C K Dexter Haven, if I use your example 1,
Would the same apply to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II?
I’ve always maintained that in order to be consistent with the implied connotation of the word, you cannot excuse major world powers just because they are major world powers. Then the term simply becomes hypocritical and Orwellian.
I would define terrorism as the targeting of primarily non-military targets done in order to “send a message.” It’s quite clear that both Axis and Allies engaged in this throughout World War 2. It’s also quite clear that the US has by and large ceased to use this sort of tactic and is fairly consistent in condemning it in the modern world, though we’ve not yet gotten to the stage where we are willing to admit that we used it liberally in WW2.
Israel is a more complicated issue. They often do seem to engage in a sort of collective punishment: attacking an entire civilian infastructure in response to the actions of what amount to just a few people. However, Israel is in the near unique position of basically having neighbors that do not directly attack it, but rather have a civil society that tolerates and is partly emeshed in the local operation of armed groups to periodically attack it. Given my hope to use words a little more precisely, I would then reject the use of the word terrorism as applied to Israel. Israel has sometimes pushed the line on collective punishment by targeting civilian infastructure, which is a sort of terrorism with minimal casualties, but they’ve not really been indescriminately targeted civilians for death.
Sure they are. Just because conservatives haved push the use of the word “terrorism” now for ANYONE that attacks ANY american target with subterfuge and inferior technological force doesn’t mean its sensible or legitimate.
A “terrorist” is an individual who uses threats and force to get what they want. It’s a form of extortion. The psychological dynamic is the same as that of a spoiled brat who throws a destructive temper tantrum when his/her desires are thwarted. The difference between a 4-year-old child who takes a baseball bat and bashes the TV to smithereens because his parents wouldn’t let him watch what he wanted to, and a dangerous psychopath like Osama bin Ladin who convinces people to fly airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people because something has or hasn’t happened the way he wanted it to, is merely one of degree, not kind. “Give me what I want, or I will pitch a tantrum.” All the pseudoideological pseudoreligious pseudopolitical cant they spout is nothing but prancing and posturing. The terrorist’s credo is and always has been: “There is nothing in the world that is more important than me getting what I want, and that entitles me to mame and kill innocent people and destroy property if I don’t get it.” Unfortunately, the ghastly obcenity of their destructiveness is further compounded by the fact that, more frequently than not, they have manipulated or coerced other people into throwing their tantrums for them. Even more unfortunate is that such psychopathology is not limited to any race, creed, sex or national origin.
And is extremely well illustrated by the behavior of Bush and the rest of the US Government in its reaction to 9/11.
Glad we can agree that such have been terrorist actions. 
And it will be; they are simply being dishonest and sadistic about it. Destroying the infrastructure will kill many people, and cause suffering to many others. Their deaths will generally be slower, and less directly attributed to Israel - just like our similar attacks in Iraq. It’s like economic sanctions; a method of killing and tormenting mass numbers of civilians while pretending you are not. It’s terrorism, but it’s dishonest terrorism.
He was a terrorist, given some of the things he did ( such as the campaign that impelled the Iroquoi to name him “The Town Burner” ), as well as a traitor ( in a good cause ). “Treason never prospers, for if it prospers, none dare call it treason”; the same applies to terrorists.
Any proof for this, at all?
What timeframe, exactly, are you claiming? And how many deaths in that timeframe? It should be fairly simple to, say, in a month or two cite HRW reports or something of the sort if there are in fact thousands of Lebanese dying because the roads are bombed.
Care to make any definitive prediction with a definite number of deaths due to a clearly defined set of causes within a clearly delineated span of time?
Or will this be like those who claimed that Israel’s bombing of Gaza’s power would lead to countless deaths already, when we’ve hardly seen any?
But it’s definitely odd… If Israel attacks valid dual-use targets in a response to a clear casus belli, they must be sadists. Sadism is obviously the only reason for a limited series of strikes as opposed to Total War. Sadism is obviously the only reason to respond to clear aggression on Lebanon’s part. And sadism simply must be the driving force behind self defense.
After all, the drive to not have your civilians targeted for murder is just about the most sadistic drive out there.
Right?
I don’t have too much to add at the moment, but just wanted to say I find this to be an extremely fascinating and thought provoking thread. I think every poster has touched on some great points.
Too bad we (my nation) couldn’t examine all the conflicts around the world in the same rational manner.
uhuh. You got any data to back that up? Is there any indication that civilian deaths have risen dramatically from disease, starvation, etc, since the start of the conflict? Or is it too early? What time frame are you talking about here? Days? Months? Years?
As for your sanctions arguement…well, the irony of your statement is killing me here. You are absolutely right…sanctions generally DO have a negative effect on a civilian population. Some times its a VERY negative effect…like in the case if Iraq. And yet, IIRC, you have stated multiple times that you felt sanctions were working in Iraq, that we should have stayed with them and not invaded, blah blah blah. I happen to agree with this myself…but I also understand what it would have meant to the Iraqi people living under those sanctions. Appearently its just dawning on YOU however what it meant…as it was dawning on your brethren of the spirit prior to the US invasion. I think for this reason the sanctions would not have remained in place for more than a few more years…they would have been increasing pressure (from guys like you) to take those sanctions away and ‘free Iraq!’ from them.
As for it being terrorism to impose sanctions…I’ll chalk that up to your wonderful use of hyperbole, as usual. Unless you have had a change of heart now and think the Iraqi war WAS worth while? Because the alternative to sanctions in such a case is war. Just like the sanctions currently imposed on North Korea. Perhaps you feel that war is the better option…at least it won’t be closet terrorism (in your mind at any rate)…
-XT
Our government ,under an agressive Atty. General, has expanded terrorist to incude “eco terrorists”.
That includes pep[ple who stop loggers,or picket against many industries. They can get huge penalties for it. Is Sierra Club , a danger to our way of life. Is Greenpeace liable for Guantanamo.?
The way the word is generally used it refers to persons who engage in low level violent acts against civilian population with the intention of producing the same amount of psychological damage that an invading army would, without approaching the level of physical damage a conventional army would cause. Such groups are not usually afilliated with governments, though there are governments that may support a terrorist group.
This is a narrow definition that appeals to me because it gives the word meaning and I’m not sure how else to refer to groups like Al-Qaeda.
<bolding mine>
Yes, and I wish. And aren’t the eco-terrorists, ALF and ELF, actually firebombing criminals causing millions of dollars of damage and not the bunny and tree huggers at SC and Greenpeace?
< Points to Iraq >
That would depend on how much food and other supplies they have locally.
:dubious: I don’t recall ever talking about the sanctions on the SDMB; are you sure you aren’t mistaken ?
And how was Iraq going to invade us ?
A terrorist is a criminal with a published political agenda.
Nothing else.
Tris
There’s a very good reason why you’d find that “hard to believe.” It has to do with the extremely biased, pro-Israel MSM coverage in your country:
Deadly Distortion Associated Press Coverage of Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
-Points out that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
-Points out that not all situations are the same just because you slap the label ‘war’ on them.
-Points out that you have yet to make any concrete predictions that can be falsified, nor any coherent arguments for why taking out roads and such will, necessarily, lead to a ‘sadistic’ slow death.
So, through all of history, when there weren’t roads, everybody starved? :dubious: Do you have any evidence, at all, that current events will lead to mass death by starvation/what-have-you? Or is it just a talking point?
Are you sure -you- aren’t mistaken?
Sanctions were working:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6821231&postcount=55)
Sanctions not as bad as war:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6863276&postcount=20)
Yes? And? Has there been massive starvation in Iraq? I haven’t HEARD of massive amounts of starvation due to the attacks on the infrastructure, but if you have a cite…
Hey, its YOUR assertion. I’m asking for cites not nitpicks. Do you have any evidence that this is happening?
Looks like FinnAgain saved me the trouble. I was pretty sure you had, though I was going from memory. Whats your thoughts now…have you changed your mind and now think of the Iraqi invasion in a new light?
Um…I don’t know really. Its your fantasy after all. I never said anything about Iraq invading the US. Perhaps the dream XT in your head said that?
Um…what does this ‘cite’ have to do with the actual question I asked? I was looking for a comparison between Israeli deaths during the history of this conflict vs Palestinian deaths. As I said, I wouldn’t be surprised if in fact more Palestinians HAVE died, especially if we are factoring in indirect deaths due to poor conditions during the various dislocations (not EXACTLY what I meant, but I’ll give it to you)…but your, er, cite, doesn’t exactly go into that.
BTW, for the record, I don’t actually read MSM as a primary source of news. I usually hit CNN and the BBC’s web sites, perhaps going to a few others to get different angles.
-XT
:smack: Never mind. You meant Main Stream Media (sources)…not MSN. Its late in the day and its been a bit of a trial today…I’ll chalk it up to that. 
-XT