Quote:
|
Originally Posted by racehorse
sure, but it is israel's militarisation which turned palestine into a terrorist state.
i think, because terrorist is such an emotive word to use, it cannot help but inspire fear. "military" does not hold these same connotations. terrorism implies provocation, and the word "military" implies defence. therefore, although technically used correctly by fugazifan, the words do not really mean anything, considering the death counts and the facts (i.e. 1948). in a situation like this we must stand away from messy rhetoric, and look at solid facts.
|
All fair points; I generally avoid this whole discussion because it's alway hopeless. No-one, especially myself, can talk about this situation without an investment of emotion. There's a cloud of facts, half-truths, rumours, religious edicts, cultural impositions, ethnic divisions, military force, interested benefactors [etc] all of which come under 'facts' relating to Israel - it's one of the quickest ways to a proper argument (in fleshworld at least) to suggest that the 'facts' are x and y - case in point 'Israel's Militarisation that turned Palestine into a terrorist state'; but why, and how, does Israel have guns? Is it because of hostility from surrounding areas, or because they're America's pawn in the area? My answer is it's probably both, or neither, depending on who you talk to. You don't get to the bottom of this discussion, you just call out the anti-semite (as Mr Neurotic has deftly done).