 | | Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
|
| | | (...) <typing slowly so you will finally get it> The Palestinians *support* the PLO and all of their terrorist activity. The PLO murders *on behalf* of the Palestinians, *with their blessing*. *That* is why I am against them. Let them renounce the (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) I think the point Scott is trying to make is that not *all Palestinians* support the PLO, just as not all Americans support Dubya. Therefore, saying that you are against Palestinians (implying *all*) because they support the PLO is not a (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Comparing the Palestinian "system" with ours is a stretch, and you'd be surprised how many Americans *support* Bush on certain policies (such as terrorism), but putting that aside for the moment... I thought his point was that not all (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | the song of peace (was Re: jumping to conclusions) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I think he was comparing people not "systems". (...) Very few occupied peoples do have open and free political systems. The world is full of oppressive regimes... Arafat heads one of them. What you fail to recognise is that Israeli occupation (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | Can I assume that you wholly agree with the text you have deleted? (...) You said “never”. I proved you wrong. There appears to be a lot of these “isolated incidents”? How many does it take to prove Israeli belligerence to you? (...) Which books? (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) I think this is a very important point, which I would like to see more focus on. It is a sad fact that occupied people tend to use violent and immoral action against the occupiying force. It should also be noted that such actions, which can be (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I use the term "terrorism" as the specific, random targeting of civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them. Notice I don't even mention intent other than to terrorize. There is no rationality behind terrorism beyond terrorizing. It is (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Let's just stick to the normal usage/definition of words... not your distorted definition. I think this is pretty good: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) What part of my definition would you consider a distortion? But even with the definition you supplied, I wouldn't call the example Fredrik provided "terrorism". -John I think this is pretty good: (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I shall let you think about that... it is full of holes. (...) Either would I, but I don't know all that much about it. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) When have I said that "PLO terrorism" is justified? John, it is time for you to put-up or shut-up! Scott A (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
