News Is I am with Terrorism a Plea for Understanding or an Act of Defiance?

[devious_]

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

 

[Burnsys]

Thank you, guys, for proving my point: you are arguing against a definition. You are arguing that its ok if I do it if someone else is doing it. Like I said before: apply the definition consistently and there is only one conclusion.

This man says he is "with terrorism" - well then he's made it quite clear: he is for the intentional killing of innocent people. He's pro-murder. Pro-crime. Pro-war. Anti-civilization. Anti-peace.

Why? That's what terrorism means!

And that is exactly what your government is...

 

[kat]

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]

QUOTE=Gonzolo]

From Islamic point : Suicide is not accepted ... just some scholars in some places claim that they have no weapons except suicide attacks!

Unfortunately you see the world black and white! As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference.

Suicide was origionally a tactical movement but because of it's large success in Lebanon was strategically adopted by islamics after leading shi'ite clerics began to bend their interpretaion of the law sanctioning it.

By the way:

Hizbullah is against suicide bombers attacks for religious reasons. Most of Suicide attacks in Lebanon were done by the communist parties or nationalists in 80s. (Sana Mehaidly : first sucide bomber in ME from South of Lebanon and belong to left originations)

The first suicide bombing in Lebanon was by the Amal organization...who were Shi'ite. Sana was a syrian nationalist and was the third suicide bomber (april, 1985-first suicide by a woman...much celebrated...)...one third of all suicide attacks in Lebanon were committed by Hezzbollah.

 

[Bilal]

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

**********************************

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

Suicide was origionally a tactical movement but because of it's large success in Lebanon was strategically adopted by islamics after leading shi'ite clerics began to bend their interpretaion of the law sanctioning it.

The first suicide bombing in Lebanon was by the Amal organization...who were Shi'ite. Sana was a syrian nationalist and was the third suicide bomber (april, 1985-first suicide by a woman...much celebrated...)...one third of all suicide attacks in Lebanon were committed by Hezzbollah.

 

[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 .

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.?