terrorist begets more terrorists?
 

I just read an article from a magazine that FEMA puts out saying that any aggressive response from a terrorist attack begets more violence towards the country that had just been attacked. In other words if the country retaliates and tried to protect it self or seeks justice against the terrorist then all actions that it takes will cause the terrorist and countries that are in favor of terrorists to become more violent. If the victim country or countries try to either attack and kill the terrorist or capture and imprison the terrorist more terrorist pop up and become more violent. The article went back to the early 70’s and encompasses several different countries that had been attacked from terrorists. The most striking point that I came across is that the article had no solution to the terrorist attacks.

So what else is there, sanctions? There are too many countries that are will to break the sanctions. What out-let does the victim countries have? Any ideas?

total anhilation works for me.

Special ops/undercover agents and a lot of 'accidents'. Possibly an outbreak of an airborne or waterborne disease.

I agree that overt military action tends to create more terrorists in the long run. Let's say that if the Russians would have killed somebody in my family when I was growing up during the cold war, I would want to retaliate and get revenge. But, since they didn't and everything is great, it seems like a interesting place to take a vacation someday.

Well, there you have it.

It's blatantly obvious that anything SHORT of total annihilation will only breed more terrorists. Only problem is... try it. You'll have to kill the children of every "terrorist" you find, or you'll be dealing with them in 10 years. Oh, and their wives too. And then the sympathetic people in the neighboring countries. Wouldn't want them stepping up to avenge their fallen neighbors, right? By then Baghdad (or whatever hypothetical geography you locate the question in) is a ghost town, and you've offed so many innocent people that the Khmer Rouge looks like the cast at Disneyland. How long could you keep that secret from the people at home who elected you on your "keep the homeland safe" platform? How long could you convince them that every single one of those people really did want to kill you, and that all that blood on your hands really did prevent attacks at home?

Basically, unless you're basically willing to commit genocide and then brutally suppress any backlash on the home front, violence is not a productive long-term response to terrorism. In short, "total annihilation" may be a nice flip answer, but it's not a real-world solution.

Well when we invaded Iraq, global terrorism shot up, so there seems to be evidence to support the relationship.

I think that the first and best option in any case of one group facing another is to make concessions and find common ground. Instead of galvanizing one another as enemies and working from there, it would be logical to deconstruct what would make the two groups enemies and find a mutually acceptable outcome based on the needs of each group. It's what adults do, but how rare are adults in positions of power.

No more victim countries would be a better option instead of trying to help countries that have already been victimized. The Kurds wee a victim of the Iraqis. The Iraqis were victims of the UN and US. I wonder who we will be a victim of.

As far as the US acting as an international vigilante, yes, we're going to be put on shit lists because of it. Combine that with the fact that we actually get involved because it serves our interest instead of the common good, and we're going to see planes flying into buildings and train stations being bombed for a long, long time. The real trick is to try and fix the UN, and to stop pretending like we're trying to help anyone but ourselves. Every time the US invades, bombes, or economically rapes a country, we see a generation of anti-Americans born.

does bin laden and his minions wish to commit genocide against us? I think so.

Would the palestinians like to commit genocide against us? probably most of them.

Would most of militant and radical islam like to destroy you and your offspring? yes, i'm sure they would.

For some people, common ground might be reachable but there are others who only care about one thing and no amount of diplomacy or appeasance will deter them....only embolden them. That is your real world answer.

Hmm...I think this needs to elaborated a little. What exactly do you mean by total annihilation? I agree we need to "get rid" of terrorists but it seems to be a bit broad and too much of a sweeping generalization.

What would be the methodology of extermination be? Cost? Political fall out?

Do you mean like a genocide? That solution would have many problems I would imagine. Also, which terrorists? All of them? Or just some? How about the IRA, Uigurs, Oklahomans, KKK, Taleban, Al, Qaieda, Basque Separatists? The list of terrorists is long and more controversially, subjective.

So DK you want us to become the next Nazi's? You want us to commit genocide and kill every raghead in the world?

You couldn't be more wrong and it pains me to even read this. Bin Laden doesn't want you or I dead at all. He wants us to rally support for peace at home so that the US pulls out of the Middle East and so that our corrupt leadership is brought to justice. If that happened, terrorism against the US would stop tomorrow.
I'm feeling sick. Palestinians?! Are you serious?! Most Palestinians want their homes back. They want the country that they started building after the Ottomans fell and before the Jews of Europe were illegally given their land by the AN and the UN. They want the US to stop giving weapons to Israel. They (again) want us to control our leadership better and to get our asses out of the Middle East.
Ever ask yourself why they are 'radical'? Do you think, instead of genocide, it might be better to help them away from being radical by not invading and bombing and generally screwing up their part of the world?

In other words, terrorism does beget more terrorism. I really hope that one day you understand that killing a man that bears hostility towards you solves nothing aside from the immediate threat he presents. This action of "total anhilation" is an action ignorant of the likely repercussions it creates. If you think your idea will defeat terrorism then, next time you are extinguishing a fire you will add fire, right? Next time there is a flood, you will simply add more water to stop it. These effects are synonymous to your proposed idea. Just as useless, just as folly.

You were very correct, however, if by "total anhilation" you meant the destruction of anyone entering such a crazed balancing act.

Didn’t the Jewish people try that with the Palestinians when they pulled out of Gaza in an attempt to appease Homas? All that accomplished was that there was more terrorist attacks and increase of aid to the terrorists from Iran. Bin Laden doesn’t just want our leadership he wants us. He is quote as saying, he wants the decadent west brought to their knees. Yes he hates both Prez Bush but he is a fundamentalist who wants the world to follow his world view. He is like Hitler in that fashion he has a view of what he thinks the world should be and is willing to do anything to bring that into being. (Not that I think Bin Laden has much power left anyway. He’s just a figure head now with a few like minded people running his terrorist origination.)

That’s my 2 cents. Aggression is out but so is appeasing the terrorist. So whats left?

I think we need to pay more attention to how some nations have successfully or relatively successfully combatted terrorism.

The Irish question is one the Brits have done well with, eventually, and genocide was not required, despite the centuries old religious, political and social obstacles. Several other European, Asian and Latin American nations have done the same with similar threats.

Let's get something straight here: having the desire to commit genocide and having the means to do so are two very different things. On top of that, there are also degrees of genocide. True genocide would require the death of every man, woman and child in the targeted group, an idea whose epitomy was the Nazi's Final Solution. Let me remind everyone that one of the most highly organized and efficient regimes of the 20th century couldn't accomplish true genocide.

What bin Laden and the more militant Palastinians want is not all of our deaths - they want us to stop meddling with their paths to heaven. They want us to stop killing and bombing them, but they also want us to stop exporting what they see as pornography (and we see as "Flightplan" or "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby") and video games that corrupt their youth (in their eyes). Western civilization is an eroding force around the world, and there aren't many places you can go and not be able to order a Coke or someone wearing adidas shoes or clothing. Bin Laden has consistantly said that he wants the West to stop meddling in the Middle East and that he'll do whatever necessary to stop that. He's never said that he wants us all dead.

Let's also remember that the only thing that all Palestinians have in common is that they're all Palestinians. The use of the phrase "all Palestinians" beyond that fact is a misstatement since, just like us, they don't all agree on anything.

Given that "total anhilation" is a logistical impossibility, what are our other options? Is it possible that bargaining with "pre-terrorists" (for lack of a better term) before they commit an act of aggression is a better idea that striking back after the fact?

How does one put out an oil well fire? you detonate high explosives to deprive the fire of oxygen and 'blow' it out. seems to me that defeating terrorists and terrorism would work the same way. Does this mean I want to commit a true genocide? no. I don't want that to happen, however, It is not beyond the realm of possibility to destroy the implacable and adamant extremists to a point where further terrorism would be looked at as self defeating.

dk good thing the British didn't think like you when we were fighting for our freedom. Otherwise they would have just started killing non-fighting men, women, and children in every village. But somehow I bet if they would have done that they would have been even more soundly defeated as all the other villages would have fought against them. Which is what is happening to us in Iraq. Normal Iraqi citizens are fighting us because they don't want us there, because we have destroyed their lives.

Violence did die down for a bit, but the human rights violations never really stopped. They got worse. Israel destroyed over a thousand (1,497) Palestinian buildings and have destroyed infrastructure. Bulldozers ran over homes, destroyed roads, knocked over electrical lines, and have dug up sewage lines. Israel has erected walls and fences, dug trenches and put up surveillance cameras, effectively making the Palestinian communities into prisons. That's where the attacks came from. "Sure we'll let you live here...opps, bulldozed your house! Oops! You didn't reach the checkpoint between 6:00 and 6:15, you can't go to the hospital! Oops, your power is off because we ran over a power line with a bulldozer!"
Osama bin Laden has a specific goal of 'liberating' what he considers to be Islamic lands. This means everything from the removal (destruction) of Israel and the removal of all Western influence from the Middle East. To that end, he is willing to attack military targets, but has only allegedly on one occasion attacked an American civilian target (the Twin Towers). He wants us to get our house in order. He has actually commended us for our living in peace with the many Muslims in the US, despite that this is a primarily Christian nation. "Know thy enemy" teaches us that people like Bush and Bin Laden require careful study. It's in that interest that I quote Osama Bin Laden, terrorist, murderer, radical:

There is a monumental difference between a group of people who wish to have self determination and equal legal/sovereign protections, then a group of cowardly murderers who act outside of any legal context and outside of any national identity. There is no comparison.

Its tough for America not to meddle, either directly or indirectly. Just has a starting point you cannot escape the reality of globalization. It is inevitable, that the spread of western culture, a culture that is vastly SUPERIOR to that of Islamic/Arabic culture, will take place. Now before I get labeled a racist or xenophobe, lets just look at the facts; hrmm universal sufferage, separation of church and state, free speech, freedom of religion; equality (not perfect but exponentially better then that of 90+% of any Islamic nation) amongst the sexes, our women are allowed to make their own choices, like for example if they want to learn to read, or marry, or bear children or not; there is no systematic repression of the people in the west whether by ethnicity/color/or creed. Now sure things aren't perfect, if you wanted to nitpick you could make some points to that, but as a whole our legal system/basis of society is exponentially superior.

Now I'm not even going to dignify any comments about finding common ground with these sociopaths, or appeasement, so I'll address Will's point about the secret being in de-radicalizing the "terrorist populations". Well isn't that is what is happening with globalization? The spread of western culture/ideals, democracy, self determination? Why would I want to live under a bunch of repressive despotic mullahs if I had a choice. The problem isn't us, the problem is them, those who are resisting, who are holding on to some tired quasi-religious/ethnic Arab-Islamic identity; lets maintain the Caliphate for the glory of Allah, lets continue to live as we did in the dark ages, and if you don't agree will kill you.

In addressing the OP, about response to terrorism begetting more violence, all I can really say is so what? The government has a duty and responsibility to the people to uphold its laws, to provide for their common defense. It is disingenious and delusional to think you can somehow barter with extra-national actors in any practical sense. It might not be a fight you can win, but its a fight that you have to fight, otherwise what is there, appeasement? Then any prick with a grievance will exploit and walk all over you.

Mojo, cultural Darwinism doesn't include guns. What's going on in the Middle East is not cultural Darwinism at all, it's invasion, occupation, and strategic political and socio-economic power plays in order to gain total control of a group of people and a piece of oil rich land. It has nothing to do with the fact that one culture is stronger than the other.

That may be, but it doesn't explain things dating as far back as the 70's, when all of this jazz started. Oh and it has nothing to do with the strength of a given culture, again it is that our way is superior.

You mean this?
We have no moral or ethical high ground, so you want the bad guys to win?

That is the nature of politics, its amazing that point escapes you, that is as much apart of our culture as theirs, all its comes down to is the ability to influence and exert the power, again the fundamental nature of politics.

Call it what you want, but taking advantage of others through intimidation, extortion, injury and murder is wrong. That is the nature of being an antagonist in a bad Steven Segal movie. We're better than Steven Segal. I think we can all agree on that point.

I don't know, say what you want about the quality of his movies, they are entertaining. Everybody/government attempts to extort/intimidate/injure/or kill to their advantage, if they don't its because they can't; in spite of the sad reality it is, I would rather be in our position where we can at least be able to do it to our advantage, or at least believe we are doing it as such.

what happens to a western cultured group of people in a middle eastern country? they end up being harrassed, terrorized, and maybe even butchered. Didn't they just want to live in peace? Were they allowed to live in peace? The 'culture' of the radicals is to not allow that to happen. To force out all influences except the ones they want to allow. What would happen in this country if some group tried that? For all the talk of 'multi culturalism' that the liberals espouse, you sure don't promote it much in any other part of the world. Why not?

Independence cannot be forced onto a nation. The nation must rise up and grab its independence. I'm all for secretly helping oppressed nations overthrow their governments and applying political pressure onto these nations that oppress their people. Unfortunately when we move in with force we become the enemy. Haven't we learned anything from Vietnam and the Korean war?

MPP - it seems to me that your criteria for "superiority" seem loaded in the West's favor. Not to get too far off topic here, but what's to stop Islamists from claiming "superiority" for more dedication to God's word, keeping things and people in their proper, God-dictated places and lack of any separation between church and state. I don't think that you can unillaterally declare we're superior because of some of the basic differences in the cultures. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong just that I disagree with the path you used to get to your conclusions.

a market economy is one of the most calming factors ever yet invented. Get a market economy going in the middle east and terrorism will die out soon.

Laugh or Cry
 

In a Satirical Poem, Saudi Author Laments Conditions in the Arab World

In a satirical poem titled "When," posted on Arabic reformist websites including www.aafaq.org , reformist Saudi author and journalist Wajeha Al-Huwaider lamented what she regards as the conditions in the Arab world. In the introduction to this poem, she wrote: "'When' is an ode to the troubles of the Arab citizen. Both men and women participated in its [writing], and it is still open to additions. This ode will be hung on the walls of the palaces of the Arab rulers, [1] so feel free to add you contributions."

The following are excerpts from the poem:

--

"When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner - you know that you are in an Arab country…

"When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.

"When religion has control over science - you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.

"When clerics are referred to as 'scholars' - don't be astonished, you are in an Arab country.

"When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and whom nobody is permitted to criticize - do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.

"When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery - do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.

"When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but [see them] seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions [in the government] - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When monarchies turn into theocracies, and republics into hybrids of monarchy and republic - do not be taken aback, you are in an Arab country.

"When you find that the members of parliament are nominated [by the ruler], or else that half of them are nominated and the other half have bought their seats through bribery… - you are in an Arab country…

"When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When you see that the authorities chop off a man's hand for stealing a loaf of bread or a penny, but praise and glorify those who steal billions - do not be too surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When you are forced to worship the Creator in school and your teachers grade you for it - you can be sure that you are in an Arab country…

"When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes - you are in an Arab country…

"When a boy learns about menstruation and childbirth but not about his own [body] and [the changes] it undergoes in puberty - roll out your prayer mat and beseech Allah to help you deal with your crisis, for you are in an Arab country…

"When land is more important than human beings - you are in an Arab country…

"When covering the woman's head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland - do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…

"When minorities are persecuted and oppressed, and if they demand their rights, are accused of being a fifth column or a Trojan horse - be upset, you are in an Arab country…

"When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time - bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.

"When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot - place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…

"When at any time, there can be a knock on your door and you will be dragged off and buried in a dark prison - you are in an Arab country…

"When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people - you can be certain that you are in an Arab country."

--

Not to be confused with Jeff Foxworthy's "You Know You're A Redneck When...".

Dubai is gorgeous this time of year, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Jerusalem is quite nice, too. Lenabon, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania...all quite harmless (unless they're being invaded by Israel). There are unsafe areas for Americans or even westerners all around the world. There are areas of Japan that aren't friendly to Americans, for example. There are areas of Germany, France, Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador as well. Ever wonder why people hate us?
They are stepping into a situation that's already going on. We have to do what we can to stop it, but walking onto a battlefield to build a home is stupid.

This is how it's done:
1) Stop the fighting
2) try to help cultures live in peace

Do it in the reverse order, and then you risk innocent deaths.

I'm confused, why would Israel invade Bulgaria, Romania, or even Turkey?

Why would they invade Lebanon?

Whoa, there's a lot of generalizing there. Many people don't hate US, they hate our government and distinguish the difference. France is a good example.

Dubai is not exactly a bastion of humanitarianism or equality. Turkey is 50-50 on their perception of Americans. The gov't likes the US support for the EU but the people don't really like Americans (or Westerners). I was there last summer - 2005 during the two terrorist attacks. But some Turks were always telling me how much they disliked George Bush but were friendly enough to me (or at least my money). Egypt is also bipolar when it comes to America. I had many interesting discussions with Egyptians this summer when I was there. It seems more of them hate their own government (Mubarak) than they do Americans. But then again, there was this huge demonstration in Cairo when I was there and people were burning US and Israeli flags. Also this veil of tension between Egyptians and foreigners. It is unwise to monolithically think of places such as Turkey and Lebanon as "quite harmless". Lebanon is definitely not a friendly place towards Americans, especially when they are launching rockets and attacks into Israel forcing retaliation. Jerusalem is a crap shoot. When I was there, there was a stabbing of an American tourist in the Old City, a block from where I was staying. Jerusalem, as beautiful as it is, is a city that is rife with tension.

There is no magic solution. There needs to be effort and work involved by all parties to make it work. A lot of the problem with temporary peace or cease-fires is that is just takes one a-hole to do something stupid and it sets off the whole region again. This kind of tit-for-tat, left to its own devices will be never ending. In other words, another, pragmatic compromise must be reached in order for there to be progress. There can be no zero-sum otherwise the situation will be a failure. EX: cessation of hostilities backed by real socio-economic reform etc etc (I know easier said than done).

To be clear, on the issue of terrorism, there are many different types. In the case of Bin Laden, he is classified as a catastrophic terrorist, that is, his primary goal or function is for your destruction. They are also known as non-negotiable terrorists because, for obvious reasons, you can't negotiate with them. Simply leaving the Middle East will not cause OBL to cease his acts of terrorism. He wants to eradicate our way of life, period. In his mind, there is no such thing as an innocent party. You are either a devout adherent Muslim (believer and follower of Allah), or you aren't and therefor need to meet your demise. In this case, nothing short of "annihilation" of this type of terrorist will end their violence. Hamas also falls into this category.

The other type of terrorist is political terrorist. That is a group that uses terrorism as an instrument for political gain, usually autonomy or independence etc. The PLO(previous) and IRA fall into this category. They are specific entities with the stated objective of political independence and have functioning political organs along with their militarized ones. Terrorism just happens to be one of their methods in an attempt to achieve their goals. In this case, negotiations or compromise is possible and even desirable. Here, socio-economic plans or incentives can be useful in achieving the overarching objective of peace or coexistence.

Other possibilities to end the tit-for-tat style of revenge and avenge violence could be South Africa's Remorse and Forgiveness campaign. While not exact analogues, it could provide a base model to create a new framework to end the violence.

When they did in '82 it was because the PLO was attacking them from positions across the border. To my knowledge the incursions in recent years stemmed from rocket attacks from across the border in Lebanon also.

Israel "invaded" Lebanon in response to Lebanon's attack on Israel. This really should be another thread though if any one would like to discuss it.

Well I meant recently, but that's a good example of what I mean. Why was there a PLO? There was a PLO to try and get Israelis out of Palestine. What did Lebanon do? They accepted thousands of Palestinian refugees (which included some PLO terrorists). For that the whole of Lebanon is invaded and occupied.

The "whole" of Lebanon was not occupied, just the southern part. The PLO was created in an effort to get the international community to care about the Palestinians. Actually a brilliant move on Yasser Arafat's part. Prior to that, no one was really convinced of the notion of "Palestinians". Thanks to his efforts, he was able to "rally" his people and organize.

Again, the Palestinians were offered numerous land deals over the years but turned them down. Then they resorted to violence to get what they want. Moreover, other Middle East entities interfered with the Israeli-Palestinian process as well culminating in 3 different wars, each one started by one of the Arab states.

If OBL is/was the big terrorist threat why did we divert our attention to Iraq and let him slip through our fingers in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan doesn't have as much oil, and it's government is more difficult to use as a boogeyman because it keeps changing.

Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.
Costello: Are you the manager?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: You gonna be the coach too?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?
Abbott: Well I should.
Costello: Well then who's on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow's name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy playing...
Abbott: Who is on first!
Costello: I'm asking YOU who's on first.
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's who?
Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: Who's playing first?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?
Abbott: Every dollar of it.
Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name on first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy that gets...
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Who gets the money...
Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.
Costello: Whose wife?
Abbott: Yes.

Abbott: What's wrong with that?
Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name?
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: How does he sign...
Abbott: That's how he signs it.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Yes.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base.
Abbott: No. What is on second base.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first.
Costello: One base at a time!
Abbott: Well, don't change the players around.
Costello: I'm not changing nobody!
Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.
Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first base?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: Ok.
Abbott: All right.

Costello: What's the guy's name on first base?
Abbott: No. What is on second.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third, we're not talking about him.
Costello: Now how did I get on third base?
Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.
Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?
Abbott: No. Who's playing first.
Costello: What's on first?
Abbott: What's on second.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third.
Costello: There I go, back on third again!

Costello: Would you just stay on third base and don't go off it.
Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?
Costello: Now who's playing third base?
Abbott: Why do you insist on putting Who on third base?
Costello: What am I putting on third.
Abbott: No. What is on second.
Costello: You don't want who on second?
Abbott: Who is on first.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together:Third base!

Costello: Look, you gotta outfield?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The left fielder's name?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.
Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.
Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field.
Abbott: Who's playing first.
Costello: I'm not... stay out of the infield! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field?
Abbott: No, What is on second.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first!
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

Costello: The left fielder's name?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: Because!
Abbott: Oh, he's centerfield.

Costello: Look, You gotta pitcher on this team?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The pitcher's name?
Abbott: Tomorrow.
Costello: You don't want to tell me today?
Abbott: I'm telling you now.
Costello: Then go ahead.
Abbott: Tomorrow!
Costello: What time?
Abbott: What time what?
Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's pitching?
Abbott: Now listen. Who is not pitching.
Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who's on first! I want to know what's the pitcher's name?
Abbott: What's on second.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

Costello: Gotta a catcher?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: The catcher's name?
Abbott: Today.
Costello: Today, and tomorrow's pitching.
Abbott: Now you've got it.
Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the team.

Costello: You know I'm a catcher too.
Abbott: So they tell me.
Costello: I get behind the plate to do some fancy catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and a heavy hitter gets up. Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me, being a good catcher, I'm gonna throw the guy out at first base. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who?
Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.
Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

Abbott: That's all you have to do.
Costello: Is to throw the ball to first base.
Abbott: Yes!
Costello: Now who's got it?
Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.
Abbott: No you don't, you throw the ball to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's different.
Costello: That's what I said.
Abbott: You're not saying it...
Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You throw it to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's what I said!
Abbott: You ask me.
Costello: I throw the ball to who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Now you ask me.
Abbott: You throw the ball to Who?
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn!
Abbott: What?
Costello: I said I don't give a darn!
Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop.

For the Reading Impaired

Comon Powerclown, that's gotta be the worst threadjack/troll I've ever seen.
Palestine was given to Israel by the UN, who had no claim on the land. Israel moved in and terrorist organizations, the most prominant of which being the PLO, sprang up. As the Palestinian population was displaced by the hundreds of thousands, Lebanon, seeing the humanitarian nightmare, opened its borders to the Palestinians. Unfortunately, some very selfish and cowardly terrorists used Lebanon to strike at Israel. Instead of trying to work with the obviously overwhelmed Lebanese government in order to stop terrorism, they invaded. Had Israel made the right call originally, the Hezbollah wouldn't exist today.
We've interfered with Israel/Palestine, Israel/Lebanon, Iraq/Iran more than anyone else. We're more to blame for the current situation in Israel than Jordan or Egypt or Iran.

Also, none of this changes or excuses the fact that Israel is committing human rights violations every day against a militarily inferior Palestine.

Sorry it was either that, or my head was going to explode.
I reflexively chose self-preservation.

Rekna, google Waziristan.
That's where you'll find OBL and the rest of al-Qaeda/Taliban leadership.
And there's no way of getting to him.
Has zilcherino to do with oil in Afghanistan.

willravel, the israelis have tried negotiating with the arabs for decades. Time after time after time after time after time after time after time, IT IS THE ISRAELIS - NEVER THE ARABS! - WHO EXTEND THE OLIVE BRANCH AND OFFER CONCESSIONS, only to receive death and destruction in return.

They've been forced, FORCED, into a defensive posture because they have no other choice. They have no. other. choice. The palestinean leaders, all of them, are like Bush minus the resources. As israeli prime minister, how would you deal with the palestinians and protect your people at the same time?

The israelis move one inch out of their defensive posture, and they are attacked. It happens every time. Do you know how many websites there are that provide information and social services to Israeli men, women & children that have to deal with living with the stress and psychologically damaging effects of having to live in fear of a terrorist attack on a daily basis? Dozens.

Israel took over Palestine with the illegal backing of the UN. The negotiation that the Arab nations might be interested in would be, "Sorry about everything, we're moving back to Europe. Have a nice day." If someone came by your house with the police and they said, "So yeah, we're moving in." and there was nothing you could do about it, you'd be pissed too.
I'd hardly call what happened earlier this year in Lebanon a 'defensive posture'. They are aggressive, and a lot of innocent people died (thousands of Lebanese, and how many Israelis?). They stole Palestine, and they'll defend it by destroying Palestine's former neighbors.
How difficult it must be for them. Of course, their country isn't invaded, their homes bulldozed, their power shut off, their sewage running in the street, walls built around them with armed guards. Israel is quite similar to the US in that because they have military power they feel they can do anything, UN or international community be damned. The US ignored the warning about Iraq just as Israel ignored the UN about the human rights violations.

The UN formalized the state of Israel, where jews and arabs have co-existed for thousands of years. The palestineans have been given the same opportunity for a state of their own, and they fuck it up every single time. To say the jews should go back to europe is the same thing as saying the palestineans should go back to jordan.

Sorry, but youre out of your gourd if you think the Israelis started the lebanese war over this past summer. You and I and the entire world know that civilians died in Lebanon because hizballah are chickenshit cowards who fight from behind women and children and other non-combatants. The only mistake the Israelis made was in not completely annhiliating hizballah south of the Litani river. The sad irony is that the bleeding hearts and terrorist sympathizers of the world wouldn't stand for it, so the problem continues as before.

As far as Israeli aggression in the territories: when you have a group of reckless suicidal maniacs who do nothing with their lives but plan attacks, build suicide belts, create bombs, dig tunnels to smuggle in weapons, kidnap israelis, establish rocket launching pads...you better damn well realize that israel has a right to go in and disrupt this kind of bullshit. They enter the territories with one intention only: to prevent attacks upon their citizens. If they wanted, they could level the entire west bank and build settlements but they don't. They do it to protect themselves.

Wasn't it Sadat who negotiated with Israel? Unfortunately, it got him assassinated as a result.

I tend to agree that the Palestinians have spurned several opportunities to make the Mid-East a more peaceful place, but that also does not excuse Israel's own excessive use of force.

Willravel, why should Israelies return to Europe? Some have lived there for thousands of years. Many of them did go their after the formalization of the Jewish state after WW2 but that is because they no longer felt safe in Europe after the Holocaust which wasn't the first, but the was the largest organized effort to wipe them out.

Will....the partiian of Palestine by the UN was no more illegal that its partition of the Indian subcontinent at about the same time, creating the predominantly muslim nation of Pakistan. The action, in both cases, and others, by an internationally recognized organization was to propose solutions to century old disputes and counter-claims that had equal merit. The timing was certainly accelerated as a result of the millions of displaced Jews in post-WW II Europe.

At the time of the partian of Palestine into two states, the Jews were already a majority of the population in Jerusalem and the area provided for the state of Israel, 75% of which was in the Negev desert,with small Arab populations.

Within a year or two of partition, Egypt and Jordan annexed portions of the area delineated for the Palestinian state, creating the first real Palestinian refugee problem.

I didn't say they should return to Europe, I said that would bring a lot of Arab countries to the peace table.

Hitler tries to wipe Jews off the planet, so everyone fights them. Israelis try to destroy what's left of the Palestinians, and...nothing? Outcry? The US is still giving them weapons. Yeesh.

I've never heard of instances where the Israelies have rounded up entire families of Palestinians and slaughtered them en masse.

Also, WW2 itself had little to do with stopping the holocaust

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=3826
WWII was about stopping Germany from growing more powerful first, and stopping the holocaust second, but I'd hardly call it...wait, I've had this conversation like a dozen times on TFP. Do you think the holocaust was bad? Do you think it was important for the Allies to stop the holocaust? Then there you go.

you cant even start to talk about "terrorism" without a detailed understanding of context.

the idea that it originates with the attempts to suppress it is the kind of plotline you see on tv, and that only because it allows for narratives that are internally consistent but nothing else to unfold within a limited amount of time without posing problems that are too complex for viewers, who might in response be too depressed to take in the vital advertising material for which the infotainment you are watching is a delivery system.

"terrorism" is a political response to particular political situations.
fema, an arm of the american state, operating within the ideological bubble characteristic of the american system, the one that is characterized by the absolute refusal to co-ordinate what "we" think is happening in the world as a function of the maintenance of "the amurican way of life" with what is in fact happening in the world as a function of the maintenance of the "amurican way of life." if you are going to eliminate many (not all) of the factors that might actually explain "terrorism" a priori, you will end up cooking up all kinds of arbitrary "explanations."


shifting the notion of "terrorism" onto a "logical" level that would equate it with genocide is idiotic.
that a response to "terrorism" could plausibly be a repeat of kurtz's journal entry--you know, "exterminate the brutes"----shows the problems with such logic as there is in this american phantasm "the terrorist"

these problems are all the more evident when this bizarre-o narrative is processed through the politics of the american militia set. you would think that fantasies of genocide would be enough to marginalize the speaker, not derail a thread.

ah well.

The causes of death for nearly everyone on that page was rocket shrapnel. Rockets launched in response to indiscriminate shelling of civilians from across the Lebanon border. It is horrible that those people died but I would hardly call that genocide. Some of them are males in their early 20's who were killed by gunfire. We don't know if they were soldiers of some kind or not.

Of course I think the Holocaust was bad. It was the worst thing human beings have ever done. I don't think that the Red Army rolled through Poland and most of Germany to stop the Death Camps. You have to remember that most of Europe was anti semetic at the time and that many of the countries occupied by the Germans employed local people to aid in the slaughter of Jews.

I'm going to ask you a question I already know the answer to:
Did the Hezbollah fire on Israel before Israel fired on Lebanon in the conflict last year?

Spoiler: No. Israel attacked first in response to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers (not an attack). The Hezbollah immediately responded with rocket fire. This is a fact that most western news outlets glazed by. While five civilians were injured during the kidnapping, the conflict began when Israel opened fire and invaded Lebanon.

Right, like pedophilia is a behavioral response to particular psychological situations.
Doesn't necessarily follow that we should approve of NAMBLA.

No, 'terrorism' is war made by those unable to make war.

i can see the appeal of such simple-minded thinking about this, powerclown.

if you think "terrorists" are somehow intrisically Evil, it is all the easier to watch them die on television--and not just them, but their families: destroy them all--bulldoze their houses, divert their water, you know the drill....

television is key here: on television, there is no systematic oppression--there can't be because the nature of video footage doesnt allow for it. if you want to give a sense of systematic oppression, you wedge a sequence of stock footage referencing some past in between footage of people talking as they stand near various buildings. television does not enable you to even start thinking about cause, about structural features, about systems, about the relation between social, economic political oppression, the lack of a sense of viable political mechanisms that would enable a redress of these, and a possible turn to "terrorism" as a response.

television shows you things.
you confuse a sequence of things with reality.

on the other hand, the assumption that context is not important makes you a good television viewer--the conclusions you draw from television footage has to do with some "essential" Evil because the situations from within which such actions arise are not available to you a priori (the medium) and are excluded with even more force by conservative political assumptions--which confuse the surface of things with how things are, which looks around and sees the "amurican way of life" and does not connect it to anything, just takes it as given.

if you sense that this surreal "way of life" is being threatened, absent either a coherent account of your own situation or one of the situations that might drive people to consider violence that you call "terrorism" then it would follow that indiscriminate killing on the part of the state is justifiable for you. no limit to it because Evil is being Exterminated by the Forces of Truth Justice and the American Way.

so if you think about palestine, for example, if you do think about it, it is easy peasy to televisualize the conflict and see only Evil Palestinians and Nice Israeli Victims staged across some displacement of the Showdown at High Noon on Main Street blah blah blah. this because your view of Things is such that the actual history is excluded of the treatment of the palestinian population by the israelis since 1948, its various phases, etc, and of the palestinian responses to occupation in its various modalities since 1948 and the dehumanizing effects this protracted conflict has had ON BOTH SIDES.......but this little story leaves out the third side, the one made up tv viewers who do not understand shit because they are handed nothing but shit and confuse that shit with the world: much easier to decide on the basis of video footage that you are watching good versus evil and to cheerlead for the good with all the analytic sophistication required for any professional wrestling match, and to hope that Good exterminates Evil, wiping out every last man, woman and child because, damn it, that's what the Good does is exterminate Evil down to every last man woman and child because that way the Good demonstrates its inward Quality as the Good, through the violent elimination of what opposes it.....and boy is that a convincing demonstration, everyone thinks so.

no wonder "terrorism" is such a surprise.
whaddya so pissy about, guys? this is happening because of the Amurican Way of Life, which is the very objectification of the Good..you cant possibly oppose it...you cant possibly have a problem with it or *any* of its implications...what grounds would you have? any claim you make is a demonstration of your inward Evil. so do what Good People do when faced with oppression and get with the program: understand that the Good necessitates your wholesale dehumanization and it'll become easier to accept your lot. it's what made america great.

wake up.

will, please tell me you see the total absurdity of that statement.

Roach, i'm not sure what oppression you are talking about in relation to terrorism?

and if you don't see the 'act of war' instigated by Hezbollah, then you're being willfully ignorant.

The beauty of this particular conflict lies in its crystal clarity.

One side dedicated to a partnership, diplomacy, concession and bargaining.

One side dedicated to the absolute and complete destruction of the other side without compromise.

Really, what more is there to say?

It is absurd how right I am from time to time. I have to pinch myself to make sure it's all real. If you have something to say, then say it.
Well if you're going to find out who started the whole thing, then it was the UN, who gave Palestine to Israel, who was targeted by the PLO from Lebanon, who was invaded, who formed the Hezbollah, who kidnapped soldiers, then Israel attacked and invaded and blockaded, and then the Hezbollah opened fire.

If we're talking about who started it, it was the UN (or maybe Nazi Germany?). If we're talking about who started the Israeli/Lebanese conflict of 2006, it was Israel. Anyone who doesn't see that is being 'willfully ignorant'.

Will, you said "'terrorism' is war made by those unable to make war."

if they are unable to make war, then terrorism cannot be war. If terrorism IS war, then they certainly can make war. I fail to see how this makes you so right.

If we were the leaders of two neighboring countries and you kidnapped a soldier of mine, you commit an act of war and I will attack you. Unless you think that a government should passively roll over when it's soldiers are kidnapped. If Israel kidnapped a hezbollah soldier, they'd still be starting it, wouldn't they? at least you would think so.

Will...it surprises me that you continue to offer this misinterpretation of history. The UN did not give Palestine to Israel...it partioned a land in 1948, with 1.5 million Arabs and .7 million Jews, both of whom had legitimate historical claims, into two states. The Jews being given the land where they had the majority population and the Arabs given the land where they were in the majority.

The Arab neighbors of the new state of Israel not only attacked it 5 times in the next 20 years, but also were the first to create Palestinian refugees by annexing their land and denying them citizenship.

Israel has not been blameless in its brief history and there have been times when it has taken the offensive, sometimes to excess, as the best defensive strategy for survival when surrounded by enemies.

Please read your history, particularly regarding the Partition and the early days of the proposed two state solution and how the neighboring Arab leaders (Nasser in Egypt and Abdullah in Jordan) used the Palestinians as sacrificial pawns with the intent of creating and maintaining a stateless defacto fighting force of anti-Isreal terrorists.

I forgot to put the first war in quotations. War is made by those nations or organizations with capable arms. Terrorists, as the word has become, are unable to wage real war (tanks, planes, etc.), so they resort to less orthodox means of attack.
Ah, but the kidnapping didn't happen in a vacuum. You act as if there was a great time of peace or something before the kidnapping. That's not true. It's been an ongoing conflict for the past 20 years. The kidnapping was a response to the continuing presence of Israel in the Shabaa Farms and for the Sept 2003 Israeli bombing of Southern Lebanon as a response to Hezbollah firing anti-aircraft missiles at Israeli aircraft as a response to the Israeli occupation and kidnappings.

I'm sorry you're only able to look back one year, but this whole conflict is as old as we are. The 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict was started by Israel's blocade, invasion, and bombing campaign that claimed over 1,200 lives and displaced almost a million Lebanese. You know a lot of Southern Lebanon is still uninhabitable because of unexploded cluster bombs.

Its refreshing to agree with Powerclown and dksuddeth on something!

Now who's forgetting history. The partition was rejected, failed and resulted in the Arab-Israeli war. "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181" was approved by the United Nations General Assembly, but was never implemented.
The Arab leadership in Palestine opposed the resolution, and argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the populace of the country. It wasn't just Iran, Jordan, Egypt and the rest of the fun gang. It was the people directly involved in the decision made, but not involved in the decision making.
Something being an effective defense is hardly an excuse.
I'm well versed. I'd suggest you read Chomsky's "Middle East Illusions" for more information on the subject.

Roach, that was quite the interesting post. I agree with most of your points when it comes to modern terrorism (meaning the last 30 years or so).

HOWEVER, please look to the left of your post and give me the label most often assigned to that individual for the years 1890-1917. Also, please think about his brother. And the People's Will. I know that the Soviets claimed to invent lots of things, but I doubt that their propaganda machine ever contemplated a suggestion of mass media television in the Tsarist era.

If you want my thought of the cause of terrorism at it's most basic, I would tell you "boredom". Boredom from lack of opportunities, expression, intellectual thought or maybe even good music. I for one thank my lucky stars that we've got TFP around to keep some of you folks from running amuck.

Will..I am well aware that the Partition resolution (approved by the UN General Asembly - 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent) was rejected by the Arabs and the fact that it was implemented without the approval or participation of those Arab nations, who chose to wage war instead.

I have never been impressed with Chomky's arguments.

But what about the Arabs in Palestine/Israel? Where was their vote? Where was the vote of the majority of the population? Outside influences may all have their big opinions and such, be they UN or Arab neighbor, but why was the population of the land being carved up not given an opportunity to vote? The simple answer is that Palestine would be Arab run, with Jews in it (like Lebanon, but without the Hezbollah), and the members UN wouldn't have that. They felt badly about the holocaust and instead of trying to end antisemitism in Europe, which would have been a logical response to the holocaust, they allowed their guilt and pity to lead to the seizure of land that was already occupied. As I tried to make clear, the majority Arab population of what is not Israel said 'no' to the UN's ruling. What right did the UN have to ignore them? The British pulled out completely and refused to implement the plan for this very reason. Considering that the British had the only real claim on the land with their Mandate of Palestine, the UN lost any and all of it's authority in the situation. The funny thing is that despite the fact that the UN had no authority to do so, they proclaimed that Israel was a state after this and admitted them into the UN, bypassing the reality of the situation. It was in response to this and the rising of Zionism that Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon declared war. Israel gained financial and arms backing from the US and Russia and numerous other states already armed to the teeth, and that is where Israel came from.

the-jazz: thanks. i was kinda waiting for someone to ask about comrade lenin---there's a story behind my using that particular photo (post-stroke) but i think writing it out here would be a threadjack. but in general, you're right about the genealogy of the term and the ways in which it has migrated, being used to designated particular enemies of the state s mostly because it makes them sound real bad. i guess as a direct response to your post, tho, i'd make a hard distinction between the reconfiguring of the term since, say, black september (1972 munich olympic games) and the previous history of the term. but it's one of those distinctions that could be argued against, and beyond a certain point, i'd just end up insisting on it and seeing what happened.

as for the israel/palestine turn the thread has taken---the "history" that makes this conflict "clear" is fine in the way that any narrative of a sufficiently high level of vagueness is--it serves the purpose of making things appear "clear" by simply ignoring everything that would complicate it.

in this case---well---my rejection of the arguments from powerclown et al regarding this conflict is so fundamental that it is hard to know where to start with it--and even more to know if there is any point in engaging in this debate--again---when the premises being put forward as the same as those put forward in the previous 20 versions of the same debate.

a couple points on what has been discussed a little directly above:

i think the question of how the balfour decision was taken are beside the point now. the conflict was set up, in its initial phase, by the decision to herd displaced palestinians into camps and to leave them there to rot. in this, there is blame aplenty to go around (please dont waste my time by talking about jordan and syria's actions in all this: i know about it--that's why i wrote what i did)--but i think the handling of the people who were expelled in 1948 is a good example of the ways in which this conflict has dehumanized *all* sides---the palestinians by way of the daily brutalization handed them in the camps--the israelis by the handing out of that brutalization.

but no-one in their right mind does not see that the present conflict derives much more from the aftermath of 1967 than it does from 1948.

and no-one who knows ANYTHING about the occupation itself argues that what has been happening can be reduced to the kind of "clarity" powerclown is claiming: of course you could generate "clarity" is you erase things--the problems that surround the right of return, the israeli settlement program (this is a HUGE factor in shaping the present incoherence and conflict--riddle me how anything is clear about this good guy/bad guy nonsense if you factor in the settlements...) the modalities of occupation itself, the sense of dehumanization that has resulted from it for BOTH the occupiers and occupied....i could go on and on about this....but i'll leave it here: if your "clarity" about the conflict does not involve an account of this kind of information, then your clarity comes at the expense of coherence.
and it is a sad comment on the state of affairs that obtains here that such incoherence can and does get folded into to an even greater incoherence in this abstract, goofball notion of "terrorism."

roachboy, could you guide me through some questions I have regarding the Zionist movement? Is it not an act of 'terror' to claim another's land as your own simply because your ancestory once lived on that land? What were the legal justifications guiding the UN that allowed them to support the partitioning of the region?

I sense an underlying racism in the decision directed at both the Arabs and the Jews. Was there never a Jewish "right of return" to their homes and businesses in Europe? The act of creating a Jewish 'homeland', at the expense of the current populace is the incoherence that I am unable to reconcile in my mind.

The US has experienced mostly symbolic protests of this kind by native Americans, and harshly dealt with militant protests to recapture land lost many generations ago. Do they not have a far more recent claim to this land, than the Jews had of Palestine in 1948? It makes my head spin.

Will...do you really believe there were democratic institutions in place in Palestine before Partition?

Under the defacto "government" or authoritarian rule of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (an ally of Hitler), even after he was convicted at the Nuremburg trials as a war criminal and living in exile in Egypt under the protection of Nasser) the simple answer is that the Arabs in Palestine/Israel had no right to vote on anything that affected their lives. The majority Arab population did what the Mufti ordered them to do.

In fact, there is a body of evidence that suggests that the Mufti ordered the Arab population to leave their homes after the Partition vote (with a promise that they could return after the Jews were driven from the land), which was what really initiated the Arab refugee problem. (I know there is a counter argument that the new Israeli govt ordered the Arabs to leave).

While the Mufti was in exile in Egypt after WW II, his nephew, a 17 yr old Egyptian named Mohammed Abder Rauf Arafat Al-Kudwa Al-Husseini, better known as Yasir Arafat, began to work for him and carry out his jihad against all Jews and any moderate Muslims who accepted the Jews in Palestine (this was even before Partition).

edit:
I know the above may further feed Roachboy's comment... "history" that makes this conflict "clear" is fine in the way that any narrative of a sufficiently high level of vagueness is--it serves the purpose of making things appear "clear" by simply ignoring everything that would complicate it....but you really cant ignore the role of the Grand Mufti in creating the 20th century Pan Arab terrorist movement against the Jews in the Middle East...it is part of the history.

That's not the point. The point is that the UK, the government that had control over the region, said "No" because the population was ignored and then left, meaning that the UN had no authority over the region at all. Despite that fact, members of the UN supplied Israelis with weapons and funds, and the UN itself recognized Israel as a member even though it wasn't even Israel yet.

THE UK didnt say NO...they turned the Palestinian issue over to the UN in Feb 47 and then abstained from the Partition vote, which received a greater than 2/3 majority in the affirmative, in Nov 47.

elphaba: i would defer to will and dc on the questions you posed to me.

the only comment that i'd make is that by 1948, the wrong zionism was in control---and that many of the problems that have followed seem to me to turn on the particular notion of the meaning of a jewish state that right zionism brought along with it. that is the center of opposition to the right of return, when you get down to it: fear of a swamping of the jewish electorate.

i think that will and dc (and probably other comrades) know more about the prequels to the balfour decision than i do:

to my mind, the central questions are not so much how israel came to be formed--not at this point (2007)---but rather the ways in which that decision impacted on palestinians. behind this is the idea that the choice that was made was a terrible one, and its consequences are still playing out today.

one reason for this focus is that i see no point in debating the legitimacy of israel as a state--it is a fait accompli.
personally, i think that the single greatest shift in the terms of conflict that could happen would be for israel to shift into being a secular, multi-cultural state. this would provide a basis for addressing the myriad problems created by the refusal to allow the return of pelstinians displaced in 1948.

it would also undermine the rationale for the settlements, which i think need to be dismantled. all of them. the sooner the better.

if you look at palestine as outlined in the oslo accords, the map looks like hamburger thrown on a paper--the reason for that is the settlements, which render palestine completely incoherent---non-viable as a state---it makes palestine into an archipelago on the order of the "homelands"/reservations set up in south africa under apartheid. and that parallel is accurate.

roachboy..I agree completely on the settlements issue. I dont agree on the Palestinian right of return or Israel moving towards becoming a secular, multi-cultural state. Once the Jewish majority is lost, so are the Jews.

The Oslo map is not much worse than the original Partition map, which was based, in part, on where Arabs and Jews had majority populations rather than practical geographic boundaries. Egypt quickly annexed part of the southern Palestinian canton and Jordan annexed part of the eastern canton, and both denied citizenship to the Arab populations in those regions.

dc: the secular state-right of return matters are the central sticking point behind all others, i think.
and i probably should have included the caveat that this is a question that is only easily worked out in principle. while i personally am not at all persuaded that the a secular multi-cultural israel means the loss of anything for anyone.....we alreadty find ourselves at the heart of the matter.
these positions operate across a deep ideological divide---which could be a topic for discussion....however:

would debating this here be a threadjack?
i dunno...it is linked to the question of the situation endured by palestinians and is without doubt a factor in shaping what folk like to call "terrorism"....but there's the matter of the emotional explosiveness of this to consider as well...

That's not the whole story. The UK refused to implement the 1947 Partition Plan, citing that the plan was not acceptable to both sides (Jew and Arab). The UK terminated the British Mandate of Palestine in 1948, and henceforth the UK, and thus the UN had no jurisdiction over the carving up of Palestine. Despite this, the UN accepted Israel into the UN even though the Arab Israeli war had not had a victor yet. The US and the Soviet Union accepted Israel's declaration about being an independent nation. Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, and Egyptian troops invaded as a response to this (where they had only been working covertly to assist the Palestinians before). The US and Russia backed Israel, so the Arab nations and Palestine lost.

Will...we obviously have different interpretations of the UN jurisdiction that wont be resolved.

and I agree with Roachboy on the emotional explosiveness of the Israeli/Palestinian issue and have been through the debate too many times.

Okey dokey, back to terrorism I guess.

these questions are not disconnected from each other, obviously.
and there is a rationale for concentrating on the situation endured by palestinians as a way to talk about "terrorism" as it has come to be defined since the early 1970s.

the right of return is at the center of the conflict, really: and it is a good example of the kind of intractable issue that can give way to hardening of other lines: on the palestinian side, to the sense of being dominated without any possibility of redress, the sense that the palestinians are a poor, powerless, pulverized group of people who confront a regional superpower behind which there is another superpower...given that there would appear to be little hope of movement on the fundamental sticking point, and that the present state of affairs is totally untenable, recourse to violence would make sense, wouldn't it?
i mean, where are the good options?

then you compound this with other lovely actions like the israeli refusal to recognize hamas after the last elections--which effectively prevented hamas from moderating--which i think it would have done--and you can get an idea of how things go. it is a short jump from stuff like this to a view of israel as a single entity geared entirely around a logic in the occupied territories in particular that would result in the elimination of the palestinian population--i mean, if you factor in settlements that routinely divert water supplies away from palestinian areas, for example, it does not take a rocket scientist to see why folk would come to see themselves as trapped in the loosing position in a game they cannot win.

if you found yourself in such a situation, how would you react?
would you just roll over and accept whatever is given?
if it was clear to you that no conventional political mode existed that would enable anything like a redress of that situation to even get started?
and if you looked toward the future and saw nothing?

i dont know, folks: the pacifist side of me deplores the consequences of this type of action.....but i also understand why they would happen.
these actions are POLITICAL---they have definite causes, they are geared around producing particular effects---so the category "terrorism" does nothing but obscure things, make a rational consideration of what is going on even less likely to happen--who benefits from this? well, the place that sells weapons systems sure as fuck benefits.....


if you were in power on the israeli side and came to understand that the attempts to stomp out these actions were doing nothing by increasing the pressure within the situation that caused them in the first place.....what would you do?

the logic of this conflict is wholly self-perpetuating.
pretending it is otherwise seems to me delusional.
there is no clarity to be had here that does not include accounts of the self-perpetuating dynamics that are the conditions of possibility for "terrorist" actions.
and to my mind the ideological viewpoint that casts israel in the position of Victim and the palestinians in the position of Persecuting Other is nothing short of obscene.

that is why i participate with considerable reluctance in debates about this.

dc_dux, you cite no sources to support your controversial statements.

Can we agree that the Mufti was a "bad, bad" man.....that he collaborated with the Nazis, but that his "collaboration" had no more "impact" on actual aid to the Nazi war effort, than say.....the collaboration of Prescott Bush or his partner, Harriman....or that the Mufti was any "badder" with regard to the "hands on" killing of innocents, than terrorists Menachim Begin, David ben Gurion, Yitzak Rabin, et al?

The Mufti was never tried or convicted at Nuremberg. My reading shows him to be a "distant cousin" of Arafat. Hannah Arendt, German Jewish refugee and later, prominent American political philosopher, was sent by the New Yorker magazine, in 1963, to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel. She concluded that the Mufti was demonized by Israeli government intention, via that trial, and that the demonization was politically motivated and out of proportion:
We do know that the Mufti lived in exile in Berlin during WWII and functioned as a propagandist for the nazis. We don't know how much of the Nuremberg testimony of later executed war criminal, Dieter Wisliceny, against the Mufti, was factual.

Given all of the above, isn't it fair to say that those who disagree with the most negative assessment of the Mufti's complicity with the nazis and "the final solution", are at a disadvantage to argue that his "crimes" were less than meets the eye, both because of the Mufti's own exile in Berlin, and his support of the nazis, and the much more limited means and opportunities of his Palestinian supporters to influence the rest of the world, than those of Israelis and their western supporters?

Dc_dux, I see no more point in "saddling" this generation of Palestinians with the legacy of the Mufti, than I do in saddling this generation of Iraelis with the terrorist acts of Israel's founders, or of saddling the current president Bush with the financial activities of his grandfather that aided the nazis.

When I post about Prescott Bush and the terrorist founding leaders of the state of Israel, I do so to focus on the hypocrisy of the opposing "black or white" arguments. The "gray areas" do not seem to sap the convictions of the most resolute, because they don't often admit that they are on the map.....

RB, exactly. "Terrorism" has become a term along the lines of "evil". It's perceived as inexcusable. It's paired up with things like "they hate freedom" and such so much that any possible understanding of their rational would make you yourself one of them. It's an ancient way to control hatred of the enemy, and is just as successful today as it was when the Catholic church fought the Saracens. Of course, the second one does peer through the haze of control into the meaning of the actions of 'terrorists', it becomes clear. I agree that terrorism is wrong, as wrong as war, but to deny the meaning of terrorism is to lose the freedom to think for yourself. OBL doesn't attack us because he hates freedom or because he hates American Idol (though I'm sure he's not a fan), but because we've fucked with his people time and time again. He felt and feels betrayed because of things that happened when the US was still demonizing Communism (the last great enemy before terrorism, go figure). The Palestinians don't suicide bomb in Israel because they hate the Jews so much as they hate being prisoners in their own homes. They hate watching their homes and businesses bulldozed in the name of "Jewish safety". They hate having walls built around them, with armed guards and cameras. They don't like being bombed. Is it right when someone explodes himself in a bus of civilians? Of course. But to act as if they are blindly hating without reason is like saying that Bush wire taps our phones to protect us. It's naive.

As I outlined here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ad#post2139216

...if the US regime was serious and balanced in it's views and reactions to "terrorism", it's terrorist "jihad" propagandist Tom Gauthier, would be in a jail cell, instead of being principle administration advisor on Afghanistan, and his "protege", Khalilzad, would not be arriving at the UN to chair the US delegation there. The current US approach to "terrorism" and to "jihad" is a farce, to anyone with any curiousity and the initiative to use a newspaper archival resource, probably available at the website of their own, local library, would dispense with a "black or white" POV. We are not little children, we adults in the US. Blind faith in, followed by regurgitation of the "talking points" of our national leadership, is not patriotic, nor does "blind faith" support the troops.....

I couldn't agree more. The maddening hypocrisy surrounding the administration's throwing the word 'terrorism' around, while all along being terrorists themselves is as blatant as the nose on their faces.

Host...I stand corrected. The Mufti was not tried and convicted at Nuremburg. He was indicted by the Yugoslavian govt. for his direct involvement in the Bosnian muslim collaboration with the Nazis and active participation in war crimes against the Jews (and Serbs) of Yugoslavia, but was able to avoid trial with the complicity of the French and Brits:
Biased sources? You can decide for yourself.

And, his young relative, Arafat, may well have been a distant cousin (rather than nephew or grand nephew) who referred to Haj Amin el-Husseini as Uncle out of respect. In either case, Arafat joined el-Husseini's jihad against Jews in the Middle East in 1946, which began when el-Husseini was appointed Mufti by the Brits in 1921 (there are many sources). If that is considered demonizing the Mufti (and Arafat), so be it.

Nope...the comparisons are absurd IMO....unless you can find similar religiously driven extremism (by Prescott Bush, Begin, ben Gurion, Rabin...) and incitement of others to follow the same extremism as this:
Now back to the more general discussion of terrorism begetting terrorism. :)

Elph flings a smelly sock at dc dux

My first act of 'terror' :)

*covering my plate of kosher kung pao chicken* :no:

edit:
fortune cookie: "someone is speaking well of you":)