Israel Threatens To Blow Up UN Forces Who Are Repairing Civilian Bridges

enharmonic wrote:

I agree with you. Many people either forget or don't want to remember that there are a bunch of unaccounted for nukes floating around out there...all it takes is one...and believe me, the terrorists are certinly trying to get their hands on one.

I don't think that there's a peaceful solution to any of this, but I'm not taking sides...unless you consider that I refuse to acknowledge Israel's agenda as taking sides.

Careful.....a few here will label you anti-semite for saying such things. Funny, isn't it? Well, I certainly want a peaceful outcome if it's in anyway possible. But if it's not then I'd certainly hope the aggressors and those not willing to work for peace are the ones who pay, rather than the innocent civilians that have been paying so far. Maybe that makes me a bit of a hypocrite but so be it. I'm human, I'm not perfect.....but I'm right.

don't gimme no wrote:

Huge stretch there. "all Lebanese?" - obviously not. "complicit" - of course not. But from my understanding Lebanon in general is not opposed to Hezbollah and certainly doesn't put them in the bullshit category of "terrorist group" like many people do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.

If you think labelling Hizbollah as a terrorist group is bullshit, then yes, you're wrong.
They fit every part of the definition.

don't gimme no wrote:

I'm sorry, I refuse to accept the administration's definition of terrorist. Ever since dubya demolished the WTC in the name of terrorism I've wiped the word from my vocabulary. It means nothing to me. Is not Israel terrorizing Lebanese civilians? Goddamn Israel.

no that's considered "self defense"

don't gimme no wrote:

Tell me, reborn, is threatening to blow up UN forces who are repairing civilian bridges something a terrorist group would do? I submit that it is.

Do you really want a serious discussion? Because if you already believe that Bush is responsible for 9-11, that's going to be a challenge for me. Sorry, I have to admit that.
I'll do my best to set that bias aside, though.

As for your question ... Yes, threatening to blow up UN construction crews fits the definition of a terrorist act. The targets are non-combatants, and there is a clear political motive.
The Israeli military has committed a number of actions that I think CAN fit the definition of terrorism, even if said military is not explicitly a terrorist organization. Can you admit the same of Hizbollah?

reborncareerist wrote:

So by that logic, all Lebanese are complicit in Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and are thus valid military targets?
I don't buy that for a second.

The same could be said of the inverse. I've read stories about crazy Zionists who think that the answer to their wildest dreams is to take out the temple mount.

the fun thing about war is that you can justify murder any which way you choose. That's why it's called war.

enharmonic wrote:

The Arabs are semites too. The Christian fundamentalists carefully gloss over that little Bible factoid. If you reject the "anti-semite" propaganda in favor of the word of God, an Israeli attack on an arab is semite-on-semite crime

"Applaud"

About time someone made that point about Arabs also being Semites...

enharmonic wrote:

The Arabs are semites too.

Personally kinda tired of that...

I think it's pretty much understood in context that anti-semite = anti-jewish in this conotation. But thanks for being accurate and uber literal. Language is a moving target.

Willynilly now means -- haphazardly
It's original meaning is -- whether you will it or not

So anti-semite is anti-jew willynilly!

acutejam wrote:

Personally kinda tired of that...

I think it's pretty much understood in context that anti-semite = anti-jewish in this conotation. But thanks for being accurate and uber literal. Language is a moving target.

Willynilly now means -- haphazardly
It's original meaning is -- whether you will it or not

So anti-semite is anti-jew willynilly!

So when it doesn't fit the Jew agenda, it becomes haphazard. That's classic. God forbid you hold the Jews accountable for anything. Point out that they are no better than arabs with regard to semitism, and suddenly it's a non-issue.

The word of God is not uber-literal, it's THE word. Human beings turn it into a campaign speech, and suddenly being an anti-semite is a bad thing, unless you're a Jew attacking an arab...oh, excuse me defending yourself against an arab.

LOL

acutejam wrote:

Sorry, that was a confusing demonstration of how words change, I actually meant the original willynilly in the last line -- see how confusing that is -- these days I think anti-semite is used in most contexts to mean "jew hating" whether you will it to mean something else or not?

Um, I haven't spoken about holding anyone accountable so I can't really address that point. In other posts I've pointed out that Israel censors the media just as thoroughly as Hez -- so, um, no, I will hold them accountable when, in my opinion, it's merited.

I think there's racist jews and racist arabs, no prob with saying that.

By accountable, I mean that they are the first to wave the "anti-semite" flag when they know full and well that the arabs are also semites. In that regard, they play the vast majority of the American public like a fiddle.

acutejam wrote:

Ok I hear ya -- my point is, it's entirely possible that even given historical context, you might open Websters in a few years and see:

anti-semite: against the jewish people and/or religeon

Because that's how it's being used nowadays. I'll agree it's a poor word-choice, and no I don't think people who use it that way think one sec about it, because of the historical context, but unfortunately we CAN just go change meanings willynilly!

Belive me, I nausea at that usage.

I totally agree, but that has everything to do with the nature of revisionist history, and nothing to do with reality. Sortof the literary equivalent of the JFK assassination...back and to the left....back and to the left. Physics and the Zapruder film don't lie, but we're all taught that it was Lee Harvey Oswald...acting alone. Another one for the "my ass" file.