I am with Terrorism

[Bilal]

The actual word is Assassin, it is come from the Arabic word ‘’Hashashin’’ .

((The term originally referred to a heretical Islamic order known as the Hashshashin, an offshoot of Ismailism, and originated in a castle called Alamut in the mountains of Northern Iran in the 11th century. This sect was said to carry out assassinations of the enemies of the order, or Muslim rulers they believed to be impious. The earliest known record of the word in English (dating from the early 17th century) refers to this sect rather than its more general modern sense. Similar words had earlier appeared in French and Italian.

Marco Polo provided the first western account of the sect, although his account is probably fictionalized in part. He said that recruits were promised Paradise in return for dying in action. They were drugged, often with materials such as hashish (although some suggest opium and wine instead, all being, nonetheless, condemned by Islam) then spirited away to a garden stocked with attractive and compliant women and fountains of wine. At this time, they were awakened and it was explained to them that such was their reward for the deed, convincing them that their leader, Hassan-i-Sabah, could open the gates to Paradise. The name assassin is derived from either hasishin for the supposed influence of their attacks and disregard for their own lives in the process, or hassansin for their leader.))


There are many modern words from Arabic origin:.. Admiral, Alchemy, alcohol, Algebra, Algorithm, Alkali, Arsenal, Zero, Chemistry, Guitar, Jasmine, Magazine, Massage, Monsoon, Mummy …………

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin


So what is your point by saying that origin of this word is Arabic?

mmm just FYI, I believe the actual word used is irhab which would mean "fear" "to fear" "to frighten" I don't have an arabic copy here to look at, perhaps Bilal can clarify.

 

[kat]

So what is your point by saying that origin of this word is Arabic?

Um...I was speaking of the Arabic word translated into terrorism...in...the...poem... but I don't have an arabic copy available to me...you do...
is the word used "irhab" or?

 

[kat]

So it is terrorism to attack the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon?

If this is a response to my post..I was speaking of suicide attacks but I don't think attacking Israel soldiers IN southern Lebanon is terrorism...BUT attacking civilians across the border IS. Occupying Lebanon and attacking Israel from her soil also carries it's own element of a certain kind of life of terror though, doesn't it?!

Sucide bombers started for the first time in 70s by the Tamil tribes in Sri Lanka ...

Yes, yes...that is why I made sure to say... "The first suicide bombing in Lebanon " and not just...the first suicide...

 

[russ_watters]

Not all so-called terrorism targets "innocent" people, russ_watters. That's the problem: the generalizations.

I'm not generalizing, you are when you say that! You're citing actions without saying what they are and citing a definition without saying what it is! I'm being very specific: blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism and such acts are the primary tactic of Hamas, Al Queda, Hizbolla, etc. It doesn't get any more specific than that - I'm using the word's accepted definition and applying it objectively to real acts.

For all you who wanted to use misdirection to avoid addressing that point by asking me about Israel's actions, I'll answer all of your questions if you first acknowledge the truth of what I just said above in bold. Though if it helps clarify things: I'm willing to apply the definition of terrorism consistently and objectively what I'm asking is: are you?

 

[Burnsys]

I'm not generalizing, you are when you say that! You're citing actions without saying what they are and citing a definition without saying what it is! I'm being very specific: blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism and such acts are the primary tactic of Hamas, Al Queda, Hizbolla, etc. It doesn't get any more specific than that - I'm using the word's accepted definition and applying it objectively to real acts.

For all you who wanted to use misdirection to avoid addressing that point by asking me about Israel's actions, I'll answer all of your questions if you first acknowledge the truth of what I just said above in bold. Though if it helps clarify things: I'm willing to apply the definition of terrorism consistently and objectively what I'm asking is: are you?

Actualy it seem that the FBI have a broarder view of what terrorism is, in their Pamphlet they say terrorists are:

Defenders of US Constitution
Groups of people engaged in paramilitary trainging
Christians
Those who make "Numerous reference to the US Constitution"
Left Wing terrorist??
Animal Rigths activist
Urban Riots Agitators

Betwen others.

You can check it here:
http://www.radioliberty.com/fbipam.jpg

 

[plover]

Burnsys:

The FBI pamphlet is addressed to domestic terrorism (as it should be, the FBI's is not an international agency). It also offers a definition of domestic terrorism:

Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.
​

The list you give is groups which contain elements that have been found to be engaged in terrorism. I like how the list on the pamphlet includes "Weapons of mass destruction" as if they were a separate group that was sneaking around on their own :rofl:.

I'm not sure their definition is actually very good as it covers, say, election fraud, where terrorism is generally considered to be violent in nature. Perhaps the words "criminal activity" should be amended to "criminal violence or the threat thereof".

It's an interesting link, but I'm not sure it addresses what russ is saying.

 

[Gonzolo]

Real meaning of Jihad:...
Facts...
differences among these groups:...
From Islamic point :...
As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference...

Thanks for the information. Jihad seems more like "duty", "work", "task" or "struggle" as you say. Of course, it works both ways, so if some groups have a duty involving a conflict of interest with the US or Israel, these countries have the opposite duty.

I have browsed news from al-jazeera, cnn, and a dozen other different contries, and have found that uniased information is incredibly hard to find, so your Palestinian viewpoint is important.

As for a definition for "terrorism", it's quite clear to me that it litterally means "terrorizing (a population)". Common usage seems to incorporate "...by killing innocent, random civilians" and often "...by sacrificing one of our own." Literally, Qabanni is saying he approves of this. But since he's being poetic about it, I suppose anyone who accuses him of anything isn't "interpreting" his message correctly.

Bilail, do you think peace (one year without any suicide bombing or Israeli attack) will be achieved in the Palestine/Israel region within our lifetimes? What are the prerequisits? I tend to think there are too many different groups that don't get along. I suspect you don't like Sharon much, but what do you think of Mahmoud Abbas?

Cuz when I get the chance, I'd like to do tourism over there without losing a limb.

 

[russ_watters]

Actualy it seem that the FBI have a broarder view of what terrorism is, in their Pamphlet they say terrorists are...

Round and round we go - this is the reason the anti-Israel Arab population does not have the support of the international community. Until such time as they renounce terrorism, they will continue to be considered to be the thugs of the world.

 

[ramollari]

I sympathize with the Palestinian population and their cause. But I strongly condemn terrorism and suicide attacks and feel very sorry for so many lost innocent lives everywhere in the world. People should unite in pacific protests against the imperialist policies of George W Bush.

 

[devious_]

I'm not generalizing, you are when you say that! You're citing actions without saying what they are and citing a definition without saying what it is! I'm being very specific: blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism and such acts are the primary tactic of Hamas, Al Queda, Hizbolla, etc. It doesn't get any more specific than that - I'm using the word's accepted definition and applying it objectively to real acts.

The only one of the three groups you cited that I would call a terrorist group is al-Qa'eda.

Hizbolla don't blow-up bus-stations or restaurants for the purpose of killing civilians. What Hizbolla do is keep Israel out of southern Lebanon. And although Hamas seem to attack civilians very often (which I am against, btw), I don't think it's accurate to call that their primary tactic. Hamas attack Israeli military targets often too, but that doesn't get as much media coverage for obvious reasons.

You should also take into consideration WHY Hamas resort to attacking civilian targets. It is because they are up against a much stronger enemy that kills AND humiliates their people (the latter should be emphasised), destroys their homes and ruins their farms and business places. (Are those not civilian targets?) This enemy has opressed them for over a decade, and seems to be backed up by almost everyone.

 

[russ_watters]

You should also take into consideration WHY Hamas resort to attacking civilian targets.

Does the definition of terrorism include a why and if so, what is it?

I'm also not willing to split hairs over what fraction of which organization's action is terrorism. That they do it and advocate it is enough.

 

[studentx]

You should also take into consideration WHY Hamas resort to attacking civilian targets. It is because they are up against a much stronger enemy that kills AND humiliates their people

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

This enemy has opressed them for over a decade, and seems to be backed up by almost everyone.

Evryone, except the billions all over the world like you. Its always a mystery for me how some ppl can be in the illusion that evrybody is against Palestine and for Israel. But for governments its simply impossible to back up palestinians who resort to blowing up buses and cafes. They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

 

[Bilal]

Yes .. Irhab means terrorism in Arabic

Um...I was speaking of the Arabic word translated into terrorism...in...the...poem... but I don't have an arabic copy available to me...you do...
is the word used "irhab" or?

 

[Bilal]

Suicide bombers is not the origin of the problem, it is just recent phenomena (after Hebron massacre 1994). The root of the problem is the racist ideology of Zionism , which ignore the right of the native people of Palestine to live as human.

I am not hopeful about peace in ME, especially USA doing the same job as Israel. USA became now part of the problem, which make everything more complex than before.

I do not trust Abbas ,may be we need him at this difficult time of the conflict.

Bilail, do you think peace (one year without any suicide bombing or Israeli attack) will be achieved in the Palestine/Israel region within our lifetimes? What are the prerequisits? I tend to think there are too many different groups that don't get along. I suspect you don't like Sharon much, but what do you think of Mahmoud Abbas?

Cuz when I get the chance, I'd like to do tourism over there without losing a limb.

 

[Bilal]

If you check the UN resolutions, you will find all the world support the Palestinian people in their tragedy, except USA and Micronesia (island exist somewhere in the ocean).

Round and round we go - this is the reason the anti-Israel Arab population does not have the support of the international community. Until such time as they renounce terrorism, they will continue to be considered to be the thugs of the world.

 

[Bilal]

Israel murdered more than 250000 Palestinian civilains, on the Israeli side: they lost only 1200 civilians in last 50 years of the conflict. (Just in Lebanon invasion in 1982, Sharon murdered 20000 civilians - -- more than all Israeli victims in last century: civilains + military (including 5 wars victims))

Or you think that Israeli blood is more expensive?
Terrorism is terrorism, whether by suicide bombers of F16.

By the way, Hamas was created in 1988, and suicide bombers started in 1994...

The conflict started in Palestine immediately after First World War 1917, in that time ; some Zionist militant groups got support from UK to immigrate to Palestine to steal by force the land and the houses of Palestinian people.

You can not integrate all the conflict by ''suicide bombers'' or Hamas , which just recently joined the conflict.

In 40s, UK called the Zionist militants as ‘’terrorists’’ after they bombed the Hotel of King David in Jerusalem .. The British killed one of the most well known Zionist leaders (Stern) after his collaboration with NAZI in 1941 against the British forces. Even Shamir , Former Israeli PM , was wanted dead or alive as ‘’dangerous terrorist’’ to the British authority … after he murdering several British soldiers and planted bombs in their bodies to kill also the British medical groups.

Thos who created Israel (LIHI military group) murdered all the citizens of Palestinian village near Jerusalem called ‘’Dair Yassin’’ , are they considered terrorists?

http://www.firasm86.9f.com/dair.htm

http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass01.htm

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

Evryone, except the billions all over the world like you. Its always a mystery for me how some ppl can be in the illusion that evrybody is against Palestine and for Israel. But for governments its simply impossible to back up palestinians who resort to blowing up buses and cafes. They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

 

[plover]

Bilal,

What do you think of Marwan Barghouti? What do other Palestinians think? I've heard his name suggested as a possible leader for the Palestinians.

 

[Gonzolo]

I understand that after WW2, the UN voted in favor of the creation of the Israeli state (11 "opposed", about 30 "for", and many (15?) neutrals), but the surrounding Arab countries (most of the 11 "opposed") defied this by starting a war, which displaced much of the Palestinian people.

What do the Palestinian people think of these events now? Do most Palestinians recognize this U.N. vote, or do they not?

Does Hamas, which apparently "doesn't reconize Israel's right to exist", recognize the U.N.?

 

[plover]

I'm not generalizing

In your first post to this thread, you seemed to imply that anyone who resists Western activities in the Middle East was blurring the definition of terrorism. You made no mention of the means or motivation for this resistance, merely conflated it with support for terrorism. Looks like a generalization, quacks like a generalization...

Does the definition of terrorism include a why and if so, what is it?

I'm also not willing to split hairs over what fraction of which organization's action is terrorism. That they do it and advocate it is enough.

You talk as if terrorism occurred in a vaccuum. If a population has factions which use terrorism, there is generally something severely wrong with the situation that has caused some to view terrorism as the only option. In order to stop a population from allowing terrorists to remain as their leaders, there has to be some hope that making another choice will make a difference. Given the settlements and the positioning of the wall (among other things), it is hard to see how Israel offers any such hope to the Palestinians. And for a people who have been beaten down for many years, a solution which forces them to abandon whatever dignity they've retained is also not helpful, as it may be the only possession they believe truly their own.

While bringing terrorists to justice is necessary, anti-terrorist posturing is never going to solve anything. Acknowledging the conflicting impulses and feelings of a battered people, the twined desperation and paralysis of life under oppressive conditions might be a step in the right direction.

 

[russ_watters]

In your first post to this thread, you seemed to imply that anyone who resists Western activities in the Middle East was blurring the definition of terrorism.

My first post made no mention of "western activities".

You made no mention of the means or motivation for this resistance, merely conflated it with support for terrorism. Looks like a generalization, quacks like a generalization...

All I said is that a definition should be applied evenly. Now a plea for objectivity is bias? How absurd.

You talk as if terrorism occurred in a vaccuum...

Does the context ever make terrorism not terrorism or make terrorism OK?

...anti-terrorist posturing is never going to solve anything.

Now I've heard everything - being anti-terrorism is a bad thing.

Bilal - bla, bla, bla: if you won't acknowledge the objective concept that terrorism is wrong, we can't move on to discuss anything else. Your stance is preventing progress in this conversation in precisely the same way that terrorism prevents progress toward peace in the Middle East.

 

[Smurf]

accually the main obstacle to peace in the middle east is international oil interests (namely the west (namely the US))

 

[plover]

My first post made no mention of "western activities".

By ignoring the second part of Bilal's statement, you set up the context as being about what he refers to as "occupation, imperialists, dictators" and you, perhaps, do not.

All I said is that a definition should be applied evenly. Now a plea for objectivity is bias?

Does the context ever make terrorism not terrorism or make terrorism OK?

You complained about generalizations after making one yourself. That is all. I said nothing about objectivity or bias.

All you appear to be pleading for is that people repeat "I hate terrorists" over and over again forcefully enough to satisify your personal ideal of retributive judgement. Your persistent misreadings of pretty much everyone in this thread make it hard to believe you actually care what anyone here actually thinks on the subject (especially the one person with actual life experience of the pressures that lead to terrorism). Oh, but if they'll repeat your mantra then, well, maybe, you'll consider condescending to talk to them civilly. Nobody here is going "That terrorism, you do know I think it's bad don't you? I mean like, really, really bad!" because this is so damned obvious there's no need to.

You give no sense that you've ever even tried to imagine how living in hopelessness might affect you, of what seeing the people of your culture brutalized and humiliated every day, being yourself often brutalized and humiliated is like; that when one day you hear that one of your people, a "hero" some say, has killed some of the devils who have been your oppressors, those people who appear satisfied to keep you caged, how then, if you haven't been entirely beaten down, if you still can feel some spark of connection with the world, you feel a twitch of pride that someone has struck back, has finally made themselves heard, but it is combined with the shame that by doing so indiscriminately, by killing at random – without even knowing whether those who died participated in or even supported the oppression of your people – this "hero" has also made that reflection you see every day in the eyes of the soldier at the checkpoint on your way to work, that shows you and your people as less than human, as just beasts, has made that reflection a little more real; there are no certainties when despair, defiance, hope, rage, numbness, suffering are twisted and knotted one on the other, when the emotional and moral ground constantly shifts beneath your feet. Trying to impose easy certainties from outside amounts to a kind of casual viciousness – without understanding the chances are you're just pulling the knots tighter.

Now I've heard everything - being anti-terrorism is a bad thing.

No. Righteous posturing petrified by lack of compassion – that is a bad thing.

 

[russ_watters]

accually the main obstacle to peace in the middle east is international oil interests (namely the west (namely the US))

I tend to separate the Israeli issue from the oil issue. There is, after all, no oil in Israel. But you are right that oil is what causes the problems in the rest of the middle east (though I suspect we differ on the exact nature of the problem).

You complained about generalizations after making one yourself.

So not addressing a point I consider irrelevant is making a generalization? If anything I am guilty of argument via omission, but that's completely different than making an actual statement that is a generalization.

That is all. I said nothing about objectivity or bias.

The reason someone would make a generalization is bias. You're accusing me of bias/generalizing in order to avoid addressing my main point.

All you appear to be pleading for is that people repeat "I hate terrorists" over and over again...

Nope - all I ask is one acknowledgment of one fact. Then we can move on to discuss the complexities of the issue. Why is that so threatening to you?

Your persistent misreadings of pretty much everyone in this thread make it hard to believe you actually care what anyone here actually thinks on the subject...

You're half right: I don't care what someone says if they refuse to answer a direct question. If you (and others) answer my direct question, I will discuss the other things (which are, in any case, off topic) that have been brought up. I find this most ironic because even the starter of the thread is refusing to discuss the topic of his own thread.

Nobody here is going "That terrorism, you do know I think it's bad don't you? I mean like, really, really bad!" because this is so damned obvious there's no need to.

If its so obvious, then it shouldn't be difficult to say, should it? If its so obvious, a simple, direct question shouldn't require a 400 word response, should it?

So say it. Repeat after me: terrorism is wrong and should not be condoned or practiced by anyone.

In fact, instead of saying its wrong, people are implying they believe just the opposite: that terrorism is right (or, at least, justified) in this case. Heck, I'd have more respect for anyone here who believes that (as a debater) if they would come right out and say it. If you believe it, say it and be explicit. Then, at least, we could move on to discussing why it should/should not be justified in this case.

 

[Bilal]

In fact there are many good candidates; I wish the people will elect the best for such bad situation. I think USA and Israel want Abu Mazen, even USA contacted the Palestinian parliament before few days of death of Arafat asking them to elect Abu Mazen and to cancel the public election!

In fact , the Palestinian feel that they are under strong pressure to vote for Abu Mazen or to face more death and destruction.

Bilal,

What do you think of Marwan Barghouti? What do other Palestinians think? I've heard his name suggested as a possible leader for the Palestinians.

 

[Bilal]

Palestinian accepted the right of Israel to exist within 1967 borders since 1988 ...

The question: will Israel accept the right of Palestinian to live free in their homeland and the homeland of their grandfathers since centuries? or there is no place for non Jews in the '' myth of biblical promised land''?

Will Israel declared the ''end of their independence war'' and accept to have ''fix '' borders as any other country in the world?

Till now the Israeli have no ''recognized borders’’, they call the current borders in their maps as "ceasefire borders for 1973". This means they hope to expend more their borders.


Beside that all the Arab countries accepted the right of Israel to exist, and the Israeli have good relation with majority of these countries...

Only Syria, Iran and Sudan rejected to have such good relation before Israel withdraws from WB and Gaza, therefore USA put them on the ''terrorist list'' and they have good chance to join the ‘’axis of evil’’ and ‘’preemptive attacks’’.

Hamas did not recognize the right of Israel to exist, but they will accept the choice of the majority of the Palestinian, so they will not cause troubles if majority of people want to accept the right of exist of Israel.

I understand that after WW2, the UN voted in favor of the creation of the Israeli state (11 "opposed", about 30 "for", and many (15?) neutrals), but the surrounding Arab countries (most of the 11 "opposed") defied this by starting a war, which displaced much of the Palestinian people.

What do the Palestinian people think of these events now? Do most Palestinians recognize this U.N. vote, or do they not?

Does Hamas, which apparently "doesn't reconize Israel's right to exist", recognize the U.N.?

 

[Bilal]

I said before : I am against any kind of terrorisms , whoever do it ; Muslims, Christian, Atheists, Jews, white, African, Asian ...

My point:

We should have international definition for terrorism and ask the ''international court'' in Holland to have authority to check which governments/groups/individuals are practicing terrorism. Every government should accept the decision of this court as representative of the people of the world and representative of the international laws.

The question:

Will USA accept to let ''an international court '' having authority to do that and to respect its decisions instead to define the ''terrorism'' according to the propaganda machine?!


During the invasion of Iraq, an American military spoke to media about attack on the check point. He said ''the terrorist attacked us''!

It is so funny to label the Iraqi soldiers who defend their country against the invaders ''as terrorists'' during the war!

Such word losing its meaning and it will be just type of propaganda that everyone can se it to insult the others.

Bilal - bla, bla, bla: if you won't acknowledge the objective concept that terrorism is wrong, we can't move on to discuss anything else. Your stance is preventing progress in this conversation in precisely the same way that terrorism prevents progress toward peace in the Middle East.

 

[devious_]

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

But if Israel hadn't started killing Palestinian civilians, there wouldn't be any suicidebombing...

They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

Israel is preventing them from doing that.

 

[russ_watters]

Bilal, you came about halfway with that post, and I guess that's the best I can hope for - you do continue to misuse the word in this and other threads. In any case, my answer to your question is a simple yes, but with the obvious caveat of how does the international community decide the definition?

 

[Smurf]

There's a really good book called 'The no-nonesense guide to Terrorism" by Johnathan Barker that I think everyone should read. It teaches you how to kill Americans without; I'm kidding! Relax Russ, Calm down. A large portion of the book is an attempt to define 'terrorism' and it's very interesting.

 

[russ_watters]

Defining and identifying terrorism today is relatively simple (it gets more complicated when you go back in history to WWII). The tough part is figuring out what to do about it.

 

[Gonzolo]

russ, what do you think of the "shock and awe" concept used in the beginning of the Iraq war? Do you believe there is much difference between a civilian being "shocked" by a bomb falling next to his house, and one who is "terrorized" by a car-bomb blowing up next to his house? Let's assume that in both of these cases, the events are motivated by some sort of political belief.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, what do you think of the "shock and awe" concept used in the beginning of the Iraq war? Do you believe there is much difference between a civilian being "shocked" by a bomb falling next to his house, and one who is "terrorized" by a car-bomb blowing up next to his house? Let's assume that in both of these cases, the events are motivated by some sort of political belief.

"Shock and awe" was not aimed at the civilian population, so it can't be terrorism. HERE is a pretty good article. Incidentally, there are some anti-US sites that use quotes from this article: chopped up to make it look like the civilians were the target. So be aware of that if you want to do your own research.

 

[Gonzolo]

Neither were the attacks on the pentagon or USS Cole. Thanks for the link.

 

[plover]

In fact, instead of saying its wrong, people are implying they believe just the opposite: that terrorism is right (or, at least, justified) in this case.

This is the real problem: that it is possible for you to believe this. And the evidence supports not only that you are capable of believing this, but that you entered this thread either believing it or predisposed to believe it.

Here's a definition you gave (post #39):

blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism
​

Here's Bilal's comment (from post #3) that you inveighed against in your initial post to this thread (post #12, the part you included is in italics):

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.
​

By my view, the only plausible reading of this is that Bilal is expressing opposition to terrorism when it is given almost exactly the same definition as you give yourself, namely as violent action targeting civilians. One suspects that he has encountered enough people who expand this definition to cover any resistance by Palestinians, that he feels a caveat is necessary.

So, by my reading, you saw the phrase "definition of terrorism", and assumed it was being used to create ambiguity concerning what Bilal thought, rather than to disambiguate the different ways that Bilal thought he might be read.

The poem:

The poem was translated here with the title "I am with terrorism", but I've also seen it translated as "We are accused of terrorism". I know no Arabic however—I don't know if one of these is literal, the other interpretive, or if the ambiguity exists in the original.

In any case, I don't think the translation even as presented (and my guess is the translation is only adequate, not oustanding, though I can't be sure) can support a reading of the piece as some kind of celebration or even acceptance of terrorism (by your definition). To do so would require either some kind of wildly literal reading (as if it were an instruction manual rather than a poem) or some kind of pathological assumption that any Arab who mentions terrorism must be in favor of it. And this is just treating the text as it stands, taking into account details about Qabbani's life and reputation, such a reading becomes simply farcical.

Qabbani's poem is the lament of someone who feels their life has been defined by terrorism, both by the horrible actions of people within his culture (they killed his wife (!) ), and by those outside his culture who cannot distinguish the terrorists from those who, while opposing many of the same things as the terrorists, do so in a principled fashion.

Is the word "terrorism" used ambiguously in the poem? Yes, of course. The author has heard the word used ambiguously and is conveying that experience. For example:

We are accused of terrorism
If we refuse to die
with Israel's bulldozers
tearing our land
tearing our history
tearing our Evangelium
tearing our Koran
tearing the graves of our prophets
If this was our sin,
then, lo, how beautiful terrorism is?
​

To paraphrase: 'We are accused of terrorism when we "refuse to die" despite the damage Israel has inflicted on our culture – and if that "refusal to die" is "our sin" (i.e. if that refusal is what is called terrorism), then terrorism might be called beautiful.' Hardly a ringing endorsement of suicide bombings.

More important than the ambiguity of the word "terrorism" for the poem, however, is the ambiguity of the phrase "I am with terrorism". I listed some of the obvious meanings in post #20. The use of the phrase might be summarized as conveying the author's feeling of entrapment in a life surrounded/permeated by terrorism. "I am with terrorism" as in "terrorism is here, it is all around me, I cannot escape from it", or as in "if others insist on redefining terrorism to include principled resistance, then I have been lumped together with the terrorists", not as in "I am on the side of the (conventionally defined) terrorists".

There is no line of this poem that even suggests that the actions committed by conventionally defined terrorists are morally ambiguous. The author is, in fact, accusing people of doing precisely the same thing you have been talking about: applying the word terrorism inconsistently.

In the end, what I find completely baffling is the (apparent) fact that from looking at the obvious differences from your own opinions present in this thread, the first inference that pops into your head is that the people expressing these opinions must support terrorism; that differing, or even opposing, views to your own concerning the issues in this thread—Israel/Palestine, Islam, Iraq—amplify in some simple fashion into a fundamentally different approach to respect for human life.

You are the only person in this thread who has seemed to have any deep suspicions that the other commenters here find terrorism acceptable. Nobody should have to prove to you that they think blowing up civilians is deplorable and irredeemably foul. Where do you get the idea that it's somehow easy to find people who do not think this? Or that bullying people into protesting their agreement with your definition doesn't carry the whiff of McCarthyite interrogation with it? (And you didn't read that as saying you're as bad McCarthy, I hope. Yes?)

You've often said that you don't consider yourself to be with the far right, but does it really not occur to you that the implications you've been making here sound like something out of Ann Coulter? The impression you're giving out is that "oh, liberals and Arabs, they all really support terrorism, they just try to fool you into thinking they don't by obfuscating everything", which at best looks like the effects of one too many doses of the Fox News Kool-aid, and at worst like it might be intransigent bigotry.

I'm not accusing you of anything here—I don't think I have clue as to what your real story is. I'm trying to convey my outrage at implications you've put forward that seem (presumably unintentionally) insulting and at some of the tactical choices you've backed them with.

 

[russ_watters]

Neither were the attacks on the pentagon or USS Cole. Thanks for the link.

The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner.