What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

What?You said... ...when I never called Israelis evil at all, you focused on the people.Zionism was a reason for war and ethnic cleansing, it was also reason for terrorism as you have now learned. Jews and Muslims lived in relative peace for a long time until the Zionist movement went into overdrive. Even Jews themselves (such as Einstein) saw the problems with radical Zionism, and they still do today.So when Jabotinsky decided that the only way to create the Zionist state was through force of arms and beating the indigenous muslims into submission, this was OK by you? He created the terrorist group Irgun, a major player at Deir Yassin. I'm glad you can conveniently ignore all this, pity the indigenous arabs can't.It seems to me that you believe middle-eastern history began with moses until most jews left palestine went quiet for a couple of thousand years and then started again in 1948.Irgun = Hezbollah = Lehi = Hamas. All terrorist groups fighting for the respective causes of their people."Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle" He Khazit, Lehi propaganda, 1943 What were the arab fighters doing in Deir Yassin? Over the whole of palestine during this period? Maybe they were having tea-parties with Irgun and Lehi.No more faith, you refuse to see the root of this issue. I agree, arabs=bad, jews=good...Edited by melatonin, : No reason given.

Oh well. No the Jewish terrorists are not OK with me but you aren't getting it, Zionism is not a call to wipe out another race and there's no evidence of such a thing, despite your wild accusation. They were serving the creation of Israel, not some religious fanaticism that wants other religions abolished from the earth.But Islam does call for the subjugation and in some cases death of the infidel and certainly treats Israel as something to be pushed off the face of the earth, and there's no excuse for denying this. If they were interested in having a state they could have had it many times already. That is not their interest. They want Israel gone.Sorry if I'm the one who personalized it between Israelis and Palestinians, instead of ideology versus nation. Error on my part. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's OK faith.I know we'll have to agree to disagree on this - I knew this before I started, haha.The fact that indigenous Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace for a long while in Palestine suggests to me that their default postition is peace (like any group of people), they never tried to wipe them out at that time - the economy was integrated and the people depended on each other.In 1891, Ahad Ha'am said... Truth From Eretz Israel, 1891The arabs were fine with the Jews at that point, but even then this Zionist knew the problem.Over 700,000 Arabs became refugees, some from fear of acts like Deir Yassin, some forceably by the Israelis. The problem for the Zionists was that they were still in the minority, to produce the ideal state, expulsion was required. Benny Morris' book is worth a read on this issue, here's a link to an interview with him, please read it...ARI SHAVIT - SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? AN INTERVIEW WITH BENNY MORRIS: LOGOS WINTER 2004Just try to see the other point of view. No terrorism is acceptable, whether Jewish, islamic, Irish, whoever. But they usually have underlying issues. The British would never have solved the Irish problem without listening, understanding, and attempting to accommodate the Irish catholics.At some point the Israelis will have to reassess their history. If we ever get a period of sustainable peace, maybe they can start and attempt to rectify these issues.Edited by melatonin, : No reason given.

hmm so arabs are cowards , carefull you dont let any racial bias taint your point ....oh and these are cowards who refused to surrender " and thus be safe"
may be they had a reason to avoid being caught ...

news flash we know now what defines a terrorist ..reported on the BBC radio four news this morningstatement from israel ... everyone in the boarder area of south lebanaon will be considered a terrorist and dealt with as such ...Can we now take this as a justifiable action and statement ...???so if we hear of a terrorist cell hiding and opperating in say hmm New York city or London or Mardrid we can demand all non terrorist to evacuate the area .. or to be counted as terrorist , the we can use laser guided missles and 155mm howitzer shells to "make the area safe " , we will of course have to bomb any airports , docks and road and rail links to stop the terrorist being resuppliedthe israely statement goes on to say greater firepwoer is to be use to remove the terroristthe BBC report goes on to say c 600,000 people are now refuges as a result of israels actions ....in Sidon 50,000 have arrived , with difficultly .. the BBC reporter said a 20 mile drive to reach Sidon took 4 hours due to bombed roads and bomb damage on the route Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

Let's change that slightly and see if you'd be ok with someone saying it... I guess despite the Civil Rights movement you still see nothing wrong with stereotyping large groups of people.It seems underneath your Biblical Literalist exterior there beats the heart of an unashamed racist.I suppose I shouldn't find it surprising but I do - surprising and disgusting.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

They destroyed ancient groves, and ALSO sapling groves. They have kept some farmers from planting new trees. It was in the news a very long time ago. I'll try to track it down for you. Olive trees take over a generation before they become fruit bearing. They take even longer to get large enough to provide any kind of cover for a boogey man terrorist.The claim of a security zone is bullshit. If I can get to a scanner I have some old pictures of some mature groves. The hills the trees grow in provide more cover than the trees do. Also, given that Israel has air recon capabilities it seems silly that they need help finding a gunman behind a tree.They also bulldoze peoples houses for a "security zone". Pretty much anything can be rationalized under that obscure heading.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

If it isn't for security I can't imagine what it's for. They wouldn't have any cause to bother peacful neighbors who are leaving them alone.

The problem is that too much of the time, what you call propaganda, I know is true from personal or second-hand experience. Israel has not just "been wrong many times" they have committed out right attrocities toward innocent people. This is a matter of fact for me and other people who have experienced the situation. You wonder why the "terrorists" can survive under such underdog conditions. It is because Israel creates new terrorists every day. You don't get it. It doesn't matter that there was no NATION of Palestine just like there was no NATION of Cherokee. They had no border, no regula army, no capitol city, yet people have no problem consdiering their removal from their native lands to be one of the worst attrocities every committed. The only Palestinians I know are all native. I have no idea what the differentiation should be between a "native" and "immigrant" Palestinian. I also don't see the benefit of making a distinction. If they once lived there and were displaced illegally then that makes them a vicitim. That is a silly and attrocious change. I expect you to retract it. I have never supported terrorism. I am morally opposed to all form of violence for any cause. Any less would not be Christian. Why are you asking irrelivant rehetorical questions? I never claimed to deny the agression of Arab states toward Israel and you know that. All you show by asking that kind of question is that you are either dishonestly trying to stigmatize me as a proponent of anti-Israeli action or you simply are not paying attention to the conversation.My posts have been all about trying to show you the truth about your beloved and "innocent" Israel. Certainly there is no clean hands on both sides but you seem to be so undauntingly smitten by Israel that it seems quite ludicrous to someone sitting on the other side of the fence who KNOWS how terrible they have been to real people.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

It is for terrorizing innocent people to try to make them leave their homeland. And it works! To them, they are not leaving them alone. They are pissed off and they are living on land that Israel claims to be theirs. You don't think that if Israel had its way that it would assert sovergnty everything to the Jordanian border? If you think otherwise then I am sorry but you are truly living in a fantasy world.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

My comments which you are trying to smear into racism, referred back to specific incidents, the earlier discussion about such things as Arab men dressing as women and then firing on Israelis, using ambulances as cover for terrorist actions. Includes making peace agreements they then violate immediately. All kinds of pretenses. The definition of duplicity. The cowardice was Buzsaw's term and at first I didn't think it apt, but then I accepted it. This also refers to similar specific actions such as men dressing as women, such as their MO of planting their arsenals and terrorist operations among civilians, such as swarming the UN to draw fire there. Not a description of a race but a description of specific activities that are characteristic of their dealings with the Israelis, and indeed infidels in general.

Horizon did a program which I recently saw about suicide bombing (revolving primarily around the London bombings) which was a psychological outline of terrorism.Here is a brief.

But as has been shown over and over and over again, while some of these may indeed deserve to be called criminal, many if not most of them are mistakes, honest mistakes, some caused by the duplicitous actions of their enemies, some provoked such as when a young soldier loses his cool when ambushed by a woman suddenly being revealed as a man and shooting the young Israeli's superior. The Israelis lose it and shoot everything in sight. Criminal no doubt. But provoked. And I'm not sure you wouldn't act similarly in a similar situation where you don't know who is a threat and who isn't; a kid at a checkpoint confronted by a pregnant woman in an ambulance just after being told to watch out for exactly that situation because a bomb-strapped suicide bomber is hiding in the back. Seems to me the terrorists are really responsible for some of these atrocities by the Israelis, against civilians because they set up their own operations among civilians. This isn't civilized behavior you know. They risk the lives of their own people just so they can point the finger at Israel. Are you unable to appreciate the effect of such tactics? Considering that they are quite common one could in fact admire Israel's restraint instead of constantly accusing them. I think you are judging from emotion rather than trying to understand all the facts of the situation. When were they "removed?" Many remain on the land. Many remain in Israel proper. Who the refugees are is still unclear; not all Palestinians by a long shot in any case.But back before the Zionists starting moving there, there was NO group that called itself "Palestinian." IN fact IIRC that name was associated in the minds of the Moslem Arabs with Jews and Christians. I'll try to find this reference. I just read it yesterday at the Jewish Virtual Library. Anyway, there were Moslems, Jews and Christians on the land. Who would qualify to be called "Palestinian?" There was no identity of Palestinian. That came later, in the 20s as I recall reading, when they realized it would help to claim the name. But the Arabs who were there were not all of one ethnic background and didn't regard each other as kin. There wasn't enough unity of any sort to justify the current claims of ancient Palestinian ancestry except for maybe a specific group, but they are claiming it for the whole mass of refugees, not a specific group. Apparently the ethnic background can be determined by the name. Depends. If they were fifth columnists against Israel, Israel would be in their rights to keep them outside. Many of the refugees left because they knew in advance of the Arab attack. And it's not like they were ousted from an ancient homeland since most of them have no ancient ties to the land, but came in as workers within the last century. OK, but you seem to be defending people that are dangerous to Israel. You sound a lot like someone whose mind is made up against Israel, that's all. But misinterprets the terrible effects because of all the propaganda. That is MY point. And again, I am not claiming Israel is some paragon. I just know that they are faced with a nearly impossible situation in their enemies who are not playing by the usual rules, and dealing with it a lot better than you or others give them any credit for. You judge things on the face of them instead of trying to understand the complexities of the interactions. If Arabs die that just means Israel is evil, that's about the extent of it. Disinformation against Israel is going on all the time but you and others just seem to eat it up, never ask a question about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are imparting an opinion on my that I have never expressed. You constantly complain about people doing this to you so I cannot imagine why you would turn around and do it to me. I have never said that there is no propaganda about this issue coming from BOTH sides. Certainly there MUST be cases where stories are over/under exagerated. There are also stories that go unreported. My problem has consistently been that you seem to ferociously admonish any attempt to bring to light the real cases where Israel has done something wrong. It alwasy "MUST" be because they had a good reason. They can do no wrong. Yet on the other hand, any action that any Palestinian or other Arab takes is automatically relegated to the status of "terrorist". Your attitude is seemingly focused on the infallability of Israel. Perhaps. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. No one here has said that Israel ALWAYS commits attrocities. How is that different from an innocent man who just had his house bulldozed from finding a gun and going on a murderous rage? It is equally deplorable. Yet you call one of them "provoked" and another the unsolicited act of a "terrorist". So I guess that makes Israel responsible for the purposeful placing of civilian settlements in the occupied territories? How is that not setting up shop among civilians? Faith there is almost always a two way street here. It is not just unprovoked action against Israel for no purpose. I agree! I just happen to think that it is uncivilized on BOTH sides while you seem to be picking one. Some, perhaps. But you take any action as automatically an attempt to play Blood Politics (tm). Where there is state sponsored action such as Hezbolah I would tend to agree that this can be the case sometimes. What effect? Are there countries lining up to battle Israel because these tactics are so convincing? You don't think nation-states are smarter than that? Since when are experiences emotions? Since when are experiences not also facts of the situation? You mean to tell me that it is "provoked" for an IDF soldier to go off his rocker and yet when it happens to a Palestinian it is not exactly what I just described? The rest of the world has a criteria for attrocities that does not hinge on your requirement of a nation-state. This is not about the creation of a country of Palestine. We were just fine given the local dynamics of the area before Europe had the need to carve up land and haul flags above capitol cities. SO you don't think that any Palestinians have been removed/displaced because of Israel's actions? You do consider yourself a scholar on this issue don't you? Yea, you know there was also Jewish and other kinds of ethnic Palestinians there. NO they did not have a unified identity. You don't seem to understand that this does not matter. I am not talking about the attrocity of a nation being invaded and displaced. I am talking about individuals, innocent people who have been killed, maimed, made homeless, had their land and property taken from them, and generally terrorized by an imperialistic force. You go build a house. Live in it for a week. Then let me come destroy it with all your possessions in it with the reason that you don't have any tie to the land. I believe that Israel is equally dangerous to innocent civilians based on their track record. I am not trying to defend terrorists. I am trying to defend the good name of innocent people who only want to live their lives in peace. I have the same opinion of you. That pretty much IS the extent of it. It works they other way too though. If Jews die then the killers are ALSO evil. It is a lose/lose situation and this holier-than-thou attitude of and for Israel only whitewashes that basic fact. It is war and it is messy. No body gets to keep their hands clean. Disinformation against Palestinians goes on all the time too. But you don't hear about that. You have plenty of sources for exactly how some minor aspect of a story was slanted against Israel. No such benefit is given to people bleeding and starving on the other side of the fence (concrete wall, whatever you want to call it).

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Demonstrate ONE case of disinformation against the Palestinians, ONE case where some stronghold is inetntionally called terrorists for instance when they are not, ONE case where Israelis intent on killing Palestinians went among them in disguise, ONE case where Israelis used their suffering civilians as targets for the sake of demonizing the terrorists instead of getting them out of harm's way as well as possible. ANYTHING like that. I had to search to find the sources I finally found. The "benefit" you are talking about is in our face all the time, and spun so as to make Israel out to be the guilty party instead of the terrorists who are causing the whole mess. This is how you are biased, by believing in a false formulaic equivalence. This is how you are taking sides. I am on the side of the one that is innocent. The other side is not innocent. The people are innocent but they are pawns of the terrorists. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.