Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

You have a legitimate point but I do not recall any accounts of the American Patriots attacking English civilians in an attempt to terrorize the civilian population of England or of having a desire to drive the English people into the sea, something Arabs have repeated as their goal over and over again. Violence and terrorism are not synonymous terms even though they may acheive similar results. I do not think of the men who fought in the revolutionary war as being terrorists even though many redcoats may have felt the terror of war.However, they were military and as such were legitimate targets. The main difference between the Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli military is that Israel is not targeting civilians specifically in order to acheive their goal of peace. If that were the case they could simply bomb the Palestinians out of existance or force them out of the West Bank and Gaza. Yassar Arafat and those of his ilk are not interested in peace with Israel or the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. If that had been their aim, Yassar Arafat would never have turned down the offer made by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak.Arafat's aim was the total destruction of Israel, and that simply will never happen again. Israel has become far too strong. So strong that even Saddam Hussein had little recourse when Israel bombed Iraqs' nuclear facility. There has never been, in the history of the world, a nation of Palestine and unless terrorism against Israeli civilians is ended there most likely never will be. Let us not forget that the Palestinians already have a country, namely Jordan.It is not that Palestinian and other Arab terrorists want to establish a nation of their own. Rather, they want all of Israels' land and would prefer to emulate the machinations of Adolf Hitler and simply exterminate the Jews as a people. As a Jew I feel quite qualified in saying, "Never Again"! If Palestinians truly want peace, they should follow the lead of other Arab nations that have made peace with Israel. Nothing short of that will help them in their cause.

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

First of all colonists did attack english civilians, just not in the form we are talking about to day and for some very good reasons.I find this statement quite ironic given the ancient and modern history of Israel which has included numerous unprovoked attacks on civilians, both terrorist and mass slaughter to achieve that state.Indeed the irony is massive, when if you had any knowledge of the formation of modern Israel it is exactly what you just claimed american patriots did not do. Zionist terrorist organizations were intent on driving english rule from the area as well as palestinians who had lived there forever, in order to get their land. In this they not only terrorized (killing with bombings like we see today) english citizens, but palestinians (meaning the arabic population of that region).While it is true that arab and jewish extremists factions had been fighting on and off for years there, many got along fine until hardcore zionist elements began their war against their neighbors and british oversight, to establish a new Israel.If you honestly look at the evidence you will find that all tactics we now denounce the palestinians for using were first used on them by zionist terrorist organizations. They have also suffered wholesale massacres which jews in that region have not.It is true that there are arabic organizations which would love to see Israel gone, and some that would like to see all Jews gone. The first is not the same as the second, and neither is necessarily the aim of Palestinians. Your claim of this is as flat as claims of arab extremists that Israelis want all their land... a portion certainly does, but not all. Next irony. While Arafat certainly missed a chance at peace from time to time, it is nothing but bigotry to lay the blame at his feet. He had made very good strides toward peace with Israel, when Israeli extremists (demanding that Jews must have all the land) shot their own prime minister in order to end negotiations. Is it surprising then that the next Israeli PMs were not willing to accept what was already on the table or under discussion with Arafat?It was Israelis that were not interested in negotiating at all, israeli extremists I should say, and they killed an Israeli willing to talk about peace... not the Palestinians. Look at the threats that have now come to Sharon, for being willing to pretend talking about peace. If this is honest opinion, then you need to actually study some history of the man and the region. Otherwise continuing to do so is bearing false witness. No it hasn't. Without US military support and absolute shielding from the UN (by US veto control) and US tax dollars, Israel would not be in the position it is in.It is the US which is strong. This is a sick and bigoted distortion of reality. Check the mirror, by which I mean actually read the history. It was zionist organizations which purged Palestinians who were willing to be in a nation with Jews, from their lands, killing innocent English and Palestinian people in the process.Those nonjews who could not be moved were trapped within a border, separating them from friend and family, in a new state where by design they must remain the minority in government.The idea of a pure racial state based on a mythic racial paradise was Hitler's and Gurion's, not Arafat's. That is just like a German-American saying the same thing about his "fatherland". It is false and the fact that you cannot see that is very sad. Jews do not have to be for bigotry and a racist nation-state. Many aren't. Are they less qualified? Less Jewish?If I am not jewish, by genetic heritage, am I less qualified to criticize the nature and actions of the Israeli nation?The ancient nation of Israel collapsed millenia ago. The current state of Israel is not going to bring it back, or somehow erase the fact and act as an extension of its previous life. This idea and the actions surrounding it are as absurd as greeks getting together and reinvading all of mediteranean europe and asia to recreate Alexander's empire.Or if you live in the US, native americans getting help from some other nations to rebuild their tribal empires by attacking the US.These days we should be living with our eyes on our actions TODAY, and how we treat people TODAY. I'm not going to apologize for islamic extremist actions, as I do not think they are in the right. However any apology for Israeli policy is just the same and would not be accepted by any other nation or people commited against another.Hypocrisy is here right now with ardent support for Israel, hopefully it is not here to stay.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-21-2004 04:22 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oops, Holmes. Get ready for the explosion of name-calling. Your post is too well-reasoned and informative for DS to respond with anything else.

Let me begin by stating that I am not surprised that there would be anti-semites who would disagree with me or the facts of histroy. You are correct in some, although not all of what you say. Quite frankly it is laughable that you would accuse me of not knowing the history surrounding the establishment of the nation of Israel or the history of the Jews. I am quite sure that I am far more knowledgeable than you with regards to all the facts.To be fair, there are also Zionists who hate the fact that Arabs occupy any of the land that they see as given to them by god. Believe me when I say I am quite knowledgeable when it comes to the affairs of the Middle East, Arabs, & Jews but let us not forget the hatred Arabs have felt for the Jews, a hatred that existed long before Israel was reestablished as a nation. Theirs is a hatred that is nearly as old as time itself.

"The [1929] riots [in Palestine] were accompanied by militant Arab slogans such as... 'Palestine is our land and the Jews our dogs...' [and] brutal acts by Arabs...such as the killings in Hebron, where small children were tortured by their murderers before being murdered. ...the Jewish community in Palestine found itself caught up in a wave of violent disturbances that swept with a fury through Jewish settlements and neighborhoods throughout the length and breadth of the country. The danger now appeared to threaten the very survival of the entire Jewish community." --Shapira, A. 1992. Land and power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p.174)

There are two documentary series that may help you with your somewhat, though not totally, uninformed view regarding all the facts.Israel: A Nation Is Born With Abba Eban, A Personal Witness & The 50 Years War: Israel and the Arabs Were there Zionist terrorists? Yes, and even Menahem Begin, (among others), who would eventually become the Israeli Prime Minister was at one time a wanted terrorist...

"...the Irgun, led by Menachem Beginlater to become prime minister of Israel in 1977who had a 2,000 price on his head, was responsible in the past for the liquidation of members of the police and the military whose activities have been judged especially worthy of Jewish resentment in Palestine.

Terrorism and the origins of IsraelPart 1 - World Socialist Web SiteOne could easily surmise that the way you feel towards Israel and the Jews exactly mirrors your feeling towards America, our military, and our attack on the Taliban and al-Qa'ida with the subsequent liberation of the Afghan people.The Palestinians had the opportunity for peace and the establishment of a state of their own in 1947 but they wanted nothing to do with the Jews or U.N. Resolution 181.

Resolution 181 - November 29, 1947
Partitioned Palestine into two States, one Arab, the other Jewish, with economic union and a special international regime for Jerusalem.
U.N. resolutions are often cited in Arab condemnation of Israel. However, if the Arabs had accepted U.N. Resolution 181 in November 1947, the Palestinians would have been living in an independent state alongside Israel for the last 54 years. U.N. Resolution 181 partitioned the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one Jewish, one Arab. The Israelis accepted the resolution and declared independence in their allotted area on May 14, 1948. The Arabs rejected the resolution and attacked the Jewish state.

http://www.israelaustin.com/israelnow/unresolutions.aspAvoid any endeavors designed to teach me some fools brand of revisionist history. Research the true history of the Arabs, Palestinians, & Jews before attempting to discuss this issue with me further as I quantitatively refuse to repeatedly engage myself with misinformed or uninformed individuals.

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Heheheh... looks like crash had you pegged right. If you can't deal with facts, you peddle in insults. I am not an anti-semite. I am an antiZionist. Those are two totally different things.I'm not going to justify your charge by trying to "prove" how I'm not an antisemite by mentioning friends and family that are jewish or that perhaps... ahem... I myself might be jewish? I couldn't prove any of it true and anyway it is besides the point, because the real point is there are plenty of jews which share my opinion of Israel and/or the policies enacted by its racist government.You cannot determine antisemitism based on antizionism, in the same way you cannot tell who hated germans by who disliked german nationalism.If I was an antisemite my argument would be to let them have their own country and keep them away from me, rather than arguing for them to stay around where I am to help construct a nation with me. Or even better I could be an evangelical helping Israel get formed in order to start armaggedon so that the jews will be wiped out entirely. I didn't accuse you of not knowing. I said you either were not clear on the history, or you are deliberately distorting it... i.e. lying. It is your choice.In any case I showed where your comments were wrong, and your reply has not changed this at all. I did not say that there were no issues between arabs and jews through history. If we want to go back in time, perhaps it had something to do with how jews of ancient Isreal slaughtered and treated the cultures around them?In any case that has little to do with the majority of arabs in the region at the time of Israel's inception. I'll watch them if I can find it around. I like documentaries. However I am uncertain what additional information it will give me on the subject. I'll admit I usually have to recheck references for exact dates and names... so I'm not a living encyclopedia dedicated to the subject... but I have done enough in depth study on the subject (while preparing a documentary on that subject in fact) to know you are wrong.There are countless references regarding Israel, but here are two books that are interesting as they deal less with detailing facts (which are pretty set in stone), and get to the underlying arguments for and against its formation, as well as the realities on the ground for those living in it... The first is described in a quote by me at EvC (in the book nook), recommending to people that want some moral analysis from both sides.The second book is a graphic novel by Joe Sacco, called Palestine. I have also recommended this in the Book Nook.Both of these books take a pretty objective look at the subject, even as they detail the subjective feelings and experiences of the formation of Israel. I am completely for America, our military, and our attack on the Taliban and Al-Queda with the subsequent removal of the Taliban from power... I just wish we had actually liberated the Afghans. This may come in time of course and I hope it does.Shall I take this total ignorance of my position on our invasion of Afghanistan as just another sign that you have no idea what you are talking about? If your neighbors, with some claim to an ancient ethnic heritage, suddenly declared that the land they owned was a different nation (being their ancient homeland), dividing up the land you have lived on for generations such that your family and friends are now divided by borders where there were none before, and some (perhaps you) are trapped within a nation that you are forced to be a minority, while those with the "heritage" get to swell their ranks freely (you cannot bring your friends/family in), with the one provision that you, or maybe your family can have "peace" by making another nation on the remaining divided lands... and all of this being forced on you by a foreign international organization... would you really call that something good or fair?Would you accept that? Unless you thought Rome's dismantling of ancient Isreal was fair, my guess is not. Heck in the US most people can't stand redistricting and this is many times worse. I will never teach you revisionist history. I will however correct you wherever you are wrong.You accused Arafat of being a terrorist with no interest in peace and I have explained why your statement was wrong. You postulated the innocence of Israelis and I have explained why that is wrong. You have countered none of this except to now admit some culpability with regard to terrorism from the Zionist side (this should be made distinct from Jews or Israeli citizens).I assume you will not deny that the first terrorist attack along the lines we are seeing today was perpetrated by a Zionist extremist, and that it was Zionist extremists that ended the peace process which was becoming successful with Arafat, by murdering their own PM because they wanted to keep land?I also assume you cannot deny that the only reason for creating Israel, particularly where it is being created, is to fulfill a desire of recreating a nation which ended millenia ago? That's great, especially when you refuse to qualitatively engage yourself on this subject with anyone at all.You may call me anti-semite to try and secure your position emotionally. But the end result is that you are anti-intellectual and anti-truth.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-22-2004 08:29 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You have a legitimate point but I do not recall any accounts of the American Patriots attacking English civilians in an attempt to terrorize the civilian population of England or of having a desire to drive the English people into the sea, something Arabs have repeated as their goal over and over again.

---

There was, and is, a pretty big pond separating american and british civilians. In this regard the American Rev. and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are nothing alike. So perhaps it isn't the greatest comparison.

quote:

---

I do not think of the men who fought in the revolutionary war as being terrorists even though many redcoats may have felt the terror of war.

---

The first rumblings of revolution involved terrorism, such as the Boston Tea Party. What I find interesting is that we (ie americans) use the word terrorist very freely. Who bombed the USS Cole? Terrorists, even though it was a military target. Who is fighting our troops in Fallujah? Terrorists, even though they are engaging our military. American Patriots also fought military forces and for that reason you label them combatants. Shouldn't the same label (combatant, not patriot) be applied to Al-Queda militants to attack US forces?

quote:

---

The main difference between the Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli military is that Israel is not targeting civilians specifically in order to acheive their goal of peace.

---

Israel doesn't have to target civilian targets, they have all the tanks, helicopters, planes, APC's, missles, etc. What do you do when all you have is enough explosive to make a car bomb? You make a car bomb. If Palestine had a strong military it would be a different matter, but when your main source of ammon is rocks from a rubble pile you can never call it a fair fight. Civilians are targeted because they are the only one's they can target with any effectiveness.

quote:

---

Arafat's aim was the total destruction of Israel, and that simply will never happen again.

---

And Sharon's goal is the total expulsion of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, and that will simply not happen. At least we don't see Palestinian settlements appearing on Israeli land through military force. Last I heard, Palenstinian troops weren't harassing Israeli's trying to cross checkpoints on their way to work or to visit family members. The Palenstinians are the one's getting the short end of the stick, not the Israeli's.

quote:

---

As a Jew I feel quite qualified in saying, "Never Again"! If Palestinians truly want peace, they should follow the lead of other Arab nations that have made peace with Israel. Nothing short of that will help them in their cause.

---

Would you, as a Jew, support the removal of all jewish settlements in Palestinian settlements and a Palestinian state in the name of Peace? Would you support reparations for Palestinians that lost businesses and land when Israel was established?

Well, if that is the extent of your knowledge, you sure don't know much about US history. Not only were British Citizens terrorized, their property was confiscated, they were hanged (check out the history of where the term Lynch came from), they were forced to flee their homes and land and their homes were burned.In fact one of the things included in the Treaty of Paris was that the British Citizens who had been terrorized would be compensated. In some few cases that actually happened, (for example the heirs of George Calvert recieved a settlement as did the heirs of William Penn) but most recieved nothing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I see absolutely no references, links, or information sources in your post, aside from your suggestion that I look up the origin of the term lynch, hangings that were an unjust sentence to be sure, and is a possible reference to the Lynch Creek story.However, Curricular ResourcesPlease have the courtesy to provide all the links to your information sources. Also, please include references to any and all articles of the treaty that may pertain to your post. courtesy of Treaty of Paris (1783) - WikipediaYou may find the Full Text of the Treaty at
Page Not Found | Yale UniversityYou can get back to me when you have substantiated your claims with verification. Thanks.

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Try looking them up. It's not like we are talking about anything obscure.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You will not find anywhere in my post where I called you an anti-semite.My exact quote was..... .....which is hardly the same as calling a specific individual, namely yourself, an anti-semite.When you assume that froggy knows what the hell he is talking about, you will undoubtedly make an ass out of yourself and froggy, though he needs little help in that regard!Learn to keep things in context and stay away from assumptions that are obviously incorrect, which make you both look extremely foolish. Silly boys!You can find the documentaries I mentioned at most libraries. As to the rest of your post, you seem to have a distorted view of several areas of history, which I hope to touch on at a later date, but before I sign off let me remind you that there never has been, in the history of the world, a nation of Palestine and most likely never will be.There is a nation of Israel, which has once again risen from the historical ashes of seemingly endless persecution by a never ending supply of anti-semites and anti-zionists. That is history and truth, no matter how one tries to colour it, or whether they choose to hold high their banner of anti-semitism or anti-zionism. They are one in the same to many who have suffered from their hatred, as they are all viewed as being anti-Jew, despite the lies they may speak when they deny historical facts.Zionism is a direct result of anti-semitism. That too is history, and truth, regardless of continued efforts by revisionists who will simply manufacture any reason to justify their endless hatred and persecution the Jews, and the Nation of Israel. The combined arms and armies of no less than seven Arab states could not destroy tiny Israel or the Jews, despite the Arabs having an overwhelming superiority in both arms and soldiers.Each time Israel had to go to war, the Arabs lost more lives and more land, only to go crying to the U.N. in an attempt to force Israel to give back land she had rightfully taken in the war. Each time, Israel gave some of the conquered land back, though not all, in an attempt to secure her borders against future violations of her sovereignty. What other victor in wars has been willing to do this again and again and again?But this was not good enough. The Arabs wanted everything they had lost as well as the land given to us as a result of U.N. Resolution 181. All of the yellow on the following map is Arab land while the blue is Israel..... .....and yet you, and others like you would deny us even this small sliver of land, a land that has been taken from us again and again. A land in which the decendants of Jacob have continuously lived long before anyone ever heard this modern term Palestine,(which is Philistia}, or these so-called Palestinians, (which would in actuality make them Philistines), and as you should know, Palestine, (Philistia), isn't even an Arabic term but is a Roman, (latin), term. http://www.palestinefacts.org/...y_palestine_name_origin.phpEven when we Jews did not have a nation to call our own we lived in this ancient and sacred land. The Arabs have taken enough land. Israel is Israel once again and it shall remain so despite what the haters of the Jews think they can do to us, our land, or our heritage. The land was taken from us and even without the British mandate we would have eventually taken our ancient land back.That you would argue against the true facts of history while voicing your support for a people that do not even know who they really are, shows me how well your signature slogan, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away", fits in with your errant thought process. This wise man will not even attempt to further point out how utterly distorted your world view truly is. Philistia is dead.

Long Live Judah! Long Live Israel! Long Live Zion!

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

I didn't think you would support your assertions. I was right. You are in violation of forum guidelines. Learn to follow forum guidelines like everyone else. You can now join froggy.

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Forum Guidelines? I gave you the damn cite, the friggin Treaty of Paris. What more could you want? Are we expected to do everything for you?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just as a point of correction (and I'm sorry to be so off-topic), if you consider the loyalists living in America as "British citizens" since that's the way they considered themselves, then I'm afraid that the term terrorist can be used for some Patriot actions, especially in the southern colonies. Of course, the same can be said of Col. Banastre Tarleton and his dragoon regiment, not to mention some of the loyalist militia actions (cf Hancock's Bridge). In addition, the actions of groups such as the Sons of Liberty, not to mention the Test Laws enacted by the Patriot Congress that included expropriation, loyalty oaths, etc. would certainly be considered "terrorist" by most modern definitions.

Jar, you were asked to support you version of history.

A quote would be in order Jar.