I was just commenting on the "worse then terrorists" part, not calling a whole thing on Israel.
But to target your disagreement, these are not wannabees, they are people who would and probably will be suicide bombers if they got the chance. And the Reuters wattering down does not say that the group they claim to be holding off violence is responsible for the murder of 8 students and the injury of many more. As for your desire to use militants for those launching rockets at civilians, they are terrorists. They are trying to kill civilians indiscriminately, with malice and forsight. They are not targeting military sites, which they well could. But to bring it back to the subject at hand, there are no gay rights activists who will march supporting murder. There are none saying that reverend this or senator that should be killed for being anti-gay. There's a difference and the lawmaker who made the statements should think first, think second and probably think a number of times more before saying what he did. On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Palestinian Hamas activists take part in an anti-Israel rally organized > by > the Hamas movement in Gaza March 7, 2008. Israel and Palestinian militants > in the Gaza Strip have been holding off from violence that could > jeopardize > Egyptian efforts to mediate a ceasefire, sources from both sides said on > Monday" > > I really don't agree with it, but I can see a solid case being made for > the > label "activist". > > In my mind, these are "wannabees" and possibly supporters. Until they try > to > take an action, or plan one. Then they step over the line into terrorism. > > The same is true for me with the term "Palistinian Militant". If they are > firing rockets over the border at military targets they are militants > (even > if they hit civilian targets. They they are just inefficient militants). > If > they are walking into a coffee shop, or targeting civilians (or even > off-duty military) they are terrorists. Or murderers. Depending on > motivation. > > Here is how I think about it. > > A local example. The crazies that stand our front of abortion clinics. > Some > are "reasonable", and try to argue facts and emotions. Some are a little > scary, with an empty noose or a gun on a sign. An implication, but not a > direct threat. Some have a list of doctors, with a gun in the corner, and > the names of doctors who have been killed with a line through them. And > every few years, one has a bomb in his satchel. > > Everyone except the last one, no matter how scary, are activists. Even if > they are scary enough to cause terror. The last one is a terrorist. > > I am leery of expanding the definition much, since the distinction between > rhetoric and action is, too me, very important. > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Michael Dinowitz < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > They're not terrorists, they're activists. Even Reuters says so: > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080310/photos_ts/2008_03_10t062100_450x320_us_palestinians_israel/ > > > > Oh, ignore the suicide bomber suits, that's just activist clothing no > > matter > > how kkk it looks. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256077 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
