Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Indeedy, and it's worth talking about. But if we're gonna use the word, why don't we use it properly? Using a word as baggage-laden as "terrorism" incorrectly makes it even harder to have the discussion you've mentioned.

"Proper" use of a word is the one that most people understand. And I think most people think 9/11 when they hear terrorism, and even if you regard this attack as an immoral crime, this is really not the same thing, at all.
I mean I just watched Vietnam and Ken Burns didn't call the Viet Cong terrorists, even though by the dictionary definition of the word they most certainly used that tactic.

I think framing the conversation in a way that paints an accurate picture what is actually going on is a bit more important than reclaiming the word terrorism.

And what's going on in the west bank is an asymmetrical violent conflict, sadly, like most conflicts, it's kids who pay the highest price.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think framing the conversation in a way that paints an accurate picture what is actually going on is a bit more important than reclaiming the word terrorism.

Do you think using the word "terrorism" does "paint an accurate picture of what's actually going on" where there's so much disparity in the definition between the people using it?

Re: the military use of it, I guess it depends on who you're using it against. Some people describe "shock and awe" as an example of terrorism, since it was clearly intended to scare the crap out of the OpFor. For those forces were members of the Iraqi military, not civilians, and so the goal wasn't really to alter the way people went about their life - other than the soldiers they were fighting, naturally.

My point was really just that saying "It's not terrorism because the Israeli's shouldn't be there" belies a total ignorance of what the word means, even if "the Israeli's shouldn't be there" is accurate in and of itself.

 

[JustSomeone]

I'll just say that the words of the policeman from the article in the OP are probably translated from Hebrew.
And if that's the case, the world he most likel used is מחבל , which can be more accurately translated as a saboteur. For some reason it is always translated to terrorist in English, but it's not neccessarily the original word he has been using.
The Israeli media mainly uses this term, rather then terrorist when describing those people.

 

[TheContact]

You somehow think that convention has any sway here, especially regarding the actions of the isralie government ?

So if your government did something wrong to someone in your life, and someone went and killed you and your family for it, it would be justified for you then?

 

[Dr.Phibes]

This has been an armed conflict for over a century.

By some definitions, absolutely. Legally speaking it's a bit more difficult due to the contested statehood of Palestine.

 

[Chichikov]

I'll just say that the words of the policeman from the article in the OP are probably translated from Hebrew.
And if that's the case, the world he most likel used is מחבל , which can be more accurately translated as a saboteur. For some reason it is always translated to terrorist in English, but it's not neccessarily the original word he has been using.
The Israeli media mainly uses this term, rather then terrorist when describing those people.

Nah, מחבל is for all intents and purposes a terrorist in Hebrew, those terms are used interchangeably in speech and Israeli politicians, writers and diplomats translate מחבל to terrorist when using English.

The reason why why this word came about is because back in the day the Hebrew language academy had a dumb aversion to words that has foriegn origin.

 

[necrosis]

He's a vile murderer and a horrible killer.
I'll agree with you he's a terrorist when you agree killing hundreds of children and grabbing land from people illegally means the Israeli government is also run by terrorists.

likud can trace its ancestry back to the irgun, which was a terrorist organization, so yes, the israeli government is absolutely ran by terrorists

 

[Javier23]

Whether it's the IRA making people fear going into pubs in London, Palestinians killing Israeli's in settlements or ETA blowing up trains in Spain

What the fuck, dude. It's 2017. Even conspiracy nuts, and not just political pundits, already stopped propagating the idea that ETA bombed any trains back in 2004. It got fucking boring ages ago. Stop shitting on our victims.

Also, get off your high horse. There's no universally agreed on definition of terrorism and you're most definitely not gonna find it or enlighten us about it on GAF of all places. Christ.

 

[Dr.Phibes]

What the fuck, dude. It's 2017. Even conspiracy nuts, and not just political pundits, already stopped propagating the idea that ETA bombed any trains back in 2004. It got fucking boring ages ago. Stop shitting on our victims.

Also, get off your high horse. There's no universally agreed on definition of terrorism and you're most definitely not gonna find it or enlighten us about it on GAF of all places. Christ.

Wait, people actually believe that 11.03. was some kinda ETA conspiracy?

 

[Aureon]

If he aimed at killing civilians he's a terrorist.

I'd argue people willingly occupying enemy territory are not civilians, though.
A man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There's no objective answer in that quandary.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Yeah, nobody lived in Palestine except Arabs for all of human history until those thieving Jews suddenly appeared out of thin air in 1948 and stole their land.

I'm pretty sure it had an overwhelming arab majority there for over 800 years.

I guess I'm as much an african as the next person since it's where my ancestors came from

So if your government did something wrong to someone in your life, and someone went and killed you and your family for it, it would be justified for you then?

I sure as hell wouldn't like that but I'm not going to pretend that I live in a vacuum or that I'm not complicit even though I was born into the system

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Why do you need me to agree on your statement in order for you to realize he's a terrorist? He did a fucking awful thing, that makes him a terrorist.

That's not what defines terrorism. A serial killer on the loose, for example, isn't automatically a terrorist, nor is someone who kills their significant other's lover in a fit of rage.

Now, I'm not saying this killer isn't a terrorist for sure, because I don't yet know his motivations. It's reasonable to consider if he killed because the settlers were on stolen land, but not reasonable to conclude that either at this point.

I don't think it can be known at this juncture if he is a terrorist. And I do agree that Israel's illegal settlements change the context of the violence, while absolutely condemning it nonetheless.

 

[TarNaru33]

You know who else are landgrabbing provocateurs who want to destroy any chance of an independent Middle East and are hardcore racists who think of Arabs as dogs? Americans.

Does America deserve to be attacked by terrorists like on 9/11?

Literally everything in this sentence is wrong. U.S isn't "landgrabbing", nor does it want to destroy a stable Middle-East. I think some of you are so idiotically confused on U.S's goal for the Middle-East and why it is so unstable. While U.S's meddling in the Middle-East hasn't been good, it would not be a stable region devoid of conflict even if U.S did stay out of it.

Middle-East has been unstable for a long time and an unstable Middle-East hurts the world economy which is why so many want influence over the area. Once their oil becomes less relevant, it will likely be left to its own devices and hopefully they get their shit together by that time.

Because words have meaning. Illegal settlements have a meaning, occupations have meaning, and terrorism does too. Based on your kind of thinking, everyone who commits murder inside an illegally occupied territory is automatically a terorrist. Terrorist are people who go after civilians for political ends. What political end was this man trying to achieve. And has it been confirmed any of the people killed were civilians.

Just no, this guy is a terrorist regardless of the Israeli policy. He wasn't able to get to civilians because the security at the gate stopped him before he could get in.

So the US military is a terrorist organization, then? 'Cause, I mean, killing and terrorizing people, kind of our MO.

And honestly, if we're talking about the illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, then this doesn't sound like murder. Sounds like rebellion against a conquering nation. We had a thread not too long ago about a statue to Nat Turner that seems like a pretty apt comparison here. Or the classic "contractors on the second Death Star" debate.

Yes, because U.S targets civilians for terror into bringing the country to its knees. Where do you people get this stuff from?

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I'm still waiting for an answer on the statute of limitations for when it's no longer okay for people to violently retake "stolen land."

Stop scare quoting. Regardless of this particular story's details, the land containing illegal settlements IS stolen land.

 

[nOoblet16]

Yes, because U.S targets civilians for terror into bringing the country to its knees. Where do you people get this stuff from?

It's not really news tbh.
US has been doing proxy wars for ages, where civilians get killed and sometimes even targeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition

Enabling people to do something, while knowing what they are going to do and capable of doing...is just as bad as doing it first hand imo.
Because they know better and can do better.

 

[TarNaru33]

It's not really news tbh.
US has been doing proxy wars for ages, where civilians get killed and sometimes even targeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition

You quoted me and responded with links to operations U.S used to fund opposition groups to the regime. Has nothing to do with what I said. That is not U.S targeting civilians for terror. It is not even close to U.S funding groups in hopes they kill civilians either as those rebel forces mainly went after the Soviet and Afghan forces.

Enabling people to do something, while knowing what they are going to do and capable of doing...is just as bad as doing it first hand imo.
Because they know better and can do better.

This edit still does not do any better as those organizations weren't targeting civilians and U.S's desire to keep weapons from the extremist elements of those rebel groups is part of the reason why many of them left the moderate position.

Sorry, but no, neither of those examples are correct as U.S was seriously trying to control the flow of it's arms. If you want to blame people for that, you should be looking at the Saudis and Qatar who just handed weapons to anyone who said they would fight Assad.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Wait, people actually believe that 11.03. was some kinda ETA conspiracy?

People believe many things, including that it was a ploy to get PSOE into power. We have to thank Jiménez Los Santos and other rightwing nuts for that one.

About this, this will only spur more violence from the IDF, like always. Fucking apalling situation.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I answered your question. Even if they are 100% complicit they don't deserve to be murdered.
This goes for private security guards employed by illegal settlements as well as Hamas operatives.

And regarding my other remark: I'm sorry I came off as overly agressive (I can see why you would think that). I'm just genuinely interested because you don't see many people openly supporting communism/leninism on here.

A thought exercise: an armed Palestinian broaches the borders of an illegal settlement but does not attack. An Israeli settler occupying that stolen land shoots at the Palestinian with intent to kill. The Palestinian returns fire, killing the settler.

Is the Palestinian's actions murder, or self-defense?

(I'm asking to prompt discussion. In this scenario I see it as self-defense, but I'm interested in other viewpoints.)

 

[TarNaru33]

A thought exercise: an armed Palestinian broaches the borders of an illegal settlement but does not attack. An Israeli settler occupying that stolen land shoots at the Palestinian with intent to kill. The Palestinian returns fire, killing the settler.

Is the Palestinian's actions murder, or self-defense?

(I'm asking to prompt discussion. In this scenario I see it as self-defense, but I'm interested in other viewpoints.)

Why the hypothetical at all? I swear, when Israel becomes involved in anything, many on GAF get irrational.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Why the hypothetical at all? I swear, when Israel becomes involved in anything, many on GAF get irrational.

To make it clear that I'm not speaking specifically about this situation. It's a thought prompted by comments upthread regarding armed settlers shooting at Palestinians.

 

[Kolx]

I love how it took like three posts for someone to start suggesting Israelis deserve to get murdered because of some propaganda you read about on the internet.

All these propaganda machines... like the UN. Oh how bad and biased they're against the kind innocent non-hamrful government of Israel.

 

[MisterFalcon]

All these propaganda machines... like the UN. Oh how bad and biased they're against the kind innocent non-hamrful government of Israel.

Twenty UNGA resolutions about Israel in 2016 and three about Syria just shows that Israel is more then six times worse at human rights abuses.

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/71/l.8&referer=/english/&Lang=E

Look at this list of fine, upstanding countries who filed the resolution

Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zimbabwe and State of Palestine: draft resolution

Having considered the item entitled ”The situation in the Middle East",

Missing the whole Syria civil war entirely

Expressing grave concern over the halt in the peace process on the Syrian
track, and expressing the hope that peace talks will soon resume from the point they
had reached,\

Note that this is not about that civil war.

Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan
and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a
just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;

If only Israel would leave the Golan, Syria would be at peace.