The South African government has invited the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, to visit. Is this shrewd diplomacy or a naïve reward to terrorists?
Posted by Fareed Zakaria & William Gumede on May 10, 2007 8:05 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (167)
SQE :
REMAIN MAIN POINT OF THE TRUTH
It's not secret
Disclosure about the evil logic that is an implication – the name of the game, the game of political in republic of Indonesia.
Who's left? And Who's right?
Who's right? And Who's wrong?
Thing implied that is carry into effect! And resulted: Condition of miserable become condition of billionaire!
As usually pop up on television program (Live:Show case or indirect: Personal backbone) As businessman, politician or equally important to give a policy or money policy such as political character or awareness to.
Sample:
The aspect of reality and reality can't be denied in INDONESIA, Central Java, Semarang City,
public address, FOCUS ON OWNER ( 1986 – 1996), see, bellow:
UP AREA!
--------- At. Jl. Kyai Mojo 12
--------- At Jl. Sisingamangaraja
--------- At etc.
DOWN AREA!
---------AT Jl. Cinde Raya Barat 8
---------AT Jl. Cinde Raya 5
---------AT Jl. Cinde Barat Raya 1
---------AT Jl. Taman Mangga 13
--------- At etc.
They used true people to get a lot of money or equally important and sex! They've been connecting organization or company such as “NO”'s Family or “TO/BJ”' family, SPSI, GOLKAR, JASA MARGA, PTP, BPD, PORT:Code Red, the ring of crime, Masque, Church ... etc. From the beginning!
The moderate Palestinians should start realizing that the Israelis provided more services to them than any of their fundamentalist leaders who redirect everything they ever received into terrorism. Water, education, housing is the fought of those leaders who care more about violence than their own people. Mickey Mouse is back on the air teaching their children Islamic control of the wolrd and to murder. As more and more Egyptions and Syrians are being brave enough to say, Israel is a nation to be revered for its society and ability to exist while being surrounded by so many violent and non-peaceful people.
Look, as Americans we colonised the Americas. So, the Israelis feel they can do the same in the Middle East. After all, they want all the advantages of their European links and all the advantages of being in some Book or other. So whats wrong with that? You going to stop them or what? They have God on their side, I think, and the US, which is quite godlike or close enough, and then all the media and the EU and anybody else who has a spine that is flexible enough to bend down to them. So, thats it then !! or is it?
Do you really have anything substantive to say other than repeating your same nonsense over and over again. The Jews are the only side who actually do talk about - even debate it within their own society- of how to live in a peaceful coexistance with the Palestinaisn. So far, the only by product of Palestinina society is to teach murder and Islamic domination via Mickey Mouse to their children.
In my answer on terrorism, you asked to not use political doublespeak,
"...Now the question arises should we call the Government of Israel and the Government of USA terrorist organizations for the sins of some members of their employees/officers/ citizens? or should we say that the overall command structure is not responsible for the action of some of their members?..."
Are you kidding? That's doublespeak. Listed below are the total number of Israeli deaths specifically resulting from suicide bombers that target civilians and were conducted by Hamas (most claimed by Hamas). By any definition, these are terrorist attacks specifically approved and planned by Hamas leadership (Wikipedia).
When was the last time you saw Hamas jail a member that targeted civilians? I have no problem if you want to call terrorist "resistance fighters", but it is also illegal under the Geneva convention (international law) to target civilians. UN resolution 1559 called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, thus during the war in 2006, they were obviously in violation of that resolution-besides starting the war.
Sadr's army is somewhat different for me. I believe they are a terrorist organization, but their terrorism, at least the way I interpreted the start of the civil war, was in response to Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks. Sadr is an anti American, anti democratic, radical Islamic cleric. Obviously, I don't support him, but he is also a defender of the Iraqi Shia population.
The Shia have long been the oppressed minority/majority in Iraq. They have been second class citizens for decades, so I support their right to defend themselves. It is just unfortunate that they choose to target market dwelling Iraqi Sunnis to kill and also resort to pushing Sunnis out of their neighborhoods (ethnic cleansing).
While you have pounded the point that you are a deep thinker, I am curious as to why you would participate in this forum since, in general, many of the questions are centered around a single (shallow) event, for example, this past question regarding South Africa and Hamas. I also didn't see your answer to the PG question.
"...With all due respect, the way you present "facts" relative to situations prevailing in the countries you refer to, suffers from what philosophers call "historical atomism", i.e. taking relatively short sequences of events out of their overall historical context, so as to interpret them as you please and to suit your own biases. This is a method people who put forward tendentious arguments are particularly familiar with and fond of..."
While you are quick to attack other people's positions, you provide nothing in the way of solutions or even an answer to the PG question, but maybe I'll understand your position a little better if you explain what you mean by your own statement that follows:
"...Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Afghanistan..."
I am curious what you consider the tragedy to be in Afghanistan and exactly what you believe the self defeating fallacies are?
By the way, it is not difficult to pick out individuals who have read Chomsky, who I also happen to believe is highly intelligent (and, above all, not afraid to stake a position).
You say you do not assert that might makes right (but that Salamon does not), but then you say "...IS RIGHT AND THAT NO MATTER THE MIGHT APPLIED FOR SUCH TO EXIST IT IS RIGHT". So, essentially, you just said might makes right. From your post you make it seem as though you think that any measure should be taken to advance "democracy". Does might make right or not?
You then go on to say that Salamon believes might makes right because he thinks all civilizations are equal. Rather true or not, how does that mean Salamon thinks might makes right? You go on to say "Islamic civilization has no right to exist. Now what does this mean, I wonder? By saying islamic civilization has no right (a moral or legal right? If moral, according to whom, and if legal, according to whom?) to exist, do you mean to say that you believe Islamic society should be coercively taken out of existance? I fear you may have let your anger cloud your thinking.
I will agree with you that civilizations/cultures are not equal. However, your view of what makes civilizations/cultures superior is lacking, at best. You seem to want to say that "democracy", is what makes us superior, but I would question that. One, democracy is no more or less then mob rule. The "balance" between individual and society is nowhere to be found in pure democracy. This is what makes democracy weak, and essentially utilitarian at its core. There is no such thing as a balance between individual, and society. There are only individuals. "Society" is merely an abstract, vague term for groups of people useful only to those in power and capable of manipulating individuals for their own ends. Only individuals act, and only political philosophies that start with the individual are worthy of consideration.
One should focus, not on "who can rule over me", but rather on "what can be done so that I am not being ruled over". The focus, then, should be on what form of government, best and most effectively LIMITS government, and takes it away.
But, even this does not take on the issue of culture, which is mainly a separate issue from the type of government. Just because Britain has a form of democracy, does not in and of itself make it a "better" culture then Islamic culture. But that is a discussion for another day.
Thank you, BobL-VA. As much as I can be happy walking alone, I do enjoy a stroll in good company...
It would be preferable that I did not, but I must add that I always feel sad seeing the best among us, humans, belittled, scorned and despised by the worst. Happened to Mahatma Gandhi, to Albert Schweitzer, to Bertrand Russell, to Mother Teresa, to the Abbé Pierre, etc. as more recently to Noam Chomsky.
It would appear that grandeur is possibly what we are least familiar with.
Your points are well taken. I have met Noam Chomsky and consider it an honor (Hartwick College 1976). Without a doubt the brightest man I've ever encountered. Any society should be so lucky as to have someone of his intellectual prowess living within their borders. You don't always have to agree with him, but anyone who doesn't take what he has said seriously and reflect upon it is worse for it.
RE: your question as the status of the following:
And Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Sadr's Army? Hezbollah? being terrorist or not.
Hamas was born due to Israel/USA idiocity, for they treated PLO and Fatah as constant useless negotiators for the benefit of Palestine. While these two powers completely refused to abide by old Security Council Rulings [and thus broke international law] and constantly abused the residents of occupied lands [and thus broke more international laws] they refused to take steps to normalize the conflict. As well known to all but neo-con fools [and their disciplines] the existence of Israel as a Zionist entity depends solely on the USA Government's suppport. When the Palestinains got totally fed up with USA/Israels's buddy, the Fatah Organization, and partook in an election at the insistence of the USA, lo and behold Fatah was finished as a political power.
Hamas as a political organization has total right to resist ILLIGAL occupation under international law. There is no doubt that some members of Hamas have perpetrated terrorist acts. There is no doubt that some members of Israel's IDF, the USA army/Government [with the supply of offensive weapons] contributed to many more terrorist acts in Palestine than Hamas in Israel.
Now the question arises should we call the Government of Israel and the Government of USA terrorist organizations for the sins of some members of their employees/officers/ citizens? or should we say that the overall command structure is not responsible for the action of some of their members?
Your reply to this question will apply to Hamas, Hezbullah and Sadr's Army, for they all were born due to USA's and or Israel's Occupation of their respective sovereign territory.
I am awaiting your ANSWER -- should be most enlightening.
Tom Wonacott: for your information, I am no "follower" of anybody but myself, assuming I can sometimes achieve that much... I am therefore no "follower" of Professor Noam Chomsky, something some would likely suggest is a disease of both body and soul.
One thing I particularly appreciate in Professor Chomsky though, is that he is a man who can differentiate with lucidity what is principled and what is unprincipled human conduct (both individual and collective), something relatively few of our compatriots can do, as the contemporary political scene has shown conclusively and continues to prove on a daily basis.
With all due respect, the way you present "facts" relative to situations prevailing in the countries you refer to, suffers from what philosophers call "historical atomism", i.e. taking relatively short sequences of events out of their overall historical context, so as to interpret them as you please and to suit your own biases. This is a method people who put forward tendentious arguments are particularly familiar with and fond of.
As an aside, it is a method Noam Chomsky resents and is careful to avoid, seeking to always establish, through extensive historical panoramas, WHY things have happened, or do happen, the way they have or do. Ideologues and propagandists almost never ask "WHY?", it being the most embarrassing question of all. They find simpler not to ask and prefer to throw millions around, when talking about their enemies' victims, while being totally unable to account themselves (because unwilling: "we're not in the victims accounting business") for their own innumerable victims, as in Iraq and Palestine, for instance.
That is what Daniel likes to call "flexibility". I want to confess to Daniel why I experience an uncomfortable feeling, whenever I encounter the word "flexibility" in the context of a discussion such as this one. It is simply because the most corrupt, the most immoral, the most evil people I have known invariably claimed being virtuous because they were "flexible", and so very proud to be so. All they meant, really, was that there was no limit to how far they were prepared to compromise their own conscience.
Just as a reminder: that is what Professor Chomsky has shown to be Orwellian talk. In that language, as in doublespeak, everyone knows that "to aggress" is "to defend oneself", that "dictators are born from a virgin birth" and that "oppressive societies open and close like flowers".
That being said, I maintain that: 1. It becomes human beings to meet, to talk to each other, to negotiate, to come to viable and longlasting agreements, to sign and respect Accords, to live lives of peaceful coexistence, to cooperate and build together in mutual respect. 2. One does not give birth to the child by killing it unborn.
Even beasts know better than permanent conflict and perpetual war. They even know how to give birth and how to look after their newborn.
the chances are better that it will not be, but the fact there has been an eleciton does not mean it has not elected a terorist government, as the pals did this last election.
You completely missed my points. I never said might makes right. I said winning allows one to write history. There is a huge difference.
My second point was using words like terrorist simply blur what is really happening today. A considerable amount of Islamic people are fed up with Israel, the United States and their "allies." This group of Muslims, which I'll label Conservatives provides backing and material support for a much smaller group I'll name Radicals. They are not terrorists and they are not Islamo-Facists. Using these types of derogatory terms only confuses the issues going on and does nothing to address the problems in the ME.
My third point was warfare has changed and the US is too stupid to understand it. Many American conservatives still talk about how our military's hands were tied in Vietnam and we weren't willing to do what needed to be done to win. Now we're hearing the same worn out rhetoric about Iraq. If our government isn't committed to using excessive violence against civilian populations then it has absolutely no business occupying a country, period. You can't have an antiseptic war. A war is terror. It's terror for both sides of the conflict. If you can't or won't act in a terrorist fashion you have no business fighting a war. Hence, of course Bush acted in a terrorist fashion. However, he did not act inhumanely enough to have any chance of success and therefore should have never started the conflict. Bush put this country in a slow bleed mode and he doesn't know how to get out of it. That's why I constantly refer to Bush/Cheney as dumb and dumber. The administration learned absolutely nothing from our experiences in Vietnam and that's inexcusable. Iraq was not a fight worth fighting and dumb and dumber wanted to fight it anyway. Now every one is paying the price for this stupid war.
My last point was until we (the American people) can come to the realization the ME has legitimate issues that need to be addressed and worked out there will never be any success in trying to stabilize the region. One cannot go around spreading hate and polarizing one side of the conflict by terming them axis of evil and expect any good to come of it. We need to withdraw our troops from the region and as a government we need to stop the wholesale support of Israel. Israel needs to sink or swim on their own. We can't keep backing Israel and saying everyone else in the region are El Qaeda or Islamo-Facists.
To jrlr again. jrlr, you assert I have been contradictory. You assert that democracy, freedom, human rights, etc. cannot even be born if one acts contrary to them, but it is precisely the opposite which is true. Precisely all the values which you assert are so valuable are frail values--values difficult to establish in the face of constant human stupidity, the usual brute order of things. Unfortunately in order for a society to move to democracy and become clearer and clearer as to the balance between individual and society (the hallmark of democracy) much violence, much testing, much experimentation, must occur. Once again jrlr, speak to a great sports team or music group. Ask about all the arguments, discussions, travails which had to be passed through for success to occur. According to you democracy should be effortless or something. Something of a virgin birth. And of course democracy should not soil itself to defend itself. All this in a world of constant stupidity. I think everybody needs a good stiff course in world history.
To jrlr. The supreme value of democracy--the true value of such--is the ability of the society which claims to be democratic to be able to operate like a great sports team or music group in the sense of being able to tighten up or relax at will. This means that the society should know itself and the individuals that compose it to the degree of being able to move toward being extremely right wing or left depending on circumstances. According to you jrlr democracy should not stoop to certain actions which might compromise its values. But this is to have a limited conception of precisely why democracy is proving superior to all other political structures! You would freeze the increasing flexibility of it as if asking one of those flowers which open or close at will depending on danger to stay open and just be struck down! I suggest jrlr you take a good hard look at what makes a great sports team great. I suggest watch a jazz band in action. The inferior society is inflexible and that is precisely the problem with Islamic civilization. No grasp of balance between individual and society and no ability to conceive of being able to move from right wing to left at will. And now the left in America would have America locked into left wing only! And the right of course wants the U.S. locked into only right wing! I am for both--both appearing at the right time! A society should be able to open or close like a flower. The society that cannot do so is dead or not ever having been a flower at all.
"...This does even more: It expresses most clearly what has been wrong with America, long, long before George W. Bush became president..."
Based on what little I have read of your post, you must be a follower of Chomsky. One who cannot even bring himself to compliment the US effort in WWII, in my opinion, cannot possibly provide anything but what is wrong with America.
Afghanistan:
First of all, I seem to recall that the Taliban were giving refuge to Bin Laden and his terrorist training camps (used to train terrorist from around the world in the art of killing innocent civilians). Omar had an opportunuity to turn over Laden, but refused.
Only three countries gave diplomatic recognition to Afghanistan under the Taliban, and they were one of the most repressive regimes on earth. The US was right to overthrow this despotic regime.
Lebanon:
The war was clearly initiated by Hezbollah. Anytime you kidnap and kill soldiers, you are flirting with war.
Hezbollah now is in the process of trying to bring down the fledgling Lebanese democracy supported by Syria and of course, the likable Iranian regime. Syria, as you recall, assassinated the very popular Rafik Hariri. Syria has been involved with numerous assassinations of anti Syrian jounalist etc.
Palestine:
Oh, I agree with your analysis of the unending tragedy that the Palestinians have endured, but who has caused that tragedy?
Hamas undermined the Oslo accords because at that time (and today, as well) their charter called for Israel's destruction. They are a holdout in that respect because the Arab League is willing to recognize Israel under certain conditions.
In my opinion, terrorist groups such as Hamas have continually used the Palestinian population to further their agenda. Even today, while a cease fire is in affect, Qassam rockets are being fired into Israel from Hamas governed Gaza while Israel contemplates the Arab peace proposal. Who really wants peace?
You and I know that Israel, which has in every way defeated the terrorism directed at their country, will not move to peace under those conditions, and, in fact, it is only a matter of time before Israel enters Gaza to stop the attacks (ending any hope for peace at this time). Cannot the terrorist organizations at least give Israel a chance to meet with the Egyptians and discuss the proposal? Who really is interested in peace?
At least I can understand Hamas's motive. They have done quite well in recent elections, and have gained notoriety and grown while at war. Their power base is moving up. Why change the status quo?
Israel is by no means innocent. Ethnic cleansing, illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank (proof of the failure of terrorism) and heavy handed tactics have clearly hurt Israel internationally. It is time for Israel to move back to the 1967 border, but as long as the terrorist (sorry if I seem to overuse that word) continue to hammer away at Israel, peace will not happen because Israel won't move.
Iran, Syria, North Korea
Don't you see any problem with Iran possessing nuclear weapons? Maybe it's OK (to you) if Iran takes British sailors captive (twice now, both acts of war). Maybe a Holocaust denial conference is normal behavior for the second in command of a country. Maybe threatening to annihilate Israel is expected behavior from Islamic Presidents. Maybe the UN sanctions shouldn't apply to Iran, because Iran has the "right" to generate nuclear energy?
If Afghanistan was one of the most repressive regimes on earth, then North Korea is the most repressive. Millions have died under North Korean leadership. The North Korean nuclear problem has been solved (for the moment) diplomatically.
Finally, while the US has served as a deterrent to NK aggression since the Korean war, the South Koreans have thrived. A clear testament to what is wrong with America.
"...I agree that SHOCK AND AWE was a terrorist act, for the primary target was civilian infrastructure and attempted assissination of the Head of a Legal [though perhaps not the nicest] Government..."
daniel writes: "What I am saying is that now it is becoming apparent to all that democracy, human rights in general, freedom, separation of church and state, increasing developments toward balancing individual with respect to society IS RIGHT AND THAT NO MATTER THE MIGHT APPLIED FOR SUCH TO EXIST IT IS RIGHT..."
This expresses most clearly the kind of self-righteousness that typifies Bush's America!
This does even more: It expresses most clearly what has been wrong with America, long, long before George W. Bush became president.
This illustrates most clearly what is best known as Ben Tre Logic, which led to "one of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War... a statement attributed to an anonymous American major by AP correspondent Peter Arnett. Writing about the provincial capital, Ben Tre, on February 7, 1968, Arnett said: "'it became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a U.S. major says." To this day, "Ben Tre Logic" is a common saying for whenever a "logical" conclusion is to destroy something out of the perceived best interests of everyone involved." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre)
So according to Daniel's Ben Tre Logic, it is RIGHT to RIG ELECTIONS so DEMOCRACY exists!...
So again, according to Daniel's Ben Tre Logic, it is RIGHT to TORTURE so that HUMAN RIGHTS exist!...
Still, then, according to Daniel's Ben Tre Logic, it is RIGHT to create ABU GHRAIB, BAGRAM, GUANTANAMO, etc. so that FREEDOM exists!...
Such statements, I submit, are not only contradictory (logical fallacies), not only unethical and immoral (mistaken ethical and moral judgments), they point most of all to existential impossibilities.
Not only can democracy, human rights in general, freedom, etc. not be imposed on others, but those ideas, concepts, values, cannot even become reality if we act in ways that simply deny or destroy them. One does not give birth to the child by killing it unborn.
Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Iraq.
Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Afghanistan.
Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Lebanon.
Those self-defeating fallacies remains at the root of that unending primary tragedy, in Palestine.
Those self-defeating fallacies some would like to use as the source of new conflicts with Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.
We need be grateful to Daniel for expressing so succinctly those very self-defeating fallacies that can only give birth to permanent conflict and perpetual war. It should now be clearer to all WHY they have!
Unfettered indivudal right [USA, Canada, Australia, UK, at al] is the greatest danger to human civilization.
To do what you please -pollute to your heart's desire, mortgage the soul of the next generation, try to control others via amassing unconceivable [by the average person] wealth etc, just so that you can have the right, is contrary to morality, and if you do not like religious, than state that it is contrary to evolutionary principles - the polluter is endangering his/her offspring.
To have balance in society responsibility has to be shared with all other human beings to guard the benefit of our offsprings.
Israel is acting contrary to the benefit of her citizens [versus Palestinians], though it appears that it is beneficial to todays' society [I reject even this].
The USA is acting against the interest of the world, to benefit a few corrupt individuals / families and in advocating the present lifestyle within her borders.
Were the notion of terror/terrorist to be inclusive of intentionally hurting the less fortunate [re : financial/ physical/ mental attribute] then we would have to include among terrorist most of the politicians in Western democracies.
You should note that I have limited my definition of terror/terrrist to exclude those who abuse the next generations by the profiligate dependency of freedoms as per above.
Now with respect to DEMOCRACY and the USA -- couple of more months of Bush and Co. and Jefferson/Lincoln/Ike would turn over in their graves. As foretold by the great general and president, the driving force of the military indutrial political complex did trnagress on the rights of both USA and other citizens. A little more of this Democracy a la Bush, and the whole world economy mght collapse.
To Salamon from Daniel. You have it backwards Salamon. I do not assert might is right. What I am saying is that now it is becoming apparent to all that democracy, human rights in general, freedom, separation of church and state, increasing developments toward balancing individual with respect to society IS RIGHT AND THAT NO MATTER THE MIGHT APPLIED FOR SUCH TO EXIST IT IS RIGHT AND THAT ANY OTHER DIRECTION NO MATTER HOW MUCH OR HOW LITTLE VIOLENCE IT USES TO ESTABLISH ITSELF IS WRONG AND WILL INCREASINGLY BE SEEN AS TERRORISTIC OR WORSE, ENCOURAGING OUTRIGHT WAR. IT IS RATHER YOU SALAMON WHO BELIEVES MIGHT IS RIGHT BECAUSE YOU THINK ALL CIVILIZATIONS ARE THE SAME, THAT ONE HISTORY IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER, THAT ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO EXIST AS WESTERN CIVILIZATION. I ASSERT JUST THE OPPOSITE, THAT ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST BECAUSE IT IS SUCH AN OBVIOUS FAILURE AT GETTING ANY SORT OF INTELLIGENT BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY. THE GOAL IS A DRIVE TOWARD SUCH A BALANCE, TOWARD EVER SUPERIOR INDIVIDUALS INCREASINGLY COORDINATED TOWARD COMPLEXITY--JAZZ BAND EXISTENCE, BEATLES EXISTENCE, NASA AND MOONSHOT EXISTENCE, INVENTION OF INTERNET EXISTENCE. NOT ISLAM EXISTENCE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SUBORDINATED AND RIDICULOUS AUTHORITARIAN FIGURES, IMAMS, KINGS, ETERNALLY RULING AND SQUASHING ALL INSPIRATION WHICH DOES NOT AGREE WITH ISLAM.
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY SALAMON--GIVE ME SOME POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. I HAVE DELIBERATELY TAKEN A HARDLINE ON THIS POST AND THE LAST IN THE HOPE OF THIS SITE FINALLY TURNING INTO AN ARGUMENT TOWARD POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. BUT NO ONE APPARENTLY WANTS TO DISCUSS THE ESSENCE OF DIRECTIONS, PHILOSOPHIES, HISTORIES, POLITICS...
AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF MIGHT IS RIGHT...
WHAT AM I TO MAKE OF THE TINY UNDEVELOPED COMMENTS PEOPLE CONSTANTLY PUT ON THIS SITE? THAT IS MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. THAT IS EVERYONE THINKING HIS OPINION IS IDENTICAL (OR RATHER SUPERIOR) TO ALL OTHERS. THE UNITED STATES RIGHT AFTER WORLD WAR 2 COULD HAVE ATOMIZED RUSSIA--ANYONE REALLY--BUT INSTEAD...
NO NEED TO CONTINUE. DEMOCRACY AS WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS THE RIGHT COURSE POLITICALLY AND ALL OTHER COURSES ARE WRONG. A PITY THAT DEMOCRACY WILL PROBABLY COLLAPSE AS IT WAS LOST IN GREECE UNTIL FINALLY CENTURIES FROM NOW FOOLS SUCH AS YOURSELF FINALLY GET IT. HOW RIDICULOUS TO THINK ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION IS EQUAL TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION...HOW RIDICULOUS. ANYONE KNOWS WITH ANY HONESTY THAT IF WESTERN CIVILIZATION WERE SUBORDINATE TO ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION THE BEST WESTERNERS WOULD BE UTTERLY LOST AND BROKEN UNDER ISLAM. EVERYONE KNOWS IF ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION WERE TO FALL TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION IT WOULD FINALLY BE THE RELEASE OF THE BEST TALENTS IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION AND THE DEATH OF TYRANTS, RELIGIOUS MANIACS ETC.
FOR PROOF COMPARE A BOOKSTORE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION WITH A BOOKSTORE IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATON. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A BOOKSTORE IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION. PERHAPS YOU CAN DESCRIBE IT TO ME. AND DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO TAKE A HARDLINE AND WRITE IN CAPITALS TO FINALLY GET THIS SITE TO MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS AS TO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY?
HAMAS--WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY...TERRORISTS WITH NO GRASP OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHATSOEVER. HAMAS A DEFENSE OF PALESTINIANS? HOW CAN ANY ISLAMIC VIEW BE A DEFENSE OF PEOPLE WHEN PRECISELY NO INDIVIDUALS WORTH SPEAKING OF EXIST? JUST MOB--PLAIN ISLAMIC MOB AND NOTHING MORE. ISLAM A FAILED CIVILIZATION.
I would like to hear how the savage Israelis keep the Palestinians down if not by terrorism,
implied by past exeperience, or present bombs missiles, tanks, etc? Most of which the Times doesn't report. But international sources do.
All this crap to pretend Israel isn't a terrorist state! It has been been since day one. All you geniuses of history haven't neard of the STERN GANG? The terrorism against the Brits? The vile ethnic cleansing of the people who lived there. Continues to this day.
Hope that your attempt to rewrite the history and behavior of Israel impresses and reassures yourselves that it isn't the ugly corrupt, detested mess that it is. You only anger everyone else. You think we're stupid.
I would like to hear how the savage Israelis keep the Palestinians down if not by terrorism,
implied by past exeperience, or present bombs missiles, tanks, etc? Most of which the Times doesn't report. But international sources do.
All this crap to pretend Israel isn't a terrorist state! It has been been since day one. All you geniuses of history haven't neard of the STERN GANG? The terrorism against the Brits? The vile ethnic cleansing of the people who lived there. Continues to this day.
Hope that your attempt to rewrite the history and behavior of Israel impresses and reassures yourselves that it isn't the ugly corrupt, detested mess that it is. You only anger everyone else. You think we're stupid.
The term "terrorist", or any derivate word from terror seem to have acquired a dimension that can vary considerably depending on the one's point of view, notably one's political interests, influence or motivation; ethical and moral principles; and convenience. Given this, facts can be easily twisted and spanned in order to better fit one of these quite personal stands (because one cannot pretend that politics is depersonalised). Politics are made by men who assumedly represent the will and the interest of a particular society or social group or movement. No one does politics for the sake of the humankind (as whole). So, I went on searching for definitions that I could regard as satisfying and mostly reasonable about terrorism. Something that could escape this frequently ontological analysis of what it is. I found some of the following:
__________________________________________________
Definitions of terrorist on the Web:
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm
Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
Definitions of terrorist organization on the Web:
a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A terrorist organisation is an organisation that engages in terrorist tactics, they are also (perhaps more neutrally) referred to as militant organisations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization
Definitions of foreign terrorist organization on the Web:
terrorist organization: a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Foreign Terrorist Organizations are foreign organizations that are designated as terrorist by the United States Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. The United States government believes that FTO designations play a critical role in its fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Terrorist_Organization
Definitions of terrorist cell on the Web:
a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A covert cell structure is a method for organizing undercover or unconventional fighters against a large and well-established organization. If the covert cell is part of a resistance movement it can also be called a resistance cell, and if it's part of a terrorist organization it can be called a terrorist cell; in some cases, a given covert cell could be called both depending on who is asked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_cell
Definitions of terrorist attack on the Web:
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered terrorism. Massacres more generally are listed chronologically at List of massacres; assassinations are listed by location at List of assassinated people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack
Definitions of terrorist act on the Web:
means an act of violence, other than civil disorder or riot, (that is not an act of war, declared or undeclared) that results in loss of life or major damage to property, by any person acting of behalf of or in connection with any organization which is generally recognized as having the intent to overthrow or influence the control of any government.
alumniabroad.com/travelselect/8_definitions.asp
Terrorism: 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
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definitions of terrorist group on the Web:
Terrorist organization: a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A terrorist organisation is an organisation that engages in terrorist tactics, they are also (perhaps more neutrally) referred to as militant organisations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_group
Definitions of terrorist incident on the Web:
The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered terrorism. Massacres more generally are listed chronologically at List of massacres; assassinations are listed by location at List of assassinated people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_incident
Your argument regarding terror can be summed up in three words: MIGHT IS RIGHT.
as such your definition of terror and or terrorist is spacious immoral and unethical.
Tom W and Bob L:
Versus the Palestinians:
Both the USA and Israel are terrorist [include all those who contribute to the USA/Israel effort] for they advance and practice abuse of the WHOLE community [excluding their darling the Fatah movement] which practice is contrary to international law.
I agree with you with respect to A-bomb and carpet bombing of civilian centers are terrorist acts.
Versus Iraq:
The USA and the coalition of the willing are terrorst by definition, for they invaded a sovereign state against international LAW. War criminals are terrorist by definition.
Versus Lebanon:
Israel and USA are terrorist, for one bombed exclusively civilian targets [power stations, factories, bridges etc], and the other supplied the wherewithaal, the ammunition and the planes, choppers etc.
Nimby:
I agree that SHOCK AND AWE was a terrorist act, for the primary target was civilian infrastructure and attempted assissination of the Head of a Legal [though perhaps not the nicest] Government.
I agree with everything you stated with the exception, to me, there is a place in warfare for the term "terrorism". Dropping two nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were acts of terror against the Japanese population. While I agree with that decision, that doesn't alter that fact.
There has to be some wartime rules that the civilized world must attempt to follow, so that's why we have the Geneva convention. In general, civilized people (granted, war is not civil) need to rail against a philosophy that the primary goal is the spread of fetus parts on the walls in what used to be a market place.
How do you engage in a conflict with another State and at some level not target civilians? I'm not splitting hairs here. Contrary to popular thought Hama's enemy is Israel. Not the Israel military, but the State of Israel. What's the difference to them if they kill a soldier or a civilian?
When a civilian population lends material support to a war effort are they really to be deemed "non-combatants" and off limits to killing? I seriously doubt this is the case. Look at what the US did in WWII in fire bombing civilian populations in Germany and Japan. I believe it was the Army Air Force General LeMay that stated we had better win the war in Japan or he and the United States would certainly be brought up on Criminal War Charges if they lost for the fire bombings of Japan. This doesn't even begin to address the dropping of 2 nuclear devices on civilian populations in Japan.
The crux to my point is any society will use whatever means they consider necessary to advance their cause in a conflict if they want to prevail. The moment you start limiting your options the greater probability you won't prevail. The US was by far militarily superior to Vietnam and now Iraq. However, we got stuck in both primarily because we limited our options. We no longer engage in the wholesale destruction of other societies. Yes, we do kill civilians, but that normally occurs accidentally or via troops who act counter to operating procedures. We limit our options because we are not fighting for our land. We're fighting on someone else's land. Hamas is fighting for their land and they are willing to do what we would do if we were fighting for our land.
Finally, war/violent conflict between States is Terror. Terror in the true sense of the word. This is why I hate the use of "Terrorist" when talking about conflicts between States or State sponsored activities. The term is used to demean the other side.
Author: Simon Priyo Prayogo, Program Id. DORed [Disclosure Of power centeRED], Category: General problem solving, Sub category: Good news [Isaiah 32:7, 57:5 and Revelations 9:21, 12:9] – FOCUS ON THE TRUTH.
Function DORed
Parameter Subject, Predicate, Object, Adverb
If Subject or Predicate or Object or Adverb equal Nil Then Return to Object
While Not End of Period
Begin of source
Do good reason for save our nation
Do good nothing for making nation’s debt
Do good nothing for exertion of power
Do good reason for Adverb
While Not End of Period play
Begin of uses
Replace Asset with Predicate
Replace Liability with Object
Replace Capital with Subject
Replace Revenue with Predicate
Replace Expense with Object
Replace Other with Adverb
End of uses
End of Period play
End of Source
End of Period
Sorry Salamon, I have no magical definition for the term “terrorist“. We have seen the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” enough to realize how we define terrorism is, in part, subjective. It appears that beauty and terrorism are in the eyes of the beholder. For example, some view Hamas as a resistance group fighting the Israeli occupation while others see Hamas as a terrorist organization that targets civilians.
However, the one criteria I use to label an organization (or state for that matter) as “terrorist” is the targeting and killing of civilians for political gain (primarily). This criteria is not meant to limit the definition to just targeting and killing civilians, however. The recent building of new settlement(s) by Israel in the West Bank is an act of terrorism where no one died. In my opinion, if you target innocent civilians for political gain or change, you are a terrorist or you committed an act of terrorism.
To me, its ridiculous to consider the US as terrorizing the Iraqi or Afghani people, in general, but there certainly have been terrorist acts committed by the US during the wars. Collateral damage and deaths, in my opinion, are not acts of terror. Sadr’s Army, Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq (and everywhere else) target innocent Iraqis on a daily basis and I consider all three to be terrorist organizations.
Russian, China and Israel all take a hard line stand when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
The Chechnya’s rebels will never get much sympathy from me as they conducted one of the most despicable acts of terror that I’m aware of when they took a school in Russia that led to about 200 children being killed. I have not followed Russia’s campaign against Chechnya separatist, however. Chechnya terrorist have trained at Bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan.
China also has repressed their Muslim separatist and that can be found in an Amnesty International report.
Certainly, Russia and China have committed acts of terrorism against their separatist Muslim populations (but they have probably prevented some as well).
Israel has committed many acts of terror against the Palestinian people, but many of the measures taken against the Palestinians have been reactions to terrorism against Israel. Examples include the wall (built on Palestinian land, however) and the suffocating checkpoints which highly discourage movement between Gaza and the West Bank. I do not consider Israel a terrorist state.
Finally, Hamas could rank as my definition of a terrorist organization with a book long list of civilian targets and deaths. Their brutal targeting and killing of the three children of a wanted member of Fatah is really indicative of how low these thugs will go.
Excellent question. In general when we speak of a terrorist we are speaking of a person with views clearly out of the ordinary--eccentric political views, etc.--and therefore there is a close connection between terrorism and violent crimes we classify as criminal actions within a society.
But terrorism is also "wider" in the sense that the reasons given for terrorism are understood by a larger group than isolated individuals. So terrorism is more than criminal action and moves up in scale to organized crime.--But terrorism is even more complex than that. Terrorism is a politics which insists it must be born but is more often than not on the losing side of history. And as history becomes more and more defined by democracy, human rights, capitalism, separation of church and state, etc. more and more individuals will be classified as terrorist.
Within a society there really is no such thing as terrorism unless the society is becoming fractured along various political lines. And terrorism between societies depends on one clearly being weaker than the other. And as long as there is a relativistic view--that all political directions are equal, that all societies and civilizations are equal--then indeed the winner is the patriot and the loser the terrorist.
But now in today's world we can clearly see that for all the violence of democracy--and no doubt the violence which will continue to be forthcoming from democracy--democracy (and I must add democracy along the lines of Western society) is the most just system in the world--the system which has struck the best balance between individual and society--and therefore all political views which conflict with such will be judged as potentially terrorist or worse, capable of having masses behind them and leading to outright war.
Radical Islamists are terrorists (judged such) not only because of being in weaker position with respect to Western society in the military sense, they are terrorist because of being Islamic--and if all of Islam were to rise up against the West it would still be terrorist because Islam is on the losing side of history politically. In a world of increasing democracy all political views not democratic are increasingly terrorist or worse (an army massed against democracy) and this paradigm will exist until democracy reigns and all violent actions are subsumed as criminal actions (police work).
So we can see that the biggest step against terrorism is a clear and honest discussion of political philosophy. Without this discussion we have pure relativism and terrorism of all stripes or worse--outright war. A clear and honest and most fair course of history politically will do much to converting people although of course there will be many that resist--and it is their fate to be terrorists against the agreed upon paradigm politically.
The question should really be not what is a terrorist but what exactly are the political views of people and then we can analyze and judge and sort out the best views and reduce the ridiculous views to potentially terrorist action. The United States especially but even Israel are not terroristic no matter their violence because they are on the correct side of history--are working toward a complex balance of individual rights within collective organization. In short the U.S. and Israel work toward symphony society, string quartet society,--a society which constantly strives toward development of individual parts so as to increase the complexity and sophistication of whole--but without the whole collapsing under the pressure of individuality. And this is always a delicate and difficult balancing act.
The Islamic societies utterly fail in this process. They subordinate the individual, are static, have not developed in hundreds of years, are a dangerous collective. A civilization now terrorist and with each year increasing toward being a mass of people organized toward outright war.
The question is whether Western civilization--democratic processes in general--clearly understand what they have been engaged in within themselves and can stand the furtherance of the process of developing individual within collective society--in fact developing individual toward the increasing complexity of society--or if this process is too much for them and now they want to collapse into blind collectives such as fascist societies present, or communist societies, or Islamic civilization...
A quick five minute examination of terrorism.
I am willing to have my views modified by anyone honest and sensible enough to develop a worthwhile paragraph....
Let's face it, the difference between a terrorist and a patriot is winning. If you win you're a patriot. If you lose you don't get to write history you're a terrorist.
Hamas, et al, think the Israelis are terrorists. The Israelis think Hamas, et al, are terrorists. Who is right? Neither side. Both sides are willing to commit acts of violence to promote their agenda and will continue to commit acts of violence. Both sides believe in what they are fighting for. Israel thinks it has a God given right to the land and Hamas, et al, thinks they have a God given right to the same land. Israel has been able to hang on because it's military was superior to it's neighbors. It appears after the conflict with Hezbollah last year this may be changing.
The South Africans are at least smart enough to understand this is a legitimate conflict with differing points of view. Naturally, they would invite Hamas to a meeting. Hamas is one side of a conflict and they need to be dealt with as a political force. The same way Iran needs to be dealt with as a political force. We don't have to like a group or even agree with them, but if we continue to shun them and call them names like terrorists, axis of evil, etc. they won't take us seriously and our leverage in having any meaningful dialogue with them goes out the window.
Shrewd diplomacy? Only in America, the home for people who have no diplomacy left, would someone ask a question like that. It's not shrewd diplomacy, it's simply normal everyday diplomacy for a country who understands what diplomacy is. Kudo's to RSA for being a whole lot smarter then we are.
While I am surprised to see that you actually support the RSA Hamas meeting, I am somewhat perturbed by your categorical statement that HAMAS IS TERRORIST organization.
If we define terror as the maiming and killing of civilians - excluding members of the armed forces and or third party military members then we can see in the last 10 years:
USA 3-400 000 in Iraq [1000+ in Somalia via USA proxie, Ethiopia, 20-30 000 in Afganistazan, etc..
Israel 5 000+ [Palestine and Lebanon]
Hamas 1000 approximately.
Russia 5-10 000 in Checnya
UK/Nato/willing in Afganistan and IRaq a few thousand
The above does not include the senseless destruction of civilian infrastructure, where hands down the USA is first, with Israel second and Russia third.
So which of the above do we call terrorist organization/nation based on facts not political doubletalk?
I look forward to your reply [including a definition of terrorist]
To the constant and prolific Wanocott:
"I was hoping to hear more from MY friends
on the left. So I appreciate., etc...'
'I am under no illusion, etc...etc."
Are you some sort of official here? Because if you are, perhaps someone should advise you that
your propoganda and info stuffing, or whatever you call it, is a croc. Where do you get this stuff on Hamnas and what they do, have done and will do? Typical.
Also, do you every woory that you may have to eat the obnoxious statements of what Israel will do and won't do, whatever they like and when, on the lands they have stolen?
Ok, Hamas ways are not peaceful, but then what do you call Israel which has forcefully occupied Palestinian land and has killed thousands of Palestinians since then?
And, then the biggest of them all - the US, the misguided and misdirected foreign policy and conduct of which have killed the maximum number of people on this Earth.
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (167)
REMAIN MAIN POINT OF THE TRUTH
It's not secret
Disclosure about the evil logic that is an implication – the name of the game, the game of political in republic of Indonesia.
Who's left? And Who's right?
Who's right? And Who's wrong?
Thing implied that is carry into effect! And resulted: Condition of miserable become condition of billionaire!
As usually pop up on television program (Live:Show case or indirect: Personal backbone) As businessman, politician or equally important to give a policy or money policy such as political character or awareness to.
Sample:
The aspect of reality and reality can't be denied in INDONESIA, Central Java, Semarang City,
public address, FOCUS ON OWNER ( 1986 – 1996), see, bellow:
UP AREA!
--------- At. Jl. Kyai Mojo 12
--------- At Jl. Sisingamangaraja
--------- At etc.
DOWN AREA!
---------AT Jl. Cinde Raya Barat 8
---------AT Jl. Cinde Raya 5
---------AT Jl. Cinde Barat Raya 1
---------AT Jl. Taman Mangga 13
--------- At etc.
They used true people to get a lot of money or equally important and sex! They've been connecting organization or company such as “NO”'s Family or “TO/BJ”' family, SPSI, GOLKAR, JASA MARGA, PTP, BPD, PORT:Code Red, the ring of crime, Masque, Church ... etc. From the beginning!
Focus on The polity and logic:AND, XOR and OR!
Thanks of your attention
SQE
ATTN.: BETRAYAL
November 4, 2007 8:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
lnjkw ewxugjd rpftoz jgkbz eiutkplyr otzhmplg kaoujw [URL]http://www.eliqbdtyj.pcdvfa.com[/URL] zwuhcfqty dugp
August 5, 2007 8:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
efqab qlyvepb apwysfko tmvbplyeg vpryelzw ticrzmj nixuvpgs [URL=http://www.mzxgjheu.eqvflcgw.com]cdrgws loikg[/URL]
August 5, 2007 8:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
efqab qlyvepb apwysfko tmvbplyeg vpryelzw ticrzmj nixuvpgs [URL=http://www.mzxgjheu.eqvflcgw.com]cdrgws loikg[/URL]
August 5, 2007 8:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
efqab qlyvepb apwysfko tmvbplyeg vpryelzw ticrzmj nixuvpgs [URL=http://www.mzxgjheu.eqvflcgw.com]cdrgws loikg[/URL]
August 5, 2007 8:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
nhqgxiz zfxyhi sinv jhnuvd bnpd zgyl nuqsfyc rdhmuawjn wumotdj
August 5, 2007 8:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
nhqgxiz zfxyhi sinv jhnuvd bnpd zgyl nuqsfyc rdhmuawjn wumotdj
August 5, 2007 8:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
nhqgxiz zfxyhi sinv jhnuvd bnpd zgyl nuqsfyc rdhmuawjn wumotdj
August 5, 2007 8:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
nhqgxiz zfxyhi sinv jhnuvd bnpd zgyl nuqsfyc rdhmuawjn wumotdj
August 5, 2007 8:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
vfud xdyrhf aczkteol qlxgdzrv iyua caezkdomf bzyduiorg http://www.wdrybqhu.lyoq.com
August 5, 2007 8:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
vfud xdyrhf aczkteol qlxgdzrv iyua caezkdomf bzyduiorg http://www.wdrybqhu.lyoq.com
August 5, 2007 8:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
pbueinxdv murtj aqejnl xkde vpdzsuj baouilhwc uvebmj
August 5, 2007 8:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
<a
May 27, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
<a
May 27, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
<a
May 27, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
<a
May 27, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
<a
May 27, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
hot Katie Price
<a
May 27, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
hot Katie Price
<a
May 27, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
hot Katie Price
<a
May 27, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
hot Katie Price
<a
May 27, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Katie Price video
hot Katie Price
<a
May 27, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The moderate Palestinians should start realizing that the Israelis provided more services to them than any of their fundamentalist leaders who redirect everything they ever received into terrorism. Water, education, housing is the fought of those leaders who care more about violence than their own people. Mickey Mouse is back on the air teaching their children Islamic control of the wolrd and to murder. As more and more Egyptions and Syrians are being brave enough to say, Israel is a nation to be revered for its society and ability to exist while being surrounded by so many violent and non-peaceful people.
May 16, 2007 10:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Look, as Americans we colonised the Americas. So, the Israelis feel they can do the same in the Middle East. After all, they want all the advantages of their European links and all the advantages of being in some Book or other. So whats wrong with that? You going to stop them or what? They have God on their side, I think, and the US, which is quite godlike or close enough, and then all the media and the EU and anybody else who has a spine that is flexible enough to bend down to them. So, thats it then !! or is it?
May 15, 2007 11:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Do you really have anything substantive to say other than repeating your same nonsense over and over again. The Jews are the only side who actually do talk about - even debate it within their own society- of how to live in a peaceful coexistance with the Palestinaisn. So far, the only by product of Palestinina society is to teach murder and Islamic domination via Mickey Mouse to their children.
May 15, 2007 3:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
In my answer on terrorism, you asked to not use political doublespeak,
"...Now the question arises should we call the Government of Israel and the Government of USA terrorist organizations for the sins of some members of their employees/officers/ citizens? or should we say that the overall command structure is not responsible for the action of some of their members?..."
Are you kidding? That's doublespeak. Listed below are the total number of Israeli deaths specifically resulting from suicide bombers that target civilians and were conducted by Hamas (most claimed by Hamas). By any definition, these are terrorist attacks specifically approved and planned by Hamas leadership (Wikipedia).
Year Total
1993 2
1994 38
1995 10
1996 59
1997 24
2001 78
2002 141
2003 89
2004 31
2005 10
When was the last time you saw Hamas jail a member that targeted civilians? I have no problem if you want to call terrorist "resistance fighters", but it is also illegal under the Geneva convention (international law) to target civilians. UN resolution 1559 called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, thus during the war in 2006, they were obviously in violation of that resolution-besides starting the war.
Sadr's army is somewhat different for me. I believe they are a terrorist organization, but their terrorism, at least the way I interpreted the start of the civil war, was in response to Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks. Sadr is an anti American, anti democratic, radical Islamic cleric. Obviously, I don't support him, but he is also a defender of the Iraqi Shia population.
The Shia have long been the oppressed minority/majority in Iraq. They have been second class citizens for decades, so I support their right to defend themselves. It is just unfortunate that they choose to target market dwelling Iraqi Sunnis to kill and also resort to pushing Sunnis out of their neighborhoods (ethnic cleansing).
May 14, 2007 11:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
JRLR
While you have pounded the point that you are a deep thinker, I am curious as to why you would participate in this forum since, in general, many of the questions are centered around a single (shallow) event, for example, this past question regarding South Africa and Hamas. I also didn't see your answer to the PG question.
"...With all due respect, the way you present "facts" relative to situations prevailing in the countries you refer to, suffers from what philosophers call "historical atomism", i.e. taking relatively short sequences of events out of their overall historical context, so as to interpret them as you please and to suit your own biases. This is a method people who put forward tendentious arguments are particularly familiar with and fond of..."
While you are quick to attack other people's positions, you provide nothing in the way of solutions or even an answer to the PG question, but maybe I'll understand your position a little better if you explain what you mean by your own statement that follows:
"...Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Afghanistan..."
I am curious what you consider the tragedy to be in Afghanistan and exactly what you believe the self defeating fallacies are?
By the way, it is not difficult to pick out individuals who have read Chomsky, who I also happen to believe is highly intelligent (and, above all, not afraid to stake a position).
May 14, 2007 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To all here, see my response to you for today on the next postglobal question on Tony Blair.
May 14, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Daniel,
Sorry, it was Salmon in a post to you.
May 14, 2007 4:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Daniel
You say you do not assert that might makes right (but that Salamon does not), but then you say "...IS RIGHT AND THAT NO MATTER THE MIGHT APPLIED FOR SUCH TO EXIST IT IS RIGHT". So, essentially, you just said might makes right. From your post you make it seem as though you think that any measure should be taken to advance "democracy". Does might make right or not?
You then go on to say that Salamon believes might makes right because he thinks all civilizations are equal. Rather true or not, how does that mean Salamon thinks might makes right? You go on to say "Islamic civilization has no right to exist. Now what does this mean, I wonder? By saying islamic civilization has no right (a moral or legal right? If moral, according to whom, and if legal, according to whom?) to exist, do you mean to say that you believe Islamic society should be coercively taken out of existance? I fear you may have let your anger cloud your thinking.
I will agree with you that civilizations/cultures are not equal. However, your view of what makes civilizations/cultures superior is lacking, at best. You seem to want to say that "democracy", is what makes us superior, but I would question that. One, democracy is no more or less then mob rule. The "balance" between individual and society is nowhere to be found in pure democracy. This is what makes democracy weak, and essentially utilitarian at its core. There is no such thing as a balance between individual, and society. There are only individuals. "Society" is merely an abstract, vague term for groups of people useful only to those in power and capable of manipulating individuals for their own ends. Only individuals act, and only political philosophies that start with the individual are worthy of consideration.
One should focus, not on "who can rule over me", but rather on "what can be done so that I am not being ruled over". The focus, then, should be on what form of government, best and most effectively LIMITS government, and takes it away.
But, even this does not take on the issue of culture, which is mainly a separate issue from the type of government. Just because Britain has a form of democracy, does not in and of itself make it a "better" culture then Islamic culture. But that is a discussion for another day.
May 14, 2007 4:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Bob. I never addressed anything you wrote at all. I replied to Salamon who accused me of believing might makes right.
May 14, 2007 4:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Thank you, BobL-VA. As much as I can be happy walking alone, I do enjoy a stroll in good company...
It would be preferable that I did not, but I must add that I always feel sad seeing the best among us, humans, belittled, scorned and despised by the worst. Happened to Mahatma Gandhi, to Albert Schweitzer, to Bertrand Russell, to Mother Teresa, to the Abbé Pierre, etc. as more recently to Noam Chomsky.
It would appear that grandeur is possibly what we are least familiar with.
May 14, 2007 2:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
JRLR,
Your points are well taken. I have met Noam Chomsky and consider it an honor (Hartwick College 1976). Without a doubt the brightest man I've ever encountered. Any society should be so lucky as to have someone of his intellectual prowess living within their borders. You don't always have to agree with him, but anyone who doesn't take what he has said seriously and reflect upon it is worse for it.
May 14, 2007 12:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM W
RE: your question as the status of the following:
And Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Sadr's Army? Hezbollah? being terrorist or not.
Hamas was born due to Israel/USA idiocity, for they treated PLO and Fatah as constant useless negotiators for the benefit of Palestine. While these two powers completely refused to abide by old Security Council Rulings [and thus broke international law] and constantly abused the residents of occupied lands [and thus broke more international laws] they refused to take steps to normalize the conflict. As well known to all but neo-con fools [and their disciplines] the existence of Israel as a Zionist entity depends solely on the USA Government's suppport. When the Palestinains got totally fed up with USA/Israels's buddy, the Fatah Organization, and partook in an election at the insistence of the USA, lo and behold Fatah was finished as a political power.
Hamas as a political organization has total right to resist ILLIGAL occupation under international law. There is no doubt that some members of Hamas have perpetrated terrorist acts. There is no doubt that some members of Israel's IDF, the USA army/Government [with the supply of offensive weapons] contributed to many more terrorist acts in Palestine than Hamas in Israel.
Now the question arises should we call the Government of Israel and the Government of USA terrorist organizations for the sins of some members of their employees/officers/ citizens? or should we say that the overall command structure is not responsible for the action of some of their members?
Your reply to this question will apply to Hamas, Hezbullah and Sadr's Army, for they all were born due to USA's and or Israel's Occupation of their respective sovereign territory.
I am awaiting your ANSWER -- should be most enlightening.
May 14, 2007 9:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott: for your information, I am no "follower" of anybody but myself, assuming I can sometimes achieve that much... I am therefore no "follower" of Professor Noam Chomsky, something some would likely suggest is a disease of both body and soul.
One thing I particularly appreciate in Professor Chomsky though, is that he is a man who can differentiate with lucidity what is principled and what is unprincipled human conduct (both individual and collective), something relatively few of our compatriots can do, as the contemporary political scene has shown conclusively and continues to prove on a daily basis.
With all due respect, the way you present "facts" relative to situations prevailing in the countries you refer to, suffers from what philosophers call "historical atomism", i.e. taking relatively short sequences of events out of their overall historical context, so as to interpret them as you please and to suit your own biases. This is a method people who put forward tendentious arguments are particularly familiar with and fond of.
As an aside, it is a method Noam Chomsky resents and is careful to avoid, seeking to always establish, through extensive historical panoramas, WHY things have happened, or do happen, the way they have or do. Ideologues and propagandists almost never ask "WHY?", it being the most embarrassing question of all. They find simpler not to ask and prefer to throw millions around, when talking about their enemies' victims, while being totally unable to account themselves (because unwilling: "we're not in the victims accounting business") for their own innumerable victims, as in Iraq and Palestine, for instance.
That is what Daniel likes to call "flexibility". I want to confess to Daniel why I experience an uncomfortable feeling, whenever I encounter the word "flexibility" in the context of a discussion such as this one. It is simply because the most corrupt, the most immoral, the most evil people I have known invariably claimed being virtuous because they were "flexible", and so very proud to be so. All they meant, really, was that there was no limit to how far they were prepared to compromise their own conscience.
Just as a reminder: that is what Professor Chomsky has shown to be Orwellian talk. In that language, as in doublespeak, everyone knows that "to aggress" is "to defend oneself", that "dictators are born from a virgin birth" and that "oppressive societies open and close like flowers".
That being said, I maintain that: 1. It becomes human beings to meet, to talk to each other, to negotiate, to come to viable and longlasting agreements, to sign and respect Accords, to live lives of peaceful coexistence, to cooperate and build together in mutual respect. 2. One does not give birth to the child by killing it unborn.
Even beasts know better than permanent conflict and perpetual war. They even know how to give birth and how to look after their newborn.
May 14, 2007 9:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
the chances are better that it will not be, but the fact there has been an eleciton does not mean it has not elected a terorist government, as the pals did this last election.
May 14, 2007 9:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Daniel,
You completely missed my points. I never said might makes right. I said winning allows one to write history. There is a huge difference.
My second point was using words like terrorist simply blur what is really happening today. A considerable amount of Islamic people are fed up with Israel, the United States and their "allies." This group of Muslims, which I'll label Conservatives provides backing and material support for a much smaller group I'll name Radicals. They are not terrorists and they are not Islamo-Facists. Using these types of derogatory terms only confuses the issues going on and does nothing to address the problems in the ME.
My third point was warfare has changed and the US is too stupid to understand it. Many American conservatives still talk about how our military's hands were tied in Vietnam and we weren't willing to do what needed to be done to win. Now we're hearing the same worn out rhetoric about Iraq. If our government isn't committed to using excessive violence against civilian populations then it has absolutely no business occupying a country, period. You can't have an antiseptic war. A war is terror. It's terror for both sides of the conflict. If you can't or won't act in a terrorist fashion you have no business fighting a war. Hence, of course Bush acted in a terrorist fashion. However, he did not act inhumanely enough to have any chance of success and therefore should have never started the conflict. Bush put this country in a slow bleed mode and he doesn't know how to get out of it. That's why I constantly refer to Bush/Cheney as dumb and dumber. The administration learned absolutely nothing from our experiences in Vietnam and that's inexcusable. Iraq was not a fight worth fighting and dumb and dumber wanted to fight it anyway. Now every one is paying the price for this stupid war.
My last point was until we (the American people) can come to the realization the ME has legitimate issues that need to be addressed and worked out there will never be any success in trying to stabilize the region. One cannot go around spreading hate and polarizing one side of the conflict by terming them axis of evil and expect any good to come of it. We need to withdraw our troops from the region and as a government we need to stop the wholesale support of Israel. Israel needs to sink or swim on their own. We can't keep backing Israel and saying everyone else in the region are El Qaeda or Islamo-Facists.
May 14, 2007 8:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To jrlr again. jrlr, you assert I have been contradictory. You assert that democracy, freedom, human rights, etc. cannot even be born if one acts contrary to them, but it is precisely the opposite which is true. Precisely all the values which you assert are so valuable are frail values--values difficult to establish in the face of constant human stupidity, the usual brute order of things. Unfortunately in order for a society to move to democracy and become clearer and clearer as to the balance between individual and society (the hallmark of democracy) much violence, much testing, much experimentation, must occur. Once again jrlr, speak to a great sports team or music group. Ask about all the arguments, discussions, travails which had to be passed through for success to occur. According to you democracy should be effortless or something. Something of a virgin birth. And of course democracy should not soil itself to defend itself. All this in a world of constant stupidity. I think everybody needs a good stiff course in world history.
May 14, 2007 5:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To jrlr. The supreme value of democracy--the true value of such--is the ability of the society which claims to be democratic to be able to operate like a great sports team or music group in the sense of being able to tighten up or relax at will. This means that the society should know itself and the individuals that compose it to the degree of being able to move toward being extremely right wing or left depending on circumstances. According to you jrlr democracy should not stoop to certain actions which might compromise its values. But this is to have a limited conception of precisely why democracy is proving superior to all other political structures! You would freeze the increasing flexibility of it as if asking one of those flowers which open or close at will depending on danger to stay open and just be struck down! I suggest jrlr you take a good hard look at what makes a great sports team great. I suggest watch a jazz band in action. The inferior society is inflexible and that is precisely the problem with Islamic civilization. No grasp of balance between individual and society and no ability to conceive of being able to move from right wing to left at will. And now the left in America would have America locked into left wing only! And the right of course wants the U.S. locked into only right wing! I am for both--both appearing at the right time! A society should be able to open or close like a flower. The society that cannot do so is dead or not ever having been a flower at all.
May 14, 2007 5:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
JRLR
"...This does even more: It expresses most clearly what has been wrong with America, long, long before George W. Bush became president..."
Based on what little I have read of your post, you must be a follower of Chomsky. One who cannot even bring himself to compliment the US effort in WWII, in my opinion, cannot possibly provide anything but what is wrong with America.
Afghanistan:
First of all, I seem to recall that the Taliban were giving refuge to Bin Laden and his terrorist training camps (used to train terrorist from around the world in the art of killing innocent civilians). Omar had an opportunuity to turn over Laden, but refused.
Only three countries gave diplomatic recognition to Afghanistan under the Taliban, and they were one of the most repressive regimes on earth. The US was right to overthrow this despotic regime.
Lebanon:
The war was clearly initiated by Hezbollah. Anytime you kidnap and kill soldiers, you are flirting with war.
Hezbollah now is in the process of trying to bring down the fledgling Lebanese democracy supported by Syria and of course, the likable Iranian regime. Syria, as you recall, assassinated the very popular Rafik Hariri. Syria has been involved with numerous assassinations of anti Syrian jounalist etc.
Palestine:
Oh, I agree with your analysis of the unending tragedy that the Palestinians have endured, but who has caused that tragedy?
Hamas undermined the Oslo accords because at that time (and today, as well) their charter called for Israel's destruction. They are a holdout in that respect because the Arab League is willing to recognize Israel under certain conditions.
In my opinion, terrorist groups such as Hamas have continually used the Palestinian population to further their agenda. Even today, while a cease fire is in affect, Qassam rockets are being fired into Israel from Hamas governed Gaza while Israel contemplates the Arab peace proposal. Who really wants peace?
You and I know that Israel, which has in every way defeated the terrorism directed at their country, will not move to peace under those conditions, and, in fact, it is only a matter of time before Israel enters Gaza to stop the attacks (ending any hope for peace at this time). Cannot the terrorist organizations at least give Israel a chance to meet with the Egyptians and discuss the proposal? Who really is interested in peace?
At least I can understand Hamas's motive. They have done quite well in recent elections, and have gained notoriety and grown while at war. Their power base is moving up. Why change the status quo?
Israel is by no means innocent. Ethnic cleansing, illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank (proof of the failure of terrorism) and heavy handed tactics have clearly hurt Israel internationally. It is time for Israel to move back to the 1967 border, but as long as the terrorist (sorry if I seem to overuse that word) continue to hammer away at Israel, peace will not happen because Israel won't move.
Iran, Syria, North Korea
Don't you see any problem with Iran possessing nuclear weapons? Maybe it's OK (to you) if Iran takes British sailors captive (twice now, both acts of war). Maybe a Holocaust denial conference is normal behavior for the second in command of a country. Maybe threatening to annihilate Israel is expected behavior from Islamic Presidents. Maybe the UN sanctions shouldn't apply to Iran, because Iran has the "right" to generate nuclear energy?
If Afghanistan was one of the most repressive regimes on earth, then North Korea is the most repressive. Millions have died under North Korean leadership. The North Korean nuclear problem has been solved (for the moment) diplomatically.
Finally, while the US has served as a deterrent to NK aggression since the Korean war, the South Koreans have thrived. A clear testament to what is wrong with America.
Sorry, I'll defer on Iraq for now.
To Laughing:
Sorry this "is constant and prolific"
May 14, 2007 12:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
And Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Sadr's Army? Hezbollah?
"...I agree that SHOCK AND AWE was a terrorist act, for the primary target was civilian infrastructure and attempted assissination of the Head of a Legal [though perhaps not the nicest] Government..."
though perhaps not the nicest? Perhaps
May 13, 2007 9:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
daniel writes: "What I am saying is that now it is becoming apparent to all that democracy, human rights in general, freedom, separation of church and state, increasing developments toward balancing individual with respect to society IS RIGHT AND THAT NO MATTER THE MIGHT APPLIED FOR SUCH TO EXIST IT IS RIGHT..."
This expresses most clearly the kind of self-righteousness that typifies Bush's America!
This does even more: It expresses most clearly what has been wrong with America, long, long before George W. Bush became president.
This illustrates most clearly what is best known as Ben Tre Logic, which led to "one of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War... a statement attributed to an anonymous American major by AP correspondent Peter Arnett. Writing about the provincial capital, Ben Tre, on February 7, 1968, Arnett said: "'it became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a U.S. major says." To this day, "Ben Tre Logic" is a common saying for whenever a "logical" conclusion is to destroy something out of the perceived best interests of everyone involved." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre)
So according to Daniel's Ben Tre Logic, it is RIGHT to RIG ELECTIONS so DEMOCRACY exists!...
So again, according to Daniel's Ben Tre Logic, it is RIGHT to TORTURE so that HUMAN RIGHTS exist!...
Still, then, according to Daniel's Ben Tre Logic, it is RIGHT to create ABU GHRAIB, BAGRAM, GUANTANAMO, etc. so that FREEDOM exists!...
Such statements, I submit, are not only contradictory (logical fallacies), not only unethical and immoral (mistaken ethical and moral judgments), they point most of all to existential impossibilities.
Not only can democracy, human rights in general, freedom, etc. not be imposed on others, but those ideas, concepts, values, cannot even become reality if we act in ways that simply deny or destroy them. One does not give birth to the child by killing it unborn.
Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Iraq.
Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Afghanistan.
Those self-defeating fallacies are at the root of the tragedy, in Lebanon.
Those self-defeating fallacies remains at the root of that unending primary tragedy, in Palestine.
Those self-defeating fallacies some would like to use as the source of new conflicts with Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.
We need be grateful to Daniel for expressing so succinctly those very self-defeating fallacies that can only give birth to permanent conflict and perpetual war. It should now be clearer to all WHY they have!
May 13, 2007 8:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Daniel:
Unfettered indivudal right [USA, Canada, Australia, UK, at al] is the greatest danger to human civilization.
To do what you please -pollute to your heart's desire, mortgage the soul of the next generation, try to control others via amassing unconceivable [by the average person] wealth etc, just so that you can have the right, is contrary to morality, and if you do not like religious, than state that it is contrary to evolutionary principles - the polluter is endangering his/her offspring.
To have balance in society responsibility has to be shared with all other human beings to guard the benefit of our offsprings.
Israel is acting contrary to the benefit of her citizens [versus Palestinians], though it appears that it is beneficial to todays' society [I reject even this].
The USA is acting against the interest of the world, to benefit a few corrupt individuals / families and in advocating the present lifestyle within her borders.
Were the notion of terror/terrorist to be inclusive of intentionally hurting the less fortunate [re : financial/ physical/ mental attribute] then we would have to include among terrorist most of the politicians in Western democracies.
You should note that I have limited my definition of terror/terrrist to exclude those who abuse the next generations by the profiligate dependency of freedoms as per above.
Now with respect to DEMOCRACY and the USA -- couple of more months of Bush and Co. and Jefferson/Lincoln/Ike would turn over in their graves. As foretold by the great general and president, the driving force of the military indutrial political complex did trnagress on the rights of both USA and other citizens. A little more of this Democracy a la Bush, and the whole world economy mght collapse.
May 13, 2007 6:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Salamon from Daniel. You have it backwards Salamon. I do not assert might is right. What I am saying is that now it is becoming apparent to all that democracy, human rights in general, freedom, separation of church and state, increasing developments toward balancing individual with respect to society IS RIGHT AND THAT NO MATTER THE MIGHT APPLIED FOR SUCH TO EXIST IT IS RIGHT AND THAT ANY OTHER DIRECTION NO MATTER HOW MUCH OR HOW LITTLE VIOLENCE IT USES TO ESTABLISH ITSELF IS WRONG AND WILL INCREASINGLY BE SEEN AS TERRORISTIC OR WORSE, ENCOURAGING OUTRIGHT WAR. IT IS RATHER YOU SALAMON WHO BELIEVES MIGHT IS RIGHT BECAUSE YOU THINK ALL CIVILIZATIONS ARE THE SAME, THAT ONE HISTORY IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER, THAT ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO EXIST AS WESTERN CIVILIZATION. I ASSERT JUST THE OPPOSITE, THAT ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST BECAUSE IT IS SUCH AN OBVIOUS FAILURE AT GETTING ANY SORT OF INTELLIGENT BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY. THE GOAL IS A DRIVE TOWARD SUCH A BALANCE, TOWARD EVER SUPERIOR INDIVIDUALS INCREASINGLY COORDINATED TOWARD COMPLEXITY--JAZZ BAND EXISTENCE, BEATLES EXISTENCE, NASA AND MOONSHOT EXISTENCE, INVENTION OF INTERNET EXISTENCE. NOT ISLAM EXISTENCE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SUBORDINATED AND RIDICULOUS AUTHORITARIAN FIGURES, IMAMS, KINGS, ETERNALLY RULING AND SQUASHING ALL INSPIRATION WHICH DOES NOT AGREE WITH ISLAM.
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY SALAMON--GIVE ME SOME POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. I HAVE DELIBERATELY TAKEN A HARDLINE ON THIS POST AND THE LAST IN THE HOPE OF THIS SITE FINALLY TURNING INTO AN ARGUMENT TOWARD POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. BUT NO ONE APPARENTLY WANTS TO DISCUSS THE ESSENCE OF DIRECTIONS, PHILOSOPHIES, HISTORIES, POLITICS...
AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF MIGHT IS RIGHT...
WHAT AM I TO MAKE OF THE TINY UNDEVELOPED COMMENTS PEOPLE CONSTANTLY PUT ON THIS SITE? THAT IS MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. THAT IS EVERYONE THINKING HIS OPINION IS IDENTICAL (OR RATHER SUPERIOR) TO ALL OTHERS. THE UNITED STATES RIGHT AFTER WORLD WAR 2 COULD HAVE ATOMIZED RUSSIA--ANYONE REALLY--BUT INSTEAD...
NO NEED TO CONTINUE. DEMOCRACY AS WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS THE RIGHT COURSE POLITICALLY AND ALL OTHER COURSES ARE WRONG. A PITY THAT DEMOCRACY WILL PROBABLY COLLAPSE AS IT WAS LOST IN GREECE UNTIL FINALLY CENTURIES FROM NOW FOOLS SUCH AS YOURSELF FINALLY GET IT. HOW RIDICULOUS TO THINK ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION IS EQUAL TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION...HOW RIDICULOUS. ANYONE KNOWS WITH ANY HONESTY THAT IF WESTERN CIVILIZATION WERE SUBORDINATE TO ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION THE BEST WESTERNERS WOULD BE UTTERLY LOST AND BROKEN UNDER ISLAM. EVERYONE KNOWS IF ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION WERE TO FALL TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION IT WOULD FINALLY BE THE RELEASE OF THE BEST TALENTS IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION AND THE DEATH OF TYRANTS, RELIGIOUS MANIACS ETC.
FOR PROOF COMPARE A BOOKSTORE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION WITH A BOOKSTORE IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATON. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A BOOKSTORE IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION. PERHAPS YOU CAN DESCRIBE IT TO ME. AND DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO TAKE A HARDLINE AND WRITE IN CAPITALS TO FINALLY GET THIS SITE TO MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS AS TO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY?
HAMAS--WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY...TERRORISTS WITH NO GRASP OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHATSOEVER. HAMAS A DEFENSE OF PALESTINIANS? HOW CAN ANY ISLAMIC VIEW BE A DEFENSE OF PEOPLE WHEN PRECISELY NO INDIVIDUALS WORTH SPEAKING OF EXIST? JUST MOB--PLAIN ISLAMIC MOB AND NOTHING MORE. ISLAM A FAILED CIVILIZATION.
May 13, 2007 5:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I would like to hear how the savage Israelis keep the Palestinians down if not by terrorism,
implied by past exeperience, or present bombs missiles, tanks, etc? Most of which the Times doesn't report. But international sources do.
All this crap to pretend Israel isn't a terrorist state! It has been been since day one. All you geniuses of history haven't neard of the STERN GANG? The terrorism against the Brits? The vile ethnic cleansing of the people who lived there. Continues to this day.
Hope that your attempt to rewrite the history and behavior of Israel impresses and reassures yourselves that it isn't the ugly corrupt, detested mess that it is. You only anger everyone else. You think we're stupid.
May 13, 2007 2:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I would like to hear how the savage Israelis keep the Palestinians down if not by terrorism,
implied by past exeperience, or present bombs missiles, tanks, etc? Most of which the Times doesn't report. But international sources do.
All this crap to pretend Israel isn't a terrorist state! It has been been since day one. All you geniuses of history haven't neard of the STERN GANG? The terrorism against the Brits? The vile ethnic cleansing of the people who lived there. Continues to this day.
Hope that your attempt to rewrite the history and behavior of Israel impresses and reassures yourselves that it isn't the ugly corrupt, detested mess that it is. You only anger everyone else. You think we're stupid.
May 13, 2007 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The term "terrorist", or any derivate word from terror seem to have acquired a dimension that can vary considerably depending on the one's point of view, notably one's political interests, influence or motivation; ethical and moral principles; and convenience. Given this, facts can be easily twisted and spanned in order to better fit one of these quite personal stands (because one cannot pretend that politics is depersonalised). Politics are made by men who assumedly represent the will and the interest of a particular society or social group or movement. No one does politics for the sake of the humankind (as whole). So, I went on searching for definitions that I could regard as satisfying and mostly reasonable about terrorism. Something that could escape this frequently ontological analysis of what it is. I found some of the following:
__________________________________________________
Definitions of terrorist on the Web:
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm
Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
Definitions of terrorist organization on the Web:
a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A terrorist organisation is an organisation that engages in terrorist tactics, they are also (perhaps more neutrally) referred to as militant organisations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization
Definitions of foreign terrorist organization on the Web:
terrorist organization: a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Foreign Terrorist Organizations are foreign organizations that are designated as terrorist by the United States Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. The United States government believes that FTO designations play a critical role in its fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Terrorist_Organization
Definitions of terrorist cell on the Web:
a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A covert cell structure is a method for organizing undercover or unconventional fighters against a large and well-established organization. If the covert cell is part of a resistance movement it can also be called a resistance cell, and if it's part of a terrorist organization it can be called a terrorist cell; in some cases, a given covert cell could be called both depending on who is asked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_cell
Definitions of terrorist attack on the Web:
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered terrorism. Massacres more generally are listed chronologically at List of massacres; assassinations are listed by location at List of assassinated people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack
Definitions of terrorist act on the Web:
means an act of violence, other than civil disorder or riot, (that is not an act of war, declared or undeclared) that results in loss of life or major damage to property, by any person acting of behalf of or in connection with any organization which is generally recognized as having the intent to overthrow or influence the control of any government.
alumniabroad.com/travelselect/8_definitions.asp
Terrorism: 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
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definitions of terrorist group on the Web:
Terrorist organization: a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A terrorist organisation is an organisation that engages in terrorist tactics, they are also (perhaps more neutrally) referred to as militant organisations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_group
Definitions of terrorist incident on the Web:
The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered terrorism. Massacres more generally are listed chronologically at List of massacres; assassinations are listed by location at List of assassinated people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_incident
May 13, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
And Hamas?
May 13, 2007 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
And Hamas?
May 13, 2007 11:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Daniel::
Your argument regarding terror can be summed up in three words: MIGHT IS RIGHT.
as such your definition of terror and or terrorist is spacious immoral and unethical.
Tom W and Bob L:
Versus the Palestinians:
Both the USA and Israel are terrorist [include all those who contribute to the USA/Israel effort] for they advance and practice abuse of the WHOLE community [excluding their darling the Fatah movement] which practice is contrary to international law.
I agree with you with respect to A-bomb and carpet bombing of civilian centers are terrorist acts.
Versus Iraq:
The USA and the coalition of the willing are terrorst by definition, for they invaded a sovereign state against international LAW. War criminals are terrorist by definition.
Versus Lebanon:
Israel and USA are terrorist, for one bombed exclusively civilian targets [power stations, factories, bridges etc], and the other supplied the wherewithaal, the ammunition and the planes, choppers etc.
Nimby:
I agree that SHOCK AND AWE was a terrorist act, for the primary target was civilian infrastructure and attempted assissination of the Head of a Legal [though perhaps not the nicest] Government.
May 13, 2007 11:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
I agree with everything you stated with the exception, to me, there is a place in warfare for the term "terrorism". Dropping two nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were acts of terror against the Japanese population. While I agree with that decision, that doesn't alter that fact.
There has to be some wartime rules that the civilized world must attempt to follow, so that's why we have the Geneva convention. In general, civilized people (granted, war is not civil) need to rail against a philosophy that the primary goal is the spread of fetus parts on the walls in what used to be a market place.
May 13, 2007 10:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott,
How do you engage in a conflict with another State and at some level not target civilians? I'm not splitting hairs here. Contrary to popular thought Hama's enemy is Israel. Not the Israel military, but the State of Israel. What's the difference to them if they kill a soldier or a civilian?
When a civilian population lends material support to a war effort are they really to be deemed "non-combatants" and off limits to killing? I seriously doubt this is the case. Look at what the US did in WWII in fire bombing civilian populations in Germany and Japan. I believe it was the Army Air Force General LeMay that stated we had better win the war in Japan or he and the United States would certainly be brought up on Criminal War Charges if they lost for the fire bombings of Japan. This doesn't even begin to address the dropping of 2 nuclear devices on civilian populations in Japan.
The crux to my point is any society will use whatever means they consider necessary to advance their cause in a conflict if they want to prevail. The moment you start limiting your options the greater probability you won't prevail. The US was by far militarily superior to Vietnam and now Iraq. However, we got stuck in both primarily because we limited our options. We no longer engage in the wholesale destruction of other societies. Yes, we do kill civilians, but that normally occurs accidentally or via troops who act counter to operating procedures. We limit our options because we are not fighting for our land. We're fighting on someone else's land. Hamas is fighting for their land and they are willing to do what we would do if we were fighting for our land.
Finally, war/violent conflict between States is Terror. Terror in the true sense of the word. This is why I hate the use of "Terrorist" when talking about conflicts between States or State sponsored activities. The term is used to demean the other side.
May 13, 2007 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Shock and awe was terrorism.
May 13, 2007 6:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Author: Simon Priyo Prayogo, Program Id. DORed [Disclosure Of power centeRED], Category: General problem solving, Sub category: Good news [Isaiah 32:7, 57:5 and Revelations 9:21, 12:9] – FOCUS ON THE TRUTH.
Function DORed
Parameter Subject, Predicate, Object, Adverb
If Subject or Predicate or Object or Adverb equal Nil Then Return to Object
While Not End of Period
Begin of source
Do good reason for save our nation
Do good nothing for making nation’s debt
Do good nothing for exertion of power
Do good reason for Adverb
While Not End of Period play
Begin of uses
Replace Asset with Predicate
Replace Liability with Object
Replace Capital with Subject
Replace Revenue with Predicate
Replace Expense with Object
Replace Other with Adverb
End of uses
End of Period play
End of Source
End of Period
Return to Subject
May 13, 2007 4:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
Sorry Salamon, I have no magical definition for the term “terrorist“. We have seen the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” enough to realize how we define terrorism is, in part, subjective. It appears that beauty and terrorism are in the eyes of the beholder. For example, some view Hamas as a resistance group fighting the Israeli occupation while others see Hamas as a terrorist organization that targets civilians.
However, the one criteria I use to label an organization (or state for that matter) as “terrorist” is the targeting and killing of civilians for political gain (primarily). This criteria is not meant to limit the definition to just targeting and killing civilians, however. The recent building of new settlement(s) by Israel in the West Bank is an act of terrorism where no one died. In my opinion, if you target innocent civilians for political gain or change, you are a terrorist or you committed an act of terrorism.
To me, its ridiculous to consider the US as terrorizing the Iraqi or Afghani people, in general, but there certainly have been terrorist acts committed by the US during the wars. Collateral damage and deaths, in my opinion, are not acts of terror. Sadr’s Army, Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq (and everywhere else) target innocent Iraqis on a daily basis and I consider all three to be terrorist organizations.
Russian, China and Israel all take a hard line stand when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
The Chechnya’s rebels will never get much sympathy from me as they conducted one of the most despicable acts of terror that I’m aware of when they took a school in Russia that led to about 200 children being killed. I have not followed Russia’s campaign against Chechnya separatist, however. Chechnya terrorist have trained at Bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan.
China also has repressed their Muslim separatist and that can be found in an Amnesty International report.
Certainly, Russia and China have committed acts of terrorism against their separatist Muslim populations (but they have probably prevented some as well).
Israel has committed many acts of terror against the Palestinian people, but many of the measures taken against the Palestinians have been reactions to terrorism against Israel. Examples include the wall (built on Palestinian land, however) and the suffocating checkpoints which highly discourage movement between Gaza and the West Bank. I do not consider Israel a terrorist state.
Finally, Hamas could rank as my definition of a terrorist organization with a book long list of civilian targets and deaths. Their brutal targeting and killing of the three children of a wanted member of Fatah is really indicative of how low these thugs will go.
May 13, 2007 1:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What is a terrorist?
Excellent question. In general when we speak of a terrorist we are speaking of a person with views clearly out of the ordinary--eccentric political views, etc.--and therefore there is a close connection between terrorism and violent crimes we classify as criminal actions within a society.
But terrorism is also "wider" in the sense that the reasons given for terrorism are understood by a larger group than isolated individuals. So terrorism is more than criminal action and moves up in scale to organized crime.--But terrorism is even more complex than that. Terrorism is a politics which insists it must be born but is more often than not on the losing side of history. And as history becomes more and more defined by democracy, human rights, capitalism, separation of church and state, etc. more and more individuals will be classified as terrorist.
Within a society there really is no such thing as terrorism unless the society is becoming fractured along various political lines. And terrorism between societies depends on one clearly being weaker than the other. And as long as there is a relativistic view--that all political directions are equal, that all societies and civilizations are equal--then indeed the winner is the patriot and the loser the terrorist.
But now in today's world we can clearly see that for all the violence of democracy--and no doubt the violence which will continue to be forthcoming from democracy--democracy (and I must add democracy along the lines of Western society) is the most just system in the world--the system which has struck the best balance between individual and society--and therefore all political views which conflict with such will be judged as potentially terrorist or worse, capable of having masses behind them and leading to outright war.
Radical Islamists are terrorists (judged such) not only because of being in weaker position with respect to Western society in the military sense, they are terrorist because of being Islamic--and if all of Islam were to rise up against the West it would still be terrorist because Islam is on the losing side of history politically. In a world of increasing democracy all political views not democratic are increasingly terrorist or worse (an army massed against democracy) and this paradigm will exist until democracy reigns and all violent actions are subsumed as criminal actions (police work).
So we can see that the biggest step against terrorism is a clear and honest discussion of political philosophy. Without this discussion we have pure relativism and terrorism of all stripes or worse--outright war. A clear and honest and most fair course of history politically will do much to converting people although of course there will be many that resist--and it is their fate to be terrorists against the agreed upon paradigm politically.
The question should really be not what is a terrorist but what exactly are the political views of people and then we can analyze and judge and sort out the best views and reduce the ridiculous views to potentially terrorist action. The United States especially but even Israel are not terroristic no matter their violence because they are on the correct side of history--are working toward a complex balance of individual rights within collective organization. In short the U.S. and Israel work toward symphony society, string quartet society,--a society which constantly strives toward development of individual parts so as to increase the complexity and sophistication of whole--but without the whole collapsing under the pressure of individuality. And this is always a delicate and difficult balancing act.
The Islamic societies utterly fail in this process. They subordinate the individual, are static, have not developed in hundreds of years, are a dangerous collective. A civilization now terrorist and with each year increasing toward being a mass of people organized toward outright war.
The question is whether Western civilization--democratic processes in general--clearly understand what they have been engaged in within themselves and can stand the furtherance of the process of developing individual within collective society--in fact developing individual toward the increasing complexity of society--or if this process is too much for them and now they want to collapse into blind collectives such as fascist societies present, or communist societies, or Islamic civilization...
A quick five minute examination of terrorism.
I am willing to have my views modified by anyone honest and sensible enough to develop a worthwhile paragraph....
May 12, 2007 10:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Let's face it, the difference between a terrorist and a patriot is winning. If you win you're a patriot. If you lose you don't get to write history you're a terrorist.
Hamas, et al, think the Israelis are terrorists. The Israelis think Hamas, et al, are terrorists. Who is right? Neither side. Both sides are willing to commit acts of violence to promote their agenda and will continue to commit acts of violence. Both sides believe in what they are fighting for. Israel thinks it has a God given right to the land and Hamas, et al, thinks they have a God given right to the same land. Israel has been able to hang on because it's military was superior to it's neighbors. It appears after the conflict with Hezbollah last year this may be changing.
The South Africans are at least smart enough to understand this is a legitimate conflict with differing points of view. Naturally, they would invite Hamas to a meeting. Hamas is one side of a conflict and they need to be dealt with as a political force. The same way Iran needs to be dealt with as a political force. We don't have to like a group or even agree with them, but if we continue to shun them and call them names like terrorists, axis of evil, etc. they won't take us seriously and our leverage in having any meaningful dialogue with them goes out the window.
Shrewd diplomacy? Only in America, the home for people who have no diplomacy left, would someone ask a question like that. It's not shrewd diplomacy, it's simply normal everyday diplomacy for a country who understands what diplomacy is. Kudo's to RSA for being a whole lot smarter then we are.
PS: Laughing, was that left enough for you?
May 12, 2007 6:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM W:
While I am surprised to see that you actually support the RSA Hamas meeting, I am somewhat perturbed by your categorical statement that HAMAS IS TERRORIST organization.
If we define terror as the maiming and killing of civilians - excluding members of the armed forces and or third party military members then we can see in the last 10 years:
USA 3-400 000 in Iraq [1000+ in Somalia via USA proxie, Ethiopia, 20-30 000 in Afganistazan, etc..
Israel 5 000+ [Palestine and Lebanon]
Hamas 1000 approximately.
Russia 5-10 000 in Checnya
UK/Nato/willing in Afganistan and IRaq a few thousand
The above does not include the senseless destruction of civilian infrastructure, where hands down the USA is first, with Israel second and Russia third.
So which of the above do we call terrorist organization/nation based on facts not political doubletalk?
I look forward to your reply [including a definition of terrorist]
May 12, 2007 5:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To the constant and prolific Wanocott:
"I was hoping to hear more from MY friends
on the left. So I appreciate., etc...'
'I am under no illusion, etc...etc."
Are you some sort of official here? Because if you are, perhaps someone should advise you that
your propoganda and info stuffing, or whatever you call it, is a croc. Where do you get this stuff on Hamnas and what they do, have done and will do? Typical.
Also, do you every woory that you may have to eat the obnoxious statements of what Israel will do and won't do, whatever they like and when, on the lands they have stolen?
May 12, 2007 2:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who decides who is a terrorist?
Ok, Hamas ways are not peaceful, but then what do you call Israel which has forcefully occupied Palestinian land and has killed thousands of Palestinians since then?
And, then the biggest of them all - the US, the misguided and misdirected foreign policy and conduct of which have killed the maximum number of people on this Earth.
Shouldn't we redefine the term "terrorist"?
May 12, 2007 11:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments