Why when the West attacks terrorists...

[Solly]

"what happened to Democracy and the Rule of Law?"

Ask the terrorists.

[C0ckney]

molly, you never implied i was defending the IRA the same way i didn't 'imply' you were dense :/

now i read your post and basically what you are saying is that both the IRA and hamas are terrorist organisations who target civilians, like no [kidding] sherlock. there are many similarities, as you pointed out, but also many differences, as you seem loathe to recognise.

perhaps i should have said in my original post, which i admit was badly worded, simply that the israelis cannot deal with hamas the same way we dealt with the IRA, rather than that they cannot be compared. there are several reasons for this. hamas uses suicide bombers, while the end result may be the same, the symbloic difference and the difference in people's reactions are very important. further, how do you negociate with people whose main aim is to destroy you, if we had left NI (not that this is something i would have, or would ever support) then the IRA would not have carried its campaign against britian. if israel gave the palestinians a state tomorrow, hamas would not stop its violence and has said so many times. the IRA could have been (and was) negociated with, albeit indirectly. how would you even start to negociate with hamas?

because of this, i think it would be impossible to use northern ireland as a template for peace in the middle east.

[Saint Marcus]

Ask the terrorists.

So you're lowering yourself to their level

So much for moral superiority.

[Kropotkin]

Did you actually expect 'moral superiority' from someone like PA?

[Saint Marcus]

Not really, but I did expect more from western democracies such as the USA and Israel.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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

No, actually we are simply cheering when someone else does it, just as we cheer the whacking of this Hamas dude.

[Saint Marcus]

and that makes it better somehow?

[Whaleboy]

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. As I have repeatedly said, the political end would remain unachieved. The society would merely change for the better. You will say that terrorism leads to a better society. The answer would be no. If the state of their society is our fault, then we should be more benevolent and it should not take mass murder for us to realise how much people hate us. People don't hate for no reason.

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?

Never going to happen

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

Nope, but bombing Dresden didn't help things. The different with a state is that you can just remove it. Terrorism is sociological, so as long as that society exists unchanged, terrorism will exist. And methinks genocide or mass relocation isn't the answer.

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

That would be ridiculous. A state has the full right to defend itself, but only when it's existence is threatened is it entitled to take out another state.

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

No. The difference here is that the Nazis were a direct threat to the survival of the UK. Terrorism is "merely" crime. It poses little threat to the existence of this state, like the Nazis, Napoleon, the Armada etc etc.

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

A good defense is a strong offense? Perhaps against a state. Against a society on the other hand, against terrorism? Not going to happen. Simple human nature.

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.

No. Toddlers kick up tantrums as a result of inexperience of a particularly cruel life whereas terrorists tend to have endured many problems in their societies, and are thus easy targets for indoctrination and reason that because the West is indirectly at fault that therefore they are directly at fault . There is a clear difference.

They won't make demands out of politics, they make demands as a recruiting drive, and a result of their society. That is where they differ from people like Hitler. As a result, changing the society in order to prevent the kind of extreme hatred from which terrorism is a logical course of action (after all, many people here would sympathise with Hamas were they in the position of the Palestinians) will prevent it from happening from that society in the future. Problem solved, with less bloodshed, less expense, but less popularity achieved at home from people that demand machovistic, revenge "red bloodedness" from their politicians, more than considered, reasoned and tempered policies.

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.

Ah! It's Park Avenue the worlds greatest authority on the complex problem of terrorism, solely on the basis of his inconsiderate intolerance!!

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

From the horses mouth. Changing the society is not appeasing the demands of the terrorists.

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

How fantastically considerate of you. God help us if international politics is plagued by the same overt emotivism that you seem to advertise.

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.

Sik: A very good point . However, when someone (terrorist or otherwise) becomes a megalomaniac dictator or some other malevolent leader, at the head of a nation, it ceases to become terrorism, and instead becomes a tactical threat.

Ask the terrorists.

Ask Ashcroft and Blunkett

Did you actually expect 'moral superiority' from someone like PA?

Not really, but I did expect more from western democracies such as the USA and Israel.

Why? These are places where it is people like PA that win votes in this day and age.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney
hamas uses suicide bombers, while the end result may be the same, the symbloic difference and the difference in people's reactions are very important.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. Why am I supposed to be more scared of a suicide bomber than a "conventional" bomber who can perform the same murderous act many times, and probably get better at it?

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps that suicide bombers can be stopped if threatened with their lives.

Desperate people indeed But there is a cause for every consequence.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by C0ckney
molly, you never implied i was defending the IRA the same way i didn't 'imply' you were dense :/

now i read your post and basically what you are saying is that both the IRA and hamas are terrorist organisations who target civilians, like no [kidding] sherlock. there are many similarities, as you pointed out, but also many differences, as you seem loathe to recognise.

perhaps i should have said in my original post, which i admit was badly worded, simply that the israelis cannot deal with hamas the same way we dealt with the IRA, rather than that they cannot be compared

because of this, i think it would be impossible to use northern ireland as a template for peace in the middle east.

How good of you to admit that Hamas and the I.R.A. , two nationalist terrorist organisations, can be compared-a fairly salient point that everyone else in this thread would must have realised from the very beginning.

I didn't 'imply' or state you supported them- I think by stating that they couldn't be compared you were falling into the trap of seeming to imply somehow the I.R.A. were 'morally' superior or in some bizarre way 'better' than Hamas.

Which is a pile of crap, to put it bluntly.

Unlike you I didn't say anything like:

'well either option a- you don't support them'
or

'option b -you do support them',

so there is a difference in the way we have approached this argument.

The I.R.A. have had members who starved themselves to death to prove a point- I can remember Bobby Sands, M.P. and Republican 'martyr' even if you can't.

The Republican 'Martyrs' of Manchester are commemorated every year, and the cult of martyrdom surrounding the three I.R.A. terrorists killed on Gibraltar took a nano-second to spring up.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~eirenua/dec99/saoirse4.htm

And how the REAL I.R.A.'s attacks on PROTESTANT civilians aren't like Hamas's attacks on JEWISH civilians I'm not really sure- I have a feeling that there might some some kind of 'religious' equivalence there, what do you think?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,784187,00.html

If you think Republican nationalist terrorist organisations
that target the civilians of another sovereign state who also happen to be of a different religious persuasion to them somehow differ in 'many' ways from nationalist Palestinian terrorist organisations who do the same with Israelis, then instead of restricting yourself to suicide bombers (and if you risk carrying or planting a bomb in a public place, then while not necessarily a suicidal mission, that outcome is certainly a possible one) a small difference in tactics, outline for us all the other big differences between the groups- because it isn't that I'm loathe to see them, I say they aren't there.

So 'sherlock', I find groups such as E.T.A., Hamas, the I.R.A. and the Nicaraguan Contras all to be much of a muchness-

they exhibit a blatant disregard for human rights, for civilian life, for the rule of law, a preference for force and murder over persuasive argument, a willingness to contravene national and international law, and a single minded determination to force their will on people without the consent of those people.

Religious fanaticism in Hamas has its counterpart in Republican nationalism- and in Republican religious bigotry too.

[CharlesBHoff]

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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

There is away to turn U-238 into Pu239 without than huge instu. First you can built than small bleeder reactor which will need than outside power scoure to run but it will turn 5 kg of U-238 into Pu-239 in a rather short peroid of time without the need of than reproc plant at all. Only 10 kg of Pu-239 is needed to make than bomb than only 2-3 people needed to built it. The other material can be grather rather easy. AQ have than sophrate support network. There can be more than 3 people in a cell. Seperate natural uranium can be done on a small scale. One metric ton of natural uranium will yeild 970 kg of U-238 and 30 kg of U-235 and it take between 50 to 60 kilogram of U-235 to make than nuclear bomb. One metric ton of natural Uranium will give than enough Pu-239 to make 97 bombs.

[Whaleboy]

There is away to turn U-238 into Pu239 without than huge instu. First you can built than small bleeder reactor which will need than outside power scoure to run but it will turn 5 kg of U-238 into Pu-239 in a rather short peroid of time without the need of than reproc plant at all. Only 10 kg of Pu-239 is needed to make than bomb than only 2-3 people needed to built it. The other material can be grather rather easy. AQ have than sophrate support network. There can be more than 3 people in a cell. Seperate natural uranium can be done on a small scale. One metric ton of natural uranium will yeild 970 kg of U-238 and 30 kg of U-235 and it take between 50 to 60 kilogram of U-235 to make than nuclear bomb. One metric ton of natural Uranium will give than enough Pu-239 to make 97 bombs.

Ah! I stand partially corrected .

Constructing a nuke from that is still tricky though. I dare say if it were practical they would have done it.

Such is the nature of terrorist cells that no matter how much resources placed against them, if its possible they will do it, just with less frequency. I'm betting on it not happening *touch wood*.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No. As I have repeatedly said, the political end would remain unachieved. The society would merely change for the better. You will say that terrorism leads to a better society. The answer would be no. If the state of their society is our fault, then we should be more benevolent and it should not take mass murder for us to realise how much people hate us. People don't hate for no reason.

What if it isn't our fault, but they blame it for us anyways? People often do hate others for no reason.

Never going to happen

It happened in Japan and Germany...

Nope, but bombing Dresden didn't help things. The different with a state is that you can just remove it. Terrorism is sociological, so as long as that society exists unchanged, terrorism will exist. And methinks genocide or mass relocation isn't the answer.

Who is advocating genocide or mass relocation (except the terrorists)?

That would be ridiculous. A state has the full right to defend itself, but only when it's existence is threatened is it entitled to take out another state.

why?

No. The difference here is that the Nazis were a direct threat to the survival of the UK. Terrorism is "merely" crime. It poses little threat to the existence of this state, like the Nazis, Napoleon, the Armada etc etc.

Terrorism, if unchecked, is a direct threat. The reason it isn't a direct threat is because it isn't unchecked.

A good defense is a strong offense? Perhaps against a state. Against a society on the other hand, against terrorism? Not going to happen. Simple human nature.

We'll see in Afghanistan and Iraq

[LiberalAtheist]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


So you're lowering yourself to their level

So much for moral superiority.

I guess then that when a court imprisons a kidnapper it should be condemned for lowering itself to the felons level.

Such simplistic generalizations of course miss the distinction between initiation, response, situation and motives. The fact is with our goals and general methods (and the fact that nobody here is advocating that we indiscrimately and intentionally kill civilians) we are already above their level.

But I suppose there is no reason to care about such "situational" things when we can be deontological in our methods.....selectively.