One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Alceste]

So was hyperbole.

If Hiroshima was not a war crime, what is?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have no issue with declaring Hiroshima a war crime.

 

[Alceste]

I have no issue with declaring Hiroshima a war crime.

Ah, I misunderstood.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no issue with declaring Hiroshima a war crime.

I would. Dropping the bombs on Japan was arguably a kind of terrorism, since civilians were killed for the purpose of effecting political change by terror.
But it is also clear that the greater evil of prolonged conventional war resulting in far greater deaths (especially on our side) was consequently averted.
The certain effect of reducing the carnage mitigates the criminal aspect greatly. Moreover, the horror we now feel about nuclear war is a recent attitude.
Consider too, that we killed even more Japanese non-combatants with the new technique of fire bombing & fire storms, yet they were militarily less effective.

 

[Alceste]

I would. Dropping the bombs on Japan was arguably a kind of terrorism, since civilians were killed for the purpose of effecting political change by terror.
But it is also clear that the greater evil of prolonged conventional war resulting in far greater deaths (especially on our side) was consequently averted.
The certain effect of reducing the carnage mitigates the criminal aspect greatly. Moreover, the horror we now feel about nuclear war is a recent attitude.
Consider too, that we killed even more Japanese non-combatants with the new technique of fire bombing & fire storms, yet they were militarily less effective.

I see, so terrorism is ok when it works out the way you want it to?

I don't think carnage among soldiers is equal to the carnage of entire cities filed with non-combatants, personally. If I could save ten soldiers by murdering one helpless child, I would not do it. If men want to fight and die for a cause, they should kill one another and leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think carnage among soldiers is equal to the carnage of entire cities filed with non-combatants, personally.

It's good to see you coming around. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

It's good to see you coming around. :yes:

Is there any place in the world where soldiers are only killing other soldiers? Has there ever been?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Probably not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you are willing to acknowledge the Bush administration's "shock and awe" strategy, or Netanyahu's latest punishing attack on Gaza, for example, are terrorism (violence directed against civilians to further a political or ideological objective by causing panic and despair), ...

I oppose Israel's policy toward Gaza. Had I been there recently, I would have stood with people such as those in Neve Shalom. But to claim that the "latest punishing attack on Gaza" was a Netanyahu strategy of terrorism "directed against civilians to further a political or ideological objective by causing panic and despair" is simply a pathetic and incoherent lie. While the Washington Post stopped far short of such demagoguery, Bradley Burston's column is well worth reading.

 

[Alceste]

I oppose Israel's policy toward Gaza. Had I been there recently, I would have stood with people such as those in Neve Shalom. But to claim that the "latest punishing attack on Gaza" was a Netanyahu strategy of terrorism "directed against civilians to further a political or ideological objective by causing panic and despair" is simply a pathetic and incoherent lie. While the Washington Post stopped far short of such demagoguery, Bradley Burston's column is well worth reading.

I got that impression from Netanyahu's own words. Paraphrasing, he said Israel was not hitting the PA hard enough, they needed to hit harder and cause more death and destruction to make Palestinians feel like "everything was falling apart". Sounds like his purpose was causing panic and despair to further a political agenda to me.

I've also read an article written by one of his top generals claiming that everyone in Gaza is guilty of terrorism because they voted for Hamas, so there was no need to make any effort to prevent civilian casualties.

I do know you're not a supporter of Netanyahu, by the way. Nobody in their right mind is. But why should we stop short of calling him a terrorist when he himself openly acknowledges intentions to use deadly violence to cause panic and despair, and further his political agenda?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Irrespective of what one might think of Netanyahu, the various voices found in Israel Learned the Lessons of Last Gaza War deserve to be heard, particular by those whose understanding of the situation is entirely colored by the need to demonize Israel.

 

[Alceste]

Irrespective of what one might think of Netanyahu, the various voices found in Israel Learned the Lessons of Last Gaza War deserve to be heard, particular by those whose understanding of the situation is entirely colored by the need to demonize Israel.

Funny, I don't know anybody like that. Israel demonizes itself without any help from its critics, IMO.

If it weren't for the incompetent and insulting armchair psychoanalysis following your link, I probably would have read the article.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it weren't for the incompetent and insulting armchair psychoanalysis following your link, I probably would have read the article.

Oh my - the ugly specter of hissing vitriol with eyes wide shut.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a rather curious opinion piece titled Choosing Hamas in today's ynetnews:

The State of Israel is conducting regular negotiations, more or less, with Hamas. About once a week an Israeli delegation travels to Cairo, where it holds talks on easing financial constraints, which effectively means Israel is holding talks on easing the siege on Gaza. When the talks with Hamas began, prior to Operation Pillar of Defense, they focused on financial relief. After Pillar of Defense, another delegation joined the talks to discuss easing security restrictions. Only recently it was decided to merge the two delegations, and now they both sit opposite Egyptian officials, while Hamas' representative is in the next room.

This description is meant to show that these negotiations are not merely focusing on the technical aspects of the ceasefire; they are focusing on easing restrictions to the point of lifting the blockade entirely. These negotiations indicate that Israel's policy of isolating Gaza from the West Bank has come to an end. Israel, under Netanyahu's leadership, has changed its policy vis-à-vis Gaza. Instead of toppling Hamas, Israel now wants to strengthen the Hamas regime so it will preserve the calm and also in order to push the Islamist group toward the anti-Iranian Sunni coalition: Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.

But how does one explain this to the rightist voter – or to any Israeli voter for that matter – who has been told all these years that Hamas is a terror organization that Israel will never negotiate with? The answer is simple: You don't. The current policy is aimed at dragging out the negotiations so as not to reach any agreement with Hamas before the elections. In any case, Israel needs some time to "test" Hamas and see if it can uphold the truce - so we have a great excuse. The Israeli officials continue to travel to Cairo, and if the Egyptians cancel a meeting every now and then, they are not too disappointed.

The first thing to note is that it's an opinion piece. The second is that it tends to support the proposition that in Middle-East politics things are never wholly what they seem.

But I'd like to believe that the author is on to something and that, twisted though the process may be, the Netanyahu governmentl is actually dissolving its siege of Gaza in a way that does not threaten the security of Israel.

Do I really believe it? Not yet.

 

[steeltoes]

Sorry if I am repeating, I didn't read the whole thread,

Terrorism is when they do it to us.

When we do it to them it's called counter terrorism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry if I am repeating, I didn't read the whole thread,

Terrorism is when they do it to us.

When we do it to them it's called counter terrorism.

How legitimate is it then?

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose people who live under constant fear about whether they will still have a home at the end of the day do have something of a need to demonize those who put them into such a situation.

 

[Inescapable_Paradise]

Is this statement true? Is it sufficient?

How do you define terrorism? What are the ethical and political ramifications of constraining or broadening that definition?

The only difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter" is whose side they are on. When they're on your side, they're freedom fighters. When they're on the opposing side, they're terrorists. In essence, both groups are trying to disturb the established political order by violent means. The conflict will lead to greater security for one side, at the expense of the other. Naturally, the party on the losing side of this equation will feel that "Terrorism" is wrong and must be guarded against, while the person on the winning side will believe "Freedom" is worth fighting and dying for, and to not fight would be synonymous with living under oppression.

 

[Sunstone]

The only difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter" is whose side they are on. When they're on your side, they're freedom fighters. When they're on the opposing side, they're terrorists. In essence, both groups are trying to disturb the established political order by violent means. The conflict will lead to greater security for one side, at the expense of the other. Naturally, the party on the losing side of this equation will feel that "Terrorism" is wrong and must be guarded against, while the person on the winning side will believe "Freedom" is worth fighting and dying for, and to not fight would be synonymous with living under oppression.

You assume terrorists and freedom fighters use the same means.

 

[Alceste]

You assume terrorists and freedom fighters use the same means.

I think he's referring to people like the mujahideen, who were considered heroes when they fought the USSR for the CIA, but who rot in Guantanamo as terrorists if they get caught fighting the US. Not only the same means, but the exact same people.