Defnitions

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, August 17, 2006 22:26
VIEWED: 2739
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, I was much in the same boat here. But in the interests of functional communication between us here, it doesn't help.

Fine. I’ll avoid using the term, until the first person condemns me for trying to paint all Arabs as terrorists.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's like saying the japanese nationalists are of today terrorists because of the kamikazi. I think it's weak, and counter-constructive.
Hezbollah is not first and foremost a terrorist organization, certainly not viewed as such in Lebanon. I think of Hezbollah being about the same closeness to being terrorists as Sinn Fein. If you're in england, you'll hear people refer to Gerry Adams as the terrorist, but you don't hear it so much in ireland. (or of couse the US)

Japanese nationalist during WWII weren’t far from terrorists and many probably were, but Kamikazes were used against military targets, and that is an important qualifiable distinction. Hezbollah doesn’t target military targets, unless they are convenient. Must of Hezbollah’s targeting polices are civilian. And it doesn’t make any difference whether Hezbollah is supported in Lebanon or what benevolent acts Hezbollah imparts to its Lebanese supporters. A qualification as a terrorist organization is made based on a determined policy of terrorism, which Hezbollah demonstrates. That it also builds roads and hospitals is nice and all, but irrelevant to a terrorist classification. Al Capone was one of the largest contributors to many charities and held soup kitchens and offered assistance to many of his supporters, he is none-the-less a mafia boss and criminal for it. And Hezbollah is no less a terrorist organizations for its acts of charity.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
no one's sayign we should, but there's not a lot of terrorism. Hezbollah didn't bomb trains in spain,

No, they just shot rockets at Jews during peace-time. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. You can call them whatever you want, but I’m going to call them what they are.

And as far as Sinn Fein is considered, that’s a terrorist organization too. That could be changing, as things are settling down in Northern Ireland.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
All I know about it is what I read in the arab press, and they call it an underground communication network which supports terrorists. Mujahideen is the main one, as bin laden's own, but they say in the arab world no one calls them terrorists, or calls the people who do attack 'al qaeda' it's totally different from how the west views it, ie. we have it wrong. But being in your line of work, you may know a great deal more about it than I.

If the truth be told, Al Qaeda hasn’t existed for some time now. The US/UK led invasion of Afghanistan essentially destroyed it, but Al Qaeda was essentially a network of many terrorist organizations. I don’t think anyone has ever determined exactly how large it was. At the top of Al Qaeda was a terrorist organization called the MAK (Maktab Khadamāt al-Mujāhidīn al-'Arab). This organization does not exist anymore; the last reminents of it were destroyed in Afghanistan. But it’s important to understand that the word Mujahideen is not an organization; it descriptive of an individual and it simply means something akin to “freedom fighter,” or “one who partakes a jihad.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:58 PM

Quote:
Fine. I’ll avoid using the term, until the first person condemns me for trying to paint all Arabs as terrorists.

Fair enough. For the first time I have hope that we may make peace after all.

Quote:
Japanese nationalist during WWII weren’t far from terrorists and many probably were, but Kamikazes were used against military targets, and that is an important qualifiable distinction. Hezbollah doesn’t target military targets, unless they are convenient. Must of Hezbollah’s targeting polices are civilian.

I actually don't disagree. But for the most part, our enemies are viewing everyone who attacks them (and every israeli is technically military, according to the israelis, and the terrorists certainly use this.)
But this is about language, and actually winning a war of words, or maybe, reaching a diplomatic accord of words. At the moment, we're fueling the verbal flames, which keep us here from communicating, and in a larger sense, prevent us as a nation from reaching an accord in the ME. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in Condi, who I thought would be good at this job, precisely for this reason, she uses inflamatory remarks like calling the chinese govt. irresponsible and immature, which I don't disagree with, and sure, I respect someone who tells it like it is, but it doesn't help us.

Quote:
And it doesn’t make any difference whether Hezbollah is supported in Lebanon or what benevolent acts Hezbollah imparts to its Lebanese supporters. A qualification as a terrorist organization is made based on a determined policy of terrorism, which Hezbollah demonstrates. That it also builds roads and hospitals is nice and all, but irrelevant to a terrorist classification. Al Capone was one of the largest contributors to many charities and held soup kitchens and offered assistance to many of his supporters, he is none-the-less a mafia boss and criminal for it. And Hezbollah is no less a terrorist organizations for its acts of charity.

And if the purpose here were to tell it like it is I might not disagree, but it does actually make a different. In the eyes of the lebanese, Hezbollah is the united way, or for all i know, it's mother theresa. Specifically, I don't know what branch of hezbollah supports terrorists, or committed terrorist acts. I'm not going to call defending lebanon a terrorist act. Israel invaded. If you think about our own history, George Washington et al were definitely terrorists, according to our working definition. But what made them different from random malcontents was that we were at war with Britain.

Quote:
No, they just shot rockets at Jews during peace-time. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. You can call them whatever you want, but I’m going to call them what they are.

There was peace-time? Did I miss something?
I think that when the admin did this, it was crossing a line which should never have been crossed. We called a political party in a foreign country a 'terrorist organization.' Don't you see what a can of worms that is? No, a pandora's box? We may never get this one shut. There is absolutely no point at which that logic ends. In short order, you can define every political organization on earth which is not you a terrorist organization. Surely the Chinese communists are as much of a terrorist organization as hezbollah. Or Sinn Fein as I said. Why not the Democrats? Maches which turn into riots? Or republicans? Bombing an abortion clinic is a terrorist act. Who's safe from this definition?

Quote:
And as far as Sinn Fein is considered, that’s a terrorist organization too. That could be changing, as things are settling down in Northern Ireland.

Ah, and this is where we ran into a disagreement. Okay. I was using 'terrorist organization' as a term for a group of people who could not be brought into mainstream of political life. I think this is how the admin. is using it.
Even Hamas was talking about settling down until the israelis arrested them. I think that, sure, I'm all in favor of political parties with no armam

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:16 PM

Hippies: Wonderful, beautiful, shiny, happy folk. Loved by everyone.

More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I actually don't disagree. But for the most part, our enemies are viewing everyone who attacks them (and every israeli is technically military, according to the israelis, and the terrorists certainly use this.)
But this is about language, and actually winning a war of words, or maybe, reaching a diplomatic accord of words. At the moment, we're fueling the verbal flames, which keep us here from communicating, and in a larger sense, prevent us as a nation from reaching an accord in the ME. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in Condi, who I thought would be good at this job, precisely for this reason, she uses inflamatory remarks like calling the chinese govt. irresponsible and immature, which I don't disagree with, and sure, I respect someone who tells it like it is, but it doesn't help us.

Well we aren’t going to win a war on anything, by framing our argument so that the other side is always right. If someone wants to believe that Hezbollah is nothing more then a Lebanese political party, then they can have at it, but that’s a point of view, not a definition. However, I’m not going to rewrite history to suit that argument. I applaud the effort to define terms, although words like “terrorist” probably don’t need defining as much as concepts like what it means to “target civilians.” However, trying to redefine a terrorist organization as not being a terrorist organization does nothing but play to one side of the argument and inflames the issue more then provide a level field for discussion. You can’t just decide, after Hezbollah starts a war that kills a thousand people, that we’re going to wash their slate clean and start over so that defenders of Hezbollah will feel more comfortable about supporting that position. You can hold whatever opinion you like, but I’m not really a fan of political correctness, I think it tends to get in the way of the issues.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
There was peace-time? Did I miss something?

Very possibly.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, and this is where we ran into a disagreement. Okay. I was using 'terrorist organization' as a term for a group of people who could not be brought into mainstream of political life. I think this is how the admin. is using it.

I don’t think that is a good definition of “terrorist organization,” as I’m sure any such organization could be brought into a mainstream, given time and appropriate negotiation. Sinn Fein is almost there, hopefully for Northern Ireland (where I have family) that will continue to be the case. Hezbollah and Hamas may someday be brought into the mainstream of political life, but that hasn’t happened now and it won’t happen until sufficient pressure is apply, as was the case with PIRA.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hmm, really? I thought it was much larger. I mean, there are african branches. If we disrupt a command structure in afgh. does it change anything? I thought the whole point was it was an acephalous organization, OBL aside.

It certainly is now. Although most terrorist groups, even those with a definable command hierarchy are somewhat acephalous, with at least some independent compartmentalization.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Well we aren’t going to win a war on anything, by framing our argument so that the other side is always right.

LOL., sorry. I know it looks like this sometimes, but this is not what I'm trying to do., There is a strong tendency by all sides to state their position as the most extreme possible, but those positions are precisely the ones which can never reach a compromise, which is why 99% of people have zero impact on the political process. My post master said to me recently 'oh, i just always vote for the republican' (not true, he voted for perot) anyway, what a pointless position. If it were true (sure i know a lot of these, both sides) what politician would ever do a gorram thing for them? Check, Frank is on our side. Moving on.

But seriously, I'm aiming for neutral terminology, in which we could debate not just with democrats, but with al qaeda, without alienating, smearing and attempting to marginalize (we marginalize ourselves instead)
Is there something wrong with Hezbollah and Hamas?
Sure. Absolutely, no question about it.
But how would a summit meeting go if we opened with "you're evil"?

You and I know where it would go, which is where we are right now. And sure, then you can say "hey, I've got a bigger gun" and the islamists can say "hey, we don't care, we have god, and oh yeah, more people." and it's true. Ultimately, whether we can win is irrelevent (we can't - long term, they're defenders and outnumber is, it's just a matter of time until they balance the technology, ie. buy from china)
But the goal here is really do avoid dead people, because we got ten million dead people which accomplishes what exactly? Does it foster trust? Will arabs be buying american products, game systems, clothes, watching our tv shows like they were in the 80s? No, not for a long time, and every day that time is getting longer. Will the islamic extremists teach them they should sacrafice themselves to god? sure, and more and more every day, and their children will do it, too.

Because we're losing the idea war. And when we lose the war war, (just a matter of time) and we lose the idea war, then the end resutl will be an independent muslim power which is united, (by us and mefta) armed to the teeth (bought from china remember) and with an enormous grudge against the united states. (Now that's a plan.)

Quote:
If someone wants to believe that Hezbollah is nothing more then a Lebanese political party, then they can have at it, but that’s a point of view, not a definition. However, I’m not going to rewrite history to suit that argument. I applaud the effort to define terms, although words like “terrorist” probably don’t need defining as much as concepts like what it means to “target civilians.”

hmm,. i thought it was a definition, but no arab party is a party in the same sense that republicans are a party. 'political milita'?

Quote:
However, trying to redefine a terrorist organization as not being a terrorist organization does nothing but play to one side of the argument and inflames the issue more then provide a level field for discussion.

I disagree, but we can move on. I don't think that Bush's redefinition of terrorism can hold. it's too broad. Terrorist was very well know as someone or some group who commits acts of terrorism. Terrorist-supporting organizations need a new name, because the US govt. is and has been a terrorist-supporting organization for a long time. We supported bin laden against russia, the contras and various other guerilla groups in C.A. So, no I can't accept that broad a definition.

Quote:
You can’t just decide, after Hezbollah starts a war that kills a thousand people, that we’re going to wash their slate clean and start over so that defenders of Hezbollah will feel more comfortable about supporting that position.

I disagree that Hezbollah started the war, I was reading the news, I remember the events as they happened. Israel is spinning, I'm going to have to turn this one on you, it's an opinion, not a fact. The fact depends on wh

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But seriously, I'm aiming for neutral terminology, in which we could debate not just with democrats, but with al qaeda, without alienating, smearing and attempting to marginalize (we marginalize ourselves instead)
Is there something wrong with Hezbollah and Hamas?
Sure. Absolutely, no question about it.
But how would a summit meeting go if we opened with "you're evil"?

If it were possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas, then you would have a point, but it is not. You can only negotiate with a terrorist organization from a position of strength. So yes, looking them in the eye and telling them they are evil is the first step, but we aren’t negotiating with these groups on this board, so the point is somewhat moot.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But the goal here is really do avoid dead people, because we got ten million dead people which accomplishes what exactly?

Well for one thing it stirs anti-Israeli sentiment which is exactly what Hezbollah wanted.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
hmm,. i thought it was a definition, but no arab party is a party in the same sense that republicans are a party. 'political milita'?

At least.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I disagree, but we can move on. I don't think that Bush's redefinition of terrorism can hold. it's too broad. Terrorist was very well know as someone or some group who commits acts of terrorism. Terrorist-supporting organizations need a new name, because the US govt. is and has been a terrorist-supporting organization for a long time. We supported bin laden against russia, the contras and various other guerilla groups in C.A. So, no I can't accept that broad a definition.

Actually we supported the Afghan resistance against legitimate military targets. That’s not the same thing as supporting terrorism. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan (only a few of which were financed by bin Laden) were targeting the Soviet military; they weren’t targeting Soviet civilians, who happened to be very far away from Afghanistan.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I disagree that Hezbollah started the war, I was reading the news, I remember the events as they happened. Israel is spinning, I'm going to have to turn this one on you, it's an opinion, not a fact. The fact depends on what you classify as an act of war, it was an escalation, and where you draw the line on act of war is probably a matter of opinion. I called this war as a war when Israel jailed the Hamas leaders, which I think was probably about 2 days ahead of anyone who pegs Hezbollah as striking first.

And the Hamas leaders were facilitating terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians along with the abduction of an Israeli soldier, which made them legitimate military targets and criminals. We can play this game all day: going tit for tat, until we end up in 1948 with the Arab invasion of Israel whose only crime was being granted independence by the United Nations (who also granted the Palestinians independence), so I win. Either way the event that precipitated this current war was the cross-border attack by Hezbollah. Even Nasrallah admitted that. And Lebanon is responsible for Hezbollah OR Hezbollah is the ruler of Lebanon. Either way, Lebanon was responsible.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, not at all disagreeing here. But did Sinn Fein come back to their senses because of some dropping a million tons of TNT on N.I.? Or was it because dialogue was possible, and people started to listen?

Dialogue was possible because the UK put the proverbial boot down on the IRA. You cannot negotiate with a terrorist organization except from a position of strength.

However, Lebanon and Northern Ireland are not the same. Lebanon is an independent state. The only way Israel can defend itself from heavily armed militia raids from another state is war. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is a Home Nation of the United Kingdo

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:30 AM

Quote:
If it were possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas, then you would have a point, but it is not.

Sure it is, or will be, all that's needed is a table and a translator, but I'm not trying to negotiate with Hamas, just with people on the forum, for now. I want something unbiased enough that if someone has the PoV "yay hamas" we could debate with that person, and get a positive result rather than a flame war. But I think on the bigger picture, the idea has potentially broader applications.

Quote:
You can only negotiate with a terrorist organization from a position of strength. So yes, looking them in the eye and telling them they are evil is the first step, but we aren’t negotiating with these groups on this board, so the point is somewhat moot.

Again, really not disagreeing, thus my statement to the effect that the all honey approach also doesn't work. But the US has a position of strength. Or had. If we fight them and lose we will really lose that advantage. Fortunately, we're not fighting hezbollah or hamas... yet. If we step into this conflict, it could be a mistake for that reason, but that's a whole new discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
But the goal here is really do avoid dead people, because we got ten million dead people which accomplishes what exactly?

Well for one thing it stirs anti-Israeli sentiment which is exactly what Hezbollah wanted.

Thanks, yes, it does at that.

Quote:
Quote:
'political milita'?

At least.

okay, political militia can get modifiers, but the point of the language thing is that if the language itself is biased, the other side rightfully so will have no desire to listen to it. No intelligent response would be forth coming from the opposition to a statement containing something like piece 'Sheik Nazirallah'. It just generates flame wars that get nothing accomplished, waster everyone's time, and are probably stress inducing.

Mainly, the statement should be in discource, not corrupted or slanted language. the 'hezbollah militia are behaving as unlawful combantants' is a statement of position which contains no bias within the language.
I think in principle, everyone agrees that a statement like "we lost vietnam because the shifty eyed gooks used savage cannibal tactics" is less inflamatory than "we lost vietnam because the vc failed to adhere to the geneva convention" (whether or not you agree with the statement, which is a totally other thing.)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I disagree, but we can move on. I don't think that Bush's redefinition of terrorism can hold. it's too broad. Terrorist was very well know as

someone or some group who commits acts of terrorism. Terrorist-supporting organizations need a new name, because the US govt. is and has

been a terrorist-supporting organization for a long time. We supported bin laden against russia, the contras and various other guerilla groups in

C.A. So, no I can't accept that broad a definition.

Quote:
Actually we supported the Afghan resistance against legitimate military targets. That’s not the same thing as supporting terrorism. The

Mujahideen in Afghanistan (only a few of which were financed by bin Laden) were targeting the Soviet military; they weren’t targeting Soviet

civilians, who happened to be very far away from Afghanistan.

Tomato Tomaato. When Reagan (I hear JEB mostly ran this one) supported the Contras, it was to carry out the negative activities against the sandanistas, but when the contras bombed school busses, we didn't instantly cut the support. Certainly from the position of a neutral observer, and absolutely if you were nicaragua, the Contras were terrorists.

I agree that bin laden in the soviet union isn't a terrorist., I'd probably argue the same for muslims fighting an invading empire (israel was probably already this, but that's a grayer area, I meant our opponents in iraq - I would accept terrorists for iraqi or foreign groups who attack iraqi civilians)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, we seem to have lost our audience, so here's a question on a slight subtopic. Do you think N. Ireland *should* be a separate country?.

No. A majority in Northern Ireland don’t really want to be a separate country, and they are much better off as part of the UK.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3