To Chris, Cyrus and anyone else

that supports homicide bombings, I am curious:


1. What are your views on the September 11th attacks? Do you feel there was any justification for the attacks?


2. What about the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl? Was that action justified?

Where did either of them say that they supported homicide bombings?


Just curious.


Matt

I don't think that Chris and Cyrus (or anyone else who has posted here) support homicide bombings. They have pointed out that the bombings don't occur in a vacuum, that there is a history behind current events that explains, but does not justify, the bombings. People have a reason for doing things. If those reasons are ignored, then the cycle of violence will continue and probably spiral out of control (if it hasn't already). To just say that the other side is evil, that they are wrong and we are right, that we are good and they are evil, leads to stalemate and war. This is exactly the attitude of Messers Arafat and Sharon and the reason why, IMO, they should depart from the scene. Neither has shown the courage or statemanship necessary to stop the burying of Palestinian and Jewish children.


The deliberate killing of civilians is never justified. The September 11 attacks and the murder of Mr. Pearl sicken and disgust me. The Palestinian homicide bombers sicken and disgust me.


It seems clear to me that there would be no Palestinian homicide bombers if the Jews had treated the Palestinians with any degree of respect since the fouding of Zionism. To ignore this history is to be condemned to repeat it. I have no doubt that Zionism's founders would be ashmamed of the history of Zionism, and the founders of Palestinian nationalism should be ashamed of the course it has taken as well.

Many interesting points Andy.


There is one point I would like to make which seems to escape many on this forum. It is that REGARDLESS of who is right or wrong historically, and to whatever degree each may share blame, that homicide bombings of innocents are 100% wrong, no matter WHY they originated or who was originally at fault. The world simply cannot tolerate the existence and perpetuation of a philosophy that says those who are dissatisfied may attack innocents instead of attacking those they perceive as the guilty or responsible parties.


As loony as McVeigh was, he had zero business attacking a federal building where common federal workers were the most likely to be killed. He was not attacking the individuals he had his gripes with/about; he was merely attacking a symbol of them (and killing very real innocents in the process). So whether it is the Palestinians, al Qaeda, the IRA, or any other terrorist group or individual, the philosophy that attacking innocents in order to prove a point or to draw attention to an issue is so wrong and dangerous it must be considered intolerable in the eyes of the rest of the world (if civilization is to survive as weapons of destruction continually increase in power).


In other words, the world must stamp out terrorism, regardless of any "justification" terrorists caim. If oppressed peoples believe they have a just cause that requires violence, then let the violence be directed primarily at the responsible parties, not at the innocent uninvolved members of society. Terrorism must be stopped ASAP in all forms and by all groups before it gains even more widespread acceptance as a philosophy. It is this which Alger and Cyrus seem to fail to realize, because although they condemn terrorism, they keep pointing to what they see as the underlying causes of Palestinian terrorism. I agree there are many underlying causes and that some of these could be addressed, but I state emphatically that the world cannot allow the widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy and actions because that will eventually doom the human race (as weapons of greater and greater destructive powers are inevitably developed as decades pass).

Matt,


Thats not a quote, thats from multiple postings (mainly from Chris Alger) justifying/ rationalizing the homicide bombings, and even blaming Israel and (more specifically) Sharon for them.


IMO, there is no justification for such acts. To try to justify or rationalize such actions is insane. To place the blame for them on anyone but the terrorists themselves and the people/organizations which support them is equally insane.

....realizes that the recent actions (say last twop years for sure) of the Palestinians have been more evil than the actions of the Israelis. However what he may not realize is the extent to which the philosophy and actions of terrorism (even when under the most extenuating circumstances) poses a threat to the entire world. The philosophy of targeting innocents rather than those who (arguably) should really be targeted is not only bankrupt morally speaking but is extremely ominous in implication. For instance what if McVeigh had had a truckload of the newest generation of plastic explosives (like that found in Richard Reid's sneakers) instead of merely a truckload of conventional explosives. The damage would have been far greater, or he might have secreted it at several targets at once perhaps. What if he had had a briefcase nuke. Well those scenarios are coming inevitably so and we can only hope that terrorists and like-minded loonies will be few in the future. We must do everything possible right now to discredit the philosophy that it is OK to attack primarily innocents as a manner of expressing grievances. Kids are being raised to believe that this is not oply OK, but that it is even the path to Paradise. The rest of the world (the sane world) must show that this is totally intolerable and must do so with convincing force. I am close to believing that NATO should systematically crush all terrorist groups worldwide, in rapid sequence. Of course getting the Europeans to go along with something like that (ACTIVELY, at least) is highly unlikely.

'As loony as McVeigh was, he had zero business attacking a federal building where common federal workers were the most likely to be killed.'


you realize many people, such as dr. frederick whitehearse (sp?) former head of fbi crime lab, and general benton parton former head of US weapons developement, both vehemently publicly stated that there was NO WAY a fertilizer truck bomb was responsible for the OKC building damage.


the implications of this are subject to opinion, but the fact itself is unassailable.


brad


p.s. now why i say this is because without an understanding of the facts, all you get is a form of spin about the what is going on with terrorism.

interesting, but it doesn't change my point by one iota. What if he had had a briefcase nuke--too many loonies today (both organized loonies and individuals) think it is OK to take out their frustrations on innocent folk or to try make a point by doing so. Given a trend towards the greater acceptance and practice of this sort of thing, combined with ever more powerful weapons, the implications are truly horrifying.

well thats like saying if oswald had a suitcase nuke he could have taken out congress as well.


brad

exactly...because in the not-really-so-distant future, many more will have weapons with much greater destructive powers than their counterparts today have. So future loonies with a proclivity for violence (organized in groups, or solo), will be capable of doing far more harm. Therefore the philosophies which espouse such lunatic, immoral and irresponsible acts (read "terrorism") will be far more dangerous in the future than they are today.

B-Man,


I agree with you: there's no way a sane person can rationalize/justify the deliberate killing of innocent people. The person who loads up a backpack with explosives or straps C-4 to his chest and walks into a bar and detonates himself is solely responsible for his own actions. These are heinous crimes and they need to stop.


As Andy pointed out, there is a history behind everything that's happening today. Is that rationalization/justification to blow up innocents? Nope. I think what Chris and Cyrus are trying to point out here is that the crimes throughout histroy are not one-sided. To turn an earlier thread around where Chris and KJS and others were called to task for expressing their outrage at the Israeli leveling of the apartment building but not at the homicide bombings: there is incredible outrage with Palestinian terrorism, with homicide bombers and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Rightly so. But where is the outrage at over 50 years of oppression that is still ongoing? I think that's a big part of what Chris and Cyrus are trying to say. (Now, I have no desire to get into an argument about who has been worse and which crime is greater. It's like arguing which is worse, rape or murder. They're both wrong. Arguing about degrees is to miss the whole picture.)


There's a lot of interesting and thought-provoking information in each of their posts (not to say there is no such information in other people's posts). I'm not saying you have to agree with them. I'm not even saying I agree with them. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Point is, it's information. Don't just dismiss it out of hand or write it off as terrorist propaganda just because you don't agree/don't like the person who posted it. If you think it's wrong, prove it. (I'm not just talking to you specifically, B-Man. That's a "you" general not "you" specific.)


Anyway, that's my 2 cents on the matter, or 50-cent piece, or whatever. /images/smile.gif


Matt

Well, the Oswalds of the future, at least some of them, WILL have briefcase nukes or at least an approximate equivalent.


OK, I give up, what point did I miss?

M,


I don't think there's anyone here who wouldn't agree that terrorism, in all of its forms, must be eradicated. I think the question becomes, how? Israel has imposed curfews and other sanctions. They have frozen Palestinian assets and marginalized their leader. They have invaded and blockaded cities. And they have struck with overwhelming force at the terrorists themselves. None of which has done anything to curtail the terrorist attacks. Does stamping out terrorism this way actually end it? Or does it just continually provide a new generation of would-be terrorists with the "justification" they need to commit murder?


What if the Palestinians were given statehood? What if the sanctions and curfews were removed? What if Israel pulled out entirely from the West Bank and Gaza, including the settlements? What if Israel took away the "justification" for the terrorist attacks? I'm not trying to say that they would just disappear. I'm sure they wouldn't...not right away. But maybe, if allowed access to education and employment and a shot at earning prosperity, a Palestinian child won't grow up feeling the urge to blow himself and several dozen other people up.


My point is, what's happening right now isn't working. Maybe somebody should think about trying something else.


Just some thoughts,


Matt

Of course things along those lines should be done but I don't think Israel can do them while being attacked. More problematically, Israel has pretty much always been attacked so they must keep a tight eye on security for their people.


It's worth noting that the most recent Israeli crackdown did result in fewer bombings for a good while. Further, they haven't yet truly eliminated or restrained all the terrorist leaders. It's a mess but I don't think they can just unilaterally take action to help the Palestinian people when Palestinian elements keep sending bombers into their midst. And note that many of these bombers would almost surely do so ANYWAY--the long-time publicly avowed aim of Hamas is nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel and the derailment of any peace processes (recent overtures which may or may not be genuine notwithstanding).


Maybe the Berlin-type electrified wall around "Palestine" is a necessary thing for the foreseeable future.

Of course things along those lines should be done but I don't think Israel can do them while being attacked.


Creates a vicious little circle doesn't it? The Israelis move troops into the West Bank, so a member of Hamas blows himself and a disco up, so the Israelis kill a top Hamas operative, so Palestinian gunmen open fire on a public bus, so...I could go on forever.


Maybe the Berlin-type electrified wall around "Palestine" is a necessary thing for the foreseeable future.


You could be right. I think an international peacekeeping force (or observers at the very least) might help, but that's never going to happen.


Matt

well your implicity saying that oswald was a lone nut crazy guy.


i dont really want to go into that but the church commitee or whatever or house blah blah on assassinations concluded oswald didnt act alone.


anyway you get my point.


brad

"thats from multiple postings (mainly from Chris Alger) justifying/ rationalizing the homicide bombings"


Well, with all those multiple postings out there you should be able to find some word or words that supports this claim. So are you being dishonest or lazy?

"It is this which Alger and Cyrus seem to fail to realize, because although they condemn terrorism ... the world cannot allow the widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy and actions because that will eventually doom the human race (as weapons of greater and greater destructive powers are inevitably developed as decades pass)."


The only difference between you and I is that I'm opposed to all terrorism, and you downplay or apologize for state terrorism by the U.S. and it's clients, which is deadlier and more intractable. The notion that my approach creates more danger of "widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy" is therefore untenable.

"The only difference between you and I is that I'm opposed to all terrorism"


Well, you sure wouldn't know it from reading your posts!


I look forward to reading many future posts from you condemning the homicide bombings which are bound to occur rather than blaming Israel for them.

First of all I don't believe that the US and its clients engage routinely in anything I would term "terrorism"--at least not in recent years--whereas it's obvious that clearly identifiable terrorist groups (such as Hamas) do.


Secondly, I think that the Palestinians are (and have been for quite some time) engaging in pure terrorism whereas Israel is not.

'First of all I don't believe that the US and its clients engage routinely in anything I would term "terrorism"--at least not in recent years-'


well, youre just wrong on that. just last year or the year before the US had to close down its 'School of the Americas' in fort benning, georgia i think, because everybody found out they were training state sponsored terrorism there. (a la central american 'right wing' death squads)


i think they moved it to the phillipines or something.


brad

no, its just that the ADL considers any form of criticism of israel to be anti-semitism and racism.


according to them youre a hate criminal and theyre trying to get enforcing legislation passed in the US.


brad

M: "homicide bombings of innocents are 100% wrong"


Andy Fox: "The deliberate killing of civilians is never justified. The September 11 attacks and the murder of Mr. Pearl sicken and disgust me. The Palestinian homicide bombers sicken and disgust me."


We have no disagreement here.


M: "Terrorism must be stopped ASAP in all forms and by all groups"


We agree again. Where we probably do not agree is the way to do this. The problem with dropping bombs is that you may kill one terrorist but create a dozen more.


"the widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy and actions because that will eventually doom the human race"


Again, we agree. The increased lethality of modern weapons means more and ore people die. In the 20th century, 44 people out of every 1,000 people died as the result of war; in the 19th century, the figure was 16 out of 1,0000, and in the 18th, 9. (In the 15th, it was 2.)


Our disagreement, I think, is that I do not think terrorism can be stopped without understanding its underlying causes and its history. For example, suppose I told you that on the night of March 9, 1945, the United States bombed Tokyo, selecting an area as the primary target that was more than 84% residential, dropping 2,000 tons of bombs on an area containing over one million civilians, killing one hundred thousand of them. Wouldn't the context within which that action occurred, and the history of the war, including, for example, Pearl Harbor and the Japanese bombing of China be relevant in considering it's morality? One might still conclude that the bombing of Tokyo was immoral, but to judge the event out of context is to be shortsighted.

In the early 1990s, we had 125 police assistance programs overseas, despite laws passed in the 1970s abolishing U.S. assistance to foreign police.


A very good history and explanation for U.S. police assistance to Latin American countries, especially Brazil, is Political Policing: the United States and Latin America by Martha K. Huggins (Duke Univesity Press, 1998).

"To Chris, Cyrus and anyone else that supports homicide bombings ..."


Stating as fact that I support homicide bombings is as substantiated as me accusing you of supporting paedophilia : I challenge you to find one phrase where I "support homicide bombings".


Since you start off your missive with such a preposterous distortion of truth, you should not be expecting any serious replies any time soon. At least not for me.


Simmer down and try again.


--Cyrus

The thing is, Andy, that I don't buy that deprivation, etc. are the root causes of terrorism. Too many peoples have suffered similarly and yet did not turn to terrorism, for that to be true. And some terrorists were anything but deprived (look at wealthy bin-Laden--his main gripe was the presence of "infidels" on Saudi soil...talk about intolerant...jeeez.) I believe the terrorist mindset is actually based on intolerance and a complete disregard for human life, especially innocent human life. Therefore if we are facing a hydra I say cut the heads of as fast as possible, while simultaneously working to achieve better conditions by other means. And make it crystal clear that terrorists will be either going to Guantanamo or the like, or to meet their maker, and a lot sooner than they might have planned.


One danger of taking the other approach--working with them instead of fighting the terrorism--is that you essentially are validating the terrorists' philosophy--which ultimately will bear even more deadly fruit the next time people aren't happy about something. They will have seen the great results terrorism produced in the past if we give in to them in this way, and thus will be even quicker to employ it as an attempt to redress their dissatisfactions.


Now I'm all for peace processes, homeland for the Palestinians, etc...but I don't think the free world can validate the terroristic philosophy and actions there or elsewhere without simply inviting more terrorism in the future. Just as tyrants cannot be appeased and must be fought, so too must terrorists--for their mindset is as absolute and intolerant as that of tyrannical dictators--they just don't have as much power to wield, that's the main difference. And we can't give them that power by caving in whenever we face terrorism, which is the most immoral philosophy on the face of the Earth today.

"I look forward to reading many future posts from you condemning the homicide bombings which are bound to occur rather than blaming Israel for them."


Your use of the term "rather" in that sentence makes little sense because there is no contradiction between condemning homicide bombings and "blaming Israel" -- actually assigning some degree of responsibility to it -- and protesting Israel's human rights violations and war crimes.


OTOH, condeming the indiscriminate killing of civilians by Palestinians and refusing to condemn the same actions by Israel -- indeed, supporting it in the form of lavish amounts of lethal and other aid -- is serious hypocrisy.

"Your use of the term "rather" in that sentence makes little sense because there is no contradiction between condemning homicide bombings and "blaming Israel" -- actually assigning some degree of responsibility to it..."


Right Chris, that makes a lot of sense. Let me see if I understand your position "I condemn homicide bombings, but they are all Israel's fault anyway." Kind of like blaming the victim of a rape because she wore a skimpy outfit, isn't it?

I don't have a quote which says, "I, Cyrus, support homicide bombings," if thats what you are looking for. But I have read most if not all of your posts on this topic in the last week and it is clear you blame all the violence on Israel.


If I am wrong and that is not actually your view, feel free to correct me.

I dont see how Israel can negotiate with terrorists. It would set a shuddering precedent throughout the world and send the message: Terrorism works.


I wholly support a Palestinian state, but not until they renounce terrorism as a tool to implement this goal. I don't see how you can second guess a people like the Israelis that have endured the daily wave of homicide bombings and other terrorist acts by telling them they must sit at a table with leaders that support such methods.


If the Palestinian people have any chance of obtaining world support for a Palestinian state it will come only after they wipe the blood of innocents from their hands and keep them unstained.


Israel has not only the right, but the duty to protect their citizens. This does not mean they can reduce themselves to employing terrorist tactics by killing innocent people. I firmly believe Israel will prevail in showing the world that one can not and must not bend a knee to cold-blooded killers.

desire,


I never said anything about negotiating with terrorists. They most certainly need to be taken out, but not to the detriment of the rest of the population which is what is happening currently.


Anyway, my whole point was that what is happening now doesn't seem to be working. It just seems to perpetuate the cycle of violence.


Matt

Here's B-Man, feeling frisky, on the 30th:

"To Chris, Cyrus and anyone else that supports homicide bombings."

(He meant to write "suicide bombings", of course.)


And here's B-Man, the next day, after being challenged to support his accusation : "I have read most if not all of your posts on this topic in the last week and it is clear you blame all the violence on Israel".


Well, I don't blame all the violence on Israel, of course, but suppose I did. Notice the subtle equation : Blaming Israel for all the violence = Supporting suicide bombers.


A greater endorsement of my New Lexicon for the Middle East I couldn't have asked!

"I firmly believe Israel will prevail in showing the world that one can not and must not bend a knee to cold-blooded killers."


If the world had followed that in 1948, there would have been no Israel. (Can you name an Arab terrorist organisation that was killing women and children then? I can name two Jewish ones.)


..Terrorism is not the way forward, that much any reasonable person would agree. So what is the way forward? It should be political, I have no doubt about it.


A political way forward means pressing ahead with mutual concessions. What has happened so far though is less than a joke, it is a demand that the Palestinians sign off as a nation and become the equivalent of the American Indian -- voluntarily. All we hear on the media is that the political contacts were abandoned because the Palestinians were 'greedy'. Do you swallow that?


But why, you ask, should Israel, when it holds almost all the chips, compromise? Damn right! You are spot on. Unless some outsider steps in and forces Israel's hand, Israel has no desire nor interest in making any kind of deal at all. A compromise from the part of Israel would be negative EV, like. So, what do we do, we ask the other player, and the other player only, to give (and give again). Does that sound like a recipe for peace to you?

of course only a (small? i dont know) part of israels (coalition?) government even publicly claims to want peace.


the more 'hard-line' politicians and their constituents still come right out and say lets throw them all out and take their land.


my only point is that its not like israel is united in wanted peace, and a 'fair' peace. well actually thats not true they think a fair peace is to have the occupants of the occupied territories go to arab countries and have that (occupied territories) land for jews.


unfortuneately israel cant swing such a thing because they rely so much on foreign aid and stuff that if they act grossly they may stimulate a foreign response that their foreign political pressure may fail to control.


so they have to walk a tightrope and the main thing is to constantly barrage the media and how theyre the victim and acting only in self defense while they try to prosecute their plan for, depending on your view -


a) necessary consolidation of israeli borders to secure a free and democratic state for the historically persecuted jewish people


or


b) nazi ghetto style murder tactics with the end being a total purge of non jews


brad

"If the world had followed that in 1948, there would have been no Israel."


I love when Israel bashers rely on the premise that the history of the world started in 1948. I've got news for you Cyrus--it didn't.


Was there terrorism committed by groups that supported the founding of Israel? Yes, there was. Terrorist acts have been committed by many groups throughout history. Nobody is defending those actions. But you seem to be relying on the "two wrongs make a right" argument.


Should there be discussions and a political solution? Yes. Were there discussions going on before the Palestinians commenced the homicide bombings in 2000? Yes. Arafat recently said he would accept the deal that was offered to him at Camp David (which he rejected at the time).


It would be very easy to work on a political solution if the homicide bombings were stopped. Thats what you and Chris just don't seem to get. The homicide bombings are what keep the cycle of violence going--they started it, and they continue it. They are nothing more than horrendous, evil actions aimed at killing innocent people (if anyuone objects to the word "evil", thats too bad, because that is exactly what they are). If they come to a complete stop, Israel will have no grounds to take any military actions, and the parties can return to the bargaining table, and hopefully finish the deal they were close to in 2000.

"(He meant to write "suicide bombings", of course.)"


No, homicide bombings is the correct term. Their purpose is to commit murder.

'If they come to a complete stop, Israel will have no grounds to take any military actions, and the parties can return to the bargaining table, and hopefully finish the deal they were close to in 2000. '


well thats the main point. theres a lot of israeli hard liners (did a palestinian assassinate rabin?) who would consider signing such an accord an act of treason. so you can see how the homicide bombers help their position.


brad

"of course only a (small? i dont know) part of israels (coalition?) government even publicly claims to want peace..."


First of all, thats not accurate.


Secondly, are you implying that the Palestinians, by contrast, are 100% united in wanting peace? Think again.


The publicly stated goal of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other organizations is the destruction of the State of Israel. They don't want to share the land, they want it all. And whether you choose to lump them in with Arafat or not, until he cracks down on them, they are going to be part of the process, because there will never be peace when organizations like these are continuing to commit horrific crimes.

"well thats the main point. theres a lot of israeli hard liners (did a palestinian assassinate rabin?) who would consider signing such an accord an act of treason. so you can see how the homicide bombers help their position. "


Chris said much the same thing yesterday. So what? What if hard-liners support homicide bombings? Does that justify them? Why not disappoint the hard-liners and give them no choice but to negotiate? Do you really think Israel could justify to the U.S. & the rest of the world failing to negotiate if there was no violence?

'They don't want to share the land, they want it all. And whether you choose to lump them in with Arafat or not, until he cracks down on them, they are going to be part of the process, because there will never be peace when organizations like these are continuing to commit horrific crimes. '


thats why i said probably the most logical solution is to relocate the palestinians to somewhere nice since otherwise they are doomed. but no one will take them.


brad

'Do you really think Israel could justify to the U.S. & the rest of the world failing to negotiate if there was no violence? '


thats really not the right question.


the right question is whether israel would allow a condition of no violence to occur.


you have to realize that powerful people dont think like us and routinely figure that sacrificing a few to save the many is their job. like i posted that article about FDR not letting americans leave the phillipines so the japanese would capture them.


brad

The Palestinian people foster, harbor and fund an inordinate number of terrorists that thrive on violence for violence sake. There are whole organizations whose sole reason for existence is to exterminate Jews. There are terrorism sects that have sworn to not stop killing until Israel ceases to exist. Unless and until the Palestinians elect leaders who will disavow these cold-blooded killers and MEAN it, there can be little hope that a Palestinian state will become a reality any time soon.

"The Palestinian people foster, harbor and fund an inordinate number of terrorists that thrive on violence for violence sake."


This is like saying they do it for kicks. Read that sentence again and you will see how ridiculous it is.


"There are whole organizations whose sole reason for existence is to exterminate Jews. There are terrorism sects that have sworn to not stop killing until Israel ceases to exist."


Even Hamas hasn't proclaimed any such thing. What you are doing is called "demonising the enemy". It helps you sleep better, perhaps, but doesn't help you in the war against the enemy -- much less in the peace with the enemy.


"Unless and until the Palestinians elect leaders who will disavow these cold-blooded killers and MEAN it, there can be little hope that a Palestinian state will become a reality any time soon."


I got news for you, Desire : The Palestinian leadership, through explicit public pronouncements by Arafat and decisions taken democratically by the Palestinian Coucncil, have (a) recognized Israel's right to exist, safe and secure, within recognized borders, (b) renounced all forms of terrorism, and (c) declared unilateral cessation of hostilities.


This happened time and again, beginning with Arafat's first proclamation in front of the whole world (the U.N. General Assembly, actually). But whenever peace reared its ugly head and threatened to take away some of the things Israel had won through war, Israel undermined the whole process.


And if you don't realize that yet, you must believe that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple, the visit that ignited the latest round of violence and completely derailed the peace process, was just to see the sights and read some Torah. I have a bridge to sell, if you're interested.

"Homicide bombings is the correct term. Their purpose is to commit murder."


As opposed to ..which bombings exactly, B-Man?


Bombings whose sole purpose is suicide I haven't seen yet. Bombings that target not humans but , let's say, only buildings and stuff, have not been invented yet. (It's the other way around.) Bombings that intend only to scare people and not kill 'em are not bombings at all, by definition. Ergo, homicide bombings is a redundancy.


All we are left with is your rage, and a sadly irreversible train of thought. You won't even recognize that these terrorists blow themselves up along with their victims, which should give us pause and make us examine the situation deeper, if anything. There's dangerous desperation at work here, and what not.

"I love [it] when Israel bashers rely on the premise that the history of the world started in 1948. I've got news for you Cyrus--it didn't."


Hey, I was being kind! If you want, we can have it out going back 2,000 years! But, fair warning: you read my list of suggested reading. And that's just the books I recommend. So you must know I have the skinny.


As to the terrorism that founded Israel, worry not. Nobody but nobody wants to know. You can condemn Hamas to your heart's content and nobody will be the wiser.


"Was there terrorism committed by groups that supported the founding of Israel? Yes, there was. Terrorist acts have been committed by many groups throughout history."


How nice. Anything you say, then, can and will be said about the likes of Hamas' suicide bombers.


Which makes it all just a question of whose side are you on, on tribal terms, and only that. (Or, racial terms, if you are not afraid of academic precision.)


"Were there discussions going on before the Palestinians commenced the homicide bombings in 2000? Yes."


So, what? "Discussions" were going on indeed, but what was discussed exactly? Your statement is like saying, "Hey, you should play more in that poker game, these people were playing poker." (Turns out they are all world champions.) The truth of the matter that what the Israelis wanted, during Clinton's turn to have a go at Middle East peace, was the equivalent of total capitulation. Read up some before you respond in haste.


"Arafat recently said he would accept the deal that was offered to him at Camp David (which he rejected at the time)."


Oh, I am sure he would. Don't worry. You can get people to accept practically anything, with the right amount of pressure and given enough time. Israeli administrations have being allowed both, in abundance. The Palestinians in the end may come "to their senses" and, with bowed heads, go the way of the American Indian.


Just don't think there's no price to pay until you get there. (Well, no big price actually. A few Israelis killed here and there; nothing big in the eyes of the honorable planners of future Heretz Israel.)

"Even Hamas hasn't proclaimed any such thing."


Wrong. Hamas' stated objective is the destruction of Israel.


"And if you don't realize that yet, you must believe that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple, the visit that ignited the latest round of violence"


I love it. Sharon visits a Temple in Jerusalem and that is justification for homicide bombings and violence which will leave over 2,000 dead. Makes a lot of sense. Further proof the Palestinians will look for any excuse to use violence and have no interestn in peace.

"You won't even recognize that these terrorists blow themselves up along with their victims"


Oh I recognize it, believe me. But the death of anyone who would commit such an act is not a loss to the rest of the world. The death of innocents is horrendous, the death of a terrorist is just a footnote.


That is why homicide is the better term.

I think it's more the cult-like effect at work than it is dangerous desperation.


Just something to think about and notice as we gather more bits of info. on what makes suicide bombers tick (psychologically speaking--no pun intended;-))

"I love it.


I'm sure you do.


"Sharon visits a Temple in Jerusalem and that is justification for homicide bombings and violence which will leave over 2,000 dead."


More distortions and half-truths. No one, least of all me, claimed that there's a direct link from the Temple visit to suicide bombings. The suicide bombings did not start right away -- the violence started. And by violence I mean the reaction of Palestinians who took to the streets after Sharon's intentional provocation. (If you want to believe that ol' Ariel was just taking a nice n' easy religious pilgrimage there, tell me what were the 200 goons in tow for.) The street violence escalated, because from the Palestinian side it was spontaneous and uncontrollable, and from the Israeli side the riots were seen as an ungrateful uprising just when they had handed over to the occupied people their independence.


The spiral of the recent violence started with Sharon's visit, no matter how you'll spin it. That's simply the record of events. At the time, the two sides were still in distant diplomatic contact. The Palestinians were trying to salvage the Camp David fiasco that Barak's inexperience brought about. Sharon would have none of it.


But think of him as a man of peace if that makes you feel better at nights. Nominate 'im for the Nobel Peace Prize too.

The spiral of the recent violence started with Sharon's visit, no matter how you'll spin it. That's simply the record of events. At the time, the two sides were still in distant diplomatic contact. The Palestinians were trying to salvage the Camp David fiasco that Barak's inexperience brought about. Sharon would have none of it.


Of course it did. I didn't dispute when the violence started, I said that a visit to a Temple is no justification for homicide bombings. I'll go beyond that and say it is no justification for any violence (not that the Palestinians have ever needed justification, they'll use any old excuse they can find). The parties WERE still talking peace before the Palestinians started the violence. The violence was what derailed the peace talks.


I give Clinton credit--he nearly pulled off what I thought was impossible. Alas, he didn't quite succeed, and now things are worse than ever.

"I don't believe that the US and its clients engage routinely in anything I would term "terrorism"--at least not in recent years."


Two cases of U.S. support for state terror date from the late 1990's: Indonesia in East Timor and Turkey's repression of its Kurdish population. Recalling Bush's (logically correct) assertion that material support for terrorists is no better than terrorism, the U.S. bears responsibility because it supplies lethal aid and training to the offending states, as well as diplomatic and financial support. Although the worst actions occurred a few years ago, residual human rights abuses are ongoing.


1. Turkey vs. the Kurds.


"The [Kurdish] population as a whole has often been targeted and has endured two decades of terrible hardship, instability, and fear. Kurdish villagers in particular have been subjected to frequent security raids in which they have been abused, tortured, and even "disappeared," or extrajudicially executed." “Backgrounder on the Repression of the Kurds in Turkey," http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/turkey/kurd.htm. The Boston Globe reported on 2/21/96 that “about 2,200 villages in the [Kurdistan] region have been destroyed, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, the international monitoring group. An estimated 19,000 people, many of them civilians, have died in this decade-long war in the far reaches of Kurdistan - a war largely unreported by Western media.” http://www.diaspora-net.org/Turkey/bogloarm.html The same article notes that “in the last 10 years, Congress has appropriated $5.3 billion in military aid (grants and loans to purchase weapons) for Turkey [a NATO ally], making it the third largest recipient of US military aid behind Israel and Egypt. Overall, Turkey has been on a weapons buying binge: from 1985 to 1994 it has purchased some $7.8 billion in weaponry, approximately 80 percent of it from US manufacturers.” The article also notes that U.S. equipment played a major direct role in the Kurdistan terror campaigns.


2. Indonesia vs. the Timorese.


On the East Timorese being terrorized by militias under the control of the Indonesian military: “Militias in West Timor are terrorizing the East Timorese, infiltrating the camps and systematically attempting to identify and retaliate against independence supporters. They have also assaulted, "disappeared," and killed those attempting to aid or shelter refugees.” “Protect Refugees in West Timor, http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/sep/refugee0923.htm. “According to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, deliveries of U.S. military equipment to Indonesia in 1993-1995 totaled $70 million. In FY1997, the most recent year for which figures are available, the U.S. delivered equipment worth $13.4 million, concluded new government-to-government (Foreign Military Sales) agreements of $793,000, and approved new commercial military licenses worth $66.1 million. For FY1999, the Administration is seeking $400,000 to train 27 Indonesian officers.” http://cdi.org/issues/indonesia/indonesiaposition.html. Also in 1999, HRW later called for “immediate suspension of all military training and assistance programs to the Indonesian army until there is some evidence that it is making a serious effort to bring its proxy militias under control.” http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/aug/timor0901.htm. The U.S. briefly complied with this request, suspending aid until Indonesia takes “effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of human rights violations in East Timor and Indonesia.” http://www.etan.org/news/2002a/07leahy.htm. Despite this, “the Indonesian military continues to strongly resist reform and evade accountability for human rights violations, and continues to commit atrocious abuses of civilians throughout Indonesia.” http://www.etan.org/action/action2/07alert.htm Nevertheless, “the Bush administration, exploiting the “war on terrorism,” has mounted an aggressive campaign to remove congressional barriers to engagement with the brutal Indonesian military (TNI).” Id. This very morning Secretary Powell announced that the U.S. was going to renew normal military ties with Indonesia.


You can expect more cases like these in the near future as the U.S. escalates support for state terror against civilians that support various revolutionary, seperatist, and independence groups that threaten local elites tied to the U.S. It will no doubt be justified as part of the "war against terror."


If you want to do something or say something principled about terrorism, look first to your own zone of responsibility.