Hamas wins Palestinian election

[BuzzOrHowl]

@danoff
What definition of terrorism are you using? Atom bomb incidents meet both the definitions I gave, which you didn't take issue with. So if Pakistan dropped an atomic bomb on Tel Aviv it wouldn't be terrorism?

Incidences of Terrorism and examples of support for terrorists abound (based on the definitions which I offered in an earlier post) in US history. The Hiroshima example was actually an attempt to throw you a softball. For much harsher examples, see Iran 1954, Guatemala 1952 to present, Nicaragua during Sandinista rule, Chile in 1972, and Viet Nam from 1945 to 1974. I could go on for hours, but you really should learn US history on your own. I suspect the same is true of Israeli history, although I am not so familiar with the details. Rachel Corrie comes to mind. (pre 1949, many pro israel groups were explicitly terrorists, carrying out bomb attacks and assasinations against palestinian civilians, british troops, and even Palestinian Jews who opposed zionism -- but I'm not counting these, even though many from these groups formed the Israeli government post 1949, because they arn't technically part of the Israeli govt.).

 

[Danoff]

Your definition:

"My personal definition: The use of extreme and highly visible violence against small segments of a population in an effort to exert political influence through inspiring a state of extreme fear in the larger population."

isn't the greatest one, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not intend to "exert political influence through inspiring a state of extreme fear in the alrger population", they were designed to show military superiority and cause a surrender. Terrorism isn't about military superiority, it's about inferiority. The purpose is not to get people to believe that you're stronger than them, it's to remind them that they're vulnerable and hopefully get concessions out of that.

Terrorism isn't a tool for the powerful, it's a tool for the weak.

So if Pakistan dropped an atomic bomb on Tel Aviv it wouldn't be terrorism?

It depends on the goal and how it was done. If it was part of a war effort in an attempt to induce surrender, then it would not be terrorism. If it was done on the part group of people with the goal to scare the population into eroding support for their leaders -that would be terrorism. I'm using your definition here - which isn't perfect, but it's enough to defeat your arguments.

Incidences of Terrorism and examples of support for terrorists abound (based on the definitions which I offered in an earlier post) in US history. The Hiroshima example was actually an attempt to throw you a softball. For much harsher examples, see Iran 1954, Guatemala 1952 to present, Nicaragua during Sandinista rule, Chile in 1972, and Viet Nam from 1945 to 1974. I could go on for hours, but you really should learn US history on your own.

This is you admiting that you're using the term terorism too losely. How did vietnam or Iran... hell guatamala, nicaragua, or chile... how did any of them invovle terrorizing the "larger population" in "an effort to exert political influence". Exerting political influence is not terrorism, terrorism's real goal is to erode support of current leadership - but either way, none of those were aimed at scaring the "larger population" or civilians in general.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

@danoff... By adding that terrorism is only terrorism when it is used by the weak, You have inadvertently proved my initial point... Than an act of extreme violence against a small segment of a larger population in order to terrorize the larger population for political gain (generally, my definition) is called "terrorism" when done by poor people (generally weaker) but the exact same act is considered an "act of war" or "counter insurgency" or "supporting freedom fighters" when done by the wealthy (generally stronger). When you're on the recieving end of the bomb or bullet or terror, the difference between the stronger or weaker nature of your attacker is pretty much academic.

Regarding some of the areas and times I described the US as participating in or supporting terrorism (violence and intimidation for political gain) the existance of terroristic policies and practices in these places is well established and acknowledged by the US government. Here are just a few examples in the historical record:

In Chile under the rule of the dictator Pinochet (hand picked by the US State Department as the new ruler when they over threw the Chilean democracy) The government ordered that all females arrested by the Chilean police (including many nonviolent activists whose only crime was advocating a return to democracy) were to be raped and have their vaginas mutilated before release to send a message to the people that political support for democracy would not be permitted. Police officers who failed to carry out these orders were considered enemies of the state and imprisoned.

In Guatemala under the dictator Rios Montt, the Guatemalan army (completelly funded, trained, equipped, and advised by the US military) went on a scorched earth campaign in the rural areas populated by Native Guatamalans. They entered one village after another, rounded up all the men, and sumarily executed all of them in front of thier families. When word got out, the men from the remaining villages fled into the forest. When The army came to a village from which the men had fled, they did the same to the remaining women and children, killing them by hanging. Because many children are to light to die by hanging, the army would place a child in the same noose as the mother, so that as she was hung her struggles and body weight would kill her child, or children, as well. The bodies were then left hanging, as a message to the population that they must support the dictatorship or die. Over 80,000 poor Guatamalans were killed in this campaign. Afterwards, President Reagan (who had been breifed on these incidents) had the dicatator as a special guest at the White house, lauding him as a "freedom fighter".

Finally one for Israel: how about the IDF practice of chaining Palestinian children to their tanks and armored cars and forcing them to walk along side as they advance... Could you imagine anyone doing that to your kids in your neighborhood?

 

[Danoff]

@danoff... By adding that terrorism is only terrorism when it is used by the weak, You have inadvertently proved my initial point... Than an act of extreme violence against a small segment of a larger population in order to terrorize the larger population for political gain (generally, my definition) is called "terrorism" when done by poor people (generally weaker) but the exact same act is considered an "act of war" or "counter insurgency" or "supporting freedom fighters" when done by the wealthy (generally stronger). When you're on the recieving end of the bomb or bullet or terror, the difference between the stronger or weaker nature of your attacker is pretty much academic.

You're misinterpreting what I wrote. I didn't say that it wasn't possible for a larger, stronger entity to engage in terrorism, only that it is not a tool that a larger, stronger entity would use. Terrorism as a means to get what you want is generally much more useful to a weaker force. That's all I was saying, strategically. I didn't mean to imply that a superpower couldn't, by definition, engage in terrorism.

Regarding some of the areas and times I described the US as participating in or supporting terrorism (violence and intimidation for political gain) the existance of terroristic policies and practices in these places is well established and acknowledged by the US government. Here are just a few examples in the historical record:

In Chile under the rule of the dictator Pinochet (hand picked by the US State Department as the new ruler when they over threw the Chilean democracy) The government ordered that all females arrested by the Chilean police (including many nonviolent activists whose only crime was advocating a return to democracy) were to be raped and have their vaginas mutilated before release to send a message to the people that political support for democracy would not be permitted. Police officers who failed to carry out these orders were considered enemies of the state and imprisoned.

See now that would be terrorism, but not by the US. (It also counts as oppression really, oppression via terrorism)

In Guatemala under the dictator Rios Montt, the Guatemalan army (completelly funded, trained, equipped, and advised by the US military) went on a scorched earth campaign in the rural areas populated by Native Guatamalans. They entered one village after another, rounded up all the men, and sumarily executed all of them in front of thier families. When word got out, the men from the remaining villages fled into the forest. When The army came to a village from which the men had fled, they did the same to the remaining women and children, killing them by hanging. Because many children are to light to die by hanging, the army would place a child in the same noose as the mother, so that as she was hung her struggles and body weight would kill her child, or children, as well. The bodies were then left hanging, as a message to the population that they must support the dictatorship or die. Over 80,000 poor Guatamalans were killed in this campaign. Afterwards, President Reagan (who had been breifed on these incidents) had the dicatator as a special guest at the White house, lauding him as a "freedom fighter".

This also counts as terrorism - except not by the US.

Finally one for Israel: how about the IDF practice of chaining Palestinian children to their tanks and armored cars and forcing them to walk along side as they advance... Could you imagine anyone doing that to your kids in your neighborhood?

This isn't terrorism, but it IS a beautiful example of how you can't stick to the definition.

 

[Zardoz]

Sore losers...

This is how the Democrats should have acted when Gore lost in 2000...

 

[Fonce Diablo]

We know Hamas has a moderate part in there somewhere, and they'd already done well in local elections anyway.

Fatah had it for ten years, didn't do anything with it, and the people fired them.

Now that Hamas is running the show, we can only hope that moderate part bobs to the surface, which I doubt will happen.

Frankly, I don't see what the fuss over this land is anyway. I'm agnostic. If there is a god, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be condoning this crap.

 

[THE ED3]

Hamas has no conservative side. They are a bunch of blood thursty savages bent on murdering civilians of a different faith.

Terrorism is The targeting of a weaker people in order to acheve the goal of a non-peace seaking group. You can not use terror to make peace. You use politics and propaganda. They may look the same, but they are not. The use of the atom bomb in japan was to show the government that the longer they held out the more people would die and that they had no hope of winning the war with their lower class weapons. It had the intended effect on those in power. Most of the people still wanted war.

Now, what hamas is doing is terrorism. They are not trying to advance a "real" political agenda. They are trying to wipe out all of isreal. Murder is not a tool used by level headed leaders. These types of people can not be delt with and sadly must be taken out by force as this is all they understand. Many civilians will die... They should have thought of this before they voted for irrational killers. They honestly have no one to blaim but themselves.

I doubt that if Hamas were given real weapons that they would stop suicide bombings. They have a deep hate for the jews and will murder as many as possible using whatever means they can.

Now saying that the jews should have been given a small chunk of germany is rather stupid. The jews have no claim to the land. They do however have claim to the land they were given in their religon. The palistinians also have claim to this very same land. This issue will never be fully solved. We can only hope for compromising which will never happen with hamas.

 

[Vasco]

*snip*
They do however have claim to the land they were given in their religon.

So if I make a religion saying that my God promised to me your house and the land on which it was built you'd let me have your land?

 

[THE ED3]

You have no power to make a religon. God made that. This isnt the place to discuss this.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Maybe we should just let Israel and Palestine sort their own issues out. Sure, it is a pretty large failure on the US' behalf on the advocasy of democracy, but you cannot expect the small-minded Palestinians to actually consider the idea that peace may be an alternative.

Its interesting that it is indeed the US and the EU that offer the most aid to Palestine and yet their "Allies" in the middle east such as Syria and Saudi Arabia, etc. offer less together than the US and EU combined. We will see what happens when the aid of the Allied nations is withdrawn as we more than likely will not recognise the new Palestinian state...

To forecast the future, the problem may solve itself, and it may not. A large deciding factor in the future of the middle east will be democracy's success in Iraq (which seems to be working somewhat well) and the ongoing situation with Iran and it's nuclear weapons program.

If we let the folks figure it out and say "Israel isnt our problem," maybe the US could have less to worry about in the middle east... Oh, wait... That wont happen, ever...

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

What you suggest won't happen because Israel is the anchor of US policy in a region that is very important to us (O-I-L). Without Israel the state department would have a lot more to worry about in the middle east, not less. This is why for many years Israel was the number one recipient of Aid from the US... We fund thier military and infrastructure because we need them. Should we stop needing them, for whatever reason, they'll be hung out to dry in a New York minute...

BTW, Democracy is going well in Iraq? what have you been smoking? The country is embroiled in a three way civil war, reconstruction is a joke, everyone is pulling out as fast as they can, our military is reduced to hiding in bases and then going out on patrols to get shot at... and get this, the people we actually consider our friends, are called SCIRI... Which stands for "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and they would rather cozy up to the Iranians (the ones about to get an atomic bomb, whose president just suggested that Israel should be "wiped off the map") anyhow! If that's going well, I'd hate to see it go poorly...

 

[Solid Fro]

BTW, Democracy is going well in Iraq? what have you been smoking?

What the hell have you been smoking? Something amazing, I suspect.

The country is embroiled in a three way civil war,

I don't see Shi'a attack Kurds. What I do see is Al Qaeda terrorists blowing up car bombs outside of markets killing innocent civilians.

reconstruction is a joke

Can you give me an example where it is not better than under Saddam?

everyone is pulling out as fast as they can

Who is pulling out? I haven't seen any country pull out for over two years.

our military is reduced to hiding in bases and then going out on patrols to get shot at...

Sounds like your military is Al Qaeda, because that is exactly what happens to them.

and get this, the people we actually consider our friends, are called SCIRI... Which stands for "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and they would rather cozy up to the Iranians (the ones about to get an atomic bomb, whose president just suggested that Israel should be "wiped off the map") anyhow! If that's going well, I'd hate to see it go poorly...

SCIRI wanted to topple Saddam Hussein's reign and fought for the Kurds. Sounds pretty good to me, especially in an area where we cannot pick and choose are allies.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

I don't see Shi'a attack Kurds. What I do see is Al Qaeda terrorists blowing up car bombs outside of markets killing innocent civilians

Al Qaeda terrorists are having a field day doing just that, while Sunni terrorists kill Shia and Kurd civillians, Shia terrorists kill Sunni civilians, and Kurds kill each other. Meanwhile garden variety thugs and criminals are taking advantage of the chaos to rob everyone else blind.

Can you give me an example where it is not better than under Saddam?

Sadly, Electricity production, clean water supplies, and oil production were all better under Saddam.

Who is pulling out? I haven't seen any country pull out for over two years.

Most of the "coalition of the willing" are already gone, but our stalwart ally Italy has recently anounced plans to pull out, and even US polititians are seriously talking about cutting our losses while we still can.

Sounds like your military is Al Qaeda

This is such a low blow that I won't even justify it with a response. I'm embarassed for you.

SCIRI wanted to topple Saddam Hussein's reign and fought for the Kurds. Sounds pretty good to me, especially in an area where we cannot pick and choose are allies

.

SCIRI fought Saddam because they wanted to make Iraq an Islamic Theocracy (that's Islamo-Facism in right wing terminology). If we are in a position where we cannot pick and choose our allies and have to buddy up to these guys, we are really screwed.

Finally, I sense your implication that there were only two options for dealing with Saddam... go to war and eliminate him or don't and live with him forever. Conveniently for you, this would make any anti-war position responsible for the continuation of Saddam's crimes against Humanity. This is a simplistic and unrealistic view... there were at least a dozen ways of dealing with Saddam, with varying levels of military might. A competent administration and state department could have applied several forms of pressure while supporting the development of civil society and dissent in Iraq. Saddam's days were numbered, and under unified international pressure he would have been removed from within Iraq, without the need for an invasion (hell, this would have happened way back in 1992 if we had supported the Shia uprising in the south) Had the Iraqis eliminated Saddam themselves, The whole region would be far more stable and we wouldn't be back in another quagmire. But hey, what do you expect when you hire an incompetent alcoholic wannabe cowboy to run your country?

 

[THE ED3]

Much more of this silly ranting and you'll spill your half and half all over your new yorker...

 

[niky]

Sadly, Electricity production, clean water supplies, and oil production were all better under Saddam.

Sadly, that's true. But there is hope it can get better. Not for a long while yet, though.

This is such a low blow that I won't even justify it with a response. I'm embarassed for you.

Forgive him, he's an ultra-right winger.

SCIRI fought Saddam because they wanted to make Iraq an Islamic Theocracy (that's Islamo-Facism in right wing terminology). If we are in a position where we cannot pick and choose our allies and have to buddy up to these guys, we are really screwed.

And we used to support Saddam basically because he was a great ally against the fundamentalists, how the world turns...

Finally, I sense your implication that there were only two options for dealing with Saddam... go to war and eliminate him or don't and live with him forever. Conveniently for you, this would make any anti-war position responsible for the continuation of Saddam's crimes against Humanity. This is a simplistic and unrealistic view... there were at least a dozen ways of dealing with Saddam, with varying levels of military might. A competent administration and state department could have applied several forms of pressure while supporting the development of civil society and dissent in Iraq. Saddam's days were numbered, and under unified international pressure he would have been removed from within Iraq, without the need for an invasion (hell, this would have happened way back in 1992 if we had supported the Shia uprising in the south) Had the Iraqis eliminated Saddam themselves, The whole region would be far more stable and we wouldn't be back in another quagmire. But hey, what do you expect when you hire an incompetent alcoholic wannabe cowboy to run your country?

Although it does suck that we abandoned the rebels back in '92, please, take it easy dude, we have a thread about Iraq and a thread about America. All Bush bashing goes there. There are a lot of people on this board touchy about this.

This thread is about Palestine, let's get it back on track.

____

I'd just like to add my .02 about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Taken in a modern context, yes, they are terrible crimes against humanity, but taken in the context of the times, they were merely the closing chapter on a war wherein all sides targetted civilians. Countless civilians vanished under Japanese Imperial rule in Asia, and in German-occupied territories, the Germans waged their own war on the Jewish sub-population. Sadly, the Germans gained some acceptance this way, as an undercurrent of racial hatred against the Jews was quite common then.

German bombers attacked civilian targets in the London raids, German forces razed Soviet cities to the ground. US and British bombers bombed the hell out of German cities in their push towards Berlin. US bombers nearly razed Tokyo to the ground. Japanese nationals were shuttled to concentration camps all across the US. By present day standards, the Second World War wasn't pretty... many of the treaties and conventions were disregarded.

Taken in isolation, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are horrible. But they're not qualitatively any worse than anything else done during that time. It was quite common to target population centers... to deprive the enemy of human resources, for one, and to demoralize him.

Thankfully, they don't wage war like that anymore. Sophisticated weapons systems allow the US to directly target military targets embedded in civilian areas with minimal collateral damage.

Currently, while civilian casualties do occur from bombings and rocket attacks, they are merely "collateral" damage... callous, yes, but that's the way it is. In a terrorist attack, civilians are the primary target.

I do prefer the Mossad way better. Direct assassination. Kill the target and spare everyone else. Of course, under US law, it's illegal for the CIA to do this anymore... they have to use rockets and hope they get the right guy.

 

[///M-Spec]

^ Excellent post.


M

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Yeah, I guess I did get a bit fired up there. That's what happens when I drink Red Bull after midnight... Thanks for the thoughts, Niky

@///M-Spec: I've got bad news for you, dude... I've been dating your wife for over a year...

 

[s0nny80y]

Iran elected their president. Palestine elected Hamas (not to say that Fatah didn't have terrorist ties). Is it safe to say that certain countries shouldn't have democracy?

 

[Zardoz]

...Is it safe to say that certain countries shouldn't have democracy?

No.

However, it is safe to say that all nations get the governments they deserve.

 

[THE ED3]

Actually, if a nation is going to elect a government that will murder civilians then yes, it is fair to say they shouldnt have a choice in the matter.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Actually, if a nation is going to elect a government that will murder civilians then yes, it is fair to say they shouldnt have a choice in the matter.

Any nation? Even this nation? Or is it OK when our government targets civilians?

And if a nation is deemed (by you) to not deserve to have a choice in their government, then who should impose an alternative? you? us? whoever has the most bombs?

What is happening in Palestine, in Bolivia, in Chile, in Venezuela, in Brazil, and is about to happen in Mexico is called democracy... If you don't like it, move to Russia... Or China... Or Iraq.

BTW, You should ditch the Libertarians... They usually argue that governments should be elected, not imposed.

all nations get the governments they deserve

I think the US deserves a better government than the one we got.

Iran elected their president

Not really... as an unelected religious body vetted the list of candidates prior to the election, it wasn't really a free election.

 

[THE ED3]

Our government does not target civilians. We do kill civilians though. That is only because those we are trying to kill are often hiding with innocent people.

They clearly shouldnt have a choice if they are going to elect a government that will wage war to kill innocent civilians. They clearly wanted war even though the world has been working hard to achieve peace in the region. There is no ideal person to empose the government for them, but just about any level headed person is better. If you have even half a mind it is clear to see hamas is nothing more then a bunch murderers.

The places you suggest I should move are rather inncorrect with china being the only one that doesnt have an elected government. Russia is now a democracy albeit led by a communist.

I am a libertarian for national interests. I do not always share their international policys.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Our government does not target civilians

Actually, it does... Sometimes directly, sometimes through intermediarys (such as in Guatemala and Chile... see posts below) Sometimes through covert means and sometimes not... Sometimes when we are at war and sometimes not... Sometimes in the US and sometimes outside the US. This is very clear in the historical record... and not disputed by anybody serious in the world of international politics. Don't kid yourself... The real right wing dosen't argue this point.

The places you suggest I should move are rather inncorrect with china being the only one that doesnt have an elected government. Russia is now a democracy albeit led by a communist

.

I was trying to interject a tone of irony... as the administration's favorite "democracies" are not very democratic.

 

[Danoff]

What you suggest won't happen because Israel is the anchor of US policy in a region that is very important to us (O-I-L). Without Israel the state department would have a lot more to worry about in the middle east, not less. This is why for many years Israel was the number one recipient of Aid from the US... We fund thier military and infrastructure because we need them. Should we stop needing them, for whatever reason, they'll be hung out to dry in a New York minute...

Uh huh. Right... oil is the reason we're allies with Israel... sure thing. Because we get all that oil from Israel. I'm sure that next you'd tell me that we'd never come to Spain or Australia's aid because we don't get much oil from them.

Have you ever stopped to actually think about these things that come out of your head? Or do you just assume you're right and move on?

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Have you ever stopped to actually think about these things that come out of your head? Or do you just assume you're right and move on?

Actually, these ideas come from respected publications in the field of international relations-- written by authors from across the political spectrum and including Academics and Activists as well as individuals from the State Department, CIA, Foreign Service, and US military. I actually make a point of reading and debating the people I have ideological differences with... Surrounding oneself with people you already agree with is boring and tends to stifle intellectual growth.

I'm talking to you, aren't I? I could be on some Lefty "Yay Hamas!" website if I wanted to. If you want a real challenge on this issue, don't even bother with me... read "The Fateful Triangle: Israel, Palestine and the United States" by Noam Chomsky. If you can seriously challenge his arguments (and supporting documentation) I will be impressed, and I'll want to hear what you have to say. However, if all you can do is mock me and characterize me as an unreflective person, then give it up. That's not debate... and shows that you've got no real arguements left.

 

[Solid Fro]

read "The Fateful Triangle: Israel, Palestine and the United States" by Noam Chomsky.

I don't want to read propaganda from a liberal socialist American hating anarchist.

Debate on the facts or don't debate at all.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

I don't want to read propaganda from a liberal socialist American hating anarchist.

That's too bad for you... I've found that exposure to opposing ideas greatly strengthens my intellectual capacity. For instance, for me reading Ann Coulter is always a good warm up (I like to start with the easy ones Sometimes I actually start to feel bad for her...) Then on to some Caspar Weinberger, Henry Kissenger, then perhaps a little National Review for desert. Sometimes I even change my mind on things (but not when I'm reading Ann Coulter... Yet, anyhow )

Debate on the facts or don't debate at all.

The positions I have put forth are based on well documented historical record. I even gave 4 specific examples to illustrate some of my points. What do you want, a specific citation for every line? I can write like that, but I don't think this is the forum for that style... I don't see anyone else providing a bibliography for their posts...

However, if you want to know where I got some of my ideas, I will direct you to the film, "Fog of War" in which Robert McNamera (Former Secretary of State... or defense... I forget which... but not exactly a communist either way) in which he describes foreign policy goals and methods of several administrations he worked in. Alternatively, You might read some peer reviewed journals of international relations...There are dozens of good ones, and all serious academic journals have extremely rigorous standards for documentation of any facts presented in thier articles...Try to read ones from a variety of political perspectives and you might actually learn something.

 

[Fonce Diablo]

And while we're arguing, Fatah and Hamas supporters are blasting each other in the streets.

This may all be moot. There might not even BE a Palestine if that sort of stuff keeps up.

 

[niky]

Ironic how the supposedly moderate Fatah turn out to be just as violent as Hamas when the chips are down.

You can turn warlords into politicians, but you can't take the warlording out of them... even after such a long time as a political entity, their roots are showing. Happens here, where former radical entities (communists, Islamic militants) still maintain armies in secret.

@Buzzhowl: don't waste your breath. You're probably on his ignore list already. I know I am.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Yeah, Fatah has always been over rated. Noam Chomsky (Gosh... being a commie RULZ!!!) said in an interview over a decade ago that when he tried to work with Fatah they were a bunch of control freak jerks. I heard (from my mom, no less) that the US gave Fatah over $3 mil. in last minute campaign funding to insure a Fatah victory... DOH!!!