Israel and Palestine: Face-Off at the UN
- Thread starter Zero Phoenix
- Start date
2011? No idea. Havent followed their feud closely enough this year.
In general? Well, Palestinians tend to attack civilian targets with the express aim to kill civilians in order to get what they want. And each time Israel blows something up, its with the intent to kill the leaders of terrorist cells and organization, and civilians are just collateral damage. So, Palestinians fit the definition of terrorists, Israel fits the definition of sloppy or overkill.
In general? Well, Palestinians tend to attack civilian targets with the express aim to kill civilians in order to get what they want. And each time Israel blows something up, its with the intent to kill the leaders of terrorist cells and organization, and civilians are just collateral damage. So, Palestinians fit the definition of terrorists, Israel fits the definition of sloppy or overkill.
Sorry got extremely busy today.
Regardless of tiny differences in broad strokes the US does fill the role of Israel if Terrorism/middle east fills the role of the palestinians.
Besides Kaze makes a decent point. One of the youngest superpowers in the world and has been involved in the most conflicts/wars.
Cant exactly call you peaceful >.> But anyway not important.
While Israel is prolly far more likely to blow up a neighborhood to kill a few terrorists the US just as easily occupies the middle east.
And you cant use the argument; YEA BUT ONLY TO KILL TERRORISTS!
Simply because even IF that was the only motive for being there you did not kill JUST terrorists you took out plenty of civilians aswell. Whether or not you labelled them insurgents later is not up for debate here either.
Point of fact being. If you look at the extremely long list of transgressions that kaze posted its constantly cause and effect.
And as for media exposure the joker said it best: If a truckload of soldiers dies.. its all according to the plan.. but if one tiny major dies.. everybody loses their mind.
Can you accurately tell me the cause of the ongoing terrorist activities of the current Israel vs Palestine 2011 scenario?
To be fair, most of those are tiny conflicts, more like armed interventions then actual wars. A bombing campaign here, a squad of special forces or marines there, and thats about it for most of those 'wars'.
Which it doesnt. The number of actual attacks against Israel lies so much higher then the number of attacks against America. There is no way you can compare the entire middle east with the palestinians or the US with Israel. Face it, such a comparison is oversimplified and far from accurate.
Then who? Europe? Between 1700 and 1815 there has been almost a constant war going on between two or more European powers. The amount of conflicts that involved most European superpowers have been numerous. No, America pales in comparison to its European predecessors.
They did that with two countries not the entire middle east. If youre going to make comparisons, at least make them true, because now youre just getting your facts wrong. Your comparison fails due to its gross over generalizations. And again, if civilians die in a military operation its not automatically terrorism. Terrorism is intently killing civilians in the hopes of achieving something. If they die because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, its not terrorism.
Which it doesnt. The number of actual attacks against Israel lies so much higher then the number of attacks against America. There is no way you can compare the entire middle east with the palestinians or the US with Israel. Face it, such a comparison is oversimplified and far from accurate.
Then who? Europe? Between 1700 and 1815 there has been almost a constant war going on between two or more European powers. The amount of conflicts that involved most European superpowers have been numerous. No, America pales in comparison to its European predecessors.
They did that with two countries not the entire middle east. If youre going to make comparisons, at least make them true, because now youre just getting your facts wrong. Your comparison fails due to its gross over generalizations. And again, if civilians die in a military operation its not automatically terrorism. Terrorism is intently killing civilians in the hopes of achieving something. If they die because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, its not terrorism.
Finally were back down to definitions. You're wrong. Terrorism is not universally accepted as: an act with disregard for the safety of unarmed combatants/civilians.
Terrorism in the big book of oxford's lexicon only involves instilling fear into others. Not deaths.
And yess Europe has a far moer colorfull history but its also almost 1800 years longer in its timespan
Terrorism in the big book of oxford's lexicon only involves instilling fear into others. Not deaths.
And yess Europe has a far moer colorfull history but its also almost 1800 years longer in its timespan