Reply #61: Since when has viewing the bombing as terrorism been part of an 'anti-Israel mantra'? [View All]

[Violet_Crumble]

Yep, if someone believes that the bombing was terrorism, then it's all part of the 'anti-Israel mantra'. That's ridiculous, and involves believing that if someone doesn't share whatever yr idea of the definition of terrorism is, then their views aren't legitimate. I don't support any 'anti-Israel mantra' stuff, but thanks for accusing me of all sorts of evil. But my apologies to you if you do think that Palestinian attacks on Israeli military targets aren't terrorism, coz that's showing a consistancy that I do appreciate...

I'm reading yr second point as you believing that the Stern Gang were a terrorist group who committed more than a few acts of terrorism. I can very easily find a few legitimate examples of their terrorism, but there seems no point unless someone's arguing that they weren't terrorists....

Shakti got to the crux of things when he said to work out if something's terrorism we have to define exactly what terrorism is. What do you think of the definition I used in my reply to him in this post? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x195529#195690

Indiscriminately killing people is not what makes something terrorism. There's many examples of terrorism that don't involve killing or even the intent to kill. What makes something terrorism is the use of, or the threat of violence by non-state actors to try to further their political goals.

Same goes for warning of an impending attack. The IRA used to warn of impending attacks, but those attacks were still terrorism. Which is why I think the many posts arguing about warnings are irrelevent to any discussion of whether or not the bombing was an act of terrorism. I did spot one poster unwittingly admit to what her motivation was for focusing on warnings - it's to blame someone else other than the perpetrators of the bombing for the casualties. Which when used in the context of IRA warnings, shows very clearly what a disgusting and distorted view that is. I'm not saying that anyone else but that poster has that motivation, of course. When it comes to the crunch the bottom line is if someone is worried about not causing harm to civilians then they really shouldn't go bombing buildings...

As to whether the King David Hotel was a legitimate military target, I've discussed that in the post I gave you a link to. I also happen to believe that Israeli defence headquarters in Israel isn't a legitimate military target due to the (if it's anything like over here) large number of civilians working in those buildings. And of course an argument over what is and isn't a legitimate military target opens up the question of whether settlements in the Occupied Territories are military targets. There's been quite a few people argue in this forum that the settlements are part of Israel's defense and have a military reason for being there. So, if I were to believe that bombing an administrative centre of govt like the King David Hotel was the bombing of a legitimate military target, then I'm going to have to change my mind about settlements and decide that they're also legitimate military targets. And seeing I don't believe the settlements are (I do believe that there are extremist and violent settlers in some of those settlements who by their own violence are combatants rather than civilians), and I don't believe the King David Hotel was either...