• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The middle east

I know very little about the area. What I do know is Israel wasn't created until like 1950? 1948? I think the UK had control over the area before Israel was created and I think the UK tried to stop the migration of people there, something like that. Israel has expanded beyond recognized U.N. borders. I've heard people say many times It's not the Jewish people they are against, it's the government of Israel.

Something else I have heard on the news that needs to be corrected is, there are Arab Jews.

I just hope our military doesn't get anymore involved in it. It should be the U.N. not us.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it Palestine before 1948, and part of the British Empire. That's most I really know about it. For a while I did have colleague from Israel, who always talked about the time he lived on a kibbutz.

BTW I'm just reminded of one of my favourite Siouxsie And The Banshees songs...Israel.
 
Last edited:
AugieTN said:
That sounds correct.
Click to expand...

i know there's nearly always been conflict in that area of Israel and Lebanon, and hearing about things like "Six Day War", "PLO", etc.

When I've transited through some international airports on my travels I've noticed El-Al, the Israeli airline, always seem to have a lot of extra really beefy security around their operations, much more than other airlines. Like El-Al has their own exclusive waiting lounges and departure gates, with extra security screening on top of the normal airside security. It's never been the sort of place I've wanted to go for a holiday.
 
Last edited:
Dannydet said:
What is everyone's viewpoint on what's happening in the middle east right now?

I'm not Israeli nor Palestinian.
I'm a Polish - American.
All I know is that they've hated each other for years, but why?
Religion?
Click to expand...
basically the Palestinians were there first. the brits invaded and staked claims to the lands. the Jewish people during the Holocaust fled to the British owned lands in that area. the Palestinians never wanted their lands to be invaded. its such a weird and complicated situation. Hamas grew out of these complications.

i think both sides are at fault for this..though i do not condone terrorists and violence. but the anger and violence had to bubble over at some point. it seems to happen every decade or so in that region.
 
ocnbrze said:
though i do not condone terrorists
Click to expand...
You really shouldn't use the term "terrorist" like that, because the word doesn't really mean anything. The closest thing it has to a proper detention is "military resistance fighter, derogatory". Do you mean to condemn (for example) the French resistance of WW2? The American resistance forces of the American War of Independence?

Now, I'm not telling you to not condemn the actions of the Palestinian military resistance. If you want to condemn them, go ahead. But say why you're condemning them, say what it is they're doing which you're condemning!
 
Criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of people, intimidate a population or compel a government or international organization...
In short, anyone killing babies and civilians, in my opinion.
Don't even compare the resistance fighters of WW2, they weren't slaughtering babies and civilians!!!
Jeez, don't be so frikken technical with your grammar.
 
Wars are crazy.

Often we support one side and condemn another without knowing the full story. It's impossible to know the full story unless you're living it. Even then, you cannot live the cultural complexities and conflicts that have evolved over generations.

And from where does the "truth" come? We're mostly just trusting "sources" that we deem credible.

The answer seems simple: resolve things peacefully at all costs and don't kill people. But that's easy to say from a house with internet and running water and ample food and lots of luxuries. And truth be told, much of my "good fortune" is the result of wars won and lost over hundreds and thousands of years.

Regarding the word "terror", I think it does make a helpful distinction. It's not the same as a "resistance fighter". Intentionally targeting women and children and hospitals etc... that is terrorism (to me). The purpose and intent is to cause terror by committing acts so heinous that even among soldiers they're viewed as "war crimes". They're meant to scare people to the point of frenzy, destabilizing governments for political gain. Maybe those terrorists view their opposition as terrorists, fighting from a different perspective of desperation, but I think the term "terrorist" largely has a connotation with shared understanding.

It's sad to think we're in the 2000s and world leaders are still fighting wars like a game of Monopoly, trying to take over the world and bankrupt everyone else by all means necessary. There will undoubtedly always be "evil" in the world, but at some point in the next several hundreds of years, I hope our governments can decide to spend money on eliminating poverty rather than on bombs to eliminate people and progress.

Sadly, many of the worst wars are infused with religious purpose and take on a meaning with infinitely different (and often shallow) depth.

None of this speaks on the actual current conflict because I don't know enough about it to have an educated opinion. I just hope that good-hearted people stay safe. I'm not sure how this conflict gets resolved, but sadly my guess is that it won't within our lifetime.

Lastly, as an American, I'm sad to admit that I feel my opinion matters less in the global marketplace of political ideas because of the mess our country has made of itself in the past 8 years. Democracy is indeed a fragile experiment that we've been gifted and we've done a pitiful job of protecting it by failing to elect principled people into positions of power. We too can fall into turmoil if we don't foster and care for our government and its people.

Be grateful for everything you have and each morning you wake up another day!
 
Windroid said:
You really shouldn't use the term "terrorist" like that, because the word doesn't really mean anything. The closest thing it has to a proper detention is "military resistance fighter, derogatory". Do you mean to condemn (for example) the French resistance of WW2? The American resistance forces of the American War of Independence?

Now, I'm not telling you to not condemn the actions of the Palestinian military resistance. If you want to condemn them, go ahead. But say why you're condemning them, say what it is they're doing which you're condemning!
Click to expand...
what? what do you want me to call them? babysitters? when were the French Resistance ever called terrorists, except save for the nazis?

and the Palestinians do not even have an army. its a terrorist group. the national counterterrorism center calls them a terrorist group.

National Counterterrorism Center | Groups

Contains many features across the full range of issues pertaining to international terrorism: terrorist groups, wanted terrorists, and technical pages on various threat-related topics
www.dni.gov

so what else should we call them?

edit: even the US State Dept calls them terrorists:
www.state.gov

Foreign Terrorist Organizations - United States Department of State

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means...
www.state.gov www.state.gov
 
Last edited:
Dannydet said:
Jeez, don't be so frikken technical with your grammar.
Click to expand...
Oh it matters! Here's why:
In short, anyone killing babies and civilians, in my opinion.
Don't even compare the resistance fighters of WW2, they weren't slaughtering babies and civilians!!!
Click to expand...
The British, German, and American air forces were killing babies and civilians. Remember the cities of London, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? That wasn't collateral damage; those weren't cases of civilian homes being next to military bases. The air forces of World War 2 deliberately targeted civilians! Yet no one calls them "terrorists".
ocnbrze said:
what do you want me to call them?
Click to expand...
That's the wrong question. The right question is: What is it they're doing which you object to? You say that you "do not condone terrorists", but what is "terrorism"? What is it they're doing which you don't condone?
 
Windroid said:
That's the wrong question. The right question is...
Click to expand...
Maybe that's the wrong and right question FOR YOU.

Different people have different perspectives based on their collective life experiences. It doesn't necessarily make them right or wrong, just different. It would probably be more constructive to share your experience/opinion and try to better understand those of others, rather than just correcting people. The difference between education and arguing is nuanced.

Times change and so does the cultural meaning of words- is it possible that war and terrorism have changed since WW2? Is it possible that a government can commit "acts of terror" for the greater good (ex: to prevent the extinction of humanity)?

History is written by the side that wins the war, but I think that generally speaking, most people would loosely agree on what does or doesn't constitute a terrorist. When you venture into the gray space, you're going down a rabbit-hole of tit-for-tat violence which nobody can actually win.
 
So now the United States is guilty of terrorism by stopping the enemy by dropping the atomic bomb? This wasn't an easy decision for the US, since we were fighting the enemies of many countries all at once. Don't forget the Japanese attacked us first.
 
Dannydet said:
So now the United States is guilty of terrorism by stopping the enemy by dropping the atomic bomb?
Click to expand...
The United States deliberately targeted civilians in the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If deliberately targeting civilians is terrorism, then the bombings were an act of terrorism. That said: "Guilty" implies a moral or legal judgment! I'm not making any such judgment, I'm not saying that the US was right or wrong to use the atomic bombs on Japanese cities.
Rob said:
Maybe that's the wrong and right question FOR YOU.
Click to expand...
My objection to the word "terrorism" is two-fold:

#1: The word is used in so many different ways, I don't know what Ocnbrze means when he says that he doesn't condone "terrorism"! I don't know what behavior Ocnbrze is objecting too.

#2: Only people you don't like get called "terrorists". When combined with #1, that makes "terrorist" little more than a derogatory term which doesn't mean anything. A term which, I believe, ought to be wiped from our vocabulary.
 
ocnbrze said:
i think both sides are at fault for this..though i do not condone terrorists and violence. but the anger and violence had to bubble over at some point. it seems to happen every decade or so in that region.
Click to expand...
I don't think this was a "bubbling over". Anger and hatred made this possible, but the Hamas attack was clearly a deliberate provocation intended to provoke an extreme Israeli reaction. And Netanyahu, predictably, ignored the first rule of conflict and gave his enemy what they wanted.

Now I've no knowledge of what the Hamas leadership, or the countries who are hosting them (you didn't think they were in harm's way in Gaza, did you?) think they will gain from disrupting the region. Perhaps they sought to see off the developing rapprochement between Israel and some of their Gulf neighbours, especially Saudi? Maybe they hope that other states will be drawn in and they'll provoke an Israeli-Arab war (and hope it doesn't go nuclear)? But this whole thing has been so clearly designed to provoke mass outrage, which would inevitably produce an extreme response, that I do not doubt that this was the intent.

And I've no doubt that some in the Israeli government see this provocation as an opportunity too. For example there are people there who have advocated driving Palestinians out of Gaza long before this, and the hardliners (euphemism) who make up the Israeli government doubtless expect to profit from the fear, outrage and hatred it provokes driving more people to them. One thing they and the Hamas leadership share is that both have built their power on the same cycle of violence.
 
Windroid said:
ought to be wiped from our vocabulary.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally speaking you'd think a "terrorist" is a person whose acts are intended to cause terror.

But linguistically speaking you're only a "terrorist" if you're using violence for political gain:

What’s the definition of terrorist? – Quickapedia

quickapedia.com quickapedia.com

By definition, sure, you could say that America committed terrorist acts in WW2. I think most people would say those "terrorist acts" were justified as necessary measures to prevent Hitler from taking over the world. But it all boils down to the word "terror"... and it's just a word. Humans create the meaning. Language evolves.

Terrorist has come to mean the random bad guys that kill people and blow stuff up without regard or remorse, including themselves. I don't personally see a problem with that.
 
Rob said:
By definition, sure, you could say that America committed terrorist acts in WW2.
Click to expand...
If "terrorism" is defined as the intentional targeting of civilians: It'd be tough to argue that dropping the a-bombs on those cities didn't qualify!
Rob said:
I think most people would say those "terrorist acts" were justified as necessary measures to prevent Hitler from taking over the world.
Click to expand...
I remind you: We're not discussing when terrorism, or war in general, is just or necessary! You can have the most just cause in the world. But if terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians, and if you target civilians: You are a terrorist! The morality of being a terrorist is another matter.
Rob said:
But linguistically speaking you're only a "terrorist" if you're using violence for political gain:
Click to expand...
By that definition: All soldiers are terrorists! When two countries go to war: They're both using violence for political gain, to defend their political order. So, that's not a practical definition if "terrorist" is to be a useful term.
Rob said:
Terrorist has come to mean the random bad guys that kill people and blow stuff up without regard or remorse, including themselves. I don't personally see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
How do you know that some soldier (be it regular, irregular, insurgent, or otherwise) who's blowing something up has no remorse or regard? That definition relies too much on reading the soldier's mind, it's not practical if "terrorist" is to be a useful term. Unless the point of the term is to be propaganda, to make us assume that the enemy soldiers are evil people who just love killing.

But on that note: I would hope that a soldier would see the deaths he causes (civilian and military deaths alike) as cruel necessities of war, and not as positive goods. Of course, there are bad people in the world, and soldiers are no exception. There are soldiers (again, including irregulars, insurgents, etc.) who just like killing people, and have no regard for human life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom