Questions for Chris Alger and KJS

OK let me preface by saying that I agree that Israel hasn't been completely moral, ethical or whatever in all aspects of their protracted struggles with the Palestinian problem. However, I have a question for both of you, and especially for Chris Alger.


Do you admit that, if the Israeli's actions are BAD, the Palestinians' actions are WORSE? Do you see any difference between targeting bad guys who might happen to be near innocents, and targeting purely innocents? Do you see any difference between suicide bombings of a little girl's birthday party, and Israeli actions which might sometimes result in the civilian deaths?


I know you guys don't support terror. That's not my point. I know Israel may have done some bad things along the way too and that's not my point either. I know both sides hold blame. However it seems to me that the Palestinian groups which espouse suicide bombings are SETTING OUT TO DO bad things. Do either of you agree that no matter what moral level you assign the Israeli actions overall (on say a scale from 1-100, with 100 being best), that the overall rating you would assign to the Palestinian actions overall must necessarily be lower? That's my view. I know that if I were ever to feel so oppressed or to be in a terrible situation (say in Nazi Germany) and I decided I had to try to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING (even a suicide bombing) to fight against the evil leaders, I would TARGET the evil leaders, NOT some group of kids or partygoers out for the night. That is, if I felt I had to blow myself up and do some damage to the Nazi party or the Nazi military machine, because say the Nazis were just too evil, I'd DAMN SURE do it to the Nazi soldiers or to next to the highest-ranking leader I could find...and I'd DAMN SURE NOT do it against the common people, the families, the children. It would be absolutely morally bankrupt to go do it a little girl's birthday party, for instance, especially if no leaders or soldiers were present there, and IMO those people who do such things don't deserve to be human beings. Anyway, regardless of what you think they may or may not deserve, my question is not that, but this: Do you guys see any difference or not, and do you agree that the Palestinians have embraced a more evil doctrine and course of actions than the Israelis?

M,


It all comes down to this: I would never say someone does not deserve to be a human being. You just did.


You also want to quantify bad actions into some kind of moral hierarchy, whereby some are excused if they are done in response to something worse. I do not utilize that approach either.


KJS

"Do you admit that, if the Israeli's actions are BAD, the Palestinians' actions are WORSE?"


Yes. The Palestinians are currently behaving worse than the Israelis. (Of course, the number of dead from each side points to a completely reverse picture but we all know that 1 Israeli life = 15.3 Palestinian lives. --I wanna recognize eLROY here for his theorem & equations.)


But, seriously, the Palestinian suicide bombers are killing indiscriminately civilians, amongst whom are women and children. How can anyone in his right mind support or even condone such actions? I don't. The Israelis, on the other hand, in their response, appear to operate less indiscriminately. Thus, they currently occupy the higher moral ground, moreover because action-and-reaction as presented in the media has them as responding to terror, and not instigating it. (But "appear" could be the operative word here. Notice how when Hamas proclaims its readiness to suspend the bombings, the IDF kills its military leader, an action certain to cause retaliation/more suicide bombings. Who wants peace, anyway, anyone?)


In the course of this wretched conflict's history, the Israelis have indulged in their own share of atrocities, against women and children as well as against a whole nation -- culture, customs and possessions wholesale. A shameful, shameful behavior for the people who were once at the receiving end of such brutality. But if you presume that this legitimizes in my eyes the terror inflicted on Jews by the likes of Hamas, you are grossly mistaken.


...To cut this short : Nothing can stop the cycle of violence short of forceful American pressure towards both sides, but especially towards the side that has the most power. This is a very simple power play. The U.S. must step in for force the adversaries to shape up and go down the tough road of mutual accomodation -- leading to an eventual peace. So far, the U.S. accomodates every Israeli action, no questions asked. The Saudi Arabian plan, an extraordinary piece of potential break-through, was dismissed by Sharon willy-nilly. The U.S. remained in diplomatic apathy. That surely's not the way to achieve a political solution.


--Cyrus

'I'd DAMN SURE do it to the Nazi soldiers or to next to the highest-ranking leader I could find...'


i heard an interesting point that when they bomb say a nightclub, theyre bombing the most concentrated gathering of military they can find.


not sure if this is always applicable, and anyway i could care less about who wins except as it affects US.


brad

We got to be able to laugh at ourselves.

I don't believe you don't rank bad actions in terms of their badness or their maliciousness. Therefore I think you are capable of ranking the actions I asked you to in such terms. I also think you are probably capable of discerning which amongst a selection of various philosophies is more moral. Your blanket statements appear to me to be nothing more than cop-outs.


I also think that you are probably simply avoiding the issue because you don't want to force yourself to look at it more closely due to the conclusions you might eventually be forced to arrive at. Rather than holding a superior moral position yourself (as you seem to think), you are actually operating on a lower moral reasoning level by refusing to allow yourself to explore and dissect such issues.

...for a candid and interesting response.

yep, you mentioned that before, but even if it is so, it is probably irrelevant because they bomb everywhere else too.

"Do you admit that, if the Israeli's actions are BAD, the Palestinians' actions are WORSE?


I don't know which actions you are referring to, but what some Palestinians do is obviously worse that what some Israelis do, and vice-versa.


"Do you see any difference between targeting bad guys who might happen to be near innocents, and targeting purely innocents?"


Yes.


"Do you see any difference between suicide bombings of a little girl's birthday party, and Israeli actions which might sometimes result in the civilian deaths?"


Yes. Taking your phrase "might sometimes result" at face value, the first is mass murder and the second can sometimes be justified.


I don't see what any of these questions have to do with anything other than your attempt to defend some semblence of the conventional "pro-Israel" view of the conflict (ultimately anti-Israel IMO, but that's a different story). We all know what that view is, and it's obvious that I don't believe it fits the facts even slightly. You are evidently having trouble trying to fit the facts as you understand them to this model, so to salvage some semblence of moral high ground you're asking questions like: what's worse, intentionally murdering a family or negligently wiping out a village? Instantly killing one person or torturing a dozen over time? I can't imagine why anyone would need to reach these questions about bad and worse in order to draw fairly clear lines between right and wrong.


Let me illustrate with an abstraction. Pretending that this has nothing to do with Israel, let's say that country A invades country B and conquers it. Country then proceeds to place the inhabitants of country B forcibly under foreign occupation for a period of decades. Bear with me for the following hypothetical facts, and assume for the moment that they are true.


1. Country A is the richest and most powerful country in the region. It's citizens enjoy a standard of living that few countries can match. Country B is weak and poor, with far fewer opportunities for employment and education, substandard housing, roads, infrastructure, sanitation and the like.


2. Country A taxes the citizens of Country B and embarks on a policy of seizing land and placing businesses under often ruinous restrictions. It further proceeds to settle hundreds of thousands of it's residents in Country B, where they enjoy subsidies and privileges forbidden to native population. Many of the settlers acknowledge frankly racist views toward the residents of Country B.


3. They grumble, but most of the citizens of Country B scrape by under the occupation peacefully. A relative few (perhaps a thousand out of a population of 3.3 million) take up arms against the occupiers, and are considered heros among many of their people (the more educated and privileged tend to condemn them). A few of these indiscriminately murder civilian citizens of country A, including children, amounting to some 25 lethal bombings killing several hundred people over a period of 10 years. The most violent of these offenders tend to be religious messianics that fantacize about conquering Country A. Much larger minorities resist and protest Country A's occupation, and rock-throwing demonstrations are common.


4. Country A brutally enforces it's control over the residents of country B through arbitrary arrest and detention, torture (of violent and non-violent dissidents alike), occasional indiscriminate shelling and shooting into civilian areas, interruptions of basic services like electricity, water and transport, restricting access to and outright destroying medical and educational facilities, and daily delays at military checkpoints and roadblocks. Collective punishments of the innocent and severe curfews are routine. The residents of country B spend the greater part of their lives being angry and fearful inside their homes.


5. On average, more than a dozen residents of Country B are killed or injured by the military forces of Country A every day, children in disproportionate numbers. Of those killed (about 2-3 a day), a handful are pure accidents, most of them result from reckless violence in civilian areas, and many are acts of premeditated murder, sometimes against political leaders, sometimes in retalliation for rock-throwing and similar offenses, and sometimes for no discernable reason other than to intimidate the residents of Country B. Although Country A insists it performs these functions only in response to terrorism, it has the additional welcome effect of cowering the population into passivity, which facilitates their control or, as a military leader of Country A puts it, to make them like "drugged cockroaches in a bottle."


6. The corrupt and ineffectual (and occasionally imprisoned) politcal leadership of Country B denounces the killing of civilians, but either can not or chooses not to prevent it. The leadership has well-placed fears of appearing to be a quisling or puppet leadership for the benefit of Country A. It actively encourage resistance against the occupying military forces.


7. Country A, in turn, characterizes all forms of violence against its military forces and civilians as "terrorism." The brutality of Country A's actions tends to increase after an act of terrorism against it, but lesser acts of aggression come out of the blue during periods of quietude, which tends to incite counter-attacks, sometimes against military targets, sometimes against civilians.


8. Polls indicate that the residents of Country B would be satisfied if Country A withdrew taking the settlers with them and allowed all displaced refugees to return to their original homes. Country B seeks to negotiate a resolution of the conflict along these lines, but Country A refuses to consider it until some unspecified time after all terrorism and violent resistence against its occupation ceases. It has made clear that under no circumstances will it ever consider withdrawing from all occupied territory or removing all settlements.


9. Large and powerful minorities in Country A routinely and forcefully denounce any suggestion that it should withdraw from any part of Country B under any circumstances, citing an ethnic right to remain there, a position traditionally espoused by the current leadership of Country A. A smaller minority denounces the occupation as criminal.


10. Country A recieves aid equal to half it's military budget every year from the only other superpower in the world, including tanks, planes and high-tech ordnance. It is generally agreed that the occupation of Country B could not continue without such aid. All other countries in the world, however, condemn the occupation of Country B as a violation of international law.


11. The superpower, a democracy whose citizens enjoy superlative freedom and civil rights, views Country A as a strategic asset that helps safeguard it's interests in the region (which includes continued access to the "greatest material prize" in the history of the world, in the words of it's planners). Most citizens of the superpower are much enamored with Country A because it is a democracy (except for the residents of Country B), albeit one that expressly discriminates in various ways against it's large ethnic minority. They tend to dismiss the residents of Country B as "terrorists" and their sympathizers.


Let's further assume that you handed to foregoing hypothetical situation to someone who just emerged from a cave after thirty years, telling him he should assume to facts to be true, and asking his reaction. Then imagine him telling you the following upon reading it:


1. The greatest evil in this scenario by far is the terrorism against civilians in Country A by certain residents of Country B.


2. The first and most important issue to be addressed in this conflict is the terrorism against civilians in Country A by certain residents of Country B.


3. The political leadership of Country B bears chief responsiblity for the violence between the countries.


4. The actions of Country A, even the most brutal ones, can fairly be described as "self-defense" or "fighting terrorism."


5. Although both sides may be faulted, Country A has the general moral upper hand.


6. The morality of Country A's actions is not a function of their necessity or the pain and suffering they cause, but is rather a function of the degree of democracy that Country A's citizens enjoy. Accordingly, the more democratic Country A is, the more it's actions in Country B are justified. It is also morally right to refrain from condemning the actions of Country A outside its borders because it is so democratic inside its borders.


7. The superpower has an apparent if not obvious moral obligation to continue to fund Country A's occupation of Country B.


8. Any critics of Country A are probably too tolerant of terrorism.


9. The citizens of the superpower that support the actions of Country A inside Country B are viewing the situation objectively and fairly, and appear to be well-informed.


You'd have to conclude that he either misread it or that his moral compass is off-kilter. You simply cannot match these conclusions of the facts as presented to any notion of fairness or elementary morality.


If you put yourself in the frame of mind that I just suggested (using your imagination now), you'll have a pretty good idea about why I can't fit the relevance of your questions to the facts as I understand them.


P.S. The suicide bomb statistics come from the Israeli government. The "Country B" death and injury toll comes from Red Crescent, based on 1,500 killed and 17,000 injured since September 2000. The quote about drugged cockroaches comes from IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan in 1983, before a Knesset committee, explaining the future effect of settling the West Bank. The "world's greatest prize" quote comes from a State Dept. document from the 1940's, I can look up the exact source if you like.

Disregarding which side is right historically, if the Palestinians are going to use suicide bombers, I think they should concentrate primarily on miltary/political persons or targets, not on the average John and Jane Doe and their kids, so to speak. That's my main gripe, and it's pretty much the point of my prior post, and I think it has profound moral and philosophical repercussions, especially since terrorism outside of the Palestinianian isssue seems to increasing around trhe world.

I guess I agree, but the better thing would be to eschew violence altogether. My overall point, however, is that the exclusive moral focus on suicide bombings under the historical circumstances is absurd, and that focusing on other obvious issues hardly attempts to rationalize or apologize for them.

I agree that the Israeli/Palestine issue is incredibly complex and that focusing on only one aspect (suicide bombings) is to ignore much else that is important.


The heart of my question probably had more to do with the philosophy of terrorism in general (and with what I see as wrong with it) than with specifically the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

that is, the heart of my question sprung from even deeper considerations than the just the Israeli/Palestinian issue (although of course germane there too).

Would you change your viewpoint if in fact the suicide bombings were found to be planned by the government and secretly applauded by the majority of the Palestinean people?

Alger is a raging anti-Semite.Arhived posts can be reprinted daily for a month with no changes or commnets which clearly deminstrate this.

the russians bombed their own apartment building (kgb or fsb or whatever did) in moscow to blame it on the chechnyans to drum up support for the war in chechnya.


brad


p.s. local police arrested the fsb doing it

KJS, I don't mean to say that your views on these subjects are absurd, nor do I mean to say that I'm necessarily 100% right (for instance my feeling that certain people don't deserve to be humans is very subjective and it is not held in stone, either).


It's just that I don't believe that you go through life without somehow ranking bad actions according to their degree of evil (except maybe in those few spots where you don't WANT to).

No. In part because one of the two facts you mention already exists and the other, if it existed, wouldn't exist for long.


I understand that polls show a majority of Palestinians applaud or otherwise favor the suicide bombers. At least that's what I read from anti-Palestinian sources and it's certainly plausible (witness the martyr posters and keychains all over the West Bank and Gaza). This is wrong and inexcusable but hardly surprising or even uncommon: people all over the world seem to have a tendency during times of war and stress to applaud the mass murder of national "enemies," including innocent civilians (e.g., the popularity of the Hiroshima bombing). Polls also show the majority of Palestinian wishing to live alongside Israel permanently in peace, as with Israeli polls show 2/3's wanting to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and 2/3's wanting to pull up the ladder on the settlers and withdraw. There's also ample precedent to show that popular support for violence and terror can be overcome or at least neutralized when viable peaceful alternatives are pursued with enough aggression, as in Cyprus, S. Africa, Ireland and the Balkans, to name a few of many. (There may also be something other than blind hatred that explains Palestinian attitudes, as there exists a popular perception Hezbollah defeated Israel in Lebanon with terror tactics, not quite true, and irrelevant IMO anyway).


If Arafat and crew were planning suicide bombings it would surface immediately and they would have been just as immediately killed or exiled. There's a symbiotic relationship between Israeli hard-liners and the terrorists, a point made in yesterday's NYT, which pointed out that various diplomatic efforts to stop the bombings were beginning to bear fruit, until Sharon struck again. The relationship often exists between terrorists on both sides of a conflict. But given Israel's immensely disproportionate power over the situation, and the pressure that exists already on Sharon to get rid of Arafat, the PA's actual invovlement in terrorism would be too much for any Israeli government to withstand.


For all the demonization of Arafat, it's apparent that Israel doesn't think that he or his subordinates actually plan the bombings. Hence the official cries that Arafat do more to stop the bombings and other violence and to kill or arrest the "militants." Since Israel, with many times the resources at it's disposal can't do this, demanding that the PA do it is an agenda for no compromise, the same agenda which Sharon and his factions have vigorously persued all their adult lives.


My opinion of Arafat has always been fairly low. Few people in recent history have been as badly served by their leaders as the Palestinians, but this doesn't mean that they should be deprived of basic rights.

How about just one example of an anti-semitic remark?

M,


This all started because I objected to a particular incident that I found very troublesome. I felt that it indicated a change in tactic in an already awful, intractable conflict. I hoped to communicate that I wished that Israel did not cross a line, that line being the purposeful killing of the most innocent members of the Palestinian population. Certainly the Palestinian suicide bombers crossed that line long ago by targeting innocent Israelis in their campaigns. It is my opinion that both sides are acting in an immoral fashion by carrying out attacks that kill children of the other population. For me, their is no justification. Your post about one group acting worse misses the point, in my opinion. Killing children is just plain awful, any way you cut it. Even in the bloodiest conflicts I think it should be avoided. When someone that my government supports unequivocally starts down the road whereby they term operations that result in dead babies a success I get very upset. When people try to justify these operations I find myself amazed and saddened that they think these babies deserved death because other people near them did bad things. And frankly, I don't care how bad those things were, those babies deserved to live. Therefore, I don't find questions comparing the badness of actions perpetrated by the Palestinians and those perpertrated by the Israelis to be germane to the point I was attempting to make.


No more on this from me.


KJS

I now see where you are coming from a bit better, and how my point is not that much in line with what you are concerned about in these matters. Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully.

I don't believe the US actually applauded the loss of innocent human life at Hiroshima. Those who do deserve to be enslaved.

of course you realize that dresden was totally destroyed only because churchill wanted revenge for the london bombings.


brad

This assumes that the Japanese civilians were considered to be innocent.


From what I understand, the justification for the Hiroshima bomb was to save American lives from an inevitable invasion, the main concern being Japanese civilians taking up arms in street to street fighting.


A number of Americans may have initially applauded the bomb for other reasons such as, Revenge for PH, war time attrocity stories ,war fever etc..

These would be emotional reactions so the punishment you suggested would be a little harsh.


I'm not justifying the use of the bomb. Just wanted to point that out.

I don't know anyone who applauds Hiroshima today, but it was obviously different then.


And while I don't have a source in front of me, I am quite sure that news of it was enthusiastically received in the U.S., despite the obvious catastrophic loss of innocents. I'm also unaware of any sizeable protest over Lemay's incineration of Tokyo.


If I'm right, it's regretable and wrong, but your judgment is harsh. I'm thinking of the precerption of island campaign veterans and their families facing the invasion of Japan, and suddenly learning of a "magic bullet" that made it all unecessary (described eloquently in Paul Fussell's essay "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb"). I suppose you can say well, these guys and their families were faced with likely death, and celebrated a reprieve. But there's always a vengeance component in war, and I'm not sure how one can distinguish justifiable from unjustifialbe emotions under situations of extreme stress and fear. Something like this occurs in other countries in response to wartime atrocities, especially those marked by ethnic prejudice and hatred.

There may be a subtle yet important distinction between someone at that time in history applauding "Hiroshima" (if it was seen as ending the war), and someone applauding the "loss of innocent life at Hiroshima."


The Palestinians cannot think or say that the suicide bombings are ending their conflict, or even achieving significant progress towards their aims, yet they applaud these takings of innocent Israeli lives. At first glance this may look like an unimportant distinction but upon closer inspection I think we can discern that there are some very real and important philosophical differences at work. For instance even Sharon, in his initial remarks applauding the recent airstrike as a "success," was referring to the achieved aim of killing a man who had orchestrated the killings of hundreds of innocent Israelis. Whether that was justifiable is not the point here, but the fact was, Sharon was applauding something significant and concrete which had been achieved (albeit at arguably unjustified cost). Yet when the Palestinians applaud suicide bombings of those who are purely innocent and uninvolved, they are cheering the indiscriminate slaughter of Israelis and yet are not any closer to achieving their ends: they are merely cheering the death and destruction and momentary triumph of their hatred. So in some cases one may be cheering an end achieved (albeit at regrettable cost). In the other example, one is merely cheering hatred and destruction. If, for instance, the suicide bombings had actively and efficiently moved their people forward in some way, they might (arguably) have legitimate reason to cheer. But merely applauding death and destruction of innocent members of the enemy to no solid purpose is part and parcel of a sick and twisted philosophy which has overtaken the Palestinian people. This type of twisted emotional/religious/fanatical mindset is a threat to the stability and health of the entire world because it is not only not isolated in Palestine, but is spreading around the globe.


Many like to speculate on the root causes of terrorism. While deprivation, oppression and poverty may be contributing factors, the real root cause of terrorism may instead be a totalitarian mindset. Historically, many peoples have been oppressed, etc. but did not turn to terrorism...revolts, yes, maybe, but not terrorism. Groups like Hamas have vowed nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel, which itself is a totalitarian outlook. Also, historically speaking, up until say the latter half of this century, the real terrorists were usually governments themselves such as Stalinist USSR, Red China, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's regime, etc. It is noteworthy that these governments were also totalitarian. So what I'm getting at here is that the reason terrorism may be so widespread in the Arab world (as distict from just the Palestinian realm) is because these countries are used to a totalitarian mindset anyway, whether in their military dictatorships or in their kingdoms. And Islam is a very, very strict religion with very strict laws. So while the West should do more to help the Islamic countries open up, many of them don't even want to do so, and would rather keep us out. And yes, I'm saying that much of the cause of these problems around the world inherently resides in their religious/cultural background and its incompatibility with more open society. Progress, however, will not stand still for the Islamic world and will increasingly cause conflict with their closed societies and philosophies. Unfortunately, I don't know just what we can do about it either.

"There may be a subtle yet important distinction between someone at that time in history applauding "Hiroshima" (if it was seen as ending the war), and someone applauding the "loss of innocent life at Hiroshima."


It's both subtle and unimportant. The serious question is whether the politcal/military obejctives justify the means, not whether people find the means distasteful and regretable, or instead prefer them in their own right. Were it otherwise, the Mob boss that murders many innocent people (for "business" reasons) but regrets it would be "better" in some fashion than the Mob boss who murder relatively few but enjoys it. We might have a slight perference for the company of the former, but to the victims -- the people that matter most -- it hardly makes a difference. Accordingly, to the extent that we harbor any tolerence for mass killing in order to obtain military/poltical objectives, states and groups that engage in it should be judged by the merits of their cause and the necessity for and degree of hurt, not by what evil might lurk in the hearts of their supporters. Nobody cares whether Sadamm Hussein hates or admires the Kurds, and nobody should care.


To crystallize your argument, you contend that someone who welcomes or tolerates violence that has a realistic chance of obtaining some worthy objective is better than someone who does the same regarding an objective that's unobtainable or remote.


I agree, but let's return to the overall objectives instead of day-to-day tactics. Israel killed a mass murderer, no doubt, but it is part of an overall strategy of killing and hurting people in order to keep a population of several million under occupation (now virtual house arrest) and colonize the land where they live. It's a criminal goal, no matter how much restraint Israel employs or how much its principals regret the loss of lives (a difficult attribute to pin on Ariel Sharon in any event). The ends as well as the means of the suicide bombers are criminal, we all agree. On the other hand they've killed but a fraction of innocent civilians killed by the IDF (and these figures hold true for all Palestinian terrorism versus all civilians killed by the Israeli military since September 2000 and indeed 1948). So because the bombers and (arguably) their supporters are filled with more hate and have fewer second thoughts, you automatically classify them as "worse" in the face of obviously greater evil, in terms of the body count. It's a nearly metaphysical distinction (whose heart is darker?) that turns a blind eye to the actual amount of harm.


As for Palestinains that support or tolerate the bombers, how are they supposed to "know" that all terrorism is nihilistic and counterproductive? Ireland certainly and would have remained British colonies if not for urban terrorism, and there are many other cases where terror campaigns have "worked." Igrun and Lehi were famously terroristic, planting bombs in marketplaces and bus stops in order to maximize civilian deaths, and their members are considered heros to this day by many in Israel. They havea a strong argument that such means helped lead to a very concrete nationalist objective.


So just what basis do you have for saying that Palestinians, who have been under travel and other restrictions for ten years, some of whom are no into their fourth generation of children born in cinderblock and corregated iron roof refugee squalor, most of whom celebrated a "peace process" that accomplished nothing more than further destruction of their homes and doubled of the number of settlers, are supposed to "know" that terrorism or even suicide bombings can't possibly work? Why can't they use the same logic as the greatest suicide bombing threats in the history of the world, the mutually assured destruction machines of the U.S. and Soviet Union? Isn't your argument dependent on some degree on the number and magnitude of bombs the suicide bombers can deliver?


Notice that youj're also on a slippery slope. There are no doubt many coffee table debates taking place right now in the West Bank and Gaza over whether the bombings "work." Under your analysis, if they can deliver justifiable ends, such as an Israeli pull out, then an argument exists for their continuation. I disagree. If more suicide bombings could achieve Palestinian independence tomorrow, I'd prefer no suicide bombings at all.


Finally, let's say for the sake of argument that suicide bombing supporters should now that this tactic is doomed, but in fact don't know it and stubbornly cling to a myth of martyr-hero that might eventually deliver something good. Notice that your conclusion -- that "Palestinians" must applaud killing for it's own sake, falls completely apart.

In practical terms, to the victims and their families, there is little or no difference. However in terms of a philosophy, it is more than just "whose heart is darker." This because evil philosophies which gain popular acceptance and spread do harm to those in other regions, in other ways. I contend that the philosophy of terrorism--targeting purely innocent and uninvolved persons in order to make a point--is inherently evil and greatly so. And a philosophy which encourages and applauds "darker hearts" is evil in that sense as well. So while the Palestinian issue is incredibly complex, I submit that embracing a philosophy of terrorism not only adds to the hatred and problems, but it facilitates and encourages others to do so as well. Like a cult with oh-so-deep underpinnings, this sick approach is gaining in popularity around the world, primarily in Muslim lands, but amongst some others as well. The cult aspect of the glorification of death and "martyrdom" increases the psychological recklessness of the "cult members" and thus increases the dangers to others as well. And perhaps most ominously, the greatest danger is not what we see today, but what may happen in a few decades or so when the capacities of both nations and individuals to unleash greater destructive powers on others has been significantly enhanced.

"I contend that the philosophy of terrorism--targeting purely innocent and uninvolved persons in order to make a point--is inherently evil and greatly so."


I agree with this, but you're still trying to suggest that Israel doesn't do this. Also, before you said it was a question of the point you're making. After all, the bomb on Hiroshima was dropped to make a point, which was spelled with explicitly in millions of leaflets the Allies dropped all over Japan shortly after the bombing. It's really the point you're making, isn't it, that determines how bad the "terrorism" is?


I still don't know where you get the idea that only Palestinians engage in terrorism to "make a point." Here's Ben-Gurion on January 1, 1948, in his diary: "There is no question as to whether a reaciton is necessary or not. The question is only time and place. Blowing up a house is not enough. What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place and caualties. If we know the family -- [we must] stirke mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise the reaction is inefficient." (Emphasis added).


Decades later, Abba Eban explained the logic of attacking civilians this way: "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities." This is precisely the way all terrorists think, and the reason that states engage in terrorism to a far greater extent than small groups or individuals do.


"Like a cult with oh-so-deep underpinnings, this sick approach is gaining in popularity around the world, primarily in Muslim lands, but amongst some others as well."


I find your attribute occasional and sporadic terrorism to Islam contrived and more than a little offensive. The term "terrorism" can be traced to the aftermath of the French Revolution, where it was attributed to the government of France. Throughout history, states and groups have engaged in terrorism all over the world. The largest terrorist operations in recent memory occurred in Rwanda and Central America, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The notion that terrorism is or has become "primarily" Muslim because of the Palestinian suicide bombers and Al Quaeda is untenable. Remember that these official enemies of the U.S., and we therefore hear much more about them that groups and states that the U.S. either likes or doesn't care about.

The general population may not have applauded the loss of innocent life at Hiroshima, but only because it was not told of it. Truman's press release said that "an American airplane dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base."


The bomb was aimed at the center of a city of 350,000 people and was a continuation of the American policy of bombing civilian populations in Japan, a policy which was envisioned in U.S. military circles before Pearl Harbor. On August 9, Truman said "we wished in the first attack to avoid, in so far as posible, the killing of civilians," an out-and-out lie.


Racial hatred of the Japanese was stirred up by American leaders and the media; the most common image of the Japanese people in the media was that of an ape or monkey. In December, 1944, a poll asked "What do you think we should do with Japan as a country after the war?" 13% said "kill all Japanese" and 33% supported destroying Japan as a poltical entity. In December, 1945, 22.7% of respondents to a poll conducted by Fortune magainze said they wished the United States had the opportunity to use "many more of them [atomic bombs] before Japan had a chance to surrender."

"The reason terrorism may be so widespread in the Arab world (as distict from just the Palestinian realm) is because these countries are used to a totalitarian mindset anyway, whether in their military dictatorships or in their kingdoms."


You are trying to infer something that doesn't stand up to scrutiny : Terrorism is equally prevalent in western, liberal, democratic societies, and particularly European ones. It has been for decades. (In fact, if we were to measure the liberalism of a regime against the level of terrorist acitivity in its country, we would probably find that the more autocratic a regime is, the fewer the incidents of terror in it.)


If you are talking about incidents of outside terrorism, which would be the terror inflicted outside your borders, upon other countries, then we start to stretch the definition of terrorism to include any act of barbarity against others. There, we also have totalitarian regimes acting like that, but the main culprits have always been the colonial powers. What they did was not a "good thing", but we cannot label it "terrorism".


"In some cases one [eg Sharon] may be cheering an end achieved (albeit at regrettable cost). In the other example, one [eg the Palestinian side] is merely cheering hatred and destruction."


That's correct. It is a fact that the military capability of the Palestinians has been reduced to indicriminate strikes against civilians. Note that besides those who blow themselves up along with Israeli women and children, nobody else was/is undertaking any other military operation of note against Israeli targets, military or civilian ones.


This is because the Palestinian side, although divided and with plenty of infighting and disagreement (not the sign of a totalitarian regime!), have come to the peace process truly intending to have peace. The military operations have ceased a long time ago. The recognition of everything Israel demanded has been repeatedly declared. But the Israeli administration would not allow no damn peace process to dilute the spectacular gains they have achieved througuh military means over five decades. (One of the most insiduous but prevailing myths is that the Israelis offered to the Palestinians in Oslo practically a free state and half of Jerusalem on a plate but the stupid Palestinians turned that down and asked for "everything". A bigger distortion of the truth one would be hard pressed to find, but that's what we are led to believe!)


What I'm saying is : Yes, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that what the Palestinian suicide bombers are doing, no matter if Arafat approves or not, is morally inexcusable and politically suicidal. But we must also note that these acts do not come from the side that has the upper hand in the power balance -- it comes from the side without any power at all, actually. So blaming such acts of political and moral desperation on convenient causes such as stupidity or the culture or worse (the water they drink; the towels on their heads; their race's inferiority) may help us sleep better at nights but will not help us to understand the problem, nor to move towards its solution.


--Cyrus

CA: "The notion that terrorism is or has become "primarily" Muslim because of the Palestinian suicide bombers and Al Quaeda is untenable."


M: Most terrorist groups in the world today (look 'em up and count 'em if you want) are Arab and/or Muslim, are they not? By head count I would think it even more so.

Cyrus: "You are trying to infer something that doesn't stand up to scrutiny : Terrorism is equally prevalent in western, liberal, democratic societies, and particularly European ones."


M: Then why are there more Islamic terrorist organizations than any of any other type (maybe more than all others put together)? And what of the head count? I think your statement above is ludicrous.

I know you guys are sincere, but it amazes me the lengths you seem to go to claim equivalences when in fact there are important distinctions. Besides, 13% is a long way from 68%.

or 23% is. Although I'm not claiming an equivalence either, because suicide bombings differ from nuclear bombings.

CA: "I find your attribute occasional and sporadic terrorism to Islam contrived and more than a little offensive."


M: This is ridiculous.


If most terrorists in the world TODAY aren't Arab/Muslim, I'll eat the Ace of Spades from a deck of Kem cards in front of you or your designated observer the next time I visit Vegas.

"Most terrorist groups in the world today (look 'em up and count 'em if you want) are Arab and/or Muslim, are they not? By head count I would think it even more so."


Them's fightin' words for an avowed counter -- so I'll count 'em for you!


No wait! The State Department has counted 'em already. (Hey, Colin Powell as a spotter. Nifty work, Colin baby.) Here's the official State Department list of officially recognized terrorist groups world-wide. I took the liberty of putting in bold the "arab/Muslim" ones :


1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

2. Abu Sayyaf Group

3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

4. Armed Islamic Group

5. 'Asbat al-Ansar

6. Aum Shinrikyo

7. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

8. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)

9. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

10. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)

11.Hizballah (Party of God)

12. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

13. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)

14. Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)

15. Kahane Chai (Kach)

16. Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)

17. Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)

18. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

19. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)

20. National Liberation Army (ELN)

21. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

22. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

23. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

24. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)

25. Al-Qaida

26. Real IRA

27. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

28. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)

29. Revolutionary Organization 17 November

30. Revolutionary People's Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C)

31. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)

32. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)

33. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)


That makes 17 out of 32, ie barely the majority, as you claim.


But, seriously, if you accept that some of the "Arab/Mislim" organisations above are just small splinter groups (eg, group #24 split from #23) with almost inconsequential action in themselves, as opposed to the European groups, (eg, group #29, November 17, with twenty-seven years of uninterrupted activity), then you will agree that the weighted effect of terrorism worldwide is not as much "Arab/Muslim" as it looks.


--Cyrus

So it is barely the majority, but compared to any other subset type, the Arab/Muslim groups are enormously predominant. And probably yet more so by head count.

You promised to Chris Alger that "If most terrorists in the world TODAY aren't Arab/Muslim, I'll eat the Ace of Spades from a deck of Kem cards in front of you or your designated observer the next time I visit Vegas."


If that is a sigh of relief I hear from you, it is totally justified since you barely escaped the humiliation! There are just 17 out of 33 "Arab and/or Muslim" organisations world-wide officially recognized as terrorist by the U.S. State Dept. See my post, titled "Terrorist Groups" above, or better yet visit the site itself at http://www.usembassy.org.uk/econ277.html


Still, you say "Why are there more Islamic terrorist organizations than any of any other type (maybe more than all others put together)? And what of the head count?

I think your statement above is ludicrous."


I should have you eat the Queen of Hearts for that -- but I have a big one!


Take care.

well I think it's pretty significant that the Islamic groups outweigh all the other group types put together, don't you? In an election, that would be a landslide. So I don't see how Chris Alger can rationally take offense at my statement (and I'll bet you don't either);-).

Why do I have to do all the homework? Here's a link to a chart in the appendix of the U.S. State Department's 2001 Report on International terrorism. It shows the location of terrorist actions from 1996 through 2001, indicating very clearly that the region in the world with the largest number of terrorist actions is the one with almost no Muslim culture at all: Latin America, with over 800 terrorist incidents compared to less than 200 for the entire Middle East.


The country with more terrorist incidents last year than any other was Colombia, where Muslims plays absolutely no role in violence.


Note that this is also "terrorism" as defined by the State Department, and doesn't include "state terrorism" such as the violence against civilians by, say the Indonesian armed forces in Timor.


Moreover, even if every single act of terrorism in the world was committed by Muslims, it would mean that less than the tiniest fraction of 1% of Muslims take part in terrorism. To label "terrorism" as an Islamic phenomenon or to even say that it's somehow intrinsically related to Islam is simply wrong.


(If the link doesn't work go to the State Department's homepage, where you can get the whole report in PDF or HTML).

8 or 9 of the "Muslim" groups specifically grew out of the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon conflicts. Once you take the Palestinians out of the picture, "Islamic" terrorism is in a distinct minority. Further, if there was something unique to "Islam" as opposed to the historical circumstaces surrouning Isreal that inspired terrorism, you'd see greater dispersion throughout the Muslim world.

Despite Truman's August radio address, by December 1945 it was obvious to everyone that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs resulted in catastrophic loss of innocent lives. I remember reading something about some people wanting Japan not to surrender so that we could drop as many atom bombs on them as possible. I had no idea that similar feelings still existed months after the war was over. Note that the poll was taken among people that won the war and lived in a country that, compared to Europe, the Soviet Union and Japan, had come out relatively unscathed. It's a damning indictment of the effects of war: huge masses of people that support killing for the sake of killing.

How can anyone not take offense at the suggestion that terrorism is "primarily" Muslim when the government of Guatemala murdered many times the number of innocent people in the 1980's than all the Arab/Muslim terrorist groups combined to date? How can anyone not take offense when such a tiny percentage of Muslims have any connection to terrorism? Isn't your argument the same as saying the terrorism in the 1970's was "primarily" a Roman Catholic phenomenon because the IRA was made up of Catholics, a religion hardly unrelated to their cause?

CA: "Once you take the Palestinians out of the picture, "Islamic" terrorism is in a distinct minority."


M: In a "distinct minority" compared to whom??? No other subset is as large.


Even if you make 'Palestinian Terrorists' and 'Islamic Terrorist' two separate groups, they would still occupy the number one and number two spots according to subset or group type.


No matter how you slice it, Islamic terrorists win the numbers game HANDS DOWN over any other group type (except for the group: 'male terrorists';-))

We are not talking about where the largest numbers of 'terrorist incidents' take place, we are talking about whether most terrorist groups are Muslim (and compared to any other type of group they win by a landslide), and which subset of terrorist groups or types has the largest numbers of terrorists.


Furthermore, I never labelled terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon as you falsely claim. I said terrorism may spring more from a totalitarian mindset than from oppressive conditions, and that the Islamic world may be more accustomed to totalitarian-style thinking already (based on their super-strict cultures and religion).

I don't think I said that terrorism is "primarily" Muslim. I did say that of all the terrorist groups in the world, more are Muslim than of any other type. You can draw your own conclusions from that.


It might be worth noting, too, that of all major organized religions today, only Islam can boast a great many clerics who openly espouse terrorism (not the majority of Muslim clerics but certainly a very significant number). Now am I making a prejudicial statement, or is it just plain fact?


I suggest you take the blinders off, drop the emotional reactions, and wake up and see the evil (which is hatred of the West, and even terrorism) being widely taught under the auspices of much Islamic organized religion today.


Terrorism in the 70's was a much smaller phenomenon than it is today.

yes but still far fewer in percentage terms than those Palestinians who support suicide bombings

http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/saturday/news_d324f12b6139910500ad.html


my personal opinion is that when they do something about the completely porous borders, only then will there be a significant outside threat.


brad


p.s. as to the article , obviously they didnt count the CIA, which would have really brought up the numbers.

M,


This is wrong, but I will assume that it unintentionally so, and not an attempt to blunt the forceful message of the numbers. This is the second time I'm kind to your stomach, by the way...


You wrote : "We are not talking about where the largest numbers of 'terrorist incidents' take place, we are talking about whether most terrorist groups are Muslim (and compared to any other type of group they win by a landslide), and which subset of terrorist groups or types has the largest numbers of terrorists."


Ever hear of "weighting"? Suppose you have two hundred terrorist groups in Guatemala, and they have been inactive for ten years, while you have only one terrorist group in Lebanon which wreaks havoc throughout the country with 100 attacks in a month. Where would you rather live, Guatemala with two hundred groups, or Lebanon, with one ?


The State Dept figures indicate that, with one-group-one-vote, the number of Arab/Muslim terrorist groups are just barely the majority. (There are no-Aran/Muslim groups that State Dept has left out of the list for political reasons but never mind.) So, your first contention, that there are more Arab/Muslim terrorist groups than all the others combined has already fallen flat on its face.


Measuring strictly manpower, Arabs and/or Muslims are not in the majority. Evaluate the strength of each group as given on various websites.


Even when taking into account the terrorist activity as measured by the number of incidents that occur, you will find, as Chris Alger pointed out, that Arabs/Muslims aren't the champions.


This leaves the argument about Arab/Muslim terrorism quite hollow. And I won't cheat by taking out the groups directly involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, in order to have one group per conflict. It isn't needed.


Take care.


--Cyrus

Cyrus: "The State Dept figures indicate that, with one-group-one-vote, the number of Arab/Muslim terrorist groups are just barely the majority. (There are no-Aran/Muslim groups that State Dept has left out of the list for political reasons but never mind.) So, your first contention, that there are more Arab/Muslim terrorist groups than all the others combined has already fallen flat on its face."


How so? A majority is a majority even if by a slim margin, and if you compare the Arab/Muslim groups to any other type of group subset, it is a landslide.


I didn't find the manpower numbers or the number of incidents Alger cites, but I would guess you are both talking about Columbia. There the biggest drug war in the world is being fought (and tons of money means more than ideology) so I think it is something of a special case when it comes to number of incidents.


I just reread my Ace of Spades offer post to Alger and noted to my chagrin that, posting in haste, I failed to make the distinction between manpower and number of terrorist groups as I did in my post to you. I also failed to make the distinction of Arab/Muslim groups compared to any other subset as opposed to compared to "others." So technically speaking, if you are correct about the manpower numbers, I might have to eat the Ace of Spades. I'll try to figure out a way to do it (or at least to reasonably appear to do it;)) before my next visit to Vegas.

OK Chris,


As I posted to Cyrus, according to my wording of the offer above: "If most terrorists in the world TODAY aren't Arab/Muslim, I'll eat the Ace of Spades from a deck of Kem cards in front of you or your designated observer the next time I visit Vegas" I guess I owe you or your designated observer this demonstration.


If however I had made the distinction as I did in my post to Cyrus, regarding Arab/Muslim terrorist groups versus any other group type, I clearly wouldn't. So being a man of my word I'll try to figure out a way to give you the entertainment of such a demonstration. I'm sure such a way exists but I might have to pay David Copperfield for lessons. However that might be worth it.

This is assuming that Cyrus has correctly looked up the raw manpower numbers. My principal error in wording was comparing raw manpower numbers for Arab/Muslims versus all others rather than versus any other subset of a specific group. Don't worry, I'll figure out a way to eat the Ace of Spades;-) Even if I can't take afford to lessons from David Copperfield I know someone I can ask about such things.

I wasn't claiming an equivalence, I was responding to David's post with an explanation of why the killing of civilians in Japan may not have been applauded publicly.


But now that you mention it, it does serve to show that people can and do lose their sense of morality under the pressure of violence, and thus the importance of stopping the ugly cycle in the Middle East.


The Western powers were shocked when Japan started bombing Chinese cities in 1937. The State Department said, "any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and of humanity."


Then when war broke out in Europe, Roosevelt spoke about the need for all the belligerents to refrain from this "inhuman barabarism" of bombing civilians. Yet by 1945, incendiary attacks against urban areas of Japan became our primary air strategy in the war, killing close to 400,000 civilians.


Those who knew of this policy usually felt that Japan had gotten what it deserved. One can find an occasional objection on moral grounds in the records (such as that of Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, one of General McArthur's key aides, that the air raids against Japan were "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history"), but such feelings were seldom voiced for public consumption.

"This is assuming that Cyrus has correctly looked up the raw manpower numbers."


Have you ever contemplated the manpower of the PKK alone? It tips the balance against "Arab/Muslim" by itself. PKK, which cannot be really called merely a "group", was added to the United States official terrorist list at the insistence of the Turkish gov't. The Kurds don't usually blow up any discos or bomb civilians or assassinate diplomats, they are simply the tougher and most radical politically of all the Kurdish national liberation armies. They number tens of thousands of active members. Hence, their inclusion in the list, as opposed to the other two, more moderate, liberation armies of Kurdistan.


All these military formations of Kurdish rebels would be perfectly qualified to be called freedom fighters if it wasn't for one small detail : politics.


(They are probably not that many anymore since their leader, Apo, was arrested by the Turks two years ago and, under arrest, called for unilateral cease fire and the laying down of arms.)


--Cyrus

Should it be? Remember, these forums are an extension of a business that publishes books on poker/gambling. Nothing offends me, personally. It is my job to make sure these forums serve a useful purpose to those that participate in, and view them. So I ask you this: Does making light of one historical catastrophe, lend credence to the idea that we should take, more seriously, one in our midst? And, as I've stated before, I have not yet formed an opinion on the current Israel/Palestine tragedy of today. I only know that it is a tragedy.


Mat

BTW, I understand that this reference may have been entirely coincidental. Cyrus could very well have been offering his advice on the best way to prepare the ace of spades.

Indeed if it is cooked to a cinder it may be much easier to eat (or to appear to eat).

"Does making light of one historical catastrophe, lend credence to the idea that we should take, more seriously, one in our midst?"


All catastrophs, when looked from a distance lose their impact. Some even acquire aesthetic attributes.


"I understand that this reference [to ovens] may have been entirely coincidental. Cyrus could very well have been offering his advice on the best way to prepare the ace of spades."


Yes, I think that putting the Ace of Spades in the oven for one hour at 75 degrees Celsius is better than boiling it. Makes the paper crispy and smaller in mass; chewing on a damp, bloated, boiled card is worse.


..Forget about Copperfield, M, just call your local pizza joint!

The real problem is that I said it would be the Ace of Spades from a deck of KEM cards. Cardboard would be no problem.

jk = just kidding, im pretty sure.


but i really found it (oven) funny only *because* you censored the heil israel post, which was a really good post title i think because it was a direct rebuttal to a hail israel post.


personally i think since the US sends the region like 50 billion dollars a year or whatever we should just relocate the palestinians somewhere nice and then the problem is solved and then maybe we can cut back to like 20 billion or so. but what do i know. anyway, a billion dollars probably doesnt go very far anymore anyway.


brad

"Personally I think since the US sends the region like 50 billion dollars a year or whatever we should just relocate the palestinians somewhere nice and then the problem is solved and then maybe we can cut back to like 20 billion or so."


You are probably kidding but this is a serious question : For what approximate dollar amount do you think the Israelis would get up and abandon Israel?


If I was a Palestinian, I would accept half of what the Israelis would accept...

well i dont know how many palestinians there are (that live in refugee camps/occupied territories or whatever).


but i would have to expect that if somebody came to them and said something like, you can go to {france, uk, US, ...} if you want, that theyd jump at the chance.


i mean, seriously, the US has absorbed like 10 million illegal alien mexicans in the past ten years.


im sure most of the money would go to the countries (unless US) so they would accept them.


brad


p.s. the realpolitik is just that israel wont go away and furthermore, that israel will resort to downright nazi-style tactics to get rid of the 'palestinian problem'.