On December 01 2012 07:24 Jormundr wrote: We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
You're obviously unfamiliar with ETA and the FLNC.
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote: [quote]
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote: [quote] Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Again, explain why the hypothetical actions of an english resistance would differ from the already known actions of all the other european resistance movements. Specifically, explain your insinuation that they would become actual terrorist cell.
Explain to me how every Israeli is contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people. Is it because every citizen is a potential soldier? By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
First, I won't explain again. Read more carefully.
Second, could it be because the civilian population of Israel are the ones electing a government which continues to expand settlements?
Note that when Israel removed settlements ( gaza) violence increased. Israel has shown plenty of goodwill with the arabs. They gave back the Sinai for peace ( which they honored ) and offered the same deal on many occasions to Syria. They removed the Gaza settlement for talks, and received nothing but more Jihad.
Yeah, those Israelis, stealing your land, locking you in, then showing you plenty of goodwill. I will say that both sides have shown some interest in peace in the past, however, Israel has definitely not been the outspoken proponent of it as you claim.
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote: [quote] Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote: [quote] Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote: [quote] Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Conventional warfare is also to attack only military.
Unconventional means to target civilians; doing damage to economy, diverting resources/manpower away from military hotspots etc.
I wonder how much the Iron Dome costs compared to the cost of the rockets fired by Hamas. Some of the rockets were just glorified pipes from what I've heard. Blowing that off the sky is economic damage.
And I really don't care for a lesson in semantics.
/edit
Disclaimer: I am in no way in support of targeting civilians. I'm practically a pacifist when it comes to conflicts. Violence only serves the interests of powers at hand, not the ordinary people.
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote: [quote] I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote: [quote] I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
The IDF is absolutely guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean Hamas aren't terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
The IDF is absolutely guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean Hamas aren't terrorists.
Both are then, only that the Israelis are way more dangerous and effective. And they should know better being a civilized modern nation.
On December 01 2012 07:24 Jormundr wrote: [quote] We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
The IDF is absolutely guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean Hamas aren't terrorists.
Both are then only that the Israelis are way more dangerous and effective. And they should know better being a civilized modern nation.
Sigh. No, both are not. Hamas, as a paramilitary group that targets civilians are terrorists while the IDF, when they kill civilians, are committing war crimes.
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote: [quote] I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Again, explain why the hypothetical actions of an english resistance would differ from the already known actions of all the other european resistance movements. Specifically, explain your insinuation that they would become actual terrorist cell.
Explain to me how every Israeli is contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people. Is it because every citizen is a potential soldier? By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
First, I won't explain again. Read more carefully.
Second, could it be because the civilian population of Israel are the ones electing a government which continues to expand settlements?
Note that when Israel removed settlements ( gaza) violence increased. Israel has shown plenty of goodwill with the arabs. They gave back the Sinai for peace ( which they honored ) and offered the same deal on many occasions to Syria. They removed the Gaza settlement for talks, and received nothing but more Jihad.
Yeah, those Israelis, stealing your land, locking you in, then showing you plenty of goodwill. I will say that both sides have shown some interest in peace in the past, however, Israel has definitely not been the outspoken proponent of it as you claim.
I would like to note that Israel technically legitimately conquered Palestine not stolen it. They conquered Palestine after Syria and Egypt where massing at their borders along with the removal of peace keepers in the Sinai and the closing of the Strait of Tiran which is a act of war. Since Israel preemptively attacked those nations they managed to gain Palestine along with Sinai and Golan heights so Israel could technically do the hell they want with their land. I would like to also note that Egyptian rule of Gaza was WAY worse then it currently is. In Egypt you had 300k poverty stricken people stuck in a small space and had no autonomy at all for half of the occupation. At least now the Palestinians have some sort of autonomy in West bank and near full Autonomy in Gaza although Gaza and West Bank should be Independent from Israel.
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote: [quote] I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Holy shit
Fighting tyranny Possibly the best quote in this thread Excerpts from The Moral Teachings of Blinken "My dear and fellow Palestinians, our friends and loved ones are being treated unjustly! Let us go forth and kill people unjustly so that this travesty may be amended!"
"Feeling downtrodden? Dead end job? Break shit!"
"No chance of passing your class even if you ace the final? Bomb it. LITERALLY!"
You seriously just said that you support indiscriminate violence by anyone who feels they have no positive way to achieve their goals. You are courage wolf incarnate. Congratulations, you have impressed me.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
The IDF is absolutely guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean Hamas aren't terrorists.
Both are then only that the Israelis are way more dangerous and effective. And they should know better being a civilized modern nation.
Sigh. No, both are not. Hamas, as a paramilitary group that targets civilians are terrorists while the IDF, when they kill civilians, are committing war crimes.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Plus please stop saying "the jews", or "the jewish gouvernement", the american lobbies have a lot of interest in izrael ( in exchange for a diplomatic and strategic protection) Plus Izrael is a base camp for any army trying to invade middle east. Which explains the 1994 law in the US.
But the jewishs have nothing to do with that, and for fuck sake, could we please stop with the ridiculous assomption that all banks/insurrance are owned by jewish ?
On December 01 2012 07:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
The IDF is absolutely guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean Hamas aren't terrorists.
Both are then only that the Israelis are way more dangerous and effective. And they should know better being a civilized modern nation.
Sigh. No, both are not. Hamas, as a paramilitary group that targets civilians are terrorists while the IDF, when they kill civilians, are committing war crimes.
Sure, semantics.
Not at all. Firstly, you can identify the attacker if he is military. He wears a uniform, declares himself an active participant in the war and has accountability to a state. If you are attacked by a military individual then he is doing so as an agent of the state, in effect you are being attacked by the state. The degree to which that matters depends upon the degree to which the state can be held accountable (and Israel's judiciary is the most independent and open in the region). When a Palestinian fires a rocket towards an Israeli town while not wearing uniform and then returns to his day job there is no accountability. The people he kills have been killed by an individual terrorist rather than by a state. There is nothing that can be targeted nor any aims stated. The terrorist has not consented to be an active participant in the war, he still claims the protections due to civilians while murdering them. The difference between military and paramilitary is night and day.
On December 01 2012 07:24 Jormundr wrote: [quote] We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
EPT
