Assassination!!Follow

Gabji, I couldn't have ever in a million years belived you were that niave.

What you posted is pretty much exactly the same as "Why don't the homelss just go live in their summer homes?"

Totem said -

"Fact: The Gaza strip is owned by the Isrealis under international law and by the spoils of war, a time honored standard of ownership."

Not true, they were ordered by the UN to give back all lands taken in the 1967 war, but no one has ever had the balls to try to enforce it.

The Roadmap for Peace says that the Palestinians will have their own state. The Israelis don't want this, even though their public position is to support it. The Palestinians are not *terrorists* and were never called this until after 9/11 when Ariel Sharon was the first one to use the term in referring to them.

I can't see how the onus can be on just one side to stop the violence first. The Israelis are in the position of power, they need to call a truce and stick to it. Then if the Palestinians persist, the spotlight will be totally on them.

As for the Bible being the origin of *an eye for an eye*. Yes it is. You think muslims and Israelis should take their guidelines for life from the Christian book of instructions? Doesn't seem to be working out too well, does it?

And since when, Bluie, is the UN the standard for what is lawful and what is not? There are signatory nations and there aren't signatory nations. Even the Hague's international law courts are only as effective as the countries willing to abide or enforce the rulings handed down.

The spoils of war mean that nations which take land in conflicts not initiated by them get to keep those lands-- and quite frequently even aggressor nations get to keep land they've won as long as other nations aren't capable or willing to reclaim them. If you are going to state otherwise, then I'd refer you to any history book from any particular time of your choosing. You'll find I am correct 100% of the time.

The reason the Israelis have historically not taken the stand that the Palestinians should have an independent nation state is because their leader was/is a member of a terrorist organization: The PLO. Once Arafat renounced terrorism in principle, if not in reality, the Israelis were increasingly open to the idea of a Palestinian state.

As for the Israelis taking the first step in stopping the violence, the very make-up of their society is geared towards that with a court system, a citizenship policy, and a democratic political system. Yet if the non-governable terrorists imbedded in Palestinian society refuse to do so in kind, what recourse do the Israelis have except to fight back but in greater measure? The onus is on the Palestinains, particularly Arafat, since he ostensibly is in charge of them, regardless how little Hamas listens to him now. He created them, now it's his responsibility to rein them in by whatever means necessary for the preservation of the Palestinian state-- a nation previously a figment of the imagination until Isreal became a country in its' own right.

Don't you find that odd? That the other Arab nations had no intention of granting a nation-state to the Pallies? Doesn't that mean anything to you? Your implied presumption is that the Pallies would have it better without the Jews in the region, when all empirical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. It is that silliness which makes me shake my head in wonderment.

Yes, the Israelis are brutal. Yes, they resort to violence quickly. Yes, they have taken land which did not originally belong to them.

All of which is utterly beside the point.

The Pallies have a historic opportunity to excel and grow in population, finances, political power, and leadership. But they refuse because they lack that one component which marks a civilized society-- the willingness to compromise. And they will pay and continue to pay the cost in lives until enough blood is shed where that lesson is clear.

Totem

Totem said -

"And they will pay and continue to pay the cost in lives until enough blood is shed where that lesson is clear."

I guess this is my point. This will never happen. They've already promised hundreds of reprisals as a result of the 2nd assassination. There has to be another way to resolve this situation, and I still believe the Israelis are holding the reins.

Either that or the mutual destruction will just go on for years until some maniac does something even worse.

And Joph, the Palestinians are using the same tactics as terrorists, agreed. But it's not like they have the huge financial backing that Israel has with which to arm themselves. So they've fallen back on what they can do, to cause maximum damage. It's ugly and cruel, but it doesn't make them terrorists, just extremely desparate people.

Both sides are guilty of extreme cruelty.

Hamas = terrorist organistation
Al quada = terrorist organisation.

assasination of the leaders of both is a good thing.

So they have become terrorists right? and terroris should get you the same treatment, a bullet in the head from a high powered rifle.They only people who blocked the roadmap to peace where the palestinians. The israeli's where behind it untill Hamas decided to start killing civilians again, with 11 y.o bombers if i recall.

Title of this thread reminded me of Kao's Forum Whodunit. How's that going?


Hint, hint, poke.

Yeah, it does make them terrorists. They're randomly inflicting intentional civilian deaths (i.e. causing terror) to get their political way. The relative wealth of each side is irrelevant unless you just want to say someone is allowed to use terrorism in certain situations. But it's still terrorism and they're still terrorists.

Sure, if you're intentionally targetting civilians instead of military targets with your cruise missiles. Which is probably a waste of a perfectly good cruise missile. Again, and since you love the bold, intentionally targetting and killing civilians to enact political change.

So we've determined that wealthy countries don't need to engage in terrorism (i.e. intentionally target and kill civilians). Bully for them. What exactly does that have to do with the definition again? It's not a question of why terrorism exists as a tactic, it's a question of what terrorism is. I still haven't heard a definition of terrorism that wouldn't match the decription of said Palestinian groups.

Now you're on the trolly!

And I knew you'd come up with an inflated example. You didn't let me down, except that this one didn't include pedeophilia, incest or trailer parks.

Terrorism is a tactic. Killing people by mistake is not a tactic. By the very phrasing, killing people by mistake is a mistake. See? Killing civilians intentionally and as an act of purpose is terrorism (again, provided we're doing this for political reasons and not killing someone because they slept with your wife, etc). I didn't say accidently kill a hundred million civilians was "fine", I said it wasn't terrorism.

For the third time: Do you have a definition of terrorism that would not apply to the Palestinians?

Edited, Wed Apr 21 10:37:42 2004 by Jophiel

You'll note in my original post on it, I never excluded the Israelis. I merely said that Bluie was mistaken when he claimed the Palestinians were not terrorists.



I didn't write that as an Israeli apologist, I wrote it because I thought Bluie was being a Palestinian apologist by claiming what they were doing wasn't terrorism.

*Shrug*

I see targetting innocent women and children (and civilian men, for that matter) as being "evil". I won't call it "cowardly" because I wish to avoid the "is killing yourself cowardly" bit, but I do see it as dishonorable and doesn't win any respect from me.

So, again, I say that the Palestinian groups involved in those activities (or anyone else, for that matter) are terrorists. Even in the "evil" sense of the word. There's no difference between targetting a daycare in Israel, a train in Madrid, rush hour traffic in Basra or a couple buildings in New York. All those people want change, all are unable to directly face the opposing government on the conventional battlefield, all have decided to directly kill innocents to force the other's hand.

Feel free to get the last word in, since I assume we'll have to agree to disagree on this. You can even call me a moron if it makes you feel better

Hasn't been Arafat for about four months now. Good to see you're keeping up to date on the issue.

Explains your informed oppinion on the matter.