A better way to name "Terrorism"?

I don't support Israels actions. They are only earning recruits for Hamas and such and deepening the hatred. The only righteous option is to hunt down those responsible for the rocket launches and kill them, without getting civilians involved.


Israel could have settled this in a better way than killing over a thousand citizens, shooting young children via gunshot [I saw on a video that two children were shot by a 7.62mm NATO round, which i think is use in Galil Sar's?] and levelling buildings to the ground and targetting UN convoys.
 
Ok well here is a question for you:

Hamas fire a rocket into Israel hitting an apartment and killing 10 civilians and an Army reservist.
Israel finds a Hamas leader in an apartment and hits it with a rocket killing the Hamas leader and 10 civilians.

Why is it one is considered acceptable and the other not?

Both are in essence attacks that are knowingly going to kill civilians, lets face it neither side can be dumb enough not to believe there will be collateral damage (yet neither side cares) and surprisingly both areas are high population densities.

I also believe your freedom fighter definition to be deficient as I would simply describe a terrorist as someone that attacks a third party, you cannot simply define it as "attacking civilians" because using that definition the Luftwaffe, US Airforce and Bomber Command would all be terrorists for the bombing of each others cities during WW2.

In the case outlined above there are subtle but significant differences.
When Hamas is doing it, they are lucky they hit a reservist. Eitherway they are specifically launching the rockets with the express purpose of inflicting civilian casualties. The rockets are not accurate enough to say otherwise.
When Israel is doing it, they are specifically targeting the Hamas leader. It is tragic that the 10 civilians were killed. Would you suggest that Israel not target the Hamas leader? The responsibility for the tragedy of the civilian deaths does not lie with the Israeli military, but the Hamas leader who is living amongst civilians. In essence using them as human shields.

Your comparison of the Airforces during WWII does not hold water. The rules of warfare did not specifically prohibit targeting of civilians. Bear in mind that neither the Allied or Luftwaffe airforces bombed cities at the beginning of hostilities (It was an unwritten but universally accepted rule). Allied bomber forces began bombing German cites in response to Luftwaffe bomber raids on Conventry.

On the 15/16 December the RAF carried out their first area bombing attack, on the city of Mannheim, in response to the raid on Coventry.

REF: Terraine, John, "The Right of the Line", p268

The first two Geneva conventions were written for the protections of the Sick and Wounded. (1st GC adopted 1864, 2nd GC adopted 1906)
The third Geneva convention was related to the prisioners of war (adopted 1929)
The fourth Geneva convention related to the treatment of civilians and was adopted in 1949.
Of the 4 Geneva Conventions 1, 3 and 4 were revised and readopted in 1949.

THe Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 formed the basis for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions and mainly dealt with specific rules on the conduct of war.

 
In the case outlined above there are subtle but significant differences.
When Hamas is doing it, they are lucky they hit a reservist. Eitherway they are specifically launching the rockets with the express purpose of inflicting civilian casualties. The rockets are not accurate enough to say otherwise.
When Israel is doing it, they are specifically targeting the Hamas leader. It is tragic that the 10 civilians were killed. Would you suggest that Israel not target the Hamas leader? The responsibility for the tragedy of the civilian deaths does not lie with the Israeli military, but the Hamas leader who is living amongst civilians. In essence using them as human shields.

I really don't think that washes because lets face it soldiers and reservists/national guard rarely live on bases they live in their community so to argue that there is a difference is kind of one eyed.

I also think it would be naive of anyone on either side to pretend they are trying to "minimise civilian casualties" you (figurative you not you in particular) would have to completely retarded to think that anyone but the most ardent followers are prepared to accept that you can fire a missile into a town or apartment block and still be trying to "minimise casualties".

I will stick by the theory that the difference between a terrorist and "freedom fighter" is in third party casualties, so to that end I do not see Hamas (lets face it these guys are elected) or Hezbolah as terrorists because I tend to look at it as a war, you have clearly defined combatants, territories and both sides are trying to kill the other but they rarely go out and attack third parties like some of the other nutjob organisations in the region.

This should not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I agree with them in fact I dislike both parties to the point that I think the entire region should be irradiated and forgotten about for the next 1000 years.

Your comparison of the Airforces during WWII does not hold water. The rules of warfare did not specifically prohibit targeting of civilians. Bear in mind that neither the Allied or Luftwaffe airforces bombed cities at the beginning of hostilities (It was an unwritten but universally accepted rule). Allied bomber forces began bombing German cites in response to Luftwaffe bomber raids on Conventry.
I agree and if you read what I wrote again you will see that I was using the comparison as an example of how I did not agree with the original statement.
 
Last edited:
Monty, Quite right. Please accept my apologies.

I will agree that it has always been a war and maybe we should carpet bomb the whole area.

I just get very tired of the he said/she said. They shot first and we were only defending ourselves argument.
 
I will agree that it has always been a war and maybe we should carpet bomb the whole area.


Isnt that a bad idea? It will just toll up more civillian deaths and it would really :cens: the world off.

But if it DOES happen, i dont think they will be able to get into Israel. Lets face it, Israel has fairly modern weapons and aircraft, and they would be able to defend themselves.
 
im pretty sure they have an air raid alam of some sort... i mean come on they've(gaza) been getting attacked by aircrafts for how long now?!?!? carpet bombing, sounds fun to me, let the civies now, so they can get the :cens: out...maybe once the place is leveled, gaza can move into Isreal and they can finally live in peace and harmony....:mrgreen:
 
I was being sarcastic.

Until they can agree on the implementation of the 2 state solution it will be the same old thing.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Isnt that a bad idea? It will just toll up more civillian deaths and it would really :cens: the world off.

But if it DOES happen, i dont think they will be able to get into Israel. Lets face it, Israel has fairly modern weapons and aircraft, and they would be able to defend themselves.

And your gonna make who in the world any madder at us than they already are?
 
Interesting that since PBOB has offered an olive branch to Iran, they are insisting that he "apologize" for past transgressions. Pure BS IMO.
 
No need to bomb them MontyB, I have a feeling that region is going to be irradiated on its own sooner or later, either by Israel or Iran or a combination of the two...

I used to care a lot more, but at this point I think it's clear that they're not going to stop until someone REALLY gets hurt. America could've avoided many of the problems we have today if we had stayed neutral over there. It's not even as though Israel has the moral high ground, neither side does.
 
Its like a broken subwoofer, mate. The bass just keeps kicking and it wont stop untill it blows up like Chernobyl and wrecks the interior of the car [The subwoofers represent the feuding countries, and the interior of the car represents the region]

If they had a good leader there [Example: Josip Broz Tito, Nikita Krushchev or Vladimir Lenin], it would have been a much different situation. But unfortunately, there has never been a year of human history without anybody killing the other one.
 
Its like a broken subwoofer, mate. The bass just keeps kicking and it wont stop untill it blows up like Chernobyl and wrecks the interior of the car [The subwoofers represent the feuding countries, and the interior of the car represents the region]

If they had a good leader there [Example: Josip Broz Tito, Nikita Krushchev or Vladimir Lenin], it would have been a much different situation. But unfortunately, there has never been a year of human history without anybody killing the other one.

Tito maybe (only because of his popularity)
Kruschev, No way
Lenin, Are you serious?
 
Tito maybe (only because of his popularity)
Kruschev, No way
Lenin, Are you serious?


Tito definitely. Optimum choice in my opinion. As for his Popularity, i have to admit it was over the wall, seeing as both the USSR and USA had good relationships with Tito and Yugoslavia.

Kruschev, better than Kennedy. His de-stalinization was pretty sucesful [Im not happy about Hungary, though]

Lenin, not anymore. I think that Lenin wouldnt have done much, seeing as it wouldnt work in the modern world. But if this was 1920, Lenin would be the best person for the job.
 
Tito definitely. Optimum choice in my opinion. As for his Popularity, i have to admit it was over the wall, seeing as both the USSR and USA had good relationships with Tito and Yugoslavia.

Kruschev, better than Kennedy. His de-stalinization was pretty sucesful [Im not happy about Hungary, though]

Lenin, not anymore. I think that Lenin wouldnt have done much, seeing as it wouldnt work in the modern world. But if this was 1920, Lenin would be the best person for the job.

We will have to agree to dis agree then.

Major. I agree that there will be nukes going off over there soon. I see hostilities opened by Iran against Israel. Isreal will retaliate. And then the US will HAVE to get involved just so the Israelis dont completely irradiate Iran. IMO Iran doesn't realize the butt kicking that it will get if it starts something like this.
 
Major. I agree that there will be nukes going off over there soon. I see hostilities opened by Iran against Israel. Isreal will retaliate. And then the US will HAVE to get involved just so the Israelis dont completely irradiate Iran. IMO Iran doesn't realize the butt kicking that it will get if it starts something like this.


Ive never really understood the tensions between Iran-Israel

If you dont mind, could you explain it to me? Though it might be a bit off topic here, so you could send a private message if you want to.
 
Prescisely what I stated in another thread. Everyone who has ever fought for freedom using force is a terrorist.

I am a little confused. How does the planes flying into the World Trade Centers constitute an act of fighting for freedom?

Thats easy Iseral is Jewish, Iran is muslim

I'd go a bit further and say that there is tension between any Muslim country and Israel because every one of Israel's neighbors tried to destroy Israel through war. Remember, war is policy by other means.
 
Last edited:
Well I could have stated the whole that the muslims want to kill all non muslims.

And well... I can't say war is policy by other means anymore, they won't let me play anymore, something about being too old :(
 
So the old chestnut what is a terrorist is back again - and will be for the rest of time (& rightly so in my opinion). To my mind, terrorists are people fighting for a cause they believe in; but are not represented by an official government, although they can be supported by one. Their aim is to spread their doctrine through the use of coercion, fear and generally being thoroughly nasty chaps. They won't play ball with the establishment and turn up to a decent pitched battle - because they know that they will lose. A freedom fighter, is the moniker giiven to a terrorist, by governments and people sympathetic to the doctrine that the "terrorist" is trying to spread.
Since Centurion was a rank, not a tank, and before the powers that be have sought to extend their influence through the use of "terrorists" to extend their influence, or keep competitors destabilised. There is no government that has clean hands, because it is a cheap way to wage war, sell arms and generally screw your competitiors over, covertly.
To really get to grips with the question of terrorism, you need to examine each case, who is involved, what are they seeking and who benefits - that's where you need to focus your energy.
As in most things in life, broad brush statements can simplify explanations, but they muddy the discussion - this is my humble opinion anyway.
 
Back
Top