UNRWA condemns the usage of Gazan children as human shields by Hamas

Nope. The intent is to kill Hamas terrorists not civilians. This fact is demonstrated by the care taken to minimize civilian casualties while carrying out the mission. Terrorism is intentional attacks on civilians.

I believe you are mistaken. Would you care to attempt to refute any of it?

They wouldn't have to be on a war footing 24/7 and would save huge $ not to mention the economic boom that would occur if the wall between them and the Arab world were removed.

Another one who never cracked a dictionary to learn the definition of terrorism.

I'm not the one who makes his own words up so perhaps this comment reflects your intellect.

 

Simple, move all the kids to the other part of Rafah. Which happen to be in Egypt.

 

There's still much more citizens killed than "Hamas terrorists". BTW, did you know that a simple Palestinian policeman, or fireman is also a "Hamas terrorist" since he works for his government? Make no mistakes - much of the civilians Israel kill, they kill them in full knowledge; there are no accidents.

I don't debate slogans. Slogans are not made to debate, but to flip the debate. Slogans are for stupid people who can't think for themselves.

War is the foundation of the zionist state. All of what they have, they had it with war. If there is no war, there is no Eretz Israel and no more divisions among the Arabs. That would be catastrophic, as much of the war engine in Isreal is paid for by their Yank whores, and with these, a tremendous tech-based economy flourish in Israel. How much Israelis do live off the profits of war? Quite a bunch.

War costs Israel nothing - they have less soldiers or citizens that die as a result of war than these are by domestic electrocution. War, to the contrary, is for Israel what one could describe as "a buisness opportunity".

Now, Palestine, would really profit from the war's end: It would have sovereignty, borders, international relations and commerce, an army etc. The advantages there are pretty clear. But all of these would be at Israel's disavantage.

You are the first who ignore it. Visibly, your main criterion for calling someone a terrorist (what you must do about 94 times a day) is that he must be against you or the cause you will unconditionally espouse. All of the rests are cosmetics that most intelligent people won't buy for a second, and recognized it as a mean to demonize the opposition. The French Resistance in WWII were also someone else's terrorists.

I am afraid you will have to use much more than Little League stuff to seriously debate with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, so the Egyptian border is now open?

"Simple" my behind.

 

Yes, very simple. All they need to do is request.
If the Gazan tell Egypt: "Gaza is right now a war zone. We would like to move the children out of harms way to Rafah."
There is no way the Egyptian would refuse this humanitarian request.
After all, Rafah people of the Egyptian side are the same families as Rafah people in the Gazan side.

But Hamas, does not want it. They want the children dead, so they can cry some more and extort some more money out of the EU people.

 

Yeah, of course it is. Strange how those revelations never made the mass media. I guess they're all in league with Hamas too...

 

The definition of terrorism depends on who is perceiving it as such. For example; Irgun, Lehi, Stern-all considered terrorists. Naturally, to you, they were probably valiant freedom fighters opposing British terrorism...

 

You're joking, right?

 

Nope, but I'm open to being corrected.

 

When there is much more important issues like food and medicine Israili goverment banned out of the closed openings from Egypt or sea so there is no way to have enough even for food let alone making those armed rooms in Israili houses. As I said before I believe there is no room for such things you claim.
First food and medicine then having armed rooms or stuff.

Yes, this is why there is so few israili die.

 

Nope. Some were insurgents who sometimes used terrorism but were labelled terrorists by the British even though most of their actions were against military targets. Same as insurgents in Iraq laying out IEDs, they were not acts of terrorism but guerrilla warfare. Only when they attacked civilians did they commit acts of terrorism so what were they, terrorist or insurgents of both?

 

Human shields? Yeah right.

There are numerous examples of the Jews physically forcing Palestine to shield them from harm, and that's what I call the use of human shields.

 

And what do you call the kidnapping and hanging of British soldiers by these "insurgents"?

 

If you want to talk what happened 70 years ago, that is the best you can come up with, ok.
Lechi was indeed a terrorist organization.
Etzel, was not a terrorist organization, but it's members did perform some terrorist acts.
There is not "definition of terrorism according to the one perceiving it".
This is just an excuse for murders and the scum who supports them.
If you target civilians it is a terrorist act. If you target arms personnel this is not.
You can blow as many army personnel as you like using any means, this is war.
Don't target civilians, for targeting civilians.
Just taking recent example:
An Israeli civilian came to the border to give food for the army persons there, he was killed by Gazan mortar shell.
This is not terrorism.
On the other hand, a rocket shot at Ashdod is targeting civilians, even if it fails to hit anyone, it is an act of terrorism.

 

Good, so you will agree then that the recent shooting of unarmed Palestinians, on their own side of the border fence, by IDF personnel was an act of terrorism.

 

Only that did not happen.
What happend in reality was Gazans sgooting endless barage of rockets on Israeli civilians.
Since we both agree, this is terrorism, Israel sent its army to get those terrorists.

 

Actually it rather looks as if you have never bothered to crack open a dictionary, so I will do it for you
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorist
In reality terrorist and terrorism are words not really defined, however it is not simply about military or civilian targets as you seem to suggest, it does not even require an act of violence merely the threat.

 

No, never happens. Except when it does:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.577242#!
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.563540

Shoot first, ask questions later (unless, of course, you killed them first), that's the IDF way folks.

 

Even when it does, it never happens. To quote the late, great, Harold Pinter, "It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest."

http://havetoremember.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/harold-pinters-nobel-prize-lecture/

 

And when Hamas calls on civilians to protect the home where a rocket has been fired so that they garner the maximum press from the people being killed by an Israeli missile? Or when they fire rockets from civilian areas? Or when their leaders extoll the virtues of using the old, young, women and children as human shields this is not using human shields as policy, a policy that Israel prosecutes it's military for doing but Hamas brags about?

 

Insurgency. Murder etc. They are military. If you remember a thread where a Palestinian stabbed and murdered an IDF soldier on a bus not too long ago many from the right were calling him a terrorist, I called him an insurgent if he was a member of Hamas and a simple murderer if he was not.

 

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims:"

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "

A soldier intent on killing a combatent is not terrorizing but rather carrying out a military operation. Collateral deaths while doing so does not change the fact that it is a military operation.

Looks like you ought to read your own books.

 

That's nice exemple of someone who can't see the forest because of all the trees blocking his sight.

I guess your bed is made, and never will you see that it all amounts to the same.

 

Your definitions Victor, they both specify that the perpetrator of terrorism, in order for it to be called an act of terrorism must be doing it for political purposes. The intent of IDF actions are desoigned to stop Hamas rockets on the ground in military moves, not reach a political agreement or settlement, that is left to the government.

It seems you are unable to grasp criteria, even when you have brought it forward.

 

Don't you think the people firing the rockets into Israel would rather they fell on political or military targets?

 

The IDF carries out the will of the Zionist leaders to help attain their political goals. So although the soldiers in the IDF aren't necessarily terrorists their acts can sometimes be construed as acts of terrorism.