Defining terrorism - MI?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Iceman

You have picked your side Scandium, to try to dance around the facts you can't do no matter how you try. It cracks me up.

Either make the tree good and the fruit good or else ur firewood...if you continue to try to be lukewarm then you'll be placed on a side without a choice by others.

Take a Stand, don't choose not to stand.Yet to me your choice is Crystal Clear...you choose a side that is murderous and evil...so be it.Your a good dancer though I'll give ya that.

You're right. I choose Canada. If you, as with so many of your other countrymen, want to continue to mortgage your nation's security and its future on Israel, with all that entails, then I suspect dark days lie ahead of you - and us as well if we continue to follow you down this same road.

Because as when they bombed the USS Liberty, bombed the UN Outposts, and bombed 7 other Canadians and several hundred innocent Lebanese (in this conflict alone), all the while trapping 25,000 of your own countryman there and subjecting them to the same terror and danger they subjected the rest of the country to, I can guarantee you - and their actions should make this clear - they don't give a damn about you. You are cannon fodder in their upcoming proxy wars with Iran, and Syria (and God help you and us both if escalates beyond that) and a $6 billion dollar/year source of aid (including both direct and indirect) to finance their 4th largest military in the world and a bullseye to their victims who will continue, as they have the past, to hold you accountable for your complicity.

That is reality, and I know you might hate the message but don't shoot the messenger for telling it to you as it is.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

That is reality, and I know you might hate the message but don't shoot the messenger for telling it to you as it is.

As you think it is. For a minute there you were sounding like Mike Hense.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Drebbel

Is it the U.N. or is it mankind ?

The UN.

Thank you for your reply scandium.

Although you initially agree that all terrorism is to be rejected, you tear into this screed about economic deficets and how Canada is being drawn into Isreal's war on the world. Non of which are the question.

My question was one of those yes/no questions you hear so much about. Try not to cloud the question with hyperbole.

If you cannot answer the question without the intellectual integrety in which it was asked, then you have lost this argument.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

As you think it is. For a minute there you were sounding like Mike Hense.

No, and that is an unfair comparison and you know it. Without commenting on Mike's views or his posting habits it should be abundantly clear by now that I back up my assertions and make an effort to prove my claims. You may disagree with what I say, but they are not mere rants and I am not alone in this perception of events there (which is not even a "perception", it is an under-reported reality that more and more people are finally waking up to) or in the conclusions that I have asserted.

Most, if not all of what I've written in this thread, you can find in whole or in part from other sources. For instance Gideon Levy, Israeli journalist for Haaretz and former spokesman for Shimon Peres:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738739.html

Operation Peace for the IDF

Every neighborhood has one, a loudmouth bully who shouldn't be provoked into anger. He's insulted? He'll pull out a knife. Spat in the face? He'll draw a gun. Hit? He'll pull out a machine gun. Not that the bully's not right - someone did harm him. But the reaction, what a reaction! It's not that he's not feared, but nobody really appreciates him. The real appreciation is for the strong who don't immediately use their strength. Regrettably, the Israel Defense Forces once again looks like the neighborhood bully. A soldier was abducted in Gaza? All of Gaza will pay. Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay. One and only one language is spoken by Israel, the language of force.

..

The war we declared on Lebanon has already exacted from us, and of course from Lebanon, too, a heavy price. Did anyone give any thought to the question whether it should be paid?

Everyone knows how this war begins, but does anyone know how it ends? Heavy casualties in the Israeli rear? A war with Syria? A general war? Is it all worth it? Look what a new rookie government can do in such a short time.

Behind the operations in Lebanon and Gaza is the same foolish idea about pressure on the population leading to political changes that Israel wants. In the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, that concept has only led us from one disaster to the next. We "cleansed" southern Lebanon of Palestinians in 1982, and what did we get? Hezbollahstan instead of Fatahland. Hamas won't fall because Gaza is in the dark, and not even because we bombed the Palestinian Foreign Ministry building at the weekend - another nonsensical move; Hezbollah won't be smashed because the international airport in Beirut has been put out of commission.

Israel once again is not distinguishing between a justified war against Hezbollah and an unjust and unwise war against the Lebanese nation. The camouflage concealing the war's real goals was ripped off by this defense minister, who says what he means: "Nasrallah is going to get it so bad that he will never forget the name Amir Peretz," he bragged, like a typical bully. Now at least we know that Israel went to war so that the name Amir Peretz is never forgotten. It's the war for the perpetuation of the name Peretz and the blurring of Dan Halutz's failures. And to hell with the cost.

And from Henry Siegman, former President of the American Jewish Congress and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...821621,00.html

In Lebanon as in Gaza, it is not Israel's right to protect its civilian population from terrorist aggression that is at issue. It is the way Israel goes about exercising that right.

Despite bitter lessons from the past, Israel's political and military leaders remain addicted to the notion that, whatever they have a right to do, they have a right to overdo, to the point where they lose what international support they had when they began their retaliatory measures.

Israel's response to the terrorist assault in Gaza and the outrageous and unprovoked Hizbollah assault across its northern border in Lebanon, far from providing protection to its citizens, may well further undermine their security by destabilising the wider region.

On the surface, the situations in Gaza and in Lebanon may seem similar, but there are important differences. No matter how one judges the rights and wrongs of the recent Hamas assaults and Israeli reprisals, in Gaza the fundamental casus belli is Israel's occupation that has now lasted for nearly 40 years. Israel's leaders continue to suffer from the delusion they can defeat violent Palestinian resistance to that occupation without offering the Palestinians a credible, non-violent political path to statehood, promised in various international agreements.

Following the precedent set by Ariel Sharon with his unilateral disengagement from Gaza, his successor as Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, believes that if Israel dodges the bullet of a bilateral peace negotiation with the Palestinians - something it has successfully done so far by claiming 'there is no Palestinian partner for peace' - it will be able to create unilaterally a rump Palestinian state that will leave in Israeli hands large chunks of Palestinian territory and make a mockery of Palestinian national aspirations.

Despite the massive imbalance of forces, the Palestinians will never abide such an outcome.

And lastly, for tonight, from John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at Chicago and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state...

[T]the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical...

It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons...

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.

..

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Thank you for your reply scandium.

Although you initially agree that all terrorism is to be rejected, you tear into this screed about economic deficets and how Canada is being drawn into Isreal's war on the world. Non of which are the question.

My question was one of those yes/no questions you hear so much about. Try not to cloud the question with hyperbole.

If you cannot answer the question without the intellectual integrety in which it was asked, then you have lost this argument.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Thank you for your reply scandium.

Although you initially agree that all terrorism is to be rejected, you tear into this screed about economic deficets and how Canada is being drawn into Isreal's war on the world. Non of which are the question.

My question was one of those yes/no questions you hear so much about. Try not to cloud the question with hyperbole.

If you cannot answer the question without the intellectual integrety in which it was asked, then you have lost this argument.

Everything I have posted on this, here and in other threads, is based on documented facts as reported by respected international journalists, scholars, human right's advocates, foreign policy experts, former ambassadors, and on and on and I've linked and quoted the articles, and elsewhere linked to the interviews.

Typically, it is met with a 1 or 2 line blanket dismissal or a counterpost citing fringe sites like Little Green Footballs, Powerline, World Net Daily, etc.

Yet I persist because your friends are those who stick by you in times of crisis and attempt to intervene when, through innocent ignorance that most of our hemisphere is under the spell of, that ignorance threatens not only your own future but everyone else's as well.

Although even my patience has its limits, and on this issue I've stated my case and provided the links for you to follow up on. What you do with them is your choice.

And yet you still cannot answer the question. All the 'facts' you say you document via the internet can be contradicted by 'facts' that others contribute via the internet.

Let me ask the question again:
Will you say explicitly that you reject the actions of hezbalah, hamas, al queida, and all other 'terrorist organizations' whether state sponsored or not?

Yes or no question. No internet just you.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

And yet you still cannot answer the question. All the 'facts' you say you document via the internet can be contradicted by 'facts' that others contribute via the internet.

Let me ask the question again:
Will you say explicitly that you reject the actions of hezbalah, hamas, al queida, and all other 'terrorist organizations' whether state sponsored or not?

Yes or no question. No internet just you.

I already answered that several posts ago. The answer was yes.

I already answered that several posts ago. The answer was yes.

Then you believe in a war on terror? Another yes/no question.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Then you believe in a war on terror? Another yes/no question.

"A war on terror"? Why stop there? Why not also a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty? Oh wait... that's been tried, though minus the reigning down of bombs on innocent populations (my bad - "collateral damage").

I've already answered that question. If you're looking to have a yes/no game of 20 questions then go find somebody else to play with.

There ya go bringing other issues into the mix again. The sign of a man without conviction. Or who has something to hide.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by waste gate

And yet you still cannot answer the question. All the 'facts' you say you document via the internet can be contradicted by 'facts' that others contribute via the internet.

Let me ask the question again:
Will you say explicitly that you reject the actions of hezbalah, hamas, al queida, and all other 'terrorist organizations' whether state sponsored or not?

Yes or no question. No internet just you.

Well said

[August]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Quote from Scandium...

"That, like the entire article, is a very nice one dimensional view of things. Here's a bit from "Terror in the name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill", by Jessica Stern, to add a little more perspective:"

What part of what you quoted from Skybirds post was one dimensional???

Was it the part ...

"even before Hezbollah on July 12 launched its killing-kidnapping-and- rocket-firing assault on Israel. Hezbollah’s prior record entails well over two decades of kidnappings, hijackings, suicide bombings, massacres, and collateral carnage worldwide, in countries including Lebanon, Israel, Spain, Denmark, Germany, France, and Argentina....."

Or is it the part....

"Created by the totalitarian ayatollahs of Iran just after their 1979 Islamic revolution; trained and bankrolled by Iran; supported by Syria; seasoned in extortion and smuggling operations reaching as far as South America, Canada, and the U.S.; open to alliances with other terrorist groups; peddling terrorist propaganda internationally on its Al-Manar TV station; dedicated to the destruction of Israel and seeking ultimately to supplant the workings of free societies with its Iran-spawned creed and practice of terror… Hezbollah among its butcheries to date has murdered more Americans than any other terrorist group except al Qaeda...."


Is any of this in debate?..and if so what part?

A spade is a spade quit trying to change things into hearts which aren't and can't be.It gets down to the nity grity dirty little truth....and you can't get around it Scandium....Many many of these groups are just sick evil,murderous, peace Hating people and always will be until they die and for truly peace loving countries to ignore it will only result in they're own demise.What other dimnension is there except right and wrong except ones interpretation of it...you either like killing babies and innocent people or you don't.Action and deed is what is proof of ones intentions and the proof stares me in the face every night when I watch the news or see what happens around me everyday.For you to even suggest that there is some "One Sided" part of the truth you are correct, there is only one side of the truth and you don't seem to be on it.

Got to pick a side dude you can't sit on the fence on this one.

I was going to make a lengthy reply to Scandiums nazi-Isreali comparison rant in the other thread but this pretty much says it all.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by August

I was going to make a lengthy reply to Scandiums nazi-Isreali comparison rant in the other thread but this pretty much says it all.

Then you still haven't looked at any of photage I provided, and if you're not willing to do that then its just as well you spared me the waste of time.