Infighting amongst the extremists - Page 2

Wagner · #11 07-02-2007, 04:03 PM

Don't even compare the two, you can't. The entire Nazi era doesn't amount to a grain of sand when put up against the "middle east". In this case, yes...I do lay some blame on the victims door. Having children in that environment, and keeping your family there is their fault. I'm not talking about a 30 year incident, I'm talking about 100s upon 100s of years of slaughter.

Sponsored Links

rebound · #12 07-02-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Don't even compare the two, you can't. The entire Nazi era doesn't amount to a grain of sand when put up against the "middle east". In this case, yes...I do lay some blame on the victims door. Having children in that environment, and keeping your family there is their fault. I'm not talking about a 30 year incident, I'm talking about 100s upon 100s of years of slaughter.

And don't forget - teaching their children to carry on in their stead.

rebound · #13 07-02-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

There is no such thing as a "terrorist organization" as far as I'm concerned, unless an organization's end goal is to just kill a lot of people and there is no actual political objective. Otherwise, I consider all these groups "political organizations".

Terrorism is a method, not a type of person or organization. I don't agree with that method, but apparently I am in the minority in having this opinion. Most others (you included as you have stated in past threads) do agree with using the method of terrorism when they believe in the cause. And those same people tend to condem others who use the method of terrorism when they do NOT agree with the cause. Nothing surprising there.

To prove my point, name a group that used terrorism in the past where you disagreed with their use of terrorism, but were in favor of their cause. If nothing comes to mind, you do indeed fall into that category. When you believe in the cause, you probably don't even see it as terrorism, but are more likely to see it as "colateral damage".

Which part of American history would you like me to use? You're going to have to narrow it down to a specific period.

There's been plenty of terrorist acts committed by the U.S. government, when it wasn't warranted to achieve a good cause.

Sorry, but I'm not the brainwashed fool you continuously attempt to proclaim me.

Terrorism exists - as do terrorist organizations. Yes, they are normally political groups, but when they use terrorism as their most common/exclusive means of getting their message out, they are terrorist groups. No caveat.

Eric5273 · #14 07-02-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Which part of American history would you like me to use? You're going to have to narrow it down to a specific period.

There's been plenty of terrorist acts committed by the U.S. government, when it wasn't warranted to achieve a good cause.

Sorry, but I'm not the brainwashed fool you continuously attempt to proclaim me.

Terrorism exists - as do terrorist organizations. Yes, they are normally political groups, but when they use terrorism as their most common/exclusive means of getting their message out, they are terrorist groups. No caveat.

Wow...sounds like we actually agree on something here.

The label is obviously just a label. If you want to call them terrorist groups, then that is fine.

And no, I do not think what Hamas does is ok (as you indicated in your last post that you think I do). I simply think attacking them with military means will only help them to grow. When Hamas preaches that Israel is an evil enemy, and then the IDF attacks them and kills some Palestinean civilians in the process, all that does is show the Palestineans that Hamas was right. Take a lesson from MLK Jr. on this one. The only way to defeat the enemy is to win them over by example. Without the support of the population, Hamas becomes powerless. Only those who want to strengthen Hamas (i.e. those who don't want peace) would support a policy of using force against them.

That is my opinion. I am just as much against them as you are. I simply believe there is a better way to deal with them. You would think that after 40 years of the current strategy being a failure, more people would welcome a new strategy.

And the same goes for dealing with Al-Queda, and the Iraqi insurgency. The current strategy will not work. It will just serve to keep the status quo. And it is my belief that those politicians who support the current strategy want just that....an endless war. I don't buy the theory that they simply don't know better. They know exactly what they are doing.

Eric5273 · #15 07-04-2007, 02:12 AM

Hamas secured the release of the BBC reporter:

BBC's Gaza correspondent released

BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has been released by kidnappers in Gaza after nearly four months in captivity.

He said it was "fantastic" to be free after an "appalling experience". TV footage showed Mr Johnston, 45, leaving a building accompanied by armed men.

He later appeared beside Hamas leader Ismail Haniya and thanked everyone who had worked for his release.

Rallies worldwide had called for Mr Johnston's release. An online petition was signed by some 200,000 people.

The BBC reporter was handed over to officials of the Hamas administration in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Hamas' military wing had said it would actively work towards securing Mr Johnston's release, warning his kidnappers it was prepared to use force.
Gunmen from the Palestinian Islamist Hamas movement overran Gaza last month, expelling their rivals from the Fatah faction.

This kind of makes you wonder if we are not better off having Hamas in charge over there (rather than Fatah). Fatah seems to have a history of allowing the fanatics to run wild and seems to do nothing about it. This is the first time I can remember an activing government in the Palestinean territories doing something to get a hostage released.

rebound · #16 07-04-2007, 10:31 AM

I'll wait 'til he gives an interview from home, and not beside a Palestinean. It's happened before where they were under duress, even after their "release," and weren't able to tell the truth of the situation.

Sponsored Links