Uday & Qsay may be dead...

Re: Denial - A place Due North visits often.

James, take a look at the definition of terrorism, then look at the events of '81. If you can't see the connection, you're blind.

 

"Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."


Lets see, the Israeli strike was an attack designed to prevent a sworn enemy state with which Israel was technically still at war with from aquiring nuclear weapons with which it could have (and probably would have) been obliterated. It wasn't coercion, or intimidation. It was defensive.

Sorry Due, you are so busy being contrary and anti-Israel that you won't admit that the '81 strike was a point for the good guys.

 

On June 7th, 1981 Israel was engaged in a decalred war against Iraq?

You definition is also faulty. By your definition, if a person flew a plane into a building with the only goal being to kill a bunch of people, not to "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments", then that would not be terrorism.



I'm not anit-Israeli, however I don't afford them any special status either.


But by your definition, 'unlawful use of force' would be the violation of airspace, the killing of innocent civilians, the destruction of property. The intimidation and coercion, was the implied threat of further unlawful acts if the Iraqi policy towards the development of nuclear power continued.

 

Iraq had one reason to develop nuclear power: weapons programs.

When you can't swing a dead cat without hitting an oil well, you don't look to nuclear power for electricity generation, you build oil-fired powerplants. They didn't.

And if you want to discuss violations of airspace, I'm pretty sure the SCUDs that Iraq launched in Gulf War I could be considered a violation of Israeli air space too.

 

mtk:

1) What right does Israel, or any country, have to determine or influence the future of another? They don't.

2) 1991 has no bearing on a discussion about 1981.

 

'91 Does have a bearing on why the Israelis choose to bomb Iraq in '81. It clearly (to most people I guess) shows that the Iraqis would attack Israel with very little provocation or when it suited Saddam's political machinations.

Yes, to this day, with the exception of Eygpt and now Jordan, Israel remains technically at war with all the other Arab League countries, including Iraq.

Can you really not make the distinction?

It must be nice for you to be able to pass judgement from your nice safe comfortable country. Some people live in much rougher neighborhoods and don't have the luxury having as fine a moral compass as you do.

 

"OR" Due, not "AND".... learn your boolean language.....

 

So, in lieu of a rational arguement you fall back on this pathetic shit. Too bad, could have been an interesting discussion - maybe that's just beyond the scope of your abilities.

 

What's your point?

 

that the events of 9/11 don't have to fit ALL of the points of terrorism, just one.... hence the "or's" instead of the "and"s

 

Ha! Now who's being petty?

There is nothing rational about the Middle East and the Israeli-Plastinian conflict in particular. Its all emotion, mostly hate unfortunately. Otherwise "Israstine" would be a paradise where Jews and Arabs lived side by side in peace.

Take the rose colored glasses off Due.

 

Hey man I was just there. I withdrew 100 dollars from the ATM my bank statement showed a withdrawl of like 58 bucks.

Vive le Canada

Hey keep paying your taxes man, keep sitting in line at the hospital for two days at a time.

By the way, I actually LOVE Canada, Clean beautiful Toronto is awesome. It is one of my favorite spots to visit! Plus it's 50 cents on the dollar baby!

 

Not anymore Bucko!! Its more like $.80 US to the baconback. this has all changed in the last couple of months, unfortunately.

And with apologies to Due - the toronto of the 60s, 70s and 80s was a much better place - now my former beloved t-town is just a mass of urban sterility.

But I still think that Canada ROCKS!!

Rodger

 

Tank Boy: This is one of many definitions. I don't disagree with this one per se, or with your use of it, or even its application in the 9/11 scenario. But here is the problem: when governments write the law they can can exclude governmental terorism by the reference to "unlawful use of force". If a government kills hundreds under some kind of "domestic strife" and has the authority of law, (or if it is during war-time) it wouln't fit under that definition, even if it was done with the purpose of coercion or intimidation.

I've always believed that governments are the most massive perpetrators of terrorism, often against their own people.

BTW, the root of the work "terrorism" stems from the "Reign of Terror" perpetrated by the French government against its own people.

Hence, under the definition ablove, Pol Pot or Stalin would not have been terrorists.

A big flaw, I think, but it does not relate directly to your point as the 9/11 "folks" were clearly terroists.

Rodger

 

Any country has a right to determine its own future. In this case, Israel was exercising its right to continue its existence.

 

What?????

Are you saying that Cambodian and Russian societies were not intimidated by Pol Pot or Stalin? I would beg to differ with you kind sir. I think them russkies were scared out of their wits and knew if they spoke up...it was a trip to Siberia. The Pol Pot just killed 'em where they stood.

Did I read it wrong?

David

Edit: Nevermind...you are saying the since Stalin was in charge it made it all legal and such. What, me fail english...that's unpossible.