The noose is tightening on arafat

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Estilpón
then, israeli army is -now- a terrorism group?

No since it doesn't target civilians.

I also disagree that Israeli terrorists were proper terrorists, but rather guerillas.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No they weren't. The French resistence was by and large the military wing of the Communist Party. It did not take it's orders from the government in exile, though it did cooperate with the Allies. So under your definition, they were terrorists. Tito's resistence in Yugoslavia wasn't carrying out it's attacks on the Nazis under the Yugolsav government in exile, nor were the Greeks or Italians. Overwhelmingly they were led by Communists who intended on setting up a Communist state after the Nazis were driven out. By your definition, the Viet Cong would have been terrorists, since they were not agents of a state, but an indigenous army opposed to the government of South Vietnam.

My definition works perfectly well thank you.

If indeed, as you say, these groups were not working under the authority of the governments in exile, then they were indeed terrorists. I am not sure you are correct though - surely the French govt in exile would be quite happy to give the French resistance legitimacy if they were fighting the Germans. It doesn't matter who their orders come from, as long as they were officially sanctioned by a government (ie. not acting on their own behalf).

Furthermore, many terrorist groups act on behalf of governments. Hizbollah has carried out many attacks at the behest of Syria and Iran. The Nicaraguan Contras carried out a bloody terrorist campaign on behalf of the United States. UNITA and RENAMO carried out bloody terrorist campaigns on behla fo South Africa and the United States.

This is all just covert support. There is no official recognition of these groups by the supporting countries, never mind taking responsibility for their actions (or am I wrong - do the Syrian govt take resonsibility for Hizbollah?).

If, for example, Syria were to formally support the actions of Hizbollah committing attacks on Israeli targets and take responsibility for Hizbollah's actions then this would be an act of war against Israel (to which I would not object Israel responding to), and Hizbollah would not be a terrorist organisation but a partisan group working under Syrian authority.

Similarly the Contras were never officially under American authority and the Americans never took responsibility for their actions. Therefore they were terrorists, and would only become partisans or guerillas if operating under American authority.

[Estilpón]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

No since it doesn't target civilians.

but israeli army attacks palestinian people... houses, families etc... not terrorists...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

This is the definition of act of terror.

Israelians have professional terrorists.
PA have only amator ones...
---
Who will win ? I wonder. Israeli have powerfullest weapons and their soldiers are well trained. But Noah Arch was build by amators and Titanic was build by professionals.

[Estilpón]

Originally posted by Estilpón


but israeli army attacks palestinian people... houses, families etc... not terrorists...

not ONLY terrorists, of course




ZoboZeWarrior

[Natan]

Originally posted by Estilpón


but israeli army attacks palestinian people... houses, families etc... not terrorists...

I don't think house demolitions can rightly be considered terrorism.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Natan


I don't think house demolitions can rightly be considered terrorism.

Someone can just as easily say that about suicide bombings - does it mean anything? No.

Edit: To clarify, you are just ingoring or rationalizing it and trying to making it a non-issue.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Osweld


Someone can just as easily say that about suicide bombings - does it mean anything? No.

Edit: To clarify, you are just ingoring or rationalizing it and trying to making it a non-issue.

I don't know about you, but I don't think you can have terrorism without even the use of deadly force and without intent to kill.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Natan


I don't know about you, but I don't think you can have terrorism without even the use of deadly force and without intent to kill.

See my previous post.

But if you really think that, maybe you should go back to page one and read the definition. Or if you want, I'll give you another definition, from dictionary.com:

Terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I don't see why people are arguing about semantics, anyways... regardless of what you want to call it, it's not right.

[SlowwHand]

Arafat. For all you do, this noose is for you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Osweld
Or if you want, I'll give you another definition, from dictionary.com:

By your own definition the house demolitions, are not terrorism.

[General Ludd]

Why don't you say something of substance, for a change?

Originally posted by DinoDoc


By your own definition the house demolitions, are not terrorism.

That's nice.

[DinoDoc]

I was responding to the heart of your post.

Originally posted by Osweld
That's nice.

[General Ludd]

You picked out one part of my post, said nothing about it, and ignored the rest.

Originally posted by DinoDoc

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Natan
I don't think house demolitions can rightly be considered terrorism.

I agree with Natan here

I don't think you can call it terrorism. It is still morally wrong though.