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:

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, Tewfik^Talk 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thank you too[edit]

No problem. Happy editing Tewfik^Talk 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

de facto it was attacked by Hezbollah, and
de jure it is at war with Lebanon since 1948

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)[reply]