Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Today in gaza israeli troops

  1. Jun 10, 2003 #1

    MSI

    User Avatar

    today in gaza israeli troops tried to kill one of "HAMAS" polticians (3abed al-3azeez al-rantisis) but they killed a small child and his mother and one of 3abed al-3azeez guards .... and today 3 citizens were killed in west bank by israeli troops ..
    (one of the american politician) said that what happend today will less israel protection but he didn't say that it is a terrorism work,... on the other hand if a palestinian killed an israeli solider they will call him a terrorist

    going back to what you read can you define "terrorism"?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 10, 2003 #2

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: terrorism

    An act aimed at innocent civilians' lives and/or property.
     
  4. Jun 10, 2003 #3

    MSI

    User Avatar

    Re: Re: terrorism

    but not in israel ...
    you see israel is killing inoccents and destroying their houses they are destroying their life....

    and they don't call what israel do terrorism
    but when israel kill someone friends, family, destroy his house and he got nothing to do in his life so he go and kill what destroyed his life ....... they call him terrorist ...
    why?
     
  5. Jun 10, 2003 #4

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Re: Re: terrorism

    No. Israel's acts are not aimed at innocents and when
    these do get hurt it is not intentional - thus
    not terrorism according to the definition.

    Peace and long life.
     
  6. Jun 10, 2003 #5

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Re: Re: terrorism

    How do you define innocent? Aren't the family of suicide bombers, who are not charged or tried for any offense, innocent?
     
  7. Jun 10, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Re: Re: terrorism

    Of course not, they do not prevent murder of innocents.
     
  8. Jun 10, 2003 #7

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Hmm... I wouldn't be so hasty to say that failure to prevent a crime is equivalent to a crime itself. In that case, Sharon certainly deserves to die for failing to stop the violence. Bush is a prime target for failing to stop 9/11. The Israeli civilians are valid targets for failing to prevent various particular cases of murder. The list is endless... It's a wonder why we don't simply blow up Texas for failing to prevent the execution of innocent men. Hell, the whole earth could have stopped them. Let's just kill everyone, right?
     
  9. Jun 10, 2003 #8

    MSI

    User Avatar

    damn i got 6 posts now but what ever......
    drag:
    he is a leader of politician group not military group he is like any other innocent and they wanted to kill him
    onther thing ...... when an israeli vichle enter a city and destroy some houses .. is that for terrorist?
    no, it is for creating terrorists ... israel is creating palestinian terrorists every day .....
     
  10. Jun 10, 2003 #9
    The definition of "terrorism" has always been a subjective point of view hence the saying, "one country's terrorist is another country's hero."

    I personally do not approve of either the Palestinians' nor the Israelis' violent acts against each other. In my mind they are both guilty of terrorism and the act feeds on itself.

    I personally would like peace to be possible in this region, but unfortunately factions in both countries have strong feelings and are consciously or unconsciously subotaging the possibilities for peace. I for one tend to empathize with the Palestinians who have had their land taken away from them, and who have had their freedom taken away from them as well. When cornered by an untrustworthy neighbor, you may find yourself fighting for your rights as well. The Palestinians see this battle as a war but they have no army (not a conventional one anyway) and they have no conventional weapons. Their rogue and unconventional use of violence is seen as terrorism and a response by an organized army such as the Israelis is seen as self-defense. In reality, both are simply defending their own rights to live freely. In one sense, the conventional methods are seen as okay and unconventional methods are seen as terrorist acts. But in my mind they are simply at war and war is a form of terrorism by both parties in my own subjective view.
     
  11. Jun 10, 2003 #10
    Re: terrorism


    the term 'terrorism' is a propigandic tool to inflate a sence of fear and evil for your people. if terrorism is, as some in here have posted, the taking of an innocent civillian's life than america has been a very active terrorist. we have (in a single bomb) destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians. we did that twice, actually. and if one does a little more research, they'll find many more acts of the same sort.
     
  12. Jun 10, 2003 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Wrong on several levels. He is a leader of Hamas, which is strictly a terrorist organization, not a political group. And if he WERE a member of a political group (like Abaas's defense minister) then he WOULD be a legitimate military target.

    Either way you slice it, he's a legitimate target.
    Non sequitor - you can't justify one act of terrorism by claiming others are comitting acts of terrorism.

    Also, you picked an interesting time to bring this up. I'm sure you know that Abaas has renounced terrorism and in response, Sharon has started to dismantle Jewish settlements in disputed territories (and other concessions). BOTH of these men are making a good-faith effort to negotiate and work out a peace. The terrorist organizations cannot survive if peace breaks out and as such they took the unprecidented step of working together for the purpose of sabbotaging the peace process. That Hamaas leader (understandably upset) restated the Hamaas goal of the complete annihilation of Israel when he said (among other things) "I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine."

    Be clear here: the enemy of Hamaas isn't just Israel - its peace itself. Abaas should fear for his life. He is an enemy to Hamaas.

    This all being said, the attack by Israel was poor judgement because it could further fuel the terrorists.
    You misread drag's definition. He said an attack AIMED at innocent civilians. Under that definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki could certainly be considered terrorism. But its important to note that the international treaties that govern warfare (yes, there are laws of war - this isn't propaganda) added the targeting of civilians AFTER WWII. Since WWII, the US has bent over backwards to avoid civilian casualties, often causing MORE American soldiers to die to protect other countries civilians.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2003
  13. Jun 10, 2003 #12

    MSI

    User Avatar



    ohhhh not at allll!!!
    hamas is not the terrorist org. QASSAM is the "terrorist" org and they are a part of hammas and that makes a big difference


    israel did that not abaas...
    before what happened hammas was going to seise fire and there were no any innocencts killing but when israel knew that she tried to make hammas continue terrorism by what it did and also to show that palestinians doesn't want peace they also killed 6 palestinians today...... why today ?
    isn't that to creat more terrorism ?

    did you see the settelment that sharoon removed??
    i think you should see it it is just some carvans that jew lives in and i know that caravans 'cause my grand father live in a simmiler one and they can move with it every where ...
    sharoon destroyed it ..... the jew take it and go onther place to settle it


    thats not hammas goal it is all palestinians goal they want their land back and that is them right..





    if someone come and took your house and get you out of it and when you went to the law-court they said we can't do any thing and after a a long time they gave you 1 room from the house and the man who took your house still bothers you all the time and the court is on his side what will you do?
    if you do nothing palestinians will not they will kill him ...
    and that what is really happening now
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2003
  14. Jun 10, 2003 #13
    How is Abbas's defense minister a legitimate target? Is Israel at war with the Palestinian Authority (that is the name of the Palestinian Gov.'t, right?)? Isn't there some kind of international accord against assassinating leaders?
     
  15. Jun 10, 2003 #14
    I don't want to get into this debate really, but I will say this seems like a counterproductive move from the Israelis. Abbas's Defense Minister -- who russ is ready to declare a military target -- was just a couple days ago threatening military action (by the PA!) on Hamas if they didn't back off their anti-ceasefire position. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in the Israeli government who oppose this roadmap -- and there are many -- were behind this ill-timed and ill-fated assassination attempt. Just as the radicals in Hamas et al will do their best to hinder it....
    Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? After the end of the Cold War, is more like it. But given that those wars were all US invasions of small countries, I think it's "bending over backwards" to prevent civilian casualties is damn well America's responsibility, not something we should get extra points for.
     
  16. Jun 11, 2003 #15
    There are definitely deep problems with Israel, they don't seem to be able to control their military! RW has a point that military action allegedly against terrorists is in principle different than terrorism itself, however, the Israeli military never shows enough restraint to put that principle into practice.
    You got to understand that the propaganda about this situation is quite different than reality. The reason for the attack is just our reason for invading Iraq- we can, and it scares people. Scared people are more obedient.
     
  17. Jun 11, 2003 #16
    One point to think about: In America, you can be convicted of murder if you cause the death of another while showing 'depraved indifference'...and according to Kat's statistics, Israeli troops kill 4 civilians for every 6 combatants.
     
  18. Jun 11, 2003 #17

    kat

    User Avatar

    There's several problems with MSI's statements, and well Russ's as well (number 1 being that Hama's is part of the Palestinian government, to the tune of 33% I believe, don't quote me though :wink:). I'm not going to get into that now, as I am in the midst of a deadline but..I did want to point out that using America as a comparision might not be helpful to your argument as the civilian casuality during American conflicts hovers around 70% in the last century.
     
  19. Jun 11, 2003 #18

    MSI

    User Avatar

    i don't know what you really mean here but if it was that every 10 israel kill is (4 civillians and 6 combatants)
    thats mean that every child throw a rock on the jew troops is a combatants
    in intifada there was 800 (under 18) killed and all are considerd civilians

    kat,
    i hope you write the problems in my statements



    number 8
     
  20. Jun 11, 2003 #19
    Well, that includes Hiroshima, right? And the carpet bombing in Vietnam? What is the US civilian casualty rate during an after-war police action?


    And, of course, America has commited enough war crimes, true enough.
     
  21. Jun 11, 2003 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That was a hypothetical example - probably a bad choice. I'm not suggesting they SHOULD kill the defense minister, but the defense minister IS a part of the military command structure as is a large majority of *ANY* government. Our efforts in Baghdad were focused largely on government command structure. And yes, I think PA is what it is currently called. Also, no, there isn't an international treaty on assasinating heads of state, but there IS an executive (presidential) order (it only covers heads of state). However, since a presidential order is written by any president about anything, it is essentially meaningless to a new president. Bush isn't bound by it and doesn't even have to recind it if he doesn't want to.
    Hamaas claims responsibility for terrorist acts. If it is meant as a political organization, they shouldn't taking part in these attacks.
    Abaas has made a number of public statements renouncing terrorism and has made efforts to bring the terrorists to the negotiating table. He risks his life for peace and that makes him an honorable man.
    Before WHAT happened? I think you are confused about the chronology of events these past two weeks. Hamaas REFUSED to enter cease fire talks and refused to stop their terrorism. Then as a joint act, Hamaas and two other terrorist organizations conducted an attack. Both of these were done while Israel was releasing prisoners and dismantling settlements and Abaas was helping set up peace talks. The joint terrorist act was done by the terrorists specifically to sabbotage efforts at peace by both sides.

    AFTER Hamaas conducted their attack, Israel retaliated by attacking the a Hamaas leader responsible. Though justified, it was not politically a smart thing to do.
    I'm glad you admit that. So you would agree with Hamaas that negotiation is pointless and that the only acceptable solution is forceably driving the Israelis from Israel? Guess what: its not going to happen. So you'd be better off negotiating a compromise. The blood of all killed in this conflict is on the hands of those who refuse to compromise: YOU.
    damgo, it sounds like the Israeli attack came from Sharon himself. A bad decision - unless of course he is tyring to sabbotage his own peace talks, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
    It is certainly the responsibility of America as well as EVERY country to minimize civilian casualties. But the US has gone far beyond that responsibility in putting its own soldiers at risk to protect civilians. And currently only westernized nations are even making an effort. Saddam made a serious effort to MAXIMIZE his own civilian casualties in the war we just fought. You must also understand that TECHNOLOGY plays an important role in what determines what reasonable action to avoid civilian casualties consists of. In Iraq this spring, EVERY bomb dropped on Baghdad was guided. That was simply not an option in Vietnam.

    Also, your examples are bad ones: Korea and Vietnam were just like Kuait - the US coming to the defense of a country that was invaded by a greedy neighbor. Cambodia and Laos were part of Vietnam, but they are really a different issue from civilian casualties.
    Kat, I realize that, but timeframe is important and comparisons to others are important. During WWII EVERYONE attacked civilians (no, that does not make it right). Today, only SOME countries or groups specifically target civilians.
    That may be true, but when they claim responsibility for a terrorist act and the focus of their efforts is terrorism, that makes them a terrorist organization.
    I would certainly agree with that Zero, and as I pointed out, the US takes POSITIVE steps to avoid civilian casualties.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Today in gaza israeli troops
  1. Israeli shooting (Replies: 28)

  2. Gaza War (Replies: 35)

Loading...