Cpl Steiner Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: Yes! I dont know if you are aware, but in war, this is what happens, civilians get hit when they get in the combat area. If it was so importent for them to prevent such a thing, they could expell the terrorist from their home. If you had terrorists in your neighberhood, and you knew that the army will come and kill them, what would you do? 1. They don't see them as terrorists, they see them as resistance fighters. According to international law, they are still civilians regardless of their allegiances. 2. The level of destruction looks to most reasonable observers like the camp was punished for harboring terrorists. Collective punishment of civilians is technically a war crime now, just as it was when the Germans did it in WWII. By the way, I would like to add that I respect Israel's right to defend itself and am not anti-Israel. As a wargamer I used to play Arab-Israeli Wars as the Israelis, and have a lot of respect for their military. I just don't like it when they do things I can't justify to the people who really do hate Israel. [ February 05, 2006, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Ok, i agree, let's end this thing. But next time try to be more acuurate in your "facts"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: Ok, i agree, let's end this thing. But next time try to be more acuurate in your "facts"... oren_m, Sure thing, I enjoyed debating with you. I note from your profile that you are an ex IDF soldier, so I quite understand and respect your defence of IDF operations given the sorts of things you yourself must have had to go through. And yes, I will try to make sure my facts are as accurate as possible in the future. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 That was such a civilized debate, i think i'll go and puke... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Mastruko Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: "...so players can tell the difference between a history game based on lives of real people trying to survive ethnic cleansing..." Are you ****ing kidding me?! This man is a brainwashed psyco! Now come on.... I know where you're coming from but take it easy. I see him as just another game developer trying to survive in this game-developer-unfriendly world And, trying to market his game in particulary pirate-ridden part of the world, makes his job even harder. As such, I wish him luck in at least as much as I wish luck to anyone trying to survive developing games (political or otherwise). O. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 FPS? Shouldn't that be FPRT (First Person Rock Thrower)? JUST KIDDING! What I think is funny is the BBC's quote: "A bit like life really" Actually I think it would be interesting to play something like this and see the other side, even if it maybe a propaganda arcade game and I may disagree with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Gawd I'm sick of the T word. I don't know if anyone here will agree with me when I say that "Terrorist" has to be one of the most overused words of the 21st century. terrorism: (The American Heritage Dictionary) The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. In theory the bombing of civilian populations by the Germans, British and Americans in WWII was an act of state-sponsored terrorism. I'm specifically thinking of Berlin, the London blitz, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My point is that we need to be careful that we aren't being manipulated by the media and elected officials. It seems that we are far less likely to care what our governments do to a captive 'terrorist' than we are a 'freedom fighter' or 'guerrilla'. Remember that by the new modern standard, any revolutionary force could be considered a terrorist organization. I wonder what Sam Adams and John Hancock would think about that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 J Ruddy, The word "terrorist" implies a lack of legitimacy, which the word "guerrilla" does not. It is thus no surprise that societies on the receiving end of such attacks prefer the word terrorist rather than anything else. For example, the IRA were referred to as terrorists by the UK and Irish governments, but the American media usually called them guerrillas, as far as I am aware. Most people in London in the 70s and 80s during the IRA bombing campaigns would have found the use of the term guerrillas for the IRA to be quite repugnant, for obvious reasons. Perhaps we need to come up with a term that is kind of a middle-ground between legitimizing such violence and totally condemning it, i.e. one that is pretty neutral. For instance, the term "militant" implies some form of violent activity without necessarily condemning or condoning it. In truth though, a country's media is only a reflection of the views of its people, and if a population feels under threat of attack from a group, they are going to want them to be called terrorists and nothing else, which is of course entirely understandable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 J Ruddy, For me the issue is more that "terrorism" is a tactic not an enemy, so you can't exactly declare war on it. If people oppose an occupation by ambush and sabotage, in a guerilla war, like the French resistance in WW2, does that make them terrorists, it did for the Germans. The war on terror is like trying to stop small pox by attacking high fevers, it's not going to get any better if what you focus on is the symptom not the cause. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: Yes! I dont know if you are aware, but in war, this is what happens, civilians get hit when they get in the combat area.This has been a blanket excuses for years now, heard about Afghanistan, Iraq and now the fight in Jenin. "War is hell - live with it". Well, the Palis decided they don't want to live with it. And by the numbers stated above, that is insane. 140 houses destroyed for a total of 27 kills? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.