Qana

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was actually.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of them, but that's another discussion that has been had many times here.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is the act of INTENTIONALLY targeting non-combatents.

[/ QUOTE ]

ATM Hizb Allah has a better record of soldier/civilian death ratios than Israel, so either Hizb Allah isn't terrorist, or Hizb Allah is terrorist and Israel is a mega terrorist.

As for this garbage about intentionality: whats worse? A 30 percent chance of killing 40 civilians or a 100 percent chance of killing 3? One is "intentional" and the other "isn't intentional" but the 1st one is worse. The first one is also more spin friendly.

What Israel is doing is worse than just criminal negligence, because they've been doing it for decades. Sorry, you can't just play the "oops!" card everytime your bad behavior hurts innocent people and makes you look bad.

[/ QUOTE ]


Excerpted from the July 24th session of the UN Security Council...

The reality on the ground has created difficult questions for us as a nation, such as how States are effectively to fight terrorist organizations that deliberately endanger both the civilian population they target and those they use as human shields. How can States exercise their legitimate right to take defensive measures against terrorism without causing undue harm to the civilian population? We wrestle daily with the strategic and ethical complexities of this balancing act. It is, we have observed, a debate that has not entered the halls of government of some of our neighbours, especially those of Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

Our foremost obligation as a nation is to protect our civilian population from violence. That is not only an obligation, it is a right recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Yet we must also take great pains to minimize any harm to other civilian populations, thereby preserving the fundamental values, principles and the democratic rule of law that defines Israel as a nation, which we proudly embrace. We grieve for all civilian casualties on all sides. We hold those who have knowingly and deliberately precipitated this violence fully responsible.

We must emphasize the difference between terrorists that deliberately target innocent civilians — especially children — including the States that sponsor them, and those States that, acting defensively, target these lawless terrorists. Not to make that distinction is to lend equal legitimacy to terrorists who carry out unprovoked terrorist acts and States acting in selfdefence. That would run counter to all international precedent and the Charter of the United Nations itself and would serve to encourage terrorists to commit ever greater numbers of terrorist acts.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of them, but that's another discussion that has been had many times here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where i like to make the dinstinction between acts by a government and acts by an independent terrorist organization whose goal is to commit acts of terrorism. Acts of war by one country against another is not "terrorism" as is discussed today. Its an act of war. It can be responded to by a similar act of war by the country effected. That doesn't make it any more or less terrible.

When a independent group, such as al qaeda or hizbollah or kahane chai attacks innocent civillians and then retreats back into the community, that act is better defined as "terrorism" as is understood today.

If syria attacked israel tomorrow and launched missiles into jerusalem and tel aviv, i would NOT consider that "terrorism." It would merely be an act of war.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine snowballs classification of the US dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. That must be the greatest act of terrorism known to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of them, but that's another discussion that has been had many times here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where i like to make the dinstinction between acts by a government and acts by an independent terrorist organization whose goal is to commit acts of terrorism. Acts of war by one country against another is not "terrorism" as is discussed today. Its an act of war. It can be responded to by a similar act of war by the country effected. That doesn't make it any more or less terrible.

When a independent group, such as al qaeda or hizbollah or kahane chai attacks innocent civillians and then retreats back into the community, that act is better defined as "terrorism" as is understood today.

If syria attacked israel tomorrow and launched missiles into jerusalem and tel aviv, i would NOT consider that "terrorism." It would merely be an act of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made this point before; that you think terrorism relates to whether or not the actors are state actors or not. You can have that defintion if you want, but I don;t share it, it seems redundant when you can simply talk about states and non-state actors, and I think the vast majority of people see terrorism as something along the lines of the use of violence against civilians to terrorise them for the furtherance of political goals.

However, if you do see terrorism as simply about the state/non-state status of the actors, you shouldn't be using it pejoratively/condeming people for being "terrorists" merely according to your definition. It makes no sense to say that an attack by a "terrorist" non-state group on say military invaders is worse than an attack by state forces on civilians simply becasue one isn;t a state actor. There are obviously numerous times when non-state actors' violence is legitimate (eg Warsaw resistance) and state actors' violence is completely illegitimate (eg Nazis).

At any rate, if you don;t want to label civilian targetting atrocities by stae actors terrorism, they can be called war crimes instead. I would say they are both state terrorism and war crimes.

[FlFishOn]

There are acknowledged rules of warfare that predate Xerxes. Hizbollah and most arab terrorists are in clear violation of what civizilation considers proper. Many Lebanese civilians will die because of it.

[steve9789]

The only chance for peace is an Israeli victory that drives Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Otherwise any peace agreement will only be temporary until Iran wants to stir the pot some more.

[tripper]

Hezbollywood!

http://web.israelinsider.com/Article...omacy/8997.htm