Hamas - Political Discussion

**Luddite** · 04/13/08 09:52 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/quotes1.html#terrorism

**SirTripAlot** · 04/13/08 10:00 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

For any historical reference, do not forget the Oslo Accords.

**The Tourist** · 04/16/08 12:21 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Luddite said:

Tourist is the kind of muslim that joins forums like this.
http://www.geocities.com/milkmandan2003/TalibanOnline1.html

I'm not a Muslim, and I'm pretty strictly non-religious. What is so radical about criticizing my country for murdering millions?

**The Tourist** · 04/16/08 12:44 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Seuss said:

> If this isn't terrorism, we can move upwards on the scale of evil and just call it plain old murder. Or how about genocide?

Somebody get this kid a dictionary, quick!

Well, I've found one, and I'll give this strange "definition of words" concept a try...

(From www.dictionary.com):

ter·ror·ism
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

American Heritage Dictionary:

ter·ror·ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Wordnet:

terrorism
noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Murder is a simple one, and if patriotically distorted semantics can give it an alternate definition, I'd really like to hear about it.

(From Dictionary.com):

gen·o·cide
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

American Heritage Dictionary:

gen·o·cide
n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Is there anything else you'd like to be looked up while I'm at it?

And tell me, why was it necessary for me to look those up?

**The Tourist** · 04/16/08 12:56 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Seuss said:

> If this isn't terrorism, we can move upwards on the scale of evil and just call it plain old murder. Or how about genocide?

Somebody get this kid a dictionary, quick!

And, heyyy, lookie what I found!!

Too bad it's credibility is questionable because the speaker is only the former United Nations humanitarian coordinator and a U.N. veteran of 34 years. He did get that Gandhi International Peace Award or whatever it's called, though.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/99/9.30.99/Halliday_talk.html

**The Tourist** · 04/16/08 01:19 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

rexmundi said:

One more thing, the US State department says that they are funded by Iran.

This topic is something that is in DIRE need of re-examination.

Let's take a step back for a minute. We are debating whether or not Iran is assisting and funding groups that oppose the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Think about this. What we should be considered (Or at least what we should HAVE considered before) is whether or not it is acceptable to attack a country in response to their opposition of our military occupation of one of their neighbors.

I'll quote an /essay of Noam Chomsky's here (It's called "What if Iran had Invaded Mexico):

"Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?"

He states that the simple assumption is that "we own the world". We don't realize that assuming we are entitled to invading another country because they are assisting an anti-military occupation effort is PREPOSTEROUS.

We have to realize that this is the type of agenda that is being manufactured before our eyes, and tools like using debate topics such as "is Iran funding the opposition effort?" rather than "what should we do/ what are we entitled to do?" are contributing to our manipulation.

If we invaded Germany and France was subsequently opposed to it and supported resisters, would we then invade France on the grounds that they are interfering with our imperialist agenda? If Iran invaded Mexico and Canada and was threatening us, can you imagine how that would feel and what we would want to do?

**rexmundi** · 04/17/08 10:34 AM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Well I passed in the paper, ended up focusing more on Palestinian nationalism than the Hamas themselves. I also covered the PLO and its status in the UN. Hopefully I do well on the paper.

Tourist, I'm not familiar with the Chomsky essay you cite, I see what you are trying to get at, but Iran does have a reputation for sponsering militant groups in the Middle East. Whether that is "right" or not I am not one to say.

**Seuss** · 04/17/08 10:59 AM (18 years, 6 months ago)

> Well, I've found (a dictionary), and I'll give this strange "definition of words" concept a try...

Good... lets see where this goes. The original thesis you presented is:

Quote:

What do you call the systematic and repeated bombing of Iraq and its infrastructural sites throughout nearly all of the 1990's?

genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Based upon your own words, I fail to see how "the systematic and repeated bombing of Iraq and its infrastructural sites" equates to "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group". Iraq still exists as a nation; Muslims (or any other racial group) have not been exterminated in Iraq; a dictator was removed, but there has been no systematic execution of members of a political group in Iraq, nor has there be a systematic execution of any ethnic groups.

By making such a claim, you belittle the true horrors of genocide when a military systematically targets civilians in order to destroy a culture.

Please, don't misread my gripe to mean that I am defending US actions in Iraq. Far from it. My gripe is with your use of genocide as an adjective to describe US actions in Iraq. It simply doesn't fit.

**Visionary Tools** · 04/17/08 11:49 AM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Seuss said:

The definition of terrorism preferred by the US State Department, is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

So he's not wrong, right?

**fireworks_god** · 04/17/08 11:58 AM (18 years, 6 months ago)

The United States and its army is not a subnational group or clandestine agents, nor is its acts in Iraq intended to be perpetuated agansit noncombatant targets, so I think that, by that definition, its clear that he is wrong.

**Seuss** · 04/17/08 12:14 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

> So he's not wrong, right?

With respect to genocide, I believe he is wrong. There is also the bit about "subnational groups" in the State Department's definition... conveniently excuses most nations by definition regardless of what they do.

**The Tourist** · 04/17/08 01:35 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

I should have made myself more clear.

First off, I guess I was more interested in the ACTUAL definition of terrorism, rather than the one "preferred" by the U.S. state department-- my bad on that one (I know I said "preferred by the state department").

As far as the genocide issue is concerned... I'm still sticking to it. And by the way, NONE of this and what I've been talking about refers to any of the war since 2003.

Remember, I'm not talking about this phase of the Iraq war, I'm talking about the time span between 1991 and 2003, where we killed over one million Iraqis. Please guys, go by the definition of genocide, not just your own thoughts. Systematically destroying and killing a NATIONAL group amounts to genocide. Economic sanctions, bombing raids, infrastructural destruction, etc. for 10 years killed an UNIMAGINABLE amount of people... most of whom were children under 5 (read the article about Halliday).

Seuss, let me ask you... Does the fact that all cultural, ethnic and national groups in Iraq still exist mean that what we were doing was not genocidal?!

(From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II):

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The historical fact is that we were not "going after" only militant groups, Saddam, the Iraqi military, etc. We were blocking medical and food supplies from entering the country, blocking economic trade, and destroying their civilian infrastructure, all of which amounted to far more than 1 million Iraqi civilians dead. All in the name of our opposition to Saddam. This is terrorism, and genocide, as longas you go by the true and accepted definition of both words.

Can you fucking imagine how we would feel if another, more powerful country had done such things to us?!?! The scale of evil would be indescribable.

I also want to pose another question to you Seuss... Is it ok for us to go around forcibly removing dictators from countries? And just to humor the idea, I'll pretend that the U.S. hasn't historically directly installed and/or supported dozens of dictators around the world.

The idea that us removing Saddam was a good thing is very debatable, given the fact that the country is in ruins right now because of us (even more so than it has been for the last 17 years). But was it right to do what we did? Or is it right to support the country's people regardless, and let them overthrow the man they are opposed to? Unless, of course, the dictator is doing something like committing genocide, slaughtering his people, etc. and the world court decides intervention is warranted...

And before you tell me Saddam WAS committing genocide, I'll stop you. First of all, he was (however vicious and evil it was) defending himself against a Kurdish uprising set to oerthrow him when he killed that group. Yes, it was evil, no it wasn't genocide. But our opposition to Saddam's "genocide" would be much more believable if we hadn't been giving and selling to him the weapons that he used, or if we hadn't authorized his actions. But, oh well, I guess we were opposed to it, but we didn't care to remove him from power. We also havn't cared to remove the many dictators around the world who are more vicious and abusive of human rights than Saddam was.

**dill705** · 04/17/08 01:57 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

fireworks_god said:

The United States and its army is not a subnational group or clandestine agents, nor is its acts in Iraq intended to be perpetuated agansit noncombatant targets, so I think that, by that definition, its clear that he is wrong.

Uhm, need we be shown footage of Iraqis crying in the streets after bombing their houses?

They call it collateral damage...

**Virus_with_Shoes** · 04/17/08 02:01 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

My gripe is with your use of genocide as an adjective to describe US actions in Iraq.

I believe he used it as a noun. :lol:

**fireworks_god** · 04/17/08 02:20 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

dill705 said:

Uhm, need we be shown footage of Iraqis crying in the streets after bombing their houses?

Sure, knock yourself out; it won't refute any statement I made. :shrug:

**dill705** · 04/17/08 02:33 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Your right, the bombs weren't intended to be dropped on civilian houses, it's just accepted.

What a convoluted view.

**Seuss** · 04/17/08 03:02 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

> I believe he used it as a noun. :lol:

Heh, English major I am not. Thanks for the correction.

**Virus_with_Shoes** · 04/17/08 03:16 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

Sorry, I'm such a grammar Nazi. :hitler:

**zappaisgod** · 04/17/08 04:32 PM (18 years, 6 months ago)

The Tourist said:

Remember, I'm not talking about this phase of the Iraq war, I'm talking about the time span between 1991 and 2003, where we killed over one million Iraqis. Please guys, go by the definition of genocide, not just your own thoughts. Systematically destroying and killing a NATIONAL group amounts to genocide. Economic sanctions, bombing raids, infrastructural destruction, etc. for 10 years killed an UNIMAGINABLE amount of people... most of whom were children under 5 (read the article about Halliday).

Bullshit. I have a more credible assertion. Weak kneed, pussified apologists for thugs have killed billions of people by their continued failure to call a spade a spade. Who killed more brown people? Rachel Carson or....well, anyone, really?

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Bush tells Palestinian PM the REAL reason he struck Iraq!	Cornholio	585	6	06/28/03 08:27 AM by Learyfan
Palestinian textbooks brainwash children to kill ( 1 2 3 all )	Ed1	6,108	44	11/10/04 10:40 PM by ricyjo
Hamas executes more people publicly...... ( 1 2 3 4 5 all )	starfire_xes	3,826	97	08/31/14 07:14 PM by zappaisgod
Israel responds to Gaza/Hamas with deadly air raids ( 1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 )	KillerPicklez	16,694	385	01/07/09 09:14 PM by Phred
Interesting perspective on the Israeli Palestinian conflict ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )	GazzBut	10,440	111	07/23/14 04:07 PM by GazzBut
Hamas overruns Fatah positions in Gaza	The_Red_Crayon	592	3	06/15/07 09:35 PM by lonestar2004
Hamas - a non soundbyte derived perspective	somebodyelse	403	2	06/28/03 04:41 AM by downforpot
Israel to liquidate Hamas. ( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )	shakta	14,945	235	08/30/03 01:04 PM by Xlea321