Commissar

Your definitions don't help me out much. See, it simply says that a freedom fighter is one who is engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government. I'd classify the Palestinians that way.

You really do have to be kidding. If we were concerned with only taking out the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, B-29s dropping conventional bombs would've done just as well, and not leveled the cities. The atomic bombs were dropped to show Japan we could obliterate their cities at will if we chose to do so. End. Of. Story. We couldn't drop it on Tokyo, because that would've resulted in, most likely, the Emperor's death. Aside from being a bad political move, there was a fifty-fifty shot at that simply strengthening Japanese resolve to fight to the last. We dropped them to level cities, not to take out specific industrial targets within those cities. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous.

You say it isn't relevant, but the primary arguement in this thread is that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab. This destroys that arguement. I'm waiting for a new arguement and I've seen one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My argument has never been that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab. My argument is that Palestine had a right to a state including the lands that previously belonged to it. I asked you before if someone who battles an oppressive government by targetting civilians is a terrorist or a freedom fighter, since the two definitions intersect, and that is in fact what's going on. I have a pretty good idea of what your answer is, but like I also said, it doesn't much matter. Some Palestinians have chosen terrorism as a way to get what they want. Based on the pullout from Gaza, it seems to have worked. Whether it's right or wrong isn't the point, at all, nor is it the point of this thread. The point of this thread was you being upset that Jewish settlers are being pulled out of their homes by soldiers. It's not the Palestinian soldiers doing the pulling; it's the Israeli ones. The Israeli government decided to pull out of Gaza, for whatever reason. You see it as a result of Palestinian terrorism, and that does indeed doubtlessly play a great role in this decision. But whereas you assign all the blame on Palestine and leave Israel in the role of the martyr, I assign equal blame to both.

I was kind of wondering.

God, you are a trip! You just feed me with ammo all day long. You said you didn't care. The fact that you didn't see murder as wrong says that you feel their methods are justified. Perhaps you should read your own posts. How do you keep contradicting yourself? You're not justifying them, but the end justifies the means and they are working? Since they worked in the end, they are justified! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll try to clarify: I see murder as wrong, in most cases. That doesn't mean I particularly care if it happens. If some dude in Kansas gets killed because he's cheating on his wife, I don't stop my day. I also specifically said that I am not an ends-justify-the-means type. Shooting the guy who gets on my nerves at work would put an end to the problem of him getting on my nerves; that doesn't mean it's justified, in my eyes. Again, to be clear: I do not believe that the given outcome of a particular action thereby assigns that action any moral tone.

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Score one for Alan. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bombing a military target where "civilians" work is different from bombing an elementary school. And how does bombing an elementary school save lives? Your inability to see the difference proves your ignorance in this manner. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We weren't referring to pinpoint bombing of military targets in which civilians die; we were speaking of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and the countless other cities that were bombed into near-rubble by the Allied bombing campaign in World War II. And since we've got a moderator waiting in the wings for something to justify (there that word is again!) shutting the thread down, I'd advise a little less heat.

I'll prove you wrong with your own words. Let us continue. Statement #1 Statement #2 I won't call you a liar, but you made two contradicting statements. They can't both possibly be true. So pick which one is true, and let me know which statement you made isn't true. You justify their methods and yet say no one is justifying their methods. I have also quoted others justifying their methods, so I'm going with statement 1 being wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I guess I was prophetic when I earlier stated that "justified" means different things to different people, wasn't I? Let me make it a little more clear: I didn't say the Palestinians' methods were morally right. I said they were working. There's a big difference. That, to me, does not justify them. Then again, I'm not a neo-con, "End justifies the means" type.

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Score one for Alan.

Again, Bush said he believed he already had UN approval on two grounds. 1 - The cease-fire was based on Iraq's total duplicity, which the UN said didn't exist. Thusly, we had an initial authorization from the UN to go into Iraq, and the cease-fire was made null and void. 2 - Right after a 9/11, the UNSC passed another UNSCR saying comply immediately or else, and then found they weren't complying. Two years later, we figured the "or else" clause kicked in. The UN did authorize the war officially and made it all legal after the fact. The opinion of one individual does not change the fact the UN did officially sanction the war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This belongs on a different thread.

Repeat it all you want, but it doesn't have any bearing on what we're talking about. Nobody is justifying murdering innocent civilians; we're justifying Palestine's desire for a state of its own, and its desire to have its land back. How they're going about it is quite frankly of little interest to me. I will observe, however, that they seem to be well on their way to accomplishing their goal, so they must've struck on a workable method.

I'm using "home" as a metaphor for "land." Edit: And "neighbor" for "other Arab states in the Middle East."

How about this. You move into my neighborhood. I suggest that I don't want any people named LoneWolf in my neighborhood, so I murder your family. Then I propose that there would be peace if you gave me your home, and all of your belongings. Then the police come in and force you to conceed, and yet I attempt to kill you and your remaining relatives anyway. And then you watch the world defend me. How would you feel? Imagine facing that prejudice your whole life, to the extent that you know countless people would simply kill you for being who you are, and being told to play nice with those who seek your death. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Except that that's not a good analogy. Lonewolf would have to move into your neighborhood by taking your house and telling you to go live under a bridge. And to make sure you did it, he'd have a couple of big Mafia goombahs backing him up. You wouldn't like it, and your neighbors wouldn't like it. One of them might even try to get your house back for you. Except they'd fail, and then you'd decide that the neighbor's house is yours, too.

I did.

Yet Muslims argue they have more of a historical claim to the land than Palestine. Futhermore, arguing who had a claim to the land even 50 years ago is a matter of historical claim. Currently the world government recognizes Israel as a nation, and recognizes the Israeli people having a right to live there, yet people would defend terrorism and murdering civilians as being justified due to historical claims to land. I've asked several times what the correct solution is to post-WW2. No one has presented a better one. I've outright asked you and you keep dodging the issue. How does Palestine own the land that you say belongs to Egypt? Russia took over Eastern Europe in the same time period saying that when twenty million people died, they had a right to form a buffer zone to defend themselves against those that fought against them. People said okay. But if Israel is attacked by invaders, and the invaders lose ground in the conflict one could certainly argue that Israel is entitled to the spoils of a war they didn't even start. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm a bit confused about your Russia statement; at first I thought you were talking about the formation of the USSR, but that took place prior to World War II, which is when twenty million Russians were killed. If you're talking about the formation of the Warsaw Pact, Russia did essentially take over Eastern Europe, though technically those countries maintained sovereignty - in the legal definition. Moscow controlled them, but they were their own states. And everybody kind of objected to that, but we didn't really have the power to stop them from doing it. We weren't going to risk another world war just to keep Poland out of Russian hands. Certainly not noble, but there you go. And we say Israel isn't entitled to the "spoils of war" because it just simply isn't. As I've stated and stated, the Gaza strip is overwhelmingly Palestinian; those Palestinians do not want to be under the control of the Israeli government. And the Israeli government has now said it doesn't want them under its control, either. That's one thing you're forgetting. Israel decided to do this, in the hopes of bringing about peace in the region. Despite what someone earlier said about this just being the beginning of Palestianian territory takeover, I don't think it will be.

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's an argument over semantics. The dictionary defines "justified" one way, but people have different opinions about what is and is not justified. If someone is fighting an oppressive government by killing civilians, are they a terrorist or a freedom fighter? And, for that matter, our earlier points about bombing cities in World War II becomes relevant; we were targeting civilians. Does that make us terrorists?

The Israeli people didn't transplant themselves so your analogy is flawed. They already lived in the area, and that was the historic birthplace of their people. Yes Muslims claim that they too descended from the Jewish people, so historic claims are both valid. Jewish people already lived there, and Jews that no longer had homes because they were victims of genocide needed a place to stay. Pray tell, what is your solution to this? And many have openly said they will only be happy when every Jew is dead. People forget that Jews were being massacred in the area before Israel is formed. People seem to be operating on the assumption that Arabs in the area are only upset about the forming of the Israeli nation. If that was the case, then Jews wouldn't have been massacred before the state was created. So Egypt shouldn't be punished for attacking Israel? And Palestine shouldn't be punished for practising terrorism? But Israel should be punished for being victims of genocide? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heh. Well, as to your first argument...just because the dim Teutonic woods of northern Europe are the birthplace of my ancestors doesn't mean I have a right to claim parts of Germany for my own state. And yes, the Jews have long been persecuted, which is why I wonder at the stupidity of having them set up shop right in the midst of one of their primary persecutors. Solution? Don't have one. I'd have said give them something in Africa, though, since nobody really seems to care about that region. Israel isn't being punished. Israel is finally moving out of territory that doesn't belong to it. Simple as that.

Amen! The US said they'd pull out the second the area is stable. If the insurgents wanted the US out, all they have to do is stop attacking. They don't care about getting us out of the area. They want to kill people for the sake of killing people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, it does escape me. Who decides whether a government's oppressive or not? As I said, it's simply a matter of whether you agree with them or not. And, "They want to kill people for the sake of killing people," is about as correct as, "They hate us for our freedom." Neither are true; they're killing people with a goal in mind. Namely, getting us out and getting themselves in control. They don't want us to ever even think of going into that part of the world with guns blazing again.

Killing civilians is not effective in the slightest, nor good tactics. Iraq will be decades recovering from this, both in terms of the lost skills of the people killed and the pyschological damage to the survivors. Without the insurgency, the US would probably have been gone by now. The insurgents see only the short term goal of evicting the US and ignore the long term goal of building a strong nation. It's criminal stupidity, as well as bloody murder. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd disagree. They know that we're going to have bases in Iraq, which they clearly don't want. And they're not particularly concerned about building a strong nation. Iraq is another one of those states cobbled together by outsiders, with three distinct ethnic groups that I honestly don't see living peacefully together. The problem with the constitution is a good indication of that.

Well, I think if the north half of England decided to transplant itself into the middle of Iran and claim that it had a right to exist there, people would generally believe that the Iranians would be justified in trying to get that part of their country back. I'd happily defend Israel if Israel had been there all along, but the fact of the matter is it's a made-up state that was plopped down in the midst of a group of other states who don't particularly like it. Arab nations in the region view Israel's existence as an act of war, rightly or wrongly, and wholly illegal. The UN did indeed approve Israel's formation, but it was the Americans and the British who set the whole thing up. The Arabs have, from the beginning, been opposed to Israel. I'm not saying it should be wiped out, by any means, but I am saying that for stability to have even a remote chance, the Palestinians need to be given their own state - which would include Gaza - and Israel would need to relinquish the land it conquered via conflict. If all that happens and Israel is still getting attacked, then by all means, I'll be the first to say that they ought to be defended. Not until that point, though.

Depends on if you agree with them or not.

Lurker.

Furthermore, what do you want the Palestinians to hit? Soldiers? That's not nearly as effective as killing civilians. Just look at Iraq. Tell me what the American public gets more worked up about: is it when a civilian contractor or journalist gets captured and killed, all in technicolor, or is it when we get the usual report that three Marines were killed in a carbombing incident outside of Baghdad? The populace accepts military loss of life far more readily than civilian loss of life. If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.

You're just going off the deep end now, man. World War II as a whole is the perfect example of governments murdering each other's civilians. Hiroshima had industrial and military significance? So what. It wasn't soldiers working in the factories. Dresden had significant industrial significance, too, but we firebombed it to the ground. We bombed numerous cities in every theater of war, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians - with a military aim. The twin goals of the Allied bombing campaigns were to destroy as much of the industrial/defensive capabilities of the enemy as possible, and to sap the enemy civilians' will to continue supporting the war. End of story.

That I've never heard before. Me neither. Exactly. I think the only terrorist situation which has even been solved by force alone, without negotiation, is possibly the Badder-Meinhof Gang in Germany. That's it, as far as I know. You can't beat terrorists by shooting them. Just doesn't work. Negotiation and diplomacy are essential. Precisely.

It isn't overpopulated? Seriously, check out a world factbook. Any encyclopaedia article.