Why when the West attacks terrorists...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
killing a half blind, half deaf old man, who's stuck in a wheelchair, by firing rockets from Apache helicopters. Especcially after Israel let him out of prison only a few years ago.

How very courageous!

Did his disabilities compromise his efficacy in convincing impressionable fanatical young people (with a possibly fruitful, fulfilled life ahead of them) to walk into crowded public venues and kill themselves and unarmed civilians with nailbombs saturated in weedkiller (a mode of killing which tends to ensure more deaths, because the weedkiller prevents bloodclotting)?

Let's feel sorry for other old screwballs like the Shah of Iran, and Ferdinand Marcos, and Mobutu Sese Seko because nature catches up with them. Boo hoo, poor old Shah gets cancer, let's forgive him for all the Iranians tortured and murdered by his secret police.

Yassin's handicaps, real or imagined, have little to do with his ability to make the naive and motivated cause massive death and injury.

Roosevelt had polio- didn't make him less able to make the United States turn the war against Japan.

I'm sure the next time Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades decide to turn Israelis into carbonized fragments they'll be very careful to ask if there's anyone with a medical complaint in the vicinity, or possibly an old age pensioner's travel pass, so that they can be excused death.

Anyway, those of use with longer memories can probably bring to mind Leon Klinghoffer-

'Leon Klinghoffer (September 24, 1916 - October 8, 1985) was killed aboard the Achille Lauro.

On October 7, 1985 as 69 year old disabled Leon Klinghoffer sat in his wheelchair aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship, four Palestinian terrorists shot, then threw him overboard while his wife watched in horror. Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer, American Jews, had been celebrating their wedding anniversary by taking this cruise.

Four months after Leon Klinghoffer's murder, Marilyn Klinghoffer died of colon cancer.'

and:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (CNN) -- The daughters of an American killed in the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship dismissed the apology of the man who killed their father.

Abul Abbas, leader of the Palestinian guerrillas who hijacked the ship said this weekend he's sorry for the hijacking and the killing of disabled American passenger Leon Klinghoffer.

Klinghoffer, of New York, was shot in his wheelchair and thrown overboard by Abbas' men.

"We are sorry," said Abbas, who arrived in the Gaza Strip late Sunday after years in exile. Abbas says the hijacking was a mistake but admits that he and the guerrillas were on their way to Israel to wage terrorist attacks.

Klinghoffer's daughters, Ilsa and Lisa, responded to the apology offered by Abbas with a statement released to CNN through their spokeswoman Letty Simon.

"It is revisionist history. The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Abbas was convicted for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer in a court of law and he should serve his sentence."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/22/newsbriefs/pm.html

Mr. Klinghoffer didn't have a 'get out of death free' card because of his disability.

I think we should applaud Israel for its even-handed approach to rights for the disabled.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Are you advocating genocide, MtG? That's way way lower than terorism.

his point is that we COULD be doing that, but we AREN'T.

Yet these "counter-terror responses" are exactly the same as terrorism, which is the use of violence to change the political position of a group of people.

What you are saying is, since the West (actually pretty much the US, unless BCN weapons are involved) can do massive damage but chooses not to, that they should not be criticised for these attacks?

That's pretty weak for an ethical argument.

Actually, it's quite strong. The fact that we deliberately limit our use of force shows that our goal is not to wipe out innocent civilians. Their goal plainly is.

[molly bloom]

Re: selective quoting, fun for all the family!

Originally posted by C0ckney


hmmm well there seem to be two options here, either a) you're deliberatly misunderstanding what i am saying or b) you're unbleievably dense. :/

I haven't implied you are defending the I.R.A.- but you haven't stated in detail why they are different from Hamas- in fact I can think of obvious similarities between the I.R.A. and Hamas, in goals, methods and strategy, and before you go accusing me of being unbelievably dense, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the entire history of the I.R.A. , in its actions against the elected Irish government, and the elected British government.

What might be a few salient similarities between Hamas and the I.R.A. , or other Irish Republican terror groups, I wonder?

Do they seek to circumvent the electoral process with the use of indiscriminate terror?

Yes.

Do they distinguish between civilian and military casualties?

No.

Are they willing to kill suspected informers without trial?

Yes.

Do they torture suspects?

Yes.

Do they have avowedly nationalist agendas?

Yes.

Do they engage in criminal acts to raise funds?

Yes.

Are they willing to sacrifice members in pursuit of politico-military goals?

Yes.

Do they claim popular support?

Yes.

Do they attack particular nationalities or religions?

Yes.

Do they seek to 'liberate' part or all of a sovereign state?

Yes.

Are they a non-governmental organisation?

Yes.

Do they have support networks in foreign countries?

Yes.

Do they have supporters who send remittances from abroad to finance campaigns of terror?

Yes.

Do they seek publicity by assassination of high profile targets?

Yes.

Do they seek the overthrow of an elected government by violent means?

Yes.

Well, I could go on, but you would have been on firmer ground had you said that there was no, or little similarity or comparison between a non-nationalist terror group, such as the Japanese Red Army, the Brigate Rosse or Baader Meinhof, and an avowedly nationalist terror group such as E.T.A., FLOSY, the I.R.A. or Hamas.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Aden/urban.html

'Hamas combines the ideas of Palestinian nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Its founding charter pledges the group to carry out armed struggle, try to destroy Israel and replace Arafat’s government with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and raise “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” '

and:

The IRA is an organization dedicated to ending British rule in Northern Ireland and unifying the province with the neighboring Republic of Ireland. Sinn Fein is its political wing.

The IRA does still consider itself an armed force opposing an illegal foreign occupation of ITS country; jailed members called themselves “political prisoners.” And two IRA splinter groups, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, still practice terrorism.

An independent state was created in the island’s predominantly Catholic south; a smaller, northern district called Ulster, with a Protestant majority, remained part of the United Kingdom.

Since then, many Catholic “republicans” (also known as “nationalists”) have complained of feeling like second-class citizens in Ulster .'

http://cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/types.html

I'd say there were certain pertinent similarities there, wouldn't you?

Hamas does this:

'[Hamas]...have blown up buses in major Israeli cities, as well as shopping malls, cafes, and other CIVILIAN targets. The bombings have killed more than 200 Israeli CIVILIANS. Hamas’ bombers tend to target CIVILIANS within Israel proper, rather than Israeli soldiers or settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. '

The I.R.A. and I.N.L.A. and Continuity I.R.A. do/did this:

'After a string of smaller incidents, in August 1998, the Real IRA perpetrated the single deadliest incident in decades of political violence in Northern Ireland when it set off a five-hundred-pound car bomb in the Irish town of Omagh, killing 29 CIVILIANS, including a woman eight months pregnant with twins. The Omagh attack was so widely condemned that the Real IRA subsequently declared a cease-fire, but the group resumed terrorist operations early in 2000. It has since been linked to almost 30 attacks in Northern Ireland and six in London, including a failed attempt to blow up a bridge over the Thames River and minor explosions at BBC Television and MI6 intelligence headquarters.

The group that was later established as the Continuity IRA is thought to have carried out a notorious 1987 bombing in the Northern Ireland town of Enniskillen that killed 11 Protestant CIVILIANS; experts say the IRA leadership saw the attack as a tactical mistake. Since 1994, the Continuity IRA has conducted sporadic assassinations and bombings, mostly aimed at Protestant CIVILIAN targets. ' *

Now you can imply I'm unbelievably dense, but I happen to notice some striking similarities there.

* My emendations and emphases.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Terrorism serves a function in those societies, or to be more precise, it is an outlet for some of the extreme hatred which transcends a greater proportion of that society. There is a reason for that hatred existing in the first place and it is that which I am proposing we address.

If someone commits a crime, you arrest him and try him, and, if convicted, he goes to jail or whatever. You don't give him money and stuff to "solve the underlying reason his hatred exists". We do that to try and prevent him in the first place; in the mean time, there's a good reason we have police.

They would if they could, undoubtably. But they cannot. That is the key difference. Furthermore, the annihilation of Israeli's is not the key (aforementioned) reason for those groups existing. That is merely a stated aim or perhaps recruitment slogan. We can't take them seriously as a military force! Terrorists represent little tactical threat to Western civilisation. Instead they are particularly awful and well organised murderers.

The REASON the present such a small threat is BECAUSE of the measures taken against them.

[Whaleboy]

If someone commits a crime, you arrest him and try him, and, if convicted, he goes to jail or whatever. You don't give him money and stuff to "solve the underlying reason his hatred exists". We do that to try and prevent him in the first place; in the mean time, there's a good reason we have police.

Analogy. Run down council estates in British inner cities. They produce a criminal. Do you a) lock up the criminal/put him into rehab or b) make the area better to live in, improve basic standards.

Answer? Do both where possible. You can arrest all the people you like but it won't stop the flow of criminals coming from that estate. Similar situation exists here.

Certain practicalities are different of course, not least the extraction of certain terrorists, but that shouldn't be a priority imo. Speaking out of pure pragmatism, force should only be used for point-defense.

The REASON the present such a small threat is BECAUSE of the measures taken against them.

A ridiculous proposition. Firstly, terrorism running rampant so to speak within a society is a contradiction in terms since society employs police to counter it. Think of it as a large crime wave. Enough to destroy Western civilisation? Methinks not. There is a natural cap upon its capabilities.

Even major attacks like 9/11 were, as I often say, nothing compared to even one night of the blitz in British cities. Unless they get hold of nukes or major biological weaponry (both of which is likely out of reach of all but the very best organised and secret organisations and can be countered by intelligence), then that is at the high-end of their possibilities.

Terrorism, as long as it remains that and not a tactical, military operation, (to use to the Icini example, set-piece engagements as opposed to guerilla/social tactics) in other words the creation of terror vs the crippling of enemy tactical capability is unable to have a severe tactical impact. It's sociology -> crime -> sociology. I dare say there that the crime (mass murder, GBH, etc) is a nasty consequence of the sociology.

[Dis]

I do believe terrorism can bring down western civilization. But it will take nothing less than weapons of mass destruction, and of course more people and organiztional resources.

planes just aren't going to do ****.

[Whaleboy]

Then your talking tactical in which case I agree. But that's not terrorism.

Oh and I reckon that in order to reduce the USA to a third world state, you would require about 4-6 nukes, though of course one would surely do irreparable damage. That's just a guestimate of course, it would depend on the ordinance. Again though, that is not terrorism. That is tactical genocide.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Analogy. Run down council estates in British inner cities. They produce a criminal. Do you a) lock up the criminal/put him into rehab or b) make the area better to live in, improve basic standards.

Answer? Do both where possible. You can arrest all the people you like but it won't stop the flow of criminals coming from that estate. Similar situation exists here.

Actually, it can if you provide sufficient deterrent

Plus, IF you show that terrorism is effective at changing the conditions that cause it, then you essentially make terrorism a good idea. Just like how paying ransom is a bad idea, even though in individual circumstances it may be beneficial.

Certain practicalities are different of course, not least the extraction of certain terrorists, but that shouldn't be a priority imo. Speaking out of pure pragmatism, force should only be used for point-defense.

Uh, no. While we are fixing the underlying cause, we should also do our best to get rid of the threat.

A ridiculous proposition. Firstly, terrorism running rampant so to speak within a society is a contradiction in terms since society employs police to counter it. Think of it as a large crime wave. Enough to destroy Western civilisation? Methinks not. There is a natural cap upon its capabilities.

Exactly! Without the "police" the problem would be a threat!

Even major attacks like 9/11 were, as I often say, nothing compared to even one night of the blitz in British cities. Unless they get hold of nukes or major biological weaponry (both of which is likely out of reach of all but the very best organised and secret organisations and can be countered by intelligence), then that is at the high-end of their possibilities.

And this is because we have forces in place to protect against them. Without those forces, they could destroy us.

Terrorism, as long as it remains that and not a tactical, military operation, (to use to the Icini example, set-piece engagements as opposed to guerilla/social tactics) in other words the creation of terror vs the crippling of enemy tactical capability is unable to have a severe tactical impact. It's sociology -> crime -> sociology. I dare say there that the crime (mass murder, GBH, etc) is a nasty consequence of the sociology.

Again, it is unable to have a "severe tactical impact" because of the forces we have to guard against it. Thus its ultimate impotence is no excuse to reduce or remove those forces.

[Whaleboy]

Actually, it can if you provide sufficient deterrent

Ah!! Touche! But it seems to me that deterrents are not working with terrorism. The difference is that most thugs will gladly give up their life of delinquency in exchange for their lives.

Plus, IF you show that terrorism is effective at changing the conditions that cause it, then you essentially make terrorism a good idea. Just like how paying ransom is a bad idea, even though in individual circumstances it may be beneficial.

Ah no! The terrorists would suffer as a result and society in general suffer growing pains. It's no summer camp.

Uh, no. While we are fixing the underlying cause, we should also do our best to get rid of the threat.

No, getting "rid" of the threat in the manner that you say will only kick up more ****, thus making it immeasurably harder to fix to the underlying cause. It's like chopping the head off a weed, but in doing so the weedkiller fails to work.

Exactly! Without the "police" the problem would be a threat!

Thus intelligence and point defense. Lack of police would be being completely ignorant to terrorism on all levels which I am by no means suggesting.

And this is because we have forces in place to protect against them. Without those forces, they could destroy us.

Firstly no. Construction of a nuke is not easy, though a dirty bomb requires nothing more than a discarded X ray machine (isotope Cobalt 60) and a simple homemade explosive, that won't cause the kind of damage I'm talking about. Construction of a fission device requires resources, money, time and expertise that is lacking in any organisation without serious organisation.

Which brings me to the second point, where I say that I am not advocating the cessation of disruption of the organisation of terrorist groups, e.g. Al Qaeda. Furthermore, the cell-like structure of that group would further hamper any large cooperative effort like building a nuke. Acquiring one may be easier but relatively easy for the Americans (if not the Russians ) to track.

Biological warefare in all but localised applications like Sarin and Ricin would fail because breeding and maintainance of the organisms requires more resources than maintaining a nuke.

Again, it is unable to have a "severe tactical impact" because of the forces we have to guard against it. Thus its ultimate impotence is no excuse to reduce or remove those forces.

You are confused. I am saying that society should still protect itself, but chopping off the proverbial head using my previous analogy will fail.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ah!! Touche! But it seems to me that deterrents are not working with terrorism. The difference is that most thugs will gladly give up their life of delinquency in exchange for their lives.

If brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough

Ah no! The terrorists would suffer as a result and society in general suffer growing pains. It's no summer camp.

Yes, the individualt terrorists may suffer, but you show that terrorism actually works - in that violence to a politicical end actually achieves that political end.

No, getting "rid" of the threat in the manner that you say will only kick up more ****, thus making it immeasurably harder to fix to the underlying cause. It's like chopping the head off a weed, but in doing so the weedkiller fails to work.

Depends. Do you think it'll have been harmful to us to have invaded Iraq if we turn it into a liberal democracy, or a close approximation thereof?

Did getting rid of the Nazis "kick up more ****"?

Thus intelligence and point defense. Lack of police would be being completely ignorant to terrorism on all levels which I am by no means suggesting.

Oh, ok, for some reason I thought you were for disbanding the entire thing or something like that.

Still, to invoke Godwin again , would you advocate just "point defense" against the Nazis?

You are confused. I am saying that society should still protect itself, but chopping off the proverbial head using my previous analogy will fail.

And I'm saying that what you are seeing is society protecting itself.

[Lord Merciless]

I'm wondering why Israel has not eliminated that scum Yassin years ago.

[Ted Striker]

These terrorists are like a crying toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Appease them and they will learn that being a dumbass will get them things. So they will just throw the tantrum again.

Let them cry until they are tired and they will learn that it's not going to get them anywhere.


These terrorists don't really give a DAMN about the causes they are "representing." They are just hijacking them for their own sick causes so they can seize the high ground. Well it's nice to see them dupe most of the world that has lost its backbone. They have hijacked the Palestinians and used them for their own sick goals. They have bastardized Islam and tainted it with their sick ideas.

Really, has the average Palestinian's life gotten any better because of these attacks? If anything it has gotten much worse.

It's about time we stopped caring about what the **** terrorists want.

What we need to focus on is WHAT WE WANT.

What they want, I DON'T GIVE A **** ANYMORE

[LiberalAtheist]

Re: Re: Why when the West attacks terrorists...

Originally posted by Cruddy


You might want to study history more. Starting with the birth of the USA - and do remember, one man's freedom fighter is another man's rebel/terrorist/insurgent.

Since when did these people start fighting for anyone's freedom?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
A strawman EiF.

Their is a major discrepancy between their stated objectives and ability to carry them out, or even their genuine objectives (from a functionalist sociological perspective).

There was a major discrepancy between what Hitler stated when he wrote Mein Kampf and what he had the power to accomplish while still a prisoner. Imagine if someone had had the foresight to kill him in prison, instead of waiting until the whole world was in flames to make a move. The intentions of Hamas are a cause for genuine concern.

[Saint Marcus]

so now we're advocating killing inmates.

what happened to Democracy and the Rule of Law?

It's a Brave New World alright