I was referring to the fact that palestinians lived there for two thousand years before jewish immigrants began flooding in this century. 1948 was a reaction to this. papering over the facts on this is not going to make it “right.”
On the Israeli/Palestine conflict, I reiterate, Mr D: its not Jews stealing Arab land. Its land where Jew and Arab lived without a state architecture. If you build a state(s) there, then either one state for all or one each, but no one can seriously argue that the other should not have state representation.
The fact is, the Japanese did NOT clamor for peace immediately after the first bomb was dropped.
As for the theoretical “What is Terrorism” discussion, I feel that has crystallised. I guess we cannot agree on a strict definition (nor can the UN), but I feel I am a lot closer to one than before this thread started!
You can put blinkers over your eyes if you want. I prefer to look at things as they are.[/quote]
Funny that you would post such a statement when you have stated that the refugee’s perspective should be honored as valid.
Yet, you now seem content to insist that there is only one way to look at the issue.
Incorrect. These groups thrive on this issue. Without it, they probably could not exist and would definitely have nothing like the support that they do now.
[quote=“daltongang”][quote=“tigerman”]
First, leave it to the UN to report history in a less than comprehensive manner. No mention above that the War of 1948 was initiated by the Arab states and that Israel’s taking of land was an attempt to create buffer zones.
[/quote]
I was referring to the fact that palestinians lived there for two thousand years before jewish immigrants began flooding in this century. 1948 was a reaction to this. papering over the facts on this is not going to make it “right.”[/quote]
I’m not “papering over” the facts any more than you are refusing to see the other side of the story. If you want to go back and argue title, then the Jews have a prior right to Israel over the Palestinian claim.
I prefer not to employ that argument, as it would mean than nearly all of us are occupying somebody else’s land.
There have always been jews in Israel, or at least they have been there for as long a time as have been the Palestinians.
[quote]you now seem content to insist that there is only one way to look at the issue.
[/quote]
As I said originally, there are many ways of looking at a question. However, all of them involve the full unfettered use of your natural capabilities.
I have to agree with Mr T. on this one. The original premise for al Qaeda was to remove US troops from Saudi soil. The Isreal/Palestine conflict was not often mentioned in their propoganda until much more recently. It is a secondary issue for them.
BTW, as I mentioned on another thread, Thomas Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem” is a fascinating book. Balanced. Full of amusing anecdotes, too.
Exactly! This why terrorist acts committed by the US continue. I wonder how many civilians died in the August 20, 1998, cruise missle attack against a chemical plant in Sudan? Oh well, they could have been producing weapons of mass destruction say the apologists!
Incorrect. These groups thrive on this issue. Without it, they probably could not exist and would definitely have nothing like the support that they do now.[/quote]
Of course Al Qaeda will attempt to enlist other enemies of the US… what is the old saying? “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”.
That however, does not mean that OBL’s goals are linked to the goals of the Palestinians or Arab states. It means merely that OBL has with the Pals a common enemy.
There is a distinction.
Exactly! This why terrorist acts committed by the US continue. I wonder how many civilians died in the August 28, 1998, cruise missle attack against a chemical plant in Sudan? Oh well, they could have been producing weapons of mass destruction say the apologists![/quote]
Blame the idiot Clinton for that.
Mr T is right on the occupation issue and the legal difficulties. Were not areas of Palestine settled and “ruled” by Jews from 1000 BC to 500BC? The usual Arab responseis: “Yeah, but they left and did not return until the C20. They did not exercise their claim for so long that it is invalid.” But, even so, no one claims the Jews were never there before the 1930s.
Direct attack, perceived military target. IMO, this fails the terrorism test.
There were Jews in Palestine in significant numbers as early as the 14th Century under Ottoman rule.
Quite right Mr. T. This just strengthens the point that its inappropriate to think of Jews stealing Arab land or Arabs stealing Jewish land. Pragmatism demands there be two states: Palestine and Israel. Arafat muffed the chance to get his, when he turned down Barak/Clinton.
Direct attack, perceived military target. IMO, this fails the terrorism test.[/quote]
They intentionally target a civilian chemical factory, destroying the complex and murdering the workers inside and you claim it fails the test of terrorism. I’m sure the families of the victims find that comforting! 
Direct attack, perceived military target. IMO, this fails the terrorism test.[/quote]
They intentionally target a civilian chemical factory, destroying the complex and murdering the workers inside and you claim it fails the test of terrorism. I’m sure the families of the victims find that comforting! [/quote]
I think iybf means that the factory, while intentionally targeted, was mistakenly believed to be a military facility, or a civilian facility producing military hardware, thus making it a military target.
An attack, to be labelled a “terrorist” attack, must be made intentionally on a civilian target with no military value.
If they believe the factory was making materials to construct chemical weapons, it is a military target. A direct attack on this target is designed to nullify that particular threat, not to generate terror. If it turns out later that they were mistaken, this does not make it a terrorist attack. It makes it a mistake. Terrorism must be defined by intentions not outcomes.