User talk:Epsilonsa
Welcome!
Hello, Epsilonsa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Re:Thank you too
[edit]No problem. Happy editing TewfikTalk 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Targeting of civilians is terrorism
[edit]Deliberately targeting of civilians, as opposite to accidentally killing them is Terrorism — by definition (from WordNet):
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
There is nothing POV about it... пан Бостон-Київський 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand. My main concern is with the double standard used for labeling what is terrorism and what isn't. For instance the quotes .... Epsilonsa 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The quotes you provided don't outline a tactics much different from that used by NATO's forces agaisnt Serbia — justly. Turning a country's "clock back", however harsh a measure it might be, is not terrorism, because it does not imply targeting civilians — only the infrastructure. But this is a debate over whether or not Israel is using terrorist methods (and in my POV it does not).
- That Hezbollah does use terrorist methods (and quite explicitly aims to continue) is a settled fact (which you do not dispute), so please stop reverting my edits pretending they represent a POV. Thank you,
- пан Бостон-Київський 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Civilian don't have to be killed in order for an action to be considered terrorism.
- You are absolutely right. In fact, actual killing them is irrelevant — it is the intention that matters. Israel has never stated its intention to target civilians and without a public statement of such an intention, it will, indeed, remain subject to a POV to try to deduce it from some other statement. Hezbollah "luckily" is quite open about its strategy and thus we can classify it with ease.
- The threat and violence involved in destroying infrastructure is against civilian assets and therefore can be considered terrorism.
- No, destroying of enemy's infrastructure is a "normal" Act of War, not of Terror. All warring countries do this to each other. Acts of War are not pretty, but they are not terrorism.
- But unlike your NATO example, no consensus has justified Israels actions either.
- Consensus (a UN agreement) is only required to justify a country's going to war without being attacked. In this case, Israel needed no such justification, because:
- In fact, Israel's right to self-defense is not disputed by any country — even if it is criticized for doing so "disproportionally".
- Most importantly, whether or not Israel is engaged in terrorism is irrelevant to the fact, that Hezbollah most certainly is engaged in it.
- I started a What is Terrorism section on the Talk-page. We can continue this discussion there...
- Yours, пан Бостон-Київський 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)