To Chris, Cyrus and anyone else

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. [img]/images/smile.gif[/img]


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?