4,747 Forum Posts by "Slizor"
that's the heart of the issue isn't it, the heart of most hot button issues these days. Government services are invariably far more costly and of far lower quality than their private sector counterparts, contrast public and private education(and if you think its because private schools have more money to spend your dead wrong, public school districts spend more per pupil than their private counterparts by an enormous margin)
Prove it.
I was happily reading the forums until I came across this claim, which I do feel needs some backing up.
It takes a few minutes before it actually gets in to the real documentary and contrary to what it says at the start it was not made by the Venezuelan Government. I can also assure you that it is authentic (unlike a lot of stuff on the internet) as I watched it when it was first shown on TV. If you look at the author's commentary it gives you the full story behind it and links to the next in the series. I suggest you watch all of the parts considering this is a first-hand account with no overt political bias (as in what would you expect the Irish to say?)
I had a good one this year - started drinking at half two and finished at 12(ish...I think. Possibly later.)
I think Britain should subside our agriculture. Are farming is dying out.
Our milk and beef comes from france and our Lamb comes from New Zealand it's stupid,
We do subsidise agriculture hugely, ever heard of CAP?
As for the main argument I agree with......Jos, strangely enough. Since the International trading system is predicated on free trade and the universal application of that principle then I think that rich countries should stop denying other countries their comparative advantage. Currently the international trade system is Listian in the obvious hypocrisy and anti-developmental stance.
"It is a very clever common device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him. . . . Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth."
Friedrich List
For me, I would say the Irish.
They preserved the written language, the old literary texts (and transcribbed them too)--
I agree. The thing of particular importance about the Irish is that they have kept a lack of a sense of time and the idea that work should be enjoyed, not endured.
Conclusion:
God supports Bush and pre-emptive strikes.
(sorry, just too tempting to resist).
Most people support pre-emptive strikes.....people don't support preventitive strikes. The difference being in the level of threat and knowledge of a future attack.
Is it natural for humans to not breathe oxygen? Therefore, since we can do plenty of unnatural, things it must be possible for us to breathe nothing but carbon dioxide and survive!
What the fuck kind of logic is this? Humans can't not breathe oxygen...because we suffocate (you understand that, right?) What is natural for humans is to breath a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, etc............
Sorry, but you are simply wrong-- the individual is even more important than the group
Ah, an argument boiled down to its essence - belief.
The same applies to Marxism, in the name of creating this ideological paradise or "worker's state" there have been countless acts of oppression, and not to mention intolerance against those with opposing views. I don't necessarily blame any of the fundamental principles of Marxist theory for the terror caused by states like China.
The same is true of Capitalism. I do wonder how many people Capitalism has killed, directly and indirectly (it would be one hell of a methodological nightmare...although people have been willing to cobble together some crap methodology for the number of people Communist states have killed.)
I disagree with this whole shitting on younger people culture that has sprung up on this forum. That younger people are more "black and white" when looking at politics is not at all suprising considering how politics superficially works and the rhetoric of politicians. That the 15 year olds that come to this forum are interested in politics is a fairly amazing thing, even if they are yet to develop proper analytical tools. There's no reason to dump on people just because they're younger. And the "older people" aren't that much older and certainly not that far removed.
For example, a 20 year-old can make three errors in one sentence!
All that is necessary for a political debate is fact backed up by logic; life experiences are unnecessary.Then explain age minimums to hold US political offices, such as President.
1) He said political debate, not hold political office which is obviously more demanding. 2) You assume that because something is the case, then the reasoning for it is correct. 3) You equate age with "life experiences" which, if you've ever met anyone through the internet, is obviously not the case.
It begins by misrepresenting environmentalist arguments (trying to boil them down to "global warming") it then moves on to trying to repudiate standard academic and scientific practices, then argues for a conspiracy and does all of this while providing no evidence.
So it's pretty good, if you want to work for Fox News.
The Media Controls You
If that is the case....then how have you escaped the nefarious clutches of the media? Have you broken free from its oppressive shackles and don't interact with any forms of the media? Or are you overstating your case? Is it not more that the media influences people (which isn't saying much) and that media outlets have a (c)overt political line and report specifically from that perspective leading, in some cases, to reportage being very imbalanced and patently untrue (such as in the Vietnam War)?
"Nuh uhh, you don't know all just because you went to college!"
I'm just getting to the point of realising I'm not a kid anymore and realising how old teenagers do see me as. I'm also trying to come to terms with the fact I'll never become a reat athlete (it could have happened! I could have discovered some unknown talent.) Anyhow, now I've realised I'm no longer a kid, I've also realised that kids are stupid, really really stupid.
On a slightly different note I've got my final exams for my degree in less than a month and I can't stop arsing around and not revising....maybe I am still a kid afterall.
Free to do wat you please with your life liberty and property so long as you do not interfere with anyone elses L L or P.
If there is no state then how are infringments on someone's life, liberty or property dealt with?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this "Political Correctness", can anyone show me some examples of it being enacted?
Cogito ergo sum.. "I think, therefore I am". Not, "I am, therefore i think".
Cogito ergo sum is incorrect. The "I" in "I think" already assumes existance - it already assumes that thoughts are attached to an existance. It should be "There are thoughts" and nothing more.
What if we killed above a certain age bracket? So say we kill the 80+ people, then it wouldn't have as big an impact on the economy and also give the economy time to adjust before we lower it to 25.
At 12/22/06 05:38 AM, fli wrote:At 12/22/06 05:07 AM, Togukawa wrote: Spelling correction: replace "grammer" by "grammar".check and mate...
Grammar correction: "Check and mate..."
Content correction on this post: " "
Materialist: The view that all that exists is matter, configured into material objects. There are no minds or souls or immaterial spirits. Physical matter is all that exists. (Me)
Do ideas and thoughts exist?
No, I am clearly stating that they do not. This would really need another topic to discuss it. However, I'll take a very condensed stab at this - what right does a non-democratic state have to speak for its people?They can speak for their people because that is the way their society is.
No, that's bollocks. We are talking about legitimacy here, not "how things are". How can a non-representative state claim to legitimatly speak for their people?
You have to either respect all their traditions and all the ways they live or stop pretending you are the one indeed doing that when you clearly are not.
How am I respecting their traditions or claiming to?
In fact, of course, leaving theory aside, the institution of sovereignty became hereditary, and more or less theocratic. But the traditional concept of a contractual exchange of duties between sovereign and subject remained. The ruler had obligations toward the subject, and his contract was in theory dissoluble, sometimes also in practice dissoluble if he failed to carry out the terms of his contract.
Was there any great need for that huge chunk of text? You could have just said that Muslims use a concept similar to Locke's Social Contract and not pasted that. However, you could have not said that as well because it is irrelevant. There are huge problems of legitimacy with this idea and it really only complicates matters to include it.
I.E. This is a war (for them) of defence. They are defending Islam and Muslims from the US and Israel.So? You were saying they have clear and achievable goals: killing all Westerners or at least scaring us into submission. I agreed. Their reasoning is not what was at question here.
I did not say that Al Qaeda wished to kill all Westerners, neither did Bin Laden. He said that because of yada yada Muslims are at war with the US and so should kill Americans. Logically, if the US stops the yada yada then Al Qaeda would renounce its fatwa against Americans. Their goal is not to kill Americans, but to stop the Americans killing them and interfering in their affairs.
Negotiations are untenable in this situation. Completly.
I do not think negotiations are currently possible because of the current US position (and also now Al Qaeda's position caused by the US reaction to 9/11.) I do think that Bin Laden could have been negotiated with, but not now that there is essentially a war between the US and Al Qaeda.
Your view on Al Qaeda has been too coloured by the media, Bin Laden is motivated by America's disrespect for Islam.Oh, sage, please, teach me. I am so ignorant I have no idea what is going on. And oh great sage, where did you ever come to the conclusion I do not agree with that?
"You were saying they have clear and achievable goals: killing all Westerners or at least scaring us into submission. I agreed."
Damn the media, I am to stupid because of it. To bad those books I read
You can read? Bloody hell. I thought you had a translator.
You only have half the equation there. It wasnt just the British government moderating their positions and views, it was the IRA doing the same thing, with Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein distancing themself from the IRA. There was more going on than just the British government moderating themself. The IRA played a giant role in making the peace process possible because of this.
Do I need to dictionary.com negotiations for you? Negotiations are founded on compromise.
Negotiations lead to an end of the conflict.Did you totally miss those links?
Did you totally miss me saying they were military negotiations? Maybe your translator missed it.
I am not saying Israel does is not directly responsible for many of their problems in this department I am just highlighting inconsistencies in such a black and white view that "Negotiations end conflicts."
Negotiations do end conflicts. That is not to say all negotiations end conflicts. It is not a simple matter of beginning to negotiate and the conflict is suddenly over. Negotiations edge towards peace, even failed negotiations do some good by setting up channels of communication. I would fire that translator of yours if they are able to misconstrue such a simple sentence.
And I will repeat it again: NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT MEAN AN END TO CONFLICT. People end conflicts, not negotiations. Only when these people are ready to negotiate do things end.
Out of interest, why would terrorists not want to negotiate?
Intellectual masturbation. Nothing more. I know the usage of the words
I am sure you are all-knowing on the subject of semantics and so can effortlessly brush away one of the most important areas of political discussion - conceptual debate and clarity.
Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are the people who do that tactic. That is my definition and I believe it is the most accurate. States, people, groups, can be terrorists. Their goals do not make or define a terrorist, that is bunk. I do want a link saying this and yes I do have access to University databases.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dtra/terr orism_concepts.pdf
Page 5 onwards (anyone can actually read this one, I found it while looking at my lecture notes.)
Damn man. I do not appreciate the way you are speaking to me. Not at all. You are taking a hell of a lot of liberties and I do not appreciate it at all. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop trying to speak to me like you know more than me. I have yet to see evidence you have some great knowledge on this issue or some perspective I do not have or have never heard before, so cut the superiority shit. Stop talking down to me.
I just love how people can get ignored by tone on the internet, especially when they are telling other people things like "get a fucking clue" and other such far more direct language.
I do understand why terrorists do what they do in all cases.
Really? Jesus Christ, you should write a book.
THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE MY ABILITY TO JUDGE THEM.
Then, I must conclude, your judgement is clouded.
I have every right to believe these men are evil. You cut off heads, you murder people going to a wedding at a hotel, you murder Olympic athletes, you crash planes into buildings, you target civilians, women and children in particular, you are fucking evil, I dont care what your reason is. That is my judgement and I have every right to give it based on the informatin I possess.\
Yes, you have a right to give a judgement....I can't remember denying you that right. However, your judgement is not, as you so stringenly claim, objective or necessarily correct. You can make YOUR judgement, but it is not EVERYONE's judgement.
We are now back to semantics. "Illegitimate" and "evil" are not synonyms and the concepts of both legitimacy and evil are highly contested.You seem so intent on playing word games, prove their actions are not evil or illegitimate. You claim I am wrong, the burden of proof rests on you, prove me wrong. You havent do so at all so far and about all you have done is say evil is subjective and illegitimate is a contested term. Fine then. Give me examples of subjective evil and the contentious debate of the deciding what is a legitimate tactic. Yes, I do have University database access.
Ah, I missed this. The inevitable burden of proof argument. "I've made my argument (with no evidence) and you say I'm wrong....so you have to provide tons and tons of evidence to prove me wrong!"
As for your requests for information, they are misjudged. I have never said there is a contentious debate about deciding what is a legitimate tactic, I said there is a contentious debate about legitimacy. We can clearly see this with regards to Anarchists, who think states are illegitimate. As for the request for sources on subjective evil I will say, quite plainly, no. Evil is part of moral philosophy and is subject to a large amount of belief in it, plus I am a student of politics and can't be arsed familiarising myself with the main philosophical and theological debates on evil. I have better things to do.
I still fail to see how people chopping peoples heads off could possibly not be condemned as evil. Or terrorists blowing themselves in open markets. How could that possibly be subjective?
Was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima evil?
But it is easy for an outside observer to say the Hutu militias were evil and barbaric and wrong.
It is easy for an outside observer to say that. It isn't particularly helpful or necessarily correct, but it is easy.
I think they can be seen as legitimate grievences.Their greviences speak for no large group and carry no weight other than the violence they promise if their demands are not met.
I am unsure of that. Don't news stations show footage of people dancing in the street in support of Al Qaeda? Surely they have some level of support from the populations of Middle Eastern countries? Maybe thier methods are not supported, but their aims certainly will be.
That has nothing to do with self determination
Bin Laden seems to work with the idea of a Muslim or Arab nation that is being denied, he wants this to change. He wants the people of Arabia, not the Americans or Israelis, to decide what happens in Arabia (although this "decision" would be undemocratic and assumed to be support for an Islamic theocracy.)
And they live in societies where democracy has yet to become very powerful so the leaders speak for their people.
That's bollocks. The leaders do not speak for the people, they rule over the people and speak for themselves. They may have some support but their is no way to know how much.
The leaders have no problem and encourage Western troops in the Arabian peninsula since we are allies, that is not our problem. Jerusalem is half Palestinian half Israeli, that is a conflict to be settled between Israelis and Palestinians, not Bin Laden or his flunkies.
Not according to Bin Laden.....or the US.
How the fuck am I fanning the flames of hate by calling the monsters who carry out terrorism evil?
If you paint people as evil then how are you then meant to negotiate with them? No-one would negotiate with evil, you would destroy evil.
You have been arguing semantics the entire time and you take the leap that evil implies killing just for the sake of killing? I think someone needs to take a long hard look in the MOTHERFUCKIN HYPOCRACY MIRROR.
I was going to write "or some such thing" but ended up deciding against it. Meh. Would you like to discuss the meaning of evil Mr It's Intellectual Masturbation? What do you think it means?
What does my views on the legitimacy of Al Qaeda's aims have to do with anything? I can see their aims as illegitimate and still not think that they are evil.Still no stand on anything. You dance more than a ballerina.
Thanks.
All that is necessary for the triumph of violence is the spreading of emnity and hate. If you do not understand why something is attacking you, you can not hope to peacefully stop it.Oh, yet again the great sage Slizor is implying I do not know why these terrorists want to attack us. Uhh, uhh.
Great Sage? I suppose I could adopt that as my title, certainly on this forum.
Religious terrorism is a rather new trend in terrorism and is subject to quite a level of debate (as to what counts as terrorism.)Since you feel the need to ask you should know better that no, the PLO and Hamas are not what I was asking for. They may exploit religion but that is not what they are about. They are ethnic terrorists. The PLO more than Hamas but they both are much of the same.
This is why semantics are so important. You don't classify Hamas as religiously motivated terrorists, but the MIPT does. http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=49 Although it doesn't see any negotiations between Hamas and Israel, meh, give it time. As i have now introduced the MIPT database I would also like to dispel the myth that Al Qaeda primarily attacks civilian targets http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=6 see it there.
You make (or imply) a number of contentious claims in your wee sentence there. Firstly that terrorist groups represent only their membership (look at the IRA support in catholic communities, for example.)I will reverse that then. Since Al Qaeda claims to represent the interests of all Muslims or Hamas claims to represent the interests of all Palestinians they all should be treated as enemies. Since their constituency supports them, we shouldnt be treating them with any form of respect since they all are at war with us.
I did not say that Al Qaeda represents all Muslims, I said they don't only represent their membership - they represent some Muslims.
Again, you cant have it both ways. I thought I was being the understanding one by not claiming all Muslims were raging crazies wanting to kill all Westerners but you, the one who was supposedly defending them, takes that leap. I know that is not what you intended, but congratulations, you just did.
No I did not and yes, I can have it both ways. Stop working with binary propositions.
Secondly, that a state (or the government of a state) has a legitimate right to speak for the people in the state.You are implying they do not?
No, I am clearly stating that they do not. This would really need another topic to discuss it. However, I'll take a very condensed stab at this - what right does a non-democratic state have to speak for its people?
Indeed. Honestly, get a fucking clue, they would slit your throat if they thought it would help them. That is evil.
You missed out the important part, just before the "on this basis."
"All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: "
I.E. This is a war (for them) of defence. They are defending Islam and Muslims from the US and Israel.
And your question, why should a state begin negotiations with terrorist groups, has an obvious answer.....to stop terrorism.I never said do not negotiate. Never. I was simply casting light to the mantra of "Negotiate, negotiate" that the left likes to use. Negotiations with people who have no problem killing your children to affect change in their favor will always be plauged with problems. Especially when there is no way to keep track or hold them accountable to their negotiated terms. And super especially when you know they will probably just keep trying the same tactics Ummover and over and over again. And over.
Your example is not of negotiations for peace, merely military negotiations.
Negotiate, but negotiate with care. So far, I dont see a need to negotiate with Bin Laden or any of the satellite terrorist organizations associated with them. I have seen no evidence they would actually hold to the negotiated terms especially considering their disrespect for the West and what we stand for.
Your view on Al Qaeda has been too coloured by the media, Bin Laden is motivated by America's disrespect for Islam.
You confuse negotiations with caving. The IRA have been brought into the political process without achieving their ultimate goals because they have negotiated.You also confuse negotiatoins with the ending of conflict. It aint that easy. And the IRA only decided to stop fighting after decades and decades of death and murder. I am not to familiar with the IRA but I have gotten the impression their rhetoric only began to subside after they realized their goals COULD NOT be achieved. This took decades of fighting, not just simple talks between people.
The IRA decided to stop fighting after they were brought into the political process and their views listened to and acted upon. That they have not achieved their ultimate goal is evidence of the ability to negotiate with terrorist organisations. Negotiations lead to an end of the conflict.
Oh my god, please, the semantics. I cant take it. I dont want to play word games, if you want to, please tell me because I will stop debating. Please, dont do this, I dont want to play word games, that isnt a debate it is intellectual masturbation.
If you feel that way then you are free to discontinue responding. Semantics are necessary in political discussion because almost all political words and concepts are contested. Your definition of terrorism excludes the possibility of state terrorism, one of the foremost forms of terrorism. You may not wish to consider what the words you use mean and what you refer to when you use them, but that does not mean that it is not a good move to do so.
My definition of terrorists is people who use violent and coercieve means against states to try to affect policy. And yes, trying to bring about Armageddon is affecting policy. It is affecting the entirety of reality when you try to bring that about, of course its going to affect policy.
It may affect policy but that was not their aim and was not intended, unlike with actual terrorist movements who do want to affect policy. Their aim was Armageddon.
The ends do not justify the means, I have never expressed any view to the contrary.They why exactly are you defending them? If you disdain their tactics, say it, dont play these semantic games. Go ahead and say it, they are evil.
This is not semantics, this is anayltical sublty. I am not defending terrorists, I am offering (better) explainations of their actions. I do not agree with their tactics, but (in some cases) I can understand why they would resort to them.
You seem confused. A group may have legitimate aims, but use methods that are considered illegitimate. Accepting that their aims are legitimate does not mean an acceptance of their methods as legitimate.I dont care about this, maybe you missed the story I made but I covered this already. We are talking about if they are evil. You carry out illigetimate tactics, you do evil things, you are evil. That is what we are discussing. They are evil.
We are now back to semantics. "Illegitimate" and "evil" are not synonyms and the concepts of both legitimacy and evil are highly contested.
You honestly think this is legitimate?
I think they can be seen as legitimate grievences. I don't really buy into the whole "self-determination" and "nationalism" thing, so I don't see them, ultimatly, as legitimate. However, since I recognise that the international system is run on the idea of self-determination as being legitimate then I can begin to accept them as legitimate (if slightly conservative) aims.
I said RELATIVE for a reason. They are obviously angered enough at the West to throw their lives away to kill innocent Westerners for a reason. That is textbook desperation. They obviously dont have a military or enough funding to finance an open war against the United States so they throw their lives away to kill innocent Westerners for a reason. That is relative poverty.
No, that is relative power inequality. "Terrorism is the logical choice when the power ratio of government to challenger is high."
I know Bin Laden has money. I know he is well educated. I know he doesnt need to do anything he does. That does not preclude desperation or relative poverty. Not in the slightest. If you mean to suggest these men, who throw their lives away in an effort to kill, is not desperation, you need to make that case, you cant just tell me Im wrong because these men had money and were educated. You are using a lot of circular logic.
We've strayed on to suicide terrorism here, but never the less. Why people commit suicide bombings is a complex question and one that there is little empirical evidence for (it tends to go up in smoke when the act in question is committed.) I see no point in arguing this with you as I will simplify other people's complex reasoning for it. I would be happy to provide you with some resources to allow you to study this properly, do you have access to a University library?
A slightly off-topic response (I wasn't talking about evil at that point.) I will simply reiterate a point already made numerous times, evil is subjective.Bullshit. I take extreme offense to that. Evil is not subjective. If you refuse to stand up and say these men are evil, I will do it for you. I will shout twice as loud that these men are evil.
And I will continue with constructive enquiry as to why they commit terrorism in an effort to stop them, while you fan the flames of hate and spread unhelpful ignorance.
How many people have to die for you to take a stand and say these men are evil? Or would it take a death close to you to do that?
I do not believe in evil. I believe in pettiness, greed, etc, but not evil. Evil implies that they are commiting terrorism for sheer bloodthirstyness, which is not the case.
I can take a stand and say this was evil. But since evil is subjective to you, I guess you really cannot take that leap, can you? Or do you (I will strawman and generalize of the types I know like you) call this evil despite the fact you believe in the subjectivity of evil? You cant have it both ways, I recgonize that. I get the feeling many like you that share the political leanings you have do not.
I don't think US support for the Contras was evil, I think it was undemocratic, misguided and selfish, but not evil.
It is not a bold statement when you are me and have done what I have done. I would not justify terrorists actions because I do not think them just, This does not detract from my argument.What stand are you taking then? You dont think they are evil yet you dont support them. You claim some terrorists have legitimate aims yet have taken no stand on the legitimacy of Al Qaedas claim. Take a fucking stand, grow a spine.
What does my views on the legitimacy of Al Qaeda's aims have to do with anything? I can see their aims as illegitimate and still not think that they are evil.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Take a goddamned stand.
All that is necessary for the triumph of violence is the spreading of emnity and hate. If you do not understand why something is attacking you, you can not hope to peacefully stop it.
I did write a response to cellardoor's "rebuttal" but it was over the word limit and ended up getting lost. However, when I came back I found a slightly more rational rebuttal that I have chosen to respond to. Also, for cellardoor I suggest he reads this - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/interna tional/fatwa_1998.html
The aim of a terrorist is to effect political change - they have a higher goal.There goal is immaterial.
Actually the goal of a group is the most important factor in deciding if they are a terrorist group or not. For example I would argue that Aun Shinrikyo, despite superficially looking like a terrorist organisation, was not because they lacked a political goal (what they wanted was Armageddon.) Definitions of terrorism tend to go like "the use of criminal violence by an organisation for a political goal".
You legitimize their tactics when you express sympathy for their goals.
The ends do not justify the means, I have never expressed any view to the contrary.
Opinions like that do exactly what their leaders want from the public, legitimization. And because of their tactics, they deserve no legitimization. None. Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. And their ends especially dont justify their means when their means are so violent and extreme.
You seem confused. A group may have legitimate aims, but use methods that are considered illegitimate. Accepting that their aims are legitimate does not mean an acceptance of their methods as legitimate.
People don't like to admit that terrorists are rational because it opens a space where the grievences of the terrorists can be seen as legitimate.What grievance of Al Qaeda’s is legitimate?
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, US involvement in supposedly sovereign Arab states. Both of these can be seen as legitimate grievences.
How then, do you explain non-religious terrorist suicide attacks by ethno-nationalist groups such as the Tamil Tigers?Desperation and relative poverty in relation to who they are fighting.
Interestingly terrorists tend not to be in either situation. It is a commonly held view, but one that comes under little scrutiny. For example, where the 9/11 bombers in a situation of desperation and relative poverty....or were they educated and living with a good general standard of life?
Rarely do you see it....because it is rarely reported.I will wait for a link.
Hahaha. Sadly the internet is not a haven of academic resources, unless you have access to JSTOR or Swetwise (or any other mainstream ejournal resoure)?
No, they intentionally kill civilians so as to forward a political cause.Semantics.
No, an actual difference in opinion.
Terrorists are rational, generally quite intelligent and educated and are mainly motivated by a sense of injustice.None of that precludes the ability to be evil. You could be describing Hitler there for all I know.
A slightly off-topic response (I wasn't talking about evil at that point.) I will simply reiterate a point already made numerous times, evil is subjective.
Or they actually know more about terrorism than you do because they've studied terrorism, properly.That is a rather bold statement to make considering you have said nothing justifying their actions or debunked the fact their actions are indeed what most (by most I mean the entire world) would consider evil.
It is not a bold statement when you are me and have done what I have done. I would not justify terrorists actions because I do not think them just, This does not detract from my argument.
However, terrorists have and will negotiate with states if a dialogue is opened up between the two groups.1) Which religiously motivated terrorist group has shown any history of being open to talks with states?
Religious terrorism is a rather new trend in terrorism and is subject to quite a level of debate (as to what counts as terrorism.) Could I use the PLO as an example? Or how about current Hamas movements with regards to Israel? The problem is that most religious terrorism has been motivated by causes that remain unresolved.
2) You see nothing wrong with non-state entities representing no one but their membership making demands of states through coercive, violent methods?
You make (or imply) a number of contentious claims in your wee sentence there. Firstly that terrorist groups represent only their membership (look at the IRA support in catholic communities, for example.) Secondly, that a state (or the government of a state) has a legitimate right to speak for the people in the state. Thirdly, that I in any way support the idea of terrorism.
Why should a state even begin to entertain negotiations with some groups (like Al Qaeda) when their demands are impossible to meet and, frankly, are ridiculous?
If you read the 1998 fatwa you will see that Al Qaeda has clear goals that are achievable. And your question, why should a state begin negotiations with terrorist groups, has an obvious answer.....to stop terrorism.
3) You legitimize and encourage their actions every time you cave to them.
You confuse negotiations with caving. The IRA have been brought into the political process without achieving their ultimate goals because they have negotiated.
Um you call the goal of killing innocent civilians in order to frighten and terrorize civilians into submission is a good reason?
That's incorrect. Terrorists (apart from state terrorists) do not kill civilians in order to terrorize them into submission. The aim of a terrorist is to effect political change - they have a higher goal. For example, Al Queda has two goals. The first is the removal of US troops from the Arabian peninsula and the second is a separate Palestinian state that includes Jerusalem. They take actions to achieve this goal (i.e. they are rational) if this includes pitched battles and the seizure of territory, they will fight pitched battles and seize territory. If this includes flying planes into buildings and giving their lives for a greater cause, then they will do that.
People don't like to admit that terrorists are rational because it opens a space where the grievences of the terrorists can be seen as legitimate.
What's the difference in the use of violence by a state and the use of violence by a terrorist?
Fuck no. They aren't fighting for a benevolent cause, they are fighting and dying for a reward that they think they will attain in Heaven (mansions and 72 virgins).
They don't value their own lives, they don't think rationally and have logical goals and desires. They want to kill people in the name of their religion in return for rewards that they are certain they will receive.
How then, do you explain non-religious terrorist suicide attacks by ethno-nationalist groups such as the Tamil Tigers?
Um the terrorists that are 'fighting for what they believe in' usually do just go and shoot people for what would appear to be no reason.
That you can see no reason does not mean there is no reason. I would go into this further but you are quite sparse on the old examples.
They aren't fighting for good, they are fighting in order to kill, destroy and terrorize. They aren't fighting to liberate, save, or uplift anyone.
You really don't know anything about terrorism, do you? I'll say it again - ethno-nationalist terrorism.
Rarely do you see terrorists actually claim to be liberating anyone, they are just glorifying their atrocious acts of massacre and murder.
Rarely do you see it....because it is rarely reported.
... taking up arms by murdering innocent civilians, using civilians as human shields, and only really seeking power for themselves?
You've got a real problem with the whole "innocent civilians" thing, don't you?
Um, terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause innocent victims to be killed so that they can create propaganda.
No, they intentioanlly kill civilians so as to forward a political cause.
How many times have terrorists killed their OWN PEOPLE intentionally in order to blame it on their enemies for propaganda effect? Many, MANY fucking times. Terrorists have no regard for civilians, they do everything in their power TO KILL civilians regardless of who the civilians are, what religion they belong to and so forth.
Seriously, do some actual research and stop relying on shitty biased US and Israeli views on terrorism.
Terrorists are evil. If you say anything to the contary well then you are just stupid.
Terrorists are rational, generally quite intelligent and educated and are mainly motivated by a sense of injustice.
There is a difference between gorilla fighters and terrorists. Gorillas target ONLY the enemy. Terrorists do everything in their power to kill and destroy in order to not only kill the enemy but to create anger against them by others, to mislead others deceitfully against their enemy
Have a look at the Tamil Tigers or FARC if you think that such a distinction can be made.
If the terrorists that you think are neither good nor evil had 1/100000000th of the power that the US has, the entire world would be destroyed right now. There would be Jews, Christians or innocents anywhere in the world still alive.
How about a little evidence of that being a terrorist organisation's aim?
Because the terrorists have NO RESTRAINT, they obey no laws, they have no decency. Meanwhile, they are fighting troops of countries that try their hardest to avoid innocent death and to single out the terrorists.
Anyone who can actually say that 'terrorists are neither good nor evil" has a fucking mental problem, or is just incredibly biased or brainwashed.
Or they actually know more about terrorism than you do because they've studied terrorism, properly.
Now I'm not arguing that terrorists aren't misguided. Their tendency to view things in black and white (you're either with us or against us sort of thing) and their absolute belief they are right (we will fight to the death) are a potent combination. However, terrorists have and will negotiate with states if a dialogue is opened up between the two groups.
Probably for their same reason support Castro.
They're too busy engulfed in the hatred of another nation to see his flaws, and the ones that arent are either trying to assasinate him or forming an underground resistance to force him to step down.
You're not seriously comparing Castro to Pinochet are you?
Hmm thats funny, ever single country in the world with a Christian majority is a democracy with a successful economy.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /geos/rw.html
Hmmmmm.
You gotta understand half the people who post here are actually middle eastern terrorists, seeking to propagate their hatred of our culture in the form of little 15 year olds anxious for something to rebel against . . . preferably an entity that provides for them and allows them to grow.
Heh, "our" culture.
Christmas is a cultural holiday....at least in Britain.Wait, what.
When the hell did Christmas start to represent a certain race or culture like Kwansa.
It doesn't.....but that wasn't my point. Christmas is no longer a religious holiday, it is a cultural one.
Same words, different meanings.
