Renaissance and reaction to Islam.

  • News
  • Thread starter Schrodinger's Dog
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Reaction
In summary: Tony Blair believes that the Middle East is a battle about values, and that the US has been fighting this battle for a long time. He also believes that the values system of the Middle East needs to change in order to defeat global extremism.
  • #36
Can I thanks :smile:

Terrorist (trr-st)
n.

bad guys(wear black hats)Soldier (sljr)
n.

Good guys(wear white hats)

How's that :wink: :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Anttech said:
A terrorist typically is a term used by the victors to describe the resistance to their victory.

That happens a lot. Interestingly, most of Israel's Prime Ministers from the
Likoud Party were once designated terrorist by the British government
because they were fighting the British occupation of Palestine. For instance:



Menachem Begin: Prime Minister of Israel 1977-1983
- Because he ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel killing 91 people.
The hotel was used as the British administrative and military headquarters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
Yitzhak Shamir: Prime Minister of Israel 1983-1984 and 1986-1992

- For the assassination of Walter Edward Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne: The ex-leader
of the House of Lords in the UK and Britain's minister of state for the Middle East.
- For the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte of Wisborg from the Swedish royal
family: The United Nations representative for the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Edward_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_BernadotteRegards, Hans
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Heh, please pardon me not accounting for my dyslexia after rewording my last post. To late to me to edit it, but here it is without what shouldn't have been there:

kyleb said:
You can just make up your own definitions if you like, but... the commonly agreed upon definition of a term... is explained in the "Main Entry"; and the primary definition under the Main Entry for terrorism is exactly what I quoted above.
 
  • #39
loseyourname said:
Well, that actually raises an interesting question. Is the rebel party in a civil war always to be considered 'terrorists?' Stuart was head of Lee's cavalry, and performed mostly a scouting function, and Lee never targeted civilian populations (in fact, he really couldn't, as his only excursion into Union territory - Gettysburg - was a disaster, and he wasn't about to target his own civilians). If one is targeting military forces exclusively, can one be considered a terrorist?

I'm pretty sure that was the reason Bystander used these guys as an example in the first place. Quantrill did target civilian populations, and moreover was not a member of the confederate army at the time he did so, and so his activities better fit the usual usage of the term "terrorist" as a member of a private organization, or an individual acting alone, that targets non-combatants to achieve political ends specifically by inflicting fear in the hearts of the general population (hence the etymology of the word "terrorism").

I realize this is somewhat of a departure from the discussion of reactionary Islam specifically, but it could do us well to consider other cases in order to clarify exactly how we should deal with this one.
It is pertinent.

Hezbollah was definitely a terrorist organization during the 80's, but it's a lot fuzzier how to categorize them since Nasrallah has taken over. In fact, there really isn't international agreement on whether to consider them a terrorist group or a resistance group. Can a terrorist group change the category the belong in?

I'm not sure if the distinction really clarifies how we should deal with them, though. It doesn't matter what name you give them if their goals are outrageous and unrealistic.
 
  • #40
pcorbett said:
What legitimate grievances?
Supporting repressive and un-democratic governments, and exploiting resources.

The Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein's Suni-dominated government in Iraq's war again Iran.

I think the main problem is the 'perception' that the US supports without question the perceived 'heavy-handed' treatment of the Palestinians by the Israels. Perception is a major hurdle - much of the Arab world perceives the injustice of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

Going back to before 1948 and the creation of the state of Israel, one has the influence of the European colonial powers in the middle-east, and much of the current situation is an evolution of that history.

Interestingly, people seem to conviently forget the past history, particularly pre-Islamic history when all tribes seemed to engage in war periodically.

I'll have to give more attention to Blair's speech before making comments.

In addition to Hans DeVries citations, consider -

Lehi (Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel",לח"י - לוחמי חירות ישראל) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

A terrorist typically is a term used by the victors to describe the resistance to their victory.
Both (all) sides in a conflict attempt to 'demonize' the opponent in order to justify their participation in the conflict. Nothing new there.

Un-armed civilians and non-combatants have historically been targeted, but perhaps less so in modern conflicts. The US and Israel have inflicted 'collateral damage', but for some, it is hard to tell whether or not there is any deliberate targeting of civilians. In some cases, killing of non-combatants or civilians is attributed to mistakes of intelligence or other cause. Personally, I perceive callous indifference to the lives of the victims on the part of those who are promoting whatever war.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Astronuc said:
Un-armed civilians and non-combatants have historically been targeted, but perhaps less so in modern conflicts. The US and Israel have inflicted 'collateral damage', but for some, it is hard to tell whether or not there is any deliberate targeting of civilians. In some cases, killing of non-combatants or civilians is attributed to mistakes of intelligence or other cause. Personally, I perceive callous indifference to the lives of the victims on the part of those who are promoting whatever war.
I agree.

Sadly however, that is the nature of warfare. In a martial conflict, the military objective is paramount, all other considerations are secondary, and distracting to the mission. Concerning oneself with the consequences of the attack leads to moral dilemmas. The prime objective is to neutralize the enemy, by whatever means possible.

When conducting war one should be ruthless. If I were fighting a war I would be.

I oppose war because I do not see any good resulting from modern wars.

When justice, real justice is universal, wars will cease. As long as people experience injustice and inequality, they will be willing to die for any number of causes. I know this is a Utopian perspective, the path to universal justice and equality is hidden, but I would prefer that we seek it instead of doing the same thing (war) over and over and expecting different results.
 
  • #42
Indeed expecting but not getting it, then asking for more war, rinse repeat.

I agree this warfare thing seems to rational people somewhat obsolete in most cases, but then rational people do not run governements or fight for a cause,stupidity is a sheeplike expression of denial, incompetent power corrupts, absolute power so often corrupts selfishly and absolutely and leads to more inompetence. Cyclical pathology. If only rational people ruled the world :smile: it's a nice thought. But even the clever are not wise, in fact it seems these days it's inversely proportional, I have no idea what GWB's excuse is:biggrin:
 
  • #43
Presumably 'rational people' are benevolent people.

I have to wonder why it is so easy for some to take up violence, and why peace is hard to maintain or regain. :frown:

Musical interlude - Moody Blues, Question, Question of Balance

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.

It's where we stop and look around us
There is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution
That is burning in it's greed.

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
Because the truth is hard to swallow
That's what the wall of love is for.

It's not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
It's more the way that you mean it
When you tell me what will be.

And when you stop and think about it
You won't believe it's true.
That all the love you've been giving
Has all been meant for you.

I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what it's done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Could safely lead me through.

Between the silence of the mountains
And the crashing of the sea
There lies a land I once lived in
And she's waiting there for me.

But in the grey of the morning
My mind becomes confused
Between the dead and the sleeping
And the road that I must choose.

I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what it's done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Could safely lead me to
The land that I once knew.
To learn as we grow old
The secrets of our souls.

It's not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
It's more the way you really mean it
When you tell me what will be.

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?

How is it we are here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Astronuc said:
Presumably 'rational people' are benevolent people.

I have to wonder why it is so easy for some to take up violence, and why peace is hard to maintain or regain. :frown:

Trite answer: human nature, real answer, an inability to remember the mistakes of the past perhaps, but seriously your guess is as good as mine :frown:

EDIT: great song, or poem, I'm knocking at the door and the answer is silence. Might as well blow the door up, then rush in and kill everyone inside? It always works :wink:

Matter of interest historically, Jesus once said that no country should invade another if it has no need to, or no greed to. Not surprisingly this message was left out by the Nicocean council, and now by the Church of modern days, and is deemed irrelevant, how convenient. I say this only to demostrate how religion is corrupted by politics and not as a chastisement of religion.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Matter of interest historically, Jesus once said that no country should invade another if it has no need to, or no greed to. Not surprisingly this message was left out by the Nicocean council, and now by the Church of modern days, and is deemed irrelevant, how convenient. I say this only to demostrate how religion is corrupted by politics and not as a chastisement of religion.
One must read Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll. Excellent book with an excellent bibliography. Emperor Constantine policitized 'Christianity' and made it a 'state' or 'imperial' religion. The subsequent councils of clergy introduced interpretations and practices which were foreign to chrisitainity and antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. I'd go on, but that would mean a religious discussion, which would be against guidelines.
 
  • #46
Astronuc said:
Presumably 'rational people' are benevolent people.

I have to wonder why it is so easy for some to take up violence, and why peace is hard to maintain or regain. :frown:
Rational as we may be, we are still quite subjective in our perspectives and prone to deny our continuing share of the fault; and not just prone to but also lead to as Blair quite deliberated did in his speech.
 
  • #47
I think I need some LSD to get the second part of the song Astronoc..:biggrin:

Isn't it ironic that Truman, arguably the American most responsible for Israels existence said this.

" The only new thing in the world is the history you don't know. "
Harry S. Truman
I still don't know why he recognized Israels declaration, knowing what the results would be.

Did he really believe that it would turn out otherwise?

Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
  • #48
I'm guessing that just got copied and pasted from a web page with some strange formatting that blended the lyrics in with some other text.
 
  • #49
Evo said:
:bugeye:

That's not exactly how I remember the lyrics. :bugeye:
Feel free to edit that, since it's past the 24 hr limit. I did a quick grab on some site, but it looks like the lyrics have been altered, or stuff has been added. Sorry about that. Actually, I don't remember seeing the extra stuff. :bugeye: I may have inadvertently snagged some lyrics from elsewhere on the page without seeing them.
 
  • #50
Astronuc said:
Feel free to edit that, since it's past the 24 hr limit. I did a quick grab on some site, but it looks like the lyrics have been altered, or stuff has been added. Sorry about that. Actually, I don't remember seeing the extra stuff. :bugeye: I may have inadvertently snagged some lyrics from elsewhere on the page without seeing them.
I was snorting until the tears rolled down my face. :biggrin: I'll fix it.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
863
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
936
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
20K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Back
Top