News Is I am with Terrorism a Plea for Understanding or an Act of Defiance?

[Bilal]

Israel murdered more than 250000 Palestinian civilains, on the Israeli side: they lost only 1200 civilians in last 50 years of the conflict. (Just in Lebanon invasion in 1982, Sharon murdered 20000 civilians - -- more than all Israeli victims in last century: civilains + military (including 5 wars victims))

Or you think that Israeli blood is more expensive?
Terrorism is terrorism, whether by suicide bombers of F16.

By the way, Hamas was created in 1988, and suicide bombers started in 1994...

The conflict started in Palestine immediately after First World War 1917, in that time ; some Zionist militant groups got support from UK to immigrate to Palestine to steal by force the land and the houses of Palestinian people.

You can not integrate all the conflict by ''suicide bombers'' or Hamas , which just recently joined the conflict.

In 40s, UK called the Zionist militants as ‘’terrorists’’ after they bombed the Hotel of King David in Jerusalem .. The British killed one of the most well known Zionist leaders (Stern) after his collaboration with NAZI in 1941 against the British forces. Even Shamir , Former Israeli PM , was wanted dead or alive as ‘’dangerous terrorist’’ to the British authority … after he murdering several British soldiers and planted bombs in their bodies to kill also the British medical groups.

Thos who created Israel (LIHI military group) murdered all the citizens of Palestinian village near Jerusalem called ‘’Dair Yassin’’ , are they considered terrorists?

http://www.firasm86.9f.com/dair.htm

http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass01.htm

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

Evryone, except the billions all over the world like you. Its always a mystery for me how some ppl can be in the illusion that evrybody is against Palestine and for Israel. But for governments its simply impossible to back up palestinians who resort to blowing up buses and cafes. They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

 

[plover]

Bilal,

What do you think of Marwan Barghouti? What do other Palestinians think? I've heard his name suggested as a possible leader for the Palestinians.

 

[Gonzolo]

I understand that after WW2, the UN voted in favor of the creation of the Israeli state (11 "opposed", about 30 "for", and many (15?) neutrals), but the surrounding Arab countries (most of the 11 "opposed") defied this by starting a war, which displaced much of the Palestinian people.

What do the Palestinian people think of these events now? Do most Palestinians recognize this U.N. vote, or do they not?

Does Hamas, which apparently "doesn't reconize Israel's right to exist", recognize the U.N.?

 

[plover]

I'm not generalizing

In your first post to this thread, you seemed to imply that anyone who resists Western activities in the Middle East was blurring the definition of terrorism. You made no mention of the means or motivation for this resistance, merely conflated it with support for terrorism. Looks like a generalization, quacks like a generalization...

Does the definition of terrorism include a why and if so, what is it?

I'm also not willing to split hairs over what fraction of which organization's action is terrorism. That they do it and advocate it is enough.

You talk as if terrorism occurred in a vaccuum. If a population has factions which use terrorism, there is generally something severely wrong with the situation that has caused some to view terrorism as the only option. In order to stop a population from allowing terrorists to remain as their leaders, there has to be some hope that making another choice will make a difference. Given the settlements and the positioning of the wall (among other things), it is hard to see how Israel offers any such hope to the Palestinians. And for a people who have been beaten down for many years, a solution which forces them to abandon whatever dignity they've retained is also not helpful, as it may be the only possession they believe truly their own.

While bringing terrorists to justice is necessary, anti-terrorist posturing is never going to solve anything. Acknowledging the conflicting impulses and feelings of a battered people, the twined desperation and paralysis of life under oppressive conditions might be a step in the right direction.

 

[russ_watters]

In your first post to this thread, you seemed to imply that anyone who resists Western activities in the Middle East was blurring the definition of terrorism.

My first post made no mention of "western activities".

You made no mention of the means or motivation for this resistance, merely conflated it with support for terrorism. Looks like a generalization, quacks like a generalization...

All I said is that a definition should be applied evenly. Now a plea for objectivity is bias? How absurd.

You talk as if terrorism occurred in a vaccuum...

Does the context ever make terrorism not terrorism or make terrorism OK?

...anti-terrorist posturing is never going to solve anything.

Now I've heard everything - being anti-terrorism is a bad thing.

Bilal - bla, bla, bla: if you won't acknowledge the objective concept that terrorism is wrong, we can't move on to discuss anything else. Your stance is preventing progress in this conversation in precisely the same way that terrorism prevents progress toward peace in the Middle East.

 

[Smurf]

accually the main obstacle to peace in the middle east is international oil interests (namely the west (namely the US))

 

[plover]

My first post made no mention of "western activities".

By ignoring the second part of Bilal's statement, you set up the context as being about what he refers to as "occupation, imperialists, dictators" and you, perhaps, do not.

All I said is that a definition should be applied evenly. Now a plea for objectivity is bias?

Does the context ever make terrorism not terrorism or make terrorism OK?

You complained about generalizations after making one yourself. That is all. I said nothing about objectivity or bias.

All you appear to be pleading for is that people repeat "I hate terrorists" over and over again forcefully enough to satisify your personal ideal of retributive judgement. Your persistent misreadings of pretty much everyone in this thread make it hard to believe you actually care what anyone here actually thinks on the subject (especially the one person with actual life experience of the pressures that lead to terrorism). Oh, but if they'll repeat your mantra then, well, maybe, you'll consider condescending to talk to them civilly. Nobody here is going "That terrorism, you do know I think it's bad don't you? I mean like, really, really bad!" because this is so damned obvious there's no need to.

You give no sense that you've ever even tried to imagine how living in hopelessness might affect you, of what seeing the people of your culture brutalized and humiliated every day, being yourself often brutalized and humiliated is like; that when one day you hear that one of your people, a "hero" some say, has killed some of the devils who have been your oppressors, those people who appear satisfied to keep you caged, how then, if you haven't been entirely beaten down, if you still can feel some spark of connection with the world, you feel a twitch of pride that someone has struck back, has finally made themselves heard, but it is combined with the shame that by doing so indiscriminately, by killing at random – without even knowing whether those who died participated in or even supported the oppression of your people – this "hero" has also made that reflection you see every day in the eyes of the soldier at the checkpoint on your way to work, that shows you and your people as less than human, as just beasts, has made that reflection a little more real; there are no certainties when despair, defiance, hope, rage, numbness, suffering are twisted and knotted one on the other, when the emotional and moral ground constantly shifts beneath your feet. Trying to impose easy certainties from outside amounts to a kind of casual viciousness – without understanding the chances are you're just pulling the knots tighter.

Now I've heard everything - being anti-terrorism is a bad thing.

No. Righteous posturing petrified by lack of compassion – that is a bad thing.

 

[russ_watters]

accually the main obstacle to peace in the middle east is international oil interests (namely the west (namely the US))

I tend to separate the Israeli issue from the oil issue. There is, after all, no oil in Israel. But you are right that oil is what causes the problems in the rest of the middle east (though I suspect we differ on the exact nature of the problem).

You complained about generalizations after making one yourself.

So not addressing a point I consider irrelevant is making a generalization? If anything I am guilty of argument via omission, but that's completely different than making an actual statement that is a generalization.

That is all. I said nothing about objectivity or bias.

The reason someone would make a generalization is bias. You're accusing me of bias/generalizing in order to avoid addressing my main point.

All you appear to be pleading for is that people repeat "I hate terrorists" over and over again...

Nope - all I ask is one acknowledgment of one fact. Then we can move on to discuss the complexities of the issue. Why is that so threatening to you?

Your persistent misreadings of pretty much everyone in this thread make it hard to believe you actually care what anyone here actually thinks on the subject...

You're half right: I don't care what someone says if they refuse to answer a direct question. If you (and others) answer my direct question, I will discuss the other things (which are, in any case, off topic) that have been brought up. I find this most ironic because even the starter of the thread is refusing to discuss the topic of his own thread.

Nobody here is going "That terrorism, you do know I think it's bad don't you? I mean like, really, really bad!" because this is so damned obvious there's no need to.

If its so obvious, then it shouldn't be difficult to say, should it? If its so obvious, a simple, direct question shouldn't require a 400 word response, should it?

So say it. Repeat after me: terrorism is wrong and should not be condoned or practiced by anyone.

In fact, instead of saying its wrong, people are implying they believe just the opposite: that terrorism is right (or, at least, justified) in this case. Heck, I'd have more respect for anyone here who believes that (as a debater) if they would come right out and say it. If you believe it, say it and be explicit. Then, at least, we could move on to discussing why it should/should not be justified in this case.

 

[Bilal]

In fact there are many good candidates; I wish the people will elect the best for such bad situation. I think USA and Israel want Abu Mazen, even USA contacted the Palestinian parliament before few days of death of Arafat asking them to elect Abu Mazen and to cancel the public election!

In fact , the Palestinian feel that they are under strong pressure to vote for Abu Mazen or to face more death and destruction.

Bilal,

What do you think of Marwan Barghouti? What do other Palestinians think? I've heard his name suggested as a possible leader for the Palestinians.

 

[Bilal]

Palestinian accepted the right of Israel to exist within 1967 borders since 1988 ...

The question: will Israel accept the right of Palestinian to live free in their homeland and the homeland of their grandfathers since centuries? or there is no place for non Jews in the '' myth of biblical promised land''?

Will Israel declared the ''end of their independence war'' and accept to have ''fix '' borders as any other country in the world?

Till now the Israeli have no ''recognized borders’’, they call the current borders in their maps as "ceasefire borders for 1973". This means they hope to expend more their borders.


Beside that all the Arab countries accepted the right of Israel to exist, and the Israeli have good relation with majority of these countries...

Only Syria, Iran and Sudan rejected to have such good relation before Israel withdraws from WB and Gaza, therefore USA put them on the ''terrorist list'' and they have good chance to join the ‘’axis of evil’’ and ‘’preemptive attacks’’.

Hamas did not recognize the right of Israel to exist, but they will accept the choice of the majority of the Palestinian, so they will not cause troubles if majority of people want to accept the right of exist of Israel.

I understand that after WW2, the UN voted in favor of the creation of the Israeli state (11 "opposed", about 30 "for", and many (15?) neutrals), but the surrounding Arab countries (most of the 11 "opposed") defied this by starting a war, which displaced much of the Palestinian people.

What do the Palestinian people think of these events now? Do most Palestinians recognize this U.N. vote, or do they not?

Does Hamas, which apparently "doesn't reconize Israel's right to exist", recognize the U.N.?

 

[Bilal]

I said before : I am against any kind of terrorisms , whoever do it ; Muslims, Christian, Atheists, Jews, white, African, Asian ...

My point:

We should have international definition for terrorism and ask the ''international court'' in Holland to have authority to check which governments/groups/individuals are practicing terrorism. Every government should accept the decision of this court as representative of the people of the world and representative of the international laws.

The question:

Will USA accept to let ''an international court '' having authority to do that and to respect its decisions instead to define the ''terrorism'' according to the propaganda machine?!


During the invasion of Iraq, an American military spoke to media about attack on the check point. He said ''the terrorist attacked us''!

It is so funny to label the Iraqi soldiers who defend their country against the invaders ''as terrorists'' during the war!

Such word losing its meaning and it will be just type of propaganda that everyone can se it to insult the others.

Bilal - bla, bla, bla: if you won't acknowledge the objective concept that terrorism is wrong, we can't move on to discuss anything else. Your stance is preventing progress in this conversation in precisely the same way that terrorism prevents progress toward peace in the Middle East.

 

[devious_]

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

But if Israel hadn't started killing Palestinian civilians, there wouldn't be any suicidebombing...

They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

Israel is preventing them from doing that.

 

[russ_watters]

Bilal, you came about halfway with that post, and I guess that's the best I can hope for - you do continue to misuse the word in this and other threads. In any case, my answer to your question is a simple yes, but with the obvious caveat of how does the international community decide the definition?

 

[Smurf]

There's a really good book called 'The no-nonesense guide to Terrorism" by Johnathan Barker that I think everyone should read. It teaches you how to kill Americans without; I'm kidding! Relax Russ, Calm down. A large portion of the book is an attempt to define 'terrorism' and it's very interesting.

 

[russ_watters]

Defining and identifying terrorism today is relatively simple (it gets more complicated when you go back in history to WWII). The tough part is figuring out what to do about it.

 

[Gonzolo]

russ, what do you think of the "shock and awe" concept used in the beginning of the Iraq war? Do you believe there is much difference between a civilian being "shocked" by a bomb falling next to his house, and one who is "terrorized" by a car-bomb blowing up next to his house? Let's assume that in both of these cases, the events are motivated by some sort of political belief.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, what do you think of the "shock and awe" concept used in the beginning of the Iraq war? Do you believe there is much difference between a civilian being "shocked" by a bomb falling next to his house, and one who is "terrorized" by a car-bomb blowing up next to his house? Let's assume that in both of these cases, the events are motivated by some sort of political belief.

"Shock and awe" was not aimed at the civilian population, so it can't be terrorism. HERE is a pretty good article. Incidentally, there are some anti-US sites that use quotes from this article: chopped up to make it look like the civilians were the target. So be aware of that if you want to do your own research.

 

[Gonzolo]

Neither were the attacks on the pentagon or USS Cole. Thanks for the link.

 

[plover]

In fact, instead of saying its wrong, people are implying they believe just the opposite: that terrorism is right (or, at least, justified) in this case.

This is the real problem: that it is possible for you to believe this. And the evidence supports not only that you are capable of believing this, but that you entered this thread either believing it or predisposed to believe it.

Here's a definition you gave (post #39):

blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism
​

Here's Bilal's comment (from post #3) that you inveighed against in your initial post to this thread (post #12, the part you included is in italics):

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.
​

By my view, the only plausible reading of this is that Bilal is expressing opposition to terrorism when it is given almost exactly the same definition as you give yourself, namely as violent action targeting civilians. One suspects that he has encountered enough people who expand this definition to cover any resistance by Palestinians, that he feels a caveat is necessary.

So, by my reading, you saw the phrase "definition of terrorism", and assumed it was being used to create ambiguity concerning what Bilal thought, rather than to disambiguate the different ways that Bilal thought he might be read.

The poem:

The poem was translated here with the title "I am with terrorism", but I've also seen it translated as "We are accused of terrorism". I know no Arabic however—I don't know if one of these is literal, the other interpretive, or if the ambiguity exists in the original.

In any case, I don't think the translation even as presented (and my guess is the translation is only adequate, not oustanding, though I can't be sure) can support a reading of the piece as some kind of celebration or even acceptance of terrorism (by your definition). To do so would require either some kind of wildly literal reading (as if it were an instruction manual rather than a poem) or some kind of pathological assumption that any Arab who mentions terrorism must be in favor of it. And this is just treating the text as it stands, taking into account details about Qabbani's life and reputation, such a reading becomes simply farcical.

Qabbani's poem is the lament of someone who feels their life has been defined by terrorism, both by the horrible actions of people within his culture (they killed his wife (!) ), and by those outside his culture who cannot distinguish the terrorists from those who, while opposing many of the same things as the terrorists, do so in a principled fashion.

Is the word "terrorism" used ambiguously in the poem? Yes, of course. The author has heard the word used ambiguously and is conveying that experience. For example:

We are accused of terrorism
If we refuse to die
with Israel's bulldozers
tearing our land
tearing our history
tearing our Evangelium
tearing our Koran
tearing the graves of our prophets
If this was our sin,
then, lo, how beautiful terrorism is?
​

To paraphrase: 'We are accused of terrorism when we "refuse to die" despite the damage Israel has inflicted on our culture – and if that "refusal to die" is "our sin" (i.e. if that refusal is what is called terrorism), then terrorism might be called beautiful.' Hardly a ringing endorsement of suicide bombings.

More important than the ambiguity of the word "terrorism" for the poem, however, is the ambiguity of the phrase "I am with terrorism". I listed some of the obvious meanings in post #20. The use of the phrase might be summarized as conveying the author's feeling of entrapment in a life surrounded/permeated by terrorism. "I am with terrorism" as in "terrorism is here, it is all around me, I cannot escape from it", or as in "if others insist on redefining terrorism to include principled resistance, then I have been lumped together with the terrorists", not as in "I am on the side of the (conventionally defined) terrorists".

There is no line of this poem that even suggests that the actions committed by conventionally defined terrorists are morally ambiguous. The author is, in fact, accusing people of doing precisely the same thing you have been talking about: applying the word terrorism inconsistently.

In the end, what I find completely baffling is the (apparent) fact that from looking at the obvious differences from your own opinions present in this thread, the first inference that pops into your head is that the people expressing these opinions must support terrorism; that differing, or even opposing, views to your own concerning the issues in this thread—Israel/Palestine, Islam, Iraq—amplify in some simple fashion into a fundamentally different approach to respect for human life.

You are the only person in this thread who has seemed to have any deep suspicions that the other commenters here find terrorism acceptable. Nobody should have to prove to you that they think blowing up civilians is deplorable and irredeemably foul. Where do you get the idea that it's somehow easy to find people who do not think this? Or that bullying people into protesting their agreement with your definition doesn't carry the whiff of McCarthyite interrogation with it? (And you didn't read that as saying you're as bad McCarthy, I hope. Yes?)

You've often said that you don't consider yourself to be with the far right, but does it really not occur to you that the implications you've been making here sound like something out of Ann Coulter? The impression you're giving out is that "oh, liberals and Arabs, they all really support terrorism, they just try to fool you into thinking they don't by obfuscating everything", which at best looks like the effects of one too many doses of the Fox News Kool-aid, and at worst like it might be intransigent bigotry.

I'm not accusing you of anything here—I don't think I have clue as to what your real story is. I'm trying to convey my outrage at implications you've put forward that seem (presumably unintentionally) insulting and at some of the tactical choices you've backed them with.

 

[russ_watters]

Neither were the attacks on the pentagon or USS Cole. Thanks for the link.

The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner.

 

[Burnsys]

The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner.

Colateral damage

 

[russ_watters]

The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner.

Oh, I forgot to add the Cole caveat: though it doesn't really qualify as terrorism, it was still illegal under the rules of war because the attackers were dressed as civilians. Same goes for the embassy bombings by OBL. Since they were illegal either way, I don't think its all that useful to hairsplit over whether they were terrorism or not. But what happens is the media uses whatever label sounds best on the news and the politicians follow their lead.

edit: slight error there: Embassies are diplomatic installations and as such are off limits to attacks even in times of war. They are not ever legitimate targets. Since they are government installations, I'm not sure the label "terrorism" applies, but attacking them is still illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the real problem: that it is possible for you to believe this. And the evidence supports not only that you are capable of believing this, but that you entered this thread either believing it or predisposed to believe it.

Here's a definition you gave (post #39):

blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism
​

Here's Bilal's comment (from post #3) that you inveighed against in your initial post to this thread (post #12, the part you included is in italics):

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.
​

By my view, the only plausible reading of this is that Bilal is expressing opposition to terrorism when it is given almost exactly the same definition as you give yourself, namely as violent action targeting civilians. One suspects that he has encountered enough people who expand this definition to cover any resistance by Palestinians, that he feels a caveat is necessary.

So, by my reading, you saw the phrase "definition of terrorism", and assumed it was being used to create ambiguity concerning what Bilal thought, rather than to disambiguate the different ways that Bilal thought he might be read.

Here's the problem with that: since no one anywhere defines terrorism as "resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators," putting it in the post is a straw-man attempt to cloud the issue. And that is, in fact, one of the most common ways this issue is intentionally obfuscated by those who support terrorism. Its relatd to the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" mischaracterization.

Essentially, that poem (as translated in the first post) boils down to: 'You call me a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter: So be it.' My response was 'I call you a terrorist because you are a terrorist.'

Either way, when the poet says explicitly that he supports terrorism, I'll take him at his word, literally. When Bilal says the poet supports terrorism, then gives a definition that has nothing to do with terrorism - I'll still take him at his word, literally - but then I'll also consider that a purposeful, intentional obfuscation by Bilal.

Also, someone (not sure which of you and don't feel like reading the thread) said that the terrorism started because Israel is killing Arab civilians. This is flat-out not true. Terrorism started in the Middle-east in 1970 as a result of losing the 1967 war and the realization it brought that Israel's Arab neighbors would not be able to annihilate Israel with conventional military force. The common recent claim that its tit-for-a-tat retribution for previous killings is an empty justification, and quite frankly is elementary-school childish.

 

[Bilal]

Terrorism started for the first time in ME by the Zionist Terrorists groups …. In 1939, UK promised the Palestinian to stop the illegal Jews immigration to Palestine if they stop the revolution during the 2WW. The Palestinian temporary government accepted this offer.

This agreement cause anger between the extreme Zionists who want to do everything to create State with Jews majority in Palestine, so they declared war against UK , peaceful Jews and the Palestinian …. Even some of their leaders contacted the NAZI in that time.

Jews terrorist murdered many British solider sand Palestinian civilian from 1941 till 1948.

Here some international sources and facts show when really the Organized terrorism based on ORGANISED targeting civilians started:

- This is interesting article written by Jews thinker ((Israel Shamir is a Israeli writer and journalist )) about Dair Yassin massacre in 1948, which caused the immigration of 60% of ‘’terrorized’’ Palestinian civilians:

http://ukar.org/shamir06.html


((Death has many names. The Czechs call it Lidice, the French word is Oradur, in Vietnamese they use My Lai, for every Palestinian, it is Deir Yassin. On the night of the ninth of April 1948, the Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lehi attacked the peaceful village and massacred its men, women and children. I do not want to repeat the gory tale of sliced off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men, bodies dumped in stone quarries or the triumphal parade of the murderers. Existentially, all massacres are similar, from Babi Yar to Chain Gang to Deir Yassin.))

- Israel Shahak
Dr. Shahak, Holocaust survivor and retired professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights.
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_shahak/shahak39.asp


((LEHI showed its uniqueness in its very earliest political strategy, namely in its persistent search for an alliance with Nazi Germany throughout 1940 -- 41. Unlike all other Jewish groups of that time, the LEHI men respected Hitler. Later, the veterans of LEHI tried for a long time to deny that they had ever made alliance overtures to the Nazis. Unfortunately for them, documents proving the contrary were found by Israeli scholars and journalists and published long ago. The search for that alliance and its implications are best described in the above-mentioned book by Heller. He shows that the drafting of the Principles of Renaissance took place at the same time, and he argues that LEHI's pro-Nazism was by no means unrelated to the contents of this document.))

((The principles of the alliance as proposed in LEHI's document submitted to Hentig were to be LEHI's unconditional acceptance of the Nazi "New Order" in Europe, together with "a state of the Jews to be established on nationalist and totalitarian foundations and tied to the German Reich." The state was to be established "within its historic boundaries." Yair considered it impolitic to explain to Hitler in full geographical detail exactly how those "boundaries" were envisaged. In the event the Nazis accepted the offer, "LEHI would join the war, fighting on the side of Germany, provided the latter would recognize the aims of the Israeli Liberation Movement."))

((The initiative floundered, however, as Yelin-Mor was arrested by the British in Aleppo before he could reach Turkey and, via Turkey, Nazi-occupied Europe. Several days after Yelin-Mor's arrest, Yair was killed while being apprehended by British detectives. After Yair's death, the leadership of LEHI passed on to the "triumvirate" comprised of Shamir, Eldad-Sheib and the same Yelin-Mor whom Yair had dispatched to Europe.))

((These assassinations need to be put in their context. LEHI murdered Arabs, British and non-Jews in general (like Count Bernadotte),))

- Zionism terrorism in 40s: Bombing of King David Hotel (Many British, Palestinian and Jews civilians were killed by Zionists terrorists).

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/15-shamir.htm

Also, someone (not sure which of you and don't feel like reading the thread) said that the terrorism started because Israel is killing Arab civilians. This is flat-out not true. Terrorism started in the Middle-east in 1970 as a result of losing the 1967 war and the realization it brought that Israel's Arab neighbors would not be able to annihilate Israel with conventional military force. The common recent claim that its tit-for-a-tat retribution for previous killings is an empty justification, and quite frankly is elementary-school childish.

 

[Bilal]

russ_watters

Can you agree that Sharon is terrorist since 50s?
This man was kicked out from the government in 1983, after an Israeli committee declared his responsibility about the massacre of Sabra and Chatila ...

Here is information about Sharon (man of peace as Bush called him!) if you need more trusted and international sources about the information below, I will promise to provide many …..

*******************************************
In August of 1953 Sharon, commanded the notorious 101 unit of IDF terrorists, in an attack on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza, where (according to an Israeli history of the 101 unit) 50 refugees were massacred. Other sources allege about 20.

In October of 1953, Sharon commanded the notorious 101 unit of IDF terrorists, in an attack on the Jordanian village of Qibya. Israeli historian Avi Shlaim describes the massacre thus: "Sharon's orders were to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. The village had been reduced to rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children, had been killed".

Israel's foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett said "this stain (Qibya) will stick to us and will not be washed away for many years to come".

Between Feb. 28, 1955 and Oct. 10, 1956, Sharon led a paratrooper brigade in similar cross-border invasions of Gaza, Egypt, and the West Bank, Jordan. In the West Bank village of Qalqilya, Sharon's death squad killed 83 people.

In the Gaza Strip, 1967. Sharon brought in bulldozers and flattening whole streets. He did the whole lot, almost in one day.

In August 1971 troops under Mr Sharon's command destroyed some 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 16,000 people for the second time in their lives. Hundreds of young Palestinian men were arrested and deported to Jordan and Lebanon. 104 Palestinians were killed.

Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was responsible for some 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese deaths. The Israelis bombed civilian populations at will. At Sabra and Shatila, he was responsible for the 1,962 massacred there. The killings took over 2 days. All killed were either elderly, women or children and included pregnant women. It is a fact that all those killed were civilians as the fighters had left for Tunis after receiving an assurance from the United States that if they left, the old men, women and children that stayed, would be protected (so much for American assurances).

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not a big fan of Sharon, though I understand his position - he's pretty hard-line and I think there is some justification to that. I've heard allegations of some heinous past acts, however, he is/was not a terrorist: as a uniformed member of the armed forces, the label does not and cannot apply to him. His past actions (and I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly he did) can, however, be considered war crimes.

Citing this is not all that useful, though, considering the leadership of the PLO/PA for decades was an actual terrorist.

Regarding pre-1940 terrorism: its difficult to put pre-1947 actions in the same context since Israel didn't even exist until 1947. But, while I am a little fuzzy on those actions, it seems again, to be a mis-application of the word: not all killing is terrorism. Sometimes murder is "just" murder.

That said, I could have worded my statement better: what I meant was anti-Israel terrorism started in 1970 due to the loss of the 1967 war.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding an international definition/prosecution, my research for this thread has shown that the UN has in fact, tried to define and outlaw terrorism:

In the 1960s the UN General Assembly embarked on an attempt to do this[define terrorism]. Initially little progress was made, partly because many states were reluctant to go far along the road of outlawing terrorism unless at the same time the 'causes of terrorism' were addressed. Other states saw this approach as implying that terrorism was a response to real grievances, and thereby insinuating that it was justified.

Thus the main emphasis at the UN was on limited practical measures. In a series of 12 international conventions drawn up between 1963 and 1999, particular terrorist actions, such as aircraft hijacking and diplomatic hostage-taking, were prohibited. As the 1990s progressed, and concern about terrorism increased, the UN General Assembly embarked on discussions about defining and outlawing terrorism generally. Its Legal Committee issued a rough draft of a convention, which:

"Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be used to justify them."[emphasis added]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/sept_11/changing_faces_05.shtml

 

[Bilal]

I'm not a big fan of Sharon, though I understand his position - he's pretty hard-line and I think there is some justification to that. ))

What Justification? Do you support the murdering of people of Qebia 1953 , Sabra and Shatila 1982 because they are Palestinian! What the crime of those kids, women and civilians to be slaughtered at night by Sharon! Is there are any justification to murder randomly civilians because they belong to other nation/race/community??


((I've heard allegations of some heinous past acts, however, he is/was not a terrorist: as a uniformed member of the armed forces, the label does not and cannot apply to him. His past actions (and I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly he did) can, however, be considered war crimes. ))

Who worse terrorism or war crimes? Do you mean people with military uniform can kill civilians, but people who have not such clothes can kill!

((Citing this is not all that useful, though, considering the leadership of the PLO/PA for decades was an actual terrorist. ))

PLO already called as terrorist; even they kill less than 200 Israeli in 30 years of unbalanced fighting!
The discussion is about Israel and Sharon; whether they are called terrorists or not.

((Regarding pre-1940 terrorism: its difficult to put pre-1947 actions in the same context since Israel didn't even exist until 1947. But, while I am a little fuzzy on those actions, it seems again, to be a mis-application of the word: not all killing is terrorism. Sometimes murder is "just" murder.))

Begen and Shamir who labeled as wanted dangerous terrorist by UK in 40s became PMs of Israel!
Also the three main terrorists Zionist groups: Hagnah, Lehi and Itzel became what called IDF after 1948. Do you means it is ok to create State by terrorism?
Also we talk about Sharon in 50s who started his military life by massacre of Qebia ..

Do you call bombing of 67 houses in small village in other country as murder, but bombing bus is terrorisms! So what is the difference?!

((That said, I could have worded my statement better: what I meant was anti-Israel terrorism started in 1970 due to the loss of the 1967 war.))

Palestinian are under occupation according to UN resolutions, as we know the international laws allows the people under occupation to fight back ... may be some mistakes happen , but you can not call fighting back the occupation as terrorism!

Simply, people under occupation have moral justification in their resistance protected by all huamn laws. The should be blamed by their mistakes , but surely their resistance is jutified.

 

[russ_watters]

What Justification? Do you support the murdering of people of Qebia 1953 , Sabra and Shatila 1982 because they are Palestinian! What the crime of those kids, women and civilians to be slaughtered at night by Sharon! Is there are any justification to murder randomly civilians because they belong to other nation/race/community??

You misunderstand: that statement of mine had nothing to do with 1953 or 1982, it has to do with the situation today. There is legitimate reason to be hard-line today because Israel is under constant terrorist attacks today.

Who worse terrorism or war crimes? Do you mean people with military uniform can kill civilians, but people who have such clothes can kill!

Uh, no... I said nothing of the sort and have no idea where you would get that from. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote.

PLO already called as terrorist; even they kill less than 200 Israeli in 30 years of unbalanced fighting!

How many people you kill has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a terrorist. The PLO is/was a terrorist organization because it commits acts of terrorism. Simple.

The discussion is about Israel and Sharon; whether they are called terrorists or not.

That is not what this thread is about. Reread the first page.

Palestinian are under occupation according to UN resolutions, as we know the international laws allows the people under occupation to fight back ... may be some mistakes happen , but you can not call fighting back the occupation as terrorism!

Mistakes? Uh huh. Strapping explosives to your body and getting on a bus is an intentional act, not a mistake.

See, this is what I mean: you are not willing to apply the definition evenly.

Do you call bombing of 67 houses in small village in other country as murder, but bombing bus is terrorisms! So what is the difference?!

What do you mean what's the difference?!? You can't see that not all killing is murder and not all murder is terrorism? Heck, you argued this very position above and now you're asking the difference?!? No, I'm not going to play your games.

 

[Bilal]

((You misunderstand: that statement of mine had nothing to do with 1953 or 1982, it has to do with the situation today. There is legitimate reason to be hard-line today because Israel is under constant terrorist attacks today. ))


Present is result of past! You can not separate them... the crimes of the Zionists in past and occupation forced the Palestinian to fight back. I do not agree with targeting the Israeli civilians, but if we study the situation from ''macro level'', Israel is the root of the problem ... by murdering the people of Palestine for decades and replace them by force by new immigrants, they caused the situation now.
Sharon who destroyed Qebia in 50s is Sharon who attacked Sabra and Chatila in 80s is the same Sharon who destroying the Palestinian towns everyday! So how you can say; let us ignore what he did in the past!

(( How many people you kill has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a terrorist. The PLO is/was a terrorist organization because it commits acts of terrorism. ))

Could you count the crimes of PLO? PLO is not terrorist group by the international laws, even they are not mentioned on the American list! So how you classify them as terrorists? If PLO is terrorist, why USA accept to give them Office in Washington? Why Bush willing to meet Abu Mazen ( one of fathers of PLO) and he said about Arafat: May god bless his soul …


((Simple. That is not what this thread is about. Reread the first page. Mistakes? Uh huh. Strapping explosives to your body and getting on a bus is an intentional act, not a mistake.))

Again, bombing bus is wrong and terrorism (I agree completely!) ... but the question: bombing town and murdering randomly hundreds or thousands of civilians is terrorism or not?

((See, this is what I mean: you are not willing to apply the definition evenly. What do you mean what's the difference?!? You can't see that not all killing is murder and not all murder is terrorism? Heck, you argued this very position above and now you're asking the difference?!? No, I'm not going to play your games.))

I agree killing any civilian is terrorism ... surely there are some terrorist Palestinian, but what about the Israeli side? What you calling bombing 67 houses during the night! or murdering in called blood several thousands of kids and women in the refugees camps, just because they are Palestinian!

You ask me about bombing busses ... and I agree it is terrorism.

My question: will you accept that mass murdering of civilians in cold blood is terrorism as Israel did and still doing?

 

[russ_watters]

So how you can say; let us ignore what he did in the past!

I said no such thing.

It is in fact my opinion that with Arafat gone, there is the possibility that a peacemaker, not a defender, would be better. But that depends at least as much on what the PA's leadership does in the next few months.

Could you count the crimes of PLO?

The PLO is/was the political arm of the various terrorist organizations (specifically, Hamas). Arafat was head of Hamas before head of the PLO. Arafat's position changed with time, but he did verbally/actively support/fail to take action to stop the terrorist activities he supposedly had the power to stop.

Again, bombing bus is wrong and terrorism (I agree completely!)

Then why did you characterize such actions as justifiable mistakes?

I agree killing any civilian is terrorism

That is not the definition of terrorism - you are intentionally broadening the definition so that you can apply it in places where it does not apply.

My question: will you accept that mass murdering of civilians in cold blood is terrorism as Israel did and still doing?

You'll need to be more specific: that question is loaded. For example, the Jenin "massacre" is often cited as terrorism: it isn't.

 

[Burnsys]

FOX NEWS broadening the definition of terrorism??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140445,00.html

It's nighttime. Crammed into an Amphibious Assault Vehicle not too much bigger inside than a Chrysler Voyager with a dozen heavily equipped Marines, cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski and I get ready to witness battle.

None of us knows what will happen. The hype of the worst-case scenario is pretty bad — hordes of suicide-crazed fanatical terrorists with all sorts of weaponry hunkered down in a heavily booby-trapped bastion of a city, ready to battle the West.

Tonight there's just a particularly annoying wall to scale and a rooftop to reach. The roof seems like a nice place to relax until the sky above it is filled with whizzing terrorist AK-47 fire and much nastier Marine responses

Now the Marines are going to level a neighborhood to make sure the bad guys never use it again. It isn't quite the "destroying a village to save it" formula of the Vietnam War, but it comes close.

 

[russ_watters]

FOX NEWS broadening the definition of terrorism??

Like I said before - the news media uses whatever words sound good without necessarily worrying about correct usage. They often use "terrorist" and "insurgent" interchangeably and they aren't interchangeable.

edit: the tactics of the "insurgents" straddle the line though and that's complicated further by the fact that there are number of not necessarily connected groups with different goals.

 

[Bilal]

I said no such thing.
Arafat was head of Hamas before head of the PLO. Arafat's position changed with time, but he did verbally/actively support/fail to take action to stop the terrorist activities he supposedly had the power to stop...

The PLO is/was the political arm of the various terrorist organizations (specifically, Hamas). Arafat was head of Hamas before head of the PLO. Arafat's position changed with time, but he did verbally/actively support/fail to take action to stop the terrorist activities he supposedly had the power to stop.

If your information is so little about ME, why you show yourself as expert!

PLO is secular organization. It was established in 1963. Arafat was the leader of the largest group in PLO (FATAH) since 1969 , which also secular.

Hamas is Islamic organization, which established in 1988. Israel called it as illegal in 1989.
In fact there are no link between both organizations, even Israel supported Hamas at beginning to create internal Palestinian conflicts between secular and religious groups.

Hamas is political/social wing of Ezz eddin El Qassam established by Ahmed Yassin.

PLO is political wing of many secular, nationalist and socialist military wings. Secularism is common thing among them.

At least, I wish you will get advantage from such information!

 

[plover]

Here's the problem with that: since no one anywhere defines terrorism as "resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators," putting it in the post is a straw-man attempt to cloud the issue. And that is, in fact, one of the most common ways this issue is intentionally obfuscated by those who support terrorism. Its relatd to the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" mischaracterization.

You're making an ad hominem case: Bilal is a Palestinian, therefore his motivation is to obfuscate the issue of terrorism (never mind that the logic of his text argues otherwise).

Anything can be read as obfuscation if you try hard enough. I find no evidence you are applying logic to Bilal's words. My impression is you've imbibed a framework from some right wing source and are applying that without looking at the evidence in front of you.

Essentially, that poem (as translated in the first post) boils down to: 'You call me a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter: So be it.' My response was 'I call you a terrorist because you are a terrorist.'

This doesn't even rise to the level of argument required by ad hominem. It's just an insult. If you can't provide an actual argument that Qabbani thought blowing up civilians was jolly fun (and which does not rely on narrow-minded misconceptions of Arabs), you should at least admit you're just airing a prejudice here.

Either way, when the poet says explicitly that he supports terrorism, I'll take him at his word, literally.

And why do you think that reading a document literally that was not intended that way is in any way intelligent?

When Bilal says the poet supports terrorism, then gives a definition that has nothing to do with terrorism - I'll still take him at his word, literally - but then I'll also consider that a purposeful, intentional obfuscation by Bilal.

As I noted in my previous post, Bilal's wording appears directed at preventing precisely the misreading you are making. The part of Bilal's statement you have yet to address:

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it
​

I think it's clear, but I'll paraphrase it anyway: If you define terrorism as targeting civilians—and the definition you've repeated over and over is based on that, any ambiguity here is in the direction of greater inclusiveness—then Qabbani does not support it. You entirely distort the situation by selectively leaving out the most important bit of evidence.

Also, someone (not sure which of you and don't feel like reading the thread) said that the terrorism started because Israel is killing Arab civilians.

This was not me. My complaint is that your argumentation is insufficient and based on prejudiced assumptions.

 

[kat]

Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was responsible for some 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese deaths. The Israelis bombed civilian populations at will. At Sabra and Shatila, he was responsible for the 1,962 massacred there. The killings took over 2 days. All killed were either elderly, women or children and included pregnant women. It is a fact that all those killed were civilians as the fighters had left for Tunis after receiving an assurance from the United States that if they left, the old men, women and children that stayed, would be protected (so much for American assurances).

Bilal- You have a lot of misinformation or disinformation in your posts in both regards to Israel and Lebanon..but I think this is the worst of all.
You know that f the PLO had not come into Lebanon and terorrized the Lebanese people, If PLO had not come into Lebanon and used Southern Lebanon as a Launching pad to attack Israel NO one would have died from Israel and NO Lebanese would have been raped, tortured, terrorised and murdered by Arafats PLO.
At Sabra and Shatilla there were men killed by the Christian Phalangists, in fact all were men except for the 35 women and children, THIS is according to the Lebanese government.
What I want to know is where is your outrage for May 1985, when Muslims attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian camps and according to UN more then 600 were killed and 2,500 wounded? This is more then Shatila and Sabra! OR where is your outrage for 1990 when Syria murdered over 700 Lebanese in less then 8 hours?! THIS is more then what was killed at Shatila and Sabra. IN ALL, PLO and SYRIA is responsible for over 95 thousand deaths of Lebanese citizens. Often chopping off arms, legs and heads and leaving their bodies writhing in the streets. THAT is terror for you compliments of PLO.

 

[Bilal]

The topic is not about civil war in Lebanon, which has longer history than the Palestinian existence in Lebanon...
There was tension among the Lebanese, even before creation of Lebanon. In mid of 19the century , Egypt, Ottoman Empire and several European countries involved directly in civil war in the mountain of Lebanon between Duruz and Christine Maronite .. In 1958, The Maronite president of Lebanon (Kamil Shimon) asked help from USA to stop the intensive demonstrations that arranged by left (mainly Muslims) against the government. Marine forces killed hundred of Lebanese in that accident …

Concerning the information about Sabra and Chatila … I will present international sources (not pro Palestine):

Robert Fisk is still probably the most outstanding journalist working in the Middle East. He was one of the first journalists to be present at the scene of the horrific murders in Lebanon, 1982. He has published a number of different books and writes columns for The Independant newspaper. He has received a number of prestigious awards for reporting and has produced a number of documentaries including the excellent "Beirut to Bosnia

http://www.geocities.com/cahumanity/hrwatch/

http://www.neopolitanonline.com/venom/Sabra%20And%20Chatila%20-%20Perhaps%20The%20Truth%20At%20Last%2C%20After%2019%20Years.html



((All he could say as he walked round was "Jesus Christ" over and over again. We might have accepted evidence of a few murders; even dozens of bodies, killed in the heat of combat. Bur there were women lying in houses with their skirts torn torn up to their waists and their legs wide apart, children with their throats cut, rows of young men shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. There were babies - blackened babies babies because they had been slaughtered more than 24-hours earlier and their small bodies were already in a state of decomposition - tossed into rubbish heaps alongside discarded US army ration tins, Israeli army equipment and empty bottles of whiskey.))

((But in Beirut, the victims were Palestinians. The guilty were certainly Christian militiamen - from which particular unit we were still unsure - but the Israelis were also guilty. If the Israelis had not taken part in the killings, they had certainly sent militia into the camp. They had trained them, given them uniforms, handed them US army rations and Israeli medical equipment. Then they had watched the murderers in the camps, they had given them military assistance - the Israeli airforce had dropped all those flares to help the men who were murdering the inhabitants of Sabra and Chatila - and they had established military liaison with the murderers in the camps))




((It was only a few days afterwards that we journalists began to notice a discrepancy in the figures of dead. While up to 600 bodies had been found inside Sabra and Chatila, 1,800 civilians had been reported as "missing". We assumed--how easy assumptions are in war--that they had been killed in the three days between 16 September 1982 and the withdrawal of the Phalangist killers on the 18th, that their corpses had been secretly buried outside the camp. Beneath the golf course, we suspected. The idea that many of these young people had been murdered outside the camps or after the 18th, that the killings were still going on while we walked through the camps, never occurred to us.))

((the Israeli Kahan commission published its report, condemning Sharon but ending its own inquiry of the atrocity on 18 September, with just a one-line hint--unexplained-- that several hundred people may have "disappeared" at about the same time. The commission interviewed no Palestinian survivors but it was allowed to become the narrative of history. The idea that the Israelis went on handing over prisoners to their bloodthirsty militia allies never occurred to us.))

Bilal- You have a lot of misinformation or disinformation in your posts in both regards to Israel and Lebanon..but I think this is the worst of all.
You know that f the PLO had not come into Lebanon and terorrized the Lebanese people, If PLO had not come into Lebanon and used Southern Lebanon as a Launching pad to attack Israel NO one would have died from Israel and NO Lebanese would have been raped, tortured, terrorised and murdered by Arafats PLO.
At Sabra and Shatilla there were men killed by the Christian Phalangists, in fact all were men except for the 35 women and children, THIS is according to the Lebanese government.
What I want to know is where is your outrage for May 1985, when Muslims attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian camps and according to UN more then 600 were killed and 2,500 wounded? This is more then Shatila and Sabra! OR where is your outrage for 1990 when Syria murdered over 700 Lebanese in less then 8 hours?! THIS is more then what was killed at Shatila and Sabra. IN ALL, PLO and SYRIA is responsible for over 95 thousand deaths of Lebanese citizens. Often chopping off arms, legs and heads and leaving their bodies writhing in the streets. THAT is terror for you compliments of PLO.

 

[Bilal]

Also you can read about the recent Zionist Terrorism :

Robert Fisk
QANA
Massacre in Sanctuary; Eyewitness


http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/robert_fisk_qana.html

It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disembowelled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world's protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong.

"The Israelis have just told us they'll stop shelling the area", a UN soldier said, shaking with anger. "Are we supposed to thank them?" In the remains of a burning building - the conference room of the Fijian UN headquarters - a pile of corpses was burning. The roof had crashed in flames onto their bodies, cremating them in front of my eyes. When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand...

Israel's slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive - 206 by last night - has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 - the youngest was a four- day-old baby - when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.


((Every foreign army comes to grief in Lebanon. The Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinians by Israel's militia allies in 1982 doomed Israel's 1982 invasion. Now the Israelis are stained again by the bloodbath at Qana, the scruffy little Lebanese hill town where the Lebanese believe Jesus turned water into wine.))

*******************************
Israeli at US Loan Talks is Implicated in Massacre
by Robert Fisk in Beirut

Israel is asking the United States for $8bn (£5bn) in loan guarantees – and has sent to Washington one of the former army officers implicated in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinian civilians to persuade the Bush administration to grant the money.

Amos Yaron, who is now director general of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, was the Israeli military commander in Beirut when Lebanese Phalangist militiamen entered the refugee camps and slaughtered up to 1,700 Palestinian refugees. He ordered flares to be dropped over the camps, at the request of the Phalange, and Israeli soldiers blocked the exits to prevent civilians from leaving the area. Israel is pleading for the money – along with an additional $4bn in military aid – on the grounds that a US invasion of Iraq will provoke further attacks against Israel.

 

[kat]

Bilal- Please refrain from posting Fisk as a dependable source when discussing the Middle East...if you want me to take what you say seriously. There is a reason that the term "Fisking" came into existence.

fisking: n.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment

In regards to your first statement:

The topic is not about civil war in Lebanon, which has longer history than the Palestinian existence in Lebanon...
There was tension among the Lebanese, even before creation of Lebanon. In mid of 19the century , Egypt, Ottoman Empire and several European countries involved directly in civil war in the mountain of Lebanon between Duruz and Christine Maronite .. In 1958, The Maronite president of Lebanon (Kamil Shimon) asked help from USA to stop the intensive demonstrations that arranged by left (mainly Muslims) against the government. Marine forces killed hundred of Lebanese in that accident …

The topic evidently is about a Syrian poet who came to Lebanon and wrote a poem about "being terrorism", and since Lebanon was the first in the middle east to suffer from terrorism it's only right to point out WHY. Much of it was a direct result of PLO entering Lebanon along with Muslim desire to have unity with the "arab nation" and Syria's desire for Lebanon to be agian part of the "greater syrai" right along with animosity towards any nation of the Caleph being anything but Arab and at least have the underlying power lay with Muslims. Christian Lebanese desire to be allied with Israel and Muslim desire to attack Israel. Without PLO and Syria invasion and attacks into Israel from Lebanese soil...Israel would never have had to attack southern LEbanon. Period.

Your lies about Sabra and Shatila- From the Kahane report:

It is impossible to determine precisely the number of persons who were slaughtered. The numbers cited in this regard are to a large degree tendentious and are not based on an exact count by persons whose reliability can be counted on. The low estimate came from sources connected with the Government of Lebanon or with the Lebanese Forces. The letter (exhibit 153) of the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Minister of Defense stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies. This figure, however, does not include all the bodies, since it is known that a number of families buried bodies on their own initiative without reporting their actions to the Red Cross. The forces who engaged in the operation removed bodies in trucks when they left Shatilla, and it is possible that more bodies are lying under the ruins in the camps or in the graves that were dug by the assailants near the camps. The letter noted that the Red Cross also had a list of 359 persons who had disappeared in West Beirut between 18 August and 20 September, with most of the missing having disappeared from Sabra and Shatilla in mid-September. According to a document which reached us (exhibit 151), the total number of victims whose bodies were found from 18.9.82 to 30.9.82 is 460. This figure includes the dead counted by the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims. According to this count, the 460 victims included 109 Lebanese and 328 Palestinians, along with Iranians, Syrians and members of other nationalities. According to the itemization of the bodies in this list, the great majority of the dead were males; as for women and children, there were 8 Lebanese women and 12 Lebanese children, and 7 Palestinian women and 8 Palestinian children. Reports from Palestinian sources speak of a far greater number of persons killed, sometimes even of thousands. With respect to the number of victims, it appears that we can rely neither on the numbers appearing in the document from Lebanese sources, nor on the numbers originating in Palestinian sources. A further difficulty in determining the number of victims stems from the fact that it is difficult to distinguish between victims of combat operations and victims of acts of slaughter. We cannot rule out the possibility that various reports included also victims of combat operations from the period antedating the assassination of Bashir. Taking into account the fact that Red Cross personnel counted no more that 328 bodies, it would appear that the number of victims of the massacre was not as high as a thousand, and certainly not thousands.

 

[Bilal]

- Robert Fisk could be the most neutral sources, because Palestinian believe that 6000 civilians were killed in Sabra and Chatila massacre.

- In Fact Israel attacked South Lebanon in 1948 and occupied 5 villages. Till this moment Lebanon ask for these villages.

500000 Palestinian forced to leave to Lebanon from Galilee by Zionist forces in 1948. Such huge numbers of refugees indicate that Lebanon forced to be part of conflict since that moment.


- Syria was invited to Lebanon by Maronite Christian to help them against the Palestinian. Beside that USA ((Henry Kissinger)) and Israel gave Syria green light to do that, otherwise they will have no other option except to send their forces to east Beirut.

- Kahan reoprt: is report of Israeli government. They never even visit Sabra and Shatila or ask any of survivors about their suffering. They collect information only from the Israeli soldiers ... and they admit partially by their responsibility about this massacre. I think the goal of Kahan report is to reduce the international anger due to this barbarism.

- Here are some pictures about Sabra and Shatila massacre .. If that is not terrorism, so what we can call it?!

http://www.2intellitech.com/~hab/hab/Gallary/Sabra/sabra82.htm
http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
http://www.iap.org/massacres.htm

Bilal- Please refrain from posting Fisk as a dependable source when discussing the Middle East...if you want me to take what you say seriously. There is a reason that the term "Fisking" came into existence.


In regards to your first statement:


The topic evidently is about a Syrian poet who came to Lebanon and wrote a poem about "being terrorism", and since Lebanon was the first in the middle east to suffer from terrorism it's only right to point out WHY. Much of it was a direct result of PLO entering Lebanon along with Muslim desire to have unity with the "arab nation" and Syria's desire for Lebanon to be agian part of the "greater syrai" right along with animosity towards any nation of the Caleph being anything but Arab and at least have the underlying power lay with Muslims. Christian Lebanese desire to be allied with Israel and Muslim desire to attack Israel. Without PLO and Syria invasion and attacks into Israel from Lebanese soil...Israel would never have had to attack southern LEbanon. Period.

Your lies about Sabra and Shatila- From the Kahane report: