"An Eye for An Eye" ... and everybody goes blind!

[Dr. Gaper]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Good logic. Because Palistinians would not use Apaches if we gave 'em a few, right?

They use what they have--namely TNT and other explosives--and they use it in the only way they can. Somehow throwing TNT sticks at tanks and Apaches prolly doesn't work so well and those slings and rocks just aren't reaching Sharon's place.

You sound as if you think that blowing up busses full of civilians is an effective and acceptable method of politics. Whatever.

[The Reverend Floater]

Originally posted by Dr. Gaper
You sound as if you think that blowing up busses full of civilians is an effective and acceptable method of politics. Whatever.

Nope. File me under "Too Self Righteous for Violence" or "Ideologically Steadfast" if you will.

I'll file you under "Watches 700 Club Religiously" AND "Myopic Naivete".

[Dr. Gaper]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Nope. File me under "Too Self Righteous for Violence" or "Ideologically Steadfast" if you will.

I'll file you under "Watches 700 Club Religiously" AND "Myopic Naivete".

Well you just proved your ignorance to me with your last sentence. Thankyouverymuch.

[The Reverend Floater]

If you say so, chief. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Cheers.

[Dr. Gaper]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Good logic. Because Palistinians would not use Apaches if we gave 'em a few, right?

They use what they have--namely TNT and other explosives--and they use it in the only way they can. Somehow throwing TNT sticks at tanks and Apaches prolly doesn't work so well and those slings and rocks just aren't reaching Sharon's place.

Do you want to tell me what the point of this post was, then? It's not justification?

[Dr. Gaper]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
If you say so, chief. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Cheers.

You "see" about as good as you debate.

[Buster Highmen]

I think the point is that IF the Palestinians had the technology to attack "military" targets (ass zooming this stoopid distinction) they would. Given that they don't have the technology, they do what they can.

But the greater point is that it's all violence perpetrated on the innocent, independent of the holiest of intentions.

Clearly we are at odds. Some believe in the distinction, some of us don't. Can we move on?

[The Reverend Floater]

Sure, boss. You see a rogue semi-state engaged in evil through unprecedented terrorist attacks on civilian targets in combination with a US/Western ally strictly retaliating for unprevoked acts of terror.

I see a war. Nothing is really fair in war and each side is going to use whatever means they can to destroy the other. Israel uses our hightech, generally accurate weapons and tactics in an attempt to pinpoint and eradicate selected targets. The other side uses terror as a tactic in an attempt to both destabilize the opposing power structure and to generate fear and uncertainty in its enemy.

[KQ]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Sure, boss. You see a rogue semi-state engaged in evil through unprecedented terrorist attacks on civilian targets in combination with a US/Western ally strictly retaliating for unprevoked acts of terror.

I see a war. Nothing is really fair in war and each side is going to use whatever means they can to destroy the other. Israel uses our hightech, generally accurate weapons and tactics in an attempt to pinpoint and eradicate selected targets. The other side uses terror as a tactic in an attempt to both destabilize the opposing power structure and to generate fear and uncertainty in its enemy.

One person's "freedom fighter" is another's "terrorist." They are just labels for the same thing.

[Schmear]

Easy there Gaper, don't overreact. I suspect Floater wasn't morally justifying suicide bombings, but just pointing out how each side is doing what it feels it has to do in order to disable the other.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by KQ
One person's "freedom fighter" is another's "terrorist." They are just labels for the same thing.

This still just rings false, no matter how many times it's repeated. There are those who consider terror a legitimate means of fighting, and those who don't. It just happens that among Palestinians terrorism is considered not just acceptable, but a lofty goal.
There are plenty of independence movements that have avoided using attacks on civilians, and some have been much more successful than the Palestinians have been. The Israeli independence movement had branches that used terrorism on a very few (infamous) occasions, but this was something the movement as a whole tried to contain and eliminate--quite different from what we see today with the PA.
To claim that the Palestinians are using the only options open to them is to completely ignore their history of refusing to negotiate and compromise.


There's no way to argue that Israel is blameless in much of this, but to constantly heap blame on Israel and condemn it for protecting itself only isolates Israel and contributes to the already very real seige mentality that exists. It also, ironically, strengthens those who endorse the most hard-line approach. This is probably not good for anyone.
There does need to be a fundamental change in the Palestinian leadership for negotiations to be successful--Israel cannot be expected to give in to demands made while they are literally under fire from the PA and its proxies. Whether or not the Palestinians are willing to do this, and are capable of it politically, is not up to Israel or anyone else, really. But until the Palestinians decide that targeting Israeli busses, schools, and restaurants is something that should be ended, I'm not sure what anyone has the right to expect of Israel.
It seems far too easy, and hypocritical, to me to sit back and tell Israel that its policy of going after terrorists is wrong. If anyone thinks about it realistically, I doubt they would want their governments to just sit back and surrender to terrorists bent on destroying their states.

Finally, I simply can't imagine accepting terror attacks as legitimate--a question that I think needs an answer: do we give al-Qaeda the same right to use the 'tools' available to it that some on this board want to give to the Palestinians?

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen

While I can see your rationale, let's hope that most Americans don't.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
in the context of the upcoming election.

Fortunately for us, our situation is a bit different. I don't think most Americans feel themselves under constant terror attack--I'm not even sure you can find someone in Israel today who hasn't known someone killed in an attack.
I wasn't endorsing the rationale, as Sharon was not the guy I hoped to see leading Israel, just explaining it.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Not knockin' you, Jetter, but would you leave your house, job, everyone you know and move to another part of the world because shit "doesn't seem to be working"? Most Israelis I know (granted, only a few) say that most Israelis are wanting peace, just like most Palistinians.

To quote anyone from Hamas, Al Q, et al and claim their stance to be any sort of collective muslim voice would be like quoting the Grand Dragon of the KKK and tabbing it "American". Some folks here would rather not accept that, me thinks.

The problem is that there is almost no voice of moderation among Palestinians. Have you ever heard of a Palestinian rally for peace? Neither have I. The suicide bomber is revered by nearly everyone as a 'martyr'--if you've ever been in the territories this is immediately obvious, and quite scary. Those who would work in good faith with Israel are often seen as collaboraters and sometimes marked for death.

[KQ]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki


Lots of words you can read above........

I'm not sure - but I think you're reading more into my statement than I intended to say.

Let me state, for the record - I DO NOT accept terrorist attacks, I DO NOT accept preemptive strikes, I DO NOT accept killing. To me they are all the same and the idea that one is more acceptable than another is absurd (to me).

[Dexter Rutecki]

If someone is standing in a crowd with a bomb that you know he will set off to kill many people, is it acceptable to kill that person?

[Dexter Rutecki]

And I didn't mean to read anything into your statement, I was just starting with the 'freedom fighter' thing.

[Dr. Gaper]

No, that would be a violation of his civil liberty to kill people.

[Schmear]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
if you've ever been in the territories this is immediately obvious, and quite scary.

Have you been? Would like to hear more about this.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I've been in the West Bank a few times (years ago--between Intifadas). Never in Gaza, as I'm not too insane (although I know people who have been, and served in the military there).
I was there once about three days after a very famous, revered, bombmaker had been killed--I'm not sure if it was ever clear whether or not Israel got him with a bomb in his cell phone, or if his own explosives did it, but either way there were posters of him everywhere. Seriously, just about every wall had hundreds of images of him (this was Bethlehem, BTW).
The people were friendly, but it was still pretty scary at times. I felt fairly secure since the people I was with looked pretty 'American', and not so Israeli, but I would not have wanted to walk around there alone at night.
A big part of the culture does revere 'martyrdom' and the killing of Jews (and non-Muslims in general, probably), and this may be one of the biggest problems.

Best shawarma, hummus, etc. that I've ever had.

[KQ]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
And I didn't mean to read anything into your statement, I was just starting with the 'freedom fighter' thing.

The "Freedom Fighter" example comes from our own government.

In the 80's we supported Bin Laden and his followers. We (the US government) considered them "Freedom Fighters” in the war against the Soviet backed Afghani’s. Now that they have turned their "guns" on us we call them "terrorists."


It just seems to me - where you stand depends on where you sit.

[mr_gyptian]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Good logic. Because Palistinians would not use Apaches if we gave 'em a few, right?

They use what they have--namely TNT and other explosives--and they use it in the only way they can. Somehow throwing TNT sticks at tanks and Apaches prolly doesn't work so well and those slings and rocks just aren't reaching Sharon's place.

They wouldn't be able to either. most those f'ing ingrates cannot even read. have you heard the amount of times they've blown themselves up?? They cannot even operate TNT correctly.

keep making excuses for them. They'll keep blowing themselves up to the tune of their extinction.

[KQ]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
If someone is standing in a crowd with a bomb that you know he will set off to kill many people, is it acceptable to kill that person?

Not for me.

[Viva]

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
They wouldn't be able to either. most those f'ing ingrates cannot even read. have you heard the amount of times they've blown themselves up?? They cannot even operate TNT correctly.

keep making excuses for them. They'll keep blowing themselves up to the tune of their extinction.

Per you sig, I now know that you're crazy too.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by KQ
Not for me.

I think there are many in that crowd who would disagree with you though, and why should your belief in non-violence trump their right to remain alive?
I believe absolutely that if the only way to stop a murderer is to kill him, it is morally just and even required to do so.
That is what Israel's policy, and indeed all self-defense, is based on.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by KQ
The "Freedom Fighter" example comes from our own government.

In the 80's we supported Bin Laden and his followers. We (the US government) considered them "Freedom Fighters” in the war against the Soviet backed Afghani’s. Now that they have turned their "guns" on us we call them "terrorists."


It just seems to me - where you stand depends on where you sit.

This is a bit inaccurate in that the U.S. never directly supported bin Laden--he was associated with the mujehadin we were supporting.
I don't think the U.S. was supporting Afghan attacks on Soviet civilians though, regardless of the label the USSR applied to the fighters.
Al Qaeda and bin Laden are now using considerably different tactics than what the Afghans used against the invading Soviet military.