terrorism

[Enforcer Talen]

what's an appropriate defination?

[Master of Ossus]

The unlawful application of force against a population or government in an attempt to influence or coerce that group into taking different policies than the ones it would ordinarily have.

[Mr. B]

Do you want the websters definition

Or

The Patriot Act definition, which makes terrorism whatever the FBI wants it to be.

[LadyBarbara]

"Terrorism" is the use of force, coersion, or threats to get one's point across or to get one's own way. Generally, you put the fear of yourself (or you terrorize) the other people in order to gain their respect and devotion. I guess I apply this definition to most dictatorial regimes.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

The motive is very important here. Serial killers can terrorize a city will they are free and active, but you wouldn't call them terrorists. I'm not saying they are better than terrorists, just different.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think its the use of violence to support a political agenda by a group that could not hope to win battles in the conventional sense.

[Shadow WarChief]

A group of civilians committing mass-murder against a group of other civilians or government position to coerce them into changing their policies.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

A group of civilians committing mass-murder against a group of other civilians or government position to coerce them into changing their policies.

I don't think you need the mass-murder, the mere threat of such deadly force is enough.

[Darth Wong]

When a suicide bomber blows up 20 civilians, it's terrorism. When a fighter-jet bombs a "suspected terrorist enclave" and casually blows up 50 civilians along with the suspected terrorist, it's a "military strike". When a tank crew opens fire on rock-throwing youths, it's "self defense". When a tank crew opens fire on a crowd of shoppers for breaking curfew, it's a "mistake". And when a bomber crew drops nuclear weapons and kills a quarter-million people in order to coerce a government into surrender, it's "strategic bombing".

Hmmm ... am I the only one who thinks that terms like "terrorist", like "homicide bomber", are designed by semantic game-playing media whores? Killing innocent people is bad. You can try to concoct bullshit terms to make it appear as if it's OK when your army kills innocent people but evil when somebody else's army kills innocent people, but that does not change reality.

[Master of Ossus]

I agree, Mike. If you look at my definition of terrorism, it was, "The unlawful application of force against a population or government in an attempt to influence or coerce that group into taking different policies than the ones it would ordinarily have." Now, if you replaced "The unlawful application of force..." with "The lawful application of force..." you would have a reasonable definition for war.

Part of the reason why the US is having difficulty in selling its war on terrorism to other countries is that the US uses such a vague definition of the word. This makes it difficult for other countries to understand what the difference is, particularly in other countries in which the difference between a civilian and a soldier is two rounds of ammunition.

[Uther]

When a suicide bomber blows up 20 civilians, it's terrorism. When a fighter-jet bombs a "suspected terrorist enclave" and casually blows up 50 civilians along with the suspected terrorist, it's a "military strike". When a tank crew opens fire on rock-throwing youths, it's "self defense". When a tank crew opens fire on a crowd of shoppers for breaking curfew, it's a "mistake". And when a bomber crew drops nuclear weapons and kills a quarter-million people in order to coerce a government into surrender, it's "strategic bombing".

Hmmm ... am I the only one who thinks that terms like "terrorist", like "homicide bomber", are designed by semantic game-playing media whores? Killing innocent people is bad. You can try to concoct bullshit terms to make it appear as if it's OK when your army kills innocent people but evil when somebody else's army kills innocent people, but that does not change reality.

You don't think intentions or motive or goal plays a factor at all? I can understand thinking the Israelis or the Americans are BSing, but if, on the off chance, they're telling the truth and it really is an accident, well...

And I should think when the Americans kill civilians and the Israelis kill civilians it REALLY is a mistake. What could they possibly have to gain by targeting civilians? They get egg on their faces every time a large group of civies dies. Look at that Afghan wedding thing, or the countless Israeli incidents.

Now, you can argue that the West isn't CAREFUL enough, and enough isn't done to protect the civies. That's a legitimate point (although mostly mistaken, I think.) You can also make the stand that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan or Palestine or whatever at all. But we are, and I don't see how you can equate accidently hitting civilians with INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians. It seems radically different to me.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

When a tank crew opens fire on rock-throwing youths, it's "self defense".

No, that's evolution in action.

If I've got a 50 cal machine gun and you've got a rock and you throw that rock at me, it's my duty to make sure you can't reproduce.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Hmmm ... am I the only one who thinks that terms like "terrorist", like "homicide bomber", are designed by semantic game-playing media whores? Killing innocent people is bad. You can try to concoct bullshit terms to make it appear as if it's OK when your army kills innocent people but evil when somebody else's army kills innocent people, but that does not change reality.

Just to be serious for a second. Just cause you kill innocent people doesn't make you a terrorist. The Chinese killed how many people in Tiananmen Square? Does that make them terrorists? No, cause they were not trying to change government policy, they were 'defending' it. That is not to say they were right, cause they certainly were not.

There's also a difference between killing civilians at military targets and targeting civilians.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Funny, I always though that terrorism was the deliberate targeting of innocent (Non combatant)victims, to produce terror, for a political goal.

NOT a military goal. The more innocent the victim, the less they have to do with the military conflict, the better the target, because more terror is produced. Women are second only to children and infants, as the target of choice.

As opposed to militarily effective, where the less innocent are killed, as opposed to combatents, the better. (waste of ammo, bad PR) The more lethal the target, the better it is, from a military point of view. You shoot the people shooting at you FIRST, dummy! Note that munitions and industrial workers are considered combatants in total war, (with a much lower value)as they supply the bullets, just as surely as the supply personel in the military.

If the Palestinians targeted army personel, (like the IRA mostly did), instead of civilians, then they could conceivably be "freedom fighters". Note that the IRA also targeted civilian "colaborators, and sympathsisers" earning the label terrorists.

I target your women and children, you target my fighters. Sounds "equivalent" to me.
If you can't tell the difference between deaths in a pizza parlor that caters to young children, and a bomb making facility in the middle of a housing project, your moral compass is broken.


By the way, deliberatly locating your military assets in the middle of a civilian residendial area is a war crime, by the Geneva Convention. It is also a great way to generate sympathy from people who see only numbers, not the reasons behind the numbers. AA missile batteries on top of a hospital roof in Lebanon comes to mind.

WHY someone dies, or is killed, is very important. Intent is a cornerstone to western law. Murder,premeditated, murder, in the heat of passion, and manslaughter, all have different levels of guilt, and punishment. Accident, or intent, while irelavant to the dead, are highly relavelt to the rest of us.

Only simpleminded rulebook clutchers, who are afraid to judge things on a case by case basis, make such sweeping statements as:
"I don't CARE who started it."(self defence=attack)
"ALL killing is wrong."(Simplistic one size fits all nothinking rule)
"They have no choice but use terrorism"(A deliberate tactical choice is the 'only' option. LIE, there are always other options)
"The party that kills more is wrong" (Strenth=moral wrongness)

[Darth Wong]

Funny, I always though that terrorism was the deliberate targeting of innocent (Non combatant)victims, to produce terror, for a political goal.

Such as gunning down children for throwing rocks?

NOT a military goal. The more innocent the victim, the less they have to do with the military conflict, the better the target, because more terror is produced. Women are second only to children and infants, as the target of choice.

Right. So let's go gun down some Palestinian kids for throwing rocks, eh?

As opposed to militarily effective, where the less innocent are killed, as opposed to combatents, the better. (waste of ammo, bad PR) The more lethal the target, the better it is, from a military point of view. Note that munitions and industrial workers are considered combatants, (with a much lower value)as they supply the bullets, just as surely as the supply personel in the military.

And farmers supply food. Better kill them too. All in the name of good clean warfare, as opposed to "terrorism". Innocent people are still dying, but you did it for the strategic advantage, not ... terrorism. Right?

If the Palestinians targeted army personel, (like the IRA mostly did), instead of civilians, then they could conceivably be "freedom fighters". Note that the IRA also targeted civilian "colaborators, and sympathsisers" earning the label terrorists.

And when you gun down a crowd of shoppers for breaking curfew or a bunch of kids for throwing rocks, that's not a terror tactic? That's not designed to cow people into submission?

I target your women and children, you target my fighters. Sounds "equivalent to me.

How about "you kill 1700 of my people, two thirds of whom are unarmed at the time and 450 of whom are below the age of 18, you attack ambulances 200 times, seriously damaging 100 of them, you damage or destroy 400 hospitals and 200 schools, and I try to retaliate with the pitiful weapons left at my disposal?"

If you can't tell the difference between deaths in a pizza parlor that caters to young children, and a bomb making facility in the middle of a housing project, your moral compass is broken.

Ah, so all of the 9000 structures damaged or destroyed by Israeli attacks were actually legitimate military targets, eh? The Israeli propaganda machine isn't just making excuses for generalizations, eh? Oh, and by the way, when you live under occupation, a "bomb-making facility" is somebody's basement. Do you think the French resistance in WW2 was building identifiable military structures while under occupation?

By the way, deliberatly locating your military assets in the middle of a civilian residendial area is a war crime, by the Geneva Convention.

Using resistance efforts as an excuse for indiscriminate weapons discharge in occupied territory is also a war crime by the Geneva Convention. What's the difference?

Let's put it this way: if a terrorist group was found to be operating out of an apartment building in New York, would the US Air Force drop a Daisy Cutter on it and blow up the whole complex? Of course not. They would send in men to take out the terrorists, and if they didn't, we would be absolutely horrified and call for federal indictments. But when a certain unnamed Middle Eastern country decides that every suspected terrorist enclave should be blown up with heavy weapons with no regard for civilian casualties, we don't condemn it and we don't even regard it as reckless endangerment or depraved indifference; we just shrug and say "well, it's OK to kill innocent people when you've got the right reasons".

It is also a great way to generate sympathy from people who see only numbers, not the reasons behind the numbers.

Explain why it's wrong to see only numbers of dead innocent people. Do you believe that the grief of a widow or the lifelong sorrow of an orphan is somehow mitigated if his or her loved ones died as "collateral damage" rather than a "terrorist attack"? If 600 innocent people die at the hands of group A for the "right reason" and 100 people die at the hands of group B for the "wrong reason", justify your implicit belief that group A is good and group B is bad.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Killing innocent people is bad. People who try to differentiate between their preferred method of killing innocent people and somebody else's preferred method of killing innocent people have no moral compass. In the end, it IS just a matter of numbers; ideally zero, but in the next best case, as low as possible. He who kills vast numbers of innocent people and claims righteous reasons for doing so is no hero.

AA missile batteries on top of a hospital roof comes to mind.

Actually, people resort to "terrorism" when they can't afford missiles. The history of warfare is replete with deliberate attacks on civilian targets (the bombing of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) which were clearly intended to cause maximum civilian casualties. We do not call that "terrorism" because we are hypocrites. Nothing more. The sooner we learn to recognize that the objective of a meaningful system of morality is to reduce the total amount of death and suffering in the world rather than just blaming it on somebody else, the sooner we'll become the civilized people we claim to be.

PS. Check out this link.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I notice my definition of terrorism still stands, by default. You merely want to include the Isrealis in the terrorist catagory.
You keep harping about the "children" throwing rocks.
Children in pizza parlor, eating pizza.
Children in mob, throwing rocks, at armed soldiers.
You see no difference?Your moral compass IS broken.
You seek to define ALL armed conflict between unequals as terrorism, thus making the term meaningless.

You just don't get it do you? Throwing rocks is engaging in combat. Ask any caveman. It is not effective against armor, but it is combat. And it is effective against infantry, with enough numbers.
Violating a curfew, in a mob, is also combat.
Again, why is the mob out in the streets anyway?
Throwing rocks isn't getting needed supplies, or medical attention for wounded.
The Isrealis now have itchy trigger fingers, as their kindness as always been used to kill more of them.
Note to curfew violators everywhere. Don't bunch up. Get food during the non curfew hours, or by your self, unarmed.Groups of 5 or more will be shot on sight.

You are also confusing total war, like WWII and the middle east. All parties involved were declared so by their respective governments. My example of bombing factories was related to London, Berlin, Dresden, Tokio, Nagsaki, ect...
Who brough up the straw man of killing farmers as a target? When has this even happened by policy, rather than accident?
What the Nazis did to Frech resistance fighters was nasty, but they never razed whole buildings to get to resitance fighters because they didn't HAVE to. They had complete controle over the area, and had an almost completely DISARMED public. The SS, or the Gestapo never HAD to fight a pitched battle to get where they wanted to go. If they did, they would knock the whole BLOCK down, with a "dumb" bomb, rather than go in on foot.
You also completely sidesteped my point about intent. It is used to morally asess the killers, not the dead, and their loved ones.The grief of the mourners has NO relevance to the guilt or innocence of the killers.
You also showed my point about people who rely on numbers to determine right and wrong. Why should we NOT rely only on numbers?Numbers have relevance to right and wrong only to those who value truth by vote. Might makes wrong?The Loser is the one in the right?
All you did was restate my point, with bigger numbers, and a sarcastic comment. Again sidestepping the point I raised. Why are numbers more relavant to moral standing than the intents of both parties in this conflict?
Your Honor, Me and my five chums was shaking down this lone citizen and his wife at knife point, when, POW, he pulls out a gun and shoots all six of us. As four of us died, and him and his wife are alive, He must be the one in the wrong here, your honor, as there are more dead on our side than on his! Would this fly in any court you want to be part of?

The Palestinians could insist on being annexed into Isreal, become citizens, and vote themselves into power.
All it would take is patience, and some delay of gratification.This is ONE possible option, besides the deliberate choice of terrorism. They could use Ghandi like civil disobedience, and the jews would have no stomach for killing.There are more options, but they all have one thing in common. Stop KILLING..
To say that terrorism is the only option is a big fat LIE, and I expected more from you.

As to attacking ambulances, the PLA uses them to transport weapons and bombs. If you use the red cross, or cresent for military uses, you have forfitted the imunity the symbol gives you. And if you are a speeding vehicle that will not stop at a check point, you are a target.

Your New York analogy is both hysterical, and pitiful. New York is under the complete controle of the US government, (like occupied France was by the Nazis) and as such, would it be easy for the police, or ATF to go to the apartment. All quiet, and sneaky like. Then kick the door in an kill all who won't surrender. This option is not open to a house or apartment in Gaza, surounded by miles of hostile armed ememies, who would at the very least tip off the bomb makers to what's up by the raging gun battle getting closer by the minute. So much for a surprise surgical strike.
I also see that you have bought into the fallacy that if a criminal or terroist activity is take place in an inhabited area, and the cops or soldiers fight the criminal or terrorists, then all the deaths in the are are the cops, or soldiers fault.
This is contrary to western law and moral principals, where all bad results of criminal activity, accident or deliberate, (exceping criminal conduct by the police)are the criminals fault. No crime, no official intervention, no incidental problems.

BIG picture:
What the Isrealis want: To be left alone,with their holy sites open to them.(not having their gravestones used in the consruction of public tiolets would be nice too)

What the Palestinians want: No Isreal. No jews.


Since we are playing blame the victim here, what did the people in the twin towers do UBL and his ilk?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

PS, or should I say BS, I jest popped over to the link you sited.
The UN says it is all Isreals fault. Surprise surprise. The UN is the WORST example of truth by vote I can think of in the modern world.

When Sudan, a state that NOW, has slavery, and Syrria, a totalitarian state that sponsores terrorism, communist China, and it's treatment of Tibet, are all members of the UN human rights commision, and has the gall to brand the USA as the #1 human rights violatior in the world.

The UN. Was that the best apeal to authority you could come up with?

It is not possible for you, a non telepath, to know the depths of loathsome contempt I hold for the UN. A P-4 or higher would vomit if they scanned me.

Cheer up. The Middle east will be resolved in the next 15 years. All parties involved will either learn to get along, or the troublesome agressors will be killed, almost to the man.(whoever you define then to be)

[Edi]

Chrostas, seems like you're successfully using the Invincible Ignorance defense again. Instead of spewing shitty arguments out of your bunghole, why don't you take the time to study some of the principles of law in general and international law in particular, as well as some principles of secular humanist morality and then take a good long look at what you said.

There are such things as proportionality of response to the perceived offense, and anyone who hasn't got their head stuck up their ass can tell you that machinegunning a crowd of kids who throw stones is not a proportionate response, especially if the target of the stones was a fucking tank! Using water cannon would have the same effect without the fatalities, tear gas does not cause fatalities and is good for crowd control, but apparently this has escaped your notice (as well as the notice of the IDF).

Your argument about violating a curfew being engaged in combat is laughable. That particular case was people shopping for food in an area that had been turned into a market, and such activity tends to concentrate large numbers of people in one place. There is a difference between a market-going crowd and a ravening mob, but apparently you're too stupid to realize what it is. The Israelis would like you to think it was the latter, when in fact it was not.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the Palestinians do not have a state of their own because of Israeli actions, and a war need not be declared between two separate states to happen. Chechnya is not an independent state, yet the Russians and the Chechen rebels are waging war there. The IDF is waging an undeclared war on the Palestinians, but you'd like to pretend it isn't, wouldn't you?

And what's wrong with the UN report? You can't address a single one of its points, so you try for a hasty generalisation and dismissal on grounds that because some members of the UN violate human rights and are critical of the US, all of it is rotten? Can you see the flaw in that? Citing that report is not an appeal to authority, and if you can't see why, that's your loss.

In conclusion, fuck you, and may I say that your chosen title of 'Cruel' is indeed fitting.

Edi

[weemadando]

The generally accepted definition is:
“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.”

Though at a recent world forum on terrorism at my university a defintion was failed to be agreed upon. I have written a tertiary paper on the problems of defining terrorism if anyone is interested I can e-mail it to them.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

You want to talk about wall of ignorance? Why is my point about the moral difference between rock throwers, and pizza eaters NEVER adressed? It is the central point of my argument. All you do is sidestep this point, and say they they are justified in engaging in such loathsome behaviour.
The "palestinians" NEVER had a state of their own, Israel is depriving them of NOTHING. My wealth doesn't impoverish you one penny. If they worked constructivly as hard as the do destrucivly, they would be halfway to paradise by now.(build farms and factories, not bombs!)

I don't have time to address every wormy lie the UN spouts, as for every lie that is one sentance, seems to require ten paragraghs to refute.Even then, the ground shifts beneath my feet.

We see things through a different credibility filter.

It all comes down to credibilty. EVERYONE lies, now and then. The UN seems to lie whenever the votes are there. The arab press lies as a matter of policy. (the 'massacre of jenin', the jewish plot to frame the arabs for 9/11, jews use the blood of gentiles to make matsa, the US is dropping poisoned food in afghanistan, and in mine fields)As a matter of policy, I assume the arab press, like ALL totalitarian propaganda machines, is telling lies, until proven different.The US government lies, when it both serves their interest, and they feel they can get away with it. The free press catches them for the most part, so they don't lie too often, they just spin.
I will always accept the word of a country with a free press, over state controled media any day. The arabs, and the pla specificaly, have lied too much for me to believe. The same with the UN.
The arab halve less credibility than the UN, and that is a negative number.


Big picture: I will never convince you of my point, no matter what I say, because we are both looking at the same thing, and seeing different things.

UGLY TRUTH:
After we clobber Iraq, and Iran falls from within, the pla will no longer have any outside help, using their arab"brothers", as cannon fodder in a hopeless proxy war. The REAL villains here, are the saudis, syrrians, iranians, and iraqi. The palestinians are hopelessly duped into a futile conflict they can never win, by outsiders ready to fight to the last soldier, provided it isn't one of their own! (the cowardly saudis are the worst, with the ambitious syrrians closely behind)

They have been fed a diet of lies and hate, for a generation now, by outsiders, telling them (the palestinians)what they want to hear, (that they can get rid of the jews by force of arms)and blaming the condition they are in, (who's fault is the very people who are "helping" them)on an outside party! The CLASSIC tactic of ALL totalitarian states.(it's the JEWS fault you are miserable! Don't look to US, your leaders)It is never your own fault, or the ruler's fault, in ANY totalitarian state.

The palestinians are truly victims here, but I long ago lost any sympathy with them, from their CHOICE of tactics. You are what you do. If you act in an inhumane manner, you lose you humanity. (And you lose the sympathy of those willing to call evil acts evil.) If enough inhuman things are done to you, you also will lose your humanity. This is happening to the jews.

Assuming, that tomorrow, all the jews in the world, were transported to counter earth, (you know the one on the other side of the sun, where everything is the same as here on earth, except all the men have pencil thin mustaches)and took all their possetions and buildings with them, leaving the world with no jews. The arab could then move back to "their" land, pristine and empty. How long would it take for them to fuck up this wet dream of theirs, with incompetant, corrupt, socialist, islamic ideas? (Leaving them as poor, and backward as ever, with no jews to blame?)
Who then would they blame for their self inflicted miserable poverty?

[Edi]

You want to discuss moral difference between rock throwers and pizza eaters? Let's discuss it then. There is no difference. Not when the rock throwers are being machinegunned from inside a tank. Bombing a pizzeria with civilians in it is immoral. So is shooting rockthrowing kids when you're sitting in a tank. But what if you gave the Palestinians real weapons that made it possible to fight the Israelis with a realistic chance of inflicting damage? I think you'd see an increase in strikes against military targets (such as checkpoints) and less against civilian targets. And settlements inside the occupied territories are not civilian targets.

The "palestinians" NEVER had a state of their own, Israel is depriving them of NOTHING. My wealth doesn't impoverish you one penny. If they worked constructivly as hard as the do destrucivly, they would be halfway to paradise by now.(build farms and factories, not bombs!)

Red herring and wall of ignorance. True, the Palestinians never had a state of their own, but they did live on the land Israelis took from them by force and with no compensation, so the wealth of the Israelis directly impoverishes the Palestinians in this case. And in case you haven't noticed, Israel has been systematically destroying Palestinian infrastructure every time they manage to actually build something.

You speak about UN lies, but can you back that up with evidence? You made the claim so it's up to you to provide it. And are you really so taken by propaganda that you think that an organization made up of 190+ countries is controlled by a handful of Arab states (about 20 if you count every stamp-sized emirate, a dozen otherwise), especially when the US and its allies have veto power in the Security Council? That's pathetic.

What do you mean the UN lies every time the votes are there? Do you mean that they always lie about things when there is a vote on anything? Do you know how ridiculous that claim is?

And the Israeli press is always telling the truth too? The Israeli propaganda machine is as prolific a liar as the Arab press, with the difference that while the Arab påress usually panders to domestic markets, the Israeli propaganda is aimed outside. And having a free press is by no means guarantee that all of the truth gets out, as is demonstrated in the US press. The coverage of the Israel-Palestine situation is very different here in Finland, and a lot more balanced. We get to see both sides of the issue, and both sides lie when it suits them, it's just that the Israeli lies are often more blatant. Too often they are also accepted at face vbalue because they are good at it.

BTW, you might want to take a look at Mike's essay on Middle East (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantM ... East.shtml)
and the mailbag response to it (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantM ... lbag.shtml). See also the topic titled Mike's Middle East Essay further down on this forum. Those might open your eyes a bit.

And in this case, it actually is the fault of the Israeli Jews that the Palestinians are so miserable. Arguing otherwise is closing your eyes to at least half of the truth. The neighboring Arab states are hardly blameless, but that does not reduce Israel's fault one iota.

And let's assume a hypothetical situation where there was no Israel and the Palestinians got theír land back and everything. Could be they'd fuck it up in short order, but at least it would be their own doing, as opposed to the current situation where it is Israel's doing.

Edi[/i]

[jegs2]

One can easily point to a US bomber inadvertantly dropping bombs on civilians and call that terrorism. The pilot and the operations center do not target civilians. However, someone is held accountable for such acts in a military forum, be it an administrative hearing or a court martial, both subject to the UCMJ. Since such forums are not always publicy held (nor their results), a false perception of injustice may be felt in the public.

A terrorist meticulously and purposefully targets civilians and non-combatants IOT achieve shock effect for their cause. If the same act is carried out against military forces, that act is not terrorism. I submit that the attacks against both the Marines in Beruit and the soldiers in Saudi Arabia were not acts of terrorism but were instead attacks on military targets.

A terrorist (unlike a member of the US military) does not answer to a higher authority (at least in this life) for targeting and neutralizing civilians and non-combatants. Indeed the ultimate target of a terrorist act is not that which is engaged by bombs, bullets or otherwise. The ultimate target of a terrorist act is the public via the news media. Note that since the fall of the WTC, people in the US feel less secure and their economy has been damaged. Those were the intended targets.

[Zoink]

Funny, I always though that terrorism was the deliberate targeting of innocent (Non combatant)victims, to produce terror, for a political goal.

Such as gunning down children for throwing rocks?

No, not like a kid throwing rocks. A kid throwing rocks is a combatant. The kid made a conscious decision to enter armed conflict with Israeli soldiers.

[Darth Wong]

No, not like a kid throwing rocks. A kid throwing rocks is a combatant. The kid made a conscious decision to enter armed conflict with Israeli soldiers.

You honestly don't realize how this makes you sound, do you? A child with a rock in his hands is considered an "armed" combatant in your eyes, and perfectly fair game for a tank crew with a machine gun? And the shoppers who were machine-gunned for breaking curfew so they could stock up on their depleted food supplies at the local market? They were combatants too? They were armed with fruit and vegetables, which could easily be thrown at the tank too, right? After all, a pickle or a watermelon could really sting if it hits you right in the eye, so I guess that was self-defense too. Is a 10 year old kid with a rock in his hand really an "armed combatant"? You're on pretty fucking thin ice there, pal. You obviously want to classify all victims of Israeli terror as "combatants", regardless of whether they are adults or children, armed or unarmed (and no, a rock is hardly an effective military weapon), so you won't have to admit that the Israelis target civilians just as much as the Palestinians do (only in greater numbers, and with better weapons).

Get real, people. Anyone who believes Israel has killed or disabled more than 1500 children through pure accident is either hopelessly gullible or an Israeli himself. Anyone who thinks a kid with a rock is an armed combatant is selling party-line bullshit. Anyone who thinks a bunch of unarmed shoppers are fair game for machinegun fire if they break curfew is a fascist sociopath, plain and simple. After all is said and done, the dividing line between what you call legitimate military action and "terrorism" is not whether civilians are deliberately targeted (the refusal to acknowledge the wrongdoing of firing on kids "armed" with rocks, unarmed shoppers, ambulances, and paramedics is proof of that). It is whether death comes from military weapons or unconventional weapons.

When the US bombed Tokyo in WW2, was it aiming for industrial plants? No, it deliberately spread incendiary destruction over residential neighbourhoods, with a payload expressly designed to cause maximum destruction to residential housing. When the US bombed Hiroshima, was it aiming for industrial plants? Hardly; the vast majority of the casualties were civilian, and there reaches a point where the ratio of "collateral damage" to strategic impact is so high that one cannot seriously defend it as anything other than a terror attack. The only difference between these kinds of attacks and "terrorism" is that while both deliberately target civilians, the former uses heavy weapons while the latter does not. Pretty small distinction to hang a "moral compass" on.

When the Israelis destroy thousands of homes, kill hundreds of children, blow up more than 100 ambulances, attack hundreds of hospitals, etc. and claim either self-defense or "accident" in 100% of those cases, they do so because there are so many people out there like you, who are willing to eat up their preposterous excuses.

[Martin Blank]

Something that seems to be missed here is that often, the rock-throwing kids are the ones who are hit because they're in the open when snipers who are behind open fire. The vast majority of those civilians who have been wounded/killed are hit by rifle fire, not machine guns from tanks, which are, even in the IDF, generally reserved for use on verified military targets.

Does this excuse the deaths? No. I was as troubled as anyone that Ariel Sharon made it to the post of PM, simply because he's rather single-minded and bloodthirsty. It comes down, in many cases though, to training issues for the troops who are returning fire. You have a group of highly-trained, well-armed teenagers for the most part, many of whom have never seen combat. When bullets are whizzing by someone from an unknown source, it's not entirely unreasonable (in my mind, anyway) that this person would return fire while running for cover. Innocents can and are hit in such cases.

A few cases investigated by outside groups have found evidence that Palestinians hiding in buildings behind Israeli troops may have opened fire on their own, and possession of M-16 rifles by some Palestinians has been noted before. Examinations of and bullet recoveries from the bodies would then point to Israeli culpability.

In addition, remember the events of Jenin not long ago. Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan decried the alleged "massacre" of 300 or more Palestinians while the Israeli government admitted to only 40-50, almost all of them armed militants. When investigators finally did get to go in -- after having been blocked by the Palestinians themselves -- they discovered that it had been the Israelis who were telling the truth.

Finally, it seems to have been missed by many of the major media outlets that a truck bomb with 1300 pounds of explosives was intercepted on a route leading to Israeli territory -- a bomb that would have killed dozens, perhaps hundreds of people.

Every news source has their angle. Some go for the "poor, struggling Palestinians under seige" angle, while others look at the "righteous Israelis protecting their homeland". You can't take your news from one source, and often have to piece it together from several. Many of these cases involve a very fuzzy moral line, and depictions here of Israeli troops simply driving tanks up to crowds and opening fire are far from the truth. Israel's armed forces are amongst the most professional and well-trained in the world, and are far from blood-thirsty, but they do make mistakes.

One last note: I don't agree with many of the policies of the Sharon administration. I think it's fairly clear to those who closely follow the events that he is being strongly held back from what he wants to do by Shimon Peres. The succession of leadership since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin has failed to produce meaningful movement in peace talks, and this includes Ehud Barak, who was seen as weak by the Palestinians, which is why they pressed their claims for more than he was willing to offer, which was already something like 97% of the demands Arafat had made.

With Arafat and Sharon in power, I honestly don't think that either side is going to be willing to change policies substantially enough to allow peace, and it is this intransigence which encourages the acts of terrorism on the part of Palestinian groups and the defiance of law and common sense by people like the Jewish settlers who refuse to move from Palestinian territory which only further infuriate the Palestinians, which results in attacks, resulting in further incursions, and the cycle continues until one side is willing to simply stop. Whether one side will be willing to is the question.