ExpandMyMind, on 20 November 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:
2. No doubt rockets are made to kill, much in the same way that guns are made to kill. This doesn't mean that killing is the primary reason for their use. They are used, primarily, to spread fear, not death. This is their main use. Similar to the fact that the main use of a gun, though it was created to injure or kill, is to deter violence, not to actually inflict it.
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.
Quote
3. Yes, no **** Sherlock. 3 people killed last week, but please try to understand the text in my posts (you always had a hard time with that - it gets tiresome): "than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years". Can you spot the word that shows your mistake? "hadn't" means past tense, "Haven't" would have meant up until the present.
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.
Quote
1. Gaza, and more importantly, the people of Gaza, are still occupied. This was defined at the Nuremberg Trials, by a load of smart, Western lawyers, not by me.
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?
Quote
2. I didn't say that apartment blocks are a legitimate military target. In fact, if you'll please note, I actually described the rockets as a war crime.
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.
That alone is enough to write off whatever you post as the ramblings of someone who is blatantly being obtuse.
Quote
3. So you would be of the view that Israel is a terrorist organisation?
The current administration would be. Israel as an entity? No. An entity cannot be a terrorist. Individuals and groups can be terrorists.
Quote
Applying only your own logic "If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists", then Israel must be. After all, Israel's entire policy in Gaza is exactly as you describe.
And as I said, the current administration would be.
Quote
The reason Israel, or the U.S., or Russia are not 'terrorist organisations', or at least the reason they can not be defined as such, is because the term 'terrorist' does not allow for governments and armies to be classed as such.
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.
Quote
Do you see number four (mentioned in the paragraph as well)? The big boys of the World (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, Israel, etc) define terrorism in this way so that they themselves cannot be defined as such.
It's so they can exonerate themselves from anything that they may have committed in the past. Certainly, the French government
Quote
Sort of ironic from an Israeli standpoint - as soon as Hamas were elected into government, as soon as they rose from 'subnational' level, it became impossible to throw that term around legitimately without opening themselves up to the same label.
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.
3
