Terrorists or something else...

[phykell]

I've made a lot of these points in the past in SC, I think it's perhaps best if i put my position another way. I don't think you should be able to arrest and charge someone for being a 'terrorist', if they kill people they're murders and should be treated as no more or less.

Whether or not terrorism equates to murder is more of a philosophical discussion and also depends on the results surely?

Also, whether they use a layer of abstraction to justify killing civilians is somewhat irrelevent, they believe in it and people support them in it, what they use to justify it doesn't affect that they justify it.

No it isn't irrelevant. I'm trying to explain why I think they can behave as they do rather than just offering a meaningless platitude such as the one you say is a point you're prepared to stand by. I'm sorry but it is, and that's why I always take exception to people saying it as though it's some sort of unique and inspired perspective. It isn't.

A final note, while palestinians could target military targets and instead choose to go for soft civilian targets, I think it's merely pragmatism on their part (why try to hit a harder target) and possibly that unless civilians were being killed it still might not influence a government.

What you call pragmatism could be called cowardice or a number of other things. The fact that they have a choice over which target to choose and they choose innocent civilians says a great deal to me. Doesn't it say anything to you? To me it says quite clearly that they're terrorists and if you're groping around in the dark for a reasonable definition of what a terrorist actually is, perhaps this is one worth considering. To cynically choose a civilian target over a "harder" non-civilian one smacks of a deliberate intention to cause terror rather than wage war and hence I'd claim that in this instance, they certainly *are* terrorists.

 

[ironman]

Not all terrorists are freedom fighters and not all freedom fighters are terrorists..

and not all terrorists are bad...the french resistance carried out terrorist attacks, but against the german military forces rather than the wives and children of the german military...Thats the difference.

I agree with your post, but are a group terrorists, if they provide resistance from the police/army/government? As far as i'm concerned, terrorists are those people who target and kill innocent civilians.

If evil people in power are killed and along the line police and army get some back, then it's fine with me and I do not class this as terrorism. An example i'm getting at is the 1984 incident in Punjab, where Sikh freedom movement groups were classed as terrorists because they acted against a corrupt government. It angers me deeply that they (government) got away with this.

 

[cleanbluesky]

But (in light of the oft quoted phrase that you've repeat c.f freedom fighters), does that not mean that we should classify groups such as the French resistance as criminals then?

That seems somewhat harsh, given that they were only doing what a lot of us would do if our country was invaded?

No, if our country were invaded then we would sit around watching perhaps the occaisional soldier and probably more often officials of the new reigime walk past while soldiers attempted to stave off the attack. If we had already BEEN invaded and were now occupied this might change...

Reading Fire under the Snow at the moment, and the occupation of Tibet is not just through military means, so much of the resistence is also non-military. However, terrorism is all about violence.

but in the majoirty of times a 'freedom fighter' is a misnomer becasue most of the people who are claimed as such are also killing civilians of the country they are supposedly stave off invasion of. Plus, as with the Taleban they do not seek 'freedom' for the population, they seek control.

 

[Overlag]

No, if our country were invaded then we would sit around watching perhaps the occaisional soldier and probably more often officials of the new reigime walk past while soldiers attempted to stave off the attack. If we had already BEEN invaded and were now occupied this might change...

Reading Fire under the Snow at the moment, and the occupation of Tibet is not just through military means, so much of the resistence is also non-military. However, terrorism is all about violence.

but in the majoirty of times a 'freedom fighter' is a misnomer becasue most of the people who are claimed as such are also killing civilians of the country they are supposedly stave off invasion of. Plus, as with the Taleban they do not seek 'freedom' for the population, they seek control.

Palestine has been invaded though....hence i can understand there cause.

and BOTH sides kill innocent civilians... Israel bombing Palestine holiday makers on a beach for instance...

 

[cleanbluesky]

Palestine has been invaded though....hence i can understand there cause.

Technichally Palestine hasn't been invaded, as Palestine has no set borders. Israel was the result of immigrants wishing to create an autonomous region within a country they were a part of... the formation of Isreal could more accurately be described as a civil war than an invasion...

and BOTH sides kill innocent civilians... Israel bombing Palestine holiday makers on a beach for instance...

1) There is no solid evidence that Israel was responsible for the beach attack...

2) There is no evidence that Israel deliberately attack civilians (although if there was it would be a concern)...

 

[Overlag]

Technichally Palestine hasn't been invaded, as Palestine has no set borders. Israel was the result of immigrants wishing to create an autonomous region within a country they were a part of... the formation of Isreal could more accurately be described as a civil war than an invasion...

yes, maybe civil war.... I mean would you be happy if all the Islamic Immigrants in London decided that they wanted there own country in, lets say the whole of Essex, and claimed it as there own before we'd have a chance do anything??? That's basically the exact same thing. I think its 51% of the Jews in Israel come from somewhere else. where as 90% of the Arabs there have been there since day one. (these are wiki %'s not sure if its correct). So do you understand why the Palestine's might be slightly annoyed?

1) There is no solid evidence that Israel was responsible for the beach attack...

2) There is no evidence that Israel deliberately attack civilians (although if there was it would be a concern)...

Israel are constantly bombing towns, and knocking down houses in regions they "claim" to be terrorist areas... And Palestine "fighters" with limited resources (IE not supported by American built tanks and F16s....) are limited to small suicidal bombings because its pretty much all they've got.

But as most threads go, its all tit of tat.... one side does something, the other side does something back. Its like a school playground with no supervision.

 

[cleanbluesky]

yes, maybe civil war.... I mean would you be happy if all the Islamic Immigrants in London decided that they wanted there own country in, lets say the whole of Essex, and claimed it as there own before we'd have a chance do anything??? That's basically the exact same thing. I think its 51% of the Jews in Israel come from somewhere else. where as 90% of the Arabs there have been there since day one. (these are wiki %'s not sure if its correct). So do you understand why the Palestine's might be slightly annoyed?

I didn't say I would be happy but those that are currently doing so within our own borders are not labelled terrorists and the contribution to this country that they bring is often labelled as 'diversity' and 'cultural enrichment'... I don't think their actions are terrorism, neither are they desirable...