Re: Welcome To The Politics Forum

[zipo]

>>Supporting the other side than the US in a conflict does not make me a supporter of terrorism.<<

You seem to be undergoing some pretty strenuous gyrations in order to avoid my point. What makes you a supporter of terrorism is not the fact that you wish to "side" against Americans - it is the fact that you support and continue to defend the attempted mass murder of US citizens by non-uniformed combatants in a peaceful and friendly port.

As an aside, you assume that the US and Palestinians are on opposite "sides" (true, an assumption made by many palestinians and many terrorists). However, no formal hostilities have been declared between the US and the Palestinians - in fact, the US has gone to great lengths over the years to resolve and ameliorate the palestinians condition.

The fact that you disagree with US support for Israel does not change the fact that this attack upon peaceful US shipping simply cannot be justified under the basis of international law, which you must acknowledge. And to try and manufacture some 'moral' justification for this attempted mass murder is an astounding example of bogus rationalization.

>>Rest assured, you haven't changed my mind. Your cultural arrogance have just strengthened my prejudices <<

I do rest assured of this. I have no illusions about how difficult it is to get bigots to reflect upon their bigotry through the use of reason. For bigotry is irrational, and inherently opposed to reason.

These rules suck. Are rules not set in place to be broken? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Just a picture for you:

Site of attack

You think it would not assist Israel?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have made up my mind on both, and I detest both. I see neither terrorism or American militarism contributing to this world. Thus I can feel sympathetic both to those who fight terrorism and those who fight American militarism. And I honestly believe, both the sides are on the losing side, thus I remain an optimist for this blue bubble

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "contributing" you mean positive contribution then I of course agree. However, both sides are actively contributing to the escalation of violence -- a wholly negative and unneeded contribution. Both sides should be castigated for the same.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
What I hope to help you understand is that terrorism *causes* an increase in militarism

[/ QUOTE ]

... and what causes terrorism in the first place?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
First, terrorism should be condemned, absolutely and unequivocally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? To condemn terrorism as an exercise in ethical behaviour or in a college term paper make sense. It is after all "uncivilized" (whatever that means) behaviour. However, in political discourse all that condemnation from the leaders does is to get the hackles of the public up and get them geared up for a military response so that the sons of Cindy Sheehan can die a needless death.

Instead of condemning (a wholly negative exercise) it is far better to understand the causes of the terrorist reaction. This is true both in the academic sense and in the political problem solving sense. Neiher Sharon etc nor Bush etc have shown any interest in the causes of terrorism -- both have shown an eagerness to whip out the pistols and go it both guns blazing -- and neither is succeeding in the mission of keeping their citizens secure. There is a lesson here, for those listening.

[zipo]

>>To condemn terrorism as an exercise in ethical behaviour or in a college term paper make sense. It is after all "uncivilized" (whatever that means) behaviour.<<

My condemnation of terrorism is extremely practical and pragmatic, because it will (especially in the virulent form manifested by 21st century islamic terror) result in death, misery, and economic strain for everyone involved both directly and peripherally. It's hard to believe how any reasonable person could not understand this.

>>Instead of condemning (a wholly negative exercise) it is far better to understand the causes of the terrorist reaction.<<

The 'cause' is the belief on the part of some people that they can address whatever grievances they have - real, imagined, exaggerated, or misplaced - through committing violence upon others, then believing that they are justified in that belief.

Condemning terrorism is not a "negative exercise" - what is negative is trying to come up with rationalizations, justifications, and excuses for terror. For that is to miss the point, assuming that one begins with the premise that all people are human, and that all life is valuable.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The 'cause' is the belief on the part of some people that they can address whatever grievances they have - real, imagined, exaggerated, or misplaced - through committing violence upon others, then believing that they are justified in that belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot tell from this paragraph whether this applies to a) Al Qaeda/Palestinian/Islamist terrorism or b) to the Israeli/American response to the terrorism.

Was that intentional?

In any event, condemnation, by itself, is never practical or pragmatic. Advocating the nuking of a continent is practical (though stupid). Understanding the real cause and making adjustments if appropriate is practical. In the case of Militant Islam, the grievances are real and addressable. We can condemn if we like but that is not going to make the world a better place for us to live in.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You support and continue to defend the attempted mass murder of US citizens by non-uniformed combatants in a peaceful and friendly port.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I hasten to add that I do not personally "support" the whatever, you seem to be quite cavalier in your use of terms. For instance: "peaceful" means something else than "at peace"; "non-uniformed combatants" are not what you are impplying in int'l conventions (they are not pariahs who should be for example shot on sight); "mass murder" ism usually not used to refer to the killing of a hundred soldiers; etc.

[ QUOTE ]
You assume that the US and Palestinians are on opposite "sides" ... an assumption made by many palestinians and many terrorists).

[/ QUOTE ]
And also by most people who do not have their cranium deeply buried in their bowels. Only people who have not been reading the paper for the last fifty years who claim what you do. Are you suggesting that the United States has maintained some sort of equal distance between the two sides in the Middle East conflict? Hah. That would be the joke of the month.

[ QUOTE ]
No formal hostilities have been declared between the US and the Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what would that "formality" be? The Palestinians do not have a country in the first place for the American ambassador to hand over his war declaration. And, more importantly (Jeez, we have to go through the obvious here!) the United States never needed no darn "formalities" to invade a country or send over its bombers.

Any time you feel like getting some, ask me to give you examples.

[ QUOTE ]
The US has gone to great lengths over the years to resolve and ameliorate the palestinians condition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if the previous one doesn't make it, that would be next in line for joke of the month.

[ QUOTE ]
This attack upon peaceful US shipping simply cannot be justified under the basis of international law.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, pal, much as I hate to say this, when you break down the law in order (ostensibly) to get at Evil, you cannot be invoking the law when you feel threatened.

I urge you to look up some Thomas More.

[Cyrus]

I don't wanna be the only one who doesn't get it...