History will always repeat

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: For every terrorist you catch you incite two new ones. You may stop the weapon smugglers today but if you destroy some homes in the course you've just made the most effective PR for every terrorist in the area and doubled their numbers tomorrow.

I'm a little bored and a little sick of hearing this argument. It is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing. If you kill terrorists and their sympathizers, you will eventually get them all. If along the way, all Palestinians become terrorist based on the reasoning you state above, then the equation simply becomes one where killing all the terrorists also equals killing all the Palestinians. If that is their choice, so be it. But it is wrong to cowtow to terrorists. There is only one right answer -- overwhelming and brutal reactionary force in opposition to any terrorist activity.

MY OPINION. [/QUOTE]There's a word for that, it's called genocide. I thought it was the Arabs that were supposed to be the barbaric ones? Furthermore, there's no regard for law in your reasonsing, which is the basis for civilization.


@ Black Baron

i know only 3 sources of info-haarez, maariv, ediot ahronot

Nice to see a diverse selection of news there from all political spectra and points of view.

Also, comparing Britain and the colonies is completely different. After colonialism was no longer fashionable, Britain and France both had international legitimacy in the form of League of Nations Mandates and created viable and fully-functional states where none had previously existed. The day I see Israel work for a viable Palestinian state I will eat my hat.

If you ask people in every country around the world who the greatest threats to world peace are, they will say American, Israel and North Korea. It is just not possible for all these countries, with all their completely different cultures and news agencies to agree on something without there being some grain of truth in it. America and Israel are rogue states that pay no regard to international law.

[Faceman]

IMHO your cause proves just IF
you are willing to die for it,
but you are unwilling to kill for it.

Gandhi and King succeeded because that was exactly their point.
We Europeans are losers because we won't kill or die for anything and the US, Israel and the Islamic fundamentalists won't succeed because they're willing to do both.

[Black Baron]

Faceman-I am ready to kill if the need will arise, but i would not want to do it.

Shamrock-common knowledge and what people think are, excuse for my bluntness, a trash heap. They forget to mention iran and syria, that act accordingly to the international law only in parralel universe and even than it will be less than israel. Besides-the international law is something that suits a number of influental states that do not face islamic terrorrism (i do not say that islam=terror, i merely say that there is such kind of terrorrism). They have no say in that matter. So b***** them and their law. When buses will explode on daily basis i will listen to the song that you will sing.


You also miss TL's point. He says that if everyone of them will want to kill us, than each one of them should be killed. Genocide is made regardless of political views of the killed.

[Black Baron]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/431683.html


LOL

Look at this article. IDF claims that we destoyed 56 buildings.

UN claims that only 45.
Before they claimed 180. Bunch of stupid big mouthed idiots. Say something, destroy our image, than apologize.
So much for IDF being a "terror organization" and other monstrous tales.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/431841.html


and that is a link that will show you why we delay ambulances on their way.

Maybe you "holy" critics will now understand something.

[Timber Loftis]

There's a word for that, it's called genocide. I thought it was the Arabs that were supposed to be the barbaric ones? Furthermore, there's no regard for law in your reasonsing, which is the basis for civilization.

Wrong on 2 counts. First, killing Palestinians because they are terrorists who commit or attempt to commit terrost acts is not genocide -- genocide is killing them *because* they are Palestinian. Two very different things -- one based on behavior, the other on identity.

"All terrorists will forfeit their life, with or without a trial as the need arises" actually IS an example of a rule of law. It's just not *your* preferred law. But it would be a fair and just law if fairly and justly applied.

Okay, two strikes. Next?

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Yorick: Is that what you guys told the Maoris? Is that why there are more of them in Sydney than your New Zealand? Wow. Strong words from an English speaker who has plenty of the world to go and speak English and feel at home in an English culture.

Like which guys told the Maoris? I didn't ask for the actions of my ancestors. The world I live in bears their marks, but whether or not I let that define who I am is all up to me.
OK, I guess we have different ideas of what life is. It's not that I'm insensitive, just that my sensitivity follows a different basis. I do think I understand what you're saying though. But I don't mean to hijack this thread with my ravings so I guess we should go to pm....

[ 05-25-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[shamrock_uk]

Ok Timber, I have a friend who's been following this thread closely and has actually done a reply for you which I shall post now. Would be interesting to hear your response. All the following is Kulveer's writing, with the odd edit from me for clarity:

“It is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing. If you kill terrorists and their sympathizers, you will eventually get them all. If along the way, all Palestinians become terrorist based on the reasoning you state above, then the equation simply becomes one where killing all the terrorists also equals killing all the Palestinians. If that is their choice, so be it. But it is wrong to cowtow to terrorists. There is only one right answer -- overwhelming and brutal reactionary force in opposition to any terrorist activity.”

Replace ‘terrorists’ with ‘crusaders’, and ‘Palestinians’ with ‘Westerners’, and that statement doesn’t look out of place coming from Osama Bin Laden. Sad to see just how much similarity there is in the narrow minded thinking!

First of all, let’s analyse this argument premise by premise.

‘It is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing.’

NOT using ‘brutal’ and ‘overwhelming’ force does not mean you should do nothing. First mistake by Timber. It is the technique people like him use to justify their violence and aggression, by wrongly defining any dissenter’s argument. It is also dependent on the idea that ‘might makes right’, and just because we are better at organized violence, [i.e. through an army], we can use that to justify our deeds. Returning to the point, any fool knows that it is not ‘an excuse to do nothing’, it simply means a different MEANS should be used to achieve the ENDS. And why so? Simply because the other means would be more effective, nothing more, nothing less.

‘Terrorism’ is not a disease, it is the SYMPTOM of a disease. And until that disease is cured from its causes, the symptoms will persist ad infinitum, no matter how much you try and remove them. Unless of course you could pursue genocide and wipe out all Palestinians, but then I’m sure other enemies would rise to replace them.

‘If that is their choice, so be it.’

I doubt it very much that becoming a terrorist is simply a matter of choice. Another false justification used by Timber and people with similar views to justify their military excesses. Just how much free-will goes into the decision to become a terrorist? If all the conditions which exist in Palestine, poverty, humiliation, oppression, were removed, then I’m sure the ‘choice’ to become a terrorist would be different. Suicide bombing is despicable, but then if the Palestinians do not have an army to defend themselves, what should they do? No doubt, if they did have an army, it would be deemed ‘terrorist’.

What we are looking at here is a distributional problem. Because Israel is the most powerful state in the region, with its 200+ stockpile of nukes and huge American funding, they have the power to ‘define’ what a terrorist is, and what ‘legitimate’ military action is. Simply assuming that Palestinians should accept their fate because they are weaker is very arrogant of Israel and the US. Of course, they will not accept their fate and so they are called terrorists. I’d rather call them freedom fighters.

Imagine this situation:

There is a big bully in a playground who abuses other children. When scolded by his mother for doing so, the bully justifies his action by saying the other were making fun of him or were not friendly to him or whatever. Now, most of the children just shut up and let the bully do what he wants, and they don’t get punched. A few of the other children though, don’t want to take the bully’s s***, and so, even though much weaker, try and stand up to the bully, which results in them being punched in the face. Of course, no one will say the bully was wrong for punching the kid in the face, because that kid shouldn’t have stood up to him.

But seeing that one kid stand up for himself, others start to follow, fed up of being abused by the bully. One by one, all these kids attempt to resist the bully, but since he is so big and strong and ruthless, he punches them all in the face one by one. Eventually we have a situation where all the kids stand up to the bully, and he punches all of them one by one and justifies his actions by saying they are all now being mean to him. It was the kids’ fault of course, for standing up to him. Who do they think they are? So now they all deserve their big fat punch in the face.

I hope you see the analogy I am trying to make, but that is the sort of thing Timber suggests would justify wiping out the Palestinians if they became ‘terrorist’. I’d like Timber to define what a terrorist is. What is it essentially about the actions of a terrorist that make him a terrorist? We will carry on the argument from there. When people with a political will are excluded from the political process, terrorism usually results.

[ 05-26-2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, first reply is he's certainly good at talking something to death.

I'm not real fond of taking up for the US being a bully, but I will say that at some point it's time to divy up teams and have the good fight. All his analogies lead to one conclusion -- pick a side and join the fray. If we're the bully who punched you in the face, get the other kids to join you and do something about it.

Anyway, off-the-cuff to be sure -- I have so much to do today and so little time. I will try to post more thoughtful stuff later.

In the meantime, I'll leave it to other "people like me" to take up the fray -- whatever that means.

[Yorick]

Kulveer, I don't agree with your reasoning.

[Black Baron]

It seems that i will join the fray.
First of all-Let's say that OBL says the "crusaders" stuff. So? I hardly find these things wrong. From his point of view he is right, because short of killing us one by one he and his organization have no hope of emerge victorious from the war. We have no other way of dealing with terrorrists except killing them, or throwing them into prison for life, which is almost the same. I will say yet another thing-If all the people of "tumbo yumbo" state will become rapers and murderers and thieves (not or. and) the police of "tumbo yumbo" will have to deal with them all according to the law. The law says-death sentence. So be it.
Therefore the point of Kulveer is irrelevant.

Secondly-explain what is "owherwelming" and "too much" force. Colonels and generals have their priorities set in that way when the life of their soldier is far more valued than life of all enemy combatant troops. USA and Israel are very liberal. We could have bombed them from the air thus making 100% sucsess and 0 casualties from our side. We do not do it. USA and Israel do not use owherwelming force, merely because we have casualties. Again the point of your friend is an incorrect one.

Thirdly-About their free will. You always have free will. They can easily resist ala Gandi. Stop going to work at our facilities . Our economy could have suffered tremendous losses. Average israely is too lazy to go to work. Their mentality is however the mentality of the region (including ours)-No force, no results. They chose the way of the bombers. Their problems.

Foursly (sp?)-Terrorist here is a person that: 1)Kills (or does his best to) civilians on purpose. 2)Belongs to organization that says-death to all the x and destroy state y for good.

Terrorist in general is dictionary defeniton. Here however we have an islamic terrorrism. This terrorrism is now the major kind in the world.