| Author | Message | ||
     tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4647 Registered: 12-2001  |
I don't think that Dave has "out-tulipped Tulip". My interpretation of Dave's comments is that he is reacting to: 1. The notion that all Muslims are monsters and 2. The notion that Israel is somehow as innocent as a little girl raped by a pedophile. Both notions are wrong and have no role in the solutions to any problems in the Middle East. Equally wrong is the assumption that because a person rejects notions 1 and 2 that they are somehow appeasers. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 866 Registered: 1-2006 |
So, Tulip, Pres. Bush is Darth Vader? He does have twins, so, you might be correct. jd | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12358 Registered: 5-2001 |
As long as we are going to start posting atrocities, here is a good one. The article is fair and balanced as those of us at Fox News like to say and based on research by a Zionist Israeli scholar. http://www.deiryassin.org/faq.html To be honest some of the "fighters" in the early days of Israel and during the mandate were probably insane and should have been locked up in the loony bin. If I was Joel, which thank God (Yahweh, Allah) I am not, I would take these acts by madmen and spread them over the entire Jewish community. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2670 Registered: 3-2003 |
"A phone call absolves you from putting bombs in a crowded building?" An adequate warning absolutely absolves you of targeting non-combatants, which is what you keep wishing to equate the King David bombing to. No one ever said the King David bombing wasn't an act of guerilla insurgency, but we all tend to consider insurgencies legitimate (certainly that one was) and terrorism a violation of the rules of war. You either confuse the two deliberately, as a means of justifying Arab terrorism, or you're being lazy. You and BobK (and the Ur-Tulip) are not interested in teasing apart history or its contexts, you are only interested in cramming your accumulated sound-bite newspaper knowledge into a truly dumb master sound-bite of moral equivalency. This is far stupider than anything you think Joel is implying. You know, in another situation--one in which his interlocutors were better educated and not so supremely gullible as you are--I would deplore some of Joel's posts. I might find them trivial or needlessly provocative; we all know the majority of the world's Muslims would like to live in peace. But you guys--and you in particular, Dave--damn well need to see and take seriously the material he shows you because you have been so completely indoctrinated with equivalency spin that you rarely make reasoned assessments. Of course it probably can't matter; your mindset is unchangeable. BobK: Yes, everyone knows about Deir Yassin, a genuine act of Zionist terrorism. What you evidently do not know is that a) the massacre at Deir Yassin was in part an act of revenge for numerous Arab attacks that Jews had not responded to, either for fear of turning European decision-makers against proponents of the Jewish state, or because Jews were actively prevented from counterattacking by the British who, in their capacity as the mandatory authority, also deliberately refrained from intervening between Arabs committing massacres and atocities against Jews; and b) the Arabs promptly had their revenge for Deir Yassin at Kfar Etzion: As the end of the British Mandate drew closer, the fighting in the region intensified. ... Starting early in May [1948], the Arab Legion together with thousands of irregulars who were mostly local Arab villagers began a series of massive assaults on the Etzion settlements. Haganah command in Jerusalem was unable to provide any useful assistance. On May 12, the final assault on Kfar Etzion began with overwhelming force. The Legion had armored cars and artillery, to which the Jewish defenders had no effective answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1828 Registered: 10-2004  |
No, it doesnt. It is better then intentionally harming innocents but it is still heinous. Terrorist: I am calling to warn you that there is a bomb in your hotel. You have 20 minutes to evacutate. Hotel Clerk: Thank you sir, I will notify the staff. Will there be anything else? There is no right and wrong party in this mess. Both parties are guilty of acts that can be considered atrocities. Perhaps there is some master scale out there with all the arab atrocities on one side and all the Israeli atrocities on the other that shows there to be a far heavier weight on the arab side. That still cant make counter atrocity right. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12360 Registered: 5-2001 |
JC, so you attack a village that had essentially negotiated a truce with the Haganah is done in retaliation? I don't know what you call it, but it ain't retaliation. If one of the villages that had attacked Jewish settlers had been targeted you explanation makes more sense, at least from a moral point of view. I hesitate to use the term "moral equivalent". Is this "battle" common knowledge? Did you learn about it in Hebrew class or at a summer camp? Kinda doubt it. As far as Kfar Etzion is concerned would have it happened if Deir Yassin hadn't happened? Would the Arab Legion have possibly participated or not? I don't know. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10390 Registered: 4-1997  |
I think this exchange is a good example of why moderate Arab nations have moved from condeming Hezbollah to criticizing Israel. My definition of "adequate warning" includes 95 people not dying. I guess I'm a moral relativist. | ||
| Blue Heeler Citizen Username: Blueheeler Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2005  |
3ringale, Here's another aspect of "Islam is politics:" "Death to America is not a slogan. Death to America is a policy, a strategy and vision." Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's chieftain, Al-Manar television, April 17, 2003. http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref07.html BlueHeeler | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4652 Registered: 12-2001 |
Well then, I guess this is really simple. Since all Muslims are incurable monsters who wish to destroy America, we may as well start the bombing treatment now. I am thinking big here - Dresden, Tokyo, Nagoya, Hamburg, Frankfurt - the real city-busting firebombing raids. Because there is not middle ground. If Muslims are monsters, we may as well start the extermination process now. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1356 Registered: 4-2006 |
So many posts, so much misinformation and poor sources! I could write for hours and still not be done ! I am going to write Dick Cheney ( since that " chimp" George Bush isn't really running the country) and suggest they appropriate the money and means to enroll Nohero, Tjohn, and Bob K in ayatollah school tout sweet. After their completion of that course of study I look forward to them getting their fellow new muslims to practice what they preach. Have an escape route planned guys, just in case. Dave, in the history of the USA were their more and worse massacres of American indians and indegenous peoples in the " new world" then ever occured in Israel? What about in the history of Europe? And Dave, a simple question for you; Why is it that Israelis have bomb shelters in their cities and villages and the Lebanese do not? I am sure it has to do with the zionists being the war-mongering agressors.  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10403 Registered: 4-1997 |
I give up; why would Israel bomb civilians in a new middle eastern democracy? What would you do if you were Lebanon's prime minister? Go after Hezbollah and guarantee all-out civil war? Join the fight against Israel to reclaim stolen lands? Everyone here can see simple answers except me, I guess. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2671 Registered: 3-2003 |
"JC, so you attack a village that had essentially negotiated a truce with the Haganah is done in retaliation?" I'm so sorry, BobK, but I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say here. "I don't know what you call it, but it ain't retaliation." I've already called it terrorism (ME: "Yes, everyone knows about Deir Yassin, a genuine act of Zionist terrorism"). But in addition I have offered you the same sort of rationale you're always holding forth to excuse Arab terrorism. Except that the usual excuses for Arab terror are "Jews have expropriated Arab land," and "they've humiliated Palestinians at checkpoints" designed to stop suicide bombers, and "the oppressed Palestinians are desperate to have a state of their own, so naturally they blow up babies." The Israeli excuse for the terrorist massacre at Deir Yassin was that it was in retaliation for murderous Arab terror against Jews. Oh, but I forget. Those acts of terror (the ones I've recently made you aware of anyway) were just riots. Which is how you pretend that violence in Palestine began with the Jews. "If one of the villages that had attacked Jewish settlers had been targeted you explanation makes more sense, at least from a moral point of view." But this is not remotely in dispute. If fighters from a village that had attacked Jewish settlers had been targeted, the assault would not have been retaliatory terrorism, it would have been retaliation pure and simple. "As far as Kfar Etzion is concerned would have it happened if Deir Yassin hadn't happened?" You are being incredibly dense. The equivalent of Kfar Etzion had already happened before Deir Yassin. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2672 Registered: 3-2003 |
"why would Israel bomb civilians in a new middle eastern democracy?" "My definition of "adequate warning" includes 95 people not dying. I guess I'm a moral relativist." These are my nominations so far for Most Ridiculous Post of the Month. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10406 Registered: 4-1997 |
"You are being incredibly dense." That was a personal attack on Bobk. You can defend terror bombings, but I do need to maintain decorum. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4654 Registered: 12-2001 |
No misinformation FvF - just trying to make the point that demonizing Islam is not part of any solution unless that solution is the start killing millions of Muslims until such a time as they beg for mercy. You continue to carry as though anybody who doesn't want to do just that is an appeaser. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15249 Registered: 1-2003  |
To be sure, the Muslim and Arab spheres are demonizing America and the rest of the west. That is, in my view, indefensible. However, demonizing them back is fruitless and, when you think about it, infantile. When I was two and my sister was four, I swallowed a penny out of her collection. She sure got me back. She swallowed one of mine. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and toothless. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2937 Registered: 6-2002 |
Maybe I'm mixed up, but isn't President Bush good buddies with the Wahabi Sunni Muslims who run Saudi Arabia? Didn't he choose to overthrow that most secular of Arabs, Saddam Hussein? So if the Muslims are all our enemies, is GWB a traitor? Joel, Did your ancestors enjoy living among the good peace-loving Christians in Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, whatever? Did they pity their unfortunate co-religionists who were compelled to live in peace and prosperity under the Muslim Turks? I think that anyone whose ancestors arrived here after around 1860 should be rounded up and returned to their country of origin. I've sometimes thought this country would be a lot better if we got rid of everyone whose ancestors were here before 1860, you know,the folks who gave us slavery, the Civil War, the massacre of the Indians. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5708 Registered: 10-1999  |
FvF has given us the classic response. If I may paraphrase: "Well, if you love the Muslims so much, why don't you become one yourself?" I have my own religious faith, thank you very much. My faith does not require that I demonize anyone who does not share my faith, whether Muslim or otherwise. As a result, I have been able to enrich my own faith, with my interactions with people of other faiths, including those who are Muslim. Islam is the faith of many of our neighbors, and they don't deserve the insults which are being posted here lately. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1361 Registered: 4-2006 |
I feel somewhat sorry to read J. Crohn and joel dranove's excellent posts being wasted on the purposeful obtuseness of some of the posters here. Guys, you are wasting your time on people who have their minds made up, regardless of the worthiness of your arguments or the degree of common sense you bring to this thread. Hopefully open-minded MOL readers will heed your sources and arguments and think a bit about them, which will benefit us all. One of the things I have found most objectionable in this thread and some others is the way our "correctness" apologists respond with hysterical and inappropriate arguments misapplying the truly horrible experience of the Jewish people in the 20th century to those taking a critical look at islam. The attempted comparisons are heinous and stupid. No one has called for the genoicide of muslims or to essentially make them wear green crescents on their clothes if they reside in our country. It's sad to see our "correctness" people shamelessly attempt to misappropriate the very specific horror that occured to the Jewish people to their own "kumbayah" political purposes. Especially when islamists cite the efforts of Hitler as admirable and something they wish to have repeated. Terrorism in the world today is islamic, as we see with the latest plot to bomb american airlines coming out of Heathrow. You ignore the correlation between the terror and islam at your peril. Immigration from muslim countries into the United States should be suspended as a matter of common sense and self-protection. A visa is a priviledge and not a " civil right". I am afraid we will continue to have "useful idiots" for radical islam in this country until we suffer another terrorist attack (god forbid). | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12361 Registered: 5-2001 |
JC, my comment was based on the following quote from my link post yesterday: "The village had an agreement with the Zionist Haganah militia to avoid mutual attacks, but the Haganah felt unable or unwilling to stop the other Zionists from attacking." Unless you subscribe to the theroy, and I hope you don't, although many do here, that the only good Arab is a dead Arab, it is hard to use previous incidents such as as you brought up to justify the actions. Retaliation, resulting in a masacre, is still terrorism, or at least the way you seem to define the word. Anon, first off my 1860 remark was very much tongue and cheak and done to lamabast those who feel that all Muslims should be banned from this country. I have to ad however, that if those damn Wasps hadn't fought a revolution and set up a very liberal constitution, there wouldn't have been any country to come to. For all of us who favor a secular state we can thank our lucky stars that the Constitution was written when it was. If it had been written in the very religious 1860s if would have been a much different document. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10416 Registered: 4-1997 |
FvF, no one is saying to go easy on terrorists. Indeed, I'd prefer it if we had gone after bin laden rather than invade Iraq. We're discussing demonizing an entire religion, which you, JCrohn and Joel are really interested in. You are manufacturing consent that perhaps will not be used to round them up today, but would certainly help do that down the road, along with making Muslim and Christian families in Lebanon even easier to kill with impunity. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1362 Registered: 4-2006 |
Dave- Your crystal ball is way cloudy. There is a clear distinction between "demonization" and " realization" and we must be honest that the tennants of islam are the source of the terrorism. I am actually more hopeful than not about the future, subject to our doing the right thing. What must be done? We must show the muslim world that " jihad does not pay", by ruthlessly exterminating the violent proponents of radical islam, wherever we find them. We cannot apply our squeamish cultural or societal standards or " marquis of queensbury" rules to the task. They are an enemy that welcomes death, unlike our own society. We must give it to them. Jihad as a model is premised on modern arab muslim failure vis-a-vis the west and Israel. The failure of jihad will effect it's appeal, and the ferver for it will decrease, not increase. The most important factor indicating islam must face reform is the number of people under 25 in the arab world. Absent oil wealth the arab countries have morbund economies and very high unemployment. There will be extreme pressure over the next ten years to adopt effective models that allow islam to keep pace with the changing world. If jihad has no demonstrable successes ( perhaps such as american forces running away from Iraq) the pressure shifts to islam itself. Globalization is particularly challenging, and I believe you are seeing what you are seeing from the Iranians and radicals because there is clear understanding of these pressures. The majority of young Iranians are against the mullah-ocracy in Iran. To characterize someone as a "hater" of sorts for wanting us to have a reality-based approach to the current situation is as bad as calling someone a "traitor" for wanting us to practice religious-correctness under the circumstances. Especially if the "hater" has a longstanding appreciation of arab culture, studied it, and would love to visit and spend time in various arab countries when there is peace with Israel. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1363 Registered: 4-2006 |
Dave- I believe if you will research you will see Lebanese muslims have killed many, many, more Lebanese Christians than Israeli Jews ever have. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10419 Registered: 4-1997 |
I don't see the relevance in that statement. The Lebanese civilian population has played host to wars for too long and if you don't see how this plays out in the public sphere of moderate Arab nations, you aren't paying enough attention. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1839 Registered: 10-2004 |
Fvf - sometimes you get things right and then you twist it into wrong.
Yes. Certainly kill the terrorists who are plotting or have carried out terrorist acts. No. Killing innocent people in order to accomplish the above.
Yes. If we can keep on removing the terrorist threats as we did today against the airlines, while pressuring Islamic countries to reform we will be fine. No. American must get out of Iraq. Jihadists manufacture their own demonstrable successes. They have their own propaganda machines and think nothing of lying to their people to foment hate. It matters not whether we leave Iraq or not in that regard. They are using us now to foment hate anyway. I dont think you have a reality-based approach, I think you have a neoconservative view of the situation which is not the same thing. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15268 Registered: 1-2003 |
factvsfiction wrote: we must be honest that the tennants of islam are the source of the terrorism All of them? What am I supposed to do with my Muslim cow-orker? They are an enemy that welcomes death, unlike our own society. We must give it to them. Won't it prove their own point to them? Jihad as a model is premised on modern arab muslim failure vis-a-vis the west and Israel. I agree. The failure of jihad will effect it's appeal, and the ferver for it will decrease, not increase. Are you saying that the terrorists will become clear-headed from their failures? That their failures will shine light on how the west really means them no harm? I can't quite picture that. I think they haven't even defined failure, and they seem to feel that all outcomes prove their point. There will be extreme pressure over the next ten years to adopt effective models that allow islam to keep pace with the changing world. Who gets to measure success? The common people are being taught to blame the west for their culture's failures. What epiphany are you expecting them to have, and what will bring it on? Terrorism in the world today is islamic, as we see with the latest plot to bomb american airlines coming out of Heathrow. You ignore the correlation between the terror and islam at your peril. I don't characterize Oklahoma City as Islamic. How do you characterize it? But with that aside, yes most terrorists are Muslim, and by the way, an adherent to Islam is called a Muslim, OK? Yes, I see the correlation, for sure. But what are we to do, practically? Broadbrush all Muslims? That's a lot of people! African Americans have a crime rate out of proportion to their fraction of society. Are we going to treat blacks differently because a few of them make a bad name for the rest of them? I notice you decline to capitalize the words Islam and Muslim. Is that a gesture of disrespect? | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 501 Registered: 8-2004 |
It's my understanding that JC is banned. It's hardly fair to direct remarks at someone when you know they can't respond. When JC returns, I'll take issue with her account of the responsibilities of the King David bombers. But I'm not about to critique someone who couldn't post a reply. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12368 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bring back JC. I am the one she "insulted". After a good cry I recovered. Free the South Orange Israeli!!! | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10432 Registered: 4-1997 |
I just restored JC's account. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5789 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- you talk about war being waged not to kill innocents. Hezbollah and terrorists in Iraq hide within civilian populations. Target civilian populations. The media says "civilians killed" without noting how many were the enemy and why the civilians were killed. You're buying into the same media casting blame at Israel or the US that is being broadcast to the Arab Street. If you want the rules of war to apply -- which are designed to minimize non-combatant deaths -- then direct your anger at those who don't follow them. The rules of war say that any civilian structure used for military purposes is no longer civilian. We're not carpet bombing entire towns, and neither is Israel. That's not propaganda. It's the truth that is absent from the media there and here. Face it. Hezbollah and Al Qada and the insurgents are guilty of war crimes. It's how they conduct business. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1853 Registered: 10-2004 |
I agree. But I dont agree that killing innocent people is moral. You dont have to carpet bomb to know that you are bombing people who do not have any other recourse. Its easy to say 'Too bad for them' but that doesnt mean that bombing that home, that car, that bridge, that TV studio is right. I am not a military man and do not pretend to be. I only state the obvious, there has to be a better way. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1366 Registered: 4-2006 |
Perhaps Dave will ban me as well, but as someone more familiar and probably more comfortable than the sound of the muezzin than the rest of you, I find some of your comments ignorant, sorry to say. However I appreciate some people just like to be opinionated. Bob K- Deir Yassin is past tense, and even the extreme pro-arabists don't try and bring it up anymore in their propaganda. Guess you are missing the Palestinians' deliberate use of genocide by a policy of murder against Israeli Jews since the first intifada, and Iranian policy pronouncements. Of course we must put the relatively smaller state of Israel under the microscope of extreme humanism and possibility of civilian casualties instead. Hoops- As before I recommend a reading list, start with Bernard Lewis' works. Otherwise you don't merit any response. Tom Reingold- 1) You are supposed to embrace your muslim co-worker, and allow them to see that the openess and equality of our society is something to be admired, valued, and defended, by him/her as well as us. 2) Giving death to our enemies, without results for their "cause", shows the false value of their ideals, as normal people who value their children and want them to survive and surpass them will welcome life, prosperity, and family happiness. These things are overriding human nature. 3) We don't care about jihadis, only the people above who seek to live their lives, provide for their children, and make the world a better place for them. 4) The muslim arab world will either experience mass revolution or not. By frustrating jihad we force change. European history is a good example. Young muslims want lives of happiness and value. Most posters here fail to understand or recognize the true and real courage of Iranian students in opposing their regime. It is objectionable to me that you question my " bona-fides" as a potential "hater" Tom. Must I supply comments about how many muslims I know and have friendships or am acquainted with? How many posters on MOL have studied arabic? You know better. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15273 Registered: 1-2003 |
factvsfiction, when did I ask you for your credentials? When did I invite you to condescend to me? By frustrating jihad we force change. I'm not convinced that our might-makes-right attitude will endear Muslim Arabs to us. I think our violence will reinforce their views of us. I don't expect them to look at our reasons for our violence. They will see only our violence. I have, at times, been tempted to hit my kids, because frankly, they have deserved it. I restrain myself, because I realize that they won't hear the message I wish to convey. I will be saying, "you did the wrong thing" and they will hear "Daddy hit me." That's not to say I don't discipline them, and I don't want to get too deep into child rearing, and I realize the analogy only goes so far. But this "he started it, no, she started it!" stuff doesn't serve anyone. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 504 Registered: 8-2004 |
JC, are you sure you meant to say this quite so strongly? There may be important differences between "call in advance terrorists" and "maximize casualties" terrorists, but when you set off explosives in a civil target to make a political point, you're responsible for the people who get killed as a result whether you've tried to minimize the casualties or not. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 867 Registered: 1-2006 |
Oklahoma City. Timothy McVeigh, and you are satisfied with the outcome, completely. Well, that skinny White guy was out of the country and in the same city, at the same time, as the Bojinka plotters were there, putting the finishing touches on the '95 plot to blow up airplanes over the Pacific. He never travelled anywhere, except this one time. Coincidence, for sure. For the timing, read A Thousand Years for Revenge, by Peter Lance. There is a treasure of facts, from trial transcripts and exhibits, fed crim trials, about the jihad here. The Sunday before 9/11, that would be 9/9, (right Dave), I took NJTransit, and sat across from a large angry looking guy with a t-shirt with "Jihad or Death" emblazoned on it. Whose Jihad, whose death? Be about peace. Be dead. jd | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10437 Registered: 4-1997 |
Scared by a guy in a t-shirt? Tsk tsk. You are a casualty in the war on terror. You are terrorized. Bush is counting on your inability to assess risk correctly. Don't disappoint him. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2338 Registered: 8-2003  |
I don't have the energy to become a conservative. it apparently means I'd have to be scared stiff all the time. I'd rather not have to live with the hypertension. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2673 Registered: 3-2003 |
Sigh. Here I am, restored to obsessional posting when I have no business doing anything but laundry and packing to go on my freaking vacation. Thanks a lot, Agress! "After a good cry I recovered." Ha! You so did not cry, BobK. But I'm pleased to infer that you, at least, recognize I've never said anything to you I didn't think you were man enough to take. "An adequate warning absolutely absolves you of targeting non-combatants" "JC, are you sure you meant to say this quite so strongly?" Yes, and thanks for the opportunity to point out that I used the word "targeting" quite deliberately. You'll notice I described a distinction between, on the one hand, guerilla insurgency, and on the other, terrorism, which most people understand is the targeting of civilians with intent to enact a genocide or terrify them into submission or flight. An insurgency can be legitimate (as, for example, attacks of any sort on Israeli military in the West Bank, aimed solely at driving out Israeli occupation for purposes of establishing a Palestinian state) or illegitimate (such as attacks on Israeli forces aimed at weakening and eventually destroying the Jewish state). The Zionists did engage in acts of terrorism during and before the 1948 war, as I have already acknowledged. But a) contrary to BobK's assertion that the Arabs "learned terrorism from the Jews", Jewish terrorism was preceded by numerous instances of Arab terrorism, and b) the bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of war, not terror, just as the Hizballah attacks on Israeli soldiers that precipitated the latest conflict were acts of war (illegal and unprovoked, but war nonetheless) and Iraqi insurgent attacks on American forces are acts of war. If one warns non-combatant occupants of a military target, 20 minutes to half an hour ahead of time, that one is imminently about to bomb it, then one cannot legitimately be accused of targeting civilians in that instance, since one has in fact made a reasonable effort to avoid harming them. One is certainly responsible for any deaths that result, in the sense that one undoubtedly caused them. But that is not the same thing as saying one intended to cause them, which is what the charge of terrorism means. "[W]hen you set off explosives in a civil target to make a political point..." The King David Hotel was not, at the time of the Zionist attack, a civil target. The British housed their military command and the Mandatory government secretariat there. The building had had a military communications center installed in its basement, along with a separate entrance linked to an army camp south of the hotel. Fewer than a third of the rooms were set aside for civilian use. And the basement was full of Zionist intelligence documents the Brits had just confiscated in a massive crackdown on the Jewish resistance, which had organized to defend settlers against an Arab insurgency the Mandatory authority had covertly backed in an effort to subvert the establishment of a viable Jewish state. The Zionists, turning on the British, had first targeted military, police, coast guard and radar installations (the latter two were engaged at that point in preventing Jewish immigration to Palestine). They then blew up 11 bridges connecting Palestine to surrounding countries. The Brits rounded up and interned thousands of Jews, killing a few in the process. The Zionists issued three warnings concerning the KDH: one to the Hotel itself, one to the Palestine Post (whose telephone operator later testified in court to having received the message), and one to the French Consulate, which was directly adjacent to the Hotel. This warning advised the consulate's occupants to open their windows to minimize blast damage--which they did. Plainly, the objectives of the insurgent Irgun and Lehi guerillas were military. But just as plainly, and in contradiction to the nonsense our Dear Moderator reproduced upthread from the Telegraph or whatever, they did not target non-combatants. And that is why I said, apparently with more precision than most people reading could strain themselves to comprehend, that "an adequate warning absolutely absolves you of targeting non-combatants." | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1372 Registered: 4-2006 |
J. Crohn- Don't sweat Bob K's posts. As today style overcomes substance, so does hidebound opinion transcend clear fact.  | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12374 Registered: 5-2001 |
JC, I agree, and we discussed this here a while ago, that the King David bombing was a legitimate target. It was a Brit headquarters. The reaction on the part of the Zionists and now the Israelis is what sort of bothers me. During WWII the Norwegian underground (who if the Nazis had won the war would be defined as terrorists using the current lexicon) were ordered to blow up a ferry boat that was carrying heavy water for the German nuclear program. They resisted because of the expected loss of Norwegian lives. They ended up doing it. They, as a nation, still debate if this was the correct thing to do or not. I don't think Israel ever even thinks about the King David attack or the murder of Count Bernadotte for that matter. The whole purpose of my posts here are simply to point out that Israel is not a perfect country and would probably be a better one if they recognized this. Certainly, the view of many Americans supports the perfect country view. I support Israel strongly, warts and all. But they do do a good makeup job on the warts. FactvFiction, most of my posts are based on facts. My interpretation of those facts is certainly open to debate, but they are facts. |
