Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jimbob · 07-15-2006, 05:06 AM

First, I feel it should be pointed out that the quoted article, as so often in middle east discussions, withholds facts to make its point. It claims "brazen kidnapping of Israeli soldiers...[by terrorists]...can't be disguised as part of any historical pattern of attack and revenge". However, 2 Palestinian men were abducted the day before Gilad Shalit. It's likely that both abductions were planned in advance but this was far from being the first abduction of a Palestinian, many of whom are held without trial, the release of whom was called for by civillian and militant groups before the recent kidnappings. Those calls, of course, were ignored. So the militants' actions do fit exactly with the "historical pattern of attack and revenge." It is Israel that upped the ante.

Israel abducts Palestinians the day before Shilat is taken
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24569004.htm

I'm very uneasy about The_Jazz's desire to restrict the terrorism label to only non-military, non-state or unorganised groups. Terrorism is seen as far more evil than mere acts of war, so such a definition would play down actions which those on the receiving end would almost certainly feel were terrorism, relabelling them simply "war" (or possibly war crimes if they're really bad). I would consider any action that was intended to have a physchological effect a civilian population (to leave them in terror of the next attack perhaps) to be terrorism, whether the perpetrator wore a uniform and knew where his orders should come from or not.

For example, Shock and Awe (I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already) was clearly an act of terrorism, and to treat it as such helps us understand actions stemming from it. The Iraqis didn't know if the targets were civilian or military, didn't know when it would stop, didn't know if they would live or die. That's enough to terrify anyone.

'The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.'
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...911596206.html

Of course, you could argue that one massive bombardment could make the war quicker and eventually save lives. I wonder if the Palestinians could adopt the same tactics and use the same argument? Perhaps it just comes down to racism.

07-15-2006, 05:06 AM	#16 (permalink)
jimbob Crazy Location: Liverpool UK	First, I feel it should be pointed out that the quoted article, as so often in middle east discussions, withholds facts to make its point. It claims "brazen kidnapping of Israeli soldiers...[by terrorists]...can't be disguised as part of any historical pattern of attack and revenge". However, 2 Palestinian men were abducted the day before Gilad Shalit. It's likely that both abductions were planned in advance but this was far from being the first abduction of a Palestinian, many of whom are held without trial, the release of whom was called for by civillian and militant groups before the recent kidnappings. Those calls, of course, were ignored. So the militants' actions do fit exactly with the "historical pattern of attack and revenge." It is Israel that upped the ante. Israel abducts Palestinians the day before Shilat is taken http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24569004.htm I'm very uneasy about The_Jazz's desire to restrict the terrorism label to only non-military, non-state or unorganised groups. Terrorism is seen as far more evil than mere acts of war, so such a definition would play down actions which those on the receiving end would almost certainly feel were terrorism, relabelling them simply "war" (or possibly war crimes if they're really bad). I would consider any action that was intended to have a physchological effect a civilian population (to leave them in terror of the next attack perhaps) to be terrorism, whether the perpetrator wore a uniform and knew where his orders should come from or not. For example, Shock and Awe (I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already) was clearly an act of terrorism, and to treat it as such helps us understand actions stemming from it. The Iraqis didn't know if the targets were civilian or military, didn't know when it would stop, didn't know if they would live or die. That's enough to terrify anyone. 'The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.' http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...911596206.html Of course, you could argue that one massive bombardment could make the war quicker and eventually save lives. I wonder if the Palestinians could adopt the same tactics and use the same argument? Perhaps it just comes down to racism.