Arafat wants to be in the spotlight for as long as he can.
If he declares war, he WILL lose eventually and slowing fade to a nobody ( not that he is anyone to me anyway ) .
And if he tries to make peace, WATCH OUT!! But thats a different thread all together, and I’m not about to go there. 
Why not war? Becuase cowards (both moral & physical) don’t DO things like go to war. They might get hurt. Better to set bombs to blow up schoolbusses. Any, and i do mean ANY terrorist, is by my definition, BOTH types of coward.
Daniel – that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Terrorism is just war on a small scale – and no soldier wants to get hurt while inflicting hurt on the other side. You seem to be thus saying they are cowards if they go to war, and cowards if they don’t.
I’m sorry, as much as I hate terrorism, you have to give them some grudging respect–cowards? I don’t think so. Do you know what size balls it takes to strap dynamite onto your own body and detonate yourself? Pretty damn big ones…
I couldn’t do it.
A lot of people like to call terrorism “cowardly.” IMO, it’s no more cowardly than carpetbombing or planting mines. Terrorism is despicable, and offends people on a very visceral level–after all, it’s not the “right” way to fight. But to call terrorists cowards is just a silly way to attempt to hold a moral high ground.
When I kill people, and I play by my rules, I’m a soldier. When dumbfuck terrorist kills people, and doesn’t play by my rules, he’s a coward.
Why can’t we simply understand terrorists to be muderers and, well, terrorists? Track them down like dogs, hang them from the yardarm, but don’t try to gain some sort of moral superiority by calling them cowards.
Because only countries can declare war, and Palestine isn’t a country.
The evidence we have is that he doesn’t want peace on Israeli and (apparently) Clinton’s terms. Not the same as not wanting peace.
While I agree with you that Israel won’t, and shouldn’t for security reasons, allow return of the refugees, Arafat and the refugees have a legitimate legal and moral argument under international, Israeli, and Mandate law.
It was Shamir, while Prime Minister, who publicly referred to Arabs as “cockroaches”, right? Neither side has a monopoly on demogoguery.
Should Arafat make the deal? Sure. Can he? Probably not. All political leaders run into this problem at some point - the right thing to do is politically impossible.
This bit is funny. Don’t we usually applaud people who don’t declare war? That Dalai Lama sure is a coward for not declaring war on China to get Tibet back.
Sua
I have to agree with Daniel,
Terrorists are cowards. Or how about just about the lowest life form there is.
Andros a soldier attacts military targets not civilians especially children. Anybody that blows up a school bus is not a soldier they are nothing nada. They are totally useless human beings. They are nothing but losers that should be publically executed in a most horrible way then their body should be thrown in a dumpster to be eaten away by bugs and rats and spit on by anybody that wants to waste spit on them.
Allright then –
Almost all the U.S. bomber crews of WWII were terrorists - witness the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Dresden firebombing.
The U.S. soldiers at My Lai were terrorists.
Any U.S. soldier, sailor, or airman who inflicted “collateral damage” is a terrorist.
I think you need a better definition of both soldier and terrorist.
Sua
Sua,
Good counter argument let me rethink a little…ok there was a full outright war going on in those scenerios you mentioned weren’t there? That is the difference and I don’t think us soldiers purposely tried to bomb children did they?
Just playing devil’s advocate - nothing personal:
What about My Lai? That was purposeful. And Allied soldiers were guilty of murdering German PoWs during World War II (cite: Max Hastings, Overlord). Is it okay to murder non-combatants or unarmed prisoners in war, but not if you’re a terrorist?
Besides, the terrorist usually believes he or she is at war. What’s your definition of “at war”?
Bill, I must admit my post was a little bit mean-spirited – my apologies :o. In point of fact, defining a terrorist ain’t easy. I recall a pretty spirited debate this past summer trying to come up with a good definition. I did a search but couldn’t find it.
As for your points - I’m not sure whether being in the midst of open warfare means that actions by one or the other opposing side can’t be defined as terrorist. As for whether U.S. military men were trying purposely to bomb children for example, it depends on what “purposely” means. The Dresden firebombers did know they were dropping incendiary devices onto a city with several hundred thousand civilians, including kids. There were legitimate military targets in that city also - does that make it acceptable? I don’t know.
Sua
:rolleyes: semantics? You mean they can’t declare war because there isn’t a word for it? Oh, pulease!
When you make demands against someone you know they will not capitulate on, and declare that achieving your demands requires violence, that is the same as not wanting peace.
I agree.
True.
The Dali Lama doesn’t go around making idle threats and not following through on them.
Another take: could Afafat be a mole?
Touche. My flippancy catches up to me.
Can’t the same thing be said about the Israelis? They are demanding the Palestinians give up the “right of return”, which they know the Palestinians will not capitulate on.
Another take: could Afafat be a mole?
[/QUOTE]
If he is, we have got to dismantle Mossad. They are entirely too good.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Arafat has done a horrendously piss-poor job the past several years. He doesn’t have the character or moral authority to lead his people to nationhood. I think that a great tragedy of the Palestinian people since at least the Balfour Declaration has been that their leaders have almost always done precisely the wrong thing in response to events.
However, I strongly believe that the Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians over the past 50-odd years has, in the main, been immoral. This is not a condemnation of either Judaism or Zionism - it is a criticism of the choices made by successive governments of the state of Israel.
Given the Israeli misconduct, I think the fact that the Palestians are distrustful, angry, and have an over-developed sense of entitlement to their demands, while not particularly helpful, is understandable.
Sua
You mean he’s on that stupid new ABC show? Someone help us, 'cause there ain’t no God.
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
Sua, on the contrary I didn’t think you were being mean spirited at all. I thought it was a good argument and you’re right it is hard to discern a terrorist from a soldier. Now if you want to see some mean spirited reply posters, just read esprix, 2nd law, and ben reply posts. Now those are some mean mothers. 
Maybe not more acceptable but definetely more tolerable.
<< Terrorism is just war on a small scale >>
I’d like to offer a tentative definition of the difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism; I’ve offered this before. It has to do with how close the objective is to the action.
For example: if my objective is to get the British Army out of my country and my attacks are directed against the British Army, then that’s warfare and I’m a soldier. Examples of this might be the American colonists during the Revolutionary War, or the IRA in its more lucid moments.
If my objective is to get the Israeli Army out of my country and my attack is directed against a bunch of Americans on a Greek cruise ship, or against a planeful of Pakistanis travelling to the UK, that’s terrorism. The action is far, far removed from the desired objective.
Of course, if the objective itself is not military but terrorist, that’s a different story. For example, if my goal is to “drive all the Jews into the sea” or to “keep America white” or to “kill the Protestants”, then the objective itself is terrorist (rather than military) and so are activities related to it.
I realize that leaves the recent bombing of the U.S. ship in Yemen to be classified potentially as “guerrilla warfare” (objective is to rid Yemen of American presence, attack was against American military forces). That may leave a bad taste, but we need some way to distinguish between (reasonably acceptable) guerrilla warfare and (unacceptable) terrorism, and that distinction can’t simply be that we agree with the objectives of the one but not of the other.
You had me for a second but here you lost me. I don’t understand the difference between the objective being “terrorist” versus “military.” Is “killing all the Nazis” a terrorist objective? So called “civilians” who support the war machine of an enemy nation are fair game as far as I am concerned anyway, but I’m not sure if that is what you are getting at.
I think implied in the Dexterino’s definition is that the goal has to be immoral. Though I would have to say that a goal of “killing all the Nazis” without regard to their actual conduct is immoral in my book as well.
As for your second point, that civilians supporting the war machine are fair game, where do you draw the line? Workers in non-military-related fields contribute taxes the government uses to fund the war machine. Kids can grow up to be soldiers. All benefit the war machine.
I think pretty soon we’re going to have to start a new thread on these issues.
Sua
Was not the torpedoing of the Lusitania an attack on civilians? (It has not been proven that the ship carried explosives…the second explosion was most likely a coal dust ignition).