"but that is the actual definition of the word."
no it isn't
it's one private company's definition of the word that they publish in a book that they sell for profit.
It's not the word of the lord.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
no it isn't
it's one private company's definition of the word that they publish in a book that they sell for profit.
It's not the word of the lord.
....................................................
Their considered an authority on the subject.
The word has only been confused by governments recently for their own purposes.
Plenty of intelligent people still understand the actual definition of the word rather than the one you use which has been partially pushed on us in the interest of the strong and powerful.
.............................................
I would say an attack on a democratic state would be a good line to draw.
.............................................
The na.zi's got into power via an election. Was terrorism unjustified against them?
TKT I am not calling you unintelligent
Just read it back and it sound like I am....
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"Plenty of intelligent people still understand the actual definition of the word rather than the one you use which has been partially pushed on us in the interest of the strong and powerful."
you've got that backwards
the strong and powerful like the dictionary definition, not the 'real' one the average person would use.
people equate terrorism with attacks on civilians to spread terror, not attacks on military targets by a resistance group.
There is no twisting or distortion on my part for propaganda purposes.
That Mcveigh pri(k? terrorist. Anyone who puts a bomb in a marketplace or a bus or a civilian aircraft. Terrorist.
Blow up a tank? shoot a grenade at a military base? Definitely not a terrorist. Possibiy wrong, psycho, or unjustified, but at least terrorist is off the table. Violence contained to military targets is a different animal.
Cal but they were pretty damn popular, if they had another election just before the war they would have won that as well. Very few people would argue that terrorism against the Na.zi's would be unjustified.
Killing is often unjustifiable but that doesn't mean we should say anyone who kills is a really bad person, you can kill to defend yourself and others which is perfectly justifiable, IMO.
I do agree that Israel-Palestine does need its own unique solution but that doesn't stop as looking at other situations which were resolved as examples of roughly how to go about it, such as the IR A and Britain IMO.
SAF
IN Ulster,how would you regard the Provo's and UFF, as they both proclaim just cause?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 50 seconds ago
"Plenty of intelligent people still understand the actual definition of the word rather than the one you use which has been partially pushed on us in the interest of the strong and powerful."
you've got that backwards
the strong and powerful like the dictionary definition, not the 'real' one the average person would use.
people equate terrorism with attacks on civilians to spread terror, not attacks on military targets by a resistance group.
There is no twisting or distortion on my part for propaganda purposes.
That Mcveigh pri(k? terrorist. Anyone who puts a bomb in a marketplace or a bus or a civilian aircraft. Terrorist.
Blow up a tank? shoot a grenade at a military base? Definitely not a terrorist. Possibiy wrong, psycho, or unjustified, but at least terrorist is off the table. Violence contained to military targets is a different animal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plenty of average people use the proper definition of the word as well and not the one the governments have encouraged.
Look its quite simple. If the Freedom loving group target an opposition military to free their people from some evil occupiers and never touch any civilians with their attacks they can accurately be called terrorists by the newspapers, by the governments by everyone. No one can really argue with that because they fit the definition of a terrorist perfectly.
But because of people like you who don't understand the word you think the freedom loving group are really bad people because you keep hearing that they are terrorists (and that is true, they are) because of your and some others misunderstanding of the word you and others are now led to believe that the freedom loving group are bad people who target civilians, when that isn't true at all.
What the strong really want is the exact situation we find here.
That is that anyone who fights the government is a terrorist (by definition)
and
Ordinary people like you will incorrectly associate the word with targeting civilians.
They couldn't have the situation any better...
Are you saying hamas and Israel have to sit down to talk,as I am not sure hamas want this,nevermind the Israel side?
As discussed,the uvf and uff had the I ra on the run here,the provos knew they could not win,and the foreign office did not want London's financial heart bombed.
Pan Irish nationalist Front changed tactics to get power,and a stepping stone to their goal.
I am sure Israel would love to chat about their right to exist and defend themselves,but surely hamas want to remove their very presence.
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 4 minutes ago
SAF
IN Ulster,how would you regard the Provo's and UFF, as they both proclaim just cause?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly do you mean by regard?
I think they are terrorists if thats what you mean.
Just to clarify, provo's = provisional IR A?
UFF = Ulster Freedom Fighters?
Two things from today.
More innocent dead and babies crying in hospital,and hamas breaking the UN US led ceasefire by a suicide bomb killing of Israeli soldiers,and then kidnapping a soldier.
One would think hamas want this to go on?
SAF
Evening chum.
I mean do you regard loyalists and republicans here as terrorists or freedom fighters,as noth sides represent a cause and struggle.
I use provo,as the 3 letter name gets banned,and it is accurate,as the Official I ra became defunct largely,as they were more leftist than hardline Irish Catholic nationalist......the provisionals.
It is just a matter of interest,on how terrorist and freedom fighters are defined.
the dictionary definition isn't actually used by anyone though.
a government will call anyone it doesn't like a terrorist these days. So will 'extreme' media presenters.
no one actually quotes or holds up a dictionary to justify it's use.
"Ordinary people like you will incorrectly associate the word with targeting civilians. " - no I've got the definition just about right just like the rest of my ordinary citizen brethren.
Well they probably do... The Palestinians will never stop fully fighting until they have returned some of what was stolen from them, until they are given are fair share...
Thinking that you can bomb people into accepting peace and renouncing extremism is naive at best!
posted 3 minutes ago
Two things from today.
More innocent dead and babies crying in hospital,and hamas breaking the UN US led ceasefire by a suicide bomb killing of Israeli soldiers,and then kidnapping a soldier.
One would think hamas want this to go on?
______________________
Nonsense. Hamas captured the occupying solider on Thier own territory at 6.30am.... Ceasefire started at 8am... IDF only found out after ceasefire that one of their soliders had gone missing well into the ceasefire so broke it.... This situation would be a lot more simpler if people actual saw the truth as truth and the reality as reality.....
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 minute ago
the dictionary definition isn't actually used by anyone though.
a government will call anyone it doesn't like a terrorist these days. So will 'extreme' media presenters.
no one actually quotes or holds up a dictionary to justify it's use.
"Ordinary people like you will incorrectly associate the word with targeting civilians. " - no I've got the definition just about right just like the rest of my ordinary citizen brethren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look sorry but plenty of people don't use the word the wrong way like you do. just because it is in the government's best interests that the status quo remains doesn't mean I shall go along with it.
You may of course continue to use the word wrong if you wish just don't expect me to use your made up definition. Ill stick with the actual English language thanks all the same
Okay tbbab Ill get on that now, in my next response. I also have a question for you as well if you don't mind. What would you think of a terrorist organisation who fought an opposition army killed civilians in their campaign but eventually got their way and those very same terrorists went on to take leading positions in their government and military. (Don't worry not talking about South Africa)
Okay firstly I would say they were both terrorist organisations (quite simply just by being non government) though that doesn't necessarily reflect on the cause of either.
The I RA would probably fit the definition of freedom fighter, they wanted freedom from British rule (again this doesn't reflect on the righteousness of their cause)
The loyalists are probably a little trickier... but I guess you could say they wanted freedom from Republican Irish rule.
These definitions don't actually reflect on the justness of their cause though. Was the cause of x or y just is the much deeper more complicated question.
afridi
So did you watch Newsnight too,where that Palestinian negotiator brought up the time of the suicide attack and kidnap of Israeli troops,rather than condemn the act?
I find it sad that pro=Palestinians gloat and defend attacks on Israeli's,troops and people,then expect Israel to "play nice".
Surely backing hamas violence makes you part of the problem,and this will lead to more deaths,on both sides,as kidnapping and killing Israeli's led to this escalation.
Before you ask,I do not defend the slaughter of innocents,by either side.
I can condemn wrong doers,wherever they come from,but too many Pro=Paestinians and islamists are blinded by hatred.
So did you watch Newsnight too,where that Palestinian negotiator brought up the time of the suicide attack and kidnap of Israeli troops,rather than condemn the act?
...................................................
Isn't that exactly what you did earlier on the thread when you were claiming the Palestinians break the ceasefire?
and why condemn?
Do the Israeli's condemn their own strikes on the enemy?
It wasn't targeted at a civilian it was targeted at a soldier, an enemy soldier was kidnapped whilst invading someone else's territory?!
How do you usually repel invaders with hugs and flowers?!?
The blue,
I have stated many a times that I condemn any killing if civilians - regardless of race, colour, religion and nationality. However, an israeil solider was in a conflict zone in an occupied land- I do not consider him a civilian. I do not consider Hamas as civilian either..... What's the issue here exactly???
Ps- what exactly is an Islamist? What a nonsense term - just a word that means nothing to me and many muslims.... Please clarify
SAF
I take it you refer to the Israeli Stern gangs who fought and killed British troops............ironically,Irish republicans used to back Israel,as they saw them fighting the Brits.My enemies,enemy and all that,similar to some Irish supporting Germany and even Hitler.
I suppose the Israeli gangs were fighting for their freedom in their eyes,as hamas and the idf are now.
I have done a bit of research SAF...........to keep up with you.
I am not some fanatical Zionist mate,simply interested in the whole conflict,and supportive of Israel,not an apologist for the actions of every IDF commander.
The point is the kidnap and attack hardly improved the situation,and hamas jnow Israel will retaliate massively,so why risk civilians deaths in a ceasefire?
I was not saying they,soldiers,were civilians,so why imply I did?
Why are you supporting hardline muslim fanatics killing anyone,especially so far from here?
Do you want peace with an Israeli state.or war and an end to Israel?
The captured Israeli soldier should be tried in a Palestinian court for mass murder, as he is a part of the killing machine. The same should apply to Palestians found the wrong side of the border with guns. But then it could hardly be mass murder as only a few Israeli civilians have actually died.
Benayoun is a Disgrace
Page 104 of 146
105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109
posted on 1/8/14
"but that is the actual definition of the word."
no it isn't
it's one private company's definition of the word that they publish in a book that they sell for profit.
It's not the word of the lord.
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
no it isn't
it's one private company's definition of the word that they publish in a book that they sell for profit.
It's not the word of the lord.
....................................................
Their considered an authority on the subject.
The word has only been confused by governments recently for their own purposes.
Plenty of intelligent people still understand the actual definition of the word rather than the one you use which has been partially pushed on us in the interest of the strong and powerful.
.............................................
I would say an attack on a democratic state would be a good line to draw.
.............................................
The na.zi's got into power via an election. Was terrorism unjustified against them?
posted on 1/8/14
TKT I am not calling you unintelligent
Just read it back and it sound like I am....
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
"Plenty of intelligent people still understand the actual definition of the word rather than the one you use which has been partially pushed on us in the interest of the strong and powerful."
you've got that backwards
the strong and powerful like the dictionary definition, not the 'real' one the average person would use.
people equate terrorism with attacks on civilians to spread terror, not attacks on military targets by a resistance group.
There is no twisting or distortion on my part for propaganda purposes.
That Mcveigh pri(k? terrorist. Anyone who puts a bomb in a marketplace or a bus or a civilian aircraft. Terrorist.
Blow up a tank? shoot a grenade at a military base? Definitely not a terrorist. Possibiy wrong, psycho, or unjustified, but at least terrorist is off the table. Violence contained to military targets is a different animal.
posted on 1/8/14
Cal but they were pretty damn popular, if they had another election just before the war they would have won that as well. Very few people would argue that terrorism against the Na.zi's would be unjustified.
Killing is often unjustifiable but that doesn't mean we should say anyone who kills is a really bad person, you can kill to defend yourself and others which is perfectly justifiable, IMO.
I do agree that Israel-Palestine does need its own unique solution but that doesn't stop as looking at other situations which were resolved as examples of roughly how to go about it, such as the IR A and Britain IMO.
posted on 1/8/14
SAF
IN Ulster,how would you regard the Provo's and UFF, as they both proclaim just cause?
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 50 seconds ago
"Plenty of intelligent people still understand the actual definition of the word rather than the one you use which has been partially pushed on us in the interest of the strong and powerful."
you've got that backwards
the strong and powerful like the dictionary definition, not the 'real' one the average person would use.
people equate terrorism with attacks on civilians to spread terror, not attacks on military targets by a resistance group.
There is no twisting or distortion on my part for propaganda purposes.
That Mcveigh pri(k? terrorist. Anyone who puts a bomb in a marketplace or a bus or a civilian aircraft. Terrorist.
Blow up a tank? shoot a grenade at a military base? Definitely not a terrorist. Possibiy wrong, psycho, or unjustified, but at least terrorist is off the table. Violence contained to military targets is a different animal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plenty of average people use the proper definition of the word as well and not the one the governments have encouraged.
Look its quite simple. If the Freedom loving group target an opposition military to free their people from some evil occupiers and never touch any civilians with their attacks they can accurately be called terrorists by the newspapers, by the governments by everyone. No one can really argue with that because they fit the definition of a terrorist perfectly.
But because of people like you who don't understand the word you think the freedom loving group are really bad people because you keep hearing that they are terrorists (and that is true, they are) because of your and some others misunderstanding of the word you and others are now led to believe that the freedom loving group are bad people who target civilians, when that isn't true at all.
What the strong really want is the exact situation we find here.
That is that anyone who fights the government is a terrorist (by definition)
and
Ordinary people like you will incorrectly associate the word with targeting civilians.
They couldn't have the situation any better...
posted on 1/8/14
Are you saying hamas and Israel have to sit down to talk,as I am not sure hamas want this,nevermind the Israel side?
As discussed,the uvf and uff had the I ra on the run here,the provos knew they could not win,and the foreign office did not want London's financial heart bombed.
Pan Irish nationalist Front changed tactics to get power,and a stepping stone to their goal.
I am sure Israel would love to chat about their right to exist and defend themselves,but surely hamas want to remove their very presence.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 4 minutes ago
SAF
IN Ulster,how would you regard the Provo's and UFF, as they both proclaim just cause?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly do you mean by regard?
I think they are terrorists if thats what you mean.
Just to clarify, provo's = provisional IR A?
UFF = Ulster Freedom Fighters?
posted on 1/8/14
Two things from today.
More innocent dead and babies crying in hospital,and hamas breaking the UN US led ceasefire by a suicide bomb killing of Israeli soldiers,and then kidnapping a soldier.
One would think hamas want this to go on?
posted on 1/8/14
SAF
Evening chum.
I mean do you regard loyalists and republicans here as terrorists or freedom fighters,as noth sides represent a cause and struggle.
I use provo,as the 3 letter name gets banned,and it is accurate,as the Official I ra became defunct largely,as they were more leftist than hardline Irish Catholic nationalist......the provisionals.
It is just a matter of interest,on how terrorist and freedom fighters are defined.
posted on 1/8/14
the dictionary definition isn't actually used by anyone though.
a government will call anyone it doesn't like a terrorist these days. So will 'extreme' media presenters.
no one actually quotes or holds up a dictionary to justify it's use.
"Ordinary people like you will incorrectly associate the word with targeting civilians. " - no I've got the definition just about right just like the rest of my ordinary citizen brethren.
posted on 1/8/14
Well they probably do... The Palestinians will never stop fully fighting until they have returned some of what was stolen from them, until they are given are fair share...
Thinking that you can bomb people into accepting peace and renouncing extremism is naive at best!
posted on 2/8/14
posted 3 minutes ago
Two things from today.
More innocent dead and babies crying in hospital,and hamas breaking the UN US led ceasefire by a suicide bomb killing of Israeli soldiers,and then kidnapping a soldier.
One would think hamas want this to go on?
______________________
Nonsense. Hamas captured the occupying solider on Thier own territory at 6.30am.... Ceasefire started at 8am... IDF only found out after ceasefire that one of their soliders had gone missing well into the ceasefire so broke it.... This situation would be a lot more simpler if people actual saw the truth as truth and the reality as reality.....
posted on 2/8/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 minute ago
the dictionary definition isn't actually used by anyone though.
a government will call anyone it doesn't like a terrorist these days. So will 'extreme' media presenters.
no one actually quotes or holds up a dictionary to justify it's use.
"Ordinary people like you will incorrectly associate the word with targeting civilians. " - no I've got the definition just about right just like the rest of my ordinary citizen brethren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look sorry but plenty of people don't use the word the wrong way like you do. just because it is in the government's best interests that the status quo remains doesn't mean I shall go along with it.
You may of course continue to use the word wrong if you wish just don't expect me to use your made up definition. Ill stick with the actual English language thanks all the same
Okay tbbab Ill get on that now, in my next response. I also have a question for you as well if you don't mind. What would you think of a terrorist organisation who fought an opposition army killed civilians in their campaign but eventually got their way and those very same terrorists went on to take leading positions in their government and military. (Don't worry not talking about South Africa)
posted on 2/8/14
Okay firstly I would say they were both terrorist organisations (quite simply just by being non government) though that doesn't necessarily reflect on the cause of either.
The I RA would probably fit the definition of freedom fighter, they wanted freedom from British rule (again this doesn't reflect on the righteousness of their cause)
The loyalists are probably a little trickier... but I guess you could say they wanted freedom from Republican Irish rule.
These definitions don't actually reflect on the justness of their cause though. Was the cause of x or y just is the much deeper more complicated question.
posted on 2/8/14
afridi
So did you watch Newsnight too,where that Palestinian negotiator brought up the time of the suicide attack and kidnap of Israeli troops,rather than condemn the act?
I find it sad that pro=Palestinians gloat and defend attacks on Israeli's,troops and people,then expect Israel to "play nice".
Surely backing hamas violence makes you part of the problem,and this will lead to more deaths,on both sides,as kidnapping and killing Israeli's led to this escalation.
Before you ask,I do not defend the slaughter of innocents,by either side.
I can condemn wrong doers,wherever they come from,but too many Pro=Paestinians and islamists are blinded by hatred.
posted on 2/8/14
So did you watch Newsnight too,where that Palestinian negotiator brought up the time of the suicide attack and kidnap of Israeli troops,rather than condemn the act?
...................................................
Isn't that exactly what you did earlier on the thread when you were claiming the Palestinians break the ceasefire?
and why condemn?
Do the Israeli's condemn their own strikes on the enemy?
It wasn't targeted at a civilian it was targeted at a soldier, an enemy soldier was kidnapped whilst invading someone else's territory?!
How do you usually repel invaders with hugs and flowers?!?
posted on 2/8/14
The blue,
I have stated many a times that I condemn any killing if civilians - regardless of race, colour, religion and nationality. However, an israeil solider was in a conflict zone in an occupied land- I do not consider him a civilian. I do not consider Hamas as civilian either..... What's the issue here exactly???
Ps- what exactly is an Islamist? What a nonsense term - just a word that means nothing to me and many muslims.... Please clarify
posted on 2/8/14
SAF
I take it you refer to the Israeli Stern gangs who fought and killed British troops............ironically,Irish republicans used to back Israel,as they saw them fighting the Brits.My enemies,enemy and all that,similar to some Irish supporting Germany and even Hitler.
I suppose the Israeli gangs were fighting for their freedom in their eyes,as hamas and the idf are now.
I have done a bit of research SAF...........to keep up with you.
I am not some fanatical Zionist mate,simply interested in the whole conflict,and supportive of Israel,not an apologist for the actions of every IDF commander.
posted on 2/8/14
The point is the kidnap and attack hardly improved the situation,and hamas jnow Israel will retaliate massively,so why risk civilians deaths in a ceasefire?
I was not saying they,soldiers,were civilians,so why imply I did?
Why are you supporting hardline muslim fanatics killing anyone,especially so far from here?
Do you want peace with an Israeli state.or war and an end to Israel?
posted on 2/8/14
The captured Israeli soldier should be tried in a Palestinian court for mass murder, as he is a part of the killing machine. The same should apply to Palestians found the wrong side of the border with guns. But then it could hardly be mass murder as only a few Israeli civilians have actually died.
Page 104 of 146
105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109