 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
I do think that it would use it much more mercilessly, thus still being *******s. They can avoid attacking civilian targets even now, with their current equipment.
|
And do what exactly?
quote:
I mean, Just imagine Hamas laying their hand on a couple of Howitzers... don't you think they'll use them to shell a village, as "retaliation" for "zionist crimes" ( even when all people killed are combatants, as was shown when their training compound was targetted and no innocent bystanders were killed. |
"A couple of howlitzers" does not equal a real military- yes, if they got "a couple of howlitzers" they could make them effecitve only by doing something like you described before they were taken out. I am talking real military parity.
quote:
You don't see Israel using it's MLRS or even airforce, really. |
Israel did use its airforce extensively, in bombing PA installations. MOst assasinations are by helicopter, which is an aircraft- if part of the Army, not airforce. Israelis don;t have to use MLRS, and in this situation it would not be particularly effective.
That's the point- the strong can be magananimous- the weak can't.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
And do what exactly? |
Attack rear army bases with small squads, for example. This is very feasible, yet they never do it. There are softer targets, I guess. 
quote:
Israel did use its airforce extensively, in bombing PA installations. MOst assasinations are by helicopter, which is an aircraft- if part of the Army, not airforce. Israelis don;t have to use MLRS, and in this situation it would not be particularly effective.
That's the point- the strong can be magananimous- the weak can't. |
Israel did NOT use it's airforce extensively, of course. It often didn't use it when it should've. ( Like in Jenin, letting more than a dozen of our soldiers die in the process. )
And as I've shown, the "weak" can attack softer military targets, and sometimes even manage to get of their asses and attack regular military targets. They can do this. There are simply easier targets, the civilians.
On a side note, helicopters are part of the airforce in Israel.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
OMG! An actual arguement posted by DD!  I thought those days were past!
States have essentially gotten together and writen the rules about what is acceptable violence and what is not- of course, they wrote it in a way to legitimize where they are strong, and criminilize forms of violence that skirt their strenghts. As technology has improved, the rules get rewriten- the massive bombardment of a city without regards to civilian casualties has gone the way of burning down the city, killing all the males and enslaving everyone else, which once was totally permitted behavior.
Any arguement about Terrorism needs to keep in mind that fact- that is not a judgement, but simply a recitation of reality.
what we call terrorism is political violence by the weak- if Hamas had Tanks, Apaches, F-16 and divisions, they could afford to fight like the Israelis- they could even afford to play by the rules. Of course, they lack all of those things, and having chosen violence as their method for political change, well, that does not leave them much but to act in ways that have been designed as criminal.
As for their aims, and the notion that all "terrorist" groups are totalitarian in nature- a judgement of the avenues open does not equal a judgement of their aim. Obviously nationalist organizations want very different aims from religiously motivated ones.
The question is, can people trully achieve anything in a non-violent manner, or in a violent manner that seeks to play by the state writen rules? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism.../>
orism%20sinc
1,032 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv...-+1920-1999.htm
From 1920 through 1999, a total of 2,580 residents of Mandatory Palestine and, since 1948, the State of Israel fell victims to hostile enemy action; in most cases, terrorist attacks.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism...+the+DOP+-S.htm
No Israelis were killed by terrorism in the 9 months from Dec 1999 to Sep 2000.
That's a grand total of 3612 Israeli civilians killed by terrorism.
http://www.palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm
Total number of Palestinian deaths & injuries in West Bank & Gaza since Sept 29th, 2000 is 3,222 deaths, 27,484 injuries.
This link has higher numbers but there are some interesting breakdowns of those deaths.
http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/ReportOct182k4.html
That's all I can find right now. Notice, however, that Israel has killed in four years what it took the Palestinians 84 four years to do to the Israelis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call bullshit.  Though thier rehetoric is almost always couched with such niceties as a desire for freedom and a battle for human rights, there is a built in contradiction between the professed goal and the method chosen to implement them. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the methods reveal a totalitarian strain that runs through all terrorist groups today. |
No, what you do is post bullshit.
There is no contradiction here at all, at least not in the way that logicians understand the term. Apparently you have something else in mind - God knows what.
Virtually every war that is fought for human rights ends up violating them by killing civilians, either accidentally, intentionally, or as collateral damage. That implies no contradiction on the part of the actors whose aim is to minimize future human rights violations. Sometimes allowing for a lesser number of rights violations is the best way to achieve this goal. There's no contradiction because wars for human rights are fought in accordance with an implicit maximizing principle.
And don't bother with "the end doesn't justify the means" because, as everyone who knows anything knows, only an end justifies a means.
As for the totalitarian stuff. Prove it, instead of making such silly claims.
It's lucky for you that you rarely post an argument, since you tend to get smacked down so badly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2004 22:27
|