US defends terrorist State

[E.J.Armstrong]

'...The UN statement was the result of a compromise between Turkey and the US. Turkey was reluctant to water down its criticism of Israel while the US - Israel's closest ally - wanted to temper the language used, says the BBC's UN correspondent Barbara Plett in New York. ...'

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...t/10201165.stm

Once again we see Usan double standards in operation. The USA condemns terrorism loudly while supporting the terrorism of the apartheid state of Israel and allowing its own official torturers to walk around the USA free and easy.

It is clear that the USA has now finally made itself irrelevant to the hopes of peace in the Middle East and it is time for the international community to sideline the chief defender of terrorist state of Israel. When you choose to defend terrorism you are in effect acting as a terrorist as Bush claimed. Sauce, goose and gander.

So much for Obama cleaning up Bush's Augean stables. It seems he is just as bad as the Comic in Chief.

[Thunder]

Israel is not a terrorist state. But by many definitions, the Gaza embargo is indeed an act of state terrorism.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Israel is not a terrorist state. But by many definitions, the Gaza embargo is indeed an act of state terrorism.

Can you cite these definitions?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Can you cite these definitions?

As defined by Thunder, E.J. Armstrong, all the people at Stormfront, old-school Marxists, etc etc.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Mycroft: It's.. been a while since you posted here. Also, uh.. did EJ just say the recent boarding was terrorism? I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

[McHrozni]

Quote:

Once again we see Usan double standards in operation. The USA condemns terrorism loudly while supporting the terrorism of the apartheid state of Israel and allowing its own official torturers to walk around the USA free and easy.

What was the act of terrorism? Boarding a poorly armed blockade runner? Being ambushed by poorly armed activists? Shooting back at activists trying to fight off the boarding troops?

McHrozni

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Can you cite these definitions?

one definition of terrorism is any aggresive act meant to intimidate a civilian population into making a political change. a full embargo that keeps out most food, fuel, and living supplies would qualify as such.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Thunder

one definition of terrorism is any aggresive act meant to intimidate a civilian population into making a political change. a full embargo that keeps out most food, fuel, and living supplies would qualify as such.

Alright...where do you find this definition?

[Aepervius]

"terrorism [ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized"

Whether Israel is using systemically violence or threatening to use it is open to interpretation, but it indeed look that under such definition the Israeli governement could indeed defined as using terrorism toward Gaza's population. I think personally it is a stretch, but I see why some people could see it that way.

Now what could be said, is that the Israeli governement , by use of blockade and other method, certainly make the life of the Gaza band population very poor (including on the health and water infrastructure restriction) to the point that they are unable to support themselves without external aid. But that still don't qualify as terrorism, although it reflect extremly poorly on israel and the systematic support from the US toward Israel - no matter what. That is by the way probably what incense people : that the support is inconditional.

Now let me tip toe out of the thread, because IMHO the lack of direct evidence and the politicval manipulation on both side long made this a mine field to discuss.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

"terrorism [ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized"

Whether Israel is using systemically violence or threatening to use it is open to interpretation, but it indeed look that under such definition the Israeli governement could indeed defined as using terrorism toward Gaza's population. I think personally it is a stretch, but I see why some people could see it that way.

You realize that every police force and military on the planet are terrorists by the application of this definition, yes?

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

You realize that every police force and military on the planet are terrorists by the application of this definition, yes?

So under this definition war=terrorism?

No a very useful one, IMO.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

You realize that every police force and military on the planet are terrorists by the application of this definition, yes?

Not really, we the society have decided to have a law, and to enforce that law we give a special permission with reasonable bound to use violence in case a law breaker refuse to accept the punishment. We can withdraw that permission to use violence if it is abused , otuside the prerogative given by ourselves. *ONLY* if you don't see yourself part of that society can you say it indeed apply to the police force.

ETA: the threat of violence *is not* systematic. The threat of imprisonment is the systematic part. Only if one refuse the punishment and actively use violence to escape it, the violence can be used back. But you can't call that SYSTEMATIC which is the important keyword.

[NWO Sentryman]

Quote:

Once again we see Usan double standards in operation. The USA condemns terrorism loudly while supporting the terrorism of the apartheid state of Israel and allowing its own official torturers to walk around the USA free and easy.

How is enforcing a blockade equivalet to piledriving planes into cities?

And how is israel an apartheid state? You have never given a definition of Apartheid once.

Perhaps the torturers are enduring something out of Crime and Punishment where their own hearts are prisons?

Quote:

It is clear that the USA has now finally made itself irrelevant to the hopes of peace in the Middle East and it is time for the international community to sideline the chief defender of terrorist state of Israel. When you choose to defend terrorism you are in effect acting as a terrorist as Bush claimed. Sauce, goose and gander.

How? By supporting a democracy against jihadists who seek its destruction? Is that "irrelevant"?

And See above for Israel not being a terrorist state.

Quote:

So much for Obama cleaning up Bush's Augean stables. It seems he is just as bad as the Comic in Chief.

What was Obama supposed to do? Send constables to find terrorists in afghanistan and Pakistan? A shamble of a UN peacekeeper force which would have met with bosnia level failures?

Pip Pip

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Whether Israel is using systemically violence or threatening to use it is open to interpretation, but it indeed look that under such definition the Israeli governement could indeed defined as using terrorism toward Gaza's population. I think personally it is a stretch, but I see why some people could see it that way.

Well, I think it's apparent some people see it that way because it equivocates virtually any military action with the actions of a bomber who kills random people in the marketplace. It effectively deflects condemnation of the later.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Well, I think it's apparent some people see it that way because it equivocates virtually any military action with the actions of a bomber who kills random people in the marketplace. It effectively deflects condemnation of the later.

Sure if you compare those in a vacuum, it all sound absurd.

But if you compare that the blockade and the bombing as well as the condition of life is linked (maybe even a positive feedback loop I would wagger) and that the blockade hit people in the 1000's whereas the suicide bombing in the 10's... It then isn't so straigthforward anymore.

A lot of people in this thread seem to see a world of black and white in the gaza band, or a world of very very light gray and very very dark black, and depending on their own opinion either the palestinian are the light color or the Israeli governement. I am sorry but I see two very gray medium side, and I am not sure that one side is really "lighter" than the other.

Sure hamas are terrorist, may they all rot in hell, but Israeli blockading and the condition of life they impose palestinian... I can't place that in *ANY* light color either. And it don't matter for me that it is Israel and gaza, the same situation with , say, France and Germany would lead me to the same conclusion.

Gray, gray, gray all murky dark gray.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Rika

Mycroft: It's.. been a while since you posted here. Also, uh.. did EJ just say the recent boarding was terrorism? I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

EVERYTHING Israel does is "state terrorism by an Apartheid state", you know.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Sure if you compare those in a vacuum, it all sound absurd.

But if you compare that the blockade and the bombing as well as the condition of life is linked (maybe even a positive feedback loop I would wagger) and that the blockade hit people in the 1000's whereas the suicide bombing in the 10's... It then isn't so straigthforward anymore.

I disagree. I think it’s exactly as straightforward.

If you personally disagree with the Israeli blockade of Gaza, then you should be able to say so without resorting to that kind of language manipulation. Let’s put it this way;

If you say, “I think the Gaza blockade is creating an undue hardship for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. They are not getting enough food and medicine, and it is disproportionately affecting the poor who may not be able to afford the higher prices shortages create.” Then I think you’re most likely a humanitarian who is raising an issue that needs to be looked into.

If instead you say, “The illegal Gaza blockade is Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinian people” then I know you’re a polemic, quite likely a terrorist sympathizer, and can be dismissed without further consideration.

Obfuscating the language doesn’t serve anyone.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

A lot of people in this thread seem to see a world of black and white in the gaza band, or a world of very very light gray and very very dark black, and depending on their own opinion either the palestinian are the light color or the Israeli government…

I tend to agree with you there. But I also think it’s this corruption of the language that’s a huge part of the problem. It’s impossible for there to be a real dialogue about balancing the needs of the Israelis to security and self-defense against the humanitarian needs and aspirations of Palestinians with this constant din of background noise saying, “war crimes”, “collective punishment”, Israelis are Nazi’s” etcetera.

[Aepervius]

Mycroft reread what I said : I agree that calling the Israeli governement terrorist is a stretch. What I was explaining, is that I can see why some people would call them like that. That does not mean I agree with the explanation.

The main problem is that the opinion on the thema are so polarized that its poisonning any clear debate.