1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Israel a terrorist state?

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Oclocker, 28 Jul 2006.

  1. Oclocker

    Oclocker What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    5
    Israels actions against Lebanon are the actions of terrorists, killing innocents to spread fear and alarm.

    Israel is changing from a country I admire to a country I see as evil..

    does anyone without bias disagree (ie israli ties)
     
  2. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Well I have a tradition of being a lefty when it comes to much of my politics and that makes me pretty biased, but I'm neither muslim nor jewish, and I'm neither Israeli, American, or middle eastern.

    Israel are without a doubt to me, a terrorist state. They're the only country to "confirm kills", which means they shoot wounded enemy(and civilians) to kill them, instead of capturing and treating them. They capture and imprison without trial people from beyond their own borders, they kill foreign nationals with impunity and use tactics like the use of sonic booms to grind down an entire nations morale. They are to me, without a doubt using terror for political gains.

    Doesn't mean much though, America is a huge sponser of terrorism, so are plenty of places. Terrorism is becoming a useless word because it's come to basicly mean "non-whitey who wants to use force to get something we don't want to happen", instead of meaning what it should mean, which is someone who uses terror for political means. In a world where most people realise there are no longer absolutes for right and wrong, terrorism and freedom fighters are the same thing, all that really matters is which side you take, whether that be one side or the other, or no side at all.
     
  3. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    103
    Depends on how you define the term "terrorist state". After all, the term itself is an oxymoron since a terrorist organization is, by definition, not tied to any state. They may be supported by a state, but is they a re a wholly-owned subsidiary then they're not really terrorists typically. The way the term is ususally used these days is to mean "A state sponsoring terrorism" and by that definition Isreal does not qualify, IMO.

    I'm typically a big supporter of Isreal, but in this case I think they've really screwed the pooch. The should have embraced the Hamas government when it was elected which would have served to seperate the more moderate, civic-minded elements of the organization from the militant parts. A Hamas led government in Palestine was their best chance for peace and they blew it. That error has been compounded by the invasion of and bombardment of Lebanon and I would say that these two policy acts have set the goalposts of a manageable peace back at least another 20 years :sigh:
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    :hehe: :thumb: I love your turn of phrase sometimes. :D

    Israel is basically an abused child that grew up to become an abuser itself. If that is what (you have learned) relationships are inevitably like, better to be on the dealing than the receiving end, right? Unfortunately, it also means that you are unable to see or experience that not all realtionships have to be inevitably abusive.

    Israel gets its legitimacy for its actions from the notion that they are a persecuted people surrounded by enemies, and they are not going to be victims ever again, oh no. So anything goes to defend themselves. To be fair, the Middle East does regularly take pops at them but then again, Israel has, in their eyes, some issues with its entitlement: See the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which "one nation [Britain] solemnly promised to a second nation [Israel] the country of a third [Palestine]" (Arthur Koestler) followed by a more toned-down White Paper of 1939 in which Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited (probably in response to the Great Arab Uprising of 1936-1939 against continued Jewish immigration into Palestine which, they feared, would make them a minority in their own future independent Palestine) but also the idea of partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states was abandoned in favour of an independent Palestine governed jointly by Arabs and Jews (I know... They don't want to share, so we'll release a White Paper in which they get to share... Whoever said politics made sense? :rolleyes: ).

    In 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to simply cop out from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly picked up the crap as always and approved a UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

    The Jews tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948. Scattered attacks on civilians of both sides soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews (and it has never stopped since).

    The Arabs feel that the Jews are newcomers out to take what they see as their land by birthright, while the Jews see the Arabs as intruders on what they see as their land by mandate and religious conviction. Palestinian families have lived where they do for (literally) a thousand years. The Jews have been given the land by the Western world essentially because of a guilt-trip over the holocaust. They feel that they're owed, by us and by God. Unfortunately, we paid them with what wasn't ours to begin with (and God is going: "Oh, no, you're on your own with this one, suckers!").

    So, each side sees themselves as the freedom fighters and religious martyrs, while they perceive the others as the terrorists and intruders out to destroy their people (funny, considering they share the same religious and cultural origins). But that is just a matter of perspective --the approach is the same. If you gamble, you become a gambler; if you play the terrorist's game, you become a terrorist (gambling may seem like a wonky analogy, but the power-play and risk taking dynamics are roughly similar). And like with gambling, you quickly lose track of your winnings and losses, and you invariably suffer much greater losses. Each win becomes a reason to play again. Each loss becomes a reason to play again. In the end, only the game matters. Not your life, your job, your family, nothing. You just keep playing and playing, right to the bitter end.
     
    Last edited: 28 Jul 2006
  5. Will

    Will Beware the judderman...

    Joined:
    16 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,057
    Likes Received:
    2
    To my mind, 'terrorism' is becoming a useless word mainly because of the negative connotations attached to it, which has led to it becoming a word used to brand organisations often in ways similar to how you describe, to make them look bad - 'non-whitey who wants to use force to get something we don't want to happen'.

    But the differentiation between someone who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter shouldn't really be that difficult, indeed if you look at most definitions of the word 'terrorist' you'll find that it makes absolutely no reference to the legitimacy or justness of the cause of those carrying out the acts of terror.

    The whole 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' mantra seems to be an accepted phrase, but to me its a misleading statement. The two things are not mutually exclusive, one can be a freedom fighter and a terrorist, and I'm not talking about how they're perceived from either side when I see that - I mean that terrorism can be identified solely by the type of action being commited, without it being necessary to make any judgements about the legitimacy or 'rightness' of their cause.

    Terrorism can be identified and defined relatively easily, so long we we ignore the emotive connotations we attach to the word and looking solely at what it means, and ignoring the justification behind the act other than asking whether or not it is 'the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims'.

    Take the French resistance during WW2 - their tactics could often be defined as those of terrorists, in that they were designed to spread fear amongst the German occupation forces. We only refrain from calling them terrorists though because of the negative connotations of the word, not because they were not acting in a terroristic way.

    Equally acts of terror perpetrated by the state are never willfully acknowledged by the practitioner as being examples of state terror, just because it looks bad - I'll agree that Israel can be classed as a terrorist state, so can the US and UK as well (what was 'shock and awe' at the start of the 2003 Iraq war meant to do, if not terrorise the Iraqi population in order to achieve political aims?).
     
    Last edited: 28 Jul 2006
  6. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    We did, however, refrain from bombing Eire, or even IRA enclaves in the North, when IRA terrorists were active in the UK. Maybe because ""non-whitey who wants to use force to get something we don't want to happen" didn't apply to the Irish, or because America would have gone apeshit. Or just possibly the UK public and government alike might have thought it unreasonable retaliation.
     
  7. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit Modder

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,428
    Likes Received:
    237
    The odd thing is, I have said for many years that I consider Israel a terrorist state, but I don't on this occasion.

    I do believe however that, they have acted disproportionately, and their targeting skills are some what questionable.

    Retaliation was just this time due to the provocation.

    I am of course ignoring the complex dynamics of the region and the history that has brought us to this situation in the first place.
    But as I often say, harking back to history can only antagonise old grudges, the only way forward is to stop looking back and consider the future. Unfortunately we all know that will never happen.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Although Israel states that it tries to avoid Lebanese civilian casualties, there is also the quite explicit (if quite naive) assumption that the hardship that they suffer as a result of Israeli retaliation against the terrorists will cause them to turn against Hezbollah (it doesn't, of course; latest polls suggest an 87% support amongst the population for Hezbollah, and 80% amongst the Christian population specifically). I find it difficult to marry those two postions up.
     
  9. Bloodsmoke

    Bloodsmoke What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    We didn't start the fires, they was always burning since the worlds been turning.

    Since when did defending yourself make you a terrorist.......
     
  10. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    103
    Lobbing 8" artillery shells at apartment blocks because you want to convince the people living there to not support some organization doesn't seem much different from lobbing 122mm rockets at town to try to convince the people living there to lobby their government for a change in policy.

    Neither could reasonably be termed an act of defense.
     
  11. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    My point of view is this. They have a right to attack Hezbollah for its efforts and goals. However, Israel doesnt have a right to pummel the crap out of a major city and its citizens to do it.

    Its all an unfortunate mess, and it goes waaay further back than 1000 or even 2000 years.
     
  12. xpc

    xpc What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    that's true!

    too many tourist and filipino people working there, been dispatched.
    and goverment have to pay for their fare, and i think 20-30% are filipino (overseas workers). take note how many millions will goverment to pay. too much HASSLE right?
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Yeah, the oldest defense in the classroom. "They started it...'

    I already explained to you how here. lf you don't bother to read the threads, don't contribute to them.
     
  14. Oclocker

    Oclocker What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    5
    Defending yourself against unarmed UN observers? Dropping a bomb to permanently silence them is defensive?. Killing indiscriminately amongst the non hezbollah citizens is defensive? NO its murder for terrorist aims..

    Israel thinks it is defending itself what it is doing is self destruction on a big scale.. As a nation they think they are indestructible - they still think they are facing the same ill trained and ill-equipped Arab countries of 1973. They aren't and if they go to war with the Arab world they will be left with one choice annihalation or Nuclear weapons & hence WW3 will begin..

    The Neocons in the US are happy to support Israels actions - they want it to escalate into armageddon. But after the dust settles and the nuclear fallout kills us for years - they will have their riches etc..
     
  15. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Have to agree with Oclocker here, as a tiny nation they are acting very unwisely.

    I'm kinda leaning towards the idea that someone should just nuke the entire region into uselessness for as long as possible. If we could make the area totally useless and with crazy high radiation levels for a few hundreds years we'd get to stop hearing people whine.
     
  16. Bloodsmoke

    Bloodsmoke What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off "they started it" is a just defense in some circumstances, this being one of them. They, the terrorists, started it, the war. The terrorists started the war. And Israel is going to finnish it.

    Second, the post you linked, which I read when you posted it is full of nothing more than bad analogys and liberal idealism. Israel isn't torching every house on the street as you put it, they are bombing specific targets.

    Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip and Lebanon, and what happened, they got attacked yet again, if that palestinian youth doesn't want his house leveled maybe he should tell his dad/brother to stop starting it up again.

    The superman radio show contributed a very small part to the demise of the KKK. The real reason is all the muders and rapes commited during the civil rights era. Saying it was because of a radio show is like saying the Nazis were defeated because of the Three Stooges... Clearly Murder doesnt matter to the the public of lebanon or why would they support Hezbollah kidnapping solders completly unprovoked.

    How does Isreal work together with the lebanese Government when Hezbollah is part of the governemt and there "Mission Statment" is for the destruction of Israel, How do you negotiate with people that want you dead and your country distroyed. The situation can't be solved with pritty words, typical liberal response though, can't we all just get along, lets talk it over. Talk had its time, why not talk about the resolution the UN passed to disarm Hezbollah or the resolution passed that lebanon should have no armed political parties. Why does noone talk about that? Clearly Hezbollah isnt just going to give up their weapons, Isreal is just doing the UN's job.

    Saying Hezbollah has already won, is again opinion, not fact, and saying you can't fight terrorests with bullets is again, opinion, not fact.

    The terrorests have to be taken on somewhere, im glad it is in their home country.
     
  17. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Yeah, but it's playground reasoning, isn't it? I expect a bit more sophistication from governments. And Israel hasn't "finished it" since 1948.

    Oh no, not "liberal idealism" (do you actually know what that means?)! Specific targets, huh? That would be the leveled residential blocks and the death toll, at last count, of 800 civilians then (and a few UN observers --despite 12 warnings that they were there), and the 500.000 homeless refugees.

    That is not exactly what happened now, is it? As discussed earlier, we had the democratically elected, moderate Fatah party who actually recognised Israel's right to exist in 1988. Rather than co-operating with them, Israel (and the US) undermined them with accusations that they were not effective enough in controlling the extremists (deja vu?). The Israelis withdrew from Gaza unilaterally, but made no arrangements with any Palestinian negotiating party for security in the aftermath. Sharon insisted that he had no one to talk to, despite the long-standing commitment of the Palestinian Authority, led primarily by the Fatah Party, to a negotiated peace. Sharon undermined Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, helping to derail the Oslo peace accords, continuing to expand Israeli colonies on the West Bank unfettered, and attacking and weakening the P.A. security infrastructure (it did not help of course that P.A. officials also behaved locally in a corrupt and arrogant manner). As a result many voters turned against them; the Fatah party collapsed. And who took up the void? The more extremist Hamas party.

    If we don't do everything to support democratically elected goverments (such as the Fatah party and the Lebanese government), and they perish because of that while extremist parties thrive, there is a lesson in it somehwere for every person, terrorist, politician or civilian, living in the Middle East. Just think about that one.

    Moreover, as also discussed earlier, it is extremely naive to think that every Palestinian is involved with, or on close terms with terrorists, like not every Northern Irish citizen is on first-name terms with IRA members.

    Again, if you are not going to read the threads, don't contribute.

    No, the rapes and murders is what made them regarded as bad people amongst the black Americans and in the Northern States. But although there were many violent clashes, that wasn't what finished them off. What started doing them in were a number of scandals and court cases (one to do with taking a crew of a radio hostage because they were going to broadcast a desparaging interview with an ex-Klan member, another to do with the rather nasty rape and murder of a white school teacher by a Grand Dragon). Folklorist and author Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the Klan after World War II and provided information on the KKK to media and law enforcement agencies. He also provided Klan information, including secret code words, to the writers of the Superman radio program, resulting in a series of four episodes in which Superman took on the KKK. Kennedy's attempts at stripping away the Klan's mystique and trivialize the Klan's (rather theatrical) rituals and code words had a negative impact on Klan recruiting and membership. Kennedy eventually wrote a book based on his experiences, which became a bestseller during the 1950s and further damaged the Klan.

    You know what? They didn't support them. Many civilians were against the Hezbollah, who were seen as puppets of Syrian powerplay in Lebanon. But being bombed has changed their mind. 87% of the population now supports the Hezbollah, a rise of 29% on a similar poll conducted in February, and interestingly, 80% of the Christian population there now supports them as well. Currently 8% of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38% in January. I guess murder does matter to them --especially when it's theirs.

    States like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt who initially condemned the Hezbollah for provoking a war are now distancing themselves from Israel.

    Israel only had to be seen to try. If the Lebanese government, under pressure from Hezbollah, turned down all their support and generosity, that would only make the population angry with the Hezbollah. Why would they ruin a good deal? Basically you simply do the inverse of what Israel is doing now, to get the inverse result. But simply treating the whole of the Lebanese population and its government as a terrorist group out to destroy Israel because they have some Hezbollah government members and supporters there, is like saying that every Nothern Irishman is an IRA sympathiser or terrorist out to destroy Britain, or every Muslim in the US is a closet terrorist and deserves any brutality they suffer. Liberal idealism? Better than Fascist extremism.

    Not only mine. Read the news. And so far, it is an opinion supported by evidence.
     
    Last edited: 30 Jul 2006
  18. Lynx

    Lynx What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    864
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bloodsmoke learn some history. Israel "started it" as you like to put it. This whole problem was caused by Jewish immigration to the then British mandate of Palestine.

    This started in the 1920s where 100,000 jews immigrated to the mandate compared to 6,000 non jews. This immigration was controlled by the Histadrut which selected people based on their political tendencies. At this point the Palesinian Arabs where mostly ok with this immigration untill the immigration dramatically increased causing resentment. The Jews employed extremely racist policies including. Buying up land from absente land owners and subsiquently evicting the tenents and only employing jewish labour. The Arabs at this point feeling marginalised resoreted to non-violent protests and in the end violent protests (though these killed more Arabs then Jews as it was used as an excuse to settle scores).

    The Jews then instigated their own terrorist campaign which lead to the Great Revolt of 1936. This was a general strike and non payment of taxes by the Arabs which spilled over into sporadic violence against jews. This was put down violently by the British with the Jewish paramilitary groups helping.


    Now jump forward to World War Two. Various Jewish groups offered to fight against the Allies to get the British out of Palestine and from 1939-42 the Zionists instigated illegal immigration to get as many jews as possible into Palestine this halted with the sinking of one of the immigrant ships by a soviet submarine, though resumed after the war.

    After the war finished the British refused to lift the 10,000 person cap on immigration and so the Zionists instigated a terrorist campaign against them resulting in the bombing of the King David Hotel killing 92 British nationals. After this the British declared their intention to pull out and did so in May 1948.

    One day before the mandate finished the State of Israel declared independents. And so the state of Israel was born.

    So Israel was born due to illegal immigration, terrorist activity and mainly the extremely rasist Zionist ideals.

    Though this is a simpified version and its alot more complex than this. The jews can be said to have "started it". Also you idea that retaliation is acceptable especially at the levels Israel is demonstating is fairly abhorent. Israel has killed over 600 people including atleast 200 children including dozens of civilians in an airstrike today. For these 600 deaths only a handfull are militants. I ask you is this acceptable collteral damage?
     
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Thanks for that, Lynx. I nearly forgot about the King David Hotel bombing. An interesting side note is that this terrorist attack was ordered by Menachem Begin, then head of the Irgun (a militant Zionist organization), who would later become Israeli Prime Minister. The Israeli government has a long heritage of terrorism...

    At latest count, at least 27 children died in the most recent bombing, by the way. I guess, by Bloodsmoke's reasoning those kids deserved it; they should not have shown such close sympathies with terrorists... :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: 30 Jul 2006
  20. quack

    quack Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    5,240
    Likes Received:
    9

Share This Page