PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 12:34 PM
A letter I sent to the Hobart Mercury yesterday. I have an excellent publication record in said paper but expect that this one will probably not make the cut, somehow:

Prime Minister Howard has recently called on Muslim communities to expose those supposedly within their ranks who preach what he calls a perverted and fanatical version of Islam. Islam, however, is certainly not the only religion invoked by terrorists. The USA has a long and bloody history of
Christian terrorism, from the once massive Ku Klux Klan to modern nutcases who have killed abortion workers and made death threats against the judge
and family involved in the Terri Schiavo case. In Uganda, Christian and
Islamic terrorism exist side by side in the Lord's Resistance Army, which
has kidnapped tens of thousands of children for use as soldiers and sex
slaves. Is it Howard's own bias as a Christian that makes him single out
Islam in such a simplistic fashion? Are there no votes in exposing
Christian terrorism because its sympathisers in the moral far right direct
their preferences to the Liberals? Or would any mention of "perverted and
fanatical" variants of Christianity invite too close an examination of the
illiberal, kooky and regressive versions of the faith espoused by some of
his own MPs?

AES
14-11-2005, 01:12 PM
This is a very good point. All religions should be examined. Yes, even Christianity. Anyone can abuse a religion for their own personal goals. Little Johnnie should explore with Christian leaders whether any religious nuts (who are not real Christians) could abuse the Bible to do acts of terrorism. This would ensure that all religions are treated equally with no preference/bias.

Alan Shore
14-11-2005, 01:12 PM
That's awesome Kevin, I really hope it does get published!

pballard
14-11-2005, 01:25 PM
Hmm, a handle of nutters who have murdered abortion providers (does their number even exceed single digits?), and a terrorist group in Uganda (who, as far as I can tell, does not real links to the main church groups there).

Yep, we're really being overrun by Christian terrorism.

Besides, I think the Christian community has a pretty good record in denouncing hate and murderers (supposedly) from within their own midst. (As does some, even most, of western Islam, I must add). If Christians knew of a right wing group planning killings, do you really think they wouldn't act? To choose a more moderate example, (most) churches were very loud in denouncing Pauline Hanson.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the *current* terrorism threats come from Muslims so naturally he's calling on good-willed Muslims to cooperate.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 02:05 PM
Hmm, a handle of nutters who have murdered abortion providers (does their number even exceed single digits?), and a terrorist group in Uganda (who, as far as I can tell, does not real links to the main church groups there).

I could have easily extended it to "Christian" defiance of the State in general, eg David Koresh, the Revd Jim Jones, militant "Christian patriots", and so on. I don't think the issue of links to the real church is relevant - is al-Qaeda linked to mainstream Islam?


Besides, I think the Christian community has a pretty good record in denouncing hate and murderers (supposedly) from within their own midst. (As does some, even most, of western Islam, I must add). If Christians knew of a right wing group planning killings, do you really think they wouldn't act? To choose a more moderate example, (most) churches were very loud in denouncing Pauline Hanson.

Not really a relevant example. While some One Nation supporters were Christians, Hanson herself is an atheist. :eek:

I think most Christians would act without needing to be told what to do by their Prime Minister. I also think the same is true of most Muslims.


And in case you hadn't noticed, the *current* terrorism threats come from Muslims so naturally he's calling on good-willed Muslims to cooperate.

Yes, but he is missing an excellent opportunity to stress that terrorism is unacceptable and that no religion should ever be used to justify it. I detect a subtle unstated slur in his words that this is some kind of "problem" Islam has that it has to address, when actually it is a problem from time to time for pretty much any religion.

Rincewind
14-11-2005, 02:09 PM
Yep, we're really being overrun by Christian terrorism.

I immediately thought of IRA terrorist acts in Nth Ireland and England. They are a prime example of Christian terrorists if ever there was one. Not to mention their protestant counterparts.

pballard
14-11-2005, 09:25 PM
I could have easily extended it to "Christian" defiance of the State in general, eg David Koresh, the Revd Jim Jones, militant "Christian patriots", and so on.


True, but they are very isolated incidents (and well in the past). Rincewind's mention of the IRA was a better example; but that's more political than religious - I've never heard of IRA terrorists killing in Jesus' name or appealing to Catholic ideals to further their cause.



I don't think the issue of links to the real church is relevant - is al-Qaeda linked to mainstream Islam?


I understand your point... but Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism does have a lot of popular support among Muslims. I've seen figures of between 25 and 75% support in Muslim countries. No doubt it's much lower among Muslims here, but there is obviously some level of support.



Not really a relevant example. While some One Nation supporters were Christians, Hanson herself is an atheist.


It is relevant in the sense that she attracted support from a fair sized minority of Christians, but nevertheless the vast majority of churches came down very hard in condemning her views (and by extension, those of their fellow Christians).



Yes, but he [J. Howard] is missing an excellent opportunity to stress that terrorism is unacceptable and that no religion should ever be used to justify it.


Why restrict it to religions? How about e.g. political groups?



I detect a subtle unstated slur in his words that this is some kind of "problem" Islam has that it has to address, when actually it is a problem from time to time for pretty much any religion.


But the reality is that, at the moment, there is a "problem" which Islam has to address.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 09:40 PM
True, but they are very isolated incidents (and well in the past).

If we add up all the groups I've mentioned (Klan-derived groups were still lynching away into the 1980s) we've got several different terrorist-type Christian groups active in one nation, the USA, over a period of only 30 years. It's not as big a global problem as the current wave of "Islamic terror" right now, but it's there and it's persistent, and it's bound to have sympathisers here.


I understand your point... but Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism does have a lot of popular support among Muslims. I've seen figures of between 25 and 75% support in Muslim countries. No doubt it's much lower among Muslims here, but there is obviously some level of support.

Likewise there would be some level of support for abortionist-killing among "Christian" communities here. I have personally spoken to "Christians" who say they could not condemn someone who killed an abortionist, whatever their doctrine says otherwise.


It is relevant in the sense that she attracted support from a fair sized minority of Christians, but nevertheless the vast majority of churches came down very hard in condemning her views (and by extension, those of their fellow Christians).

True - but doesn't that make it the same as the IRA - a political issue in which people with religious views happened to be involved?


Why restrict it to religions? How about e.g. political groups?

I'd have no objection to extending it to all forms of possible cause of terrorism.


But the reality is that, at the moment, there is a "problem" which Islam has to address.

Is it really its problem? If one religion is responsible for warped versions of its teachings, aren't all? Doesn't that make Christianity responsible for all the lunatics that do idiotic things in its name too?

Cat
14-11-2005, 09:58 PM
Is it Howard's own bias as a Christian that makes him single out
Islam in such a simplistic fashion? Are there no votes in exposing
Christian terrorism because its sympathisers in the moral far right direct
their preferences to the Liberals? Or would any mention of "perverted and
fanatical" variants of Christianity invite too close an examination of the
illiberal, kooky and regressive versions of the faith espoused by some of
his own MPs?[/i]

I suspect it's all to do with perception management, the specific design of western governments to dehumanise alternative cultures in order that their subjugation be more acceptable to our sensibilities. Our own standard of living is entirely dependant upon the enslavement of a large swathe of humanity, a reality too brutal for most of us to bear. By encouraging the perception that these people are fanatics or crazies, western governments can maintain the political support for their unholy crusades and keep domestic opinion in check. It's a load of old Goebbels!!

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 10:01 PM
I suspect it's all to do with perception management, the specific design of western governments to dehumanise alternative cultures in order that their subjugation be more acceptable to our sensibilities. Our own standard of living is entirely dependant upon the enslavement of a large swathe of humanity, a reality too brutal for most of us to bear. By encouraging the perception that these people are fanatics or crazies, western governments can maintain the political support for their unholy crusades and keep domestic opinion in check. It's a load of old Goebbels!!

Well put Cat, and my I say its good to see you back.

cheers fg7

four four two
14-11-2005, 10:06 PM
Do you own a horse Peter? :hmm: Thinking of going on a crusade? :hmm:
25-75% support in islamic countries, what utter rubbish! :crazy:
If Al-Qaeda and "islamic" terrorists had that kind of support then the americans wouldnt have even had a chance of invading Iraq.The middle east alone has over 200 million muslims,which means by your reckoning that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have at least 50 million supporters.If 10% of 50 million people were to be involved in active action then every government in the middle east would have been overthrown by now .
Stop regurgitating this stupid vile from the right wing press and use your brain for once. :evil:

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 10:36 PM
Our own standard of living is entirely dependant upon the enslavement of a large swathe of humanity, a reality too brutal for most of us to bear. By encouraging the perception that these people are fanatics or crazies, western governments can maintain the political support for their unholy crusades and keep domestic opinion in check. It's a load of old Goebbels!!

Much as I like to get stuck into the current government, I think the above falls over a bit empirically when you consider that some of the countries where support for Islamic terror is supposed to be strong are actually quite wealthy.

firegoat7
14-11-2005, 10:55 PM
Much as I like to get stuck into the current government, I think the above falls over a bit empirically when you consider that some of the countries where support for Islamic terror is supposed to be strong are actually quite wealthy.

You are being deliberately ignorant. You know aswell as anybody else that Islamic oil wealth was created by American,British and European business expansion. You also know aswell as anybody else that the elites who benefit the most from these riches are not the majority of citizens within these Islamic or western countries.

Cats claims do not fall short empirically because to do that you would have to show empirically that the wealth of a nation ie GDP is connected to the general population, something that economists ignore every time they attempt to explain "wealth", since their is no individual statistical measurement of wealth anyway, except for mass statistical generalisations that are all, contextual speaking ,economically and culturally relative.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2005, 11:43 PM
You are being deliberately ignorant. You know aswell as anybody else that Islamic oil wealth was created by American,British and European business expansion. You also know aswell as anybody else that the elites who benefit the most from these riches are not the majority of citizens within these Islamic or western countries.

No, you're just picking a fight with me because of personal bias. Feel free to look up the relevant demographic indicators for the condition of the majority of the population; you will not find Saudi Arabia (for instance) too close to the bottom of the pile.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2005, 06:38 AM
If one religion is responsible for warped versions of its teachings, aren't all? Doesn't that make Christianity responsible for all the lunatics that do idiotic things in its name too?
I think the first part of your first sentence is the clue that is needed. Islam is no more responsible for the current wave of terrorists than Christianity is responsible for the KKK.

The fact that some people claim a religious mandate to murder and maim does not mean that such a mandate either exists or is promoted by the mainstream of that religion. As you pointed out, significant "kooks" pop up from time to time, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Now if the mainstream start promoting violence, then that is another matter altogether.

As for whether Christianity condones the killing of abortionists ... it does not. Whilst many Christians (probably most, but not all) disapprove of abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancy, I cannot find any justification in Scripture for murder (or abortionists) as a solution to the problem. Nearby to my church is an abortion clinic. We regularly see people outside waving placards, protesting, etc. I personally disapprove of their approach to the problem. Marginalising and isolating both the doctors and the patients seems extremely counter-productive. I would much rather see church people offering support to those in need, rather than vilifying them.

Cat
15-11-2005, 06:57 AM
Well put Cat, and my I say its good to see you back.

cheers fg7

Thanks fg7

Cat
15-11-2005, 07:07 AM
You are being deliberately ignorant. You know aswell as anybody else that Islamic oil wealth was created by American,British and European business expansion. You also know aswell as anybody else that the elites who benefit the most from these riches are not the majority of citizens within these Islamic or western countries.



cheers Fg7

Exactly! The Neo-cons not only see it as acceptable to extend their influence in areas of political & economic importance, paraphrasing Paul Wolfowitz, as the world's first hyperpower they see it as a moral imperative. Maintaining a wealthy elite in those countries helps to support their enterprises and protect their interests. If you doubt these intentions, read the Pentagon Report on Global Warming and ask yourself 'why is Wolfowitz head of the World Bank?'

arosar
15-11-2005, 09:21 AM
Funny...while Washington utterly refuses to sign Kyoto, a whole bunch of states have implemented their own Kyoto-like agreements whereby companies can trade carbon emission credits (or whatever they're called). Pretty soon, Bush's hand will be forced and the USA must agree with the rest of the world. And when this happens, that idiot poodle, JH will also have to follow.

As for why Wolfie is head of WB, well, that's cronyism for you. Harriet Miers was just the latest example (forced to back down more to appease conservatives than worries about cronyism). And to think that this is the one administration that harps on about good governance, democracy, blah, blah...

They're sick c__ts this Administration.

AR

Grendel
15-11-2005, 01:58 PM
It's all very well, this holier-than-thou attitude towards wesstern leaders, but once theres a terrorist attack on Australian mainland you might not be so smug.

pballard
15-11-2005, 02:22 PM
Likewise there would be some level of support for abortionist-killing among "Christian" communities here. I have personally spoken to "Christians" who say they could not condemn someone who killed an abortionist, whatever their doctrine says otherwise.


(Shudder)

OK, there's loons among Christians, as well as others at its fringes. I don't dispute that, and have at times done my small part to combat it. I'm just making the point that Christian terrorism is not a current concern.



Is it [terrorism] really its [Islam's] problem? If one religion is responsible for warped versions of its teachings, aren't all? Doesn't that make Christianity responsible for all the lunatics that do idiotic things in its name too?

It is Islam's problem in the sense that its teachings are being used to justify terrorism. So yes, Islamic leaders and teachers need to deal with it. In fact I am of the opinion that the most important people for defeating Islamic terrorism - which is an ideal, not a country you can bomb - are the moderate Muslims. Without their help it is just about impossible.

In the same way, I acknowledge that Christians need to be strong in denouncing offensive teachings which pose as forms of Christianity (e.g. saying attack on Iraq is a form of holy war in God's name). However, without trying to sound perfect, I think that by and large Christians are doing a fairly good job at this (which isn't to say we can't do better).

[Edit - spelling fix]

Alan Shore
15-11-2005, 04:34 PM
It's all very well, this holier-than-thou attitude towards wesstern leaders, but once theres a terrorist attack on Australian mainland you might not be so smug.

If there is, it would have been brought on by the very western leaders you seek to defend. The biggest enemy now is the media - spreading ridiculous claims of possible threats in a vain effort to justify its new terror laws. It's upsetting that so many will eat it up simply because it is served up in front of them.

Grendel
15-11-2005, 05:10 PM
If there is, it would have been brought on by the very western leaders you seek to defend. The biggest enemy now is the media - spreading ridiculous claims of possible threats in a vain effort to justify its new terror laws. It's upsetting that so many will eat it up simply because it is served up in front of them.

Its nothing more than trendy, leftist cynicism to blame western governments and the media for the rise in terrorism. Al Qaeda were planting bombs and crashing aeroplanes way before any western governments waded into the middle east. the media didn't bomb bali. western governments are responding to the terror threat, they're not provoking it. god know's what would have happened by now if we weren't taking positive action. the strengthening of asio has been pretty much supported by all the state leaders, regardless of political persuation. it's easy to call foul when you have no responsibility.

pballard
15-11-2005, 05:26 PM
Its nothing more than trendy, leftist cynicism to blame western governments and the media for the rise in terrorism. Al Qaeda were planting bombs and crashing aeroplanes way before any western governments waded into the middle east.


Ever heard of the first Iraq war? Ongoing Iraq sanctions, US military presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel?

These of course do not justify 9/11, but they were the reasons given by OBL.

Rincewind
15-11-2005, 05:34 PM
Ever heard of the first Iraq war? Ongoing Iraq sanctions, US military presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel?

These of course do not justify 9/11, but they were the reasons given by OBL.

I don't know what ultra right wing media outlet Grendel subscribes to but the West has been meddling in Middle Eastern politics since the crusades and manipulating the oil reserves there almost since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Was 911 justified, no. However nothing happens without motivation. And the West's record cannot be called faultless in terms of providing fuel to that motivation.

Grendel
16-11-2005, 10:37 AM
Ever heard of the first Iraq war? Ongoing Iraq sanctions, US military presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel?

These of course do not justify 9/11, but they were the reasons given by OBL.

iraq invaded kuwait, the usa & allies were invited in to defend against iraqi aggressors. sauqi arabia & israel also invite and appreciate american support - america does a lot of good as an internatiional police man.

Grendel
16-11-2005, 10:39 AM
I don't know what ultra right wing media outlet Grendel subscribes to but the West has been meddling in Middle Eastern politics since the crusades and manipulating the oil reserves there almost since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Was 911 justified, no. However nothing happens without motivation. And the West's record cannot be called faultless in terms of providing fuel to that motivation.

this view is the view of the government and our allies, not some ultra-right media outlet. i''ve said nothing you wouldn't hear from the white house or canberra. the west may not be faultless, but the alternatve would be worse.

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 10:43 AM
this view is the view of the government and our allies, not some ultra-right media outlet. i''ve said nothing you wouldn't hear from the white house or canberra. the west may not be faultless, but the alternatve would be worse.

Well that's all right then. They would never lie. I suppose you have heard of watergate and children overboard?

pballard
16-11-2005, 10:45 AM
iraq invaded kuwait, the usa & allies were invited in to defend against iraqi aggressors. sauqi arabia & israel also invite and appreciate american support

All true. But to say "Al Qaeda were planting bombs and crashing aeroplanes way before any western governments waded into the middle east" is incorrect.

four four two
16-11-2005, 10:52 AM
America feeds the monster[Iraq],then when the monster gets to big for them they say,"dont worry we will kill the monster for you".What a policeman! :lol:

American foreign policy through the cold war ,as well as russian,chinese,french,etc purposely built up ditactorships to suit their own ends.When these dictatorships had served their purposes they either cut off the finance and hoped for it to die,or they overthrew it and put a new nasty puppet in place. Oh,and along the way millions of people died... :whistle:
If this is the actions of a "good policemen" I would hate to see what the consequences of a "bad cop" would be. :wall:

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 11:01 AM
Its nothing more than trendy, leftist cynicism to blame western governments and the media for the rise in terrorism. Al Qaeda were planting bombs and crashing aeroplanes way before any western governments waded into the middle east. the media didn't bomb bali. western governments are responding to the terror threat, they're not provoking it. god know's what would have happened by now if we weren't taking positive action. the strengthening of asio has been pretty much supported by all the state leaders, regardless of political persuation. it's easy to call foul when you have no responsibility.

Grendel, you need to read some history.

The 20th century was regarded as the most civilised century of humankind. It was also a century in which more people died from war and its effects then a combined total from all previous known wars and centuries.

Regardless of your irrational claim about a left wing conspiracy, one thing is certain. All historians, regardless of which side of politics they are on, agree that the 20th century was the most brutal century ever in the history of humankind. If this is the case, then what seperates crimes perpetuated by the state, as oppossed to crimes perpetuated by individuals, against humanity? That said, who defines terrorism and who are the real terrorists? Who classifies what terrorists are? What exactly is terrorism?

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 11:06 AM
It's all very well, this holier-than-thou attitude towards wesstern leaders, but once theres a terrorist attack on Australian mainland you might not be so smug.

When you say terrorism, what do you mean?

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
16-11-2005, 11:08 AM
It's all very well, this holier-than-thou attitude towards wesstern leaders, but once theres a terrorist attack on Australian mainland you might not be so smug.
Since you are calling people holy......
Can you show me a modern western leader who doesn't rely on some holy divine intervention?

Would you call these beliefs rational?

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2005, 01:48 PM
That's awesome Kevin, I really hope it does get published!

It did! I was quite surprised.

That said I have no problem with either the position stated by Frosty above (that neither religion is responsible for keeping their nutters under control) or that stated by pballard (that both religions are thus responsible). Just so long as there is consistency.

I also think that pballard's point that Islamic terrorism is a greater current danger is fine. I just have a strong dislike of generalisations by politicians, especially when they can harden into black-and-white dogma in the minds of gullible voters. Howard has an especially dodgy record in this regard, for instance often making comments that claim to be on behalf of all Australians when they're not.

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 02:07 PM
It did! I was quite surprised.

:clap:

pballard
16-11-2005, 02:28 PM
That said I have no problem with either the position stated by Frosty above (that neither religion is responsible for keeping their nutters under control) or that stated by pballard (that both religions are thus responsible). Just so long as there is consistency.


That's not quite what I said, or at least meant. Religions have a responsibility to denounce the nutters and their beliefs, which is not the same as saying they have a responsibility to keep them under control.

arosar
16-11-2005, 02:44 PM
Listen, the thing is right, I didn't bloody come to this country to see it get bombed. We all came here to have a better life. Now this mob, these mohammedans, if they have such a big issue - I reckon their friggin' sheikhs or what-have-you have to pull them in and control the freaks. We simply don't want their kind here mouthing off that Australia has to be an Islamic state, blah, blah, blah.

And similarly, there are some Jesus Freaks out there who do deserve to be locked up forever.

Having said all that, I don't support the proposed anti-terror laws cos they'll only cost us more.

AR

Grendel
16-11-2005, 05:48 PM
Well that's all right then. They would never lie. I suppose you have heard of watergate and children overboard?

i'm not saying our governments don't lie, just simply pointing out that my opinion is not ultra-right but probably more mainstream than yours.

Grendel
16-11-2005, 05:49 PM
All true. But to say "Al Qaeda were planting bombs and crashing aeroplanes way before any western governments waded into the middle east" is incorrect.

i think you're being a little pedantic

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2005, 05:53 PM
That's not quite what I said, or at least meant. Religions have a responsibility to denounce the nutters and their beliefs, which is not the same as saying they have a responsibility to keep them under control.

Yep. Fair enough. I should have thrown in the words "try to".

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 05:53 PM
i'm not saying our governments don't lie, just simply pointing out that my opinion is not ultra-right but probably more mainstream than yours.

It is all relative, Grendel. Your implied appeal to the masses counts for nought.

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 05:54 PM
i think you're being a little pedantic

Actually, the word you are thinking of there is "correct".

Grendel
16-11-2005, 05:55 PM
America feeds the monster[Iraq],then when the monster gets to big for them they say,"dont worry we will kill the monster for you".What a policeman! :lol:

American foreign policy through the cold war ,as well as russian,chinese,french,etc purposely built up ditactorships to suit their own ends.When these dictatorships had served their purposes they either cut off the finance and hoped for it to die,or they overthrew it and put a new nasty puppet in place. Oh,and along the way millions of people died... :whistle:
If this is the actions of a "good policemen" I would hate to see what the consequences of a "bad cop" would be. :wall:

in comparison to previous empires, the american empire is fairly tame and certainly more judicious. it does better than the soviet empire did, and probably better than the british and french empires. it's a relatively benevolent empire and could have abused its strength far more than it has. it set up the united nations, including unisef and who. it conducts a lot more self examination than other superpowers. rather an american superpower than a soviet one.

Grendel
16-11-2005, 06:09 PM
The 20th century was regarded as the most civilised century of humankind. It was also a century in which more people died from war and its effects then a combined total from all previous known wars and centuries.
however, it was america that liberated europe from nazi occupation and turned back the japanese in asia.


Regardless of your irrational claim about a left wing conspiracy, one thing is certain.

not a left wing conspiracy, but a left-wing industry. some leftist journals deliberately sensationalisation their claims against western governments in order to create a market niche.


All historians, regardless of which side of politics they are on, agree that the 20th century was the most brutal century ever in the history of humankind. If this is the case, then what seperates crimes perpetuated by the state, as oppossed to crimes perpetuated by individuals, against humanity? That said, who defines terrorism and who are the real terrorists? Who classifies what terrorists are? What exactly is terrorism?

cheers Fg7

we define terrorism because we need to protect our interests, not against an imagined foe but a real enemy, trying to subvert our interests. it's fortunate we live in a wealthy country with interests to protect, but would you rather live in poverty? its a dog eat dog world out there and we must defend our interests

Grendel
16-11-2005, 06:10 PM
Since you are calling people holy......
Can you show me a modern western leader who doesn't rely on some holy divine intervention?

chirac


Would you call these beliefs rational?

cheers Fg7

no

Rincewind
16-11-2005, 06:30 PM
however, it was america that liberated europe from nazi occupation and turned back the japanese in asia.

You really must get out more.

four four two
16-11-2005, 11:08 PM
America liberated europe from Nazi Germany? :hmm:
Think there might be 20 million dead soviets who would disagree. :whistle:

Alan Shore
16-11-2005, 11:10 PM
America liberated europe from Nazi Germany? :hmm:
Think there might be 20 million dead soviets who would disagree. :whistle:

Yep, largely the work of the Red Army, not the red, white and blue army.

Arrogant-One
17-11-2005, 10:45 AM
Some religions are more susceptible to being perverted to terrorist ends than others Kevin. And Islam, in particular, seems to be predominately used as a vehicle to perpetuate terrorism moreso than any other religion. Howard being a Christian does not in itself mean that he is biased or blind to examples of Christianity being used terrorist ends (which it has in its long history). The fact that Howard is a Christian does not mean that his caution towards the Islamic community is unwarranted. Your attempt to discredit Howard on the basis that he is a Christian shows that you have no valid arguments to dispute the truth or sensibility in him having directed his comments to Australia'a Islamic Community.

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 11:44 AM
And Islam, in particular, seems to be predominately used as a vehicle to perpetuate terrorism moreso than any other religion.

Alex, your argument stands or fails on the veracity of this statement. Personally I don't think it can be substantiated but I'm interested in hearing it if you want to give it a go.

pballard
17-11-2005, 12:10 PM
And Islam, in particular, seems to be predominately used as a vehicle to perpetuate terrorism moreso than any other religion.



Alex, your argument stands or fails on the veracity of this statement. Personally I don't think it can be substantiated but I'm interested in hearing it if you want to give it a go.

Noting that AO's comment is in the present tense, I think it bordering on self-evident. Islam IS being used to justify terrorism - one need only look at the Qur'an citations used by Osama. I don't think that is true for any other religion at the moment, at least not to any serious extent.

Alan Shore
17-11-2005, 12:25 PM
Noting that AO's comment is in the present tense, I think it bordering on self-evident. Islam IS being used to justify terrorism - one need only look at the Qur'an citations used by Osama. I don't think that is true for any other religion at the moment, at least not to any serious extent.

Not through direct action but through cultivation, which in creating such negative attitudes is almost as bad, if not worse in the long-term.

If you wish to see some examples of leading Christians inciting fear, hate, intolerance etc. click here (http://www.reandev.com/taliban/).

And historically, well... crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings... lovely track record?

pballard
17-11-2005, 12:29 PM
If you wish to see some examples of leading Christians inciting fear, hate, intolerance etc. click here (http://www.reandev.com/taliban/).


Seen it before. Lumps all sorts of Christians in the same basket. And a richly ironic page title, I might add.

Alan Shore
17-11-2005, 12:38 PM
Seen it before. Lumps all sorts of Christians in the same basket. And a richly ironic page title, I might add.

What it amounts to, is that there are dangerous extremists that belong to nearly all groups. It's terribly ignorant of you to only see one of those groups as so problematic and another essentially faultless.

pballard
17-11-2005, 01:00 PM
What it amounts to, is that there are dangerous extremists that belong to nearly all groups. It's terribly ignorant of you to only see one of those groups as so problematic and another essentially faultless.

Don't twist my words and don't call me ignorant (without reason).

Alan Shore
17-11-2005, 01:15 PM
Don't twist my words and don't call me ignorant (without reason).

OK, sorry. But at least have a think about the universal facts before picking out just one aspect of a problem.

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Noting that AO's comment is in the present tense, I think it bordering on self-evident. Islam IS being used to justify terrorism - one need only look at the Qur'an citations used by Osama. I don't think that is true for any other religion at the moment, at least not to any serious extent.

Depends what you call serious I guess. I think Bush's manipulation by the religious right in the USA could qualify.

pballard
17-11-2005, 01:36 PM
Depends what you call serious I guess. I think Bush's manipulation by the religious right in the USA could qualify.

I was commenting on terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.

Yes, some Christians have misused Christian teaching to justify the war on Iraq, as I have already pointed out earlier in this thread. For all that is wrong with that (and there is a lot), they (or at least the great majority) have not endorsed the deliberate killing of civilians; and are motivated by a desire to improve Iraq rather than destroy it.

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 01:41 PM
I was commenting on terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.

Yes, some Christians have misused Christian teaching to justify the war on Iraq, as I have already pointed out earlier in this thread. For all that is wrong with that (and there is a lot), they (or at least the great majority) have not endorsed the deliberate killing of civilians; and are motivated by a desire to improve Iraq rather than destroy it.

Which part of the war on Iraq doen't fit in with the definition of terrorism you supplied?

pballard
17-11-2005, 01:44 PM
OK, sorry.

Accepted, and in turn apologies for being harsh. Not the worst I've been called, but I wasn't expecting it from you.



But at least have a think about the universal facts before picking out just one aspect of a problem.

What makes you think I hadn't?

pballard
17-11-2005, 01:49 PM
Which part of the war on Iraq doen't fit in with the definition of terrorism you supplied?

When they captured Saddam.

When they were involved in direct fighting with Iraqi troops.

When they were driving supply convoys and got attacked by guerillas.

When they captured prisoners rather than executed them.

When they held elections.

...

arosar
17-11-2005, 02:47 PM
... they (or at least the great majority) have not endorsed the deliberate killing of civilians; and are motivated by a desire to improve Iraq rather than destroy it.

And I suppose you think the majority of muslims endorse the killing of civilians and are motivated by a desire to destroy Iraq?

That's why you have those qualifications, isn't it?

AR

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 03:10 PM
When they captured Saddam.

When they were involved in direct fighting with Iraqi troops.

When they were driving supply convoys and got attacked by guerillas.

When they captured prisoners rather than executed them.

When they held elections.

...

You seem to be answering another question. Let me word it simpler for you:

Are you saying no Iraqi civilians were killed or terrorised by American forces?

pballard
17-11-2005, 03:28 PM
You seem to be answering another question.


I answered the question you asked, even though I knew it probably wasn't the one you meant. Sorry, I couldn't resist.



Let me word it simpler for you:

Are you saying no Iraqi civilians were killed or terrorised by American forces?

Of course not. What I am saying is that the US is not engaging in terrorism.

(Which is not deny that some of their conduct has been reprehensible).

four four two
17-11-2005, 03:30 PM
Interesting link Belthasar,seems many fundamentalist christians feel the greatest threat to a christian world is homosexuality,and not islam.
Sanfrancisco and Sydney better watch out! ;)

The point I think many people miss when they discuss the issue of "islamic" terrorists is that Al-Qaeda[The base] doesnt have the apparatus of a state to inflict its ideas on people. The fundamentalist christian movement in the USA however does.They have only to persuade key elements in the US government,namely the american president who is the official head of the american military.
Often when people see a governments military commit acts of violence against a civilian population they excuse it by saying its unavoidable.They coin euphemisms like "collateral damage" to justify indiscriminate carpet bombing. Failing to realise that when these civilians are killed by their army in a so called "just" war that the civilian population ends up being terrified . The 1st and 2nd Iraq war isnt the only example of american firepower being used against a civilian population in a so called "just" war that ends up terrifiying the locals. Over 1 million civilains were killed in Vietnam,and predominately by carpet bombing.
So as you can see wearing a uniform makes you no less qualified to terrorise people. :ponder:

pballard
17-11-2005, 03:31 PM
And I suppose you think the majority of muslims endorse the killing of civilians

No, but a reasonable minority do.

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 03:47 PM
Of course not. What I am saying is that the US is not engaging in terrorism.

Do you remember saying...


I was commenting on terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.

four four two
17-11-2005, 04:00 PM
I understand your point... but Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism does have a lot of popular support among Muslims. I've seen figures of between 25 and 75% support in Muslim countries. No doubt it's much lower among Muslims here, but there is obviously some level of support.


Still standing by these numbers Peter?,or are you adjusting them? :hmm:

pballard
17-11-2005, 04:03 PM
Of course not. What I am saying is that the US is not engaging in terrorism.



Do you remember saying...



I was commenting on terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.


Yes.

I maintain that the US is not doing that.

(Leaving aside theories of rogue elements of their army not admitting all they're up to, etc.)

pballard
17-11-2005, 04:13 PM
Still standing by these numbers Peter?,or are you adjusting them? :hmm:

Before I answer...

You said the numbers were "utter rubbish", that I got them from the right wing press and I wasn't using my brain; and you suggested that 10% of the supporters would actively fight. Do you stand by that?

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 04:18 PM
I maintain that the US is not doing that.

Which bit aren't they doing? Deliberately killing civilians or doing so with the aim to cause terror?

pballard
17-11-2005, 04:29 PM
Which bit aren't they doing? Deliberately killing civilians or doing so with the aim to cause terror?

Neither.

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 04:46 PM
Neither.

Not deliberately killing civilians? :hmm: I find that very hard to believe. Unless you believe the cities they have bombed contained only combatants how is that possible?

pballard
17-11-2005, 05:02 PM
Not deliberately killing civilians? :hmm: I find that very hard to believe. Unless you believe the cities they have bombed contained only combatants how is that possible?

Emphasis on the word "deliberately". I'm sure you've heard the argument so I won't rehash it.

Let me turn it around. Do you see no difference between US operations in Iraq, and terrorism?

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 05:05 PM
Let me turn it around. Do you see no difference between US operations in Iraq, and terrorism?

It is impossible to answer that question until I get a handle on what you mean by terrorism. The US deliberately bombed cities in which it knew civilans were living. How is that not deliberately killing civilians?

pballard
17-11-2005, 10:06 PM
It is impossible to answer that question until I get a handle on what you mean by terrorism. The US deliberately bombed cities in which it knew civilans were living. How is that not deliberately killing civilians?

Because the civilians were not the target.

I would define terrorism as an attack on a target with no military value, a deliberate attack on civilians purely to create terror. In which the aim is to maximise civilian casualties, not minimise them. Examples include 9/11, Bali, London bombings, bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants, and numerous bombings of Iraqi civilians because of real or perceived associations with the Americans.

Do you see a difference between terrorism by this definition, and the war on Iraq?

p.s. I did oppose the war, BTW, and I'm not saying it was a good thing. But I assert that at least it is possible to frame a justification for invading a country, while I can't see any for terrorism, as defined above.

Rincewind
17-11-2005, 10:38 PM
Because the civilians were not the target.

I would define terrorism as an attack on a target with no military value, a deliberate attack on civilians purely to create terror. In which the aim is to maximise civilian casualties, not minimise them. Examples include 9/11, Bali, London bombings, bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants, and numerous bombings of Iraqi civilians because of real or perceived associations with the Americans.

Do you see a difference between terrorism by this definition, and the war on Iraq?

p.s. I did oppose the war, BTW, and I'm not saying it was a good thing. But I assert that at least it is possible to frame a justification for invading a country, while I can't see any for terrorism, as defined above.


So you are saying every target that has been fired on in Iraq had a military purpose? Does this include the bombardment of Bagdad during the first war on Iraq?

pballard
18-11-2005, 10:06 AM
So you are saying every target that has been fired on in Iraq had a military purpose? Does this include the bombardment of Bagdad during the first war on Iraq?

Should've - yes. What actually happened/is happening - doubtless no, in both cases.

Now... could you answer my question?

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 11:07 AM
Should've - yes. What actually happened/is happening - doubtless no, in both cases.

Now... could you answer my question?

Hang on. So now you are saying the Americans ARE deliberating killing civilians?

pballard
18-11-2005, 11:38 AM
Hang on. So now you are saying the Americans ARE deliberating killing civilians?

I actually had in mind firing on apparent threats which turned out to be harmless (e.g. civilian cars ignoring checkpoints). But I guess that's still an intended military target.

So I'll change that to a "no", though of course I cannot rule out the possibility of (a) rogue elements of the military doing this; and/or (b) the military covering it up. But since we're talking about people's support of the war (at least that's where we began :) ), these don't count in the sense that the whole point of covering it up is because people don't support it.

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 12:43 PM
I actually had in mind firing on apparent threats which turned out to be harmless (e.g. civilian cars ignoring checkpoints). But I guess that's still an intended military target.

So I'll change that to a "no", though of course I cannot rule out the possibility of (a) rogue elements of the military doing this; and/or (b) the military covering it up. But since we're talking about people's support of the war (at least that's where we began :) ), these don't count in the sense that the whole point of covering it up is because people don't support it.

I'm more interested in what is actually happening not what is "meant" to be happening. The reasons for this are the people in charge need to be resonsible for reality, not what they are trying to achieve and also these people may not be entirely frank with their agenda. Therefore can we agree to discuss the reality of the war in Iraq (as far as that can be successfully communicated by the world's media) and not the best intentions of the Whitehouse?

pballard
18-11-2005, 01:24 PM
I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until you answer my question in post #75 of this thread.

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 02:32 PM
I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until you answer my question in post #75 of this thread.

But were still teasing apart what you meant in post #57 of this thread. Do you now agree that by that defintion that Americans are committing acts of terrorism?

pballard
18-11-2005, 02:40 PM
I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until you answer my question in post #75 of this thread.

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 03:07 PM
I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until you answer my question in post #75 of this thread.

I'll take that as a "yes".

pballard
18-11-2005, 03:25 PM
I'll take that as a "yes".

Nice try.

I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until you answer my question in post #75 of this thread.

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 03:30 PM
I don't see any point in continuing this discussion until you answer my question in post #75 of this thread.

Peter we are supposed to be clarifying a point YOU made in post #57, 18 postings prior to the question you are refering to. Either you stand by what you say or not. Debating tricks like trying to put the onus on me to answer your questions just don't wash.

Grendel
18-11-2005, 03:33 PM
America liberated europe from Nazi Germany? :hmm:
Think there might be 20 million dead soviets who would disagree. :whistle:

america supplied the soviets throughout the war. the soviet effort was heavily dependant on north atlantic traffic.

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 04:45 PM
america supplied the soviets throughout the war. the soviet effort was heavily dependant on north atlantic traffic.

They also supplied Germany for the early part of it.

pballard
18-11-2005, 05:03 PM
Peter we are supposed to be clarifying a point YOU made in post #57, 18 postings prior to the question you are refering to. Either you stand by what you say or not. Debating tricks like trying to put the onus on me to answer your questions just don't wash.

Barry,

This is a discussion, not an interrogation.

Part of the way a discussion is done is that both people are allowed to ask each other questions. By letting me ask you questions, you let me make my point clearer, as well as helping me to understand where you are coming from. That is how normal discussion works. It is also good manners.

If you don't think that's reasonable... well you're entitled to that opinion. But if a person does not wish to have a discussion under what I consider to be reasonable ground rules, then I reserve the right to exit the discussion.

I've answered quite a number of your questions, attempting to clarify my position. But so far you have not answered mine. I tolerated it for a while but eventually my patience wore out. If - for whatever reason - you don't wish to answer my question in post #75, then fine, that's your business. But don't expect me to continue this discussion otherwise.

Rincewind
18-11-2005, 05:27 PM
Barry,

This is a discussion, not an interrogation.

Part of the way a discussion is done is that both people are allowed to ask each other questions. By letting me ask you questions, you let me make my point clearer, as well as helping me to understand where you are coming from. That is how normal discussion works. It is also good manners.

If you don't think that's reasonable... well you're entitled to that opinion. But if a person does not wish to have a discussion under what I consider to be reasonable ground rules, then I reserve the right to exit the discussion.

I've answered quite a number of your questions, attempting to clarify my position. But so far you have not answered mine. I tolerated it for a while but eventually my patience wore out. If - for whatever reason - you don't wish to answer my question in post #75, then fine, that's your business. But don't expect me to continue this discussion otherwise.

Nice try. I can't work out if you are benig deliberately obtuse or not. Either way the ball is in your court.

(And for the record you haven't clarified your position which is why I have to keep asking you questions).

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2005, 11:35 PM
I would define terrorism as an attack on a target with no military value, a deliberate attack on civilians purely to create terror. In which the aim is to maximise civilian casualties, not minimise them.

I would consider an act to be terrorism whatever the intent regarding casualties if damage was caused with intent to coerce government into policy change (or citizens into action for it). So if nice friendly ecoterrorists warn everybody off the Sydney Harbour Bridge then blow it up killing zero, that's still terrorism.

I don't think excessive collateral killings by invading armies necessarily amount to terrorism. However they can still very easily amount to culpable negligence of a level that deserves much the same kind of contempt. I don't believe for a moment that the US are making adequate attempts to keep the damage down.

Cat
19-11-2005, 06:06 AM
I would consider an act to be terrorism whatever the intent regarding casualties if damage was caused with intent to coerce government into policy change (or citizens into action for it). So if nice friendly ecoterrorists warn everybody off the Sydney Harbour Bridge then blow it up killing zero, that's still terrorism.

I don't think excessive collateral killings by invading armies necessarily amount to terrorism. However they can still very easily amount to culpable negligence of a level that deserves much the same kind of contempt. I don't believe for a moment that the US are making adequate attempts to keep the damage down.

The term 'terrorism' is today simply a term of policital expedience, again for the purposes of perception management. By calling an act as terrorism, it permits governments to create the perception that political opponents are acting purely for reasons of malice and sadism, while justifying their own violence as being reasoned or out of necessity, even as a counterpunch to possible terrorist 'threat'. Its doublespeak and best avoided.

Rincewind
19-11-2005, 07:50 AM
Thanks Kevin and David but I was interested in Peter's definition of terrorism which he proffered totally voluntarily in post #57 as...


... terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.

I was wondering how what the Americans (and others including Australians, but mainly Americans) do NOT fit this defintion of terrorism? And if they do fit the definition then does this cause any discomfort to Peter's pro-American position.

It would appear it does, as he now refuses to discuss the point.

Lucena
19-11-2005, 01:08 PM
I was wondering how what the Americans (and others including Australians, but mainly Americans) do NOT fit this defintion of terrorism? And if they do fit the definition then does this cause any discomfort to Peter's pro-American position.

It would appear you two have reached what some call (to my great annoyance) a "stalemate" - Barry wants Peter to answer his questions and Peter wants Barry to answer his question.

I personally think Barry is going a bit far suggesting the Iraq war constitutes terrorism, but I suspect he wanted to take advantage of the fact that Peter's first definition of terrorism was inadequate:


terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.

One problem - this fails to exclude war. As I understand it, "terrorism" generally does not include such actions when committed in a state of military war. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are not normally considered "terrorism" as such, but an act of war(that said, there are those who argue that the dropping of the bombs constituted "war crimes", but that is not the same as terrorism).

Peter's later definition:


I would define terrorism as an attack on a target with no military value, a deliberate attack on civilians purely to create terror. This definition is a little tighter, but what about serial killers? And even this new definition almost fails to exclude Hiroshima (the city was apparently of relatively minor military significance, there were other reasons for it being chosen, eg no POW camps, no previous bombing so the effect of the atomic bomb could be accurately measured. The primary motive was to cause fear and demoralisation so Japan would finally surrender). Perhaps a definition of terrorism should set out how terrorism is distinct from conventional warfare.

Also, I think "purely to create terror" is possibly overly strong. There could be presumably other goals behind terrorist attacks in addition to simply making people afraid.

One has to be careful with definitions, especially concerning terrorism. That said, I am loath to supply a definition myself because I acknowledge how difficult it is and have not puzzled over the problem for long enough.

On the other hand, Barry, in a similar vein to Kevin's earlier remark, I am not convinced that bombing or attempting to bomb military targets in such a way(even carelessly or recklessly) that some civilian deaths are likely is the same thing as "deliberately killing civilians", as the civilians are not the primary target of the attack. However if such bombing is careless or reckless (which admittedly would not surprise me) with regard to life then obviously it deserves to be excoriated.

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2005, 03:17 PM
The term 'terrorism' is today simply a term of policital expedience, again for the purposes of perception management. By calling an act as terrorism, it permits governments to create the perception that political opponents are acting purely for reasons of malice and sadism, while justifying their own violence as being reasoned or out of necessity, even as a counterpunch to possible terrorist 'threat'. Its doublespeak and best avoided.

In the academic literature of political philosophy, the term "terrorism" is used and detailed attempts are made to define it. If it is in use in the academic study of political violence then I don't think the word is best avoided - but rather, bogus/jingoistic/alarmist misuses of it should be exposed and countered.

It is rather a lot like the word "fascist". Just because people misuse "fascist" does not mean the word should not be used, but means those misusing it need to be exposed . We need a Godwin's Law equivalent for "terrorism".

shaun
19-11-2005, 06:50 PM
"A terrorist is a person with a bomb but without an Air Force" - Howard Zinn

Lucena
19-11-2005, 06:52 PM
Not a bad quote there Shaun.

Cat
19-11-2005, 09:04 PM
In the academic literature of political philosophy, the term "terrorism" is used and detailed attempts are made to define it. If it is in use in the academic study of political violence then I don't think the word is best avoided - but rather, bogus/jingoistic/alarmist misuses of it should be exposed and countered.

It is rather a lot like the word "fascist". Just because people misuse "fascist" does not mean the word should not be used, but means those misusing it need to be exposed . We need a Godwin's Law equivalent for "terrorism".

Just because its used in academic circles doesn't necessarily make it a useful term. In medicine the term 'chronic fatigue' is widely used as a diagnosis, but it's still a useless term. It provides no insight into the cause of the condition, it's often a misdiagnosis (about 60%) and the only therapeutic strategies it provides are more to do with commercial gain than patient well-being.

Similarly terrorism is a useless term which lends itself more to misuse than good use. Its used to describe an act of violence, but says nothing about the motivation for the violence, nor does it offer any hope of finding solutions. It motivates prejudice, stifles understanding and promotes ignorance.

Language can be a wonderful tool to provide insight when used properly. The value of any language is in the inisght it generates.Terrorism is a political term deliberately manufactured for manipulation of the populus and to obscure reasoning. The fact its found its way into academic circles is simply a response to popular culture, not that there's anything wrong in examining popular culture.

Alan Shore
20-11-2005, 02:11 AM
In medicine the term 'chronic fatigue' is widely used as a diagnosis, but it's still a useless term. It provides no insight into the cause of the condition, it's often a misdiagnosis (about 60%) and the only therapeutic strategies it provides are more to do with commercial gain than patient well-being.

So is RSI.. have you got any tips to speedy recovery Cat?

Axiom
20-11-2005, 02:43 AM
THE TERMS "DRUGS" ,and "INTELLIGENCE",have likewise little real meaning as they are also,along with "TERRORISM" blurred concepts...witness how any debate on these "concepts" become meaningless and ultimately futile....... poignant examples of how meaningful debate can be stifled through the use of limiting language.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2005, 01:03 PM
Just because its used in academic circles doesn't necessarily make it a useful term. In medicine the term 'chronic fatigue' is widely used as a diagnosis, but it's still a useless term. It provides no insight into the cause of the condition, it's often a misdiagnosis (about 60%) and the only therapeutic strategies it provides are more to do with commercial gain than patient well-being.

OK, if even the specialised usefulness of the term is being very widely challenged within the specialty then there is a good case for not using that term. I don't recall that being the case when I was studying political philosophy, although that was ten years ago and I'm sure the debate has developed since. (Bit of a growth area right now.)

You're right that the word "terrorism" says nothing about the motivation for the violence nor offers hopes of finding solutions but neither of these things render a word meaningless or useless. Indeed the same would be true of many words used to categorise problems or actions, eg "murder" or "suicide".


Terrorism is a political term deliberately manufactured for manipulation of the populus and to obscure reasoning. The fact its found its way into academic circles is simply a response to popular culture, not that there's anything wrong in examining popular culture.

Actually it is derived from the French terrorisme which was first used in France in the late 18th century. The original terrorists (in the sense of the application of the term - terrorism existed before this but was called other things) were the Jacobin Club and they may have even coined the term to refer to themselves.

firegoat7
20-11-2005, 03:02 PM
however, it was america that liberated europe from nazi occupation and turned back the japanese in asia.



Yeah I am sure the red army had nothing to do with it. :hand:



not a left wing conspiracy, but a left-wing industry. some leftist journals deliberately sensationalisation their claims against western governments in order to create a market niche.
Well... name the journals you are talking about and then we can test the truth of your claims.



we define terrorism because we need to protect our interests, not against an imagined foe but a real enemy, trying to subvert our interests.

Who's interests? How exactly are my interests best served by this war?? :hmm:


it's fortunate we live in a wealthy country with interests to protect, but would you rather live in poverty? its a dog eat dog world out there and we must defend our interests
To suggest that our interests are the same under a liberal capitalist democracy is about as ridiculous as Bob Hawke claiming that no Australian child will live in poverty.

The simple fact is -its the wealthy who protect their interests, while the poor fight their wars. As for your poverty claim- The Salvation Army helped 1.5 million Australian's last winter....and it wasn't from terrorism :hand:

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-11-2005, 03:18 PM
But I assert that at least it is possible to frame a justification for invading a country, while I can't see any for terrorism, as defined above.


How can there be any justification for invading Iraq?

The invading coalitions contradicted International law. International law that was the historical outcome of World war 2. Remember, that war, the one where America helped to establish subsequent frameworks that would prevent a repeat of the German experience.

Note also ,Saddamn did not bomb the USA. Now look at Iraq,it is in a state of complete civil war, and yet you claim this is justified.

Furthermore, you completely whitewash any suggestion about killing civillians being immoral, ignoring the basic reality that modern warfare kills more civillians then troops. Why? Because of distance, I bet if the war was in Adelaide you would be thinking completely different thoughts.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-11-2005, 03:26 PM
I would consider an act to be terrorism whatever the intent regarding casualties if damage was caused with intent to coerce government into policy change (or citizens into action for it).

Using this inept definition, one might propose that people who attempt to counsel refugees without government permission would be terrorists, while corporations who legally poison workers with asbetstos,cigarettes, unfair industrial laws, gm food etc would be ok.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-11-2005, 03:30 PM
"A terrorist is a person with a bomb but without an Air Force" - Howard Zinn

So Australia's major security fears ought to be directed to....The Moonie's, Asio, chessplayers or Melbourne's criminal underworld? ;)

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-11-2005, 03:37 PM
On the other hand, Barry, in a similar vein to Kevin's earlier remark, I am not convinced that bombing or attempting to bomb military targets in such a way(even carelessly or recklessly) that some civilian deaths are likely is the same thing as "deliberately killing civilians", as the civilians are not the primary target of the attack. However if such bombing is careless or reckless (which admittedly would not surprise me) with regard to life then obviously it deserves to be excoriated.

Gareth,

How many civilians have died in the Iraq war? How many of these civilian deaths have been reported by Western media groups? How many coalition military personal have died in the Iraq war?

I think you will find that like almost all wars , it is the military who conduct them, while civilians pay for them with their lives. :hand:

cheers Fg7

pballard
20-11-2005, 06:54 PM
I was wondering how what the Americans (and others including Australians, but mainly Americans) do NOT fit this defintion of terrorism? And if they do fit the definition then does this cause any discomfort to Peter's pro-American position.

It would appear it does, as he now refuses to discuss the point.

Which is basically accusing me of dishonesty.

For the record, there was and is no discomfort, but I ceased discussing for exactly the reasons I gave.

Some other folks have raised interesting points and I'll respond if/when I get the time.

Rincewind
20-11-2005, 07:31 PM
For the record, there was and is no discomfort, but I ceased discussing for exactly the reasons I gave.

Whatever gets you through the night, Peter, it's all right.

Cat
20-11-2005, 08:30 PM
So is RSI.. have you got any tips to speedy recovery Cat?

No quick fixes I'm afraid, he improtant thing is to stop doing whatever it is that is bringing the pain on. Maybe it's the computer keyboard or mouse? I always find the mouse causes me no end of problems.

Grendel
21-11-2005, 07:03 AM
Yeah I am sure the red army had nothing to do with it. :hand:

supplied and entirely dependant upon the americans.



Who's interests? How exactly are my interests best served by this war?? :hmm:

by defining potential threats to our interests as 'terrorist', individuals who threaten to undermine our democracy can be identified and neutralised.


To suggest that our interests are the same under a liberal capitalist democracy is about as ridiculous as Bob Hawke claiming that no Australian child will live in poverty.

some of our interests do coincide and it is to our mutual benefit that they be protected.


The simple fact is -its the wealthy who protect their interests, while the poor fight their wars.
cheers Fg7


yes and we in australia are the wealthy and its in our interests to keep the wars well away from our soil, in the poor lands of the middle east

Grendel
21-11-2005, 07:05 AM
The term 'terrorism' is today simply a term of policital expedience, again for the purposes of perception management. By calling an act as terrorism, it permits governments to create the perception that political opponents are acting purely for reasons of malice and sadism, while justifying their own violence as being reasoned or out of necessity, even as a counterpunch to possible terrorist 'threat'. Its doublespeak and best avoided.

the fact that it has a political purpose is purpose enough

Lucena
21-11-2005, 10:38 AM
Gareth,

How many civilians have died in the Iraq war? How many of these civilian deaths have been reported by Western media groups? How many coalition military personal have died in the Iraq war?

I think you will find that like almost all wars , it is the military who conduct them, while civilians pay for them with their lives. :hand:

cheers Fg7

The main point of my post was that bombing in Iraq is not the same as "deliberately killing civilians". Even "reckless indifference to civilian deaths" does not equate to "deliberately killing civilians". Making that distinction doesn't excuse how it is being conducted, or the dubious justification for starting it in the first place. I'm not a fan of the war and I consider the devastation it has wreaked to be tragic.

Garvinator
21-11-2005, 01:10 PM
It is rather a lot like the word "fascist". Just because people misuse "fascist" does not mean the word should not be used, but means those misusing it need to be exposed . We need a Godwin's Law equivalent for "terrorism".
Kevin,

This article just appeared in the australian today, what do you think:

Gregory Melleuish: Fascist label a cheap shot against liberalism

November 21, 2005

IN recent weeks, an array of columnists, cartoonists, politicians, not to mention a plethora of letter writers, have taken to depicting the Howard Government's legislative agenda, especially its industrial relations laws, as "fascist".

Of course, fascist is a cheap insult because its meaning is difficult to pin down and it invariably casts a slur on the person so described. Back in the Comintern days of the 1930s, everybody who was not a communist was a fascist, from the social democrats through to liberals, to the real thing. In the heyday of the New Left, the word fascist was flung around with gay abandon to describe anyone who did not share the ideological preferences of student radicals.

The word has been debased in the public arena. It has been misused for political purposes in the past and it continues to be misused by people who should know better.

This is a pity as there is a specific thing that can be called fascist. It is difficult to define, but its nature can be discerned by considering a few facts about fascism.

The Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini began as a socialist, as did many other fascist leaders, such as former French communist Jacques Doriot. In bringing together nationalism and socialism, it is unclear whether fascism was a left-wing or a right-wing movement. What can be said is that, like communism, it saw itself in opposition to liberalism as well as parliamentary democracy.






Fascists, like socialists, did not support the idea that individuals were the best judges of their own interest. Rather, individuals needed the state to organise them and to tell them what to do. Moreover the fascist state, what Mussolini called the ethical state, sought to bring every member of society under its control.

In fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, this meant bringing individuals under state domination by controlling the organisations to which they belonged. These included youth groups, leisure clubs and the organisation of industry through state-sanctioned corporations. In Germany, even cat lovers' clubs had to be Nazified.

There were two enemies. The first was liberalism and the autonomous individual who could exercise his or her conscience in deciding a proper course of action. The second was civil society, those voluntary organisations that individuals freely create to pursue their particular interests and that stand outside state supervision. In particular, fascism opposed the various churches. Fascist ideals and the worship of the state would form the core of people's religious beliefs.

For the diehard fascist, the ordinary everyday society of men and women going about their mundane tasks lacked the heroic dimension. It needed a myth that would mobilise everyone into a collective that would be able to perform epic actions. In other words, fascism was addicted to violence and war.

If there is any common political creed of contemporary Australia, it is liberalism. If there has been any common theme running through the various policies adopted by Labor and Coalition governments since 1983, it has been the creation of a more liberal society. This has allowed Australians to exercise much greater choice in many aspects of their lives.

Industrial relations can be considered the final frontier in the quest for a more liberal society. The new legislation does not intend to create corporatism or some sort of state-controlled body to exercise power over the workers of Australia. That is what a fascist government would do. In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. It is attempting to withdraw state control from such matters. It is seeking to enable people to act as autonomous individuals.

Now there certainly is a paradox at work here. In order to sponsor legislation that increases individual autonomy, the commonwealth Government is indeed seeking to centralise more power in its hands. This is part of a wider trend of which university policy is another example. A similar criticism was made of Margaret Thatcher, who also sought to increase individualism through centralisation. Liberals recognise that this is a worrying trend. But the causes should be sought as much with the states as with the commonwealth. Their financial dependence on the commonwealth is matched by an apparent incapacity to act responsibly. One suspects that this situation would only be resolved if the states were forced to raise their own finances.

In any case, increased commonwealth control in an area is hardly to be construed as fascism, especially if the consequence is the adoption of more liberal policies.

Which raises the more interesting question: If we have had the growth of liberalism since 1983, what was the nature of the social order that preceded our age? That was the age when protection and government regulation ruled supreme in the economy and the financial sector, and arbitration and conciliation were the rule in industrial relations.

Going back to the early 20th century, one can discern in Australia a desire by the state to regulate and control the population and its activities. This was the time when state governments deprived Aborigines of many of their rights, a time when eugenics was embraced and doctors and bureaucrats thought they could improve the race. And it was the time when government believed that it could solve problems in the industrial arena with the heavy hand of state regulation. In fact, as liberal commentators soon realised, state involvement in industrial matters made things worse rather than better.

If there are any policies in the history of this country that resemble those of fascism, they belong to the 20th century. In line with the spirit of the age, the industrial relations policies of the Howard Government are part of a liberal move away from policies that people today would like to forget.

In saying this, I am not implying that Australia was ever fascist. It's just that too many Australian governments in the past made the error of believing that state control somehow meant progress.

To call the present policies of the Howard Government fascist is a rhetorical device. But it is also a misuse and abuse of language that cannot go uncorrected.

It is to condone a way of speaking that ignores historical and empirical evidence for the sake of scoring cheap political points. And it condones the manipulation of language for which fascist as well as communist regimes were notorious.

We should not allow words such as fascism to lose their particular meaning. I believe that it is incorrect to refer to Islamo-fascists. Islamists wish to re-create their version of the ideal Islamic society. Fascists sought to worship the state and nation because they had lost their religious faith.

A liberal democracy relies on reasoned argument for its health. Argument can only proceed properly if our language is not corrupted by misuse. As George Orwell recognised, one of the true measures of a totalitarian state, be it fascist or communist, involves the debasement of language.

Memo to politicians and political commentators: don't cheapen words such as fascism by flinging them around indiscriminately.

Gregory Melleuish is associate professor of history and politics at the University of Wollongong.

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2005, 01:33 PM
Using this inept definition, one might propose that people who attempt to counsel refugees without government permission would be terrorists,

Not correct because to do so is doing no damage.


while corporations who legally poison workers with asbetstos,cigarettes, unfair industrial laws, gm food etc would be ok.

Irrelevant because while these actions are not "terrorism" the first two fall under a different classification of non-OK-ness, namely (now generally criminal) disregard for workers' health. The third and fourth are more politically debatable but again, not calling them "terrorism" does not automatically mean they are OK.


Wake up and smell the coffee.

You need an alarm clock and a nosejob before you can say that to me. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2005, 01:38 PM
This article just appeared in the australian today, what do you think:

Gregory Melleuish: Fascist label a cheap shot against liberalism

I agree strongly with the central thrust of the argument - that calling liberalisations "fascism" is fundamantally dumb and inappropriate.

My only significant disagreement is with the suggestion that this is the age of liberalism. Australia's record on liberalisation is mixed outside the area of economics - eg we are still paying rather high taxes - and this is one of the most socially illiberal governments we have had for decades. Things like antiterror restrictions on freedom of speech are also blurring the picture.

No opportunity should be missed to point out that Howard only embraces liberalism when it suits him. Also, while liberalisation is generally a good thing, selective liberalisation sometimes isn't.

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 04:42 PM
supplied and entirely dependant upon the americans.


Nonsense.



by defining potential threats to our interests as 'terrorist', individuals who threaten to undermine our democracy can be identified and neutralised.
More nonsense, How can "our' interests ever be the same in an individualised society?



some of our interests do coincide and it is to our mutual benefit that they be protected.
Nonsense, while this statement may be true, in that it does not contradict itself, again, it labours under the misconception that "we" have a similiarity of "benefits" and a similarity that needs "protection".



yes and we in australia are the wealthy and its in our interests to keep the wars well away from our soil, in the poor lands of the middle east

More nonsense, who is this "we' you talk about? Are Kerry Packer and your local unemployed the same wealthy people? Is Colonel Gadaffi poorer then your local unemployed? Who's interest is your arguement serving?

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 04:44 PM
The main point of my post was that bombing in Iraq is not the same as "deliberately killing civilians". Even "reckless indifference to civilian deaths" does not equate to "deliberately killing civilians". Making that distinction doesn't excuse how it is being conducted, or the dubious justification for starting it in the first place. I'm not a fan of the war and I consider the devastation it has wreaked to be tragic.

And this point was adequately refuted by Barry, who suggested that it does not matter if you indirectly or directly kill a person, the result is still the same.

cheers Fg7

Rincewind
21-11-2005, 05:07 PM
And this point was adequately refuted by Barry, who suggested that it does not matter if you indirectly or directly kill a person, the result is still the same.

Well not quite but close enough. I would word it as: if as a direct result from one's deliberate actions it is reasonable to conclude that innocent people could be killed, then any innocent deaths resulting from those actions can be considered deliberate. The point being there was cold calculation on the consequences of the action and the innocent deaths were considered to be "worth it". I can't see how this differs from terrorism by any definition, but particularly that offered by Marcel Marceau.

Grendel
21-11-2005, 06:30 PM
More nonsense, How can "our' interests ever be the same in an individualised society?

individualised society??? you have to be joking, surely? more like herd-mentality society

so why do we call ourselves australians? is there nothing that connects us? is there an complete absense of community & common value here? is that what youre saying?

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 07:26 PM
gg this deserves to be canned

"Of course, fascist is a cheap insult because its meaning is difficult to pin down and it invariably casts a slur on the person so described."

Nonsense. It's meaning is of historical importance.


"Back in the Comintern days of the 1930s, everybody who was not a communist was a fascist, from the social democrats through to liberals, to the real thing."

Half truth. The author, makes the mistake of speaking for communists , when his rhetoric is clearly anti-communist. The simple reality is that the three most powerful political movements of the 30's were fascism,communism and liberal democracy.

" In the heyday of the New Left, the word fascist was flung around with gay abandon to describe anyone who did not share the ideological preferences of student radicals."

Again, the author speaks with authoriaty about others, this time it's "student radicals" from the "new left", notice not anybody from liberal democratic institutions, the right or normal everyday people. By suggesting that the usage of the word is utilised by a minority the author seeks to destort the legitimacy of such a usage.He wants us to blame the left for the misuse, but not the right.



"The word has been debased in the public arena."

We are supposed to infer that it was the "New left" who debased it? Or was it "student radicals". Clearly the author suggested that the word did not have a balanced "public usage" when he begins his rhetoric. What is the situation now, Who is using the word in 2005?


" It has been misused for political purposes in the past and it continues to be misused by people who should know better."

No comment.

"This is a pity as there is a specific thing that can be called fascist."

true

"It is difficult to define, but its nature can be discerned by considering a few facts about fascism."

Hardly difficult, it has been placed, historically speaking, in the world.

"The Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini began as a socialist, as did many other fascist leaders, such as former French communist Jacques Doriot."

Notce, this is not a fact about socialism. It is a fact about people who possibly became fascist. So has the author explained fascism here? Or is this just a veiled attack on the left?


"In bringing together nationalism and socialism, it is unclear whether fascism was a left-wing or a right-wing movement. "

This is total nonsense. In fact, the statement makes no sense. Many nationalistic governments have been socialist, without being fascist. While it is true, fascism may not be a left wing or right wing movement, this is only because the polarity of political compasses based on the old left/right dichotomy are not capable of understanding the complexity of political arguement, in relation to "Fascism".


"What can be said is that, like communism, it saw itself in opposition to liberalism as well as parliamentary democracy."

Sort of true.
Historically speaking, dis-functional parliamentary democracy may actually have been a contributing factor to the rise of fascism.


"Fascists, like socialists, did not support the idea that individuals were the best judges of their own interest."

Any person who makes such a careless statement as this, about fascism, and socialism does not deserve to be called an intellectual.

To suggest that "socialists" believe that individuals cannot judge their own best intersts is a myth. No doubt consistent with the authors mythical assumptions that 'socialism' and 'communism' are the same thing and that there is only one generic brand of "socialism".

"Rather, individuals needed the state to organise them and to tell them what to do."

yep

"Moreover the fascist state, what Mussolini called the ethical state, sought to bring every member of society under its control."

This may have been true in Mussolini's state...but it begs the question..would fascism have been so destructive without the nation state? Who knows?
Seems to me Mussolini found a nice niche for fascism within the state.It seems both the nation/state and fascism sought to abstract others.

"In fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, this meant bringing individuals under state domination by controlling the organisations to which they belonged."

Undoubtly true, historically.

These included youth groups, leisure clubs and the organisation of industry through state-sanctioned corporations. In Germany, even cat lovers' clubs had to be Nazified."

Yep

"There were two enemies. The first was liberalism and the autonomous individual who could exercise his or her conscience in deciding a proper course of action. The second was civil society, those voluntary organisations that individuals freely create to pursue their particular interests and that stand outside state supervision."

This is an historical rewrite. It is biased and historically inaccurate. One of the main ideologies opposed to fascism was communism (A point the author admits earlier). With fascism considering communism as its main political danger, since liberal democracy, at the historical moment of the 30s, was in complete ruins.

"In particular, fascism opposed the various churches."
"Fascist ideals and the worship of the state would form the core of people's religious beliefs."

Half true...Italians had little problem in being both fascists and catholics, the German experience was more complicated, also 5th column dimensions in Western democracies,like the Klu Klux Klan, Walt Disney etc were both fascist and religous.
The main problem with this arguement is that it assumes that fascism did not exist without control of the state. This is empirically false. Fascism was an historical movement which utilised the political device of the Nation/state, when it gained complete power. The Nation/state had established 'absolute authority' much earlier in history.

"For the diehard fascist, the ordinary everyday society of men and women going about their mundane tasks lacked the heroic dimension. It needed a myth that would mobilise everyone into a collective that would be able to perform epic actions. In other words, fascism was addicted to violence and war."

Yep.

"If there is any common political creed of contemporary Australia, it is liberalism."

The irony of course is that fascism, communism, socialism and social democracy are all products of liberalism via the enlightenment.


"If there has been any common theme running through the various policies adopted by Labor and Coalition governments since 1983, it has been the creation of a more liberal society."

Don't we know it. Ironiaclly the same period has seen basic stagnation in the return to workers whilst corporate executive wages have risen dramatically. So is this really liberalism?, or merely a perverted form of it, based on a particularly suspect neo-liberal agenda?

"This has allowed Australians to exercise much greater choice in many aspects of their lives."

I don't think so. The amount of choice available to people has probably decreased, in relation to work, especially if we consider the economical outcomes of such work. Moreover, how could such a claim ever be measuered?


"Industrial relations can be considered the final frontier in the quest for a more liberal society."

Ahhhh, now the rhetoric stops as we see the real agenda.

"The new legislation does not intend to create corporatism or some sort of state-controlled body to exercise power over the workers of Australia."

Rubbish, this would be in complete contrast to recent historical trends.

"That is what a fascist government would do."

Yes exactly, which is why "corporatism" like to distance itself from "fascism", or should I say "neo-liberals. If you follow my meaning :whistle:


"In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. It is attempting to withdraw state control from such matters. It is seeking to enable people to act as autonomous individuals."

A ridiculous assumption based on the idea that society is comprised of individuals, itself a myth that seeks to distort the real nature of society.
The simple fact is that some state control is needed to regulate business. That is a historical reality, these are values that have been fought for by people for over 300 years. It is the only reason people support the state and in fact, historically when the state could not provide for people, like the 1930's, it was movements like fascism and communism that filled the void.
Secular society created the modern Nation/state.

"Now there certainly is a paradox at work here. In order to sponsor legislation that increases individual autonomy, the commonwealth Government is indeed seeking to centralise more power in its hands. This is part of a wider trend of which university policy is another example. A similar criticism was made of Margaret Thatcher, who also sought to increase individualism through centralisation. Liberals recognise that this is a worrying trend. But the causes should be sought as much with the states as with the commonwealth. Their financial dependence on the commonwealth is matched by an apparent incapacity to act responsibly. One suspects that this situation would only be resolved if the states were forced to raise their own finances."

Well this is a complete change of direction. Now the author wants to seperate Nationalism from Statism. Also It is difficult to know exactly what the author means by liberal? Is he a neo-liberal, a social democrat or a fascist ;) ?

"In any case, increased commonwealth control in an area is hardly to be construed as fascism, especially if the consequence is the adoption of more liberal policies."

Well..what can I say..as if the authors intentions are to create more liberal policies....what policies is he talking about? Surely he means specific economic neo-liberal policies, not general liberalism?


"Which raises the more interesting question: If we have had the growth of liberalism since 1983, what was the nature of the social order that preceded our age? That was the age when protection and government regulation ruled supreme in the economy and the financial sector, and arbitration and conciliation were the rule in industrial relations."

This guy is an idiot. It is neo-liberalism that has held ascendency since 1983 not liberalism, the two terms are completely different. We are all mostly liberals, our hard core religous friends excepted, but only a few economic extremists are neo-liberals.

"Going back to the early 20th century, one can discern in Australia a desire by the state to regulate and control the population and its activities. This was the time when state governments deprived Aborigines of many of their rights, a time when eugenics was embraced and doctors and bureaucrats thought they could improve the race. And it was the time when government believed that it could solve problems in the industrial arena with the heavy hand of state regulation. In fact, as liberal commentators soon realised, state involvement in industrial matters made things worse rather than better."

All these issues are important, but are they related and were they all state policy, historically speaking? Eugenics was never really more then a fringe interest.

"If there are any policies in the history of this country that resemble those of fascism, they belong to the 20th century. In line with the spirit of the age, the industrial relations policies of the Howard Government are part of a liberal move away from policies that people today would like to forget."

Mate, the Howard government is detaining people in refugee prison camps simply because they are stateless. It is also condoning an illegal war and does nothing to influence American policy on Guantanamo Bay, despite having the sheriffs ear.

"In saying this, I am not implying that Australia was ever fascist. It's just that too many Australian governments in the past made the error of believing that state control somehow meant progress."

Really I thought you were attempting to re-write history with a veiled attack on the left via your neo-liberal agenda.

"To call the present policies of the Howard Government fascist is a rhetorical device. But it is also a misuse and abuse of language that cannot go uncorrected."

No it is not. The Howard governments agenda is clearly fascist in orientation. Howard seeks to dominate people though his will to command. He is the person that is pushing a neo-liberal, corparitist agenda that is anti-democratic and authoritarian. He profits from his "ozzie mate" cultue of personality. Yes he is elected, but who ever voted for these individual changes? I most certainly did not.

"It is to condone a way of speaking that ignores historical and empirical evidence for the sake of scoring cheap political points. And it condones the manipulation of language for which fascist as well as communist regimes were notorious."

Rubbish, the comparisons are scary only history will be the judge.

"We should not allow words such as fascism to lose their particular meaning. I believe that it is incorrect to refer to Islamo-fascists. Islamists wish to re-create their version of the ideal Islamic society. Fascists sought to worship the state and nation because they had lost their religious faith."

Pass

"A liberal democracy relies on reasoned argument for its health. Argument can only proceed properly if our language is not corrupted by misuse. As George Orwell recognised, one of the true measures of a totalitarian state, be it fascist or communist, involves the debasement of language."

Language means something. Fascism is not just a state its roots are a movement based on authoritarianism. John Howard will be judged by history, not by the current political current. I am willing to bet on the long term view that this guy was just another muppet involved with the cult of personality. I reckon he is a fascist.

"Memo to politicians and political commentators: don't cheapen words such as fascism by flinging them around indiscriminately."

Since the author cannot even define "fascism" properly, then it would be particuarly naive of him to believe that his opinion held any influence.

"Gregory Melleuish is associate professor of history and politics at the University of Wollongong."

Who is this muppet clown? Why is he so stupid.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 07:34 PM
individualised society??? you have to be joking, surely? more like herd-mentality society


If society was based on a herd mentality would it be possible to even have this discussion?




so why do we call ourselves australians?


Because historically speaking, those that had power decided that this would be the base of our beliefs. The irony being, that the first Australians, were not even considered Australian until 1968. So what does it really mean?




is there nothing that connects us? is there an complete absense of community & common value here? is that what youre saying?

Generally speaking, we are more recognisable by our difference in values instead of our shared assumptions.

cheers Fg7

Lucena
21-11-2005, 07:38 PM
And this point was adequately refuted by Barry, who suggested that it does not matter if you indirectly or directly kill a person, the result is still the same.

cheers Fg7

I'm not saying the fact that the killing is less direct makes it ok, or that the result is different, I'm simply making a distinction between the two cases: direct killing and indirect killing are not identical. Sure the result is the same but the intention is not the same. Let's say you're texting and not looking where you're going, driving past a school at 3:45, 60 kph, there's a pretty good chance you're going to kill some kid, maybe little Johnny, on the pedestrian crossing. That's obviously a despicable thing to do. It's not the same as accelerating to 75 when you see little Johnny so that you have bits of him embedded in your bumper and your windscreen. I'm not saying Iraq's exactly like that. I'm saying you shouldn't consider deliberate, premeditated, targeted killing of innocent people and reckless, negligent, irresponsible but undesired killing of innocent people as identical. There is a similar distinction in law - you need to know what the intention was behind someone's actions.

Now, on the subject of terrorism, Barry seemed to be suggesting to suggest that the American actions constitued terrorism. I suspect he was mainly having fun poking holes in Peter's definition. My understanding of what is normally meant by "terrorism" excludes acts of military war. Acts that transgress the "laws of war" (I hate that phrase, it's almost counterintuitive that people are meant to kill each other according to well-defined rules, as if it was a sensible orderly game like tennis or ten-pin bowling) fall, if I am not mistaken, into the category of war crimes. Whether the US has engaged in war crimes in Iraq is another question. I think a competent lawyer could certainly make a good case(Goughfather?) - Abu Ghraib etc, the white phosphorus(and other incendiary weapons). But we could have a whole new thread on that question alone.

Garvinator
21-11-2005, 07:46 PM
hey fg7, can you go back through your post reply to the article i put up and sort out your quoting please :D

firegoat7
21-11-2005, 08:24 PM
hey fg7, can you go back through your post reply to the article i put up and sort out your quoting please :D

GG,

I put the authors quotes in quotation marks.(" ")
I didn't quote you because it was not your quote.
My replies are not in quotation marks.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2005, 09:27 PM
I actually agree with quite a lot of points in firegoat's demolition attempt.


"Of course, fascist is a cheap insult because its meaning is difficult to pin down and it invariably casts a slur on the person so described."

Nonsense. It's meaning is of historical importance.

You miss the point - which is that most people who use the word do not know what it actually means but use it as a euphemism for political movements that they don't like. Although the author also seems to overstate the difficulty of defining the concept.


Again, the author speaks with authoriaty about others, this time it's "student radicals" from the "new left", notice not anybody from liberal democratic institutions, the right or normal everyday people. By suggesting that the usage of the word is utilised by a minority the author seeks to destort the legitimacy of such a usage.He wants us to blame the left for the misuse, but not the right.

Good point. Abuse of the term "fascist" and similar terms by the Right against the Left has also been prominent recently, eg George Brandis' spray at the Greens. Then there are the (sort-of) right-wing parties that call each other fascist - both the CECers calling the neoliberals fascists and vice versa.


Notce, this is not a fact about socialism. It is a fact about people who possibly became fascist. So has the author explained fascism here? Or is this just a veiled attack on the left?

I think it's just a point that while it is now conventional to place fascism on the extreme right, that's actually simplistic because on economic issues fascism borrows from both left and right. You are correct in saying that the simple left/right dichotomy can't really classify it that well.


Any person who makes such a careless statement as this, about fascism, and socialism does not deserve to be called an intellectual.

Why not? Isn't the whole Marxist concept of false consciousness premised on a similar idea - that some individuals cannot adequately make their own decisions?


"There were two enemies. The first was liberalism and the autonomous individual who could exercise his or her conscience in deciding a proper course of action. The second was civil society, those voluntary organisations that individuals freely create to pursue their particular interests and that stand outside state supervision."

This is an historical rewrite. It is biased and historically inaccurate. One of the main ideologies opposed to fascism was communism (A point the author admits earlier). With fascism considering communism as its main political danger, since liberal democracy, at the historical moment of the 30s, was in complete ruins.

Having had a close look at election results in Europe in the early 1930s I tend to agree with firegoat's comment here. Lib dem in the countries that later embraced fascism was already very much struggling.


"This has allowed Australians to exercise much greater choice in many aspects of their lives."

I don't think so. The amount of choice available to people has probably decreased, in relation to work, especially if we consider the economical outcomes of such work. Moreover, how could such a claim ever be measuered?

The author is talking about "choice" in terms of legally available liberties. He would have been better off referring explicitly to liberties because sometimes curtailing the liberties of some leads to more practically available "choices" for many people, as you point out.


It is neo-liberalism that has held ascendency since 1983 not liberalism, the two terms are completely different. We are all mostly liberals, our hard core religous friends excepted, but only a few economic extremists are neo-liberals.

This is also (sort-of) what I was getting at - the guy's conception of "liberalism" seems to be limited to economics without considering the full spectrum of issues. Even then his picture is selective.


Mate, the Howard government is detaining people in refugee prison camps simply because they are stateless. It is also condoning an illegal war and does nothing to influence American policy on Guantanamo Bay, despite having the sheriffs ear.

This is also a good example of Howard's selective liberalism.

Arrogant-One
22-11-2005, 08:53 AM
Mate, the Howard government is detaining people in refugee prison camps simply because they are stateless. It is also condoning an illegal war and does nothing to influence American policy on Guantanamo Bay, despite having the sheriffs ear.

Actually Kevin, you're incorrect. The Howard government has no effect of American policy at all - although Australians and their politicians may believe otherwise. Nevertheless, there are good strategic reasons to support them in their 'War on Terrorism' as it has been so cleverly named.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2005, 12:13 PM
Actually Kevin, you're incorrect.

That was firegoat's quote, not mine. Whether Australia would have any influence on US policy is an open question - quite possibly none at all - but the fact that we do nothing to oppose it still stamps Howard as illiberal. Especially since one of those being held in the place is one of our own citizens.

Grendel
22-11-2005, 03:41 PM
If society was based on a herd mentality would it be possible to even have this discussion?

you're just a dedicated follower of fashion, fg7, a puveyor of left-wing cultural kitsch. you're trotting out the same old cliches, hardly original



Because historically speaking, those that had power decided that this would be the base of our beliefs. The irony being, that the first Australians, were not even considered Australian until 1968. So what does it really mean?

it's progress, slow, but we're getting there, developing osme sense of national identity


Generally speaking, we are more recognisable by our difference in values instead of our shared assumptions.

cheers Fg7

the only important value is monetary

firegoat7
22-11-2005, 05:22 PM
you're just a dedicated follower of fashion, fg7, a puveyor of left-wing cultural kitsch. you're trotting out the same old cliches, hardly original

Mate, your deluded..if I was a dedicated follower of fashion, I would be a liberal voter and a John Howard supporter. :owned: As for cliches, take a good look in the mirror, muppett, until you actually provide some evidence or proof then, it is safe to say, I can comfortably ignore your opinion.



it's progress, slow, but we're getting there, developing osme sense of national identity


Spoken like a muppet who has no clues about either the general world trends of nationalism or the nature of who "we" are.




the only important value is monetary
It's confirmed you now have 3 muppet norms. Maybe you ought to attempt to go for your supahoodooguru gm title, ya muppet :clap:

cheers Fg7

Garvinator
22-11-2005, 05:34 PM
It's confirmed you now have 3 muppet norms. Maybe you ought to attempt to go for your supahoodooguru gm title, ya muppet :clap:

cheers Fg7
you are lucky you didnt try and award the grand poohba of norms- a goosemaster norm ;) :cool: :lol:

Grendel
22-11-2005, 05:58 PM
Mate, your deluded..if I was a dedicated follower of fashion, I would be a liberal voter and a John Howard supporter. :owned: As for cliches, take a good look in the mirror, muppett, until you actually provide some evidence or proof then, it is safe to say, I can comfortably ignore your opinion.



Spoken like a muppet who has no clues about either the general world trends of nationalism or the nature of who "we" are.



It's confirmed you now have 3 muppet norms. Maybe you ought to attempt to go for your supahoodooguru gm title, ya muppet :clap:

cheers Fg7

typical left-wing existentialist nonsense born more out of privelige than epxerience. most of the world can't afford your priveliged opinions, most people know what it is to struggle to survive and when every day is an effort to complete most people want to protect what little they have. that becomes their sense of nationalism and they fear anyone who threatens to deprive them of what they possess. their nationalism is their common ownership and for most people there is nothing that is more important.

for most people being australian is relief at not being indian, malaysian or african. for most people the thing that matters is that piece of paper that puts them in the right queue at the airport and means that their salaries are counted in dollars and not in cents. most of us are not ashamed to admit our gratitude at being in the first world and not the third world and most of us believe that staying in the first world is worth fighting for or praying for and worth protecting.

firegoat7
23-11-2005, 01:44 PM
typical left-wing existentialist nonsense born more out of privelige than epxerience. most of the world can't afford your priveliged opinions, most people know what it is to struggle to survive and when every day is an effort to complete most people want to protect what little they have. that becomes their sense of nationalism and they fear anyone who threatens to deprive them of what they possess. their nationalism is their common ownership and for most people there is nothing that is more important.


You talk nonsense. Firstly, there is no third world without being classified as being third world. The people who do that consistently are the first world.


Secondly, To suggest that living in Australia is a priveleged experience you have to prove that the said, experience, is similar for all people. It is not, indigenous Australians die quicker then white people, why is that? Is that because of being Australian or is it because of history?

Thirdly,
Nationalism is not a great uniting force in societies with clan structures, any beginneer ought to understand that. How can nationalism be of much force in societies where media and writing are luxuries.

Fourthly,
Stop pretending you have any moral authority to talk about the third world. It is both obvious from your interpretation and your statements that you need to read a lot more about the issues before you begin your anti left rhetoric about what it is like to be third world, and who is responsible for being 3rd world.



for most people being australian is relief at not being indian, malaysian or african. for most people the thing that matters is that piece of paper that puts them in the right queue at the airport and means that their salaries are counted in dollars and not in cents. most of us are not ashamed to admit our gratitude at being in the first world and not the third world and most of us believe that staying in the first world is worth fighting for or praying for and worth protecting.

What ignorance. Malaysia is hardly in a worse situation then Australia. The only relief in nationality is the nonsensical idea that some humans ought to be more priveleged then others. If you think Nationalism does help to create this stupidity then you really are a muppet.

cheers Fg7

P.S God is dead, your prayers will not be answered.

Grendel
23-11-2005, 02:56 PM
You talk nonsense. Firstly, there is no third world without being classified as being third world. The people who do that consistently are the first world.

waaank


Secondly, To suggest that living in Australia is a priveleged experience you have to prove that the said, experience, is similar for all people. It is not, indigenous Australians die quicker then white people, why is that? Is that because of being Australian or is it because of history?


no you don't - that's bollocks. so there's discrimination, it doesn't mean the rest of us don't live in privelige. we're about ,what, the 8th richest country in the world per capita, and if a section of our country lives in abject poverty then it means the rest of us are even better of in comparison, doesn't it?


Thirdly,
Nationalism is not a great uniting force in societies with clan structures, any beginneer ought to understand that. How can nationalism be of much force in societies where media and writing are luxuries.

this is really pretentious stuff. we're erecting borders to protect ourselves against terrorism and the spread of poverty. anything inside is australia, outside is threat. you're either with us or against us, plain & simple.


Fourthly,
Stop pretending you have any moral authority to talk about the third world. It is both obvious from your interpretation and your statements that you need to read a lot more about the issues before you begin your anti left rhetoric about what it is like to be third world, and who is responsible for being 3rd world.
no moral authority, no responsibility, just distance.



What ignorance. Malaysia is hardly in a worse situation then Australia. The only relief in nationality is the nonsensical idea that some humans ought to be more priveleged then others. If you think Nationalism does help to create this stupidity then you really are a muppet.

cheers Fg7

P.S God is dead, your prayers will not be answered.

not ought, are. the west has been exporting it's poverty to the third world for decades. where in australia can we make nike shoes for less than a dollar? sweat shop labour and slavery are outlawed here. of course being australian leads to privelige. if you're a psychologist in india, or a computer tech, how much do you think they get paid?

firegoat7
25-11-2005, 11:43 AM
Grendel,

Your argument seems to be drifting. Not only have you not given any clear reason for your promotion of nationalism, American dependence, democracy, monetary value, individualised society, radical ultra right ww2 historical recreations, wealth, us versus them, Iraq invasions, progress, Middle class Canberra/White house values, third world politics,etc..

But you have also not given us any real reasons for your criticism of Left wing politics, which seems to be the general gist of your irrational rantings.

Nevertheless, I feel pity for you, and would like to point you to some websites which will help you to overcome your ignorance. At least that way, hopefully you can reflect on your ranting.




waaank


No doubt a sophisticated reply, one that Matt Sweeney may have been banned for on a general thread.

Here is a start for your self education...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=t&p=10

Third World
1963, from Fr. tiers monde, formulated 1952 by A. Sauvy on model of the third estate (Fr. tiers état) of Revolutionary France; his first world (The West) and second world (the Soviet bloc) never caught on.




no you don't - that's bollocks. so there's discrimination, it doesn't mean the rest of us don't live in privelige. we're about ,what, the 8th richest country in the world per capita, and if a section of our country lives in abject poverty then it means the rest of us are even better of in comparison, doesn't it?


It would be better to start from an accurate representation like this....

http://www.aneki.com/richest.html



this is really pretentious stuff. we're erecting borders to protect ourselves against terrorism and the spread of poverty. anything inside is australia, outside is threat. you're either with us or against us, plain & simple.


No doubt you have spent many a moment thinking about your nationalism position. However it may surprise you, but other people have investigated "nationalism", for a long time. This link may be useful for some reflection on your subjective interpretation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/


This next position is a complete change in direction for yourself. Not only are you a self proclaimed expert in economics, but you also seem to believe that comparative standards can be applied universally. Maybe you might want to define your definition of economics and see if they measure up to the idea of relativism. Nevertheless, it must be noted, in trying to defend the indefensible you have completely contradicted yourself in regards to "Us" and "Them", you now seem to be holding a left wing view on markets

Here is a start on relativism for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism




not ought, are. the west has been exporting it's poverty to the third world for decades. where in australia can we make nike shoes for less than a dollar? sweat shop labour and slavery are outlawed here. of course being australian leads to privelige. if you're a psychologist in india, or a computer tech, how much do you think they get paid?


Enjoy your readings, hopefully they will help.

cheers Fg7

Grendel
25-11-2005, 07:57 PM
Grendel,

Your argument seems to be drifting. Not only have you not given any clear reason for your promotion of nationalism, American dependence, democracy, monetary value, individualised society, radical ultra right ww2 historical recreations, wealth, us versus them, Iraq invasions, progress, Middle class Canberra/White house values, third world politics,etc..

But you have also not given us any real reasons for your criticism of Left wing politics, which seems to be the general gist of your irrational rantings.

No drift about it, the issues are very simple. Do we accept our governments view of the terrorist threat, border control, asylum seekers and police powers or is it excessive abuse of state power and manipulation. their 2 sides of the same coin, but i have more faith & confidence in our governments and what they say than to believe conspiracy theories from left wing mags and al jazeera.


Nevertheless, I feel pity for you, and would like to point you to some websites which will help you to overcome your ignorance. At least that way, hopefully you can reflect on your ranting.

why, because you have nothing valuable to say?




Third World
1963, from Fr. tiers monde, formulated 1952 by A. Sauvy on model of the third estate (Fr. tiers état) of Revolutionary France; his first world (The West) and second world (the Soviet bloc) never caught on.

so it's not to you're fashion tastes, you're not saying anything.



It would be better to start from an accurate representation like this....

http://www.aneki.com/richest.html

12th not 8th, well that makes a real big difference. pointlessness taken.


No doubt you have spent many a moment thinking about your nationalism position. However it may surprise you, but other people have investigated "nationalism", for a long time. This link may be useful for some reflection on your subjective interpretation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

make your own arguments - put up or shut up


This next position is a complete change in direction for yourself. Not only are you a self proclaimed expert in economics, but you also seem to believe that comparative standards can be applied universally. Maybe you might want to define your definition of economics and see if they measure up to the idea of relativism. Nevertheless, it must be noted, in trying to defend the indefensible you have completely contradicted yourself in regards to "Us" and "Them", you now seem to be holding a left wing view on markets

i know what we're doing, it isn't pretty. but there is no alternative to slavery for the maintenance of my lifestyle, or yours for that matter. it would take 10 earth planets to support everyone in the manner to which i'm accustomed, it just isn't possible.

i need my cars, i need my good food and i need the energy i consume to be available to me 24/7. i know my lifestyle is so generous that it requires the oppression of most of the worlds population in order that it can be supported. i accept all that and recognise it isn't going change unless it's taken away from me through war or failure in the australian economy.

i recognise the best way to protect my interests is to allign my allegiances to the strongest empire the world has ever seen. history shows that those who co-operate with empires fair better than those that don't.

Alan Shore
28-11-2005, 10:38 PM
Thank goodness for the Senate. They are blocking the Howard/Ruddock sedition laws that were part of the anti-terror bill.

Score for civil liberty!

Garvinator
28-11-2005, 10:40 PM
Thank goodness for the Senate. They are blocking the Howard/Ruddock sedition laws that were part of the anti-terror bill.

Score for civil liberty!
you sure about this?

arosar
28-11-2005, 10:47 PM
It's the recommendations of a Senate committee. Read here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/index.htm

AR

Alan Shore
28-11-2005, 10:49 PM
you sure about this?

Was reported on the Ten late news... the Liberal senators apparently have defected on that issue. It's not uncommon for a Senate to amend bills passed in the House.

So, I'm as sure as the degree to which the report is accurate.

Alan Shore
28-11-2005, 10:50 PM
It's the recommendations of a Senate committee. Read here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/index.htm

AR

Yep, but if a Senate committe go against it there's a huge chance of the bill not getting through, it's rare that a floor vote goes against Senate committe recommendations.

pballard
29-11-2005, 01:29 PM
Thank goodness for the Senate. They are blocking the Howard/Ruddock sedition laws that were part of the anti-terror bill.

Score for civil liberty!

What don't you like about the sedition laws? Do you think any sort of "sedition law" is acceptable, or would you oppose that from a principle of free speech?

I must confess I haven't followed this in great detail. I don't have a firm stance on it, and I'm curious what other people think.

Alan Shore
29-11-2005, 01:59 PM
What don't you like about the sedition laws? Do you think any sort of "sedition law" is acceptable, or would you oppose that from a principle of free speech?

I must confess I haven't followed this in great detail. I don't have a firm stance on it, and I'm curious what other people think.

From a principle of freedom of speech. Governments need to tackle problems with education - to address issues and rationally quell them, not cover them up. Blocking free speech will only cause other ways of manifesting sedition and will harbour resentment - it's a quick fix that would have long-term problems.

pballard
29-11-2005, 02:13 PM
From a principle of freedom of speech. Governments need to tackle problems with education - to address issues and rationally quell them, not cover them up. Blocking free speech will only cause other ways of manifesting sedition and will harbour resentment - it's a quick fix that would have long-term problems.

OK, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. If you're taking the "free speech" line... does freedom of speech include freedom to incite violence? Should it be allowable for a leader of group X says, "go out and wage war on all members of group Y"?

Personally I think it shouldn't be, though I realise it's (a) hard to know where to draw the line, and (b) hard to frame legislation which draws the line correctly.

Although, showing my ignorance of the current laws:
1. Isn't this already covered by existing legislation (though it varies from state to state)?
2. Do the proposed sedition laws go way beyond this?

Alan Shore
29-11-2005, 02:32 PM
Although, showing my ignorance of the current laws:
1. Isn't this already covered by existing legislation (though it varies from state to state)?
2. Do the proposed sedition laws go way beyond this?

1. To a point.
2. They propose measures such as extradition.

I'd love to go into an in-depth discussion about law, freedom and morality but I'm still quite restricted in my typing. (not from sedition restrictions, but medical ones, hehe).

four four two
29-11-2005, 02:53 PM
Sedition is generally classified as actions or words intended to provoke or incite rebellion against government authority . Of course "provoke" and "incite rebellion" can be very grey areas.

Most countries that have active sedition laws,such as,[China,Burma,Malaysia,Vietnam,Singapore,Nth Korea,Sth Korea,the former central asian republics of USSR,Zimbabwe,Cuba,etc] use their sedition laws to stifle any genuine political opposition in their countries.They assert that people with very differing political opinions are a threat to the "stability of the state " and should be suppressed for the greater good of maintaining public order.

Now Im not saying Howard and company have the intention of jailing their more overt political opponents in mass roundups, but I could see how this proposed law could be used to selectively silence an individual at a potenetially embarrasing time.Just look at how that recent american activist was booted out of the country,even though he was part of a legally organized demonstration. Such incidents could happen to future visitors to this country,as well as locals being temporarily incarcerated when the governments "foreign friends" are in town for a trade/foreign affairs visit. ;)

Oepty
30-11-2005, 05:20 PM
I think the governement is going ahead with the sedition laws despite the senate committees recommendation and it seems they might get through the senate as well.
Scott

arosar
30-11-2005, 05:36 PM
In RP, Marcos declared martial law ostensibly to fight the commies and a rising muslim insurgency in the south. Before you knew it, he was locking up everyone.

These anti-terror laws are a danger to us all. A similar set of laws were rejected in Britain recently, with a number of Blair's own people crossing the floor (if I remember right). The recent raids in NSW and VIC, using existing laws, prove that we don't need new, draconian, ones.

On ABC Radio this morning, Mal Fraser said something that every sane Lib politician ought to listen to. If there was a piece of legislation that had a good reason for crossing the floor - then this is it.

AR

PHAT
30-11-2005, 06:57 PM
OK, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. If you're taking the "free speech" line... does freedom of speech include freedom to incite violence? Should it be allowable for a leader of group X says, "go out and wage war on all members of group Y"?

There are a slue of existing laws both state and federal that cover all these matters. "incitement to riot," "conspiracy to commit [insert a crime]," et cetera. In short, we do not need any new powers for the powers to become more powerful. The balance right now is about right.

Alan Shore
07-12-2005, 01:31 AM
Anti-terror laws were passed.

:(

We should now blow up Phillip Ruddock's house. (Oh noes, sedition laws, off to jail for me.. see you in a few years).

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2005, 04:14 PM
Fortunately, it remains legal to propose nonviolent insurrection. :D

Rincewind
03-12-2008, 01:34 PM
[Following 10 posts moved from Gay Marriage thread - mod]


Oh yeah, right, right. Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation (http://www.jews4fairness.org/who.php/who.php), wrote in Rosie O’Donnell's Anti-Christian Smear (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=57914885-CA4E-443C-A670-A32BE9E8464C):

[INDENT]Let’s see if I’ve got this straight:

Militant Muslims behead prisoners. Radical Christians oppose embryonic stem-cell research.

Militant Muslims blow themselves up in crowded shopping malls, slaughtering women and children. Radical Christians defend traditional marriage.

Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings, Radical Christians work to protect the sanctity of human life.

Militant Muslims threaten to kill those whom they believe have insulted their precious Prophet. Radical Christians threaten to launch consumer boycotts.

Militant Muslims issue fatwas. Radical Christians distribute voter guides.

Yep, I can see the similarities all right. The two are as alike as peas in a pod. No wonder Jerry Falwell is so often mistaken for Sheik Nasrallah.

Following her obscene comparision, O’Donnell turned her laser-like reasoning to the war on terrorism.



Now I get it, Christian youth are a menace to society because they believe in the rightness of their cause, because they have firm convictions and because they view the other side as wrong – while loving them anyway.

And how about all of the students indoctrinated by teachers at the high school and college-level to: hate America, feel guilty if they’re male, Caucasian and/or heterosexual and see Republicans, right-to-lifers, opponents of gay marriage and oil company executives as “Satan.” Are they not equally “inflexible” and intolerant?

Since you are regurgitating this pile of drivel I assume to subscribe to the view that there has never been an act of terrorism perpetrated by a christian. I mean even leaving the Holocaust aside for the moment, you have plenty of more current examples:

- the IRA bombings for example, christian militants
- the Klu Klux Klan - christian militants
- the good Christians who shoot doctors that work in lawful abortion clinics - christian militants.

That's just for starters and not going too far back in history.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2008, 01:57 PM
Since you are regurgitating this pile of drivel I assume to subscribe to the view that there has never been an act of terrorism perpetrated by a christian.
Oh yeah, Christians are flying planes into buildings, torturing Jews and westerners in Mumbai then killing them in cold blood, rioting because of blasphemous cartoons of Jesus, killing apostates ... :wall: :doh:


I mean even leaving the Holocaust aside for the moment,
Of course, because as numerous Hitler biographers, Nuremberg prosecutors, Churchill, Hannah Arendt and their own propaganda films clearly show (see below), it was thoroughly evolutionary and anti-Christian (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6163/)
v/LiO_c5-6_Hw


you have plenty of more current examples:

- the IRA bombings for example, christian militants
Dr Mark Durie points out in Creed of the sword (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html), The Australian, 23 Sept 2006:

The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA's ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic.

IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.


- the Klu Klux Klan - christian militants
Nope—remember the indictment of former Ku Klux Klansman Bobby Frank Cherry for murder, for his alleged part in the KKK bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, 15 September 1963, which killed four black girls. This shows once more the virulently anti-Christian attitudes held by fanatical racists. (Cherry was ruled mentally unfit to stand trial, but two other ex-klansmen had previously been convicted of murder for this bombing).

Modern white supremacist David Duke is a staunch Darwinian (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4908). Not really surprising, because Hunter's Civic Biology, defended by the ACLU during the Scopes Trial (1925):


‘At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.’


- the good Christians who shoot doctors that work in lawful abortion clinics - christian militants.
As I explained before, the abortion clinic attacks are extremely rare, that you could count them on your fingers, despite the Leftmedia lies about them, and the pro-life groups universally condemn them (http://www.lifenews.com/nat97.html). Reconstructionist Gary North wrote a harsh letter denouncing Paul Hill, who killed an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html); Hill had previously been excommunicated by his church for talking about what he later did.


That's just for starters and not going too far back in history.
Oh, where's the claimed start?

TheJoker
03-12-2008, 02:15 PM
Second largest terrorist attack on US soil, was conducted in the name of libertarianism (McVeigh). It doesn't mean that many libertarians consider these actions as justified (except perhaps Sowell, see Sowell thread for details).

Rincewind
03-12-2008, 03:27 PM
Oh yeah, Christians are flying planes into buildings, torturing Jews and westerners in Mumbai then killing them in cold blood, rioting because of blasphemous cartoons of Jesus, killing apostates ... :wall: :doh:

Instead of frothing at the mouth with rhetoric you should try to answer the claim. In your opinion has a christian ever committed an act of terrorism?


Of course, because as numerous Hitler biographers, Nuremberg prosecutors, Churchill, Hannah Arendt and their own propaganda films clearly show (see below), it was thoroughly evolutionary and anti-Christian (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6163/)

You were spectacularly unable to demonstrate that the population of Germany was overwhelming christian and that Hitler used the Bible to sell the message. However, to avoid confusion with that discussion I specifically set aside the Holocaust. The fact that you started frothing at the mouth is just a systemic fault of your posting style. Rather than read a post and reply with a considered response you scan for key works and post links from your self-promoting website which generally fail to answer the claim actually made by the poster.


Dr Mark Durie points out in Creed of the sword (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html), The Australian, 23 Sept 2006:

The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA's ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic.

IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.

Perhaps or perhaps not but you are arguing a different thing. I didn't say they were inspired by Christ. I just said they were predominately christian which is true. This is also evident by the fact that when the IRA terrorised the overwhelmingly protestant Loyalists in the city of Belfast, they generally responded by persecuting the local catholic population.


Nope—remember the indictment of former Ku Klux Klansman Bobby Frank Cherry for murder, for his alleged part in the KKK bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, 15 September 1963, which killed four black girls. This shows once more the virulently anti-Christian attitudes held by fanatical racists. (Cherry was ruled mentally unfit to stand trial, but two other ex-klansmen had previously been convicted of murder for this bombing).[/INDENT]

The fact that they bombed a church does not make them a priori anti-christian. During the religious wars in Europe many churches and congregations were persecuted in the name of Christ. The Klan are dominated by protestant right wingers like yourself and arguing they are anti-christian is a bit hard when one of their emblems is a white cross and their leaders all profess to be christian.


Modern white supremacist David Duke is a staunch Darwinian (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4908). Not really surprising, because Hunter's Civic Biology, defended by the ACLU during the Scopes Trial (1925):


‘At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.’

In a piece written by Duke "Should Christians support Israel?" he states

"I am a Christian..."

So yep, former Grand Wizard professes Christianity. Now there is a surprise.


As I explained before, the abortion clinic attacks are extremely rare, that you could count them on your fingers, despite the Leftmedia lies about them, and the pro-life groups universally condemn them (http://www.lifenews.com/nat97.html). Reconstructionist Gary North wrote a harsh letter denouncing Paul Hill, who killed an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html); Hill had previously been excommunicated by his church for talking about what he later did.

There have not been many but there have been more than one and of course any recognised pro-life group is going to support a killing. However, the perpetrators are christian militants and terrorists.


Oh, where's the claimed start?

The claims still stand. Your problem is you don;t understand the claim and so argue cross purposes.

- IRA - christian terrorists
- Klan - christian terrorists
- abortion doctor killers - christian terrorists

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2008, 04:30 PM
Second largest terrorist attack on US soil, was conducted in the name of libertarianism (McVeigh).
That's a first. Normally misotheists of Rincy's ilk try to blame that on Christians too, although McVeigh was an outspoken misotheist (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/mcveigh.htm).


It doesn't mean that many libertarians consider these actions as justified (except perhaps Sowell, see Sowell thread for details).
Except that he has even written about revolutions in general and how bad they usually are, and explains why they are usually 'hijacked".

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2008, 04:45 PM
Instead of frothing at the mouth with rhetoric you should try to answer the claim. In your opinion has a christian ever committed an act of terrorism?
No.


You were spectacularly unable to demonstrate that the population of Germany was overwhelming christian and that Hitler used the Bible to sell the message.
Of course not—one can't demonstrate that which is not true. Ernst Mayr testified that biblical Christianity was non-existent during his childhood in early 20th century Germany. And it's pretty obvious from experts all round that Hitler despised Christianity and embraced the evolutionary "ethic". All Rincy can do ad infinitum is "But Hitler said he was a Christian", ignoring what else he said and more importantly, his actions.


Perhaps or perhaps not but you are arguing a different thing. I didn't say they were inspired by Christ. I just said they were predominately christian which is true.
Which as I documented was not. The teachings of Christ had nothing to do with the IRA. Indeed, this has been the case in Irish struggles where Catholics and Protestants could be on either side, even in the Battle of the Boyne (1690).


This is also evident by the fact that when the IRA terrorised the overwhelmingly protestant Loyalists in the city of Belfast, they generally responded by persecuting the local catholic population.
Political. The Church never supported the terrorism.


The fact that they bombed a church does not make them a priori anti-christian.
Yes it does. The Church is the house of God.


During the religious wars in Europe many churches and congregations were persecuted in the name of Christ.
Where did Christ ever teach persecution? The Koran teaches slaying infidels.


The Klan are dominated by protestant right wingers like yourself
Where is the proof? They were actually a Democrat phenomenon.


and arguing they are anti-christian is a bit hard when one of their emblems is a white cross and their leaders all profess to be christian.
Since when is a burning cross Christian? Where is racism justified in the Bible?


In a piece written by Duke "Should Christians support Israel?" he states

"I am a Christian..."
So what? Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog would realize that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, just as Christ Himself said (Mat. 7:21). Rather, actions speak louder than words. Duke was a staunch Darwinist in both word and deed, yet Darwinist professing "Christians are just the sort that Rincy praises.


So yep, former Grand Wizard professes Christianity. Now there is a surprise.
Lots of people can profess something regarded as good.


There have not been many but there have been more than one
The Leftmedia and misotheists generally give the impression that it's rife, as they downplay the thousands murdered by Islamofascists since Islam is a religion of peace.


and of course any recognised pro-life group is going to support a killing.
No, they go out of their way to condemn them.


However, the perpetrators are christian militants and terrorists.
Terrorists, yes, but no proof that they are Christian. Except that they might say they are. But Rincy would probably believe that someone claiming to be a Martian is proof that they really are a Martian.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2008, 04:58 PM
Second largest terrorist attack on US soil, was conducted in the name of libertarianism (McVeigh). It doesn't mean that many libertarians consider these actions as justified (except perhaps Sowell, see Sowell thread for details).
Did libertarian party condemn or praised his crime?
Do mainstream Christian organisation condemn or praise violent crimes by Christians?
Do mainstream Jewish organisation condemn or praise violent crimes by Jews?

Mainstream Muslims organisation were very restraint in condemnation of terrorism (especially until US crashed Taliban and then Hussein), and almost never do it unconditionally. They also tend to tell completely different things in Arabic and English.

The frequency of those attacks is also incomparable.

TheJoker
03-12-2008, 05:57 PM
Did libertarian party condemn or praised his crime?
Do mainstream Christian organisation condemn or praise violent crimes by Christians?
Do mainstream Jewish organisation condemn or praise violent crimes by Jews?

Mainstream Muslims organisation were very restraint in condemnation of terrorism (especially until US crashed Taliban and then Hussein), and almost never do it unconditionally. They also tend to tell completely different things in Arabic and English.

The frequency of those attacks is also incomparable.

Firstly mainstream Jewish organisations seem to praise the blowing up of entire housing estates containing a handful of militants and numerous innocent children. But this is another matter for another thread.

What do you consider mainstream muslim organisations?

They probably use restraint so as not to attract the attention of the terroists and become a target themselves.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2008, 08:09 PM
None of the questions answered, btw.

Firstly mainstream Jewish organisations seem to praise the blowing up of entire housing estates containing a handful of militants and numerous innocent children. But this is another matter for another thread.


Wrong (as usual).



They probably use restraint so as not to attract the attention of the terroists and become a target themselves.

The list of excuses is inexhaustible. I wonder why this category (Muslim terrorists) is the only category anybody fears to criticise. Nobody is scared to blame Jews, Christians, westerners, etc., often even without any justification.

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2008, 08:48 PM
In fact, loser pays seems so intuitively fair that many Americans are surprised to discover that the rest of the nation follows a very different rule. The so-called “American rule” — that each side in a dispute must pay its own lawyers, regardless of the outcome — prevails everywhere else in the country, with unfortunate results for justice.

I agree that having each side carry its own costs isn't good enough. Previously on this board I mentioned a court case I was involved in (and on the winning side of) over the delisting of a snail from the threatened species list. That case was heard in a tribunal that does not normally award costs and although we won the case overwhelmingly, the sheer cost of defending it for our side was such that the risk of being again taken to court (even unsuccessfully) had a negative impact on policy in the same area that lasted for several years.

Of course even having an award of costs is not always enough. You also have to be able to effectively collect them, which can require further legal action.


Oh yeah, right, right. Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation (http://www.jews4fairness.org/who.php/who.php), wrote in Rosie O’Donnell's Anti-Christian Smear (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=57914885-CA4E-443C-A670-A32BE9E8464C):

[INDENT]Let’s see if I’ve got this straight:

Militant Muslims behead prisoners. Radical Christians oppose embryonic stem-cell research.

etc.

No, militants who claim to be Muslims do various nasty things and militants who claim to be Christians do various nasty things. If al-Qaeda and so on are just "militant Muslims" then their "radical Christian" counterparts are the Lord's Resistance Army.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2008, 09:30 PM
No, militants who claim to be Muslims do various nasty things and militants who claim to be Christians do various nasty things. If al-Qaeda and so on are just "militant Muslims" then their "radical Christian" counterparts are the Lord's Resistance Army.
The differences:
1. There are many more terrorists citing Koran as justification for "various nasty things"
2. Terrorist claiming to be Muslim have a higher level of approval among Muslims then terrorist claiming to be Christian among Christians
3. Terrorist claiming to be Christians are condemned by Christian organisations swiftly and unconditionally. That is not always the case with Muslim organisations.

Rincewind
03-12-2008, 09:34 PM
No.

Right. Only because you refuse to define anyone who would commit terrorism to be a Christian by your narrow definition. But ignore for the minute your little delusion that you are the ultimate source of the definition of Christian. Catholics, Church of England and various other groups also consider themselves christian as well as many others besides.

Have any of these people using the wider, everyday meaning of the word Christian ever committed an act of terrorism?


Of course not—one can't demonstrate that which is not true. Ernst Mayr testified that biblical Christianity was non-existent during his childhood in early 20th century Germany. And it's pretty obvious from experts all round that Hitler despised Christianity and embraced the evolutionary "ethic". All Rincy can do ad infinitum is "But Hitler said he was a Christian", ignoring what else he said and more importantly, his actions.

You have the recollections of one man in no way demonstrates that biblical Christianity (whatever that means) was absent, let alone Christianity in the wider everyday sense.

They were 1/3 Catholic and 2/3 Lutheran and by any normal person's understanding they are both perfectly uncontroversial Christian denominations.


Which as I documented was not. The teachings of Christ had nothing to do with the IRA. Indeed, this has been the case in Irish struggles where Catholics and Protestants could be on either side, even in the Battle of the Boyne (1690).

Not talking about the IRA as a movement. Talking about the individuals involved in the IRA. Are you really trying to claim no one in the IRA was a Christian?


Political. The Church never supported the terrorism.

Church support is not what I'm claiming. What I am claiming is that they were militants and Christians. As were many of their opponents.


Yes it does. The Church is the house of God.

Perhaps by your definition. But to a white supremacist a gospel church is not. That doesn't make the Klan a priori unchristian, just a different sort of christian to you.


Where did Christ ever teach persecution? The Koran teaches slaying infidels.

Don;t know and don't care as it is besides the point. The question is not whether Christ taught anything. Just whether christians could be militants or terrorists.


Where is the proof? They were actually a Democrat phenomenon.

All their leaders proudly profess Protestant Christianity and they are anti-Atheist.

Are you seriously suggesting that more Klansmen voted for Obama than voted for McCain?


Since when is a burning cross Christian? Where is racism justified in the Bible?

There is plenty of racism in the bible but there is no need to go there. The cross is the ubiquitous symbol of christianity and occurs very rarely in other contexts. To the Klan burning the cross is symbolic of the members christian faith.

However, the burning cross is not the only cross in Klan symbolism and not the one I was referring to. I was talking about this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/KKK.svg/100px-KKK.svg.png


So what? Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog would realize that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, just as Christ Himself said (Mat. 7:21). Rather, actions speak louder than words. Duke was a staunch Darwinist in both word and deed, yet Darwinist professing "Christians are just the sort that Rincy praises.

No but he proudly claims to be a christian and goes to church, baptises his children and quotes from the bible. I think he can be classified as a christian by most people's definition.

Of course by Jono's definition, no one is a christian if they did anythig Jono doesn't approve of. This probably includes all the catholics and most of the Anglicans, certainly many prominent Anglicans like A/Bishop Rowan Williams.


Lots of people can profess something regarded as good.

True but Duke also actively practices his faith. Unless you have secret knowledge that he is really a satanist any reasonably person would have to concede he believes he is a christian.


The Leftmedia and misotheists generally give the impression that it's rife, as they downplay the thousands murdered by Islamofascists since Islam is a religion of peace.

I never said rife. Just present and perpetrated by Christians.


No, they go out of their way to condemn them.

Sorry, I missed a not in my reply.

Yes pro-life groups condemn them as would any organisation. That is not the same as all pro-lifers condemning them and they have had their small but vocal group of Christian supporters.


Terrorists, yes, but no proof that they are Christian. Except that they might say they are. But Rincy would probably believe that someone claiming to be a Martian is proof that they really are a Martian.

They do more than claim to be christian. They go to church, baptise their children, read the bible, and believe in god. By any normal definition of the word they are christians as were most of the people in the IRA, most of the people in Nazi Germany and almost exclusively all of the people in the various Klans. All Christians and many of them militants and terrorists.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2008, 10:01 PM
I agree that having each side carry its own costs isn't good enough. Previously on this board I mentioned a court case I was involved in (and on the winning side of) over the delisting of a snail from the threatened species list. That case was heard in a tribunal that does not normally award costs and although we won the case overwhelmingly, the sheer cost of defending it for our side was such that the risk of being again taken to court (even unsuccessfully) had a negative impact on policy in the same area that lasted for several years.
Interesting. Shame that vexatious litigation causes injustices here.


No, militants who claim to be Muslims do various nasty things and militants who claim to be Christians do various nasty things. If al-Qaeda and so on are just "militant Muslims" then their "radical Christian" counterparts are the Lord's Resistance Army.
Radical Muslims have ample justification in the Koran, and have quite wide support among Islamic clergy and the common people. Palestinians danced in the street after 11-9.

There is no such justification in the Bible for terrorism or racism, and no dancing in the street when the handful of abortion mills have been attacked.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 12:03 AM
None of the questions answered, btw.

They weren't answered because they were cleary rhetorical questions. You know the answers (or at least you think you do:rolleyes: ).

But just in case the questions were genuine.

1. Yes the libertarian party condemned his actions. Does make him any less libertarian. Does not change the fact that the terrorist act was commited in the name of libertarian ideals.

2.Christian groups tend issue restraint in condemnation or cover up such violent crimes (e.g. violent sexual abuse by christian ministers).

3. I dont hear widespread condemnation of Israeli terrorism, but I do hear widspread condemnation (and rightly so) of Palestinian terrorism. According to wiki the number of Palestinian children killed in the conflict is 8 times the number of Israeli children. Widespread killing of innocent children counts as terrorism in my book no matter who the perpetrator.









Wrong (as usual).

Another unsubstantiated opinion (as usual).



The list of excuses is inexhaustible. I wonder why this category (Muslim terrorists) is the only category anybody fears to criticise. Nobody is scared to blame Jews, Christians, westerners, etc., often even without any justification.

I dont see any fear to criticise muslim terrorism. I dont think I could have picked-up a news paper in the last week that wasn't criticising muslim terrorism. The atrocities commited by muslim terrorists are totally reprehensible; as are any acts of terrorism.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 08:55 AM
3. I dont hear widespread condemnation of Israeli terrorism,

Because Israel does not commit terrorism.

but I do hear widspread condemnation (and rightly so) of Palestinian terrorism. According to wiki the number of Palestinian children killed in the conflict is 8 times the number of Israeli children.

Conflict has been going for more then 60 years. I suspect they mean a specific period. Normal practice is to link to the article you refer to.
Palestinian are notorious for using the civilians, as well as children, as human shield. It is very effective as Israel goes out of it's way to avoid harming them. That way innocent children are killed (effectively by Palestinians) and Israel is blamed.


Widespread killing of innocent children counts as terrorism in my book no matter who the perpetrator.


Of course. That's what Palestinians are doing by putting their own children in the harm way deliberately.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 09:35 AM
Because Israel does not commit terrorism.
Well if you dont considerthe bombing of an apartment block with innocent people inside terrorism then you got a very strange definition


Conflict has been going for more then 60 years. I suspect they mean a specific period. Normal practice is to link to the article you refer to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2003

Sounds like you refuse to codemn the killing of innocent children and keep making up all sorts of justification for such actions. Exactly what you have been criticising in others :rolleyes:

MichaelBaron
04-12-2008, 09:36 AM
I am curious, what is the propotion of the non-muslim (all the other religions combined together) terrorist organisations when compared to the muslim ones.:hmm: I may be wrong (as i do not know the statical data) but I get a feeling that Muslim terrorist groups are responsible for a lion share of the terror going on.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 09:47 AM
I am curious, what is the propotion of the non-muslim (all the other religions combined together) terrorist organisations when compared to the muslim ones.:hmm: I may be wrong (as i do not know the statical data) but I get a feeling that Muslim terrorist groups are responsible for a lion share of the terror going on.

It may depend on how you define terrorism. To make it easier you look at organisations responsible for causing the highest number of civilian deaths. I think you'll find governments far outweigh any religious organisations.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler come to mind. As does the USA for the "collateral damage" caused by their military operations

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 10:28 AM
Well if you dont considerthe bombing of an apartment block with innocent people inside terrorism then you got a very strange definition

As usual you do not provide the example.
I know Israel does not practice delibarate targeting of civilians, it actually goes out of it way to minimise harm to civilians (which Palestinians use to their advantage, for example smuggling weapon in the ambulance car, firing from the hospitals, hiding in the church, etc.).


Sounds like you refuse to codemn the killing of innocent children and keep making up all sorts of justification for such actions. Exactly what you have been criticising in others :rolleyes:

Sounds like you want to blame the cause of innocent children on the wrong side, like Palestinian terrorists do.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 10:30 AM
It may depend on how you define terrorism. To make it easier you look at organisations responsible for causing the highest number of civilian deaths. I think you'll find governments far outweigh any religious organisations.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler come to mind. As does the USA for the "collateral damage" caused by their military operations
I understand, you'll use any excuses to avoid admitting that Muslim terrorists are responsible for overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 10:34 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2003

I also noticed that you hand-picked one period (2003). The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2008, 10:38 AM
Radical Muslims have ample justification in the Koran, and have quite wide support among Islamic clergy and the common people.

Anyone can find "ample justification" in the major monotheistic texts for violence if they choose to (mis)read them that way. Despite this, mainstream thinking in each religion stresses against such readings - not that you would necessarily care as your standard for Christianity at least appears to be your interpretation of the key text.


Palestinians danced in the street after 11-9.

Indeed they did, but that is no argument for anything as the Palestinians are a marginalised people who got a very raw end of the stick in the creation of modern Israel, and many have come to despise America as a result of its involvement in those issues. Most likely they hoped S11 would impact positively on their own situation; if so they were sadly mistaken.


I may be wrong (as i do not know the statical data) but I get a feeling that Muslim terrorist groups are responsible for a lion share of the terror going on.

Sure, it's the case that in the last 10 years or so terrorists claiming a link with Islam are far more prominent but as I mentioned when the thread was first started, in the USA there is a long and rich history of terrorist groups claiming links with Christianity. And my point isn't about which religion has the most terrorists claiming it as support but about the need for lawmakers and public commentators to be consistent in their treatment of terrorism rather than pretending Islam is the only faith that has an issue with it.

Incidentally now that the thread's been bumped it's probably necessary to go into the definition question again. In my view the key element of "terrorism" is the use of violence or threats of violence (inc. violence against property) to coerce a change in policy. The use of force to acheive an objective, even if this involves massive violations of "human rights", does not automatically qualify as terrorism.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 10:53 AM
I also noticed that you hand-picked one period (2003). The neutrality of this article is disputed.

It's just what came up first on the google search. I agree wiki is not an official source of information and can be wrong. However, it serves at least as an indicator.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 11:02 AM
I understand, you'll use any excuses to avoid admitting that Muslim terrorists are responsible for overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks.

No I'm just stating that it depends on you definition of terrorism.

If you want to consider terrorism by NGO's in the last few decades then muslim terrorists would likely make up the overwhelming majority.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 11:17 AM
As usual you do not provide the example.
I know Israel does not practice delibarate targeting of civilians, it actually goes out of it way to minimise harm to civilians (which Palestinians use to their advantage, for example smuggling weapon in the ambulance car, firing from the hospitals, hiding in the church, etc.).

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,329867,00.html

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 12:03 PM
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,329867,00.html
All accounts clearly show that:
1. Israel primarily goal was not innocent civilians, but a mastermind of numerous terrorist attack
2. Israel made a mistake in estimating possible outcome. i.e. did not exercise "due care" to shield others from this attack.
IMO, it's a job for Hamas, not Israel. But Israel accepted the blame.
3. If Israel knew the outcome, they would plan operation differentialy.

It clearly shows that Israel aims to minimise civilian death, while Hamas and Palestinian terrorists aim to maximise civilian death.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 12:43 PM
All accounts clearly show that:
1. Israel primarily goal was not innocent civilians, but a mastermind of numerous terrorist attack
2. Israel made a mistake in estimating possible outcome. i.e. did not exercise "due care" to shield others from this attack.
IMO, it's a job for Hamas, not Israel. But Israel accepted the blame.
3. If Israel knew the outcome, they would plan operation differentialy.

It clearly shows that Israel aims to minimise civilian death, while Hamas and Palestinian terrorists aim to maximise civilian death.

Dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in a city with an extremely high population, to kill a sinlge alleged terrorist, and not to expect innocent civilian causualties, is either the epitome of stupidity or premeditated terrorism. Considering the experience of Israel's military the former is highly unlikley.

How being at home with your wife and kids is an attempt to maximise civilian casualties is beyond me.

Surely an elite force such as Israel's could have aprehended the alleged criminal in a less violent and safer manner.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 01:05 PM
Dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in a city with an extremely high population, to kill a sinlge alleged terrorist, and not to expect innocent civilian causualties, is either the epitome of stupidity or premeditated terrorism. Considering the experience of Israel's military the former is highly unlikley.
You make a common error of overestimating Israel's military.


How being at home with your wife and kids is an attempt to maximise civilian casualties is beyond me.
For normal citizen it's not. But the one in question was not a "normal citizen"


Surely an elite force such as Israel's could have aprehended the alleged criminal in a less violent and safer manner.
Maybe, risking lives of soldiers.
Palestinian Arab terrorist don't try to reduce civilian casualties among Jews. Quite contrary, they deliberately target civilians. The first task of the government is to protect your own population, not of your enemy. Israel's government is failing in the former.
It raises a question:
Why should Israel bother in the first place?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2008, 01:36 PM
Anyone can find "ample justification" in the major monotheistic texts for violence if they choose to (mis)read them that way.
Who says it's "misreading". However, Muslims have a doctrine called Naskh (نسخ) or ‘abrogation’, where if there is a conflict, passages written later supersede earlier ones. The problem in our society is explained by John Burton in Encyclopedia of Islam:


‘Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.’

Answering-Islam.org explains in Jihad in Islam: Is Islam Peaceful or Militant? (http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/jihad.htm)


The well known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, notes four stages in the development of jihad: 1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists. He views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent.


Despite this, mainstream thinking in each religion stresses against such readings - not that you would necessarily care as your standard for Christianity at least appears to be your interpretation of the key text.
No, the grammatical-historical approach.

Just consider the huge difference between Jesus and Muhammad about how to spread their respective messages—this alone suffices to defeat the ‘moral equivalence’ arguments.


Indeed they did, but that is no argument for anything as the Palestinians are a marginalised people who got a very raw end of the stick in the creation of modern Israel, and many have come to despise America as a result of its involvement in those issues.
Nonsense. They got a much better deal than the Sudeten Germans for collaborating with the Nazis in WW2 (see Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Myths (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E36120C9-D999-4CE1-B285-A838B7D316A2) by Alan Dershowitz). Even now, they target Israeli civilians, while Israelis go out of their way to minimize civilian casualities. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court is dominated by bleeding heart lefties that decree that Israeli soldiers should be risked rather than the "civilians" who give moral and physical support to the murderers.


Sure, it's the case that in the last 10 years or so terrorists claiming a link with Islam are far more prominent but as I mentioned when the thread was first started, in the USA there is a long and rich history of terrorist groups claiming links with Christianity.
Yet you will look in vain for biblical justification for either racism or terrorism. Conversely, The Two Faces of Islam . . . Still Smiling: Why All Muslims Benefit From Terrorism (http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm) By David Wood


I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example set by another great religious leader—one who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!" when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.


And my point isn't about which religion has the most terrorists claiming it as support but about the need for lawmakers and public commentators to be consistent in their treatment of terrorism rather than pretending Islam is the only faith that has an issue with it.
So why are all the modern terrorists Islamic? There are no Christian or Jewish suicide bombers. Indeed, Alan Dershowitz writes in Worshippers of Death (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450617910806563.html):


"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2008, 02:12 PM
Who says it's "misreading". However, Muslims have a doctrine called Naskh (نسخ) or ‘abrogation’, where if there is a conflict, passages written later supersede earlier ones. The problem in our society is explained by John Burton in Encyclopedia of Islam:

‘Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.’

Sounds a bit like OT vs NT where there is the same issue when some people want to invoke OT standards incorrectly.


No, the grammatical-historical approach.

Which is just another term for your interpretation. It describes your approach to interpreting the scriptures.


They got a much better deal than the Sudeten Germans for collaborating with the Nazis in WW2 (see Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Myths (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E36120C9-D999-4CE1-B285-A838B7D316A2) by Alan M. Dershowitz).

I would be interested to see paulb's view on this if he's around. In my previous discussions of the rights or wrongs of the current situation I have focussed a lot of attention on the history of land control by various ethnicities in the area and not a lot on the question of who was sympathetic to who and why in WWII.


So why are all the modern terrorists Islamic? There are no Christian or Jewish suicide bombers.

Christian countries and the one Jewish country are generally well off with high education levels, and it seems harder for terrorist movements to get started in such circumstances. In very poor African nations, shonkily self-professed Christianity co-exists with mass terrorism and extreme human rights violations in cases like the Lord's Resistance Army.

I see it as primarily a political thing motivated by perceptions in the Islamic world concerning the west's treatment of the Palestinian issue, rather than a matter of a certain religion being more conducive to violence than another. Even some self-professed Buddhists can be violent under certain political circumstances.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Maybe, risking lives of soldiers.
Palestinian Arab terrorist don't try to reduce civilian casualties among Jews. Quite contrary, they deliberately target civilians. The first task of the government is to protect your own population, not of your enemy. Israel's government is failing in the former.
It raises a question:
Why should Israel bother in the first place?

This type of argument leads to tit-for-tat terrorism.

Note that under international law you should not kill non-combatants. Just because one-side is breaking the law it does not justify the other side to also break the law.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2008, 03:20 PM
This type of argument leads to tit-for-tat terrorism.

Are you saying an attack should be unpunished?
BTW, Arab states became much more explicit in their condemnation of terrorism (and drastically reduced support for terrorists) after USA crashed Taliban and then deposed Hussein.
Tit-for-tat does work, it's the base for any justice system or international relations.
If Israel was not so restraint relative peace would be restored long time ago.

Anyway, that's the topic for a different discussion.



Note that under international law you should not kill non-combatants. Just because one-side is breaking the law it does not justify the other side to also break the law.
Wrong. You should avoid deliberately killing non-combatant. You are not responsible for enemy's non-combatant, especially if enemy's military deliberately use them as human shield.

Desmond
04-12-2008, 03:36 PM
Was your letter in the OP published, Kevin?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2008, 04:36 PM
This type of argument leads to tit-for-tat terrorism.
Not at all. Most Palestinian civilian casualties are due to the terrorists hiding among them, including in hospitals and schools. Under the normal rules of war, it is those belligerents hiding among the civilians who are culpable for their casualties.

Conversely, the Palestinian terrorists deliberately target civilians.


Note that under international law you should not kill non-combatants. Just because one-side is breaking the law it does not justify the other side to also break the law.
What a goody-two-shoes you sound like. But "world opinion" whinges at the slightest wrong the Israelis commit, but want to, in effect, reward the murderous Palestinian terrorists by presurring Israel to award them still more "land for peace".

Don't forget that the Mumbai butchers targeted the only synagogue in Mumbai. And Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers in the Arab world.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Sounds a bit like OT vs NT where there is the same issue when some people want to invoke OT standards incorrectly.
Note that the claim that the OT preaches a God of war while the NT preaches a God of love is hugely mistaken (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/goddiff.html). But even if the claim were true, any doctrine of abrogation moves in the opposite direction from that in Islam. But note that we don't find many Jews taking specific instances of the OT as normative , although Jews have historically suffered far worse persecutions than Arabs.


Which is just another term for your interpretation.
Historical-grammatical hermeneutics has been around for a lot longer than I have.


It describes your approach to interpreting the scriptures.
It described the proper approach for interpreting not only Scriptures but any document. The alternative is basically postmodernism.


I would be interested to see paulb's view on this if he's around.
I've already debated this with him (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6890&page=7).


In my previous discussions of the rights or wrongs of the current situation I have focussed a lot of attention on the history of land control by various ethnicities in the area and not a lot on the question of who was sympathetic to who and why in WWII.
It should be notable that Arafat's hero and mentor was the Hitler-loving mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who helped recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS:

bNzTL4zu5Xg&feature=related


Christian countries and the one Jewish country are generally well off with high education levels, and it seems harder for terrorist movements to get started in such circumstances.
That can't explain much: many terrorists are highly educated and come from wealthy backgrounds, e.g. OBL.


In very poor African nations, shonkily self-professed Christianity co-exists with mass terrorism and extreme human rights violations in cases like the Lord's Resistance Army.
Right, so where is the support from the Bible? It's more likely a lack of Bible and surplus of syncretism. Where are the Christian leaders who support it, to compare with:


Islam is Not a Religion of Pacifists
by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1942

Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. …

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

MichaelBaron
04-12-2008, 06:52 PM
It may depend on how you define terrorism. To make it easier you look at organisations responsible for causing the highest number of civilian deaths. I think you'll find governments far outweigh any religious organisations.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler come to mind. As does the USA for the "collateral damage" caused by their military operations

I agree with you that a lot of governments can be accused of carrying out of the terror-related activities. However, by saying "it depends" you seem to be disguizing the fact that there is a particular ethnic/religous group that appears to be causing a lot of trouble!

MichaelBaron
04-12-2008, 06:54 PM
Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.[/INDENT]


Many sections of Koran carry true words of wisdom. However, these particulary extracts quoted by Jono indeed explain a lot of the issues the Islamic society has distancing themselves from the terrorists.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2008, 10:09 PM
Was your letter in the OP published, Kevin?

Yes it was, to my surprise. I have about a 3/4 strike rate for getting letters published but have not sent any for a year or more.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2008, 10:21 PM
:clap:
Yes it was, to my surprise. I have about a 3/4 strike rate for getting letters published but have not sent any for a year or more.
Not bad!

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2008, 10:37 PM
Right. Only because you refuse to define anyone who would commit terrorism to be a Christian by your narrow definition.
My "narrow definition" = following Christ. Rincy's postmodernist "definition" is anyone who may have once claimed to be a Christian, regardless of his actions, his closest allies, what others thought of him, what his biographers thought, what Nuremberg prosecutors documented ....


But ignore for the minute your little delusion that you are the ultimate source of the definition of Christian. Catholics, Church of England and various other groups also consider themselves christian as well as many others besides.
And they would all condemn terrorism and racism!


You have the recollections of one man in no way demonstrates that biblical Christianity (whatever that means) was absent, let alone Christianity in the wider everyday sense.
I not only documented Mayr's recollections, but also that Germany was the borthplace of liberal theology, which is basically evolution superseding Scripture.


Not talking about the IRA as a movement. Talking about the individuals involved in the IRA. Are you really trying to claim no one in the IRA was a Christian?
Of course.


Perhaps by your definition. But to a white supremacist a gospel church is not.
Not interested, unless you can show that they can point to biblical support or the the teachings of Christ to justify white supremacy.


That doesn't make the Klan a priori unchristian, just a different sort of christian to you.
Nope, contrary to the teachings of Christ, as I've amply documented. And Christ Himself said that not all who call Him "Lord, Lord" are His followers.


Don;t know and don't care as it is besides the point. The question is not whether Christ taught anything. Just whether christians could be militants or terrorists.
It is the whole point. It's the only thing that matters. Those who profess Christianity but practice the opposite are no reflection on Christianity.


All their leaders proudly profess Protestant Christianity and they are anti-Atheist.
Proof?


Are you seriously suggesting that more Klansmen voted for Obama than voted for McCain?
Irrelevant. The first KKK was founded by disaffected Dems after the War between the States. The second KKK was revived after the film Birth of a Nation, which glorified the first KKK and was Dem President Woodrow Wilson's favorite film.


There is plenty of racism in the bible but there is no need to go there.
What crap. There isn't the slightest indication that skin pigmentation is an issue. Rather, there is only ONE human race.


The cross is the ubiquitous symbol of christianity and occurs very rarely in other contexts. To the Klan burning the cross is symbolic of the members christian faith.
Means nothing. There are plenty of cases where good symbols are counterfeited. Even in the Bible, the bronze serpent eventually became an idol.


True but Duke also actively practices his faith.
Proof? There is ample proof that he abandoned true (biblical) Christianity in favour of evolutionary ideas, and the latter are the basis for his white supremacy.


Yes pro-life groups condemn them as would any organisation. That is not the same as all pro-lifers condemning them and they have had their small but vocal group of Christian supporters.
You can count them on your fingers. But millions of Muslims support the radicals.


By any normal definition of the word they are christians as were most of the people in the IRA, most of the people in Nazi Germany and almost exclusively all of the people in the various Klans. All Christians and many of them militants and terrorists.
Nope, as documented, the IRA was Marxist and atheist. The Irish are well known for responding to someone claiming to be an atheist with, "aye, but are ye a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" The IRA battles were certainly not over transubstantiation!

Rincewind
04-12-2008, 11:38 PM
My "narrow definition" = following Christ. Rincy's postmodernist "definition" is anyone who may have once claimed to be a Christian, regardless of his actions, his closest allies, what others thought of him, what his biographers thought, what Nuremberg prosecutors documented ....

You are claiming that there were no christians in Germany at all despite the facts that 1/3 were catholic and 2/3 were Lutheran. The basis for your claim is that someone said that biblical christianity was absent.

It is more than a bit of a stretch that an entire country profession to be more than 90% christian is defined by you to be entirely non-christian based on the testimony of this one individual. As much as you would like to believe him.


And they would all condemn terrorism and racism!

Of course they would. But again you are confusing the organisation and the individuals making up that church. All the members of these churches would not condemn terrorism because some of them engage in terrorism and racism themselves.


I not only documented Mayr's recollections, but also that Germany was the borthplace of liberal theology, which is basically evolution superseding Scripture.

So which of the major churches are currently considered non-christian due to their liberal theology. I suppose we have to take it as read that Catholicism and Lutherism are non-christian. (Seeing as they were the major ones we are talking about in Germany).


Of course.

That is a laugh. Not a single catholic in the IRA. Are you sure?


Not interested, unless you can show that they can point to biblical support or the the teachings of Christ to justify white supremacy.

It was your point anyway, so if you aren't interested in defending the point that a christian could not possible bomb a baptist church then my job is done.


Nope, contrary to the teachings of Christ, as I've amply documented. And Christ Himself said that not all who call Him "Lord, Lord" are His followers.

And all those who aren't...

The bible like any large collection of works of different authors is full of inconsistencies and can be used to justify any number of position on any issue. This is part of the reason there are so many different flavours of christianity.


It is the whole point. It's the only thing that matters. Those who profess Christianity but practice the opposite are no reflection on Christianity.

So which major denomination commonly regarded as christian are non-christian by your narrow definition?


Proof?

Can you name one who isn't?

For starters how about Thomas Robb. Head of the Knights of the KKK and a doctor of theology from the Rocky Mountain Kingdom Bible Institute.


Irrelevant. The first KKK was founded by disaffected Dems after the War between the States. The second KKK was revived after the film Birth of a Nation, which glorified the first KKK and was Dem President Woodrow Wilson's favorite film.

I think you're living in the past Jono. The KKK is dominated by extreme right wingers like Robb and over the past 20 years have to align themselves with neo-Nazi groups.


What crap. There isn't the slightest indication that skin pigmentation is an issue. Rather, there is only ONE human race.

Racism is just about skin pigmentation. The OT is full of "chosen people" and the killing of people who are not "chosen". It doesn't take much to read racism into those stories.


Means nothing. There are plenty of cases where good symbols are counterfeited. Even in the Bible, the bronze serpent eventually became an idol.

It is indicative of the faith of their members. The rally under a cross, they burn crosses to signify the faith of their members. They certainly consider themselves christians.


Proof? There is ample proof that he abandoned true (biblical) Christianity in favour of evolutionary ideas, and the latter are the basis for his white supremacy.

What crap. As you point out there is only one species.


You can count them on your fingers. But millions of Muslims support the radicals.

We are not arguing numbers we are arguing the EXISTENCE of even one christian terrorist. Your position is that none exist.


Nope, as documented, the IRA was Marxist and atheist. The Irish are well known for responding to someone claiming to be an atheist with, "aye, but are ye a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" The IRA battles were certainly not over transubstantiation!

The motivations were irrelevant and the IRA did not require atheist members. If they had they never would have got more than 100 members. But for the purposes of this discussion you need to show that the IRA was 100% atheist, because your claim is that no christian has ever been a terrorist.

So far we have:

- IRA - majority christian
- Klans - majority christian
- Abortion doctor killers - majority christian
- Nazi Germany - majority christian

You need to show that these are not true and not just by your narrow definition of christianity (ie people who agree with you) but by the everyday meaning of christianity which includes all major denominations including

- Catholics
- Lutherans
- Anglicans
- Reformed
- Latter day saints
- Nontrinitarians
- Uniting
- Presbyterian
- Methodist
- Baptist
- Pentecostal
- Charismatic
- Brethren
- etc, etc, etc

So if the definition of christianity you have in mind doesn't include all these groups it is narrower than standard usage.

TheJoker
04-12-2008, 11:43 PM
I agree with you that a lot of governments can be accused of carrying out of the terror-related activities. However, by saying "it depends" you seem to be disguizing the fact that there is a particular ethnic/religous group that appears to be causing a lot of trouble!

Not really trying to disguise anything, just trying to put it into perspective. As atrocious as these muslim terror attacks are, far more innocent civilians are dying as a result of a of the US invasion of Iraq that was conducted under the false pretenses of WMDs.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 12:05 AM
Conversely, the Palestinian terrorists deliberately target civilians.
And dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in dowtown Gaza is not deliberately targeting civilians.

Aslo as for hiding. If the palestinians fought a conventional war against the Israeli's they would be crushed in days. While I deplore ther targeting of innocent civilians, I can understand why they operate among the civilians population, any other strategy would result in certain defeat.



What a goody-two-shoes you sound like. But "world opinion" whinges at the slightest wrong the Israelis commit, but want to, in effect, reward the murderous Palestinian terrorists by presurring Israel to award them still more "land for peace".

Somehow I thought it was Israel that was progressively settling in Palestinian lands?


Don't forget that the Mumbai butchers targeted the only synagogue in Mumbai. And Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers in the Arab world.

I don't doubt the hostility of muslims towards jews. I just dont see how the killing of innocent civilians by either side is supposed to resolve anything. Seems to me it can only make things worse. We all know that someone who has had an innocent family member killed is more likely to become a militant/terrorist themselves.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 12:19 AM
Are you saying an attack should be unpunished?.

No I am saying conduct the punishment in a way that doesn't harm other innocent people.


Tit-for-tat does work, it's the base for any justice system or international relations.

Yes but punishment against the criminal only. If you kill a few civilians you are only going turn their families into militants/terrorist.



Wrong. You should avoid deliberately killing non-combatant.

Like I said dropping a one-ton bomb on a downtwon apartment building housing a single militant is deliberately killing non-combatants.

Lets say Osama Bin Laden was hiding in an apartment building in Melbourne. What would be the public reaction if the USA bombed the place killing 14 innocent Australians and injuring hundreds of others then said not our fault its Osama's for hiding there. And Bush said the mission was a great sucess, too bad about the civvy casualties.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 10:47 AM
Like I said dropping a one-ton bomb on a downtwon apartment building housing a single militant is deliberately killing non-combatants.

So you are happy to equate one military mistake with hundreds (if not thousands) deliberate terrorist attacks.

MichaelBaron
05-12-2008, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE=TheJoker]

Aslo as for hiding. If the palestinians fought a conventional war against the Israeli's they would be crushed in days. While I deplore ther targeting of innocent civilians, I can understand why they operate among the civilians population, any other strategy would result in certain defeat.
QUOTE]

So what is your point? In a conventional war is not an option, people should switch to terrorism?

Any other strategy would result in certain defeat? Why not try negotiations instead then rather than resort to violence. Israel never started the violence and it would like to see a PEACEFUL resolution.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 11:19 AM
So you are happy to equate one military mistake with hundreds (if not thousands) deliberate terrorist attacks.

Firstly I dont think it was a mistake at all. Even the most simple person would reasonably suspect innocent lives to be lost from such an action. Considering the planning that goes into such operations, it is difficult to call it anything but a calculated attack on the civilian population under the guise of a military operation. But that is a personal opinion you are entitled to yours.

Secondly the number of Palestinian civilian deaths and the civilian detah toll in the Lebanon War in 2006 seems to indicate that this is not an isolated incident.

I want to point out clearly that I am not seeking to justify any Palestinian terrorsit attacks. The should be strongly condemned. As should any actions that cause unecessary civilian deaths.

But to put it inot perspective the number of civilians being killed by muslim terrorism only represents a small fraction of the total number of civilian deaths caused by violent militant actions in the last decade.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 11:53 AM
So what is your point? In a conventional war is not an option, people should switch to terrorism?.

Unconventional warfare is not necessarily terrorism. As long as target are military and not civilian.


Any other strategy would result in certain defeat? Why not try negotiations instead then rather than resort to violence. Israel never started the violence and it would like to see a PEACEFUL resolution.

I meant military strategy. Negotiations may be useful however they have been largely unsuccessful so far. Their some underlying issues that are difficult to resolve through negotiation, some Arabs deny Israel's right to exist.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 03:11 PM
Their some underlying issues that are difficult to resolve through negotiation, some Arabs deny Israel's right to exist.
Interesting logic:
Arabs deny Israel's right to exist, therefore some issues are difficult to resolve through negotiation, therefore Arabs have no choice but military action. As they cannot defeat Israel they have to use underground tactics, hence terrorism is justified.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 03:13 PM
Firstly I dont think it was a mistake at all. Even the most simple person would reasonably suspect innocent lives to be lost from such an action. Considering the planning that goes into such operations, it is difficult to call it anything but a calculated attack on the civilian population under the guise of a military operation. But that is a personal opinion you are entitled to yours.


More then one person is involved in planning, mistakes are possible. You keep chewing on one example ignoring hundreds of the opposite.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Interesting logic:
Arabs deny Israel's right to exist, therefore some issues are difficult to resolve through negotiation, therefore Arabs have no choice but military action. As they cannot defeat Israel they have to use underground tactics, hence terrorism is justified.

Nowhere did I say terrorism was justified, if fact I cleary stated the opposite on many occasions, I would appreciate it if you would ammend your post accordingly.

Note underground tactics do not necessarliy involve terrorism. The French Resistance used underground tactics but not terrorism, there is a big difference

pax
05-12-2008, 03:46 PM
One needs to be a little careful with definitions here.

It is too broad to classify as "terrorism" any action which results in the loss of civilian lives, irrespective of whether such loss of life could have been predicted. My view is that terrorism is an action which is deliberately targeted at innocent civilians.

Israel's actions in blowing up an apartment block are heinous in my view where civilian casualties are predictable, but not necessarily terrorism where civilians are not the target. Indiscriminate bombing of a civilian area might be regarded as terrorism if there is no specific military target.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 03:46 PM
More then one person is involved in planning, mistakes are possible. You keep chewing on one example ignoring hundreds of the opposite.

I don't ignore muslim terrorism I strongly condemn it.

The reason the argument is focusing on Israel actions is that we differ in our opinion of whether it was a terrorist act. We seem to agree regarding the muslim targeting of civilians as being terrorism.

I'd also like to refer you to the title of the thread.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 03:59 PM
One needs to be a little careful with definitions here.

It is too broad to classify as "terrorism" any action which results in the loss of civilian lives, irrespective of whether such loss of life could have been predicted. My view is that terrorism is an action which is deliberately targeted at innocent civilians.

Israel's actions in blowing up an apartment block are heinous in my view where civilian casualties are predictable, but not necessarily terrorism where civilians are not the target. Indiscriminate bombing of a civilian area might be regarded as terrorism if there is no specific military target.

Are you sure civilians are not also the targets?

Are you sure that bombing apartments building containing suspected (not convicted) terrorists is not a way to terrorise the population into submission.

If a Hezbollah uses an RPG to blow up a bus with a single Israeli soldier and 35 civilians on baord. Would you consider this terrorism even though they might claim it was military operation and the primary target was the Israeli Soldier?

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 04:08 PM
It is too broad to classify as "terrorism" any action which results in the loss of civilian lives, irrespective of whether such loss of life could have been predicted. My view is that terrorism is an action which is deliberately targeted at innocent civilians.

I agree with this definition


Israel's actions in blowing up an apartment block are heinous in my view where civilian casualties are predictable, but not necessarily terrorism where civilians are not the target.

I dispute it's heinous, but agree with the rest.


Indiscriminate bombing of a civilian area might be regarded as terrorism if there is no specific military target.
Like Dresden bombing during WWII?

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 04:16 PM
Are you sure civilians are not also the targets?
Are you sure that bombing apartments building containing suspected (not convicted) terrorists is not a way to terrorise the population into submission.

Keep trying to use a single example (which contrary to hundreds other) to justify your point and equate terrorists and victim.
Are you serious in in using the line that he is suspected, not convicted?
Using your logic, killing Hitler during WWII would be a crime as he wasn't convicted.



If a Hezbollah uses an RPG to blow up a bus with a single Israeli soldier and 35 civilians on baord. Would you consider this terrorism even though they might claim it was military operation and the primary target was the Israeli Soldier?
What is the military benefit of killing one soldier? How would Hezbollah know there is a soldier?
You seem to use thousands of ifs and maybes, singling out uncharacteristic examples to muddy the clear facts.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 04:24 PM
I don't ignore muslim terrorism I strongly condemn it.
Good


The reason the argument is focusing on Israel actions is that we differ in our opinion of whether it was a terrorist act. We seem to agree regarding the muslim targeting of civilians as being terrorism.
You don't dispute that overwhelming majority of Israel's military operations cannot be classified as terrorism under any circumstances, do you?
There are very few examples where you can mount an argument accusing Israel of terrorism. But in all those cases civilians are not the main target, at worst they are collateral damage.


I'd also like to refer you to the title of the thread.
All those posts were moved from a different thread.
As far as title is concerned, non-Islamic religious terrorism is virtually non-existing nowadays. If you dig, you might find at most a handful of cases.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 04:25 PM
Using your logic, killing Hitler during WWII would be a crime as he wasn't convicted.

If he self identified as a combatant then I have no problems with killing him (the Hamas leader) as an act of war.



What is the military benefit of killing one soldier?. Depends he could be an important solider. You don't seem to ask the same question of the apartment bombing.


How would Hezbollah know there is a soldier?. By monitoring the solider movements or uniform. Same way Israel knew there was a militant in the apartment building.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Nowhere did I say terrorism was justified, if fact I cleary stated the opposite on many occasions, I would appreciate it if you would ammend your post accordingly.

In one post You said that Arabs have to resort to underground tactics because they are too weak.
In another post you said that negotiations fail because Arabs reject Israel's right to exist.
I just put two and two together. It's not my fault it added up to four.


Note underground tactics do not necessarliy involve terrorism. The French Resistance used underground tactics but not terrorism, there is a big difference
But in case of PA, PLO, Fatah, Hamas, etc. it is clearly a terrorism.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 04:34 PM
You don't dispute that overwhelming majority of Israel's military operations cannot be classified as terrorism under any circumstances, do you?

I don't dispute that. However they often show blatant disregard for civilians life in pursuit of their military goals (eg. 2006 Lebanon War).

I don't consider Palestinian attacks on Irsaeli soliders as terrorism either. Nor Iraqi insurgence/resistance or Taliban attacks on Coalition forces as terrorism. That just war, albiet unconventional and at times possibly illegal warfare.

TheJoker
05-12-2008, 04:44 PM
In one post You said that Arabs have to resort to underground tactics because they are too weak.
In another post you said that negotiations fail because Arabs reject Israel's right to exist.
I just put two and two together. It's not my fault it added up to four.

Explain again, in real terms, how you made the jump from underground tactics and failed negotiations to terrorism. I still fail to see the connection.

Unconventional warfare does not equal terrorism, a bit of military history/strategy reading might help you understand the role of unconventional warfare against an enemy with a superior military force.



But in case of PA, PLO, Fatah, Hamas, etc. it is clearly a terrorism.
When they intentionally target the civilian population yes.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2008, 05:41 PM
I don't dispute that.
Good



However they often show blatant disregard for civilians life in pursuit of their military goals (eg. 2006 Lebanon War).

Wrong. In 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah routinely used their own population as human shield.
A rocket launcher is a military target, isn't it?
If it's put in a residential area, it's still a military target.
If Hezbollah put a rocket launcher in a residential areas, they are criminal, no-one else.
If they put faked rocket launcher in a residential areas, they are also criminal (even bigger then in the first place, as their sole aim is to kill their own population to blame Israel for that).
Many reports of Lebannon casualties were overstated (like a photoshopped photo of the flame).
Usually Israel goes long way to avoid enemy's civilian death. If they sometimes fail to do so, I am not going to blame them.
It seems completely different standards applied to Hezbollah and Israel.


I don't consider Palestinian attacks on Irsaeli soliders as terrorism either. Nor Iraqi insurgence/resistance or Taliban attacks on Coalition forces as terrorism. That just war, albiet unconventional and at times possibly illegal warfare.
OK, those particular cases can be excluded from being defined as "terrorism". But if Palestinians wage war at Israel, it has every right to completely eliminate their administration (would've been much better not to bring Arafat in the first place), annex the land and do whatever necessary to ensure it's security.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2008, 07:38 PM
Historical-grammatical hermeneutics has been around for a lot longer than I have.

Sure but it is just one of very many different hermeneutic approaches that variously sometimes compete with or sometimes complement each other, and even the methods of any one approach are seldom anywhere near objective.

OK, I agree that your interpretation has the weight of a specific method behind it as opposed to it being exclusively a single person's view but the whole field is nonetheless clearly contentious and in some areas subjective. I also agree that in most cases your interpretations have seemed much more credible than many of the cliched ones that you complain about, but I've also seen you give interpretations here, such as one on the Gay Marriage thread, that I'd be very surprised if leading practitioners of your "historical-grammatical hermeneutics" agreed with.


It described the proper approach for interpreting not only Scriptures but any document.

I am not as fixated on hermeneutics as the postmodernists are (:lol: ) but my understanding is that this is incorrect because historical-grammatical hermeneutics is specifically oriented towards Bible study and contains specific assumptions in that light, whereas many other hermeneutic methods rightly refuse to consider religious scriptures to have special standing.


The alternative is basically postmodernism.

This is false; there are numerous alternatives that are not in the least bit postmodern but that do not consider Scripture to have any special status and that would be incompatible with your ambit claim that Scripture is axiomatic.


I've already debated this with him (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6890&page=7).

Thanks for the link.


That can't explain much: many terrorists are highly educated and come from wealthy backgrounds, e.g. OBL.

OBL is a terrorist leader who is not likely to use his own body as cannon-fodder and is therefore not a relevant example.


Right, so where is the support from the Bible?

I'm not too concerned with whether or not terrorists of a particular claimed religious orientation can cheerypick supporting comments from their gospels or not, since neither self-identification as Islam nor self-identification as Christian are determined purely or even predominantly by strict adherence to text.


[INDENT]Islam is Not a Religion of Pacifists
by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1942

Gee, what a surprise he should be making such a claim in the middle of a world war! (Not that I had any time for Khomeini, he was a very illiberal man who the world is better off without.)

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2008, 07:44 PM
One needs to be a little careful with definitions here.

Indeed.


It is too broad to classify as "terrorism" any action which results in the loss of civilian lives, irrespective of whether such loss of life could have been predicted.

Agreed.


My view is that terrorism is an action which is deliberately targeted at innocent civilians.

This is very frequently the case, because it is seen as one of the most effective methods of attempting to intimidate a government and especially a democratic one. But terrorism can also be targeted at the military in times of official "peace", at leadership figures, or at infrastructure.


Israel's actions in blowing up an apartment block are heinous in my view where civilian casualties are predictable, but not necessarily terrorism where civilians are not the target.

Agreed. If the primary aim of an operation is to destroy a particular "military" target and it just happens that civilians are killed in the process, then while the action is open to condemnation and frequently worthy of it, it is not "terrorism".

The line starts to get blurry when an action is conducted on an official strategic pretext but with many civilian casualties, such that it is suspected that the pretext was not the real reason for the attack and that the attack was actually intended to intimidate civilians or their leaders.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 11:43 AM
Wrong. In 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah routinely used their own population as human shield.
A rocket launcher is a military target, isn't it?
If it's put in a residential area, it's still a military target.
If Hezbollah put a rocket launcher in a residential areas, they are criminal, no-one else.
If they put faked rocket launcher in a residential areas, they are also criminal (even bigger then in the first place, as their sole aim is to kill their own population to blame Israel for that).
Many reports of Lebannon casualties were overstated (like a photoshopped photo of the flame).
Usually Israel goes long way to avoid enemy's civilian death. If they sometimes fail to do so, I am not going to blame them.
It seems completely different standards applied to Hezbollah and Israel.
Exactly! The cartoon below summarizes this perfectly.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Aslo as for hiding. If the palestinians fought a conventional war against the Israeli's they would be crushed in days. While I deplore ther targeting of innocent civilians, I can understand why they operate among the civilians population, any other strategy would result in certain defeat.
It would be better in the long run if Israel just went ahead and did what it took to crush them in days. But Israel, despite all the attacks against it, is run by bleeding hearts. If the Allies in WW2 were as wimpy as Israel is today, we would still be suffering deaths from Nazis and Japanese Warlords. But instead, the Allies pushed for unconditional surrender and did what it took. If there were any attacks on Allied soldiers after the surrender, there wouldn't have been any pussyfooting around to kill the assailants.


Somehow I thought it was Israel that was progressively settling in Palestinian lands?
What lands? There was no such thing as a Palestinian Arab state.


I don't doubt the hostility of muslims towards jews. I just dont see how the killing of innocent civilians by either side is supposed to resolve anything.
I don't see how begging the question solves anything. The only reason Palestinian civilians are killed is that the terrorists hide among them, including in schools and hospitals. In effect, they are holding these civilians hostage. That they are often willingly held makes them not so innocent.

But "world opinion" enables these evil actions, since this opinion is rabidly anti-Jewish and demands that Israel should be the one country that shouldn't repel murderers.


Seems to me it can only make things worse. We all know that someone who has had an innocent family member killed is more likely to become a militant/terrorist themselves.
This looks like the fallacy of the unlimited enemy as refuted by Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111904.asp) and Reagan.

MichaelBaron
09-12-2008, 02:20 PM
I like the cartoon. It is shows the palestenian/israeli values very precisely.

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 04:06 PM
In an attempt to make this thread a little more constructive, I am interested in what people consider to potential strategies/solutions to the Isreal Palestine conflict.

I felt that perhaps integrated schooling of Israeli and Palestinian children might be useful in breaking down the process of indoctrination of predjudices. If ones close school friends where Israeli's one is less likely (at least in my mind) to become a suicide bomber. Provided of course the predjudices can be reduced in the school environment rather than amplified as can ofte be the case with various cliques and so on.

Anybody else got any ideas on how to reconcile the two sides in this conflict?

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 04:38 PM
In an attempt to make this thread a little more constructive, I am interested in what people consider to potential strategies/solutions to the Isreal Palestine conflict.
Simple: land for peace: but really: Israel offers X land for six months of prior peace. If there is any subsequent violence, Israel takes back the land. Nowadays, "world opinion" demands that Israel gives land for obviously empty promises of peace that are clearly not honoured.


I felt that perhaps integrated schooling of Israeli and Palestinian children might be useful in breaking down the process of indoctrination of predjudices. If ones close school friends where Israeli's one is less likely (at least in my mind) to become a suicide bomber. Provided of course the predjudices can be reduced in the school environment rather than amplified as can ofte be the case with various cliques and so on.
Actually, many Arabs already live in peace in Israel, and are even members of the Knesset.

The reason so many "Palestinians" are in separate refugee camps is to be pawns for political antisemitic games. And they fled Israel in the first place because Arab leaders told them to in the War of Independence.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2008, 04:42 PM
In an attempt to make this thread a little more constructive, I am interested in what people consider to potential strategies/solutions to the Isreal Palestine conflict.

I felt that perhaps integrated schooling of Israeli and Palestinian children might be useful in breaking down the process of indoctrination of predjudices. If ones close school friends where Israeli's one is less likely (at least in my mind) to become a suicide bomber. Provided of course the predjudices can be reduced in the school environment rather than amplified as can ofte be the case with various cliques and so on.

Anybody else got any ideas on how to reconcile the two sides in this conflict?

It is a difficult problem that cannot be solved overnight.
The first step is to stop violence. The question is how.
If the violence cost more then brings benefits, it start to ebb away. Downgrading Israel/Palestine conflict to a small regional (or event internal) stage from the current international #1 is the first step. After all Israel was a calm place until 1993 Oslo accord.
If Israel government has the will to pursue policy according to common sense (as opposite to whim of Washington, Brussel and "world opinion"), they would be able to reduce violence to a much lower level.
Freeing Palestinians from being a pawn in the hands of corrupted Arab governments of the region would be a second step.
Again it requires a will from Israel to take over from completely disgruntled and failed Palestinian Authority et all (PLO, FATAH, HAMAS, etc.).
Third step would be to rebuild a trust between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Trust does not mean friendship or even cordial relationship. It means predictability and holding their end of the bargain.
Many Arabs that cooperated with Israel prior to 1993 were killed in cold blood by Arafat and his henchmen. South Lebanon supporters of Israel were abandoned in 2000 in a similar manner. It nullified whatever credibility Israel had and made almost impossible to have any support among Arabs. Voicing support for PA and expressing hatred towards Israel is much safer option then showing any sympathy.

Short summary: it is a very difficult process that requires, at first, a paradigm shift and return to reason and common sense. Oslo paradigm failed.

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 05:07 PM
The first step is to stop violence... requires a will from Israel to take over from completely disgruntled and failed Palestinian Authority et all (PLO, FATAH, HAMAS, etc.).

I don't agree here. I don't think any amount of direct unilateral government or military intervention can stop the violence. If Israel is to take over the governance of Palestine then it needs the support of the Palestinian people to do so.


Third step would be to rebuild a trust between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Trust does not mean friendship or even cordial relationship. It means predictability and holding their end of the bargain.

You are right but I think trust is much more easily established once predjudices are broken down. I am not sure with the current predjudices that exist that there is any chance of establishing trust between the two groups.


Short summary: it is a very difficult process that requires, at first, a paradigm shift and return to reason and common sense. Oslo paradigm failed.

Can you give some practical exmaples of what you feel is required to accomplish this.

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 05:22 PM
Simple: land for peace: but really: Israel offers X land for six months of prior peace. If there is any subsequent violence, Israel takes back the land. Nowadays, "world opinion" demands that Israel gives land for obviously empty promises of peace that are clearly not honoured.

I don't think that can work. Because there will aways be a minority willing to break such peace agreements due to there huge antisemetic predjudices. Also how can anybody settle/create a bussiness on land that is in limbo.



Actually, many Arabs already live in peace in Israel, and are even members of the Knesset.

Exactly but how do you make this type of integration mainstream. Also how do you deal with those Arabs that want independence from the Israeli government.

In a two state solution I would say that free-trade (open borders) is the most important aspect, more important than security. Once people have business interests in Israel/Palestine they less likely to support any actions that might jeopardise those interests. Also in a two-state solution Palestine's economic development is extremely important.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 05:32 PM
I don't agree here. I don't think any amount of direct unilateral government or military intervention can stop the violence.
It worked pretty well when the Allies did it in Nazi Germany and Imperialist Warmongering Japan.


If Israel is to take over the governance of Palestine then it needs the support of the Palestinian people to do so.
Germany and Japan didn't support the Allies at first either, but they got over it.


I don't think that can work. Because there will aways be a minority willing to break such peace agreements due to there huge antisemetic predjudices.
You got the last part right. But a majority has more incentive to keep a minority in check if they suffer some consequences for violations. At present, terrorists commit murder and then hide among their willing population, knowing that Israel foolishly cares about "world opinion" and won't do what it takes to punish the scumbags.


Exactly but how do you make this type of integration mainstream. Also how do you deal with those Arabs that want independence from the Israeli government.
The Arab Palestinians have long had an independent state. Normally it's called Jordan.


In a two state solution I would say that free-trade (open borders) is the most important aspect, more important than security.
No one likes free trade more than I, but Israel should no take down physical barriers against murderers.


Once people have business interests in Israel/Palestine they less likely to support any actions that might jeopardise those interests. Also in a two-state solution Palestine's economic development is extremely important.
This is a relatively recent development. Maps printed on Palestinian and other Arab presses show no Jewish state at all!

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 09:24 PM
It worked pretty well when the Allies did it in Nazi Germany and Imperialist Warmongering Japan.

It is a very different situation and both Japan and Germany remained sovereign states.



Germany and Japan didn't support the Allies at first either, but they got over it.

But they had little outside support for resistence, whereas the Palestinian's will have a large amount of support for resistence from neighbouring countries.



But a majority has more incentive to keep a minority in check if they suffer some consequences for violations.

This is true but also unethical (i.e. to punish a person for anothers crimes) unless you can establish that they diectly conspired with the criminals.



The Arab Palestinians have long had an independent state. Normally it's called Jordan.

Regardless Israel has expanded its territories after being provoked.



No one likes free trade more than I, but Israel should no take down physical barriers against murderers.

It's a difficult one becase increased economic ties is likely to reduce terrorist activities in the long-run. I think the more integrated and interdependant the two groups become the less risk there is of sectarian violence.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 08:52 AM
It is a very different situation and both Japan and Germany remained sovereign states.
Not really. The Japanese had a warrior culture where every man, woman and child was expected to sacrifice life for homeland. Hitler likewise was recruiting kids for the army and was prepared to destroy the country.


But they had little outside support for resistence, whereas the Palestinian's will have a large amount of support for resistence from neighbouring countries.
Then these neighbouring countries need to be punished if they are caught aiding the terrorists.


This is true but also unethical (i.e. to punish a person for anothers crimes)
It is even more unethical to allow violence to go unchecked for years because you're too wimpy to do what it takes to punish the perps. Given that the Palestinians danced in the streets after 11-9, they are not so innocent anyway.


unless you can establish that they diectly conspired with the criminals.
If they allow the terrorists to settle close to them, then they are complicit. And under the normal rules of war — which "world opinion" demands Israel make an exception to — the blame for innocents killed falls with the belligerents who hide among them.


Regardless Israel has expanded its territories after being provoked.
From a tiny sliver of land that was practically indefensible.


It's a difficult one becase increased economic ties is likely to reduce terrorist activities in the long-run. I think the more integrated and interdependant the two groups become the less risk there is of sectarian violence.
Yet the Jews in Germany were the most assimilated and successful in Europe.

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 10:13 AM
It's a difficult one becase increased economic ties is likely to reduce terrorist activities in the long-run. I think the more integrated and interdependant the two groups become the less risk there is of sectarian violence.
How can people have "free trade" with those targeting their kids through terrorist attacks :hmm: . I do not see how any kind of economic cooperation (unfortunately though) is possible at this stage.

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 11:17 AM
How can people have "free trade" with those targeting their kids through terrorist attacks :hmm: . I do not see how any kind of economic cooperation (unfortunately though) is possible at this stage.

You equate the actions of a few terrorists wth the entire population (this doesn't seem just).

I think the long-term benefits of increased economic cooperation would outweigh the costs.

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 11:57 AM
You equate the actions of a few terrorists wth the entire population (this doesn't seem just).

I think the long-term benefits of increased economic cooperation would outweigh the costs.

I am simply trying to assess the security risks to Israel!

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 12:44 PM
I am simply trying to assess the security risks to Israel!
Long-term or short term?

are you happy with the status quo in terms of risk?

MichaelBaron
11-12-2008, 01:27 PM
Long-term or short term?

are you happy with the status quo in terms of risk?

I do not think anyone can be happy about the current situation in the region. However, empowering terrorists and the government behind them will only make the situation worse.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 01:48 PM
You equate the actions of a few terrorists wth the entire population (this doesn't seem just).
Not entirely unjust considering the dancing in the street when Israelis or Americans are murdered.


I think the long-term benefits of increased economic cooperation would outweigh the costs.
I think the long term benefits of wiping out the murderers no matter where they are would outweigh the short term costs and tut-tutting of "world opinion".

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 01:55 PM
Not entirely unjust considering the dancing in the street when Israelis or Americans are murdered.


I think the long term benefits of wiping out the murderers no matter where they are would outweigh the short term costs and tut-tutting of "world opinion".

With or without trial?

Who decides who is a terrorist?

Do you think such actions would be prone to radicalising the families of the innocent people killed as "collaterall damage", and thus create even more terrorists than in the first place?

How far would you go? Say blanket bombing Gaza and wiping out 95% of the population? Certainly likely to achieve your objective but at what cost?

How many innocent civilian deaths are justified in the killing of a terrorist? IMO none.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 02:31 PM
With or without trial?
The same as the Allies would have reacted after the surrenders of Nazi Germany and Japan if they were attacked.


Who decides who is a terrorist?
If a group comes over and blows up a school bus, then they are terrorists and must be brought to justice. And those who hide them should be regarded as almost as bad, and face the consequences.


Do you think such actions would be prone to radicalising the families of the innocent people killed as "collaterall damage", and thus create even more terrorists than in the first place?
Not as many as are created when they know there is no consequence for their action. Good grief, the more Israel appeased, the more terrorism they got. But after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, the Japanese became as gentle as lambs in a few years (although they didn't surrender until 6 days after Nagasaki, and Tojo still wanted to fight on).


How far would you go? Say blanket bombing Gaza and wiping out 95% of the population? Certainly likely to achieve your objective but at what cost?
How about: if a rocket is fired from any house, Israel bombs or bazookas that house (just as the Allies did when they were overrunning Germany). It wouldn't be long before Palestinians refused to allow rocket launchers anywhere near them.


How many innocent civilian deaths are justified in the killing of a terrorist? IMO none.
Yet allowing terrorists to live could cost more civilian deaths. And as I said, those who hide terrorists among them are not innocent, and according to the rules of war (which apparently don't apply to Israel according to "world opinion"), any civilian deaths are the fault of the belligerents who hide among them.

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 02:39 PM
How about: if a rocket is fired from any house, Israel bombs or bazookas that house.

Or you could just integrate the two groups such that did feel any need to attack each other.

I'd prefer to see integrated schooling to develop help breakdown predjudices and increase awareness. And increased economic ties to provide incentives for stability (unlikely to bite the hand that feeds you).


It wouldn't be long before Palestinians refused to allow rocket launchers anywhere near them.

So you want to prevent terorrism by terrorising the population. Interesting

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 03:16 PM
Or you could just integrate the two groups such that did feel any need to attack each other.
That's what Israel has done!! Arabs in Israel have full rights including the right to be elected to the Knesset.


I'd prefer to see integrated schooling to develop help breakdown predjudices and increase awareness. And increased economic ties to provide incentives for stability (unlikely to bite the hand that feeds you).
The history of "forced busing" in the US doesn't support you.


So you want to prevent terorrism by terrorising the population. Interesting
I want to prevent terrorism by making sure there are consequences both for the terrorists and those who shelter and fund them. But by theJoke's reasoning, we shouldn't send kidnappers to prison because that is "punishing kidnapping by kidnapping the kidnappers", or fining thieves because that is "deterring stealing by stealing from the thieves".

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 04:21 PM
The history of "forced busing" in the US doesn't support you.

Well I think in the USA the African-American population is fairly well integrated. Whether integrated schooling had anything to do with it is a matter for research.

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 04:26 PM
I want to prevent terrorism by making sure there are consequences both for the terrorists and those who shelter and fund them.

Yes but without an investigation you cannot determine that. People may well be being forced or terrorised into sheltering terroists. Or they may children who have no idea what is happening.

I have no problem punishing conspirators as long as there are fair procedures to determine guilt or innocence.

Blowing up any building from which a rocket is fired is not fair procedure.

You have a funny concept of justice

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 04:49 PM
Yes but without an investigation you cannot determine that. People may well be being forced or terrorised into sheltering terroists. Or they may children who have no idea what is happening.
Any dwelling that shelters proven terrorists, or from which a rocket is fired, is fair game. Israel's first priority should be to protect its own citizens. If people know that sheltering terrorists puts them in danger, then they have an incentive to stop this.


I have no problem punishing conspirators as long as there are fair procedures to determine guilt or innocence.
The Allies would have lost WW2 under such conditions. But they didn't, because no one doubted then that the responsibility for civilian deaths would lie with those soldiers who hid among them.


Blowing up any building from which a rocket is fired is not fair procedure.
It's fair to blow up terrorists to punish them in a way that's sure to prevent recidivism.


You have a funny concept of justice
Apparently your concept of "justice" is endangering your own citizens by not taking out murderers.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 04:50 PM
Well I think in the USA the African-American population is fairly well integrated. Whether integrated schooling had anything to do with it is a matter for research.
Already done. There were successful black schools a century ago. There isn't the slightest evidence that black kids need either integration, or role models for that matter, to succeed. Dr Sowell has written extensively on black schooling.

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 10:10 PM
Already done. There were successful black schools a century ago. There isn't the slightest evidence that black kids need either integration, or role models for that matter, to succeed. Dr Sowell has written extensively on black schooling.

I wasn't talking about schooling results I was wondering whether it helped breakdown racial predjudices that were quite common at the time but are now much less common.

What does Sowell attribute the reduction in racial predjudices to?

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 11:36 PM
I wasn't talking about schooling results I was wondering whether it helped breakdown racial predjudices that were quite common at the time but are now much less common.
More likely, it caused racial resentment on both sides, since hours of busing every day doesn't help learning, and also distances the parents from the schools.


What does Sowell attribute the reduction in racial predjudices to?
Not sure. but he knows from experience that those who claim there has been no real progress are talking crap. He relates a time when he was a young marine going through the South in the 1950s, and they stopped at a restaurant. The white owners called the police who threw him and two other black soldiers out. But in the 1980s, he was with his blonde date and went to a restaurant in the same area. In the Jim Crow era, having a blonde date in itself might have got him lynched. But this time, the restaurant was crowded, but the waitress asked a white couple whether they would mind sharing a table. Not only did they not mind, the foursome had a great time.

One thing Sowell is adamant on: the problems in the black community are no longer due to prejudice. The Jim Crow laws didn't wreck black families the way welfare.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 11:46 PM
Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.—Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity—Abba Eban, Israeli ambassador, scholar and minister of the government.

When donated blood from Israelis was offered to injured Palestinians, they refused it.

A Palestinian found an old lamp, rubbed it, and a genie appeared. He told the Palestinian that he would grant him one wish, but whatever he wished for, the Israeli over the fence would get double. So the Palestinian said, "Gouge out one of my eyes."

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 12:04 AM
Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.—Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity—Abba Eban, Israeli ambassador, scholar and minister of the government.

When donated blood from Israelis was offered to injured Palestinians, they refused it.

A Palestinian found an old lamp, rubbed it, and a genie appeared. He told the Palestinian that he would grant him one wish, but whatever he wished for, the Israeli over the fence would get double. So the Palestinian said, "Gouge out one of my eyes."

Very constructive:rolleyes:

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 12:11 AM
More likely, it caused racial resentment on both sides, since hours of busing every day doesn't help learning, and also distances the parents from the schools..

Don't know how you equate of hours of busing with racial resentment?


Not sure. but he knows from experience that those who claim there has been no real progress are talking crap.

Does that mean he hasn't been able to attribute that progress to anything. Considering his interest in the topic I would be surprised if he hadn't at least tried to identify the factors that have reduced racism in the USA.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 09:03 AM
Don't know how you equate of hours of busing with racial resentment?
Of course: it's the compulsion to waste hours of time to be sent to a school miles away so parents are less able to meet the teachers and volunteer in the school, all in the name of "integration". But Sowell documents high-quality schools a century ago like Dunbar where all students were black.


Don't know how you equate of hours of busing with racial Does that mean he hasn't been able to attribute that progress to anything. Considering his interest in the topic I would be surprised if he hadn't at least tried to identify the factors that have reduced racism in the USA.
He probably has; after all, he has analysed racial differences all over the world. At least you're admitting the reduced racism, which the Anointed don't usually want to admit.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 09:05 AM
Very constructive:rolleyes:
I thought so. As long as Arabs are taught to hate Jews, and to aim to push Israel into the sea, there will be no peace. After WW2, the Allies took over German radio stations and newspapers and pushed anti-Nazi propaganda.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-12-2008, 10:30 AM
I thought so. As long as Arabs are taught to hate Jews, and to aim to push Israel into the sea, there will be no peace. After WW2, the Allies took over German radio stations and newspapers and pushed anti-Nazi propaganda.
Not quite true. Israel just has to take it into account developing it's policy.
At the moment the establishment tries to see the world through the pink glasses of wishful thinking and political correctness.

In the so called "olden times" each country was happy to appropriate part of neighbouring state, given the opportunity. It insured that each government tried to exercise control of it's territory, as well as took full responsibility for what happens in it's domain. Weak countries attacking strong neighbour and running from responsibility did not last long.

Palestinian authority experiment, started 15 years ago, clearly failed. PA keeps either waging war against Israel or abstaining from responsibility for whatever happens within it's borders. IMO, Israel should annex Judea, Samaria and, possibly, Gaza. It should've done it 41 years ago. It is still not late, but much more difficult.
Israel annexed Golan heights in 1980. Strangely, there was no significant military incident between Israel and Syria since then. Peace treaty is not as important as mutual incentive to refrain from military attack.
Another strategy for Israel could be a "piecemeal annexation". For example, Israel declares a list of territories it is going to formally annex after each terrorist attack. It will be very important for Israel to keep the promise. In this case Arabs will be very happy to negotiate and honour the agreements reached.

It goes without saying that I cannot imagine modern Israel leadership having the guts to actually implement this policy.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 10:51 AM
I actually agree with the above. Lefties claim that diplomacy and treaties will keep peace, but experience has shown that they won't work without the credible threat of force to back them up. Chamberlain wanted peace with Hitler, and Israel wants peace with the PLO, but Reagan won peace with a show of strength, ridiculed by lefties, but which the Soviets couldn't match. The annexation of the Golan Heights is a very good example as you say, doing more to prevent violence than all the accords and "land for peace" deals.

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 11:56 AM
I actually agree with the above. Lefties claim that diplomacy and treaties will keep peace, but experience has shown that they won't work without the credible threat of force to back them up. Chamberlain wanted peace with Hitler, and Israel wants peace with the PLO, but Reagan won peace with a show of strength, ridiculed by lefties, but which the Soviets couldn't match. The annexation of the Golan Heights is a very good example as you say, doing more to prevent violence than all the accords and "land for peace" deals.

None of this addresses the underlying tension. The annexing of territory is IMO unlikely to reduce conflict. In colonialisation would indicate that the annexing of territory (e.g. Britain / India) is likely to incite further violence. Hilter was in the process of trying to annex a number of countries that certainly didn't reduce conflict. As libertarian you should be aware that people are likely to resist (often violently) being ruled over by a third party.

Also the Cold War wasn't really a war. And Reagan didn't win anything, the USSR economic model was collapsing. The arms race may have sped up the collapse.

Is there any reason why you dont think it would be beneficial to try to address the underlying predjudices?

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 12:02 PM
Apparently your concept of "justice" is endangering your own citizens by not taking out murderers.

No it is based on the long held premise that 'it is better to let X number (often given a 10 or 99) of guilty peple go free rather than punish a single innocent person'

Of course this is open for debate.