Political Crossfire Forums

[Plato & Socrates]

What is terrorism? I believe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism aptly decribes it , but here are a few others so there is no confusion. www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/terrorist?view=uk www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=terrorism www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/terrorism www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror

I defy anyone to deny that some of Israels acts in this latest Gaza incursion are not acts of terrorism committed by the state.
The destruction of the Gazan electricity power plant is a case example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5123564.stm
An IDF spoken said it was done "Because militants operate within a civilian environment"
What P.R? What a load of s**t! What Israel has done falls into the realm of collective punishment, as well as coercion.

The Israeli position is about as logical as if U.S homeland security was to sanction a black-out for whole of new york, because they were looking for a terror cell. The whole Israeli justification for cutting off some water supplies and electricity is utter bulls**t, and if the definition of terrorism is to be adhered to, then this latest Israeli act must fall into that category.

As for the constant "Sonic Booms" there purpose is all to be seen. Those F.16s are there to frighten and intimidated the Palestinian population. Those planes which fly at a low altitude, screaming sonic booms over the head of civilians, frightening the wits out of men, women and children, falls squarely into the remit of a terrorist act.

Its a common fact that the Israeli air-force fires Air to Surface missiles regularly, and in firing these missiles have killed many 100s of Palestinians in the process. These civilians cannot guarantee with any certainty that Israel will refrain from launching a missile at a intended target. So the only reason for them to buzz overhead constantly without firing a missile is in an act of intimidation, which in turn frightens the population, therefore terrorizing them, therefore the state of Israel commits state terrorism.

[Village Idiot]

Plato & Socrates wrote: What is terrorism? I believe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism aptly decribes it , but here are a few others so there is no confusion. www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/terrorist?view=uk www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=terrorism www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/terrorism www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror

I defy anyone to deny that some of Israels acts in this latest Gaza incursion are not acts of terrorism committed by the state.
The destruction of the Gazan electricity power plant is a case example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5123564.stm
An IDF spoken said it was done "Because militants operate within a civilian environment"
What P.R? What a load of s**t! What Israel has done falls into the realm of collective punishment, as well as coercion.

The Israeli position is about as logical as if U.S homeland security was to sanction a black-out for whole of new york, because they were looking for a terror cell. The whole Israeli justification for cutting off some water supplies and electricity is utter bulls**t, and if the definition of terrorism is to be adhered to, then this latest Israeli act must fall into that category.

As for the constant "Sonic Booms" there purpose is all to be seen. Those F.16s are there to frighten and intimidated the Palestinian population. Those planes which fly at a low altitude, screaming sonic booms over the head of civilians, frightening the wits out of men, women and children, falls squarely into the remit of a terrorist act.

Its a common fact that the Israeli air-force fires Air to Surface missiles regularly, and in firing these missiles have killed many 100s of Palestinians in the process. These civilians cannot guarantee with any certainty that Israel will refrain from launching a missile at a intended target. So the only reason for them to buzz overhead constantly without firing a missile is in an act of intimidation, which in turn frightens the population, therefore terrorizing them, therefore the state of Israel commits state terrorism.

Tell me something I dont already know P&S, Israel have been commiting state terrorism from the late sixties to date.

[Yoadm]

Plato & Socrates wrote: What is terrorism? I believe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism aptly decribes it , but here are a few others so there is no confusion. www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/terrorist?view=uk www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=terrorism www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/terrorism www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror

I defy anyone to deny that some of Israels acts in this latest Gaza incursion are not acts of terrorism committed by the state.
The destruction of the Gazan electricity power plant is a case example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5123564.stm
An IDF spoken said it was done "Because militants operate within a civilian environment"
What P.R? What a load of s**t! What Israel has done falls into the realm of collective punishment, as well as coercion.

The Israeli position is about as logical as if U.S homeland security was to sanction a black-out for whole of new york, because they were looking for a terror cell. The whole Israeli justification for cutting off some water supplies and electricity is utter bulls**t, and if the definition of terrorism is to be adhered to, then this latest Israeli act must fall into that category.

As for the constant "Sonic Booms" there purpose is all to be seen. Those F.16s are there to frighten and intimidated the Palestinian population. Those planes which fly at a low altitude, screaming sonic booms over the head of civilians, frightening the wits out of men, women and children, falls squarely into the remit of a terrorist act.

Its a common fact that the Israeli air-force fires Air to Surface missiles regularly, and in firing these missiles have killed many 100s of Palestinians in the process. These civilians cannot guarantee with any certainty that Israel will refrain from launching a missile at a intended target. So the only reason for them to buzz overhead constantly without firing a missile is in an act of intimidation, which in turn frightens the population, therefore terrorizing them, therefore the state of Israel commits state terrorism.

Since the leadership of the Palestinien people, a formal elected leadership, engages in attacks against another state, I wouldnt be so easy to consider an attack on their power supply state-terrorism. Hell, its a moderate response, or do you prefare dead civilians, plato?

[Plato & Socrates]

Yoadm wrote: Since the leadership of the Palestinien people, a formal elected leadership, engages in attacks against another state, I wouldnt be so easy to consider an attack on their power supply state-terrorism. Hell, its a moderate response, or do you prefare dead civilians, plato?

Yoadm, I clearly defined what terrorism is, its aims and objectives. I supplied definitions of the term from some of the English language most reputable lexicographers.
Whether within the Hebrew language or Yiddish, you wish to define an attack on their power supply "a moderate response" especially when I have defined the parameters for this SPECIFIC Israeli response for the attack on their power station yesterday. Face the facts Yoadm, three's no splitting of hair's today, it is state terrorism, plain and simple.

What you are doing is the equivalent of me acknowledging the destruction and carnage of a bus bombing as an terrorist event, then disregarding a kassam rocket attack as not terrorist, only because they are in crude in design, in terms of military sophistication at the stage of the bronze age and notoriously inaccurate. They are both terrorist attacks and there's no getting away from that. I would'nt dare tell a person who had a kassam dropping 100 meters from them, that because it did'nt hit you it was'nt terrorist in nature and most importantly that they should'nt be frightened or scared. So why do you do the same when the definition of terrorism is explained clearly in front of you? :roll: Just admit it !

[Yoadm]

Yoadm, I clearly defined what terrorism is, its aims and objectives. I supplied definitions of the term from some of the English language most reputable lexicographers.

If you want to argue semantics, then every military operation is "terrorism". Just like we can argue that every non-positive quote on Israel is "anti-semetism". You can find ANYTHING between the lines.
The point is this: the elected goverment a nation engages in kidnappings of another nation. That is an act of war.

The IDF simply gave a clear cut messege, one not involving civilian casualties.

Small note: Palestiniens still have a power supply, they are being helped by Israel.


You can call it what you want, it all comes down to semantics. Simply put, this was a moderate response.

[henri]

Plato & Socrates wrote: What is terrorism?

I defy anyone to deny that some of Israels acts in this latest Gaza incursion are not acts of terrorism committed by the state.
The destruction of the Gazan electricity power plant is a case example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5123564.stm
An IDF spoken said it was done "Because militants operate within a civilian environment"
What P.R? What a load of s**t! What Israel has done falls into the realm of collective punishment, as well as coercion.

The Israeli position is about as logical as if U.S homeland security was to sanction a black-out for whole of new york, because they were looking for a terror cell. The whole Israeli justification for cutting off some water supplies and electricity is utter bulls**t, and if the definition of terrorism is to be adhered to, then this latest Israeli act must fall into that category.

As for the constant "Sonic Booms" there purpose is all to be seen. Those F.16s are there to frighten and intimidated the Palestinian population. Those planes which fly at a low altitude, screaming sonic booms over the head of civilians, frightening the wits out of men, women and children, falls squarely into the remit of a terrorist act.

Its a common fact that the Israeli air-force fires Air to Surface missiles regularly, and in firing these missiles have killed many 100s of Palestinians in the process. These civilians cannot guarantee with any certainty that Israel will refrain from launching a missile at a intended target. So the only reason for them to buzz overhead constantly without firing a missile is in an act of intimidation, which in turn frightens the population, therefore terrorizing them, therefore the state of Israel commits state terrorism.

*****

Israel was founded based on Terrorism.
Terrorism is their modus operandi to make Israel "Goyim Rein" (free from non-Jews) in their quest to "Eretz Israel (Great Israel).

Yitzak Shamir - former Israeli Prime Minister, Zionist terrorist, in an August 1943 article titled "Terror", written for 'Hazit' the journal of Lehi, the terrorist organization he belonged to:

"We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today"

[Yoadm]

Israel was founded based on Terrorism.
Terrorism is their modus operandi to make Israel "Goyim Rein" (free from non-Jews) in their quest to "Eretz Israel (Great Israel).

Yitzhak[/quote][/b]

Lies will not avail you, "Mon ami".

Goyim Rein = A term never used in Israel, as you know.
Eretz Israel = Land of israel (Not greater israel, as you allso know).

[XxMorningStarxX]

Israel is not a terrorist state- they simply know how to deal with terrorists.

Palestinians had some good justifications to start out with, Israel ethical grounds that were questionable (on a human ethics standpoint, they stole land from the palestinians) but on a MORAL standpoint, israel's existence is justified. Why? IF you're a decent jew, then the bible explicitly states that Israel is the promised land, fair enough- and if you want to debate the bible, thats for another time.

Some back ground info- I'd like to point out that as far as the wars go, Israel did not strike first. Israel's existence was originally meant to be a conglomerate of Jews and arabs living together, but the palestinians, along with all the arab nations, flatly rejected this (moreso than the Jews). It was unacceptable, and it was all or nothing. In 1948, a coalition of 5 nations assaulted israel, and israel won by a huge margin. They won again in the another 3 wars following this.

The point is, there came a point where palestinians seemed to totally give up their high ground in terms of ethical advantage. They resorted to terrorism. They perform unconventional attacks in Israeli cities (against civilians), which, if viewed by the geneva conventions (though palestinians did to sign to it) would be considered atrocities. THere came a threshhold at which the PLO came to define itself (by their own fault) to the international community as a terrorist state (and now with HAMAS, especially), and this i'm sure in ethics, is regarded as worse than "stealing" the land of a people.

Terrorism is defined as organized attacks on civilian in order to incite fear- this fits what hte palestinians do, not what the israelis do. The israeli defense force does not mount surprise offensives which are targeted at civilians- it launches organized military offenses with limited objectives and give warning ahead of time.

[Plato & Socrates]

!!!

[XxMorningStarxX]

I'd like to further point out that using F-16s in flybys and causing "sonic booms" is within the range of political and ethical acceptability. You must distinguish between political "pressure" and terrorism. Pressure is when you incite fear to achieve a limited political objective and go no further, terrorism is when you do it at a threat to civilian casualties. Isreal does not intend to bomb palestinian homes to hell- they ahve bulldozed them, and this is wrong, but given the chance, the PLO would displace by force and kill any israeli civilians who refuse.

[XxMorningStarxX]

Quote: "You can call it what you want, it all comes down to semantics. Simply put, this was a moderate response."
I truly wonder with you sometimes Yoadm. Let me break it down in simple layman's terms for you, so its easily understood.
This sorry event happened a few days ago. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/ap/world/mainD8IDAII00.shtml
So according to your thesis, but if I was a militant setting off a suicide bomb in a hotel killing 50, that would be deemed excessive. But if I was to break into a settlement and only kill 2 adults and 1 child, that was be a moderate response?

It's not just a moderate response, it's a necessary response. The point is, if Israel did not make these retributory raids all the time, the PLO would be motivated to upper the ante. Even as Israel sends these huge overpowering responses against PLO, the PLO is still persistent.

If Syria had sponsored a terrorist activity in the United States or britain, killing 2 children, there would be war.

Further, the PLO did not sign any agreements on limited war, therefore they arent granted the protection either.

[Yoadm]

Plato & Socrates wrote: Quote: Yoadm, I clearly defined what terrorism is, its aims and objectives. I supplied definitions of the term from some of the English language most reputable lexicographers. ]

If you want to argue semantics, then every military operation is "terrorism". Just like we can argue that every non-positive quote on Israel is "anti-semetism". You can find ANYTHING between the lines.
The point is this: the elected goverment a nation engages in kidnappings of another nation. That is an act of war.

The IDF simply gave a clear cut messege, one not involving civilian casualties.

Small note: Palestiniens still have a power supply, they are being helped by Israel.


You can call it what you want, it all comes down to semantics. Simply put, this was a moderate response.[/]quote]

Who the hell is arguing semantic's? The only person trying to do that is you. Just like Duchifas, the penny has dropped with you as well. [b]"The point is this: the elected government a nation engages in kidnappings of another nation. That is an act of war" Israel commits these acts on a weekly basis, kill civilians frequently in this process and perennially justifies it.

Your targeted assassinations of Terrorists alleged or otherwise, without going through due process and the courts is tantamount to exjudical killings. But does Israel give a s**t? The answer is is a categorical NO Its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black or that People in glass houses should'nt throw stones.

Israels moral position regarding this missing soldier debacle is as Defunct as the Palestinian side. Delusion from both sides is indicative of the s**t your now both in. Claiming the moral high ground Yoadm is a waste of time for both sides because there is absolutely none to be had.

"You can call it what you want, it all comes down to semantics. Simply put, this was a moderate response."
I truly wonder with you sometimes Yoadm. Let me break it down in simple layman's terms for you, so its easily understood.
This sorry event happened a few days ago. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/ap/world/mainD8IDAII00.shtml
So according to your thesis, but if I was a militant setting off a suicide bomb in a hotel killing 50, that would be deemed excessive. But if I was to break into a settlement and only kill 2 adults and 1 child, that was be a moderate response?

Whether you deems an act moderate or extreme is neither here nor there. It is the act itself which has to be categorized, not the severity. :roll: Arguing contrary to the blindingly obvious is going to make you sound nothing but stupid, because the position you are taking is logically absurd. The Israeli acts as outlined, within these specific incidences as mentioned, are terrorist in nature. End of story!


Plato, please edit your post, I can barely understand a word.

[Plato & Socrates]

Plato & Socrates wrote: Quote: Yoadm, I clearly defined what terrorism is, its aims and objectives. I supplied definitions of the term from some of the English language most reputable lexicographers. ]

Yoadm wrote: If you want to argue semantics, then every military operation is "terrorism". Just like we can argue that every non-positive quote on Israel is "anti-semetism". You can find ANYTHING between the lines.
The point is this: the elected goverment a nation engages in kidnappings of another nation. That is an act of war.

The IDF simply gave a clear cut messege, one not involving civilian casualties.

Small note: Palestiniens still have a power supply, they are being helped by Israel.


yoadm wrote: You can call it what you want, it all comes down to semantics. Simply put, this was a moderate response.

Who the hell is arguing semantic's? The only person trying to do that is you. Just like Duchifas, the penny has dropped with you as well. "The point is this: the elected government a nation engages in kidnappings of another nation. That is an act of war" Israel commits these acts on a weekly basis, kill civilians frequently in this process and perennially justifies it.

Your targeted assassinations of Terrorists alleged or otherwise, without going through due process and the courts is tantamount to exjudical killings. But does Israel give a s**t? The answer is is a categorical NO Its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black or that People in glass houses should'nt throw stones.

Israels moral position regarding this missing soldier debacle is as Defunct as the Palestinian side. Delusion from both sides is indicative of the s**t your now both in. Claiming the moral high ground Yoadm is a waste of time for both sides because there is absolutely none to be had.

"You can call it what you want, it all comes down to semantics. Simply put, this was a moderate response."
I truly wonder with you sometimes Yoadm. Let me break it down in simple layman's terms for you, so its easily understood.
This sorry event happened a few days ago. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/ap/world/mainD8IDAII00.shtml
So according to your thesis, but if I was a militant setting off a suicide bomb in a hotel killing 50, that would be deemed excessive. But if I was to break into a settlement and only kill 2 adults and 1 child, that was be a moderate response?

Whether you deems an act moderate or extreme is neither here nor there. It is the act itself which has to be categorized, not the severity. :roll: Arguing contrary to the blindingly obvious is going to make you sound nothing but stupid, because the position you are taking is logically absurd. The Israeli acts as outlined, within these specific incidences as mentioned, are terrorist in nature. End of story!

[superskippy]

Quote: defy anyone to deny that some of Israels acts in this latest Gaza incursion are not acts of terrorism committed by the state.
The destruction of the Gazan electricity power plant is a case example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5123564.stm
An IDF spoken said it was done "Because militants operate within a civilian environment"
What P.R? What a load of s**t! What Israel has done falls into the realm of collective punishment, as well as coercion.

I dent it. It is a legitmate military action in response to an overt attack by the Palestinians. The Power Plant was a vital piece of economic infrastructre and we disabled it completely due to precision hits and caused no casualties. It sped up our advance by severly hampering the Palestinians and making it that much harder to manuever the captured soldier or militants to deploy. It was an excellent strike and I applaud it.


Quote: As for the constant "Sonic Booms" there purpose is all to be seen. Those F.16s are there to frighten and intimidated the Palestinian population. Those planes which fly at a low altitude, screaming sonic booms over the head of civilians, frightening the wits out of men, women and children, falls squarely into the remit of a terrorist act.

So basically your equating a loud noise with terrorism? Your really grasping for something arent you...

It causes no civilian casualties at all, and it arguably one of the most humane weapons used due to that reason. So what if they get scared, thats the point.

Quote: Its a common fact that the Israeli air-force fires Air to Surface missiles regularly, and in firing these missiles have killed many 100s of Palestinians in the process. These civilians cannot guarantee with any certainty that Israel will refrain from launching a missile at a intended target. So the only reason for them to buzz overhead constantly without firing a missile is in an act of intimidation, which in turn frightens the population, therefore terrorizing them, therefore the state of Israel commits state terrorism.

Yes we do, but not to target the civilians.

Also through out this whole tirade you have equated fear with terrorism. So if I scared you or I put fear into you, that makes me a terrorists, or you vice versa? Of course not, we can scare the Palestinians all we want, human rights groups all over the world prefer that to actual action. If we could use that alone than we would, unfortuantly force is also required.

I'm glad we frighten the Palestinians, better to frighten them than have to kill them. It's an effective non violant tool we will continue to use. Also they should fear our planes and the benefit of that is that it intimidates the militants and terrorists when they hear it possibly stopping a rocket attack, it also keeps the knoweldge clear that we have the power and that the cannot attain their goals through terrorism and violence. We are stronger.

[Plato & Socrates]

superskippy wrote: Quote: defy anyone to deny that some of Israels acts in this latest Gaza incursion are not acts of terrorism committed by the state.
The destruction of the Gazan electricity power plant is a case example. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5123564.stm
An IDF spoken said it was done "Because militants operate within a civilian environment"
What P.R? What a load of s**t! What Israel has done falls into the realm of collective punishment, as well as coercion.

I dent it. It is a legitmate military action in response to an overt attack by the Palestinians. The Power Plant was a vital piece of economic infrastructre and we disabled it completely due to precision hits and caused no casualties. It sped up our advance by severly hampering the Palestinians and making it that much harder to manuever the captured soldier or militants to deploy. It was an excellent strike and I applaud it.


Quote: As for the constant "Sonic Booms" there purpose is all to be seen. Those F.16s are there to frighten and intimidated the Palestinian population. Those planes which fly at a low altitude, screaming sonic booms over the head of civilians, frightening the wits out of men, women and children, falls squarely into the remit of a terrorist act.

So basically your equating a loud noise with terrorism? Your really grasping for something arent you...

It causes no civilian casualties at all, and it arguably one of the most humane weapons used due to that reason. So what if they get scared, thats the point.

Quote: Its a common fact that the Israeli air-force fires Air to Surface missiles regularly, and in firing these missiles have killed many 100s of Palestinians in the process. These civilians cannot guarantee with any certainty that Israel will refrain from launching a missile at a intended target. So the only reason for them to buzz overhead constantly without firing a missile is in an act of intimidation, which in turn frightens the population, therefore terrorizing them, therefore the state of Israel commits state terrorism.

Yes we do, but not to target the civilians.

Also through out this whole tirade you have equated fear with terrorism. So if I scared you or I put fear into you, that makes me a terrorists, or you vice versa? Of course not, we can scare the Palestinians all we want, human rights groups all over the world prefer that to actual action. If we could use that alone than we would, unfortuantly force is also required.

I'm glad we frighten the Palestinians, better to frighten them than have to kill them. It's an effective non violant tool we will continue to use. Also they should fear our planes and the benefit of that is that it intimidates the militants and terrorists when they hear it possibly stopping a rocket attack, it also keeps the knoweldge clear that we have the power and that the cannot attain their goals through terrorism and violence. We are stronger.

Whats the matter with you Jews and Israeli's? The parameters for terrorism is clearly defined. I have given several definitions of terrorism from reputable lexicographers, yet the denial is so brazen it boardering the sickening.

Irrespective of my view of the Palestinian cause and why they take up arms. Whether I believe they have a just cause to do so, or whether their tactics fall within the distinction of moral repugnance or legitimate resistance I cannot escape the fact that there actions fall within the clearly defined parameters of terrorism.

Believe me Sometimes when they resist I wish I could justify there action and call it something else, but I cant. What the militants do fall 99% of the time within the term terrorist act.

But when it comes to Many of the Pro-Israeli diaspora and Israeli Jews, your faculties when given a clearly defined parameter regarding the Israeli acts I had outlined which took place yesterday leave you in a hurry.
Why do you have to defend a position which is clearly untenable? Yesterdays IDF action as I outlined were terrorist in nature.

Yes, today since your latest incursion no Palestinians have been killed. Palestinian civilians lose there lives on a regular basis, with at best a Israeli apology. They only have the word of their 40yr occupiers to go by that it was'nt deliberate.
So the installation of fear via the threat of violence from a missile strike by the IDF air-force, that fear is very real.

After a suicide bus bombing why do bus passenger numbers go down, even though the bus bombing may have happened weeks ago?
It is the very fact that they are scared that a possible attack could happen anytime. The very fact that the IDF air force constantly screamed over head, was for no military or strategic purpose other than to scare, and within the Palestinian eye, due to the fact Israel has killed so many civilians by missile, they were legitimately scared.

[Peregrinus]

Quote: The parameters for terrorism is clearly defined. I have given several definitions of terrorism from reputable lexicographers, yet the denial is so brazen it boardering the sickening.

Personally, I couldn't give a damn whether Israeli actions are 'terrorist' in nature or not. The Palestinians have shown time and time again that they are incapable of civilised conduct. Perhaps a few sonic booms over their heads will make them see sense for once, though I doubt it.

Who are these Palestinians? Oh yes! The people that have built up an identity through a hatred of Israel. What is their cultural identity? Hatred, violence, intolerance! They expect everyone to bow down to their whims because they are the poor 'victim'.

Look at the reactions in the West Bank and Gaza during the cartoon fiasco last year. Crowds on the street, attacking EU offices and burning European flags. They are filled to the brim with hatred because that is their culture, their identity! Without that hate of Israel, what do they have left? Nothing.

It will take a long time before they, the Palestinians, accept peace and it will probably have to come through total defeat.

[superskippy]

Quote: Whats the matter with you Jews and Israeli's? The parameters for terrorism is clearly defined. I have given several definitions of terrorism from reputable lexicographers, yet the denial is so brazen it boardering the sickening.

Whats the matter with you Jews? Excuse me?

Sonic booms and intimidation using aircraft are non violant and inflict no casualties, and as every single one of your primary definitions involves violance, no by definition it isnt terrorism. It is a non violant operation that is incredably humane to achieve it's goals over bullets.

Quote: Yesterdays IDF action as I outlined were terrorist in nature.

Not even close. It was a bombing of economic infrastructre a clearly defined target in war and in history.

[henri]

Yoadm wrote:
Israel was founded based on Terrorism.
Terrorism is their modus operandi to make Israel "Goyim Rein" (free from non-Jews) in their quest to "Eretz Israel (Great Israel).

Yitzhak [/b]

Lies will not avail you, "Mon ami".

Goyim Rein = A term never used in Israel, as you know.
Eretz Israel = Land of israel (Not greater israel, as you allso know).[/quote

*****

Mon ami Yadm, salut.

The Yitzhak Shamir famous Statement can be found on:
http://a2planet.com/ast/AmericanisraelTerrorism.html - and
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/print.php?id=120957

That you assume that this statement is a lie...that's your problem.

>>Goyim Rein = A term never used in Israel, as you know<<
No, I don't know, I'm an American not a Jew/Israeli like you are.

I found the words 'Goyim Rein' in an article titled "ISRAELI CRIMES: Details and Numbers of the Nazi Jews activities" - The following list of massacres is by no means exclusive, but they reflect the nature of the Zionist occupation of Palestine and Lebanon and show that massacres and expulsions were not aberrations that happen in any war, but organized atrocities with only one aim, that is to have a Zionist state which is "GOYIM REIN" (capitalizing by me).
http://www.deathmasters.com

>>Eretz Israel = Land of israel (Not greater israel, as you also know)<<
Again, I don't know...I'm not a Jew.

Go read the article "Jewish Nazis: American-Israeli State Terrorism of the Palestinian People"
http://a2planet.com/palestine/AmericanIsraeliTerrorism.html

In the chapter: - Zionist are Jewish Nazis - You will read the following:

* "Eretz (Greater) Israel" for the Zionist - "Lebens raum" (Living Room) for the Nazis.
* The Nazis claimed Aryans were "The Master Race" - Talmudic Judaism claims that Jews are "The Chosen People", and looks down on all "goyim" (non-Jews) as being racially inferior.
* Nazis are violently racist - Zionists are violently racist.
* The Nazis looked for a "final solution" to what they called "the Jewish problem" - the Zionist Israelis look for the "final solution" to what they call "the Palestinian problem".

Since these articles are showing the Israelis in a negative way, you, of
cause, automatically label them as "LIES" or Anti-Semitism?

Verstehen sie mir, herr Yoadm? Sieg heil Zion!

[Plato & Socrates]

superskippy wrote: Whats the matter with you Jews? Excuse me?


Stop the P.C crap! Whats the matter with you (insert)? You could replace Jews with Arabs, French, Essex girls, Millwall supporters, Yanks, Muslims or whoever. If you decide to feel offended, then tough s**t. I've been abroad and also at home and been asked a question beginning with whats the matter with you English? Get over it.[/b]

[Yoadm]

Plato may be a Blind arrogant t**t, but he's no racist.