Hamas wins Palestinian election

[DeLoreanBrown]

Chomsky Rules!

There are so many Americans that become individualists in POV ( from sheer learning and artistry ) and then get slandered and hated by the censor-droid alien that controls their country.

 

[niky]

Hmmm... got to read up, then. I know of Chomsky from college, but I didn't know he was a contemporary... I'd always filed him under "old bearded men, long dead... test on Friday".

Doesn't surprise me about Fatah... the US poured millions into Ferdinand Marcos's coffers, too. True fascist, that guy, corrupt as hell, to boot... but sadly, probably one of the best presidents we've ever had.

 

[ledhed]

Democracy at work in the Middle East. What did you expect ?

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Chomsky definitely has an axe to grind and a leftist perspective, often a bit agressive for my taste, but he argues his points very well and his documentation is impeccable.

If you want a great assessment of the Palestinian crisis, read "Fateful Triangle: Israel, Palestine, and the United States".

Another Chomsky Classic is "Manufacturing Consent" which is also a film.

 

[Danoff]

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.

You didn't respond to anything I said. This is one of the laziest responses I've seen. I had points in that post - too bad you couldn't counter them.

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)

Ann Coulter is an embarassment. I would suggest that you never read anything else she's written. It will give you a false sense of accomplishment to see past her arguments. Don't waste your time - and don't trick yourself into thinking that's the best that her point of view can muster.

Then on to some Caspar Weinberger, Henry Kissenger, then perhaps a little National Review for desert.

Try Ayn Rand.

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.

Why don't you quit trying to pawn off the argument onto other people and come out an address what people have written here. Are you not able to?

Chomsky definitely has an axe to grind and a leftist perspective, often a bit agressive for my taste, but he argues his points very well and his documentation is impeccable.

If you want a great assessment of the Palestinian crisis, read "Fateful Triangle: Israel, Palestine, and the United States".

Another Chomsky Classic is "Manufacturing Consent" which is also a film.

Chomsky may be persuasive, and he may have good documentation, but he isn't right - and it isn't hard to defeat his arguments. He might be a good salesman but logic is beyond him.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

I'm going to try to make this brief, as I'm afraid I've been a bit long winded and off topic lately.

You didn't respond to anything I said

You said:

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?

I responded to the second paragraph, but I ignored the first as it was a weak attempt to mischaracterize my argument, which was:

Israel is the anchor of US policy in a region that is very important to us (O-I-L).

I never said we get oil from Israel, just that Israel is the anchor of our foreign policy in the region. I suspect you understood this, (it's pretty obvious) but chose to argue with a straw man of your own creation since you knew you had nothing on my original point. Now I know it too.

Ann Coulter is an embarassment

Yeah, it was a low blow to even bring her up. Sorry.

Try Ayn Rand.

I read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and the Virtue of Selfishness (and one other I forgot the title of) back in high school (20 years ago ) I thought Anthem was OK but heartily disliked the others. I can sympathize with Rand who experienced Stalinism first hand early in her life, which must have been terrible, but she has gone so far in the other direction it's ridiculous. Rand has made a career out of presenting a False Dilemma (yes, I went to the "how to argue" thread ) Between objectivism and collectivism (essentially Stalinism). Contrary to Rand, there are a myriad of ways of organizing a society that both respect human individualism while allowing for those individuals to engage in altruistic and collective endeavors. The historical record is full of them. I also noticed that her literary voice betrays a brittle, fragile ego... that needs constant reassurance of it's importance in the world. I've noticed that trait in the self proclaimed "Objectivists" that I've met as well.

Well, I've broken my promise to keep this brief... (ya can't trust a commie!!!) (BTW I'm not a communist, I'm just being IRONICAL) Regarding your last two points, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Chomsky, and I'm not sure why you think I'm not responding to what people are saying on this thread... I thought I was.

 

[Danoff]

I responded to the second paragraph, but I ignored the first as it was a weak attempt to mischaracterize my argument, which was: I never said we get oil from Israel, just that Israel is the anchor of our foreign policy in the region. I suspect you understood this, (it's pretty obvious) but chose to argue with a straw man of your own creation since you knew you had nothing on my original point. Now I know it too.

It surprises me that you're convinced by this. I'm sitting here trying to figure out where to even start. Your whole argument is a bait and switch... and once again you didn't address my original post. Sure you claimed that part of it was a straw man fallacy, but you didn't address my point about Spain or Australia - perhaps you thought it was a weak point, or perhaps you couldn't think of an answer. Either way you're still ignoring what I wrote. Prehaps I should use the Taiwan or South Korea example?

Ok let me see if I can lay out your argument faithfully. You claim that the only reason the US supports Israel is because it's NEAR oil, and that if it were not NEAR oil, we would abandon it as fast as possible.

Supporting Israel only hurts our relationship with those nations IN ACTUAL POSSESSION OF OIL. So how exactly does that strike you as motivated by oil again? And since I have established that we are allies with and come to the aid of many countries that do not have much oil and are not NEAR oil - how can you support your claim that we would abandon Israel immediately if they were no longer NEAR oil?

You're not making any sense. Once again, it's like you're going through the motions here without having any actual substantive argument. It's astonishing that you actually believe this stuff.

Yeah, it was a low blow to even bring her up. Sorry.

Apology accepted.

I read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and the Virtue of Selfishness (and one other I forgot the title of) back in high school (20 years ago ) I thought Anthem was OK but heartily disliked the others. I can sympathize with Rand who experienced Stalinism first hand early in her life, which must have been terrible, but she has gone so far in the other direction it's ridiculous. Rand has made a career out of presenting a False Dilemma (yes, I went to the "how to argue" thread ) Between objectivism and collectivism (essentially Stalinism). Contrary to Rand, there are a myriad of ways of organizing a society that both respect human individualism while allowing for those individuals to engage in altruistic and collective endeavors. The historical record is full of them. I also noticed that her literary voice betrays a brittle, fragile ego... that needs constant reassurance of it's importance in the world. I've noticed that trait in the self proclaimed "Objectivists" that I've met as well.

We have several threads dedicated to this subject if you'd like to debate the finer points. The "communism vs. capitalsim" thread and the libertarian thread are both good places for this discussion. But in regard to your criticism of Rand. If you claim that she's too black and white on the subject, then you didn't fully follow her argument. I'd suggest you read her strongest book - Atlas Shrugged. It may not be much stronger of an argument in your mind, but it is a better organized argument. That you claim that she would not "allow" individuals to engage in altruistic or collective endeavors highlights the fact that you didn't follow her reasoning - because that's simply not true.

Edit: Oh, by the way, have you conceeded the point about the US not engaging in terrorism? I'm too lazy to look back and figure out how that one ended - but I believe I carefully showed you that you were unable to provide a single example of terrorism on the part of the US, or even Israel - and I didn't even have to limit you to recent history.

 

[YSSMAN]

Looking at the situation as a whole, its something we are just going to have to wait through, because there isnt a right or wrong answer in exactly what we should do with Hamas. While we could continue to aid the new Palestinian state as we always have, we would be deliberately funding a terrorist orgainization, which is a no-no on the forign policy list... But at the same time, if we do not recognise the new Palestinian state and discontinue our aid to the "country" we would be turning back the clock on the Intifada more than 20 years. Although I would prefer to wait it out, I would rather set the clock back than to deal with Hamas up front. If the Palestinians no longer recieve the aid that we have been giving them, they may realise what they have done was pretty stupid in the first place...Maybe things will change...

Lets see what Euope does, or even what the UN (oh great) decides to do. Hamas in Palestine is the least of our worries in the Middle East, those problems are headlined by Iran's nukes and finding a soloution for the problems we have been having in Iraq. Israel can handle themselves, there is no question of that. If they want to wipe out Hamas themselves, go for it...

...I deal with cut-and-run liberal politics all day at school, and although I do listen and consider the other side, I just ask that they use their heads. Bush bashing and other nonsensical rants about former US forign policies does nothing to change the future, but only gives us lessons on the past. We may have supported our current enemies back in the '70s and '80s, but as they say, an enemy of my enemy is my friend...

 

[niky]

The problem at the moment is if there can be a peaceful or at least relatively peaceful transition between Fatah and Hamas. Remember, not too long before he became a statesman, Arafat was a 'terrorist'.

Bush-bashing aside, it's good to hear both sides of the equation. It's just crazy that when people talk politics and someone mentions "Bush", both sides are reduced to a rabid frenzy of name-calling and stubborn close-mindedness.

I can accept that Bush has done some things correct, even though I disagree with many of his policies. What boggles me is how some people can't accept the fact that he's ever done anything wrong. He's like the family friend everyone is trying to protect from criticism.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend..." only works until your "friend" has what he wants and develops enough balls to turn on you.

 

[ledhed]

It surprises me that you're convinced by this. I'm sitting here trying to figure out where to even start. Your whole argument is a bait and switch... and once again you didn't address my original post. Sure you claimed that part of it was a straw man fallacy, but you didn't address my point about Spain or Australia - perhaps you thought it was a weak point, or perhaps you couldn't think of an answer. Either way you're still ignoring what I wrote. Prehaps I should use the Taiwan or South Korea example?

Ok let me see if I can lay out your argument faithfully. You claim that the only reason the US supports Israel is because it's NEAR oil, and that if it were not NEAR oil, we would abandon it as fast as possible.

Supporting Israel only hurts our relationship with those nations IN ACTUAL POSSESSION OF OIL. So how exactly does that strike you as motivated by oil again? And since I have established that we are allies with and come to the aid of many countries that do not have much oil and are not NEAR oil - how can you support your claim that we would abandon Israel immediately if they were no longer NEAR oil?

You're not making any sense. Once again, it's like you're going through the motions here without having any actual substantive argument. It's astonishing that you actually believe this stuff.



Apology accepted.



We have several threads dedicated to this subject if you'd like to debate the finer points. The "communism vs. capitalsim" thread and the libertarian thread are both good places for this discussion. But in regard to your criticism of Rand. If you claim that she's too black and white on the subject, then you didn't fully follow her argument. I'd suggest you read her strongest book - Atlas Shrugged. It may not be much stronger of an argument in your mind, but it is a better organized argument. That you claim that she would not "allow" individuals to engage in altruistic or collective endeavors highlights the fact that you didn't follow her reasoning - because that's simply not true.

Edit: Oh, by the way, have you conceeded the point about the US not engaging in terrorism? I'm too lazy to look back and figure out how that one ended - but I believe I carefully showed you that you were unable to provide a single example of terrorism on the part of the US, or even Israel - and I didn't even have to limit you to recent history.

I hate to butt in on a good argument but you can give a bunch of examples of Israeli terrorism ...in fact its an easy task . You can even talk about how they assasinated the wrong guy and got a bunch of agents caught in Lillenheimer (sp) ..or some such place . Go back to the seventies when germany was letting terrorist walk scott free and France and the US were making deals with certain factions of the PLO to brush up on why todays terrorist are so successfull and as to why they use the methods they use.
Would you call state sactioned assasinations terrorism ?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm of the opinion that the best course of action for the US would be to continue to support Palestine as before with a one strile policy in place. Make it known that the first act of aggression will be answered with a complete withdrawal of aid and we let go of Israel's leash. We should also give Israel a few stipulations to let them know that unprovoked action won't be acceptable.

This is very generalized but hashing out the details would require someone who understands foreign policy much better than I.

 

[Danoff]

I hate to butt in on a good argument but you can give a bunch of examples of Israeli terrorism ...in fact its an easy task . You can even talk about how they assasinated the wrong guy and got a bunch of agents caught in Lillenheimer (sp) ..or some such place . Go back to the seventies when germany was letting terrorist walk scott free and France and the US were making deals with certain factions of the PLO to brush up on why todays terrorist are so successfull and as to why they use the methods they use.
Would you call state sactioned assasinations terrorism ?

No I would not. Would you? Is it designed to cause fear in the general population for the purpose of exposing weakness - and thereby strengthening your hand at the bargaining table? Is it designed to cause the people to lose faith in their leadership? No it's designed to eliminate current leadership directly - no general population impact invovled. That doesn't mean it's good, but it isn't terrorism.

Making deals with terrorists does not make one a terrorist. It makes one a supporter or appeaser of terrorists - which isn't good, but it isn't as bad either. I'm sure that it is possible to come up with Israeli terrorist activities, I'm just waiting for someone to do it, and I'm wondering just how far back that person will have to go.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sure that it is possible to come up with Israeli terrorist activities, I'm just waiting for someone to do it, and I'm wondering just how far back that person will have to go.

Do the plagues count or are those just acts of God?

 

[Danoff]

Do the plagues count or are those just acts of God?

I'd call it terrorism, but yea that's God being a terrorist.

 

[ledhed]

No I would not. Would you? Is it designed to cause fear in the general population for the purpose of exposing weakness - and thereby strengthening your hand at the bargaining table? Is it designed to cause the people to lose faith in their leadership? No it's designed to eliminate current leadership directly - no general population impact invovled. That doesn't mean it's good, but it isn't terrorism.

Making deals with terrorists does not make one a terrorist. It makes one a supporter or appeaser of terrorists - which isn't good, but it isn't as bad either. I'm sure that it is possible to come up with Israeli terrorist activities, I'm just waiting for someone to do it, and I'm wondering just how far back that person will have to go.

the practice of destroying the homes of the familys of suspected terrorist or other palestininians that advocate armed resisentance ..is that not terrorism by a state ?

Firing missles into a convoy of cars and trucks killing women and children dogs and cats ...along with your " suspected " terrorist....a person your state government has defined as a " terrorist " ...hmmmm I guess that doesnt meet your criteria.
Look Israel has long ago decided the best way to fight terrorist is to be the best terrorist . Better at it and more deadly . Take your blinders off and look at it realisticly. The heads of state of israel have blown up hotels with the British that were enforcing the mandate to hell up . They were directly involved in the sabara action in Lebenon. Even if it was just to stand around and watch their allies at the time slaughter refugees. Israel rationalises there actions as defense...against the people from whom the land was taken to form their country...along with others mostly their supporters. Israel massacred whole villiages of Palestinians to get them to leave during the first arab Israeli war...or you dont consider THAT terrorism either ?
And targeting people for assasination OUTSIDE of your own country IS terrorism by every definition. Killing people by placing explosives under their bed in a hotel room in Paris....Commando attacks in Lebanese neighborhoods where not only the " suspected " targets were killed but also the frigging police that responded to the reports of gunfire . And an old lady who opened her door to see what all the noise was about .
WTF are you talking about Dannoff ?

No I would not. Would you? Is it designed to cause fear in the general population for the purpose of exposing weakness - and thereby strengthening your hand at the bargaining table? Is it designed to cause the people to lose faith in their leadership? No it's designed to eliminate current leadership directly - no general population impact invovled. That doesn't mean it's good, but it isn't terrorism.

Ummmm YES it is designed to put the fear of death in any or all who would support those that would act against Israel . They kill not only the one who take direct action but any they " SUSPECT " supported them . Like the Artist in Paris. Its designed to show the PALESTINIAN population that the re is no place safe on earth for those who act or plan to act or support those who are acting . THATS BEING TERRORISED .

 

[Danoff]

Firing missles into a convoy of cars and trucks killing women and children dogs and cats ...along with your " suspected " terrorist....a person your state government has defined as a " terrorist " ...hmmmm I guess that doesnt meet your criteria.

Nope, the objective there is to take out the suspect (not that that's right). The target is a military one.

Look Israel has long ago decided the best way to fight terrorist is to be the best terrorist . Better at it and more deadly .

That statement is what I want to be backed up.

Take your blinders off and look at it realisticly.

Blinders?? I'm looking at the situation and calling it how I see it.

The heads of state of israel have blown up hotels with the British that were enforcing the mandate to hell up.

What does this mean? If the sole purpose is to blow up the hotel in order to scare people - then this counts as terrorism. If the purpose was to take out a military target this is probably not terrorism.

They were directly involved in the sabara action in Lebenon. Even if it was just to stand around and watch their allies at the time slaughter refugees.

Ok, so they didn't do much of anything then?

Israel rationalises there actions as defense...against the people from whom the land was taken to form their country...along with others mostly their supporters.

Sounds like you have some bias about this conflict...

Israel massacred whole villiages of Palestinians to get them to leave during the first arab Israeli war...or you dont consider THAT terrorism either ?

Yea, that probably counts. So you had to go back 50 years to find an example? Not much farther back and you can find examples to smear Germany too, should we still be punishing them?

And targeting people for assasination OUTSIDE of your own country IS terrorism by every definition.... Ummmm YES it is designed to put the fear of death in any or all who would support those that would act against Israel . They kill not only the one who take direct action but any they " SUSPECT " supported them . Like the Artist in Paris. Its designed to show the PALESTINIAN population that the re is no place safe on earth for those who act or plan to act or support those who are acting . THATS BEING TERRORISED .

I'll admit that one goal (one of several) of assasination might be to discourage the replacement - at least to try to put the fear of death into that person in an effort to alter his policy. That is using fear to get what you want. You might call that terrorism. I think it's a pretty weak example and don't really classify it as terrorism.

Here's what wikipedia has to say on the definition:

The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. According to one of the primary working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".

That doesn't sound like assasination to me. Does it sound like it covers that to you? Terrorism is about putting fear into the population at large by attacking them directly.

 

[Carl.]

Ok, so Nation A has a guy blowing himself in a bus, killing 100 civilians of Nation B, in order to terrorize its citizens. Nation B suspects that a guy like that one is in a Hotel, and end up blowing up that hotel, killing 100 cilvilans of Nation A, which one of them may be planning something like the first guy did.

Yep, I'm totally with B here, it's crystal clear that they have an higher moral ground. I mean, they have a goal, which is to send a clear message to other potential terrorists: don't plan on blowing yourselves up or else ...we'll blow yourselves up. And we neither give a **** about your civilians. Makes perfect sense. I'd make sure nation B nevers runs out of F-16s to kick some immoral nation A's ass. Nation B also has the right to nuclear weapons, clearly.

Yea, that probably counts. So you had to go back 50 years to find an example? Not much farther back and you can find examples to smear Germany too, should we still be punishing them?

How the heck can you compare these? Germans paid quite an hefty price for what they did, they had their country heavily bombed, split in two, their military was removed, while Jewish peple were deported and handed their "promised land" on a plate.

How could that relate to the Arabic war? It was a long time ago and they should learn to live with it?

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so Nation A has a guy blowing himself in a bus, killing 100 civilians of Nation B, in order to terrorize its citizens. Nation B suspects that a guy like that one is in a Hotel, and end up blowing up that hotel, killing 100 cilvilans of Nation A, which one of them may be planning something like the first guy did.

Yep, I'm totally with B here, it's crystal clear that they have an higher moral ground. I mean, they have a goal, which is to send a clear message to other potential terrorists: don't plan on blowing yourselves up or else ...we'll blow yourselves up. And we neither give a **** about your civilians. Makes perfect sense. I'd make sure nation B nevers runs out of F-16s to kick some immoral nation A's ass. Nation B also has the right to nuclear weapons, clearly.

I'm actually surprised you don't see a difference. Yes, neither one is good, neither one is particularly moral - but one is terrorism and the other is not.

How the heck can you compare these? Germans paid quite an hefty price for what they did, they had their country heavily bombed, split in two, their military was removed, while Jewish peple were deported and handed their "promised land" on a plate.

How could that relate to the Arabic war? It was a long time ago and they should learn to live with it?

No, it doesn't establish terrorist activities currently. If you want to label a nation, use up-to-date information to label it.

 

[ledhed]

I support Israel and I understand the way they are fighting their war against terrorism . I will not even attempt to fool myself into thinking that Israel has or will not use what ever means needed to insure the survival of their nation and its people .. Terrorism is used by Isreal as a detterent to further acts of terrorism against the state of Israel . The US uses a different form of terror to influence those that are out to do it harm ...depending on who is in power at the time ...you either get a bomb dropped on your house ( see Mommar Khadaffi vs. R. Regan ) Or you get chased into a hole and hunted like bighorn sheep in the mountains , while your followers scurry from hole to hole when they are not being shot or cruise missled or moabed . Sometimes you just get your country taken away from you and you end up on a TV show called "Saddam and friends on trial " . Or if Clinton is around he blows up your asprin factory and a few camels with cruise missles . we can afford bigger toys and better weapons than the rest of the world. Some only have their own body to use as a weapon , low tech but effective against soft targets .

You call it what you want its all war of one form or another . When Japan ruled Vietnam during WWII and the Vietnamese resistance ran a women with a bag of high explosives into a Japanese run hotel full of people it was an act of resistance by the vietnamese and and act of terror from the Japanese point of view.
I see it as an act of war . The " terrorist " are at war with the US ..not just the US military..EACH and EVERY one of US .
They understand this very important fact ...we seem to still believe that war is fought by soldiers while we watch tv and worry about the Super Bowl score .

 

[Carl.]

I'm actually surprised you don't see a difference. Yes, neither one is good, neither one is particularly moral - but one is terrorism and the other is not.

Ok, let's ditch the labelling here. Why does one would deserve our full support and financial backing, while the other has to to be fight to the bitter end?

Bonus points if you can convice both relatives of the 100 victims in both events.

No, it doesn't establish terrorist activities currently. If you want to label a nation, use up-to-date information to label it.

I'm not the one caring about labels here. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't compare to WWII at all. It might be a long time ago, yet they had to live with the outcome, and things haven't got much better. Yet one side somehow deserved our support and financial backing, for some reason, which seems to be semantics, so far. They're both immoral, but on one side, they're "terrorists".

 

[Danoff]

Ok, let's ditch the labelling here. Why does one would deserve our full support and financial backing, while the other has to to be fight to the bitter end?

Bonus points if you can convice both relatives of the 100 victims in both events.

I'm not the one caring about labels here. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't compare to WWII at all. It might be a long time ago, yet they had to live with the outcome, and things haven't got much better. Yet one side somehow deserved our support and financial backing, for some reason, which seems to be semantics, so far. They're both immoral, but on one side, they're "terrorists".

Here's how the conversation has gone:

"Danoff - the Hamas are terrorists."
"Buzz - The US and Israel are terrorists."
"Danoff - give me an example of terrorism."
"Buzz - uh..."
"Carl - But there are other things besides terrorism that are bad."

Here's my response to that... that's not what the original argument was about. I started out by stating the Hamas was a terrorist group and defending that the US and Israel are not. I think that has been established.

So now you want a distinction between terrorism and other types of activities. Effectively you're asking "why should we care that the Hamas are terrorists when Israel has done other bad things?"

Here's the difference - ready for it? I only need one word...


Intent.


The goal of terrorism is to kill civilians and cause chaos. The goal of military tactics that involve collateral damage may have the same effect as some terrorist plots but the goal is completely different.

Here's an overly exaggerated example to point out why intent is important.

Joe drives his car down the street, doesn't see a padestrian, hits him, and kills him.

Tom drives his car down the street, spots a padestrian he hates, hits him on purpose and kills him.

Intent is the difference in this case between an accident and murder. Now, I know it's tempting to say "but that's not the same thing that's happening here!!", but refrain - because I only brought this up to illustrate a point. Intent makes a world of difference.

 

[ledhed]

The Palestinians never miss an oppurtunity to miss an oppurtunity . How much do you think the US has supported the Palestininian cause over the years ? Remember Saddat and Carter ? Remember all the billions of dollars in aid ? Its total and utter bull to say the US hasnt at least attempted to play fair ..rememberthis is the US home of the free and the brave and the KKK and clubs that dont accept jews as members , get real . The Palestinians kill their own cause by the actions they take everytime they steal defeat from victory by havin an idiot blow up a bus full of school kids while they are negotiating for peace . Israel is giving ground and moving its people off land they paid for in BLOOD . So the palestinians elect " Hammas " a group that refuses Israels right to exist as a nation and has among its aims the death and expulsion of every jew from the middle east . Other than that they are a bunch of swell guys . What better way to keep the peace train moving than to bring a terrorist / resistance type organization abord that refuses your right to even EXIST as a nation ...

So how hard is it for a normal , sane , somewhat well informed , person to take the Israeli side vs the nuts running around firing AK 47 's when the trade center fell down ? We judge them by their actions .

 

[Carl.]

Well, about the conversation, you were arguing over some actions are fitting or not to a certain definition when even the source you posted is saying that its definition is highly controversial, so I think it's a moot point.

And you also need another word with the one you posted.

Results.

If one who commits the actions knows beforehand what will happen, does that makes such a great difference? (i.e. I know that I'll blow up dozens of civilians while destroying that hotel, but my real goal is only to actually kill one of them). It's the same result, it has the same repercussions.

If you're not aware of the consequences your actions might have, now that's indeed a different story. Which doesn't apply there.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, are you saying that war in general can be defined as terrorism?

Or are you saying that terrorism is just another form of war because targetting and killing children is no different than collateral damage?

 

[Danoff]

Well, about the conversation, you were arguing over some actions are fitting or not to a certain definition when even the source you posted is saying that its definition is highly controversial, so I think it's a moot point.

Did you think that the "highly contraversial" definition that was given was off base? Or did you just want to pretend that it isn't possible for each of us to evaluate each other's arguments?

And you also need another word with the one you posted.

Results.

If one who commits the actions knows beforehand what will happen, does that makes such a great difference? (i.e. I know that I'll blow up dozens of civilians while destroying that hotel, but my real goal is only to actually kill one of them). It's the same result, it has the same repercussions.

If you're not aware of the consequences your actions might have, now that's indeed a different story. Which doesn't apply there.

You just couldn't help it could you? You couldn't help but look past the only thing I used that example for, which was to show the difference between intent. I said it was exaggerated to make the point - but you had to go attack it anyway.

*sigh*

Look, intent still matters, even if you knew about the side effects of your actions. It still distinguishes your actions from one whose intent is to cause those effects.

 

[Carl.]

@Ledhed

I'll agree about the Palestininan leaders being quite good at missing opportunities, but you could say the same about hardliners on Israel's side.

That said, in terms of Billions of dollar of aids, do you have numbers? I could dig for the what the US gave, and is still giving yearly to support Israel, and I don't think the two can compare at all.

They may have paid in blood for their land, but they're not the only one whose blood have been spilled... and it wasn't their land less than a century ago, and shouldn't have been. As for electing Hammas. it was them or Fatah. such a great choice for the Palestinians.

And if you pick the nuts firing AK-47 to depict one side, why don't you pick some zionist extremists for the other side?

 

[FoolKiller]

and it wasn't their land less than a century ago, and shouldn't have been.

So, how do you fix this? Do you make the Israelis move out and give it back? Remember that for the people living there today it is their home and nothing else has been. They were born and raised there. The generation that was handed that land has almost died out.

And if you want to go back in the past how far back do you go? Keep going and you will find that area has changed hands with the Jewish people so many times it isn't funny. You act as if the area was stable up until 60 years ago and now that Israel is there it is a war torn region.

Look, intent still matters, even if you knew about the side effects of your actions. It still distinguishes your actions from one whose intent is to cause those effects.

Actually I think your example still applies because every driver knows the possible risks when they get in their car. It isn't to the same degree but the knowledge that an accident may happen and you could kill someone is always there.

 

[Carl.]

Did you think that the "highly contraversial" definition that was given was off base? Or did you just want to pretend that it isn't possible for each of us to evaluate each other's arguments?

I don't care to have a semantic discussion over the definition of the term, since that's beside the point. I'm interested in why one action is immoral why the other action isn't , so let's try to keep it at that.

You just couldn't help it could you? You couldn't help but look past the only thing I used that example for, which was to show the difference between intent. I said it was exaggerated to make the point - but you had to go attack it anyway.

*sigh*

Look, intent still matters, even if you knew about the side effects of your actions. It still distinguishes your actions from one whose intent is to cause those effects.

Well, sorry to exasperate you, but it wasn't an exaggerated example to show your point, it was something completely different. Awareness of the consequences of your action beforehand makes all the difference in that case, I don't see how you could actually miss that.

Here is a valid exaggeration I could make, if you don't see it yet:

I want to kill a terrorist, and I know he's in a city, so I drop a nuclear bomb on the city to kill him. Hundreds of thousands civilians were also expectedly killed by the blast.

Your case was:

I want to kill a terrorist, and I know he's in a building. I launch a tomahawk missile on it. I didn't know that building was a shelter also used by dozens of civilians, which were unexpectedly killed at the same time.

Are you still not seeing the difference?

 

[Carl.]

So, how do you fix this? Do you make the Israelis move out and give it back? Remember that for the people living there today it is their home and nothing else has been. They were born and raised there. The generation that was handed that land has almost died out.

And if you want to go back in the past how far back do you go? Keep going and you will find that area has changed hands with the Jewish people so many times it isn't funny. You act as if the area was stable up until 60 years ago and now that Israel is there it is a war torn region.

I think splitting the country would be the only viable solution, but I'm well aware that's obviously much easier said than done. As for going back in time, when was the last time the area was held by Jewish people? I'm not saying the area was heaven until 60 years ago, but at least tensions between Arab and Jewish and the area were pretty much non-existant, at some point. The first Jewish people who moved back there not perceived as a threat by the locals, some were actually welcomed. Tensions came in as they grew up in number, wealth and power, up to the creation of Israel.

 

[Danoff]

I don't care to have a semantic discussion over the definition of the term, since that's beside the point. I'm interested in why one action is immoral why the other action isn't , so let's try to keep it at that.

Well then there is no discussion, because neither action is particularly moral - there are degrees of wrong, though.

I want to kill a terrorist, and I know he's in a city, so I drop a nuclear bomb on the city to kill him. Hundreds of thousands civilians were also expectedly killed by the blast.

Your case was:

I want to kill a terrorist, and I know he's in a building. I launch a tomahawk missile on it. I didn't know that building was a shelter also used by dozens of civilians, which were unexpectedly killed at the same time.

Are you still not seeing the difference?

Of course there is a difference (I didn't say there wasn't), but neither is as bad as killing innocents for the sake of killing them alone. Here are three scenarios - similar to yours but more equal in magnitude.

- The US launches a tomahawk at a building where intelligence reports a terrorist is hiding. It is unknown how many civilians are in the building, but some care is taken to ensure that casualties are minimized. It turns out later that 50 civilians were in the building.

- Israel luanches a tomahawk (don't ask where they got it) at a building where intelligence reports there are 50 civilians and 1 terrorist.

- A suicide bomber blows up a building with 50 civilians.

All three have very similar effects, but each is different in terms of the degree of wrong doing and moral depravity. None of them are particularly moral, but some are worse than others. Collateral damage is expected in war - it is a necessary evil to fight against your enemy. You can strive to maximize it, strive to minimize it, or you can ignore it. All of those things has a different level of immorality - the worst of which is the intent to maximize collateral damage.


Sometimes acheiving a military goal means accepting a massive degree of collateral damage. But the intent is the cheif delimitor between terrorism and more civil methods of war.