Well you are talking to "The parsing nitpicking Holy democracy war-advocator, author of The D&D Hayesian Book of Moral, and defender of the faith against the whirling, swirling vortex of doom" This is a well known Hayesian tactic.
The founding fathers were largely terrorists, at least to begin with. Following the declaration of independence they were soldiers on the rebel side of a civil war. They were also slavers. From the beginning, all of the Americans/colonists were land stealers and many of them were genocidal. America, like pretty much every other country has its current dimensions largely through war. What is really funny is that Israel taking land through wars, mostly not of their own making, is condemned even though almost every other country has done it, includin the US. On the other hand, because the US used terrorism 200 plus years ago against the English, that is somehow supposed to legitimize it for Arab Muslim extremists.
Israel has not taken the land. That is part of the problem, they merely are occupying someone else's land. If they expanded their borders the Jewish majority would quickly become a minority, and thus they won't actually take land. The wars were in most cases as much of their own making as that of their opponents. I also disagree that the majority of the revolution was fought in the style of terrorists. They did not attack innocent citizens who were loyal to the crown on any regular basis. They certainly did behave that way towards the Indian tribes that were present. Terrorism should not be legitimized for any extremist Muslim/Arab/Jew/American or anyone else. Pointing out that somebody else used or is using terrorism isn't a way to excuse it in others, I hope. It merely shows that someone else is wrong also.
They are going to take the land inside the security wall. The rest they are withdrawing from, wrt the Palestinians. So, once the security wall is finished, there shouldn't be a problem, right? There was certainly terrorism before and during the Revolutionary War. Further, only being terrorists to against the natives would not make them any less terrorists. If only everyone else would accept this. I can't tell you how many times I have seen excuses made for Palestinian terrorism.
That would be against international law, and recognized boundaries. Israel has no plans to make that an official part of ISrael as far as I have heard. The wall should be a major problem. It is around or cuts off travel between the choicest parts of land which would be necessary to sustain a viable Palestinian state. I agree it doesn't make them any less terrorists just like Israel isn't any less terrorists when they intentionally target civilians. But as a tactic in Revolutionary war, I have yet to see examples of that. I haven't read much about the military campaigns of that period so it could be my own ignorance. Do you have any examples that you can mention? Yes it frustrates me too. Sometimes when it is brought up, certain Palestinian officials just try and change the topic to the wrongs Israel has done, rather than accepting responsibility. The same can be said of many Israeli officials when the topic their faults come up, they start blaming the other side and don't take responsibility.
No, it's not in context. The original comment I replied to was about whether there was a link between Iran and Hezbollah. Arab opinion of a link between the two, or of a link between Israel and the US, is irrelevant to whether or not there IS a link between Iran and Hezbollah.
Uh, no. I never made a judgement about state violence being less condemnable than subnational violence. My point is that one is terrorism and one isn't. Whether the US has sponsored subnational groups or not is irrelevant to that conclusion. Not sure why this is relevant. I never said the US hadn't sponsored a subnational group. Of course, the Contras sole purpose was not to commit terrorist acts, but rather they were a military group in a civil war. Not at all. My point was to distinguish terrorism from direct military action. The conventions that guide wartime conduct also recognize this division and recognize the difference between an internal actor in a civil conflict and a subnational terrorist group. I am sorry you don't see a difference between a state actively supporting a group that by design sends suicide bombers after civilian targets and one that doesn't. Your claim that the US is 'encouraging' civilian attacks is far too simplistic - arguing that Israel has a right to respond to Hezbollah is not the same as encouraging civilian casualties. That just an illogical stretch. If I say I support the right of police to use deadly force, that does not mean I endorse or encourage any incident of police misconduct. That would be worst case scenario. But the problem is that you, like others, seem to dismiss the difference as 'semantics.' I think that ignores the real differences between a state actor and a subnational terrorist group. A state is a static organization that can be called to task for their actions. There are a myriad of options for the international community to deal with such an entity while that is not the case with a subnational group. It isn't semantics or wordplay. There are already established mechanisms to deal with state misconduct. As I indicated earlier blurring the line between state military action and subnational terrorism only increases the legitimacy of terrorism (by equating states with subnational groups) and hinders the ability to deal with terrorism. Here a sample summation of why we would want to distinguish what is and is not terrorism, rather than labeling any violence terrorism: 1. Legislation and punishment – the laws and regulations enacted to provide security forces with an instrument for combating terrorism. A definition of terrorism is necessary when legislating laws designed to ban terrorism and assistance to terrorism, as well as when setting minimum sentences for terrorists or confiscating their financial resources and supplies. Barring an accepted definition, this legislation has no value. Legislation and punishment must distinguish terrorism from ordinary crime, even when they might actually be identical in practice. The need for a separate legislation and punishment for terrorism stems from the enormous danger that terrorism, due to its political dimension, as opposed to crime, poses to society and its values, to the government in power, and to the public at large. 2. International cooperation – An internationally accepted definition of terrorism is required to strengthen cooperation between countries in the struggle against terrorism, and to ensure its effectiveness. This need is particularly obvious in all that concerns the formulation and ratification of international conventions against terrorism—conventions forbidding the perpetration of terrorist acts, assistance to terrorism, transfer of funds to terrorist organizations, state support for terrorist organizations, commercial ties with states sponsoring terrorism–and conventions compelling the extradition of terrorists. 3. States sponsoring terrorism – modern terrorism is increasingly dependent on the support of nations. States sponsoring terrorism use terrorist organizations as a means to their own ends, while these organizations depend on the assistance they receive from such countries at the eco, military, and operational levels. Some organizations are so closely dependent on the assistance of states that they become “puppets” functioning at the initiative, direction, and with the complete support of these states. It is impossible to contend effectively with terrorism without severing the close tie between the terrorist organizations and the sponsoring states. This tie, however, cannot be severed without agreeing on a broad definition of terrorism, and thus of the states that sponsor it and of the steps to be taken against them. 4. Offensive action – the state struggling against terrorism must retain the initiative. At the same time, attempts must be made to limit, as far as possible, the operative capacity of the terrorist organization. To attain these aims, a continued offensive must be conducted against terrorist organizations. While countries on the defensive naturally enjoy the sympathy of others, countries on the offensive are usually censored and criticized by others. To ensure international support for states struggling against terrorism, and perhaps even for a joint offensive, an internationally accepted definition of terrorism is required that will distinguish freedom fighting (which enjoys a measure of legitimacy among nations) from terrorist activity. 5. Attitudes toward the population supporting terrorism – terrorist organizations often rely on the assistance of a sympathetic civilian population. An effective instrument in the limitation of terrorist activity is to undermine the ability of the organization to obtain support, assistance, and aid from this population. A definition of terrorism could be helpful here too by determining new rules of the game in both the local and the international sphere. Any organization contemplating the use of terrorism to attain its political aims will have to risk losing its legitimacy, even with the population that supports its aims. 6. Public relations – a definition that separates terrorism out from other violent actions will enable the initiation of an international campaign designed to undermine the legitimacy of terrorist organizations, curtail support for them, and galvanize a united international front against them. In order to undermine the legitimacy of terrorist activity (usually stemming from the tendency of various countries to identify with some of the aims of terrorist organizations), terrorist activity must be distinguished from guerrilla activity, as two forms of violent struggle reflecting different levels of illegitimacy. http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm#importance A state is a more legitimate actor than a subnational terrorist group. That doesn't mean state's only take legitimate action, but it is important not to make the flawed assumption that subnational terrorist groups are legitimate actors - they aren't and we shouldn't equate the two. There are acceptable and legitimate actions from a state that may result in the deaths of civilians. There are none for a terrorist organization. There is a question of whether or not some of Israel's actions are legitimate and certainly those should be addressed, but not by confusing those actions with terrorism. As I indicated earlier, if you want to call Israel to task for war crimes then do so.
There are almost no non-state groups whose "sole purpose" is to commit terrorist acts. All of them have some cause or agenda that they are trying to advance through terrorism. I've never heard of any group say that they are commiting terrorist acts for the "sole purpose" of committing terrorist acts. I agree that there is a difference between a state that commits war crimes/terrorist acts and a non-state organization that commits comparable acts. Yes it is easier to call to task a national govt than it is to call to task a non-state organization that may not even be based in any fixed location. HOWEVER: (a) if you are a victim of war crimes/terrorist acts, your suffering is no less if it came from a state than from a non-state organization. (b) if the act came from a state which has not been taken to task but continues to commit them, then the fact that a state MAY be taken to task means nothing if that state continues to commit war crimes/terrorist acts and isn't stopped from doing so.
That is my prediction for the final outcome of building the wall, whether it is stated policy or not. 1. When did Israel intentionally target civilians? About the closest I could figure would be sending in a Palestinian when they figured to be walking into an ambush. 2. A simple google search turned up an incident in which loyalist Thomas Brown was tortured (not killed though). link
Of course not. My point is that you can distinguish between a terrorist group like Al Quaeda and direct military action by subnational group involved in a civil war. Cool. No denying that. (b) if the act came from a state which has not been taken to task but continues to commit them, then the fact that a state MAY be taken to task means nothing if that state continues to commit war crimes/terrorist acts and isn't stopped from doing so. [/QUOTE] I disagree that it 'means nothing.' Blurring the lines between what is and is not terrorism is not a good thing as illustrated above. Blurring those lines also doesn't help the situation. There is no benefit and at least a chance of harm. Hence we should not do it.
Israel attacked an airport with no military aircraft there, and killed at least 8 civilians, zero militants, and zero military. They didn't kill any legitimate targets because none were there. If they attack a civilian area on purpose where only civilians are, then that is targeting civilians.
NO it is not according to the defenders of Israel. Israel sincerely hoped that no innocent civilians were killed. Thus with no intent to kill, they are not terrorists. As there was only 99.99% probability that they would kill innocents, Israel remains completely distinct from Palestinians bombers. Sort of like when Israel shoots a missile into a crowded apartment complex to try to assassinate one alleged Hamas leader. Hence Israel remains completely innocent or at the minimum as innocent as reasonably possible. The Palestinians bombing in an attempt to continue to live where they have lived uninterruptedly since before the days there were Jews or Palestinians,and the Hezbollah Shiites living in Lebanon resisting Israel remain totally culpable and terrorists. Another way of looking at this is that all Lebanese are guilty because they have Hezbollah in their country and hence their death is not terrorism. However, all Israelis including those in the military at any given time are innocents and so trying to kill even Israeli soldiers is just terrorism pure and simple. Get it? If you don't get it, I'm sure Hayes can provide us with a definition or two that shows this.
If the airport is used to supply Hezbollah with munitions then it is a legitimate target. You're doing the same thing here that you were doing with the 'university attack' in the other thread. You're operating almost completely without information and making conclusions based on that. I expect better from you, FB. Don't glynchify yourself.
Where is your information when you make conclusions? So far, I see a lot of "if"'s from Israel. As of right now, there is absolutely no concrete proof that any of the attacks on civilian targets has been justified.
A child could become a terrorist when he grows up, and a woman could give birth to a future terrorist. So, to be safe, just kill them all. A house could harbor a terrorist; a school could teach a potential terrorist if not already did so; a hospital could save life of an active terrorist if not already did, so just burn them all down.
Are you saying that a fetus could be guilty, too. Here I was thinking that some of the pro-war allegedly pro-lifers would at least grieve for some of the Lebanese fetuses that statistically have probably been killed by Israel.
