who is the terrorist?

Question

dont u know that 70% of lebanese children wont get back to their schools.............80% wont get back to homes....... 100% wont get back to safety

Answer 1

I will not use labels here so I will substitute terrorist for arrogance.

Now to answer your questions:
I would say Israel Zionists followed by the US.

Israel has been:
-Defying all UN resolutions.
-Committing genocide and ethnic cleansing against Arabs of all religions ever since the British Mandate and the Balfour declaration gave it Palestinian land.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb200...
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?s=sab...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/............
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb200...
http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/ep...

-Conducting false flag operations against the Arabs trying to gain international sympathy and blame the Arabs in the hope that the US and other countries will start wars with them - e.g. The USS Liberty bombing, the Lavon affair and other false flag ops.
http://christianparty.net/lavonaffair.ht...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lavon....
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic...
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=13....
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=4.....
http://www.davidduke.com/
http://zionismexplained.org/lieberman/li...
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.b...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveis...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faoe26mat...
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/10368...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p...
-Provoking, invading and occupying parts of neighboring countries.

The US has been:
-Vetoing all UN resolutions against Israel against the wishes of other UN participants.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm
-Supplying Israel with tons of weapons, artillery and military warheads paid for with by their citizens’ taxpayers money to continue their unjustified aggression / wars / genocide against their neighboring countries.
-Media is one sided portraying the Israeli side and not really reporting fairly.
-The US’s silence over Israeli actions against the US citizens themselves:

How many Americans were killed in the USS Liberty?
How many would have been killed in the Lavon affair?
Israel in fact murdered Rachel Corrie in cold blood by running a bulldozer over her body – what a terrible death for someone who was trying to save other peoples’ homes form destruction.
If Israeli involvement in 9/11 is proven true, how many US citizens and other nationals were killed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faoe26mat...
www.whatreallyhappened.com
www.davidduke.com

How has the Israeli spying on the US affected it and what has the US done about it?
How many US & coalition soldiers were killed fighting the Israeli wars in Afghanistan & Iraq?
How many more will be killed if Israel goes to war with Iran & Syria and whoever else?
How many soldiers have been affected for generations to come by the depleted Uranium used in the Gulf wars before & now?

Answer 2

"Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.

This is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the use, of the word "terrorist."

Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.

In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:

Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.

Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.

Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.

Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.

Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.

While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.

Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.

And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.

Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.

At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.

All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.
http://encyclopedia.wowla.com/?title=Definitions_of_terrorism

Answer 3

the version between a soldier and a terrorist isn't who they try for, yet how they try. Terrorists kill civilians and use concern as a weapon. squaddies, on the different hand, work together in attempt against in line with a algorithm, and basically against different squaddies. you may say what you elect with regard to the validity of conflict as a answer to issues, yet "no longer killing unarmed civilians" is a step up from what a terrorist does. that's a step interior the proper course.

Answer 4

Skewed statistics does not negate the fact that Hezbollah hides among civilians in the hope that innocents will be killed and used for propaganda purposes.

Until the Lebanese government rejects these terrorists and takes control of their own territory then their people will continue to suffer.

Answer 5

it's not how much a country losses that decides who's the terrorist. Have you ever seen the movie "Aliens"? Where an Alien comes out of this monster body. Well think of the Alien like terrorists. It kills from the inside but also kills what's inside. Now think of Lebanon. Hazbollah is the Alien and it's killing on the outside as well as the inside. Israel is just trying to protect their country and fight for what they believe in.

Answer 6

You are the terrorist my friend. Just give yourself up and the war will be over. We will deprogram you from the Hezbollah brain washing, OK. We have a home for you right next to Saddam the insane, but just remember Don't, I mean Do Not, ever, ever, ever drop the soap.

Answer 7

Steven Spielberg

Answer 8

so many more lebanese have died than isrealis but they think we should feel sorry for the isrealis! isreal just goes in and bashes who they feel like it. they are the terrorists! they are the 21st century hitlers!

Answer 9

Guess they should think of a real creative way to thank Hezbollah for getting them involved in all of this.

Answer 10

Anybody who uses excessive force is a terrorist.