[Yahoshua]

3 entries found for terrorism.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Courtesy of Dictionary.com.

The definition you posted, does indeed fit the Stern Gang and the Irgun. But I don't recall any of the Irgun members kidnapping British civilians and beheading them. But MY definition of terrorism is the last one one this list:...."the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians...." In regards to the Stern Gang, I have deep reservations about them for even having considered diplomatic relations with the Nazis. Although I'm thankful that they brought the infamous Lord Folke to justice for his crimes.

However, when using your definition, nobody here would sing the tune of the Star Spangled Banner knowing that Washington and his cohorts were actually terrorists bent on the destruction of the English Commonwealth. I'd also like to point out that a number of out government institutions are diseased with at least two things: Legislationitis and Bureaucracy. (I finally spelled it right for once).


"easy, tiger. where's the accusation? where did you get that?"

I don't support terrorism, and you called them terrorists. You even said so yourself: ".....which fits both the irgun and the stern gang."

A Website about the Stern Gang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang
And a website about Irgun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
Here is a website detailing the operation: http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm


It states that the bomb exploded 25 minutes after the call. If you could find a link to an article regarding the British view I'd be happy to read it.


"ah, the lowest form of wit and the highest of humour."

I know I might be a bit slow but mommy says I'm special.


"but don't forget there were arabs and muslims in commonwealth forces in europe and the china-burma-india theaters."

And I haven't forgotten them. And I'm thankful they were on our side....at least with the Allied powers that is.


"there's been plenty of arab civilians killed as collateral damage by israeli forces in palestine and lebanon."

Yes, this is true, and it saddens me that such loss of life must be suffered at all. But if the terorists were to simply STOP. Then it wouldn't happen. And if one side continues to attack, and the other retaliates, then who is at fault? The one who attacks, or the other who retaliates?


"i'd absolutely agree that some of the prisoners constitute a threat to the us."

Good, we agree on something.


"but all? and why haven't they been charged? with anything?"

Now this is where our wonderful American beauracracy f*cks up absolutely EVERYTHING. How it should go is: Arrest, Charges, Trial, and sentencing. How it goes right now is: Arrest, Jail, maybe some charges, but no hope of trial or sentencing. This is where filtering should occur. Terrorists are kept, and innocents are not.

I like the first method better, and I should point out that here in America, Uncle Sam is NOT your friend (or mine for that matter).

"really? so were you calling for the mass deportation of anyone of irish descent from mainland great britain when the ira was busy with their bombing campaigns?"

I wasn't around for that and don't actually know all that much regarding the history of the Irish Republican War other than it was motivated mainly by religious reasons. (If you're still intent on pursuing this angle of the debate, then I'll read up on it and give you an answer).


"if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that it's right and justified to kill innocent palestinian civilians, then i guess we don't have a lot more to talk about."

If that's what I thought then this thread would've been shut down and I'd be reported to the police for incitement of racist speech and hate crimes. But you also have to ask yourself if these needless casualties could've been avoided if the terrorists hadn't been hiding in POPULATED AREAS.

I should also point out to you that Israel had not brought in the artillery several years ago when the bombings were far worse. But now that they're there, I'm guessing that the IDF cares less and less about collateral damage. I wonder why that could be......


"can you understand that there's a harsh anti-israeli feeling in palestine? can you understand why? can you empathize?"

Can I truly empathize for them? Possibly, if they weren't busy electing Hamas into office, and cheering on Arafat when he was at the podium declaring that he'd "Drive the Jews into the sea." And if it were solely the case of purposely forcing these people into camps and the IDF massacreing them at will when these refugees did no wrong to other groups nor made any agressive moves against their neighbor, I might've been able to empathise with them.

But as far as the process I've seen, it sort of goes something like this: Terrorist wants infidel Jews gone, Terrorist blows up bus, Infidel Jews retaliate, Some terrorists die and collateral damage results. Victims of collateral damage wail about their suffering on TV and get publicity, Infidel Jews are blamed as the agressors and punished for their action, Everyone forgets/ignores who started the fight and that there are victims of the bus bombing too, Biased Liberal media doesn't care and ignores that aspect (so much for fair and balanced). Infidel Jews offer land-for-peace deal that is rejected and another bombing occurs, with complimentary retalitaion. The mess is cleaned up and then the cycle is repeated.

I must admit, there are even times when I find myself calling for a carpet bombing to simply end the matter. But I know that it's wrong morally and ethically to do so.


"but i'm an arab, and i'm a muslim, so i must be anti-semitic?"

Do you believe the passages in the Q'uran stating that infidels who refuse to submit to Islam be exterminated? If you say no, then I don't really consider you a Moslem. I can't tell you what you are, but you're not a Moslem if that's what you deny. And if you do believe that all infidels should be exterminated and believe everything else about Islam, then you fit the criteria of being a Moslem.

I simply am unable to picture a true moslem tearing out half the Q'uran in order to "Modernize." Especially since all the words in those books were written by Mohammed and passed down from him. And a good deal of the Q'uran is dedicated towards the extermination of Jews and Christians.

How are you able to explain all of that away and still be a Moslem?


"....i'd like to think so."

As do I. I just want to be able to leave my pistol locked in my safe instead of having it loaded next to my bed for once. But until things change (however that change may occur), I'm keeping my sidearm within a moments reach at all times.