Pakistani Man Arrested in Krabi for Overstaying Visa by 691 days

[Ulysses G.]

Of course it was - violence or threats to intimidate or coerce - especially for political purposes. It is the definition of terrorism. 

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Of course it was - violence or threats to intimidate or coerce - especially for political purposes. It is the definition of terrorism. 

That definition would indict the entire IDF, an army of illegal occupation.

 

Palestinians have a moral and legal right to resist occupation, under international law.

Edited January 11, 2017 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

Palestinians have a moral and legal right to resist occupation, under international law.

 

 Israel had the right to protect its citizens from attacks by Islamic terrorists and - thankfully -the Israelis are coming out way ahead.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Of course it was - violence or threats to intimidate or coerce - especially for political purposes. It is the definition of terrorism. 

If that's the case then any attack on soldiers anywhere can be construed as an attempt to intimidate or coerce. So, if you want to call that terrorism, fine. But by defining it down, then you call into question whether or not terrorism is wrong.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 Israel had the right to protect its citizens from attacks by Islamic terrorists and - thankfully -the Israelis are coming out way ahead.

And as our 2nd amendment contingent in the USA says - and i believe you are one of them - people have the right to violently resist unlawful authority - which most of the world judge's Israel's to be.

[Ulysses G.]

Nope, I am not a big guns rights guy. I have used one in the military, but never in civilian life.

 

The Palestinians refused their own state from UN and instead declared war.They have refused to make peace ever since. If anyone is "unlawful", it would be them. Justifying terrorism is nauseating. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Nope, I am not a big guns rights guy. I have used one in the military, but never in civilian life.

 

The Palestinians refused their own state from UN and instead declared war.They have refused to make peace ever since. If anyone is "unlawful", it would be them. Justifying terrorism is nauseating. 

It is massively illegal under international law to punish a civilian population for the acts of its government.  Violence is what you reap when you illegally colonize a region and treat it's people shamefully. Calling that response terrorism is just name calling. No substance there at all..

Edited January 11, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

20 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

"The life of a Palestinian is worth nothing in his and his cohorts eyes!"

 

A Palestinian terrorist anyway. That is what the OP is about.

 

I think there is a difference between directly attacking soldiers of an occupying army, and between "terrorism". While the goal of such attacks may or may not by inflicting terror upon the soldiers, it is not terrorism in the sense of indiscriminate attacks on civilians - which is a more agreed upon characteristic of terrorism.

 

This doesn't have a lot to do with condoning such attacks or justifying violence, more a matter of terminology and framing the discussion (such as it is).

 

And even if you disagree, the court was clear on that count. The shooting was unwarranted and unlawful.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, bandito said:

 

You not only lost your password but also lost your marbles.

Palestinians who try to murder Israelies are terrorists.

What's your comment about the Palestinian who drove a truck in an Israeli crowd and killing soldiers and wounding a score of bystanders?

He is classified as a terrorist with connections to the Islamit State terrorist organization.

Well?

 

There is a difference between attacking soldiers and civilians. Even more so when the attack clearly discriminates between them. So in this sense, doubtful that the Palestinian who was shot by Azaria can be rightly called a terrorist. The Palestinian truck driver, on the other hand, carried out an indiscriminate attack - which qualifies him for this description. The connection with IS was not, to the best of my knowledge, clearly proven, but claimed by Netanyahu and other right wing politicians. If there was a direct connection, than given the guy's history, it's a debacle he wasn't picked up by Israel's security services beforehand. IMO, the most that could be shown is that he was, perhaps, influenced by IS without a direct connection. There were, previously, similar attacks carried out by Palestinians, which had nothing to do with IS. Bringing IS into it is, probably, Netanyahu trying to milk international public opinion by alleging the connection.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Sorry, got my terrorist attacks confused. The Israeli soldiers that were stabbed were the real victims - not the murderer who did it.

 

One Israeli soldier was lightly wounded as a result of the attack. I think it would be a stretch to call anyone involved, Israeli or Palestinian, a victim.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

How many times are you going to make the same false assertion. He attacked soldiers, not civilians. Soldiers of an occupying army. That would make him a guerilla, not a terrorist.

 

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

So soldiers are now victims? No, they're combatants. In a war, soldiers tend to get injured and die. Even in low intensity wars.

 

If these premises are to be held, than such Palestinian attackers wouldn't be "victims" as well. That would be quite a narrative change with regard to some of the regular posters.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nice try at deflection. The subject in question was the Palestinian who attacked Israeli soldiers.  That was not a terrorist attack.

 

The adherence to topic is commendable. Somehow lacking when counter arguments are made, though. Bringing up comparative cases is usually a "deflection" when others do it.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

That definition would indict the entire IDF, an army of illegal occupation.

 

Palestinians have a moral and legal right to resist occupation, under international law.

 

No, that would be another one of your over-reaching nonsense "arguments", which come down to rejecting anything to do with Israel.

It is not the case that the "entire" IDF is involved in the occupation of the West Bank. What you're on about, as usual, is a version of supposed "guilt by association". which you often liberally extend to anyone having anything to do with the IDF. That covers quite a bit of ground by your extreme definition. It also serves to justify Palestinian violence against any Israelis.

 

Before waiving "international law" - most of the international commentary that those not involve fringe opinions like yours does recognize that not all Palestinian violence is justified, legal or moral. Again, an over-reaching nonsense "argument".

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 Israel had the right to protect its citizens from attacks by Islamic terrorists and - thankfully -the Israelis are coming out way ahead.

 

Israel does not, however, have a right to put it's citizens on occupied territory as settlers. That's one of the rare things about which global agreement exists. The position you put forward would be infinitely stronger if this was not the case. The Israelis attacked were soldiers - the "Islamic terrorism" label may be questionable, as detailed above.

 

The court did not see the soldier's actions after the attack as being in line with "protecting" anyone.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It is massively illegal under international law to punish a civilian population for the acts of its government.  Violence is what you reap when you illegally colonize a region and treat it's people shamefully. Calling that response terrorism is just name calling. No substance there at all..

 

Palestinian violence is often directed at Israeli civilians in an indiscriminate fashion. Supposedly, that could be construed as punishing "a civilian population for the acts of its government". But perhaps it doesn't count, seeing as it doesn't serve the narrative. The same "name calling" was applied by the UN, as well as by most of posters home countries. Denying the existence of Palestinian terrorism is not a generally accepted proposition, but merely an inane, argumentative one.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I think there is a difference between directly attacking soldiers of an occupying army, and between "terrorism". While the goal of such attacks may or may not by inflicting terror upon the soldiers, it is not terrorism in the sense of indiscriminate attacks on civilians - which is a more agreed upon characteristic of terrorism.

 

This doesn't have a lot to do with condoning such attacks or justifying violence, more a matter of terminology and framing the discussion (such as it is).

 

And even if you disagree, the court was clear on that count. The shooting was unwarranted and unlawful.

 

The attacks do not only inflict terror on the soldiers, but on the general public. IMO that is the purpose of the attacks and meets the definition of terrorism. Killing civilians is not a prerequisite. These attacks are not going to do much to change the thinking of members of the IDF.

As far as the shooting being unwarranted and unlawful, I agree with that. However, a lot of people have sympathy for the Israeli soldier under the circumstances, so he very well might receive a pardon. It is far from unlikely.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The attacks do not only inflict terror on the soldiers, but on the general public. IMO that is the purpose of the attacks and meets the definition of terrorism. Killing civilians is not a prerequisite. These attacks are not going to do much to change the thinking of members of the IDF.

As far as the shooting being unwarranted and unlawful, I agree with that. However, a lot of people have sympathy for the Israeli soldier under the circumstances, so he very well might receive a pardon. It is far from unlikely.

 

By your definition, any attack could be construed as "terrorism". I doubt that's how most people see things. Also, I'm not of the opinion that such attacks as this one got a whole lot of theorizing behind them. 

 

With regard to the hypothetical pardon issue, the questions are more to do with morality and sensibility. Netanyahu's position is more closely related to short term political gains. Hopefully, if this will be put to before the Israeli president, he will act according to what's right, and not follow a public trend. That said, there is another route, through the military legal system, which might be applied with less "hassles". Hopefully, again, IDF command will do the right thing.

[Ulysses G.]

"Also, I'm not of the opinion that such attacks as this one got a whole lot of theorizing behind them."

 

Well, we agree on that. IMO, the attackers would have been just as happy to attack civilians as soldiers. This was a crime of opportunity.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

"Also, I'm not of the opinion that such attacks as this one got a whole lot of theorizing behind them."

 

Well, we agree on that. IMO, the attackers would have been just as happy to attack civilians as soldiers. This was a crime of opportunity.

 

It was not a crime of opportunity. The attack was carried out against soldiers at a stationary position. There are many opportunities to carry out similar attacks against Israeli illegal settlers in and around town, women and children included. What I meant by "theorizing" was more to do with assertions aired earlier about who might be terrorized by the attack.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Morch

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.