The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

ceburat

Butterfly--If you think I would become a terrorist and blow myself up and kill innocent people to prove a point--you are completely insane.

I would fight to the death and if there was no success- so be it.

mad_dog

Ok to directly answer your question: no I don't think Israeli children are legitimate targtes. I have a good knowledge of Palestinian terrorism and can't think of one instance where children were direclty targeted, don't forget terrorists have constituencies too and purposly killing children appeals to no one. Women and children are the "collateral damage" in all wars and I condemn that. However dropping a bomb from an f-16 or shelling a Palestinian beach from a warship has EXACTLY the same effect as a Palestinian bombing an Israeli bus. The Americans and the British seem to advocate the Palestinians unilaterally declaring pacifism. This is beyond bizarre.

__________________
They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child. May God mete them the punishment they deserve

Butterfly

Then your personal choice have failed the cause. Nothing wrong with that if you can bear the thought that you have left thousands of other citizens in the hand of the ennemy.

Oh, and I forget to mention, the invaders is starting to see red, so they start targetting American civilians randomly by excuting them as examples. Not a pretty sight.

But again, it's difficult to blame individuals to fail the cause, we are all flawed.

PS: At least you had the courage to answer the question, while the other supporters failed !!!

Butterfly

Actually, I am not done yet with you, let's twist this a bit more.

What if it meant saving your comrades and family ? let's say blowing up a building to save your friends and family ? would you do it ? in that building there are women and children, will you still do it ? honnest question, hard, but honnest

Little Chuchok

I find it hard to believe that when a public bus is targetted, that children on the bus are not TARGETED.Same as when an f-16 drops a bomb.

You did say "your own ignorance can make you believe that the Israelis are the innocent victims then you will believe anything."

Care to comment?

KID

actually buttfly-- I have question for YOU--. lets say

you don't like your neighbor, you have been throwing hand grenades over the wall separating your property and theirs for some time now. finally your neighbor gets agitated enough to attack you. he enters your property with the intention of killing you and only you

would you !!!!

1. admit your wrong, and ask for peace

2. separate yourself from your wife and kids so as to see that no harm was done to them

3. hide behind your innocent family even if it cost them their lives????

Butterfly

^ what a silly question, #1 of course

This is exactly what the Palestinians have done, and what did they get ? more attacks from Israel.

KID, try read a book or something, seriously. I am sure you can be saved.

mad_dog

I am an almost pacfist I don't agree with violence. The logic that targeting say, a bridge, is legitimate and if civilians get killed it is regrettable but ok as they were not your target is a universal military arguement. (agreed?) This same logic is used to justify terrorism. The Americans and the British seem to advocate the Palestinians unilaterally declaring pacifism. That means to give up all forms of resistance while the Israelis continue killing their citizens at a rate of 100 to 1. This is bizarre in the extreme. Can you really see anyone rational doing this? Violence, terrorism and warfare are in mankinds nature and aren't going to stop becuase we find aspects of them repugnant.

ceburat

That's sort of like a fighter pilot shooting down an airliner that is going to be flown into a building and kill innocent people. You are right, it would be a very hard decision. I'm not sure I could do it and that is the best answer I can give.

However, Butterfly, you are driving this to prove that terriost activities are correct. Such as sucide bombers. No, they are still illmoral, evil and wrong. Completely sick.

Sir Burr

i think you guys are missing the point. To the terrorist it is not a case of right and wrong. To the terrorist the end justifies the means. He blames his enemy for the necessity of killing innocents.

Look at world war II, a war that most people would consider a "just" war for the allies. Could it have been won without the killing of innocents in massive bombing raids? i don't think so. The end justifies the means is a reason that has not been used by terrorists alone.

__________________
Phuket - Veni Vidi Veni

KID

I will accept suicide bombing as a legitimate form of warfare--as long as the targets are military and not innocent civilians !!!

Butterfly

Interesting choice of words you have here. Correct ? or right ? how about desperate ? there is no right or wrong, only interlaced shades of right and wrong mixed together. Is it the correct decision ? to who ?

Will I do it ? I don't know but if I was desperate enough and angry enough, sure I would.

KID

It's one thing for a suicide bomber to walk up to a military check point and explode himself and maybe the taxi driver across the street get hurt

it's a totally different issue when the suicide bomber walks into a crowd of civilians and explodes himself killing 250 innocent civilians !!!!

Butterfly

Exactly, the cause is what matters.

Probably not. Even the French resistance was killing French citizens in the process, and the allies bombed civilians target in Germany.

That's a luxury you don't have when you are conducting that type of warfare. You don't choose your targets on moral principle, you choose your targets on how effective they are going to be on your ennemy.

Sir Burr

What if the civilians support the war? Civilians are the ones that form public opinion.
How do you change that public opinion? How to convince the public that the war cannot be won by military means and that negotiation and concessions are the only way to end the conflict. Terrorism. To create terror among the civilian population by attacking them directly.
I'm not saying this is right, but, it's logical and it works.
In fact, it is the only way a side that is completely out-gunned can fight.

KID

so fuk it then--it would be perfectly O.K. to drop a nuke on Iraq then ????

the civilians have taken an opinionated poll against the coalition

they out number the coalition

fuk it--turn that sand to glass??????

Butterfly

^ as a desperate measure ? yes

and it would qualify as state-sponsored terrorism

Sir Burr

KID,
What has that nuking people got to do with it?
We are talking about terrorism. I don't agree with Butterfly very often, but, his comment about not choosing targets by moral principle is spot on.
To these people their cause is the most important thing. Anything and everyone is subordinate to that cause.
You stand outside of the conflict, so, have the luxury of declaring what is right and what is wrong.
What I am trying to explain is not my own personal feelings, but, why terrorists do what they do and how they justify it. It's called "putting yourself in someone elses shoes".

KID