Palestenian-Israeli Conflict
- Thread starter sonicloud1982
- Start date
Where does this happen? Whenever I watch the news I see stories about Iraqi "terrorists" fighting against an occupying army. The US can drop bombs indiscrimately wherever they want to and never get described as terrorists. Can you explain the qualitative difference between firing a cruise missile at a house full of women and children, and a suicide bombing amongst a crowd of civillians? I'm really struggling to work out why one is better than the other.
dontnotice
New member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
he makes a very good point, although technically a terrorist is someone who uses violence or intimidation for political gain. Technically speaking I dont think calling George Bush a terrorist is completely off base.
ididitmyway
New member
- Mar 26, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 1
MRSA because of dirty, poorly funded NHS hospitals has killed a lot more people in the UK over the last couple of years than Islamic extremists will ever be able to do. The government just seem to be intent on making this the topic on everybody's mind, because it distracts from their many failures.
Fredellpert
New member
- Apr 17, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
For the reasons I've just explained... both are tragic, but one was done with the aim of killing the guys who are doing the suicide bombings, whereas the other was done with the aim of killing the civilians themselves.
The undeniable fact is, that if the terrorist went and hid in the hills away from the civilians, THAT is where the missiles would be fired. If the US and other coalition troops hid in the hills away from the "crowd of civilians" that crowd of civilians would still be the target.
The undeniable fact is, that if the terrorist went and hid in the hills away from the civilians, THAT is where the missiles would be fired. If the US and other coalition troops hid in the hills away from the "crowd of civilians" that crowd of civilians would still be the target.
Phoenix_Slasher
New member
- Mar 18, 2008
- 18
- 0
- 1
Personally it wouldn't make much difference to me if a member of my family was killed because somebdoy set out to kill them or because somebody set out to kill somebody else, but weren't too bothered about killing anyone else who got in the way. An Israeli army sniper kills an unarmed Palestinian kid on the way to school in the morning, or an Israeli helicopter fires on a house in a palestinian settlement because one of the occupants may be a terrorist, and it's described as a military action. It's not as though these things don't happen on a regular basis. It's not as though there weren't tens of thousands of civilian casualties when the US "liberated" Iraq. If my country was invaded and my relatives killed indiscriminately I would be looking for blood, I would want to hit back any way I could. I can't condemn the Palestinians, The Iraqis, the Afghan's or pretty much anyone in the Middle East wanting to hit back against the US, by whatever means they have available. I don't see how you can.
datswebster
Member
- Apr 15, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
to a certain extent. The AMerican right amplifies the terrorist threat justifying the need to break our 4th amendment rights while the American left downplays it putting us at risk for another 9/11.
But you see fear being used in many causes.
Enviromentalist say we are destroying the Earth and if we don't act now, the world is going to end tomorrow. While Conservatives have faith in God and don't think humanity can destroy the Earth and ignore scientific evidence.
But you see fear being used in many causes.
Enviromentalist say we are destroying the Earth and if we don't act now, the world is going to end tomorrow. While Conservatives have faith in God and don't think humanity can destroy the Earth and ignore scientific evidence.
You've pretty much proved my point... you're saying the acts of terrorism we see in the west are just them "hitting back against the US", even though their targets generally had NOTHING to do with what you're using to justify the acts of terror.
How can they be justified if Coalition troops fighting, and doing their best to target actual terrorists rather than civilians, isn't justified?
How can they be justified if Coalition troops fighting, and doing their best to target actual terrorists rather than civilians, isn't justified?
Another key difference is the fact that a lot of the time the troops DO get the guy they were aiming for... and every one of those is someone who isn't going to deliberately launch more CIVILIAN attacks.
Don't you think many ordinary Iraqis are glad Al-Zarqawi is dead today?
Don't you think many ordinary Iraqis are glad Al-Zarqawi is dead today?
IslandPrincess
Member
- Mar 26, 2008
- 38
- 0
- 6
yeah, but ordinary Iraqis would be just as happy if George Bush died today, in fact ordinary Iraqis would be just as happy if their electricity stayed on all day.
PrimordiusDrool
Member
- Feb 17, 2008
- 35
- 0
- 6
terrorists come from civilian populations and live amoung civilain populations making it difficult to simply get them. Al Zaraqi was killied in a house in Iraq by 2 500lb bombs. Zarqi killed many innocent Muslims in his attacks against the US, he wanted Shiites killed cause they were Shiites.
How do you justify Shiites being killed by Sunni Muslim extremists? Are Shiites not doing enough to improve their public persona in the Middle East?
How do you justify Shiites being killed by Sunni Muslim extremists? Are Shiites not doing enough to improve their public persona in the Middle East?
anastasiaa
New member
- Feb 27, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 1
thats strictly a religious thing, Catholics and Protestants killed each other in Northern Ireland for decades. Its unjustifiable.
Helicopter
New member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 1
The US launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, Iraq had no capability for attacking the US and had never tried to attack the US. Bush threw the Geneva convention out of the window with Guantanemo bay, did attack targets that were part of the civilian infrastructure, is responsible for countless Iraqi deaths and continues to occupy the country making a big $ profit from the oil and rebuilding projects that he's handing out to his friends. He's thrown the constitution in the bin with the Patriot Act, and he has setup his own personal secret police answerable to nobody but him (department of homeland security). He has done this against the wishes of all but a tiny minority of the International community.
The strategy the US forces adopted in Iraq was "Shock and Awe" in other words to induce terror in the population.
The US qualifies in so many ways as a rogue terrorist state and Bush qualifies as both a terrorist and a war criminal.
The strategy the US forces adopted in Iraq was "Shock and Awe" in other words to induce terror in the population.
The US qualifies in so many ways as a rogue terrorist state and Bush qualifies as both a terrorist and a war criminal.
it needs to work towards curing the Islamophobic attitudes within the US, it needs to show some real compassion for the Palestinians rather than standing shoulder to shoulder with the Israelis all the time, it needs to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghan people (no more massacres please), it needs to close guantanamo bay, it needs to enter proper peaceful talks with the Iranians. Once all that is done I'm sure the general perception of the US will be considerably different,
villageidiot
Member
- Feb 23, 2008
- 33
- 0
- 6
Putting George Bush up against a wall and shooting him would probably help a lot.
EternalConfusion
New member
- Mar 25, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
well that would be the quickest fix, but I was looking at realistic options.
no they dont, a terrorist by definition is someone who causes terror, American and Israeli soldiers for example.
i cant, but then again neither can I justify Israeli troops killing Palestinian Children or American Soldiers killing inocent Iraqi's and using chemical and nuclear weapons ?
i cant, but then again neither can I justify Israeli troops killing Palestinian Children or American Soldiers killing inocent Iraqi's and using chemical and nuclear weapons ?
The Israelis act in response to Hamas & Hezbollah. Who hide along civilians because they would be obliterated otherwise. .
If Arafat didn't start the intafada there would be 2 states already and freedom of movement for Palestinians. Arafat walked away from a peace deal which gave him the 1967 borders. Because of his actions Palestinans are worse off today. You can not blame the Israelis for everything.
Saddam and Iraq have been fighting the US since 1990 when they invaded Quwait. There is no doubt Saddam was a bad guy. OBL was upset that the US faught Saddam and not him. Its been the US and British flying no fly zones since to protect Shiites and Kurds.
When did Americans use chemical weapons or nuclear weapons in Iraq or Afganistan? They didn't, thats right.
If Arafat didn't start the intafada there would be 2 states already and freedom of movement for Palestinians. Arafat walked away from a peace deal which gave him the 1967 borders. Because of his actions Palestinans are worse off today. You can not blame the Israelis for everything.
Saddam and Iraq have been fighting the US since 1990 when they invaded Quwait. There is no doubt Saddam was a bad guy. OBL was upset that the US faught Saddam and not him. Its been the US and British flying no fly zones since to protect Shiites and Kurds.
When did Americans use chemical weapons or nuclear weapons in Iraq or Afganistan? They didn't, thats right.