terror tourists

[Mario]

Originally posted by dr.strangelove
Lotta anti-Israeli sentiment here, eh? Well, maybe if 10 or 15 people were getting blown to bits every other time a bus took off in our countries, we'd be a little more careful as well. Maybe if we took a lesson from them, we wouldn't have had 3000 people killed here in the US by "terrorists" or "freedom fighters", whichever they were

maybe if israel didn't send gunships in every other day to blow targets up for no particular reason other than they 'think' that it's a terrorist target, and maybe if they didn't bulldoze a refugee camp thinking it was terrorist camp then maybe we wouldn't need to see this destruction. Perhaps if the palestin leaders could actually control their people then the middle east would be a better place. I'm not for either side and i have no anti sentiment to either side. I reckon their fecking stupid and it's mostly the west's fault for creating the situation....

ah well... feck it were all doomed!! doomed i tell ya!

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by Mario
Perhaps if the palestin leaders could actually control their people then the middle east would be a better place.

I think Arafat controls his people just fine.

 

[Mario]

not sure quite how to take that...

anyway i'll leave you with this thought that hasn't been said yet....

one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter...

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by Mario
not sure quite how to take that...

Take it is as the Palestinian people doing as they are told.

Originally posted by Mario
anyway i'll leave you with this thought that hasn't been said yet....
one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter...

Actually that cliché has been said many times to somehow excuse the practice of terrorists intentionally killing innocent men, women, and children. It also proceeds with the notion that the first man gives a rats ass what the second man thinks, especially when it excuses mass murder. But it begs the question: What kind of freedom would be won by a society who considered the intentional murder of innocent children a means to an end?

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Mark790.06
I think Arafat controls his people just fine.

Actually whilst he does retain much control most of the more heinous terrorist attacks are by groups that are ideologically opposed to him... to people like Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas Arafat is a traitorous wimp who will actually negotiate with the "Zionists"

It should be kept in mind that in the early '90's Arafats PLO and the Israeli Government under Rabin had made quite a bit of progress and that this was only ended because it was opposed by extremists (of both sides)

Personally I very much support Israeli efforts to protect their citizenry and borders... but they should remember that their legal borders are the one's they had pre-1967, and that even their own Chief of Staff believes their current methods are counter-productive to the goal of reducing civilian deaths... on all sides

 

[Mario]

Originally posted by Mark790.06
Take it is as the Palestinian people doing as they are told.

Actually that cliché has been said many times to somehow excuse the practice of terrorists intentionally killing innocent men, women, and children. It also proceeds with the notion that the first man gives a rats ass what the second man thinks, especially when it excuses mass murder. But it begs the question: What kind of freedom would be won by a society who considered the intentional murder of innocent children a means to an end?

could the random attacks of the israeli forces not be counted as an act of terrorism? because they attack targets that do have woman and children in?

counter question: what type of society incurs into territory that is not their own to attack targets that is more often than not a civilian target?


should point out not trying to start an argument, just prompting discussion, please don't take it any other way...

 

[Chopper Mozart]

I very nearly turned the TV off after about 15 minutes - it seemed to me that this programme was a piece of naive propaganda dressed up as journalism.... However it was worth watching the rest of the show, since the true irony of the 'course' took a while longer to come out.

The housewife who was in effect the star of the proceedings pointed out that she was concerned that in the week she was in Israel she hadn't met a single Palestinian. I think this showed some level of sensitivity to the real issues, i.e. none of the parties involved in the conflict will ever achieve their political goals by simply raising the level of violence instead of communicating. A wise man once said "you don't make peace with you friends, you make peace with your enemies" Then somebody shot him. (We all know who I am talking about, I've simply not named him because I feel he captured a fundamental truth in that statement which goes beyond any one political or theological ideology.)

For me, the real bad guys in this show were not so much the Palestinians or the Israeli military, each of whose objectives are clearly stated and well understood. It was the guys who were running the course, and spent all their time equating ALL terrorist activity with their Palestinian neighbours.

By the end credits, I was glad I had watched the show. On the one hand, a group of ill informed (or rather 'pre informed') people had gone on a foreign trip and for the most part had their prejudices reinforced. Regrettable, but that kind of thing happens all over the world and there is no real point in demonising them. However, in a sense I think the whole tragedy of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict was summed up in the attitudes of the people running the course. As long as you have people on either side willing or even determined to believe that there is a 100% polarised good/bad "I'm right, you're wrong" situation there, then the blood will continue to spill...

I mean - "you just killed most of my family. I'm now going to kill all of yours which will most certainly bring my loved ones back.... er, won't it??"

Sombre stuff, guys 'n gals...

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Actually whilst he does retain much control most of the more heinous terrorist attacks are by groups that are ideologically opposed to him... to people like Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas Arafat is a traitorous wimp who will actually negotiate with the "Zionists"
It should be kept in mind that in the early '90's Arafats PLO and the Israeli Government under Rabin had made quite a bit of progress and that this was only ended because it was opposed by extremists (of both sides)

That's what it looked like initially, but if you look at what was accomplished by signing the Oslo accords; a Nobel Peace Prize for Yasser, EU financial support and backing (a lot of which makes it's way into his Swiss bank account), it transformed him from a terrorist into a man of peace to name a few.
But his subsequent rejection of every concession he originally demanded from the Israelis, and his consent to the latest intifada made things right with any possible rift within his terrorist groups, if there was indeed a rift at all. The image that Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are loose cannons is the image that Arafat and his people project. It's called plausable deniability, and it works. If you're only getting one side of the story, that is.

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Personally I very much support Israeli efforts to protect their citizenry and borders... but they should remember that their legal borders are the one's they had pre-1967, and that even their own Chief of Staff believes their current methods are counter-productive to the goal of reducing civilian deaths... on all sides

As land that was captured during a failed Arab invasion, and the knowledge that every Arab leader swore that they would see Isreal's distruction (as their conscripted troops were being routed), occupying that land was perhaps a smart thing to do tactically.

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Mark790.06
The image that Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are loose cannons is the image that Arafat and his people project. It's called plausable deniability, and it works. If you're only getting one side of the story, that is.

Care to cite your sources because I haven't seen many outside of Israeli and US ones that tend to concur much with your view. One point that is rarely made when people complain that Yasser is not doing enough to contain the extremists is that he fears them so much. If the Palestinian Authority carried out the crackdown Israel constantly demands then there would likely be suicide bombers hitting PLO sites pretty quick

Despite all her military might and first-class Intelligence apparatus Israel has never made much impact on the bombers. If I was Arafat I'd look at that and definitely think twice before risking Hamas knocking at my door

Originally posted by Mark790.06

As land that was captured during a failed Arab invasion, and the knowledge that every Arab leader swore that they would see Isreal's distruction (as their conscripted troops were being routed), occupying that land was perhaps a smart thing to do tactically.

I'll have to agree that keeping a buffer zone makes good sense for Israel. I would definitely allow them to keep military formations in the Golan Heights for example

However when Israel started to seize land and water supplies in the occupied territories for its own settlements they lost all claim that they were only there for defensive reasons. And as for the Security Wall they're building they would get a lot less flak from the EU (and the US Administration for that matter) if they built it on their border rather than through the West-Bank cutting off Palestinian civilians from their own land

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by Mario
could the random attacks of the israeli forces not be counted as an act of terrorism? because they attack targets that do have woman and children in?

You mean Israeli Freedom Fighters don't you? Does intent count for anything? If you talk about the Iraqi liberation most who were against it will tell you that Saddam was a bad man and deserved to be ousted, but in the same breath they'll tell you that the US intended only to get the oil. Did the Hezbollah leaders intend to put their head quarters in a crowded suburb with women and children all around? Did the Israelis intend to kill the women and children rather than the terror masters? When the Israelis fired a missile at a car thought to contain Hezbollah leaders, but was actually carrying women and children, the Israelis apologized. Sure, that would mean little to any father of the children or husband of the woman, but does Hezbollah apologize when they do the same?

Originally posted by Mario
counter question: what type of society incurs into territory that is not their own to attack targets that is more often than not a civilian target?

A society that has been invaded two times by way of the land now occupied. It would have been three, but they gave the Sinai peninsula back after the Egyptians used it to invaded Israel. Now rather than use their own tanks and troops, the Egyptians dig tunnels to pass weapons and explosives to the Palestinians in Gaza.

Originally posted by Mario
should point out not trying to start an argument, just prompting discussion, please don't take it any other way...

Not at all. I don't take offense simply because someone disagrees with me.