Jewish protest

[LobsterX]

Originally Posted by StanF18

Nationality and religion were used in the context of what is going on currently in the Middle East. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, I think you understand just fine, let's not play dumb. Yes, Palestinian forces firing on an Israeli military checkpoint or an armored convoy with the intent of killing Israeli soldiers only: not terrorism. If civilians are in the vicinity (unbeknownst to the Palestinian militants) and get killed in the crossfire, not terrorism. It ain't pretty. It doesn't make it fine. But it's not terrorism. It does not "terrorize", because civilians are not being intentionally and indiscriminately targeted. If civilians are being intentionally targeted, but NOT indiscriminately (i.e. specific non-combatants are targeted), that is murder. Morally reprehensible, but still not at the lowest and most depraved level of a terrorist attack. I'm trying to be even-handed and not assign nationality or religion to specific tactics. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that both strategically and tactically Hamas is a terrorist outfit in its heart and in its soul. And interestingly, I am sure they would not deny it. They relish the blowing to bits of innocent children and families. The more, the better. I never said all Palestinians are terrorists. That's just you throwing out the race card when you have no other card to play, typical ploy on your part.

To define something based solely on action and not on "thought" was a loaded and un-educated way for you to pose the question. All criminal jurisprudence is based on both action endpoint AS WELL AS the thought process and intent of the perpetrator. INTENT is the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. It's also the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault.

Well said mate! Well said!

hmmmm...Lemme guess: Eric is researching right now for his "counter-attack"! hehehehe

I guess i better sleep now and wait till tomorrow to find out what's on eric's mind!

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by StanF18

Yeah, I think you understand just fine, let's not play dumb. Yes, Palestinian forces firing on an Israeli military checkpoint or an armored convoy with the intent of killing Israeli soldiers only: not terrorism. If civilians are in the vicinity (unbeknownst to the Palestinian militants) and get killed in the crossfire, not terrorism. It ain't pretty. It doesn't make it fine. But it's not terrorism. It does not "terrorize", because civilians are not being intentionally and indiscriminately targeted. If civilians are being intentionally targeted, but NOT indiscriminately (i.e. specific non-combatants are targeted), that is murder. Morally reprehensible, but still not at the lowest and most depraved level of a terrorist attack. I'm trying to be even-handed and not assign nationality or religion to specific tactics. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that both strategically and tactically Hamas is a terrorist outfit in its heart and in its soul. And interestingly, I am sure they would not deny it. They relish the blowing to bits of innocent children and families. The more, the better. I never said all Palestinians are terrorists. That's just you throwing out the race card when you have no other card to play, typical ploy on your part.

Ok...then we agree on this.

I just get annoyed when people throw the word terrorism out there for everything that they don't agree with. You have people calling attacks on US troops in Iraq terrorism when it is most certainly an attack on a foreign army (i.e. military target) in a hostile country that they invaded. All this does is confuse and make the word terrorism become meanlingless or becomes a way to say "bad guys". It should be used correctly and only when it does indeed apply.

You seem somewhat knowledgable, so I'm sure you probably know this, but I'll just add that history is not without a sense of irony with regard to Israel. Irgun and Lehi, the two Zionist groups that lead the fight for the state of Israel in the 1930s and 1940s were both terrorist groups and both waged campaigns of bombings and attacks of mostly civilians targets including passenger trains, buses, and the famous King David Hotel. Hundreds of civilians were killed over the 10-15 year period that these groups waged their war. Do you believe in Karma? (I don't, but certainly seems like it played a part here).

Originally Posted by StanF18

To define something based solely on action and not on "thought" was a loaded and un-educated way for you to pose the question. All criminal jurisprudence is based on both action endpoint AS WELL AS the thought process and intent of the perpetrator. INTENT is the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. It's also the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault.

The problem is that INTENT can be manipulated. Osama bin Laden can tell the millions of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan that trust him that George Bush's INTENT is to kill all Muslims, thus making him a terrorist in their eyes. And Bush can tell the millions of Americans that trust him that Osama bin Laden's INTENT is to kill all Americans. Yet we all know (well, maybe not ALL of us) that neither statement is true. As civilians are almost always killed during a war, anyone's INTENT can be manipulated to look like terrorism. Then we are back to the word "terrorism" completely losing it's meaning. In that context, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Remember when Reagan used to call the Nicaraguan Contras "freedom fighters" in his speeches?? Did you ever read about the Contras? Over 30,000 civilians died from their attacks on civilian targets in a 5 year period. How many Israelis have died from Palestinean attacks in the past 5 years? Maybe 50? 100?

The Contras were surely the worst terrorist organization worldwide in the past 30 years. And our government supported them. Does that make the US a state sponsor of terror?

Last year in another thread on this board, this issue came up and I was told by someone that the Contras were not terrorists since they were fighting against a communist government. Apparently this person thinks terrorism is ok as long as their attacks on civilian targets are in a communist country.


The point I'm trying to make here is that these issues are never black and white like everyone in this thread is trying to paint them. We don't live in a mickey mouse world where every conflict is "good" vs. "evil". You need to realize that most situations fall somewhere in the middle, and rarely in a war is either side the "good guys". 99% of the time, both sides are at fault in some way or another. War is like a bar fight. If you get into a bar fight, I don't care if the other guy started, you are still an idiot.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by StanF18

If civilians are being intentionally targeted, but NOT indiscriminately (i.e. specific non-combatants are targeted), that is murder.

BTW, I can think of a certain historical attack where the INTENT was to kill thousands of civilians, and it fits all of your above criteria for being a terrorist attack, yet I'm pretty sure you will say it was NOT a terrorist attack....

[Dannyell]

Gaza death toll passed 1000 with 5000 injured...this is just insane...

[StanF18]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Ok...then we agree on this.

I just get annoyed when people throw the word terrorism out there for everything that they don't agree with. You have people calling attacks on US troops in Iraq terrorism when it is most certainly an attack on a foreign army (i.e. military target) in a hostile country that they invaded.
Correct, we agree on this point. This is standard guerilla warfare against a technologically and numerically superior army. However, we also know from multiple intel sources that these same insurgents have set off IEDs in crowded Baghdad marketplaces. So that would make them guerilla fighters on Monday and terrorists on Tuesday. So calling them 'terrorists' is still quite applicable as they have no qualms about switching back and forth between US forces and civilian targets.

You seem somewhat knowledgable, so I'm sure you probably know this, but I'll just add that history is not without a sense of irony with regard to Israel. Irgun and Lehi, the two Zionist groups that lead the fight for the state of Israel in the 1930s and 1940s were both terrorist groups and both waged campaigns of bombings and attacks of mostly civilians targets including passenger trains, buses, and the famous King David Hotel. Hundreds of civilians were killed over the 10-15 year period that these groups waged their war. Do you believe in Karma? (I don't, but certainly seems like it played a part here).

The problem is that INTENT can be manipulated. Osama bin Laden can tell the millions of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan that trust him that George Bush's INTENT is to kill all Muslims, thus making him a terrorist in their eyes. And Bush can tell the millions of Americans that trust him that Osama bin Laden's INTENT is to kill all Americans. Yet we all know (well, maybe not ALL of us) that neither statement is true. As civilians are almost always killed during a war, anyone's INTENT can be manipulated to look like terrorism.

That is why in criminal law you have a trial by jury. You are seeking to determine the end result of the alleged crime, the motive, and the intent. In a justice system setting you have the luxury of discovery, cross-examination, exhibits, testimony, witnesses, documents, etc. With international conflict, we do not have this luxury, at least not until the conflict is over and the responsible parties can potentially be brought in front an international war crimes body (which almost never happens). So this is where common sense has to enter the equation. Nobody has to "manipulate intent" for folks to see that flying a civilian jetliner onto an office building is a terrorist attack. Same with what happened in Mumbai's train stations and hotels. The "intent" does not need to be manipulated. It is clear as day for all to see (well, maybe not ALL).

Remember when Reagan used to call the Nicaraguan Contras "freedom fighters" in his speeches?? Did you ever read about the Contras? Over 30,000 civilians died from their attacks on civilian targets in a 5 year period. How many Israelis have died from Palestinean attacks in the past 5 years? Maybe 50? 100?

I'm sure it's more than 100. The Passover Massacre alone blew apart 30 Israelis, and the Dolphinarium nightclub massacre killed 21 teenagers. But granted, the number of Israelis killed is not in the thousands. I can assure you it's not for lack of trying on the part of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The fact that suicide bombings in Israel have dropped off in the last 2 years is a testament to the combined security efforts of the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet. Those efforts have reached far and wide: targeted liquidation of terrorist leadership, large security barriers, extensive human intelligence in Gaza/West Bank, and the luck of having a political crack emerge between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

The Contras were surely the worst terrorist organization worldwide in the past 30 years. And our government supported them. Does that make the US a state sponsor of terror?

Last year in another thread on this board, this issue came up and I was told by someone that the Contras were not terrorists since they were fighting against a communist government. Apparently this person thinks terrorism is ok as long as their attacks on civilian targets are in a communist country.


The point I'm trying to make here is that these issues are never black and white like everyone in this thread is trying to paint them. We don't live in a mickey mouse world where every conflict is "good" vs. "evil". You need to realize that most situations fall somewhere in the middle, and rarely in a war is either side the "good guys". 99% of the time, both sides are at fault in some way or another. War is like a bar fight. If you get into a bar fight, I don't care if the other guy started, you are still an idiot.

And the point I am trying to make is that most folks on this forum and this thread are bright enough to appreciate "shades of grey", but are not so clouded in their moral compass as to try and justify terrorism, or pretend that lobbing rockets at Israeli population centers is not terrorism

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

BTW, I can think of a certain historical attack where the INTENT was to kill thousands of civilians, and it fits all of your above criteria for being a terrorist attack, yet I'm pretty sure you will say it was NOT a terrorist attack....

In a mutual state of fully declared war

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Wagner

In a mutual state of fully declared war

Is Hamas not in a mutual state of fully declared war with Israel? I'd say so.

[Eric5273]

Did someone say that war strengthens extremist groups?


http://www.reuters.com/article/world...50M3OB20090123

War boosted extremists in Gaza, says U.N. official

GENEVA (Reuters) - Israel's invasion of Gaza has strengthened the hand of extremists and only a credible independent investigation into alleged wrongdoing can quieten growing Palestinian anger, a U.N. aid official said on Friday.

[StanF18]

Sorry bro, that's a retarded way of looking at it. How about this instead: Hamas rocket fire has stopped (for now) and my friends and relatives in Ashkelon and Ashdod can go about their lives and not run to bomb shelters every hour.

How about this: The Israeli government and IDF did their job, and forced Hamas into a cease-fire. Sure, Hamas still has rockets, but they also know that if they start firing again, they'll get smacked again...just as hard...

How ABOUT THIS: The first job of any government, IMHO, is to protect its' citizens. Obviously you do not feel that way. But then again, you did not have a rocket expode 200 meters from your house, like my cousin did.
The Israelis went in to stop the rocket fire on their civilians. And the rocket fire has stopped. Short-term objective accomplished.

[Dannyell]

Originally Posted by StanF18

Sorry bro, that's a retarded way of looking at it. How about this instead: Hamas rocket fire has stopped (for now) and my friends and relatives in Ashkelon and Ashdod can go about their lives and not run to bomb shelters every hour.

How about this: The Israeli government and IDF did their job, and forced Hamas into a cease-fire. Sure, Hamas still has rockets, but they also know that if they start firing again, they'll get smacked again...just as hard...

How ABOUT THIS: The first job of any government, IMHO, is to protect its' citizens. Obviously you do not feel that way. But then again, you did not have a rocket expode 200 meters from your house, like my cousin did.
The Israelis went in to stop the rocket fire on their civilians. And the rocket fire has stopped. Short-term objective accomplished.

Sure enough accomplished...with about 1300 dead...but I guess nobody cares about that...we can call it a success.