Terrorism and terrorist are basically meaningless words

[Spring Board]

They will come forth, once questioning your numerous premises, set forth as evident truths, has come to an end.

Which means that you won't be answering them?

 

[arildno]

Is it? And what about my questions?

Those are to be deferred until we have achieved a common basis of premises.

a) At the moment, we have agreed upon that CIA was involved in the 1953 coup against PM Mossadegh.
b) You have not shown when, and in what manner Persia could be called a democracy. I guess you think it ended in 1953, when did it begin?
c) You have, of course, not provided any sources that show that al-Qaeda is having the toppling of the Mossadegh regime as its primary grievance against the US.
d) Nor have you provided any sources that suggest al-Qaeda is fighting for the establishment of democracies.
e) Nor have you presented any sort of logical argument as to why al-Qaeda is entitled to regard itself as an organization with the right to commit acts of violence/rebellion.

And so on and so forth.

We have a loong way to go yet.

 

[Evo]

But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?

Please show where in a mainstream source, that Iran was a democracy? Don't just post links and say 'go find it'. You need to show it. It's not Arildno that needs to answers questions, it is you.

Thank you.

 

[arildno]

For one thing, Spring Board:
It is well known fact that Mossadegh was relying heavily upon the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Persia.

Were they democrats?

For example, who did the Tudeh party join forces with around, say, 1979?

 

[arildno]

Furthermore, Spring Board:
You ask the interesting question:
What should count as a democracy?

Clearly, we need to distinguish between an oclocracy and a democracy.

The crucial difference between those two forms is the democracy's commitment to uphold individual human rights against any group's willingness to infringe upon that, whether or not that group happens to be a majority group or a minority group.
The oclocracy is basically always to sanction the will of the majority, irrespective of it's commitment to uphold individual human rights.

Furthermore:
If the majority happens to be anti-democratic, whether they are at loggerheads with each other or in unison, then elections are not at all a sign of it being a democratic country, and we have a deeply unstable country, like, for example, the Weimar Republic.

Thus, in order to have a properly functioning democracy, undemocratic elements in the country have to be only insignificantly supported within the population at large.

Lastly:
Note that non-elected governments may, in principle, do far better at upholding indiviual rights than any oclocracy does.

 

[Spring Board]

Those are to be deferred until we have achieved a common basis of premises.

.....

We have a loong way to go yet.

Not at all.

STEP ONE: The common ground is in the debate whether or not "the Third World/the Moslem World" (Al Qeida for one) have any legitimate grievances with the the west (the U.S. in particular). That has already been established by the case with Iran/U.S. The fact has been recognised.

STEP TWO: Having already establised that fact it is now my intention to show that it is necessary to make comprimises (with those Third World citizens who have suffered and felt retaliation to be their the only recourse), by so doing bringing the world into a peaceful state. Important to that goal is in recognition of not merely "wrong-doing" but the effect it can have on those people. I have asked you to confirm or deny your participation in that exercise in order to carry on the discussion. If you are unwilling to express an earnest understanding of the situation then it is pointless to take the dialog any further. That is the point the discussion pivots and I am waiting for your response. I have had no indication that you will be forthcoming in that endeavour as exibited in the definition of the expression "making a statement" where no recognition upon its' correct meaning was dispatched.

Perhaps it would be better to limit ourselves to the usage of the word "terrorism"?

 

[arildno]

The common ground is in the debate whether or not "the Third World/the Moslem World" (Al Qeida for one) have any legitimate grievances with the the west (the U.S. in particular). That has already been established by the case with Iran/U.S. The fact has been recognised.

Not so fast!

Why should the toppling of the Mossadegh regime consitute a legitimate grievance?

 

[Gokul43201]

For one thing, Spring Board:
It is well known fact that Mossadegh was relying heavily upon the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Persia.

Were they democrats?

For example, who did the Tudeh party join forces with around, say, 1979?

There is debate about the relationship between Mossadegh and Tudeh. Also, I don't see that the Tudeh's alliances 2 decades later are relevant.

That single fact that Mossadegh abolished the secret ballot in the 1953 election is sufficient to demonstrate that he was not democratically elected.

 

[mheslep]

Also there's no basis here for extending whatever grievance Shia Iran may have had with the US to the rest of the (mostly Sunni) Moslem world. For all we know Sunni Moslems may have aided and applauded the fall of Mossadegh.

 

[Spring Board]

For one thing, Spring Board:
It is well known fact that Mossadegh was relying heavily upon the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Persia.

Were they democrats?

DEMOCRACY is not a government. It is either present (in part or in "whole") in any politcal philosphy - or it isn't. Assuming that Communist philosophy is the absence of democracy is nonsensical.

In any case, the democratic government of Iran was compelled to do business with the USSR as the U.S/UK refused to do business with them. This was the United State's ploy to bring Iran to its knees. Dealing with the Soviet Union was the last resort and it is interesting that the EXACT same cirumstances were in play with Cuba. The U.S. did it again.

 

[Spring Board]

Why should the toppling of the Mossadegh regime consitute a legitimate grievance?

You're joking again, I see.

 

[arildno]

Not so fast!

Why should the toppling of the Mossadegh regime consitute a legitimate grievance?

You're joking again, I see.

Hmm..no.

Would it have been a legitimate grievance for Germans if international powers engineered the downfall of Hitler in, say, 1938 or 1939?

Is it a legitimate grievance that Saddam Hussein was toppled from power by international powers?

 

[arildno]

DEMOCRACY is not a government. It is either present (in part or in "whole") in any politcal philosphy - or it isn't. Assuming that Communist philosophy is the absence of democracy is nonsensical.

Were Roman senators democrats?

There were popular elections throughout the history of the Roman Republic...

Or, perhaps, it was the Roman emperors who were the democrats, instituting panem et circenses at a lavish scale??
(Caligula and Nero, for example, were hugely popular emperors among the populace..)

My reason for asking is that the quote of yours is completely opaque, and it is not at all certain that you even understand the meaning of the concept "democracy".

 

[arildno]

Another conundrum for you:

Non-democracies and extremely abusive regimes exist. That is a fact.
What is the proper way of dealing with them?

1) Strict political non-intervention?
Wouldn't that be to "condone" the regime?
2) Political intervention?
Wouldn't that be to "overthrow" the regime?

A) Allowing fairly unregulated trade with the regime?
Wouldn't that be to encourage support for the regime?
B) Boycotting the regime?
Wouldn't that be to seek to "overthrow" the regime?

 

[arildno]

There are, of course, a number of bald claims you've made, in addition to your as yet unsubstantiated claim that Persia ever was a democracy.
It is only fair that I make a list over those I'm going to grill you over:


1.

The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything.

2.

Much of the third world has been given a rough shake by the U.S. Let's not go into all the examples - unless you want to.

You bet I'll want to..

3.

The only way to strike back is in the way you describe. Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles

4.

If the west would listen to the complaints made by the third world,

5.

As it is, western governments fill our ears with fabricated horror stories of uncivilized "terrorists" bent on overthrowing the world and converting us to Islam at the point of a sword

6.

in the very way that Christianity conducted itself during The Crusades.

7.

It is, in fact, these same governments that are manipulating the Third World and its' people,

8.

yet blaming dissatisifaction on "terrorism" as a sort of Red Herring.

9.

The overthrow of other goverments (even democratic ones) by the U.S.

This is the one we're partially dealing with.
10.

- the setting up of puppet corrpt leaders who bend to U.S. wishes against the population of that country -

11.

invading other countries on false pretentions by the U.S.

12.

and occupying that country in order to reap the natural resources

13.

while the people of that country remain destitute.

14.

who then put the Shah in power allowing the U.S. and the UK to rape the oil fields and so letting the Iranian population suffer terribly becasue of it

15.

Al Queda sees itself as the protector of the Isamic world

16.

in the same way that the U.S. sees itself as the protector of the western world

]

I won't ask you questions concerning other claims you have made so far, but most definitely if you make further claims in the clarification&substantiation process to each of these 16 claims you've already made.

Of course, you retain the option of retracting any or all of your above claims, and I won't pursue them.

What you do not have the option of doing, is to complain that I'll bog you down demanding extensive substantiation of claims you've already made.

Perhaps you gain the insight that if you do not want to substantiate claims, then you should not make them in the first place.

 

[Spring Board]

Gosh. Such a long list of things you do not accept to be true.

I can only gather that you are convinced then that the Third World has no legitimate grievance at all with the U.S. The word “legitimate” being the key word here. It sounds completely nonsensical to me to think that the impressive and well-executed attack on 9/11 (for example) was born of an unmotivated whim, but everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

Actually, I share with them a grievance or two against the U.S. myself, that being decades of the U.S. self-proclaimed statement about being the leader of democracy and the free world. The proof of the fallacy of that statement is glaringly obvious and is even spelled out very clearly in The Economist’s findings, and published on the internet: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf It shows that the U.S. is VERY far from being the leader of democracy and you may add that to your list of “un-established”(?) complaints against the U.S.

Although my grievances are nowhere near being worth committing a “terrorist act”, I can imagine people of the Third World having grievances far greater than mine with far greater consequences as well. Once again, I believe that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and reaction to wit.

Also, as you have not made any recognition about my often-mentioned notion of “compromise” between The West and the Third World, I feel certain that you won’t be making any. Perhaps you feel that making compromise is an admission of guilt or possibly you consider compromise an undesirable sign of weakness. Whatever the reason, I feel that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

 

[arildno]

Gosh. Such a long list of things you do not accept to be true.

Hmm..not at all. Just necessary to get substantiated, which is something completely different.

I can only gather that you are convinced then that the Third World has no legitimate grievance at all with the U.S.

You gather wrongly.

The word “legitimate” being the key word here.

Indeed it is.

It sounds completely nonsensical to me to think that the impressive and well-executed attack on 9/11 (for example) was born of an unmotivated whim

Serial killers are quite methodical in their activities, and highly motivated. That doesn't make whatever "grievances" they feel into any legitimate ones, not to speak of legitimizing ones.

 

[Spring Board]

"Evo has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space."

Come on Evo!

 

[arildno]

Besides, we have already noticed that you found 9-11 "impressive" and "well-executed".

Quite the artwork, wasn't it?
Almost as impressive and well-executed as the Auschwitz operation, don't you think, German efficiency at its height and all that?

Now, back to Iran:
How was it a democracy?

 

[vertices]

Assume for a moment I agree with the premise in your second sentence. Connect it logically to the claim in the first. I don't agree that there is a connection.

I'll give a straightforward counterexample: police brutality. Police occasionally violate the law while at the same time they are charged with enforcing it. The fact that police brutality happens does not mean assault is not a crime treated seriously by the law.

What I said was that 'terrorism' cannot be a 'real, serious, legally relevant term' if it is only applied to enemies- If laws are selectively applied, then they are illegitimate (in a democracy, anyway).

There is a very simple moral principle that is also relevant here. Namely, you must apply to yourself the same standards you apply to others - if something is right for me, it's right for you; wrong for me, wrong for you.

A better analogy would be this: law enforcement agencies in a police state may have a precise definition for "crime", but external observers wouldn't consider their definition of the word to be 'serious' at all.