arabs before blowing up the Marine Barracks in Beirut issue a warning? did they do so before they destroyed the pentagon and the WT center? I don't think so and i don't think they will ever do so.

[Argyll]

Regardless,an act of terrorism is still an act of terrorism!That we are agreed upon,and thats regardless of warnings,the IRA at times gave coded warnings,but the act was still commited,the intention was still there so as far as warning people doesn't wash in my books!
Ah history books......alas this also depends on where you come from,and who wrote them,and on which outcome you believe in!

[spier]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different. rofl Well, thanks for the comic relief!

Where terrorism has worked, from the top of my head:
Japan
Algerie
Palestine
Germany
And so on..

ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You see, there are many things that qualify as terrorism. The "Shock and Awe" operation for eample is a terrorist attack, the thing is most people don't see it that way.

????????????????????????????????????

spier...ANSWER!!!Despite what revisionists may tell you; The US bombed Japan.

[S'13]

Argyll, I have told you from the start that I don't see the bombing of the King David hotel as a terroris attack. Saying it was is just as good as saying the same about the American war in Iraq in which thousands of civilians were killed when Americans attacked military targets even though we all know the US army tried to reduce civilian casualtys as much as possible. In fact you can say that about every war, the fact whether the military force is deliberately targeting civilian or not is that makes the difference. With your last comment i fully agree. By the way where are you from?

[Argyll]

m,
I'm from Scotland!
Just because you didn't see that attack as terrorism,yet the rest of the world outside of Israel did,is just like saying that the Hamas,Hezbollah attacks against US targets are legit,as they have decalered Jihad(Holy war),I fail to see why one mans definition of war is different from another,and it then goes to show,that one mans terrorist,is then in fact anothers freedom fighter,because they all have declared war of some sorts and all believe they are fighting for a better cause.
Another example to compare,the attack on the Pentagon......a valid Military target or not?,using your example of the King David Hotel,then it would then be deemed a valid target by a group whom decalred war on the US,as it was a Military Installation/Headquarters.
Same as the Marine Barracks in Lebanon,a valid target in the eyes of the fundamentalists as it was a Military target!.I was stationed in Cyprus then,and I'll never forget the dead and wounded being flown in to the hospitals there,and the outcry at an obvious TERRORIST attack,not an act of war!!

[StarvingStudent47]

m,
I'm from Scotland!
Just because you didn't see that attack as terrorism,yet the rest of the world outside of Israel did,is just like saying that the Hamas,Hezbollah attacks against US targets are legit,as they have decalered Jihad(Holy war),I fail to see why one mans definition of war is different from another,and it then goes to show,that one mans terrorist,is then in fact anothers freedom fighter,because they all have declared war of some sorts and all believe they are fighting for a better cause.
Another example to compare,the attack on the Pentagon......a valid Military target or not?,using your example of the King David Hotel,then it would then be deemed a valid target by a group whom decalred war on the US,as it was a Military Installation/Headquarters.
Same as the Marine Barracks in Lebanon,a valid target in the eyes of the fundamentalists as it was a Military target!.I was stationed in Cyprus then,and I'll never forget the dead and wounded being flown in to the hospitals there,and the outcry at an obvious TERRORIST attack,not an act of war!!

Something I'm missing here...

Even if some Israelis did commit some acts of terrorism during the particularly bloody and desperate 1948 War*, why on earth does that make it okay for Palestinian terrorists to VIOLATE A CEASE-FIRE during peace negotiations in 2003? Cause that seems to be a major thread here. "Some Israelis may have resorted to eye-for-an-eye attacks in the 1940s, so therefore its still totally cool to blow away Israeli kids six decades later." That's what I'm picking up here.

*I'm only conceding this for the sake of argument.

[Argyll]

That's the point SS47 it doesn't!!
Nobody has said it does....I have stated "Terrorism is Terroism" no matter what way you look at it,or dress it up/down

[StarvingStudent47]

That's the point SS47 it doesn't!!
Nobody has said it does....I have stated "Terrorism is Terroism" no matter what way you look at it,or dress it up/down

So what are you getting at? Even if Dier Yassin was terrorism, Israelis stopped terrorism before America desegregated. That's ancient history by now. We've now got an African-American Secretary of State, and any mention of attempting terrorism against Arabs leaves you rotting in an Israeli jail. Whereas crowds of THOUSANDS still come and cheer when Hamas parades, and there has NEVER, to my knowledge, been a SINGLE Palestinian rally against terrorism and for peaceful coexistence. There's NO equivalency there, even if "terrorism is terrorism." It's like comparing the United States to certain states Africa, because they still practice slavery and we practiced slavery 150 years ago. There's just no comparison, because one verb is past tense and one verb is present tense.

[S'13]

Argyll,
War is war and in war the deliberate killing of civilians is a crime. Sometimes in war the death of civilians it is unavoidable but not deliberate. My point is that the groups which attacked the British didn't target civilians and that is what separates them from the terrorists. Hamas,Hezbollah and the rest of the Arab terrorist groups choose civilians to be there targets. They even say this openly. They can attack military targets (which they sometimes do)when ever they like but they mostly attack civilian targets and also made it a part of there strategy.

[Argyll]

What are you getting at?
Perhaps if you read the whole post from the beggining,then you'd know the point that was bing mooted!
Just to refresh your memory,I and others said that during it's early history,Israel was privvy to acts of terrorism,and that despite it happening in the PAST,they still committed them,and are not Holy than thou art!
I also said that the current climate and inetrpretation of terrorism is different!I am only pointing out that Israel's past is blemished with such acts,a terrorist 40 years ago is still a terrorist period!
Ancient History.......... rofl 56 years ago is ancient History rofl
"Terrorism is Terrorism" if you can point out the past tense verb and the present tense verb there I'd be delighted !If you were refering to slavery then,why?The argument is about TERRORISM past/present and future!!!
You go out a commit murder when you're 16 years old,you serve 30 years,and now you 're 46 ,you are still a murderer!

[Argyll]

m,
I respect the fact that you are Israeli,God knows you guys have definatley suffered persecution for generations,and I do sympathise,but it will always be in your eyes and in the eyes of Israelis(and some Americans),that you do not feel that you were committing acts of terror(ism),whislt other historical documentation does not support this!We will always disagree! ;)
I am fully behind the stance you have taken in rescent Years,and I do think you're doing the right thing,It galls me that Arafat sits there in Office ,a supposed leader of the Palestinians,and a terrorist himself,who sits there and does nothing,you should've killed the wee weasel earlier this year,when you had him surrounded in his compound!! :D

[lefador1]

Argyll,
War is war and in war the deliberate killing of civilians is a crime. Sometimes in war the death of civilians it is unavoidable but not deliberate. My point is that the groups which attacked the British didn't target civilians and that is what separates them from the terrorists. Hamas,Hezbollah and the rest of the Arab terrorist groups choose civilians to be there targets. They even say this openly. They can attack military targets (which they sometimes do)when ever they like but they mostly attack civilian targets and also made it a part of there strategy.

So... if the Israelis never targeted civilians how come they managed to drive most of the Palestinians out of their towns and homes? With polite words and sensible hallmark cards?

[S'13]

Argyll,
I thank you for your support of us (at least at present time). You are right the events that took place under the British mandate are disputed (even in Israeli society) and will always be disputed.

[S'13]

lefador1 wrote:
"So... if the Israelis never targeted civilians how come they managed to drive most of the Palestinians out of their towns and homes? With polite words and sensible hallmark cards?"

Actually most Arabs left willingly, after they were told to do so by there leaders. This is because they were afraid of been harmed during the war which was going to take place between Israel and the rest of the Arab world. They belived the Arab states would finish the job and throw the Jews into the sea in no time at all and after that they would return to there homes. of course the Jews weren't thrown into the sea and the Arab states placed there "Muslim brothers" in refugee camps. The Arabs who did stay got an Israeli citizenship and all the advantages that come with it.

[lefador1]

LOL riiiiiiiight, they left on their own? But what a jolly merry bunch of people! :hug:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

[S'13]

Yes we did build communitys over those which were abandoned by the Arabs. So what's your point? We sacrificed a lot for those lands. In the War of Independence alone we lost 6000 men (over one percent of the Jewish population at that time which was 600,000). The Arabs didn't accept the UN partition of Israel and went to war and this is what they got.

[UoUo]

pepole..if you don't know the history of israel...so dom't talk about the history... you don't know ****.

:cantbeli:

[lefador1]

Now that was a very well backed up and informed reply. Jeez I mean but of course, only YOU know the history right?

There is no excuse for the Palestinian terror acts, however trying to be naive enough to think that Israel is somehow an innocent victim is rader ludicrous IMHO. The twisting of facts and propaganda is such that I just can not believe one can honestly write that "the palestinians left on their own devices" with a straight face. I mean come on, I assume most of us are grown ups here... please do not insult my intelligence. This is like claiming that the native Americans left their lands and were relocated to the ****holes no one else wanted just because they felt like it. I am sure they did it on their own devices, afterall they only got a "friendly" reminder by the US troops that it was time to move, but rest assured they did indeed move on their own...

[lefador1]

Yes we did build communitys over those which were abandoned by the Arabs. So what's your point? We sacrificed a lot for those lands. In the War of Independence alone we lost 6000 men (over one percent of the Jewish population at that time which was 600,000). The Arabs didn't accept the UN partition of Israel and went to war and this is what they got.

So the Israelis have the right to fight back, but the Palestinians don't. Or am I missing somethign here.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

Seems that "abandoned" and "evicted" are the same in your dictionary?

[UoUo]

Now that was a very well backed up and informed reply. Jeez I mean but of course, only YOU know the history right?

There is no excuse for the Palestinian terror acts, however trying to be naive enough to think that Israel is somehow an innocent victim is rader ludicrous IMHO. The twisting of facts and propaganda is such that I just can not believe one can honestly write that "the palestinians left on their own devices" with a straight face. I mean come on, I assume most of us are grown ups here... please do not insult my intelligence. This is like claiming that the native Americans left their lands and were relocated to the ****holes no one else wanted just because they felt like it. I am sure they did it on their own devices, afterall they only got a "friendly" reminder by the US troops that it was time to move, but rest assured they did indeed move on their own...

Israel is a victim like usa was a victim in 11/9/
ffs the palstinian that lived here before 48 did abandoned

thier land....that was outher time's....

[UoUo]

if the are won't start the War of Independence and accept the what UN said...so the all **** won't happend....the arabs stated all the wars agianst us....

[Kriz]

Now that was a very well backed up and informed reply. Jeez I mean but of course, only YOU know the history right?

There is no excuse for the Palestinian terror acts, however trying to be naive enough to think that Israel is somehow an innocent victim is rader ludicrous IMHO. The twisting of facts and propaganda is such that I just can not believe one can honestly write that "the palestinians left on their own devices" with a straight face. I mean come on, I assume most of us are grown ups here... please do not insult my intelligence. This is like claiming that the native Americans left their lands and were relocated to the ****holes no one else wanted just because they felt like it. I am sure they did it on their own devices, afterall they only got a "friendly" reminder by the US troops that it was time to move, but rest assured they did indeed move on their own...

Israel is a victim like usa was a victim in 11/9/

Man not even your English spelling sucks but also the rest on your intelligence seems to be crappy. Israel a victim ??? like 9/11 :bash:

If zionism never was created in teh first place and thus neither there wouldn't have been a problem, don't expect that you can drive away thousands of people from their homeland and think the'll just rest and idle.

You are not a victim at all, what you face is action and reaction.
The action being the creation of Israel, thus driving out the Palestinians and the reaction being Palestinians figthing back.
(in very main terms off course).

[UoUo]

Now that was a very well backed up and informed reply. Jeez I mean but of course, only YOU know the history right?

There is no excuse for the Palestinian terror acts, however trying to be naive enough to think that Israel is somehow an innocent victim is rader ludicrous IMHO. The twisting of facts and propaganda is such that I just can not believe one can honestly write that "the palestinians left on their own devices" with a straight face. I mean come on, I assume most of us are grown ups here... please do not insult my intelligence. This is like claiming that the native Americans left their lands and were relocated to the ****holes no one else wanted just because they felt like it. I am sure they did it on their own devices, afterall they only got a "friendly" reminder by the US troops that it was time to move, but rest assured they did indeed move on their own...

Israel is a victim like usa was a victim in 11/9/

Man not even your English spelling sucks but also the rest on your intelligence seems to be crappy. Israel a victim ??? like 9/11 :bash:

If zionism never was created in teh first place and thus neither there wouldn't have been a problem, don't expect that you can drive away thousands of people from their homeland and think the'll just rest and idle.

You are not a victim at all, what you face is action and reaction.
The action being the creation of Israel, thus driving out the Palestinians and the reaction being Palestinians figthing back.
(in very main terms off course).

Try to talk hebrew...i will not reply to you'r text...you are talkin bull****...have a nice day. :cantbeli:

[S'13]

I said the Arabs left willingly WITH THE INTENTION OF COMING BACK at the end of the war to an Israel free of Jews. Of course they would like to come back to what was once there land but this is the price they have to pay for declaring war.

[S'13]

"So the Israelis have the right to fight back, but the Palestinians don't. Or am I missing somethign here."

The Arabs have the right to fight back. The problem is that they are not fighting, unless you call the killing of civilians fighting.

[Seiyuuki]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different. rofl Well, thanks for the comic relief!

Where terrorism has worked, from the top of my head:
Japan
Algerie
Palestine
Germany
And so on..

ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You see, there are many things that qualify as terrorism. The "Shock and Awe" operation for eample is a terrorist attack, the thing is most people don't see it that way.

????????????????????????????????????

spier...ANSWER!!!Despite what revisionists may tell you; The US bombed Japan.

rofl Such an idiot...The revisionists also told me there was a Declaration of War and they also told me that World War 1 were Allies' terrorisms against Germany and her allies and World War 2 were Allies' terrorisms against Japan and Germany.

We should not be picking on the Europeans. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US, which is the "Great Satan" after all. Every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US.

The Europeans with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the US.

[spier]

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

I strongly disagree with this statment. They r very different. rofl Well, thanks for the comic relief!

Where terrorism has worked, from the top of my head:
Japan
Algerie
Palestine
Germany
And so on..

ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You see, there are many things that qualify as terrorism. The "Shock and Awe" operation for eample is a terrorist attack, the thing is most people don't see it that way.

????????????????????????????????????

spier...ANSWER!!!Despite what revisionists may tell you; The US bombed Japan.

rofl Such an idiot...The revisionists also told me there was a Declaration of War and they also told me that World War 1 were Allies' terrorisms against Germany and her allies and World War 2 were Allies' terrorisms against Japan and Germany.

We should not be picking on the Europeans. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US, which is the "Great Satan" after all. Every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US.

The Europeans with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the US.
Terrorism is terrorism, if you are too dumb/brainwashed not to see that the intentional bombing of civilians is terrorism then that is your problem.

Now, if you don't see the difference between preaching and informing/flaming then I suggest you remove yourself from this world until you do so.

Good day.

[Seiyuuki]

[quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6][/quote:d467c436f6]

rofl Such an idiot...The revisionists also told me there was a Declaration of War and they also told me that World War 1 were Allies' terrorisms against Germany and her allies and World War 2 were Allies' terrorisms against Japan and Germany.

We should not be picking on the Europeans. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US, which is the "Great Satan" after all. Every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US.

The Europeans with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the US.

Of course, World War 1 and World War 2 should have never happen because both sides were nothing more than terrorists. Everything spier said without any need for prove or factual support is the TRUTH. If anyone disagree, we're nothing more than idiots who fall prey to the revisionists propaganda.

[budanski]

oh wait a minute is this not what you did,(when the Europeans who discovered the Land),and systematically took the lands from the Native Americans,
Yeah, but when the French and Spaniards did it, it was quite acceptable.



and swathed a trail of destruction across the Lands,dividing it into the North and South? Excuse me? what destruction? The Civil War ultimately ended a tradition that was practiced and imported from Europe. Contrary to popular belief, The slave trade was not invented by America (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/index.html). Africans and European entreprenuers were the sole profiteers in this enterprise.



,and drove the the bad old Redskins into reservations?
Setting Indians in reservation pales in comparision to what the Germans did during the Holocaust and what the Brits did to the Chinese in the Opium Wars.



Then someone thought it would be a really cool idea to just grab a load of black folks from another continent then take them back as slaves to work on the lands!

The Slave trade, started by the Portuguese in the middle of the 15th Century closely followed by the Spaniards, and at a longer interval (1562) by the British, then in quick succession by the Dutch (about 1620), the French (about 1640), the Swedes, Danes and Prussians, attained the full extent of its terrible activities in the 18th Century.

Nice attempt on trying to pass blame (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1523100.stm) here.

What? need another scapegoat (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4152582) then?



And oddly out of this there appeared this little group,who also thought it would be cool,to wear pillow cases over their heads,and begin a systematic campaign of TERROR against these negroes,(who happened to endure this campaign right up until the 1960's)
Oh, something new here. America is the birth of ethnic cleansing

[spier]

[quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793][/quote:35dcc02793]

rofl Such an idiot...The revisionists also told me there was a Declaration of War and they also told me that World War 1 were Allies' terrorisms against Germany and her allies and World War 2 were Allies' terrorisms against Japan and Germany.

We should not be picking on the Europeans. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US, which is the "Great Satan" after all. Every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US.

The Europeans with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the US.

Of course, World War 1 and World War 2 should have never happen because both sides were nothing more than terrorists. Everything spier said without any need for prove or factual support is the TRUTH. If anyone disagree, we're nothing more than idiots who fall prey to the revisionists propaganda.[/quote:35dcc02793]Nope, even after reading through it a few times it doesn't make sense. Unless..Unless Sei here is a complete ****ing idiot.

[StarvingStudent47]

Man not even your English spelling sucks but also the rest on your intelligence seems to be crappy. Israel a victim ??? like 9/11 :bash:

If zionism never was created in teh first place and thus neither there wouldn't have been a problem, don't expect that you can drive away thousands of people from their homeland and think the'll just rest and idle.

You are not a victim at all, what you face is action and reaction.
The action being the creation of Israel, thus driving out the Palestinians and the reaction being Palestinians figthing back.
(in very main terms off course).

Wow, replace "zionism" with "American imperialism" and you're using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that Osama Bin Laden uses to justify 9/11. It's our fault that they flew planes into the WTC, because we weren't nice enough to the Wahhabists and because we have military bases on the Arabian peninsula.

I don't buy that.

By the way, making fun of someone's grammar because they're writing in a language foreign to them makes YOU look like the A-hole, not them.

[Seiyuuki]

The Allies bombed Berlin and other German cities. The German bombed London and other cities in Great Britain. All for the purpose of diminishing the enemies' capabilities to produce war materials and simply to demoralize the enemy. US bombed Japaneses' cities. Never mind that Nagasaki was chosen as a target because it was a major naval and shipbuilding center and the shipyards were the largest in Japan and that the headquarter of the Imperial Japanese Army was in Hiroshima plus the number of factories. What the US did was an act of terrorism. Yeah, those heartless bastards, even if they didn't have the atomic bombs, they would have bomb those two cities anyway. It doesn't matter that the Americans heard that when they invaded Japan, all of the remaining POWs were going to be beheaded, stabbed, or shot in a vile mass slaughtering. Japan knew this would deter the Americans from invading. Too bad there weren't any POWs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Japan lack a four engines long-range bomber and a base close enough to the US to launch the bombers...same thing for the German, so they didn't. Though the Japanese did launch those balloons with incendiary in the hope that it cross the Pacific and land on some forests and start massive forest fires in the US which could potentially killed CIVILIANS...as a matter of fact, those bomb that did land in the US and lay dormant did killed a few civilians after the war. If they had the long-range bombers and base close enough all at the disposal, I hope the morally righteous Japanese would think to themselves..."Wait, we shouldn't bombed the US in the hope of demoralizing them and diminish their capabilities to produce materials for war because we lack laser-guided precision munition and we can only carpet bomb knowing that we would killed many civilians along the way." Yes...the morally righteous Japanese would think that to themselves and not bomb the US, I guess you can say the same thing about the German, they only need to bomb cities and killed civilians in Great Britain.

Then again, coming from a European, it is consider as an act of war and a necessity that Europeans bombed each other cities in the war and killed many civilians. Though since it is the US, their bombing of enemies' cities in Europe and Japan are nothing more than an act of terrorism.

We should not be picking on the Europeans. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US, which is the "Great Satan" after all. Every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US.

The Europeans with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the US.

[Argyll]

:lol:
Hey Bud,I know fine it's us Europeans who are to blame for most of that stuff,hell if it wasn't for them danged Pilgrims,you'd all still be wearing Buffalo skins............unless you killed em all ;) ,but hell it sure sharpens the old brain searchin the net for rebuke's,it's amazing the stuff you learn in here ain't it?
This is a great site,I have learned more stuff of Historical value in the last year than what I did in all my years in skool!!!

[Seiyuuki]

Ghandi nonviolent method work and India was the backyard of the British and during that time, Great Britain was still a prominent world power.

Tibetans can achieve the same result through nonviolent method like Ghandi, but it's about getting attention and more attention toward Tibet will probably help the Tibetans' cause.

[spier]

Bla..blablaBLA, bla bla....ter?ror?ism

****unciation: (ter'u-riz"um), [key]
?n.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Did the US kill civilians to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.

[budanski]

Argyll

Coming from a tropical region, I doubt wearing buffalo skin would be enticing enough for my family to flee our homeland for. But then again, the full force of the communist army rolling into our city was a good enough reason for us to go. buffalo jerky anyone? :D

[Seiyuuki]

Unless..Unless Sei here is a complete f*** idiot.


Bla..blablaBLA, bla bla....

What, no intelligent rebuttal for the "complete ****ing idiot?"


Did the US kill civilians to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.

Did the Allies kill civilians to intimidate the German into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.

[lefador1]

Ghandi nonviolent method work and India was the backyard of the British and during that time, Great Britain was still a prominent world power.

Tibetans can achieve the same result through nonviolent method like Ghandi, but it's about getting attention and more attention toward Tibet will probably help the Tibetans' cause.

The Gandhi approach of non violence was not just for "attention gathering" purposses as it was made in a time where mass media and public opinion did not have the same power as today. Gandhi understood one thing: There were 10000 Indians per British soldier, the only way the British managed to keep india under their rule was by dividing and conquering, Gandhi provided the goal and union, and he understood that a war was not needed... as it would play into the British hands: They were better soldiers -British- and would squash any sort of violent frontal attacks for enough time to Indians to back track their approach. Gandhi saw it differently: refuse cooperation. Without the Indians working for the British there was little their empire could do, once the elefant realizes is 100x times bigger than the mouse and it is no longer afraid of rodents, there is very little the mouse can do but get the hell out. That was what happened in India, and that was the genious of Gandhi... victories do not have to involve actual conventional battles.

What did the Indians do right: they defined their own terms of warfare. This is fundamental, if hey had gone frontally agains the British army they would have lost as they would be playing by the English "rules." However one has to understand that war or human comflict is rarely played by the rles of just one side, just look at the VietNam war for example. Had the VietCong played under the American rules they would have been obliterated, instead they fought under their rules, and they forced the Americans to play in their "sandbox" the Americans lost. Was it fair? I assume that for most Americans the approach by the VietCong was not fair, but the same opinion may not be shared by a Vietnamese. And this brings us to modern day Israel, again the Palestinians are defined their rules which conflict with the Israeli rules, is it fair? Well it depends as usual to whom you ask the question. The Israelis fought under their terms and have thus far being sucessful, the Palestinians however know -from experience- that fighting the Israelis frontally will not work for their objectives.... You have two people fighting for the same land, and so far none of them are willing to do any compromise, this will go on and on and on. To this point I do not consider any of the two sides innocent and I can understand the Israeli approach, but in the same fashion I can always undertand the Palestinian reaction.

[lefador1]

"So the Israelis have the right to fight back, but the Palestinians don't. Or am I missing somethign here."

The Arabs have the right to fight back. The problem is that they are not fighting, unless you call the killing of civilians fighting.

Again they are not fighting back under your terms, which would be suicidal (sorry for the pun) for them. I guess some people see it this way: go frontally against the IDF would be suicidal and Israel would win, since there is almost now win scenario... then just go through the suicidal route but at least manage to make as much damage as possible. In both cases they die, the differnece being that in the 2nd case they see it as at least having achieved some sort of objective.

Wars are not fair and manners are usually left at the door. And "fighting back" is a morally neutral term, whether or not you agree or like the approach of the "fight back" is irrelevant and does not negate it just because. Usually your enemy will fight back using methods that you do not like or that you do not approve of, that is the reality becase the enemy will try to hit back using whatever approach you are less likelly to be able to counteract... that is the whole point. If your enenemy has a gun and you only have a knife, would you charge frontally in clear weather during daylight? Hell no! You would sneak behind him silently in the foggiest of nights. I am sure your enemy would consider that a coward and bastardly approach, but still that doesn't mean you did not fight back. You just used the only method you thought would give you the highest chance of success.

[S'13]

"Again they are not fighting back under your terms, which would be suicidal (sorry for the pun) for them. I guess some people see it this way: go frontally against the IDF would be suicidal and Israel would win, since there is almost now win scenario... then just go through the suicidal route but at least manage to make as much damage as possible. In both cases they die, the differnece being that in the 2nd case they see it as at least having achieved some sort of objective.

Wars are not fair and manners are usually left at the door. And "fighting back" is a morally neutral term, whether or not you agree or like the approach of the "fight back" is irrelevant and does not negate it just because. Usually your enemy will fight back using methods that you do not like or that you do not approve of, that is the reality becase the enemy will try to hit back using whatever approach you are less likelly to be able to counteract... that is the whole point. If your enenemy has a gun and you only have a knife, would you charge frontally in clear weather during daylight? Hell no! You would sneak behind him silently in the foggiest of nights. I am sure your enemy would consider that a coward and bastardly approach, but still that doesn't mean you did not fight back. You just used the only method you thought would give you the highest chance of success."

The Arabs have a choice, they can fight Israeli soldiers if they want. They have already fought Israeli soldiers, the problem is they prefer to attack Israeli civilian. And this not because they have no other option but because it is much more easyer for them. you wrote: "they see it as at least having achieved some sort of objective." What exactly did they achieve?! You also wrote: "Wars are not fair and manners are usually left at the door." In that case Israel could just carpet bomb the West Bank after every attack, that way there won't be any suicied bombers left to blow themselves up. A war is when combatants fight combatants but when combatants start killing civilians deliberately they simply turn into terrorists and the war simply turns into a campaign of terror. I can't understand how the killing of 20 people on a bus, 7 of them chidren is seen by you as some sort of military strategy in a war.

[lefador1]

It would be nice if you actually read my post before reply to them, thank you.

[S'13]

"It would be nice if you actually read my post before reply to them, thank you."

I have read your post but it does not make any sense. "If your enenemy has a gun and you only have a knife, would you charge frontally in clear weather during daylight? Hell no! You would sneak behind him silently in the foggiest of nights."

You are talking of guerilla warfare. What the Arabs are doing is not guerilla warfare since they are attacking civilians

[Seiyuuki]

Why can't suicide bomber go after tank or checkpoint or other military targets?

[lefador1]

I have read your post but it does not make any sense.


No it just doesn't fit your interests, that is quite different...



You are talking of guerilla warfare. What the Arabs are doing is not guerilla warfare since they are attacking civilians

Same could be say about the Israelis, so would you say the Israelis are carrying out a campaign of terror?

[lefador1]

Why can't suicide bomber go after tank or checkpoint or other military targets?

Becasue they are designed to repel those attacks, would you charge against a machine gun nest by running around with 20 kilos of TNT on you. Those guys are some crazy ****s they are not stupid though (although there could be serious arguments about the intelligence of conducting such attacks)

Again I am not trying to justify any side's actions, I happen to disagree with both sides on this issue. Is a person who blows up a bus full of civilians a crazy bastard? Absolutely and I hope he rots in hell, but trying to pretend that those guys are doing such barbarities for the hell of it is rather naive. I blame both leaderships, Arafat and his miopic policies, and Sharon with his fascist wacko approach.

[S'13]

The IDF doesn't make the killing of civilians a strategy and tries to prevent civilian casualtys as much as possible. So no, you can't call them terrorists.

[S'13]

"Becasue they are designed to repel those attacks, would you charge against a machine gun nest by running around with 20 kilos of TNT on you. Those guys are some crazy f*** they are not stupid though (although there could be serious arguments about the intelligence of conducting such attacks)

Again I am not trying to justify any side's actions, I happen to disagree with both sides on this issue. Is a person who blows up a bus full of civilians a crazy bastard? Absolutely and I hope he rots in hell, but trying to pretend that those guys are doing such barbarities for the hell of it is rather naive. I blame both leaderships, Arafat and his miopic policies, and Sharon with his fascist wacko approach."

I can give you an example of a war which was won by guerilla force which took on a much biger and stronger foe but without the killing of civilians. Ever heared of the Vietnam War?

[lefador1]

The IDF doesn't make the killing of civilians a strategy and tries to prevent civilian casualtys as much as possible. So no, you can't call them terrorists.

Sez who, you? Jeez, I heard the same argument from an interview with a palestinian, they consider that since most people in Israel are in active or reserve duty with the IDF they are military targets.

Both sides can find the excuses they want, I strongly disagree with both. Launching rocket attacks from a helo into densely populated areas regardless of how good your intentions are is nothing sort of terrorism. Killing a person and claiming that you really did not meant to doesn't change the fact that you indeed killed him or her.

As of the 2002 intifada for 1 Israeli civilian wounded there were 40 palestinian civilians wounded. I.e. 1 Israeli civilian was wounded every 39 hrs, 57 mins. Where as 1 Palestinian civilian was wounded every 1 hour and 5 mins. For each Israeli civilian killed there were 6 palestinian civilans killed, this works out to 1 israeli being killed every 30 hrs, 33 mins, and 11 hrs, 57 mins for a Palestinian to be killed.

Saying "jeez we really did not mean it" doesn't change those figures.

[UoUo]

The IDF doesn't make the killing of civilians a strategy and tries to prevent civilian casualtys as much as possible. So no, you can't call them terrorists.

Sez who, you? Jeez, I heard the same argument from an interview with a palestinian, they consider that since most people in Israel are in active or reserve duty with the IDF they are military targets.

Both sides can find the excuses they want, I strongly disagree with both. Launching rocket attacks from a helo into densely populated areas regardless of how good your intentions are is nothing sort of terrorism. Killing a person and claiming that you really did not meant to doesn't change the fact that you indeed killed him or her.

As of the 2002 intifada for 1 Israeli civilian wounded there were 40 palestinian civilians wounded. I.e. 1 Israeli civilian was wounded every 39 hrs, 57 mins. Where as 1 Palestinian civilian was wounded every 1 hour and 5 mins. For each Israeli civilian killed there were 6 palestinian civilans killed, this works out to 1 israeli being killed every 30 hrs, 33 mins, and 11 hrs, 57 mins for a Palestinian to be killed.

Saying "jeez we really did not mean it" doesn't change those figures.

where are you from ?

[lefador1]

I can give you an example of a war which was won by guerilla force which took on a much biger and stronger foe but without the killing of civilians. Ever heared of the Vietnam War?

Ever heard of the round ups and executions the VietCong and VietNim carried out of suspected American collaborators who had no combat role?

[S'13]

I doubt the fact that "round ups and executions the VietCong and VietNim carried out of suspected American collaborators who had no combat role" is what drove the Americans out of Vietnam. I think it was the tens of thousands of US soldiers who died in guerilla warfare. By the way, even today you can be executed in the US for collaboration with the enemy.

[S'13]

"Sez who, you? Jeez, I heard the same argument from an interview with a palestinian, they consider that since most people in Israel are in active or reserve duty with the IDF they are military targets.

Both sides can find the excuses they want, I strongly disagree with both. Launching rocket attacks from a helo into densely populated areas regardless of how good your intentions are is nothing sort of terrorism. Killing a person and claiming that you really did not meant to doesn't change the fact that you indeed killed him or her.

As of the 2002 intifada for 1 Israeli civilian wounded there were 40 palestinian civilians wounded. I.e. 1 Israeli civilian was wounded every 39 hrs, 57 mins. Where as 1 Palestinian civilian was wounded every 1 hour and 5 mins. For each Israeli civilian killed there were 6 palestinian civilans killed, this works out to 1 israeli being killed every 30 hrs, 33 mins, and 11 hrs, 57 mins for a Palestinian to be killed.

Saying "jeez we really did not mean it" doesn't change those figures."


"Launching rocket attacks from a helo into densely populated areas regardless of how good your intentions are is nothing sort of terrorism" Then i guess the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was some sort of terrorist campaign...

When we launch a rocket into a densely populated area we want to hit the intended target which is a terrorist, if an operation of this sort is done with no intetion of harming the civilians it can't be seen as terror no matter you may think. When you take a 20k explosive belt and walk into a bus full of civilians with the inetion of killing those civilians your a terrorist. Intetion is a key factor since it is what separates the terrorist from the guerilla fighter and so on.

"As of the 2002 intifada for 1 Israeli civilian wounded there were 40 palestinian civilians wounded. I.e. 1 Israeli civilian was wounded every 39 hrs, 57 mins. Where as 1 Palestinian civilian was wounded every 1 hour and 5 mins. For each Israeli civilian killed there were 6 palestinian civilans killed, this works out to 1 israeli being killed every 30 hrs, 33 mins, and 11 hrs, 57 mins for a Palestinian to be killed.

Saying "jeez we really did not mean it" doesn't change those figures."

The fact that more Arabs were killed then Israelis doesn't say anything. In every war there is a civilian death toll but whether the civilians were deliberately killed is what determines whether one of the sides is using terrorism. You don't think intet is a factor, well i do.

[Ichhabe]

I think it was the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who died in guerilla warfare.

If I'm not totally wrong, the USA had 55 000 KIA.

In WW II they had about 650 000.

Don't know what history books you have, but it is bad math in them.

[S'13]

Sorry, i meant to write tens of thousands but while i was typing i got confused. I am aware of how these kinds of mistakes are very irritating and it will be fixed.

[spier]

Did the US kill civilians to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.

Did the Allies kill civilians to intimidate the German into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.Thank god, it only took three(?) pages before you managed to understand a dictionary entry. How old are you? 13?

[Seiyuuki]

Did the US kill civilians to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.

Did the Allies kill civilians to intimidate the German into surrendering? Yep! Does that qualify as an act of terror? You bet.Thank god, it only took three(?) pages before you managed to understand a dictionary entry. How old are you? 13?

rofl I give you too much credit, you don't even deserve to be called an idiot, to called you idiot would discredit the word idiot.

spier is now the new Mortimer. His conspiracy theories would advocate winning both world wars by having the Allies use only laser-guided precision munition to bomb military target while avoiding collateral damage.


In the 15th cent. the Swiss league rose to the first rank as a military power. The conquest of Aargau, Thurgau, and the valleys of Ticino, which were ruled as subject territories until 1798, was followed by Swiss victories over Charles the Bold of Burgundy (1476-77) and over Emperor Maximilian I, who in 1499 granted Switzerland virtual independence. By 1513, the admission to the confederation of Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel, Schaffhausen, and Appenzell had raised the number of cantons to 13, and this number was maintained until 1798. The conquest by Bern of Vaud from Savoy (1536), and close alliances with the Grisons, Geneva, St. Gall, and other towns and regions, further increased the Swiss orbit, but Switzerland's importance as a European power was broken in 1515 when the French defeated the Swiss at Marignano (see also Italian Wars ).

A “perpetual alliance” with France (1516) and neutrality became the basis of Swiss policy. Swiss mercenaries, however, continued to serve abroad for three centuries (see Swiss Guards ). The cantons, loosely bound by a federal diet and by individual treaties and often torn by internal feuds, were seriously split by the Reformation , preached by Zwingli at Zürich and by Calvin at Geneva. The Catholics, led by the Four Forest Cantons , defeated the Protestants in battle; the Treaty of Kappel (1531) preserved Catholicism in Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Fribourg, and Solothurn. National unity almost disappeared for more than two centuries, but religious divisions did not prevent the Swiss (except the Grisons) from remaining neutral throughout the Thirty Years War. Switzerland was an island of prosperity when, in 1648, at the end of the war, its formal independence was recognized in the Peace of Westphalia.

So, basically, in accordance with your definition of terrorism...the so-called neutralist were former terrorists, got their ass handed by the French, claimed to turn neutral, sent out terrorists to fight, then actually be neutral for once, then became the bank roller for the Third Reich?

My friend won a boxing match yesterday...he used of violence...unspeakable...that terrorist bastard. Did you watch the last summer Olympic? My god!!! the use of violence in Karate...those terrorist bastards.

We should not be picking on the Swiss. Throughout centuries after centuries of their existence, they never once conquer, enslave, committed atrocity, meddle in other countries' affairs, build empire, etc. Compare the US and the rest of Europe, every war, conflicts, mess, turmoils on this world since its creation is the fault of the US and the rest of Europe.

The Swiss with their perfectly morally clean history, background, experience, etc. have the rights to preach to the rest of the world.

Thank god, it only took three(?) pages and you still don't managed to comprehend a sarcastic entry. How old are you? 13?

[spier]

"Seiyuuki"(nope, can't say I have heard of name that implies peadophilia more than "Seiyuuki"), you obviously have serious problems dealing with reality, and I sincerly hope that you will get the professional help you require(neckshot). As for me: I won't waste anymore of my time on you.

[Seiyuuki]

"Seiyuuki"(nope, can't say I have heard of name that implies peadophilia more than "Seiyuuki"), you obviously have serious problems dealing with reality, and I sincerly hope that you will get the professional help you require(neckshot). As for me: I won't waste anymore of my time on you.

rofl rofl rofl That comment just further prove:


rofl I give you too much credit, you don't even deserve to be called an idiot, to called you idiot would discredit the word idiot.