Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo



Recommended Posts

The United Nations overstepped their bounds and better judgement to create a state where none had existed for over 1500 years, when the Jews were almost completely (and legitimately in historical terms) driven out.



It's ok to drive people out of their homeland now? What did I miss!?

So now, whenever a people are driven out, it's not ok to reestablish their land. Gottcha.

The fact that Israel has been nothing more than a heavily subsidized 51st state (yet one that acts COMPLETELY autonomously) for the past 35 years is even more galling.


You know, maybe we should just say screw the world and our allies and go at it alone, right cheif?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chief, I would strongly recommend you consult the history of the area again. What does "legitimately in historical terms" mean exactly?. If in fact you are using history as a guide here then by this example , Israel does have a right to exist. Because before being driven out, they drove out,(conquered) themselves. Also, look at the history again. There is in fact, nothing native about the "native Muslim population". The Muslims themselves were invaders. A really important question as well is, what exactly is going to teach the UN a lesson?

About the Encarta Encyclopedia . I may be nit picking here, but I tend to get a little .....concerned that while I'm reading it, twice I see the phrase "peace be unto" when mentioning Abraham and others. The other is under the Arab Caliphate, where there is a statement including the phrase "Glory of Muslim Civiliaztion". Again, this could be nit picking but it can give the impression of a "slant".

Speaking of the Arab Caliphate. Is it me? Did I miss something? Up until that point, there is no mention or the use of the term "palestinians." The term Palestine is used to describe an area, a geographic location. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or country. No capital or mention of a ruler or any type of government. The closest the encarta gets is when mentioning the first settlers as "caananites".

Speaking of the caananites, there are arguments to this day, as well as assumptions made in the encarta history, that decendants of the caananites are in fact Palestinians. Now, according to the same history, the Caananites "absorbed" several invaders, including Amorites and Hitites. Later, after Israel defeated the Philistines, they were assimilated with the Caananites. How does one determine that he or she is in fact a decendant of Caananites with all that in mind.

Note too the use of the term "Arabized Palestinians". This suggests that the Palestinians were not in fact originally Arabs. Yet the population of Arab Palestinians is used in arguing against the creation of the nation of Israel. "Sorry we have you outnumbered by 95%". Basically, it would appear that the "we were here first' argument is more than a little muddled.

As for the definitions provided, I'm with Art. And out of curiostiy what would the "political objective" of Israel be? The right to exist? Defending herself against attacks on her citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Art


Rest assured, nothing in those definitions indicates that a country can commit terrorism against an enemy. When you find "nation" or "country" in there, let me know. Until you do, the qualifications for terrorism are always related to groups attempting to coerce change within the institutions. I do tend to agree with the definition here that a country can use terrorism against itself, but again, those acts are generally categorized under a different label of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

as to the American Heritage:

...The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group...

According to the American Heritage--government is an organized group.

As to the Encyclopedia Britannica

In your opinion, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not governments?

Since YOU don't check your facts, I guess that would make you a LIBERAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did you legitimately just misunderstand what I wrote, or, are you pulling my chain? The American Heritage definition clearly states what terrorism is and in no way can the country of Israel be categorized by that defintion as conducting terrorism. A country is not an organized group. A country is a government or society which the definition provides AS the object the group is coercing.

So, while you say the American Heritage defines a government as an organized group, in fact, the American Heritage does nothing of the sort. A government is defined as, all of the following by your source:

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.

2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.

3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.

4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.

5. A governing body or organization, as:

a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.

b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.

c. The persons who make up a governing body.

6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.

7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.

8. Political science.

9. Grammar. The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

In fact, government is not defined as an organized group. A political party may be, but the coalition that rules a country is not by your own citing and the definition of terrorism itself expresses that a society or government is what is being coerced by the organized group, defining it further.

The second definition which speaks to nations and governments conducting terrorism internally upon its own people, is one I've already commented on as being in general agreement of. But, that also doesn't fit the category of a nation conducting operations against an enemy, outside of itself.

So, as you clearly make up facts and seem incapable of expressing a view without understanding what's been seen, that would make you a liberal I believe :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State sponsored terrorism is absolutely real and easily understood and defined. Afghanistan, prior to our introduction, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and many other states sponsor terrorism. They finance the activities of groups that conduct terror, or they shelter them. When Iraq launched Scuds at Israel, that wasn't terrorism or state sponsored terrorism. That was an act of war conducted by one nation upon another, whether Saddam actually qualifies as the ruler of his people or not.

But, again, you don't need to be confused, EG. You simply need to answer the question that has been put to you TWICE now. Was what happened on 9/11 and our response in Afghanistan equally considered terrorism? If not, then you have your own definition and it is applied to the Middle East. If so, then you and I will need to explore that problem.

But, in order to accuse the Israeli military response at the provocations of repeated terrorist acts taken against Israeli people as terrorism, you therefore believe our military actions against Afghanistan, which have killed innocent people, are qualified as the same. And, I'm betting you can't go there. And since you can't, you can't go there with Israel either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Art I can - if its shown that the US attacks DELIBERATELY were at non-military areas in Afghanistan and that the sole purpose of those attacks on civilians was to inflict terror - then definitely that is what the US is guilty of - terrorism.

However, since I do not know whether or not our policy is to DELIBERATELY attack civilians there - I cannot TRUTHFULLY answer your question.

Some reports out of the Mid East, specifically Israel, show that both the Israeli army and the militant Arab factions have DELIBERATELY attacked civilians to inflict terror - hence the word terrrorism.

What I find more intriguing though - is that in this thread you said countries (Israel is particular) cannot be said to use terrorism since they are a country. And yet, in that last post - you said they (countries in general) do participate in state sponsered terrorism.

Why the hyprocacy? Either they (countries) do participate in terrorism or the don't. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The last part was a chain yank (calling you a LIBERAL), it'd be better for NavyDave though, don't you think?.

It's kind of like calling a Redskin fan a Cowgirl fan.

But no, I don't think I misunderstood your post and most of it was not 'yanking your chain'.

I am only pointing out that your logic in concluding those definitions eliminates the use of terrorism by a state is seriously flawed.

You orignally said that the definitions excluded the state, the definitions clearly includes the use of terrorism by the state.

The phrase 'person or organized body' is used, however, so as to not limit terrorism to the state.

As the definition we both used shows, the American Heritage Dictionary clearly sees government as an organized body,

'governing body or organization'.

Further AMHD also defines nation as

1a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.

b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.

2. The government of a sovereign state.

3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient

nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity (Robert Conquest).

4a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.

b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

Of course, maybe you speak some version of liberalspeek. :laugh:

Now I do find those definitions of terrorism wanting although the AMHD's use of the word unlawful is quite helpful. AMHD's definition should

also include the implication of the use of irregular personnel and/or methods and maybe that the terrorists are offensive in nature. Of course,

that'd open up a whole new can of worms in this situation, since 'Jihad' implies defense of Islam wherever it is and Islam is considered to be

where ever a Moslem lives. So Hamas may actually see itself as a 'defensive' organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of Israel and the Palestinians will never be solved. The more suicide bombers that blow up civilians the more of the pro-peace israelis will slowly switch their view. The Palestinians have never abided by a cease fire even for a week...one week, thats all that was needed but those dumbasses couldn't do it. I say that every time a suicide bomber blows themselves up..the israelis need to slaughter their entire family. This will be a great deterent to recruiting suicide bombers if they know their whole family will die. Also something needs to be done about the 50,000 dollars that Saddam Hussein is giving to the families of these suicide bombers. This wall might be a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A state that sponsors terrorism is absolutely as guilty as those that commit it. But, as that has never been pinned on Israel, your original point, which you are so desperately trying to get back to and prove correct, remains ineffective. Worse, at one point in this thread you admitted you didn't mean Israel at all, but you meant Jews. Though, we both know you did mean Israel and you are back to your "original" point because that's what you need to validate to yourself.

It's a pathetically lacking point. If Israel was sponsoring splinter groups internally to target and kill Arabs and Muslims, it would be as guilty as Hamas. But, that it is not so doing, it can not be credited. A countries military activities do not constitute terrorism as terror inspiring as they may be. They constitute, if proven, possible war crimes, but, nothing more. And that is where your argument falls flat but, you desperately need to get back to page one here and, so you've done and you've still fallen flat.


The definitions provided specifically do exclude the state from using terrorism against an enemy. They precisely exclude it in the first case by talking to the government or society that is coerced by the group and in the second by stepping outside of internal activities. In both cases any state is excluded. Back to the point of Pakistan, which has militants that are terrorists, but, itself may not be guilty of committing acts of terrorism.

Further, you continue to misapply what's been said. The phrase ' person or organized body' was never used, as you say it was. The phrase person or organized group was used. And it limits the application to a state by defining an organized group as committing those acts to influence a society or government. You can't use various parts of a sentence to fit whatever meaning you wish.

The sentence is clear. A person or group commits acts of terror against a people to influence a society or government. If the definition provided wished to include governments with groups, it would have stated, a person, group or government commits acts of terror, but that it didn't, and specifically used government as the entity in which terror is focused on, you simply are misinterpreting what's been written.

Read more closely and let me know if you are still confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I tried to read this whole thread, but 6 pages is just too much.

On the other hand, I think I did read enough to point out a few things. The state of Israel is not now practicing terrorism. They are responding to acts of war.

The Palistinians are fighting the war through the use of terrorism, a tactic that they saw successfully used by the Israelis in the 1940's to establish the state of Israel in the first place.

The conflict in the Middle East will not be solved in the near or far future. Certainly Bush is not going to solve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've answered every question you've put forth. Expressed and outlined what I think and why I think it based upon actual word meaning. You are still trying to validate the original hypothetical that despite not hearing about it, Israel is committing terrorism and when you argue a point that lacks foundation, you are likely not going to feel rewarded by the conversation.


As you have continued to incorrectly attribute and represent what has been defined, I would suggest the confusion is likely less on my side than yours. But, if you feel it isn't, that's acceptable as well. It's mostly irrelevant. The words don't need anything other than to be read to be understood. If you fail in that, that's really not an issue I'll hold against you, or worry over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Israel has an absolute right to exist. It formed itself and fought off those who would conquer it. As you've written about the Jews being legitimately driven out, they have likewise, legitimately driven out those who were in Southern Syria at the time."

As a Native North american whose people were screwed out of our land i can say this with a straight face The israelis took it and they can hold it so get over it!

Now here it is translated into retard for those too dense too see!

Bad people kill innocent civilians on purpose to scare other good people into doing what the bad people want while good people sometimes kill civilians who may or may not be innocent by accident(does anyone here think that the 9/11 was an accident ?

if we are going to bring history into it then every country can be accused of human rights violations and terrorism(ever hear of general crook or how about quantrill?)but this is a discussion about PALESTINE and unfortunately right now the PALESTINIANS are the bad guys because of the way they chose to fight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see that the Palestinians are so timely with their acceptance of peace plans:

Arafat Said Ready to Accept Plan

Fri Jun 21, 8:10 AM ET

By MARK LAVIE, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM (AP) - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat ( news - web sites) is prepared to accept a Mideast peace plan put forward by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton in December 2000, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday.

In an interview at his Ramallah headquarters, Arafat told Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar that he would take the Clinton plan without changes, Eldar told The Associated Press on Friday. "I am prepared to accept it, absolutely," Eldar quoted Arafat as saying, and he endorsed the points of the plan one by one, Eldar said.

Palestinian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.

Clinton presented the plan after a July summit meeting between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak ( news - web sites) broke down without an agreement. According to the plan, the Palestinians would set up a state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza and would gain sovereignty over Arab quarters in Jerusalem and a hotly disputed holy site.

The plan also called on the Palestinians to drastically scale back their demand for all refugees and their descendants from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation, about 4 million people, to have the right to return to their original homes.

After Clinton presented his plan, the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.

Talks continued until late January 2001 but ended without agreement just before a special election, in which Barak was soundly defeated by hawkish Ariel Sharon ( news - web sites). At that point, both Israel and the United States said their proposals were off the table.

Now Arafat is willing to sign on to the Clinton plan, Eldar wrote, calling it the first time the Palestinian leader has endorsed it. Arafat said Israel would receive sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, the last remaining remnant of the compound of the Jewish Temples, Judaism's holiest site.

Also, Arafat said he would be prepared for modifications in the line between Israel and the West Bank and exchanges of territory with Israel, principles the Palestinians have balked at up to now. The official Palestinian demand has been that Israel must pull back to the 1949 cease-fire line, relinquishing all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip ( news - web sites) and east Jerusalem and dismantling all Jewish settlements there.

Arafat did not repeat the demand for the right of return of all the refugees and their families to Israel, Eldar said. Instead, he said, a solution must be found for the 200,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, adding that he was calling on European and other world bodies to help. Israel has refused to take in large numbers of refugees. Lebanon says there are 350,000 refugees there.

However, Sharon is prepared to offer much less than his predecessor. Sharon insists that all violence must stop before peace talks resume, and then he would propose a long-term interim agreement, during which the Palestinians would maintain control over the areas they now have. The Palestinians have rejected the idea of another interim accord.

It's also nice to see that the Clintonian hard-on for making a name for himself via mid-East peace (amidst a host of other foreign policy blunders) continues to, uh, stand tall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This recent exchange between Condoleeza Rice and Arafat via the media tells you all you need to know about this conflict:

Rice told The Mercury News, a San Jose, Calif., newspaper, that a Palestinian state should not be based on Arafat's Palestinian Authority, which she said is "corrupt and cavorts with terror."

Asked about the Rice comment, Arafat said Monday that "she does not have the right to put or impose orders on us about what to do or not to do."

"We are doing what we see as good for our people and we do not accept any orders from anyone," Arafat said while touring West Bank schools.

Not exactly a denial, huh? Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special to World Tribune.com


Monday, June 17, 2002

JERUSALEM — For the first time, a Palestinian insurgency group has explicitly threatened to launch nonconventional weapons attacks against Israel.

The Hamas movement said in a memorandum that it has been experimenting with chemical weapons for attacks against Israel. The movement said that so far the attempts to produce such weapons have failed.

The Islamic insurgency group has claimed responsibility for most of the suicide attacks against Israeli targets. The Hamas memo listed the group's aim as using chemical weapons that would ensure that survivors of the initial blast would die from poisoning.

"The idea of using chemical substances in explosive devices is not new, but all experiments have failed so far," the memo released by Israeli military sources said.

"The chemical substance loses its effectiveness in the heat caused by the explosion, and usually, we were using quite simple chemicals. But when we acquire the techniques of using those materials, a new gate will open in the development of suicide attacks, with the help of Allah."

The group expressed confidence that it would succeed in developing chemical weapons. Once this takes place, the group said, Hamas would carry out what it termed would be massacres in Israel.

Anyone care to continue to compare Israel to its terrorist enemies?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before EG jumps in, I'll speak for him.

Guys, what about the chemical weapons Israel is using on Arab nations and muslims? We haven't seen anything about that, I know, but, really, do you think they aren't doing it? As the skeptic here, I'm just saying we have to account for Israel's non-conventional plans as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if its shown that the US attacks DELIBERATELY were at non-military areas in Afghanistan and that the sole purpose of those attacks on civilians was to inflict terror - then definitely that is what the US is guilty of - terrorism.

1. In a war, those "non-military" areas are pretty poorly defined. The enemy is the enemy.

2. I don't see why the most powerful military in the world would be concerned with purposely attacking civilians. Do you?

3. The purpose of war is to inflict terror on the enemy. You want them scared to death. You don't go around being friendly to them.

4. You think people will come out and accuse the US of ending WW2 through terrorism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...