Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 91

Thread: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

  1. #81
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Bull****, you're attempting to morally equivocate by taking two large samples, distilling it to a handful of small details, and declaring based on those small details that an overriding comment regarding the generalized similarities of the two groups is apt. You're defending a person who is making a ridiculous and over the top comparison in an attempt to spur an emotional response to score political points by hoping to set a pathetic trap to suggest that anyone disagreeing with him about his continual support for terrorists is also against the founders. He, and you, are no different than those constantly comparing Obama to Hitler.
    You're out of wack and out of line in your post. If you can't accept facts presented in a reasonable way, than seriously, continue enjoying flame baiting, arguing, whatever. Didn't know this kind of behavior is tolerated on these boards, especially by a mod.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In both cases you BOTH are engaging in the exact same kind of dishonest political rhetoric as those that suggest Obama is like Hitler, or suggest all Muslism are Terrorists, with the only possible difference between the two of you is that you're doing it out of some sort of odd devil's advocates position without realizing the overall dishonesty associated with the intent to make such a comparison where as he is relishing and relying on that dishonest association just like the Obama/Hitler folks.
    No we're not. I have made a pretty fair comparison. I am doing nothing like saying Obama is Hitler, but you're trying to make it that way just to discount the comparison I have made. You're the one who's being dishonest, you're relying on technicalities in the whole of your argument. Most of your post was "technically this, technically that". You're clearly not interested in arguing any of the points and you haven't responded to most of the points brought up, and I don't think you can because what I've said is mostly correct.

    You've neglected the whole point of total war and the total war argument. You think that somehow anything goes in war between soldiers, but when someone targets civilians, oh no the world is collapsing. Again, you're saying what we do is ok, what anybody else does is terrorism. In war, there is a blending of breaking the rules, including targeting civilians. They all are on the same gradient. This is not an example of a slippery slope argument. What you are doing is being arbitrary and exclusionary. Anything that doesn't target civilians is ok, while the moment you target civilians, its automatically considered not acceptable in war and not allowed.

    Targeting officers, ambushing marching soldiers is "terrorist-like". You can make the comparison. Just because one doesn't target civilians, doesn't mean you can't make any comparison. They both are under-handed and defy the rules of war and they both were frowned upon in their time-periods.

    I'm not going to retract my defense of justabubba, because I think he was trying to make a valid point. If you think he's baiting, you're a mod, warn him. No excuse for flaming and baiting yourself. I don't think you should be a mod.

    You're out of line. You're not interested in the facts, only in calling what other people do terrorism, and exonerating whatever the Revolutionaries did.
    Last edited by Opteron; 08-03-10 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #82
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Calling out your argument as being far from apt and illogical is not baiting. If you think a rules violated, report it.

    What you're doing is exactly like the Obama is Hitler comparison. You're complaining about technicalities, but it is all you're giving. You are taking a handful of similarities and through those similarities are trying to suggest a far larger comparison. This is dishonest, and its identical to what's being done with the Obama = Hitler comparisons. In those things they take comparisons between laws and policies pushed by Obama and pushed by Hitler, and while TECHNICALLY true, they push them for the purpose of smeering Obama by referencing to Hitler knowing full well that any invocation of Hitler immediately leads people to think about things far more grandiose then a Health Care plan, and thus attempts to tie feels towards Obama to the negative feelings tied to Hitler for reasons completely separate from WHY people have those feelings.

    This is what's being done here.

    Are there similarities between Terrorists and the tactics of the revolutionaries? Absolutely. There are similarities between the Revolutionaries and the tactics of anti-war protesters. There's similarities between the tactics of the Revolutionaries and the Allied forces in WWII. There's similarities between the Revolutionaries and the tactics of Gengis Khan, the individuals involved in the Crusade, the Roman Legions, and Brock Lesnar.

    However the differences between those things and what the Revolutionaries were as a whole are FAR greater. Additionally, in the case of some of the things like terrorists, the actions and views that cause the largest negative reaction to them are not present when talking about the founders. However, like the Obama/Hitler comparisons, the attempt at equating the two together on a few issues is to then attempt to try and tie them together in a different way.

    You entered into a discussion trying to say the founding fathers are terrorists, specifically referencing talks about Hamas. You did not enter into one saying "The founding fathers did some questionable activities" or one stating "The founding fathers did some actions that are similar to terrorists". The first is true, the second is true but irrelevant and most likely being brought up for dishonest reasons.

    Fighting outside of the typical norms of war is not what creates the negative connotation for terrorists. It is the specific and purposeful targetting of civilians and the notion of attacks made outside of a recognized war time situation. This is not what is being documented here.

    You complain about me speaking of technicalities, however it is you that are doing it. You have gone so far as to try and throw out the definition of terror, arguing from a technical stance of pure literalistic interpretation when its quite obvious from the outset the people of this thread have been speaking about the commonly and accepted view of terrorism. By the technical definition ANY bombing that is not absolutely done with precise aim at military buildings or purely military targets categorizes one as a terrorist, meaning every military force in World War II that had an air force would be considered a "Terrorist" by you, based on you focusing on a technicality. That is ridiculous to interject into such a discussion as this.

    Yes, I am aware of Total War. Sherman is one of the generals of the Civil War I find most interesting, and is actually a generalized view I think does have merit in warfare. What you fail to realize or seem to account for however is that an actual state of war needs to be in play for there to be a suggestion of warfare. Total War, like asymmetrical war, is a tactic of WAR and requires said War. There is currently no recognized or accepted legitimized "War" going on between a the unrecognized territory of Gaza or the occupied land of the West Bank and Israel. As such, attacks...specifically attacks aimed at the civilian population...are not actions performed within a war but are acts of terrorism.

    Note, that I speak of them and not of Iraq. While there are terrorist elements in Iraq, primarily I point to those coming into the country, I would not say those that were regarded as insurgents are "terrorists". Nor would I call them "Freedom Fighters", as that's another dishonest attempt of humanizing them and relating them in an attempt to keep people from condemning them for the rightful differences they have because they are not fighting for "Freedom" but for the ability to subjugate the population once more to their will or the will of their leaders. They are insurgents, they are essentially soldiers, in a very rough definition of them. They are engaging in a form of asymmetrical warfare that has tendencies of total war within it due to the difference in man power and technological prowess. They are taking part in a recognized and stated war, in what is obviously and realistically considered a war zone, striking against a force that is actively and forcefully working against them in kind.

    This can not be said in Gaza and Hamas. Gaza is not an internationally recognized state, and its arguable to suggest Hamas is a legitimately recognized international governing body. There is no standing war between Israel and Hamas or Gaza at this time. Israel is not launching military endeavors into Gaza or sending over artillery, while Hamas is doing such. There is a decidedly different designation between what is considered total or asymmetrical war fare and what is terrorism.

    Can war incorporate terror tactics? YES. Absolutely. But terror tactics alone does not make a terrorist. Its a ridiculous notion to suggest such, or we would be labeling a great deal of protesters in this country as "terrorists". It is you that are using technicalities by focusing solely on the literal definition.

    No where am I saying what we do is okay, and what others do is all terrorism. Its not.

    What I am saying is simple, and I shall admit because you are defending a person that is unquestionably engaging in dishonest and pathetically irresponsible behavior you're getting treated as if you are doing the same because you are supporting him, and I shall explain it once more.

    Can one find similarities between the founding fathers or groups of the revolution and terrorists or some terrorist groups? Absolutely. However, does having a few similarities mean that its a legitimate and reasonable argument to suggest that the revolutionaries should be considered the SAME THING as terrorist groups, such as Hamas? Absolutely not. Furthermore, when one looks at the DIFFERENCES rather than the similarities one see's there are far more of those and those differences are of a far greater importance than there are similarities.

    I am arguing that I reject the notion of moral equivocation that suggests that because two groups do one or two things similar that they are worthy of exactly the same condemnation or praise, regardless of whatever else they represent. This is like stating that a man who kills someone in war is worthy of the equal amount of condemnation or praise as someone who kills a teen in cold blood for the $20 in their pocket because both involve killing someone and thus are exactly the same. That is asinine. Despite having a few similar tactics, the overall differences in the way in which the founders primarily went about their actions, the differences in their views on how to deal with civilians, the differences on their stated goals with regards to the enemy at large, the difference in their end goals, the difference in the factors that lead to the conflicts all create a situation where it is absolutely reasonable and believable to suggest that one is worthy of more generalized praise and more generalized condemnation. Indeed, certain ACTS may be worthy of condemnation...such as the Sons of Liberty if the mob attacked and assaulted individual citizens who supported the crown but had and wished no active role in the least in the war...but individual and separate acts should not be dishonestly enhanced to somehow suggests an overall comparison.

    Finally, due to the above, I am arguing that the comparison of the Founders to Terrorists began from the very onset of this thread as a dishonest and pathetic attempt to obfuscate reality in hopes of creating a scenario and an atmosphere where by criticizing Hamas could be suggested as criticizing the founding fathers and thus hypocritical, or where the hope is to create sympathy for Hamas by invoking a suggestion they're similar to the Founders who are fondly looked upon despite the fact that the REASONS the founders are fondly looked upon have no relation to what Hamas and terrorists like them are doing. I suggest again this is a similar strategy of what people do when comparing Obama to Hitler, where they show just as you have legitimate similarities between the two, but do so for dishonest reasons. While you may not have the same intended goal as Justabubba, your defense of him and claims of his correctness tie you to his same endeavors. The comparison is not apt, loosely made only by ignoring glaring differences and attempting to take small groups or relatively small acts and apply them as if they are an overarching truth that equates everything together. It is YOU playing on technicalities to show that there are few similarities to then suggest a much broader comparison.

    If you wanted to have an HONEST discussion about the similar TACTICS employed by the founders and hell, ALL countries, in war and terrorist organizations like Hamas or Al-Qaeada I think it would be an interesting one. But when you start into such a discussion leap frogging off the premise that Founders = Terrorists, that discussion can not realistically take place because it is being done under the back drop that anything said will then be suggested as proof of that illogical, erroneous, and irresponsible analogy.

    You complain about lack of interest in facts, yet you and specifically justabubba ignore them throughout this. You cling to singular third hand reports of what Washington "ordered" while ignoring document after document of first hand statements he makes with regards to civilians. You quote poor treatment being perpetrated to individuals involved in the battle or that are part of the fighting forces and then equivocate the fact that people point out that attempting to compare that to being the same thing as attacking civilians does not work. You make a note of total war, while ignoring that such requires an actual war which is not occurring in the situation you site. You state its different from the Obama Hitler comparison, yet show no reason why as you sit there and do exactly as they do, pointing out technical and literalistic examples of similarities and then try to suggest or imply a far larger connection. You site the definition of terror, while ignoring the fact that it is by far not the commonly used reference when speaking as we are in this thread, or else we'd need to be discussing every anti-war or pro-immigration protest that got rowdy as we talk about "Terrorists".

    The fact is Justabubba's attempt, and your attempts due to your defense of his attempts, are an emotional ploy to use technicalities to befuddle the debate in hopes of fostering a larger connection between two groups by dishonestly attempting to suggest small similarities is worthy of such a far more reaching connection.

  3. #83
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    ...A most excellent wall of text...
    Justabubba(sp?), read Zyphlin's post, it's basically the arguement I would have made in response to your question, several pages back.

    Albeit far less wordy
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #84
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Correct, and if one takes a literalistic reading of it one could argue that the revolutionaries engaged in "Terrorism". Additionally one could argue that every act of war ever was terrorism, any protest that has turned violent is terrorism, any vandalism with a political message is terrorism, etc.

    There is a rather large difference between speaking of the very technical definition of terrorism and comparing someone to "terrorists" in a colloquial way that is referencing specific groups and a specific type of terrorist.

    By this statement you're stating any form of political protest where anything is done either violent or destructive = terrorism. Let us start shipping those anti-war protesters or pro-immigration individuals to GITMO since they're terrorists since a few of them have broken windows before in their protest.
    You are wrong in much of what you say in your post. I could go in detail and tell you how you're wrong in everything, but it would take too much time and require too many details. Even if I did, it probably wouldn't make much difference, because you probably wouldn't acknowledge when you're wrong and even if I pointed it out, you would find some way to escape with another wrong argument. But I will give it a try in brief.

    You're being overly technical. Any political protest that turns violent would be a random act of violence if it wasn't orchestrated beforehand to become violent. If people were organizing violent hit squads, that would be terrorism. If people were doing vandalism consistently, such as tagging "Jew" in Nazi Germany, that would be terrorism. Vandalism would be included with terrorism if you want to be technical about it, if it had a hateful and destructive message. Tagging against minorities with a hateful message would be terrorism. You are being overly technical with the definition, though. The Boston Tea Party was not just a "protest" because they destroyed someone else's tea. If they dumped their own tea that they owned into the harbor in protest, that would not be violent and that would be a true protest.

    You just don't want to admit that tar and feathering and the Boston Tea Party were terrorist acts. Its quite clear by the definition that they are, and this is not being technical, they fit the definition appropriately. You're definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" only involves the killing of civilians and its one sided and partisan. Where in the definition of terrorism does it say "must kill civilians"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, obviously you could be viewed as a pedophile.

    Let me explain.

    You've undoubtedly found an attraction to another person before, and engaged in some sort of sexual activity. More than that, I would wager at some point in your life you were attracted to someone under the age of 18, hell under the age of 14, and more than that I bet you've been attracted to someone younger than you in general. I would imagine you have engaged in sexual acts other than missionary sex, which to some people is considered deviant sexual behavior. All of these things....having a sexual attraction for someone under the age of 18/14 that is younger than you and participating in deviant sex acts...are something one can apply directly and specifically to a pedophile. You have those things in common with a pedophile. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to talk about and have vast discussions describing how you are obviously comparable and no more upstanding or worthy of praise then a pedophile.

    (Obviously this is factious, and I do not believe you to be like a pedophile, but it is the exact same line of reasoning Justabubba is using and you're defending)
    None of this is correct. Your argument is full of flaws and wild stretches. Why are you even talking about this, and why did you even bring it up in a topic about the Mideast? Don't make it personal, and don't talk about disgusting stuff in a Mideast thread, stick to the topic or go to the basement if you want to talk about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Breaking from war time etiquette does not equate to terrorism, not in the sense that is being referenced by referring to those that are carrying out the acts that this thread was about.
    Yeah, you can equate them. Both are breaking the accepted rules of warfare. Both are under-handed and both were looked down upon in their respective time periods.

    Pretty much whatever else you say is also incorrect, it would take some time to go into detail on how its wrong.
    Last edited by Opteron; 08-03-10 at 09:02 PM.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Humble Texas
    Last Seen
    06-25-11 @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,827

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Zplyin



    This sound more like terrorism that war to me.

  6. #86
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by RyrineaHaruno View Post
    This sound more like terrorism that war to me.
    The two are not mutually exclusive.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #87
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    As I understand the discussion, one take on this topic is that actions that cause terror are terrorism, regardless of their taking place during and as a direct result of open warfare or not.

    The other take is that actions that cause terror are part of warfare (depending on varied factors), and that such actions are not terrorism within that framework.

    ---------
    Is that correct?
    ---------

    I think everyone would agree that any time such things happen, for whatever reason, it’s a bad thing.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Humble Texas
    Last Seen
    06-25-11 @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,827

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    The two are not mutually exclusive.
    True the two things aren't mutually excursive from the side effects of war. A lot of armies will always will use terrorism as a means for war tactics.....

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    The original assertion was that “our founding fathers, that exhalted group who fought for and won America's freedom from an oppressive enemy, would have been viewed as terrorists - IF they had not prevailed…” (Message #8)

    It was noted that far from advocating or tolerating attacks on civilians, George Washington ordered that the Continental Army not harm persons or property. Moreover, he ordered those responsible for such abuses punished. (Message #17)

    Later an allegation was made that George Washington had, in fact, made a decision to tolerate harm to loyalists, including civilians (Message #51). Yet, even as George Washington’s papers, including his General Orders from the American Revolution are available online, not a single example was provided to substantiate the claim. Instead, a reference was made to a family’s publication, even as the family member responsible was not a historian and referenced no direct evidence for the allegation. Instead, an examination of Washington’s Papers found orders calling for enforcement of the New York Provincial Congress’ decision to arrest prominent Tories. (Message #61).

    The bottom line is that unlike Hamas, which engages in indiscriminate bombardment and also targets civilians, George Washington discouraged harm to civilians and their property. That does not mean that some abuses did not take place, but official orders were to avoid such abuses and there were documented cases where individuals responsible were punished. Hence, when it comes to civilian protections, Washington’s approach was entirely different from Hamas’ approach.

    Considering that Washington led the Continental Army well before the Laws of War had been devised and civilian protections had become international principle, Washington's orders to avoid harm to civilians and their property were enlightened and well ahead of their time. In contrast, Hamas regularly violates the Laws of War in engaging in indiscriminate bombardment and targeting civilians.

  10. #90
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    I have read the thread loosely, although I haven't followed it to exactness and point to point prior to when I was posting. Anyways, I have already made clear that I am not making the comparison between the Founding Fathers and Hamas. Yet Zyphlin keeps bringing it up. When someone jumps in the conversation, they are responsible for only what they assert and what they say, not everything that was said by people before them. You jumped in the conversation are you responsible for everything Zyphlin said?

    Your guys' biases against Hamas automatically have them placed on some kind of taboo list, that anything they do can not be considered valid, but that's wrong. In the total war concept, civilians can be considered targets. And total war is a concept that anybody can use, it does not require states to be "at war" and formally declared, it simply is a concept that says two peoples seek the destruction of each other using any means necessary.
    Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance.
    Notice it says belligerents, not states. The concept of total war is valid between Israel and Hamas. Both seek the destruction of each other, both kill civilians, and both use practically any means necessary to achieve their objectives.

    And also, just as killing civilians is considered taboo in this time-period, Americans engaged in under-handed tactics such as sniping, etc. that were considered taboo similarly in their time-period. You cannot discount one and overlook the other. What Hamas is doing is pushing the rules of war, and you can make a comparison to what the Americans were doing back during the Revolutionary War. Just because you don't like one and are ok with the other doesn't mean you can discount it.
    Last edited by Opteron; 08-04-10 at 01:37 AM.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •