Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2389)	1/12/2004 12:12:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Here are a few links. Apparently, Israeli terrorism continues up til today.........esp. in the West Bank: sana.org The last incident this site mentions was on October 29 ,1948. The other sites mention groups with more recent activity. I never disputed that such terrorism happened in fact I said "If you also count occasional small scale terrorism from disconnected individuals that Zionist/Jewish/Israeli terrorism still hasn't stopped, you'll always have crazy or evil individuals." I should modify that statement to include small groups but my main point that there have not been large scale terrorism was the Israeli government or some Israeli organization with wide spread support is correct. it would not surprise me if they resorted to terrorism. I don't understand why it surprises you. After all, that's what happened with the American colonists. I'm not saying it didn't happen but it was the exception not the rule. They primarily used guerilla and then conventional tactics not terrorism. The targets where mostly the British military, mercenaries, or armed Tories. The two situations are not analogous at all. We were not withholding the freedom and independence of Japan nor did we attack first. 1 - After the war we ruled Japan for years. 2 - The legitimacy of the Palestinian cause and the legitimacy of their tactics are two different issues. We can talk about either or both but an argument about one shouldn't be used to support points about the other. The situations behind the war help determine whether the war is justified but once you have conflict some tactics are legitimate and justified and some are not. If the Palestinians are going to do there best to wage war and terrorism against Israel then Israel has to fight back. Since the Palestinians are less of a threat then the Japanese (they have no ability to do something like Pearl Harbor or the conquest of the Philippines), the Israelis can afford to (and should) use far more careful tactics against the Palestinians then we did against the Japanese and they have. (they have not done anything remotely like the fire bombing of Tokyo or the use of nuclear weapons). Why should the Jews, dispossessed by the Germans, and the eastern Europeans, dispossessed by the Russians, get reparations, and not the Palestinians? I wasn't arguing that the Palestinians shouldn't get reparations (or that they should). I was just saying they won't get them as long as the campaign of terror continues. Tim