3
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
They are there to kill. Fear is the byproduct of said killing. If you wanted to spread fear, there are much more effective ways. Tell them you will engage on a campaign of suicide bombings for instance.
Hamas have actually stated that the goal of the rockets is primarily to show resistance and to spread fear throughout Israelis the way Israel does in Occupied Territories. Simply stating that you are going to blow up suicide bombs is in no way a more effective method of spreading fear than firing rockets that so often they impact the everyday lives of citizens.
The killing is a bonus and a secondary objective, according to Hamas.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
Let me guess. You say that they aren't for killing and then say they hadn't killed anyone in three years. Either way, you're still wrong.
Sorry, I apologise. I read recently there had been no deaths in 3 years. According to Wiki that figure is wrong, there had been 8.
And I didn't say there aren't for killing. I stated that killing was not their primary desired effect. Spreading fear and terror was.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
With the intention of actually physically occupying Germany. They didn't pull all their troops out and then shelled Germany whenever something they didn't approve of happened. The Allies had troops in there, boots on the ground. You know, an actual occupation?
The definition was given with regards to German occupation. It was stated that because Germany still controlled the land, sea and air and the movement of the people of the country, they still technically occupied them.
This doesn't matter anyway. The Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank are one people, therefore if one is occupied, they are all, by definition, an occupied people. It's like Norway invading northern Scotland then someone trying to claim that only half of the Scottish would be occupied. Scotland as a whole would still be referred to as being an occupied country and an occupied people.
There are many reasons for Gaza to still be defined as occupied.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
That's not the point. You've previously said in the past and justified it that a bomb in a cafe would be a legitimate military target because of the fact that despite the presence of civilians, one of the people there "might" be in the military.
This is yet another example of you not being able to interpret the written word. I have NEVER said that. What I have said - and please do try to keep up - is this:
With regards to Israel targeting homes of Hamas leaders and such, I stated that by applying the same logic and reasons given to defend such actions (that it is alright for Israel to target these building, killing civilians, so they can kill a Hamas leader) to Hamas, then it is alright for Hamas to blow up a bomb in a cafe to kill a military officer.
I used the analogy merely as a tool to show how weak the argument from Israel is. I reversed the situations to show just how immoral it is to use this method of killing, and the excuses given. Feel free to do a forum search and you will see clearly that all I was doing was applying the same faulty logic to show the flaws in that reasoning.
Again, I have never said it is alright to blow up bombs in cafes, no matter the reason given.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
The current administration would be. Israel as an entity? No. An entity cannot be a terrorist. Individuals and groups can be terrorists.
An entity? What are you talking about? I was referring, obviously, to the Israeli government.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
And as I said, the current administration would be.
In your opinion they would be, but by definition, they are not.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
Ever heard of the word "state terrorism"? Just because you are a government doesn't mean you can support or authorise acts of terrorism. They wouldn't be terrorist organisations in the same breadth as Hezbollah or the IRA or ETA, but they would still have committed an act of terrorism and therefore that administration that authorised said acts would be classified as terrorists. Fact is, a state is just as likely to sponsor or conduct an act of terrorism to achieve its own ends than a smaller group. You only to have to look as far back as the Rainbow Warrior to see this.
But you see, using the definition of terrorism means that they cannot be defined as such. If they could be, every British, Israeli and American government that has ever existed, would be defined as terrorists.
MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:
The only difference is, Israel is an internationally recognised state and it's government is a representative (until the next elections) of the Israeli people. Hamas is recognised by few countries but no one recognises it as the legitimate government of Palestine.
No one recognises it as the legitimate government of Palestine? They won a free and fair election for all the World to witness. They are recognised as the legitimate government of the Palestinians, almost worldwide (the U.S., "the EU" and Israel do not recognise them).
Edited by ExpandMyMind, 21 November 2012 - 05:24 PM.
