Originally posted by Darth Revan
When the Zionists first moved to Palestine, the British tried to get them to leave. At first they didn't have any weapons, so they used guerrilla warfare tactics, which was the first known incidence of terrorism.
Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism. The South was guerrilla warfare in a limited scale, was that terrorism. Where the Vietcog terrorists? The goal of terrorism is to spread fear. Using guerilla tactics is a way of defending yourself, not spreading fear.
It's a way of killing people, not defending yourself. The Israelis were on what was not their land, and like it or not, they basically stole it from the Palestinians. That qualifies as terrorism in my book. Actually, what is refered to as "Sherman's March", I believe was terrorism. Surely sweeping through an area and destroying every man-made object in sight is a way of spreading fear?
Originally posted by Darth Revan
It's a way of killing people, not defending yourself. The Israelis were on what was not their land, and like it or not, they basically stole it from the Palestinians. That qualifies as terrorism in my book. Actually, what is refered to as "Sherman's March", I believe was terrorism. Surely sweeping through an area and destroying every man-made object in sight is a way of spreading fear?
Hate to break it to you, but the Israelis were there looooooooong before the Palestinians came. The Romans kicked them out and ever since had every hardship imaginable. I think your defination of terroism is a little off. From dictionary.com, terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Sherman's March was not terrorism, it was total war.
Yeah, I'm fully aware that the Israelis were there before the Palestinians and how they think it's their homeland. I think it's ridiculous. That was thousands of years ago, for crying out loud. That's like if the US gov't one day decided that to give the native americans their land back and just one day kicked everybody out. It wasn't right that they were kicked off, but now that we live here, it wouldn't be right to kick us off either.
Well, our definitions of terrorism don't match. But even based on your definition, what happened in Israel that I described was terrorism.
Agent Elrond> You can’t say, that just because a group of people ONCE lived in an area, it’s theirs for ever and ever and ever. Darth has a good point. Should the Americas be returned to the Indians?
However, Darth: The Israelis didn’t steal modern-day Israel. It was made from land which was in parts bought, in parts given to them after WWII. It was (I think) an English protectorate and then a US-protectorate after 1948. And the Israeli government has attacked it’s neighbours (6-day war), too.
The Palestinians must have their own country. If the Israelis do, why not the Palestinians. There won’t be peace in the area before the two groups are on an equal footing.
The Palestinians call themselves freedom-fighters. Sharon and co. call them terrorists. The IRA call themselves freedom-fighters. Blair and co. call them terrorists.
In the early 1940’s the Danish communists committed acts of sabotage against the Germans and called themselves freedom fighters. What did the Nazis call them?
Terrorism is any means of fighting that uses fear as a weapon. Gurrila Warfare IS terrorism because the whole objective is that then enemy does not know where/where/how you are going to strike and thus believes no place is safe. Terrorism.
The US uses terrorism with its "Shock and Awe" Tactics, they are used to scare the enemy into surrendering because of our superiority.
"War on terror" Is and oxymoron because War Is Terrorism.
But I am going to use my Evil analogy with terrorism. "Terrorist" is a label that is used to depict the enemy as dirty people who done fight fair, whatever that may mean.
And People shouldn't disgrace gurrilla tactics because they are what created America. And other countries.
Just to be Nit-picky
DR the first documented use of terrorism was the Mongols. Their hit and run tactics coupled with the fear inducing. "Slaughter and Burn a whole village so others will surrender" was most definitly terrorism.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
When the Zionists first moved to Palestine, the British tried to get them to leave. At first they didn't have any weapons, so they used guerrilla warfare tactics, which was the first known incidence of terrorism.
You sound Arabic.... if you want to go to the level of who invented terrorism. Every race has used it .... Mongols .... Romans ... Jews ... every army uses terror as a weapon... lobbing the enemies dead in catapults. Yet not all target the civilian populace directly. Fear is a weapon used by the weak, those who wish for conquest but lack the reasources or will of their own people.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
The Palestinian people saw it that way--they lived there, all of a sudden somebody sold their land and they were eventually asked to leave.You bring up a good point with that last bit. It all depends on perspective.
The Palastinians and Arabs tried to conquer a weaker nation and got their asses handed to them in the Six day war. Along with countless other conflicts... they are just bitter that they cannot win because of their greed. So they lost the Goland hieghts because they used it to Bambard jeurusalm.
Originally posted by Raventheonly
The Palastinians and Arabs tried to conquer a weaker nation and got their asses handed to them in the Six day war. Along with countless other conflicts... they are just bitter that they cannot win because of their greed. So they lost the Goland hieghts because they used it to Bambard jeurusalm.
So, if a country goes into another country intending to conquer it and fails, it's not ok, but if a country does the same thing and wins, it's alright?
Your views are, IMHO, bordering on racist.
Racist? Where did that come into play.. i'm neither Arabic or Jewish.. but i've studyed enough history to know that extermination is wrong and aggressive war is wrong....
"So, if a country goes into another country intending to conquer it and fails, it's not ok, but if a country does the same thing and wins, it's alright?" --- when did i say that? The isrealis saw that the surrounding countries were intent on destroying them so they used a surprise attack to bring down thier offensive force and made a buffer zone.
as an italian, austrian, spanish and american indian mix , my people have been both conquered and conquerers... neither gained truly anything from either endevour.
"The Palastinians and Arabs tried to conquer a weaker nation and got their asses handed to them in the Six day war. Along with countless other conflicts... they are just bitter that they cannot win because of their greed. So they lost the Goland hieghts because they used it to Bambard jeurusalm."
...which would certainly imply what I said. Implies that you think Arabs are bitter, greedy, violent people. Aggressive war is wrong, eh? I agree with you. Do you support the Iraq war? Just curious.
...which would certainly imply what I said. Implies that you think Arabs are bitter, greedy, violent people.--- English said that about the Spanish and Austrians and they said that in return about the english... along wth the Aztecs.
-Anyone who wishes to conquer for mearly land that is not essential to thier survival is greedy.-
We should have finished what we started in the first war, did you support Desert Storm? Saddam wanted and still up to the day he was captured looked to conquer all of the Arab world.
I support this war on the grounds for freedom, and weapons of mass destruction are just a side venture.
By the way aggressive war is a war of total conquest and assimilation of land, people, and reasources--- if Sadam had not had an iron fist of terror over his people they would have rebelled on their own. Right after the first Gulf war he surpressed two rebellions mind you.