Why Terrorism Works

[B-Man]

This link is to an interview with Alan Dershowitz related to his new book. He makes some brilliant points about why terrorism has worked and how the world should deal with terrorism, so as to discourage future terrorism rather than encourage it. The article is long but well worth reading.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/09/12/dershowitz/index.html

[John Feeney]

I haven't read the whole article yet, but I'd like to see some discussion of whether Dershowitz is in fact right that terrorism "works." He cites some examples, but that seems fairly meaningless without also examining the results of many (probably randomly selected) terrorist efforts over the years. Relative to diplomacy or nonviolent resistance, for instance, is its track record very good? I had thought not.

I think this could be an important question because if it could be shown that on the whole it does not work, that could provide an opening for widespread efforts to inform people of this, thereby, possibly, reducing the motivation for some to become terroists.

[scalf]

do you really think terrorists or potential terrorists are logical???g;l /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

I just finished readng the article. I think Dershowitz is saying is that terrorism does not work as well as organized non-violent resistance works, but that the responses of the rest of the world to terrorism help terrorism perpetuate itself. Terrorism draws attention to a cause and provokes overreaction fron democracies which in turn causes loss of the "moral high ground" in the eyes of the public. Terrorism also in a sense validates itself by causing people to take "the cause" more seriously--sort of a squeaky wheel gets the most grease effect, or the most vocal player at the table in a ruling dispute gets listened to the most. He points out that the Palestinian cause is no more of a cause than the Tibetan cause, for instance, but that attention and recognition attained by the PLO is far greater.

He suggests a sort of carrot-and-stick approach to terrorism, and says that rewarding terrorism is counterproductive. In other words, agree to some of the terrorist's demands but on a sliding scale with a predetermined future settlement date: the more terrorism between now and then, the less they get.

Well, John, I know I'm not telling you anything you won't gather from reading the rest of it yourself, but it does help me to remember and define it somewhat if I briefly summarize such a long article.

As to the question you raised of whether terrorism really works, I think the answer is yes and no, and it seems that Dershowitz's suggestion of using a sliding carrot (and possibly stick) scale may have some merit.

I personally think it is very important that the world does not reward or validate terrorism as a doctrine and practice--that it should dealt with in a manner that makes it less, not more, appealing to those who feel they have a cause which must be addressed. The two main reasons for my viewpoint here are: 1) that it is a morally bankrupt philosophy, and 2) that as the world becomes an increasingly dangerous place due to technological proliferation, the fewer people that are subscribed to such philosophies the less likely we will be to suffer major apocalyptic tragedies.

[HDPM]

It is also why we have to go after states that sponsor terrorism, probably even more than the terrorists. The Bin Ladens of the world may have a totally irrational outlook and will do what they do no matter what. But Governments like Iran and Iraq (and maybe even Saudi) might stop if they know that sponsoring terrorists means they lose power and all the benefits that flow from it. Most government leaders want to keep power and all their palaces. That kind of policy also means we better not sponsor any terrorism.

[Ray Zee]

what we did in afganistan might have been the biggest blow to terrorism ever. by eliminating the taliban rule, we showed the world that whole leaderships will be taken out. this way it gives great pause to a country to be involved or supporting a terrorist org. no one in power wants to lose that position.
there is no way to stop the individual people except to root them out and destroy them, and make sure their cause never gets off the ground. this way there is little incentive for others to follow. its just too bad the whole world wont get behind this idea.

[andyfox]

Dershowitz is, as usual, wrong on some of his facts. Massive bombs, placed in crowded civilian centers, where dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed was an innovation of Mehachem Begin's Irgun in October 1937. Before, Arabs (and, less often, Jews) had sniped at cars and pedestrians, and occasionally lobbed a grenade.

The Arabs soon imitated this tactic, which was deliberately designed to cause terror in the general Arab population of Palestine. The bombs helped persuade moderate Arabs of the need to resist Zionism by force.

The "standard equipment" of modern terrorism, the camouflaged bomb in the market place and bus station, the car bomb and the truck bomb, and the drive-by shooting with an automatic weapon--these were introduced into Palestine by the Jewish terrorists. (The suicide bomber was indeed an Arab innovation.) Begin's book, The Revolt , became something of a textbok for terrorists all over the world.

[Much of the above taken from Righteous Victims by Benny Morris]

The Palestinians saw that terrorism worked for the Jews,chasing the British out of Palestine, and imitated their enemy.

[andyfox]

"Going after states that sponsor terrorism"

Between 1979 and 1987, the U.S. armed, trained, and financially backed the military forces of the government of El Salvador, which carried out a policy of ongoing, systematic murder against the Salvadoran population. About 1 percent of El Salvador's population was destroyed, over 70,000 men, women, and children who were noncombatants. Ditto another 70,000 murdered by the military in Guatemala. And the contras in Nicaragua targeted civilian as well, with our support and knowledge.

Would the people of these countries have been justified in going after the state that sponsored this terrorism?

"That kind of policy also means we better not sponsor any terrorism"

Indeed.

[John Feeney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
do you really think terrorists or potential terrorists are logical???

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course many act on the basis of emotion, irrational beliefs (from our perspective anyway), and indoctrination. But it's a matter of degree. Some are going to be more rational than others. My thought is just that if some fraction could be convinced that other viable tactics would help their cause more than terrorism, maybe that would divert some to those tactics instead.

Certainly some will not be dissuaded at all. But if even a small portion is, I would think that would make it worth the investment in some sort of "marketing campaign" selling the ineffectiveness of terroism.

[brad]

clearly, andy , youre an anti-semite.

and if you dont agree with dershowitz that torture should be routine in US law enforcement, (his argument is that once you get 'immunity' you can be forced to testify, and if not, you can be thrown in jail, so why not extend the punishment (which is now incarceration) to torture, since legally you are compelled to testify)
then you are also anti-american.

brad

[John Feeney]

I agree with much of his analysis as outlined in your first paragraph. But, as you point out, he does offer his opinion that nonviolent resistance would have worked better for the Palestinians. So maybe it's fair to say terroism is effective to some degree, but there are probably more potent alternatives out there if you want to get your politcal needs met.

This could actually be examined with a sytematic study of some sort. For example, researchers could go back, say, 60 years, identifying a large number of instances that would meet a definition of "terrorism." (Or maybe identify organizations and their terrorist activities over some specified time spans.) They would have to develop a standardized way of assessing the impact of each event to determine how much it helped or hindered the group's cause. These sorts of things could be developed by researchers with a modicum of ingenuity. For a comparison group, the same analysis could be applied to the effects of something like nonviolent resistance.

Anyway, if it turned out that terrorism had clearly been largely ineffective, and especially if it could be shown that something else, something accesible to the same people who might turn to terrorism, was much more effective, then you'd have information that might be worth disseminating very widely. The costs of a worldwide publicity campaign (including such things as leaflet drops in remote areas) summarizing such research would seem quite modest. And maybe it would lead some potential terrorists to change course. Off the top of my head, I'd say those most likely to change course should be those who really are most concerned with their "causes" and seeing results, as opposed to those who may have had more psychopathic motives for getting into terrorism.

<font color="red"> Alan Dershowitz has first hand knowledge of terrorism and why it works. When the terrorist OJ Simpson, Dershowitz's buddy, slaughtered two innocent people in the prime of their life. Little Alvie Dershowitz was right there defending the "terrorist's" right to go free because all cops are lying evidence planting assholes. This hypocrite can go blow.</font color>

[Chris Alger]

Dershowitz is a lawyer who favors torture and punishing the innocent in order to "fight terrorism," but apparently only those terrorist who fight for causes for which Dershowitz doesn't care. That this man is taken seriously and treated politely is a grave statement about the absence of basic morality in U.S. culture.

Some months back, Wasington attorney Nathan Lewin, a colleague of Dershowitz's, proposed mass murder of innocents in order to "fight terrorism" against Israel. He specifically called for the cold-blooded murder of all family members of suicide bombers, regardless of their culpability or knowledge, but simply to deter. Dershowitz found this proposal legitimate but flawed (see article at http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=2730 ), and has opted for a lesser form of punishing the innocent: levelling the "village" where the disfavored terrorist lives. I say "disfavored" because Dershowitz is obviously only interested in levelling Muslim villages because he wants to selectively apply his punishment to the people he personally and collectively hates.

Dershowitz:
"The Palestinians were offered a state in 1948 and they turned it down. They could have had a state between 1948 and 1967 and they turned it down. They were offered a state at Camp David and they turned it down."

And later, just to make sure you get the point: "The Palestinians were offered a state in 1948 and they turned it down and engaged in terrorism. They slaughtered bunches of doctors and nurses on the way to Hadassah hospital instead of accepting a state which would have been twice as large as Israel. They had a state anytime they wanted between 1948 and 1967. They were offered a state in 2000. It's nonsense to think that they're a colonized country."

Note: it is "nonsense" for an occupied terroritory with 400,000 settlers in over 100 settlements and neighborhoods maintained in existence by foreign military forces to think of itself as "colonized." People ridicule lawyers for seperating simple words from their plain meaning, but here's a guy who really fits the stereotype.
.
"The Palestinians" were 63% of the population of Palestine on November 29, 1947 (not 1948) when UN Gen. Assembly Res. 181 proposed to let them keep 55% of their country, the remainder going to European colonists and refugees that owned 7% of the land, having emigrated under the protection of foreign powers seeking to exert imperial influence in a strategic region. I can think of no nation in the history of the world has ever freely accepted such an "offer," which in other contexts is called "conquest." Worse, the Yishuv and later Israel immediately commenced the process of expelling nearly 90% of the Palestinian Arabs from Israel, creating the refugee crisis that endures to this day.

Nor did the Palestinian "state" have any chance of succeeding, as Israel also immediately entered into secret negotiations with Jordan to carve up the land designated for the Palestinian home. Although those negotiations broke down over the imminent Arab invasion, Israel in 1947 and 1948 grabbed parts of Palestine beyond the partition line, with Jordan grabbing the rest and anexing it in 1950. Neither country had any intention of allowing an independent Palestinian state on its borders. Dershowitz's claim that the Palestinians could have had a "state" "anytime they wanted between 1948 and 1967" has no basis in fact.

In 1967, Israel grabbed the rest of Palestine and Gaza, annexed East Jerusalem and a large perimeter of land around it, and began settling despite UN Security Council Resolutions (242 and 338) demanding, with the force of international law, that Israel withdraw. It has defied those resolutions ever since, as the same authority that voted for partition in the first place, the UN General Assembly, has repeatedly made clear, and would have been joined by the Security Council if not for repeated vetos by the U.S.. Dershowitz is correct in alluding that Israel made Palestinian statehood utterly impossible until at least 2000.

In 2000 the Palestinians were offered a "state" consisting of 18% of their original homeland further divided by territory, roads and settlements under permanent Israeli control, conditions worse than what pre-state Israel found intolerable in the partitions proposed before and in 1947. Dershowitz also repeats the canard about the Palestinians outright refusing "97%" and then "playing the terrorist card." In fact, the PA continued negotiations with Israel at Taba until Barak suspended them unilaterally due to the most recent election. After that, the PA has denounced terrorism, killed and arrested terrorists, been cleared of terrorist involvement by the State Department through Dec. 2001, and repeatedly begged for both negotiations and international monitors to protect against violence, only to be rebuffed by Sharon and the U.S.

Dershowitz: "There's no comparison between Begin and Arafat. Begin limited himself to killing British civil service people, whereas Arafat has killed babies and children."

Simply lying here (Dershowitz knows his history). Dershowitz is limiting himself to the King David Hotel bombing, and even has this wrong, as many people killed were staff and other bystanders with no connection wtih G. Britain or the fight against Zionism. Begin's group, IZL, actively participated in the Deir Yassin massacre of between 125 and 245 men, women and children with no connection with any Civil Service or any military group. His group bombed buses and marketplaces for the specific purpose of trying to kill and terrorize as many "babies and children" as it could. "[T]he IZL and LHI [future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's group], using terrorism against civilians, had a major hand in turning what were sporadic Arab riots and armed attacks into a bitter, full-scale war" in 1947. Righteous Victims, 197. IZL also employed in 1947 a crime against humanity that Israel used thereafter with great cruelty in Lebanon and the West Bank, killing far more people than the PLO throughout its history: indiscriminate shelling of civilian concentrations.

"There's never been a group in the world as bad as Palestinian or Islamic terrorists, ever."

The Sri Lanken Tamil Tigers, to pick one at random, have killed more than 10 times as many people with suicide bombing tactics than have all the Palestinian terror groups combined.

And on and on.

[B-Man]

Andy,

When discussing these subjects, why do you continually bring up unrelated (and usually very old) bad acts committed by the U.S. (in this case) or Israel? Nobody is suggesting the U.S. has always been 100% correct in every action that it has taken. But what's the point of your post--are you trying to say that, because we supported bad people in Central America in the 1980s, we are forever estopped from trying to support the right side in the middle east? That makes no sense.

[B-Man]

So what's your point? Because Jews committed terrorism in the 1940s, Palestinians should be allowed to conduct terrorism today?

Thanks for the history lesson, but what do terrorist acts committed by Jews in the 1940s have to do with what is going on today? Surely you aren't suggesting they are justification for more terrorism (whether by Palestinians or others)?

[B-Man]

I agree O.J. is a criminal and a scumbag (and should be in jail). But even scumbag criminals are entitled to an attorney in this country.

Also, the defense won the case primarily because Johnny Cochran played the race card, not because of Dershowitz.

[MMMMMM]

Well regardless of the degree of accuracy of Dershowitz's stated "facts" (which I have not the background to assess, nor the inclination to spend days searching and reading in order to assess their validity of lack thereof), I think what matters more in this article are the POINTS made by Dershowitz--regarding WHY terrorism has persisted (not just Israeli/Palestinian related), and what the world should do in response to it.

I know you agree that terrorism is wrong. The issue is: what does the world do in response to it? How does the world deal with terrorism in a manner so as to discourage terrorism in the future, rather than rewarding it and thereby encouraging future terrorism?

[Chris Alger]

The only "point" Dershowitz is making is this: whenever a group gains any political advantage after any of their number have engaged in terrorism, we should conclude that the accomplishment resulted solely from from terrrorism, regardless of the facts, and in this sense "terrorism works." This is obvious nonsense because violent upheavals are typically accompanied by terrorism and atrocities, but no one regrets the formation of the Israel or contemporary South Africa because they "rewarded terrorism." Dershowitz knows it's nonsense too, witness his definition of South African terrorism as less bad "counterterrorism," based on his answer to the stupid chicken-and-the-egg "who started it" question.

Dershowitz isn't really talking about terrorism, he's using the national discussion on terrorism to push his agenda for screwing Palestinians. That's why he keeps the interview focused not on terrorism as a general threat, but only on Muslim terrorism and specifically why Palestinains have no national rights. He does this by outright falsehood, a persistent and seemingly compulisve Dershowitz tactic for more than 20 years. Few public lives can match the record of shameless lying by this man.

Ask yourself: what have you learned from this interview that you haven't already heard?

[bruce]

What the hell are you talking about? Please take your Haldol.

[andyfox]

Not unrelated, nor very old. HDPM pointed out that if we want to have a consistent policy, that we shouldn't be supporting terrorism ourselves. Many on this forum deny that we do because they are unaware of the facts.

So the President's argument that this is a fight between unmitigated good and unmmitigated evil is hogwash. Bin Laden's rantings do indeed resonate in some quarters precisely because of the evil committted by and in the name of the United States. Let's recognize it and not lower ourselves to the same level of immorality as our enemies.

We also supported bad people in the 1990s in the Middle East--including Bin Laden. These policies do come back to bite us in the ass.

[andyfox]

Dershowitz also bragged in one of his books that most of his clients were guilty.

You know there's an interesting point regarding anti-semitism. Used to be that people who criticized Israel from the left were accused of being anti-semitic. Those accused would then point out that one does not have to be anti-Jewish in order to be against certain policies of the state of Israel. (Chasidic Jews, for example, are anti-zionist, and there is much more criticism of Israel's policies in the Israeli press than there is in the American press.)

But Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. So, by Israel's definition, if you are anti-Israel, you are anti-semitic.

[andyfox]

My point is that Dershowitz said Palestinians invetned terrorism and he's wrong. Arab terrorism in Palestine began as a response to the Jewish resort to force and terrorism. The Palestinians learned their terroristic methods from those practiced by the Jews on themselves and the British. They have since refined the method to greater depths of depravity, but to ignore the history of the area in an attempt to explain the current situaion is to get it wrong.

You're welcome for the history lesson.

There is, in my opinion, never any justification whatsoever for terrorism, by Palestinians or others. What was it I said that made you think that I might think otherwise?

[andyfox]

Dershowitz bragged in one of his books that most of the people he defended were guilty. He also basically said OJ was guilty and would get off and then, the next day, joined the defense team.

But this should all be irrelevant to his writing and thoughts on terrorism, which should be judged on their own merit or lack thereof.

[brad]

are all israelis zionists?

brad

[B-Man]

Whether or not some of the facts Dershowitz cites are wrong, I think the point of the article was that the world should examine the way it responds to terrorism. Terrorists should not be rewarded; when you reward terrorists, you simply encourage more terrorism.

I just don't see what bad acts committed by the U.S. or Israel in the past have to do with this. You are often highly critical of U.S. foreign policy and Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. When you list bad acts committed by those countries in response to this article, my assumption is that you disagree with the article.

If you agree with the premise I stated above, then perhaps we are not in disagreement at all. So, do you agree with the premise that we should not reward terrorists (and simply disagree with some of the facts Dershowitz states), or do you disagree with Dershowitz altogether?

[brad]

i think the point is that we reward the terrorists we agree with.

brad

p.s. substitute terrorists activities for terrorists maybe, as its hard to label the US as a terrorist country, and yet the US has conducted terrorist activities, etc.

[Chris Alger]

How could it be irrelevant that the same government that castigates Al Quaeda for terrorism is responsible for even greater terrorism, what you describe as merely less than "100% correct?" Unless Andy is wrong (and I can point to a ton of evidence that says he's not), it's relevant because the people in charge with prosecuting international terrorism have sometimes supported it, which means they don't give a damn about "terrorism" as such but seek to exploit our fear and hatred to accomplish unrelated goals. From a practical standpoint, it means that certain U.S. "antiterrorist" policies will not attack terrorists that threaten us and will not make us safer, and may indeed simply invite more terrorism. The moral problem is more obvious.

Dershowitz's article is a good example of this, for reasons I mention below, and so is the war on Iraq. Within a few weeks after 9/11, Perle, Wolfowitz and others furiously promoted war with Iraq, despite the lack of evidence connecting Iraq with 9/11 (other than the on-again, off-again claim that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague). As CNN reported, Perle has announced "no campaign against terrorism can succeed while Saddam remains in power. Such criticism has been leveled ever since the first President Bush ended the 1991 Gulf War without toppling Saddam." This is a good way of putting it indirectly: powerful people who have wanted to do away with Saddam for years are feverishly invoking 9/11 to justify a policy that has no apparent relation to 9/11 and wouldn't be seriously considered but for 9/11.

Some good policy has resulted from 9/11 that deserves our support, such as improved airline security and coordination of information.

If, however, there are serious prima facie claims of U.S. support for terrorism, nobody should lift a finger or say a word in support of U.S. violence against "terrorism" until the charges against the U.S. have had a full hearing and those individuals and institutions found responsible have been held accountable to the degree we seek to hold others accountable for the same thing. To do anything else is to make us as bad as the thing we purport to hate while failing to reduce the chance of another 9/11.

[MMMMMM]

There are several distinctions you fail to mention, and while you may think they are unimportant, I think they make a difference when comparing past US actions with current terrorist actions.

1) The US supported groups which used terrorist tactics, such as in El Salvador. You fail to mention that the Sandinistas used terrorist tactics too--it wasn't just the Contras who did such things. And the US wasn't a direct participant--whichever side we chose to back, we would have been backing a group which was using terrorist tactics. We were also backing a group which was fighting communists directly supported by the USSR, so it was part of a larger war (the Cold War). I'm not saying it was necessarily right, but I'm saying it wasn't necessarily entirely wrong. If both sides are going to fight dirty does that mean we should back neither side? Not necessarily IMO.

2) You seem to be laying the blame for such things squarely on the USA without allocating proportional blame to the parties we sided with. This is akin to, say, laying 100% of the blame for Hezbollah on the shoulders of Syria. Hezbollah doesn't share in the blame?

3) Even though the US has supported groups which in the past have used terroristic tactics, the US itself does not directly engage in terrorism. There is a big difference between deliberatey targeting innocents in order to make political points such as al-Qaeda does, and merely fighting a war or supporting those who are fighting a war.

Anyway, regardless of the fine points, the terrorists are fighting a war they cannot win and are only going to bring misery on their people by doing so. After Iraq is secured, Iraq will become a launching pad for further pressure on Iran, Syria and all regional supporters of terrorism. These misguided groups and governments will have to cease and desist in such activities--or else. The war on al-Qaeda will prosecuted more vigorously with Iraq as a temporary (probably several years) base. The terrorists will be rooted out, rounded up, and destroyed along with their organizations. Hopefully, a newer and freer democratic-style Middle East will emerge.

Down with dictators, down with terrorists, down with totalitarianism (including religious totalitarianism), and up, up, Up with Liberty and Freedom and the democratic process. About 2/3 of the Iraqi population has been impoverished and hates Saddam's ruling party, but they are powerless to do anything about it. In Iran, a large segment of the population is sick of the religious tyranny imposed by the mullahs. It wouldn't be coming to all this except for the intolerance of their governments and the continual attacks by terrorists upon the West--but they are going down soon and very hard unless they reform quickly. Time will tell if I am right, but that's just the way I see it and what I think is likely to occur. And ten years from now we may, if the world is a little lucky, see a Middle East reborn, flourishing, and with many of the shackles of despotism and totalitarianism thrown off for good.

[andyfox]

"do you agree with the premise that we should not reward terrorists"

Of course. What would make you think otherwise? Criticism of U.S. or Israeli policy does not make one sympathetic to terrorists. I'm critical of U.S. policy because it's my country and it hurts me deeply when I see its principles compromised. Ditto for Israel because of my jewish heritage and because I have done extensive reading on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

[andyfox]

No.

[andyfox]

"You fail to mention that the Sandinistas used terrorist tactics too--it wasn't just the Contras who did such things."

The vast majority of terrorist activity was Contra activity. The Sandanistas held an election and were voted out of office--hardly the mark of a terrorist organization. Besides, my government supported the Contras, not the Sandanistas.


"the US wasn't a direct participant"

Agreed. But the US might just as well have pulled the trigger because the US created the contras and without our support (after all, the leader of the Free World, in a pronouncement of Orwellian proportions, called them the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers; I imagine Jefferson rolled over in his grave) there would have been no contras.

"it was part of a larger war (the Cold War)."

Hogwash. Somoza and Daniel Ortega and the contras had nothing at all to do with the Cold War. There were no meaningful elections in Nicaragua, not to mention any meaningful efforts to help the peasantry, until the Sandanistas came into power. Ortega himself recently ran for election and was defeated again. If the Cold War was a fight between the forces of freedom and democracy and the forces of authoritarianism, we were always on the wrong side in Nicaragua.


"You seem to be laying the blame for such things squarely on the USA without allocating proportional blame to the parties we sided with."

Let me then correct this misperception. The forces we sided with were brutal, murderous thugs who deserve proportional blame. Call me chauvanist, I'm much more concerned about the policies and behavior of my own country than of others.

"Down with dictators, down with terrorists, down with totalitarianism (including religious totalitarianism), and up, up, Up with Liberty and Freedom and the democratic process."

Bravo! It is when my country sides with dictators and terrorists and totalitarians that I disagree with its policies.

[MMMMMM]

"Call me chauvanist, I'm much more concerned about the policies and behavior of my own country than of others."

Chris Alger wrote something similar a while back and I think thisstatement bears closer examination. If our own country andanother country are committing equally bad or good acts, then yes, we should be more concerned with our own. However if we are doing a little bad and the other country is doing a lot of bad, then I think our focus should shift somewhat. I also pointed out to Chris that we live in a real world, and such as things are, no country will EVER (at least in the foreseeable future) be able to act always in the highest moral sense--the world justdoesn't work that way. To operate effectivelyt countries have to sacrificxe their ideals a bit at least. In fact even the criminal justice system recognizes this when they cut deals with bad guys in order to get the badder, bigger guys. So an attitude of only looking at our flaws and condemning anything that isn't totally noble is doomed to be disappointing as well as impractical. I'm not saying you are doing that, but with your above statement unqualified, it does not make your stance clear. Now, in the case of Nicaragua perhaps we did more evil than the Soviets there. I'm not addressing that here, just saying that an approach of being far more concerned with our own actions when there are dictators and religious tyrants, and collectivist tyrants, and lunatic fanatacist terrorists--all of whom are all oppressing, murdering, and fighting AGAINST liberty in every way they can--that this sort of attitude has the potential to be truly misguided if adhered to blindly. If there is an evil regime such as Saddam's, or Stalin's, or Hitler's, those who would dwell introspectively instead of condemning and acting against the tyranny are looking in the wrong direction.

[brad]

3) vietnam.

i mean come on. the nightly news was showing military officers field interrogating people (in the cities) and then blowing their heads off with a .45 .

operation phoenix, etc.

sen. john kerry publicly admitted committing war crimes as part of a navy seal unit.

brad

p.s. reminds me of the other night at the poker table i started talking about something that happened and the dealer goes 'that was over an *hour* ago.' (it was all in good fun but i thought it was funny that the dealer wanted me to move literally 1/2" when there was an empty seat on either side of me, so i told the story when a new player sat down.) i guess her point was that her own personal reality starts to fade after a half hour or something.

[MMMMMM]

War crimes and terrorism are often not the same thing.

M,
You are mistaken. Alger doesn't believe that terrorism is wrong. He plays a semantic game and calls acts of Palestinain terrorism freedom fighting. He believes that kiiling Israelis living on the West Bank, and any Israeli military personnel is legitimate. The catch is that in Israel every adult is considered a soldier. military service is mandatory, and anyone can be called up. Therefore, he justifies killing every Israeli adult. the man is in favor of genocide and won't quit harping about how Israel and the USA are evil until every last Jew is dead.

He not only defiled the day of mourning on 9-11 by publishing an article which basically states that the victims had it coming, but (if you review the archives) within less than 7 days of the actual attack he began printing long dissertations on how the USA is a terrorist nation.

The man is a known national security threat.

[brad]

youre the one who described terrorism as killing civilians.

[MMMMMM]

No, I described terrorism as being more than simply the killing of civilians.

Specifically, I believe I described terrorism as the targeting of innocent uninvolved civilians in order to make a political point. And that's just MY best attempt at a definition. The point is that war crimes and terrorism are not necessarily the same thing.

[MMMMMM]

Well, he considers many things to be terrorism, and has stated that the US has committed more terrorism than certain terrorist group(s). Alger's definition of terrorism is apparently much more broad than mine, and therefore he equates more past US actions with terrorism than I do. So while he says he condemns terrorism, since he considers the US and Israel to be great terrorist nations, he seems to be taking the stance that terrorist resistance may be brought on by their actions--which I think is largely untrue, for I view terrorism as being primarily totalitarianism in disguise.

Anyway the best thing that can happen is that Iraq may become a springboard for spreading democracy throughout the Middle East after Saddam is removed and the regional terrorists are systematically mopped up. I think the time is approaching to get rid of not only terrorists but also to get rid of dictatorships and tyrants worldwide, on a one-by-one basis. And that means several of the current Middle Eastern governments. Alger might have a fit at the idea of throwing out these tyrants by force, but they have no moral legitimacy in the first place since they rule only through force and fear, and are not supported by the majority of their populations. They are not elected officials but simply entrenched and empowered thugs--and the world should tell them one by one: Enough.

[Chris Alger]

"Well, he considers many things to be terrorism, and has stated that the US has committed more terrorism than certain terrorist group(s). Alger's definition of terrorism is apparently much more broad than mine, and therefore he equates more past US actions with terrorism than I do."

This is basically correct, although I would quibble about the alleged breadth of my definition of terrorism. I call terrorism the systematic killing or hurting of innocents (all civilian noncombatants presumably so) or their property to terrify survivors into behaving a certain way, whether to pressure their leaders to surrender or to cower them into apathy and obedience. You are narrowly defining it to attacks with thin poltical reasons where the sole apparent purpose is to kill as many as possible. There are two differences: I include most wanton and reckless killing of civilians in any political context as terrorism, and you don't. Also, the kind of terrorism to which I refer is more common, less nihilistic and regretably more effective than yours for accomplishing specific goals. So while the terrorists you condemn are more criminally insane, mine include the more pervasive and ultimately, for most people, the more dangerous.

Excellent response. I couldn't agree with you more.