Israel Retaliation

Stroggy

Quote

Quite popular goal in Arab countries for the last few decades. Do I have to explain why?

Stroggy

Quote

Terrorist organisations could be connected with political options, however Hezbollah and Fatah became legal political parties. They are not considered terrorist organizations any more. They do have a military wing, which is considered as freedom fighters by Islamic media. Just as certain US media considers G-bay legal imprisonment. Should we mention that Jassir Araffat recieved Nobel prize for peace, altough he had fingers in terrorism? And should we hide the fact that Western policies made Hezbollah and Fatah legal right-oriented political parties, elected by thousands ?

Quote

Oh, and I thought I sound prolific.


Tai,

Quote

If Israel had occupied some territories, why did you put "liberation" and oppression" behind quotation marks ("), giving them a sarcastic context?  

Quote

Why pseudo? They are as political as Republicans and Democrats.

Quote

Are you saying that dictators are using acts of terrorism to control their nations? I think not, unless you are one of those Americans who maintain "no talking to terrorists" , naming terrorist whoever has oil.

Uhm... it was Japofran who said that. Stroggy hasn't replied to this topic for a long while...

Well look at Hamas in Palestine, they have been shut out by most of the world governments for still not condemning terrorism and not recognizing Israel, so not all these political parties have those ideals you think they do.

And yes some dictators use terrorism tactics to keep in power, can think of in the time of Fujimori in Peru, used the secret police to bully the opposition, kidnappings and more, look at Zimbadwai too with Mugabi and what he does against the opposition and anyone who says ill of him.

Sinke said:

Because it's a matter of opinion. Occupying a territory is a far cry from actually oppressing it - if the Israelis were bent on controlling those territories (which is sort of a pre-requisite for oppressing them), they wouldn't have de-occupied them, now would they?

Quote

The (pseudo) was a tongue-in-cheek aside to Japofran's statement:

Japofran said:

You see, I actually read what people post.

Sinke said:

That's a sort of insulting thing to say.

But hey, lookie, a definition!

Terrorism.

I would say a lot of dictators have used the threat of force to intimidate/coerce/control their citizens, wouldn't you?

Read more. Talk less.

First, a correction-

The replies up there were to Japofran. I was discussing a lot with Stroggy these days, so I typed incorrectly.

DeathDude

Quote

That doesn't mean Hamas isn't political party and option. I am saying that extreme organisations have been recognized by voters as somebody who will defend their security at highest rate. It can't be denied that this phenomenon was a reply to Israel's policies.

Quote

Are attempts of assasination against Castro - made by  CIA-   also to be considered acts of terrorism?

I never said they weren't a political party dude. I said they are being shut out because of the policies they are endorsing, and that's why they have lost all their relief money too and it was Iran who just lend them some money so they wouldn't stay in the red.

I don't know what Castro has to do with my points of 2 dictators of use terrorism tactics, or why you quoted that. Did you read the definition of terrorism perhaps that was just posted, think it sums it up what it means.

Tai,

Quote

Isn't current bombing of Beirut oppression of Lebanon territory without occupying it?

Quote

Do you consider that I don' read? And how many voters should a party have to be considered "political" ?  Also, didn't Japofran said other parties supported their goals? Does it mean you consider   members of their parliament pseudopolitical? Or do you consider them terrorists, not worth negotiating?

Quote

Read my question to Deathdude regarding Castro, explained further in this post.


Deathdude,

Quote

And that is interesting- how one terrorist organisation became valid political option ( regardless of International embargos) which is recognized by population? Aren't they supposed to be secret, hidden organisations? I will answer : because Arabian nations, understanding that nobody can guard them against Israel and USA, went to most radical options.  
These political parties now have tremendous public support and can go pubic with their policies.

Quote

Definition of terrorism provided by Taikara:

Quote

Did members of USA's secret service CIA preformed deeds of terrorism when they attempted killing Castro ( which happened numerous times ) ? Since Castro is the leader of the country, it would make huge effect on Cuba's society. If yes, are politicians of US equall to radical Arab political parties?

Sinke, on Aug 11 2006, 11:08 PM, said:

first of all no, noone is equal to anyone else. ever. unless that the other one is he himself .
if you are asking weather the politicians in USA are as bad as in the arab world. the short answer is "yes"- they are the same sort of corrupted children of female canines, as any other countries politicains BTW.
the long indepth answer is that allmost everything that CIA (or KGB or MI6) does involves some form of terrorism. including what they do on their own home territory. The difererence between the cases is the degree in which such acts are performed- one has to see that threatening a few hackers to expose them if they don't hack the pentagon, is not the same as systematicaly blowing up malls in Tel-Aviv.
have you ever heard the phrase "with fear comes respect"? A strong state simply can't exist if it won't perform [small] acts of terrorism. And if after this the great american brand "War on terrorism" seems pointless, think about the facts :
a) everyone but a select few "intelectuals", understands 100% correctly what this is all about
"A Doctrine of use of military force against non-USA and non-USA-aligned terrorist organisations who had performed actions that can be classified as terrorism of magnitude 2B (killing of more than one person in public) and above, especialy (but not limited to) Middle East based", simply isn't sa catchy, and Joe Sixpack (just like the average Tommy or Ivan, mind you) likes short, catchy slogans in their 9 o'clock news.

I seriously think you need a dictionary.

Quote

No, it's considered retaliation.

Retaliation.

Something was done to Israel, they're doing something back. Oppression is done from a position of authority, typically without instigation.

Quote

No, I think that you probably read, but not very attentively.

Tongue-in-cheek. In other words, I was being humorous. Obviously, you didn't get it.

Quote

And how, pray tell, does that in any way contradict the idea that dictatorships can be terrorist in nature? I really fail to see how it impacts the discussion at all, other than to throw in yet another off-topic, pointless tangent. Is this the "US citizens have no morals because their goverment considered assassinating a dictator" argument? Or is this the two wrongs make a right theory? Do assassination attempts negate a terrorist dictatorship? "Oh, he's a big jerk that tortures and subjugates his citizens through terror, but it's okay, we should look ignore it because somebody tried to kill him."

Clever. Why didn't I think of that?

a1s,

Quote

The problem is that these politicians are at the moment  widening democracy under belief it is perfect system of government which all other nations should recieve.  "Bringing democracy to Iraq." They believe their Western system of democracy is the final form in governmental evolution. If the Western Democracy is using terrorism to be the best system in the world, I find it quite contraversal.  

Quote

I know few things about "War on terrorism". However, in reality- this principle is a laughing matter. If USA is in war with somebody who is killing more than one person in public, I ask humbly that somebody explains me which sane being is not in war with that?

Joe, Tommy and Ivan can't follow the interpretation of "War on terrorism". Well, are they supposed to be given right of democratic vote if they don't know what they are voting for?

Also, Iraq is not a terrorist organization, it is a state. I asked many times people to define the current legal term of US soldiers in that country. Are they occupying forces? They cannot be, since US and Iraq haven't been in declared war.  Does it mean we could find a context in which invasion of Iraq has been an act of terrorism? If that is correct, US went miles away from catching kids which hacked into websites.

Tai,

Dictionary, eh? Clever   .

Quote

As far as I remember, Israel authorities said this was an attempt to clean the south of Lebanon from Hezbollah. It's not a retaliation, it's strategic move done by military. Of course, it is illegal by thousands of pages of UN rules but that won't stop them.

From your interpretation, what do you think is the final goal of this military action? I mean, what does in your words mean "returning like for like" in this situation? Kill one thousand Muslims? Children? Ten thousands? All of them?

Quote

The term means " Meant or expressed ironically or facetiously." You claim you used it  to support   Japofran's remarks about Hezbollah's nature of political might in parilament , thus putting an ironical tone to your statement that the movement is (pseudo)political.  

I have replied that Hezbollah has been recognized as political option, and that nature of it's might is irrelevant since it's not considered (just) terrorist organisation anymore.

You replied with defintion of tongue in cheek.

Wow, I guess I just made a tongue-in-cheek!

Quote

None. It went on this:

Japofran

Quote

So if Hamas is terrorist organization and not a political party, than same goes for USA's government. They have an organized and financed system of preforming organised acts of terrorism.

Does it mean that every American is a terrorist? I don't think so.

But does it make every Lebanonian a terrorist? I don't think so.

And if they aren't terrorists, why do you say bombing innocent in Beirut is legal form of retaliation?

I wouldn't say that's how they are modeling it to be the perfect, but they are using a combination of systems with western democracy.

Quote

That's really generalizing that most people don't understand it, and I'm sure there a lot who do, some of it may seem black and white but really not everybody has that attitude of non caring. As for your point on democratic vote, it's in every system like that, I wouldn't single out the U.S like you have.

Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

this is the oldest claim in the book. you probably don't remember (seeing how you weren't born yet), but when RKKA brought  Socialism to your county they said it is the best system in the world. In fact when Cortez came to the New World he bruoght the natives Monarchy (albeit Spanish not their own), and even though no accounts remained, he probably claimed it to be the best system of government. you can't really blame the american Diplomatic corps for using something that works.
//on a side note(as this has no real significance to the claim) , democracy is nicer than most alternatives, you know...

Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

the use or the being?

Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

I can't quite get what you are saying (as in, no offence implied, I don't understand you englih). the question I got out of there is "name one country who is not at war with some person or legal entity that has killed human beings in public" (I'm lost as to what the "if..." part adds to the question, so I'm probably wrong). the answer is that while we all dislike such behavior noone goes too war just beacuse of one act of murder. lots of african counties engage in public executions, yet we don't even intervene in their civil wars, let alone starting a new one (normal external war) with them.

Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

that is the whole point of democracy! No, not that people don't know who they are voting for. But that they don't have to be special (though birthright or taking competency tests) to vote for whoever they like.
And try not to mix two concepts: They can follow it allright, it isn't exactly higher algebra. But they don't have to.
as for the voting part- that's the whole point: they vote for people who will know what they (the goverment, not the voters) are doing. not for the concrete actions.

Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 01:14 AM, said:

Funny, I could have sworn it was a double post...

Anyway, sorry for interrupting, but please try to avoid becoming too personal, guys. Whether Tai is "one of those Americans" and whether Sinke reads or not (or whether he reads attentively) isn't strictly relevant to the argument, even if it may influence the position they argue.

Deathdude,

Quote

Sorry, I don't understand what are you replying to. Could you provide a quote, this is quite wide discussion, one can easily get lost.

Quote

a1s said that  majority of people don't understand the "broaded" name for War on Terrorism. Look at his post where he gave that definition. As for pointing US, using names like Ivan infact gave a global context to remark.  

Quote

As you probably know, some of the leading minds of Antics claimed that democracy is the worst thing which could happen to the nation. As for democracy, are you suggesting that Americans are using it's spreading as an excuse to invade other countries (similar what Soviets were doing with communism? )  I must admit that I sense a little "ant-american" irony in your post, like you want to say that "they are doing what conquerors were doing for centuries, alas, nothing can be done even with exploiting their practices".

Quote

Both.

Quote

Sorry for my English, since I write a lot here, I guess I am not taking care of it as much as I should.

What I wanted to say is that America said it is in war with all organisations which have killed more than one person in public. To me that is funny, since literally every human being, not just countries, is fighting against killing more than one person in public. ( What I mean by "fighting" is that 90% of people in this world would report if he/she had information about terrorist movement. ) Thus, "War on terrorism" is corrupt in theory, since it makes a false distinction of American policies ( which all of the sudden are in war with something called "terrorism" ). From that point of view, US can also proclaim "War on murder", claiming it will destroy anybody who preforms murder. Murder is  usually in all cultures considered sinful or unlawful.  

Quote

With all respect, I disagree here. This is a thousand-year-old critic of democracy-  that a vote of uneducated peasant is the same as the vote of Socrates.  Democratic elections in all the world became a circus where political parties are organizing fireworks, festivals, parties and concerts in order to rise sympathy of voters. Nations lack "democratic mind", they aren't aware of their position and role in democratic society. They, not so much because of lack of education- but much more because they don't have will to "live political", are just putting their votes to parties which usually all say the same- that they will bring prosperity,peace, justice and income.  


A.J.Raffles,

You are right.
Tai, sorry if I sometimes used sarcasm and irony. I call it "passion in discussion", where we sometimes use those things to make discussion more exciting and emotional- but I am sorry if I made any offense.