Zzzz.. Gaza, Day 4

[AstroProdigy]

Looks like a shit fest excuse of a thread with a couple of racists spewing their ignorance all over it.

[SeVeR]

Lol yes, they're a little more right wing over there.

[Bak]

1300 dead palestinians

13 dead isrealies

[SeVeR]

Well that keeps up the Israeli policy of 100 dead animals (arabs) in exchange for every dead one of God's chosen people.

[AstroProdigy]

Mission accomplished!

[AstroProdigy]

Edited January 29, 2009 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

This brings a memory to mind.

 

In relation to Astro's post, Iran made an offer of reconciliation to the US in 2003. They offered to be completely open about their nuclear program, give up their support for Hezbollah and Hamas and would offer to help stabilise Iraq. In return they simply wanted the U.S. to disband the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (The People's Mujahedeen) and to remove Iran from the "axis of evil".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5377914.stm

 

It was a fair offer. It was refused. According to Colin Powell the hardliners in Washington responded with "We don't talk to evil".

 

America decides who is a terrorist and who isn't. They decide who is good and who is evil. Those they don't agree with they brand with the evil tag. There is no definition for "terrorist" that involves crimes against humanity anymore, it is defined quite clearly now as "people America doesn't like".

[NBVegita]

I was not stating if I did or did not consider Hamas a terrorist group, I was stating that if the majority of countries in the U.N. and EU (along with a few stragglers) it is not wrong to consider someone a terrorist group. All in defense of Machu's statement.

 

What Sever was trying to egg out of him is that if you look at the very definition of terrorist, EVERY DAMN COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is a terrorist in some capacity.

 

So I guess under that rule you have to decide which countries are more terrorist than others. Ultimately it's all politics and it's all a matter of where you sit on the fence. I mean there are still tons of people defending Israel's use of force right now.

 

I mean look at it this way. If someone tells a lie once and then it gets repeated over and over, eventually that lie becomes the truth. If the majority of major countries in the world consider someone a terrorist, no matter if they are or not, they are a terrorist. Simply because you or I don't agree with it, doesn't ultimately mean a damn thing.

 

A good example, half the country went around calling Bush an idiot. Dumber than a box of rocks. Does he have very conservative policies? Yes. Is he a fairly poor public speaker? Yes. Does that make him dumb? No. And before you even try to get into his grades at Yale, yes he only had a ~2.7 GPA, but could any of honestly tell me that you know the GPA of your doctor? Surgeon? Financial adviser? Psychiatrist? I mean the list goes on. It's also funny to note that no one ever likes to mention that Gore's grades at Harvard were worse than Bush's at Yale (but that's for another argument) Now the majority of the country walks around calling him the biggest idiot when I guarantee he is smarter than well over half of the people in America.

 

Before this gets too off topic, if someone is wrong for believe someone is a terrorist group and uses the U.S. Australia, Japan, the EU and assorted other countries, to defend their point, what makes your horse so high and mighty as to say they're wrong and you're right? No matter how much research we do as people we will only know a very small fraction of what is actually going on in these situations to begin with. Do countries use the term terrorist politically? Yes. Do they also have infinitely more information on each of these groups and their actions than we do? Yes. Should we unquestioningly believe/side with them? No. Should we give weight to their claims? Yes.

 

I find it funny that the first people to tell you that you're wrong and need to reevaluate your opinion are the last ones to do so themselves.

[SeVeR]

We can make a comparison based on what we do know. If there are double standards which can be correlated with a specific political disliking, then we can be fairly sure that there is an injustice. It's quite clear that in Iran, America is applying double standards in the case of the Mujahedeen because America and this "terrorist group" both dislike Iran. Considering that America are friends of Israel and therefore doesn't like Hamas and Hezbollah, this double standard has far reaching consequences. The entire definition of terrorist is pretty much determined by what America says because the EU will always follow suit. If America is fooling intelligent people into thinking their enemies are evil (terrorists) and their friends are good (freedom fighters or whatever) then I can't begin to rant on how dangerous that is because i would be going on for a long time. Edited January 29, 2009 by SeVeR

[Bak]

The reality is probably somewhere in the middle where, yes, the terrorist label does have some requirements. We couldn't go and call the democrats a terrorist organization even if we were politically motivated to do so. However, there are political motivations when we have two groups both killing civilians for political gain and we label one a terrorist group and not the other one. Vegita's advice is probably best where we give some weight to being labeled a terrorist group, but don't use the government's declaration as unquestionable proof (which then brings up the question as to why vegita would list off two dozen countries labeling a group a terrorist as acceptable proof). It's probably best to focus on the actions that each group performs, and the motivations they do perform them for, rather reducing what is occurring to a label like terrorism.

[NBVegita]

I simply posted them as support for a belief Machu had.

 

In fact my exact quote is:

 

I would have to say its a good bet that they're a terrorist group if they're recognized by both the EU and Canada as being terrorists.

 

No where was I saying that they definitely have to be terrorists because the EU and Canada consider them terrorists.

 

My point being was that if Machu believes Hamas to be a terrorist group, which i really don't think we need to cite all of the evidence supporting that, and I think it was 32 major world countries agree with him, it's not a bad stance to take.