Defnitions by dreamtrove

can we pick and mix?

'Utterly dedicated to the fifty bucks'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:11 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Your definitions are good because they aren't inflamitory, however there are positions without a definition.

I would consider myself a leftist libratarian, because I firmly believe in civil rights, but also believe in social programs.

Problem is libretarian implies no government interference, and while I don't want government interference on a personal level, I think that lack of government regulation on corporations is essentially interference - that it gives companies carte blanche to interfere in the right of the people to pursue happiness.

How should I be defined?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:17 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

How should I be defined?

By your sterling character sir, we see eye to eye on this.
But every political POV has it's merrits.

Peace is the goal of Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:22 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Thank you Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:25 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Here's a fun site for finding out 'what you are,' in a manner of speaking.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

And, something a little more on-topic: how many words are going to be defined?

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:33 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
can we pick and mix?

'Utterly dedicated to the fifty bucks'

Exactly! Enough with labels; let's mix!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:59 PM

I need to state clearly, this is not a new moderate PC. PC is about silencing ideas. ie. it's very not PC to say that south africa was more stable before mandela than it is today. This is only about neutral words, so we can debate without killing each other.

Chris is right, every point of view in valid.

Including this one: The PoV of the "islamo-fascists" a term which definitely has to go. Also, "terrorist" has to go as it is being applied to a very large group of people who have never committed or supported the committing of a terrorist act.

I nominate the following term: rebel

The leader of an islamic rebel group is the rebel leader. He's not the radical terrorist, he's not Osama's number two (unless he's actually Zawahiri) He's the rebel leader. His soldiers are fighters, not terrorists, or insurgents, but also not freedom fighters or heros. If they're uniformed, they can be soldiers. Any thoughts?

But unlike PC the following is acceptable:

"The shiia rebel leader in iraq reminds me of mussolini."

I would disagree with that statement, but it's not slanderous spin. It's an opinion. It's less inflamatory than this:

"islamo-fascist terrorist moqtada al sadr continued his anti-semitic campaign today with his america-hating demonstration dedicated to destroying israel. He also sucks monkey cock."

And sure, people can say whatever they want, but we only have to respect those opinions, political PoVs which can be worded in neutral language.

And I'll retire "lefty-wacko" :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:49 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Exactly! Enough with labels; let's mix!

'Jeet Kune Do politics' all around!

Eclectic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:07 PM

YinYang,

No offense, but political compasses are the most nefarious form of campaignign. They are always weighted to tell you that you are one thing, so as to convince some people to join that movement.

I object to the idea in general, and didn't fill out the quiz. I to decided copy the questions and kibitz them.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
- inevitable? I'll bite. This is a silly question, but it's slanted to make you give the left answer: ie. do you like humans or greed?

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
- this is a stupid question. and it does not define a political position. It's a leftists view of the right, but under a democratic admin. a majority of the left behaves the same way.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
- this isn't a political question either, many people are 'proud americans'

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
- racism is now a political PoV?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- whatever

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
All authority should be questioned.
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
- these are more or less political either left-right, or libertarian-authoritarian.

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
- sure a libertarian might say these, but they might not. An authoritarian might say them.

- sure a libertarian might say this, but they might not. An authoritarian might say them.

The rich are too highly taxed.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
- i suspect 90% of the population says no to these, and so I assume they are state to help shift the poll-taker to the left. myself I might say yes anyway
particularly on the medical care, in a pure capitalist no holds barred chaos, this statement would still not be true, those who had no ability to pay would end up with a bill

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
- there's no way that this is a political point of view in any way. Libertarian extremist Osama Bin Laden would agree with Authoritarian Saddam Hussein that it was true, and right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan would agree with left-wing extremist Ralph Nader that it was false.

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
- if this is political I don't get which way. Maybe it's a libertarian issue. Maybe.

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
- separatism is also a political point of view in a way, but not in any of the axes that the poll is testing for. I'm sure societies of Left, Right, Libertarian and Authoritarian have all existed with this view and with the opposite one.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
- child abuse is a political PoV? Not. I think this is an anti-conservative question because it's a reference to James Dobson, a christian conservative and freak of nature. But I can tell you this is a stereotype and not statistically true. It's pretty offensive actually.

It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
- ? is this libertarian ? I thought everyone probably agreed with this, it's a statement of psychology.

Marijuana should be legalised.
- does anyone have this position? surely not a 25% slice of the political pie.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
- just about anyone would probably agree, i'm not sure what the point is. I might disagree, but only because i think that you can employ yourself without a job and be useful to society. But then does it become a job?

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
- oh come on. This is amazingly offensive to people on the opposite end of the spectrum to me so much so that even I'm offended. This is supposed to identify an authoritarian position but there is no reason or logic behind the statement. I don't think even dobson holds this position. jack kevorkian might, but we're way out on the permanent asylum fringe.

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
- again with the child abuse

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
- that's probably a lefty snag question, but i'm not sure.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
- this is a right snag, sure.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
- huh?

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
- again with the xenophobia. what is this?

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
- again with the deceptive language. absolutely no one would hold this position. I'm a pro-capitalist fringe looney and *I* don't hold this position. Obviously, what's good for walmart is not good for local shop keepers, the above generalization is engineered to always be false.

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
- hmm. I wasn't aware this was a political issue. Who holds it? I suppose conservatives would theoretically support this because public funding is big govt. Specifically, it depends.

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
- I hope this is a libertarian snag. If it's a left-snag, it's deceptive

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
- maybe true. is that an authoritarian position? what if the one party is the libertarian party?

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
hmm. this oughtta be a auth. snag also.

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
- sad that this is a political football. As such, it sometimes changes sides. At the moment, unfortunately, it's a right wing issue in the US. I oppose it unequivocally.

In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
- auth snag

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
- this is not a political question. Only one person holds this PoV that I know of who is Haider, an authoritarian, but there may be many others who like abstract art.

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
- i hope this is an auth,. snag, but it might not be fair even as such. a majority of them probably believe in rehab.

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
- this is undoubtedly true because of the 'some' why try rehabilitate a crocodile, can't be done, right? even if it can, it won't work. But I don't know that it gets to the point. The point of long term imprisonment is not punishment but separation. Manson should not be allowed to mingle with other people who he will hypnotise and get to commit murders. it's not a punishment to manson, but a minimal deterent. Am I wrong? I thought this was the idea behind the system. Punishment seems pointless.

The business person and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
- who would hold this position? is this supposed to be a mainstream position? I don't think anyone holds it, but I'm not sure. I think the pollster has an idea that authoritarians hate art - I don't know why.

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
- oh our right-wing stereotypes. awful lot of conservative career women out there.

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
- excuse me? plant genetic resources. is this a code word? If someone copies genes from a brazilian dragonfly, should the govt. of brazil get a cut? why? is it made up of dragonflies? It's probably made of dragonfly killers.

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
- hmm. is this an auth. snag?

Astrology accurately explains many things.
- no way this is a poltical point of view. that's a silly question.

You cannot be moral without being religious.
- ditto on this.

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
- probably this is a right wing snag.

Some people are naturally unlucky.
- another silly question

It is important that my child's school instills religious values.
- as is this. Is this test to find out if I'm a conservative or a christian. I think someone hasn't counted the size of the christian left, hint, it's pretty mucking big.

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
- another silly jesus q.

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
- this i know is a right wing snag because they ram it down our throats. ugh, sorry for the image.

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
- is this a political pov? I think it's religious again.

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
- auth. snag

No one can feel naturally homosexual.
- um? when did psyche theory enter into it.

It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.
- this is a conservative snag. "These days it's gone to far" is the archetypal conservative position on everything.

ps. I know what I am already, libertarian-right probably about 1/2 way over there, not so far that I can't reach a compromize with someone from the auth. left.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:19 PM

I like the term Islamo-fascist, I think it helps to differentiate form Islamic radicals.

Although the term rebel or insurgent could mean terrorist, the term terrorist is important and shouldn’t be retired.

Rebel – an armed belligerent participating in a rebellion. (Note that few of the people we are currently fighting qualify as a rebel.)

Also:
Rebellion – an open, armed and organized popular belligerency internal to and against an establish government

Insurgent – an armed non-belligerent revolting against civil authority or government

Also:
Insurgency – an non-belligerent armed revolt against a civil authority or government

Terrorist – a non-belligerent employing a systematic use of terror to coerce policy or undermine authority.

Also:
Terrorism – the non-belligerent systematic use terror to coerce policy or undermine authority.

Note that both a rebel or insurgent may be a terrorist, but also note that a rebel is a belligerent, as opposed to an insurgent. A terrorist may be neither a rebel nor an insurgent and is never a belligerent.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:31 PM

not sure how accurate those descriptions are if you want to look at the popular meaning's of those words, i mean words very obviously change meaning's gradually over time, but i'd be inclined to contest that with it's recent media/political use over the last few years the meaning of the word terrorist has expanded to cover a wealth of individuals, and really a rather broad scope of methods (all, unfortunately, inexcusably violent...)

_______
jailbait.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:46 PM

I wasn’t aware the idea was to come up with accurate definitions, as much as define terms that have become blurred through use. But I agree that the terms are fairly misused.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter? Although that’s usually kind of nonsense. A “freedom fighter” that employs terrorism as a policy is likely to practice something other then freedom once in power. But people tend to define these terms, not based on objective and complete knowledge, but based on personal politics and propaganda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:50 PM

well, probably true, was more finding myself an excuse to move the discussion towards common usage and the changing meaning's of words. i'd be linclined to think there's a grain of truth in that chestnut so long as it's not looked at too literally, but more as a reflection on the manner in which perspective change's our view on the justification and (in)excusability for war, killing and all the many, many ways we find to generally be unpleasant to one-another.

_______
jailbait.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:00 PM

How about this for terrorism. It’s the US military definition, according to the DoD.

Terrorism: The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:05 PM

it's a good definition, unfortunately it can be stretched to fit the foreign policy of most countries kicking about the globe, which doesn't really float =S

anyways, heading off, sorry for taking the conversation on a tangent, hope the rest of it prove's enjoyable ^^

_______
jailbait.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:05 PM

I think if you recall I just posted two long rants in defense of islamo-fascist as a descriptive term, but I agree that the term should be retired. It's too negative, given the sort of all encompassing clump negativity it's going to generate.

If we're to have a level debate, in the spirit of diplomacy, that level debate has to accept all viewpoints as valid. That doesn't mean correct, or supported, but valid, to be listened to, without bias, to arrive at a resolution. The purpose, diplomatically, is to reach an agreement by fostering communication rather than more pointless crossfire.

In such a spirit, islamo-fascist, however descriptive, is not a position which is diplomatic.

Terrorist doesn't have to be specifically retired, but it's being used in a divisive and malicious manner. Hezbollah terrorist, Israel killed 96 terrorists, the terrorists at guantanamo. This is not a statement of fact. Even my "the terorrists in washington" was probably out of line, even though I do mean it literally.

The 9-11 terrorists. Totally legit.
[another incident] terrorists, also legit.

Al-Qaeda terrorists, probably okay, though al qaeda technically speaking is not a terrorist organization, it's a communication underground, Mujahideen is a terrorist organization which uses the al-qaeda network. But, by this logic, I think everyone understands the term 'al qaeda terrorists' to mean the mujahideen.

terrorist suspects in guantanamo. Preferably, the detainees, unless you have a particular detainee who is suspect in a particular terrorist act.

But lately, and this is my main point, the MSM for all intents and purposes is using terrorist as a generic to mean lebanese, and sometimes iraqi, or in general, any arab killed by western forces. That's totally unacceptable, from a diplomatic standpoint.

And diplomacy is the goal, we've decided to try to negotiate our disagreements, which by definition is diplomacy.

so terrorist shouldn't be retired, I agree, but it needs to be used accurately and responsibly. I think maybe we should have a watchword list of things that if they are consistantly abused will need to be retired.

Obviously a whole bunch of things are right out, I think we all get that and we don't need to list them all the zionazi, neothugs, neocommie, envirowacko, etc. have to go. Essentially, spin terms, we all know what they are.

Again, which isn't to be word police, but in the spirit of, anyone is free to ignore opinions of the yellers. I think on a time when we actually start saying things to each other like "you have a point, and "maybe there's somewhere in between withdrawal from the ME and continued bombing" rather than "killer!" "coward!"

Then maybe we relax. But we need to chill, and start talking to one another as though we had opposing ideas with potential merit.

also to recognize that in this effort there will be those who will seek to undermine this effort, and that we should ignore those efforts, eventually hopefully everyone consider everyone else's positions as valid, and maybe still disagree.

I intend to press ahead because I see the alternative as Hillary dropping nukes on Iran.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:31 PM

I fear that Islamo-fascist will not go away. I resisted using the term, and still do, but often find it necessary in a discussion of the relation of terrorist organizations with the Arab community at large. One can’t get away form recognizing that a very large minority of the Arab world is religious anti-West radicals. This poses a problem: how to differentiate the minority of really nasty Arab types that want to cut your head off from the very large chunk of the Arab world that just want to talk about cutting your head off and dance in the street when other people do it. You can’t call them all radicals because then some Liberal PC type will come out and attempt to undermine your argument with a strawman that deflects your point to the large chunk of mostly benign Arabs. I guess we could use “ultra radicals”, but that’s probably being used by some Seattle garage band.

Actually, I think terrorist accurately defines Hezbollah. This is the group that invented the suicide bomber; they continually raid Northern Israel to coerce Israeli policy. Both the US and Brits currently defines Hezbollah militant wing as a terrorist organization. So I’m comfortable calling them a terrorist group. It’s an accurate description. But that doesn’t apply to the Lebanese, and anyone who refers to arbitrary Lebanese as a terrorist has misused the term and probably demonstrated a bigoted position. However, that doesn’t mean that we pretend that actual Lebanese terrorist groups aren’t terrorists.

Also Al-Qaeda and mujahideen are two different things. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. A mujahideen is an Arab terrorist and/or guerrilla fighter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:43 PM

Quote:
I fear that Islamo-fascist will not go away. I resisted using the term, and still do,

Sure, I was much in the same boat here. But in the interests of functional communication between us here, it doesn't help.

Quote:
One can’t get away form recognizing that a very large minority of the Arab world is religious anti-West radicals.

an ever increasing portion. but the point is, it's a weighted word, and generated contention, rather than reaching level discussion.
I think many of these rebels are more or less openly fascist, which is a political difference I would have with them, but I recognize that it's like godwin, it's going to be a sort of 'of course they're a natural enemy' which I don't think is true. But it's not just my own feeling, that we're going about this all wrong, and if we just stop killing them, things will [very] slowly improve. I think we saw that happen around the time of the iraqi elections, and again with the hamas elections, and if the israelis hadn't aggressively dismantled the hamas govt, I think that hamas was prepared to work with the idea of the existance of israel. They were certainly starting to make noises in that direction (now we're a govt., we have to talk to other govts. instead of bombing them) But now it's all shot. Diplomacy failed, and terrorism thrives. Because diplomacy wasn't even tried. But we here, are not at war, and have nothing to lose or gain, except that if we understand one another's key concerns, we might gain a greater understanding of the situation as a whole. Instead we seem to pelt each other with rocks like a bunch of third graders, myself included.

So, it has to at least be ignore, as a word. because it's a godwin level of loaded word.

but to address the problem:

Quote:
\how to differentiate the minority of really nasty Arab types that want to cut your head off from the very large chunk of the Arab world that just want to talk about cutting your head off and dance in the street when other people do it.

It just gets applied to broadly.

See, I don't think this is accurate. It's also not equitable. They have a valid point of view. They're not just nasty. They're really angry. Some of them are fascist, sure, they probably got angry because there was a genetically different person on their land, their theocratic power structure was interrupted, whatever. But many are angry over actual events, and as time goes on, this number grows. Some were tortured, family members killed, cities destroyed, and now they hate us, and israel. whether or not it's deservedly so.

But islamofascist just gets blatantly applied. Hezbollah is not a lunatic fringe in lebanon, it's the mainstream political idea. 80% of christians support this muslim extremist group we call a terrorist organization. So we're dealing with an alien political perspective, maybe, but also we should try to see it objectively. Anyone here on the forum may work for hezbollah. Possible. Another issue, and one which I think is extremely important, is that we are being lied to by our sources. This was a serious issue in the Iraq war. And I don't mean by George W. Bush or by the MSM, I mean that Ahmed Chalabi lied to us about the situation in Iraq, and now Israel is lying to us about the situation in Lebanon. You know it's true, so let's skip the argument. Ergo, we don't know what the situation on the ground really is. The lebanese say Hezbollah is a political party with a profound charitable generosity. This may be so, probably is to some degree. Well, if that's how it's viewed, and we treat it as evil, then what do you expect the lebanese will think of us?

Here's a counter-example I noticed a while back. Hugo Chavez spouted a lot of socialist rhetoric, and he soared in popularity among the american left. Then he came out and said that halloween was an evil imperialist decadence of a degenerate society. His support among lefties here plumeted. Now he's selling discount heating oil to the poor, and his support here is recovering. Simple diplomacy.

Ideally, I think you want a hierarchy of terms here that a member of the islamofascist community wouldn't kill you for putting them in, but that is neither flattering nor derogatory. (sp?)

I don't have a problem with radicals. Or Extremsists

But I see your point. A friend of mine who's a moderate democrat said to me once, "why is it that every time moqtada al sadr's name is mentioned, MSM calls him "radical shiia cleric" and I said, "because that's what he is" - but to him, it was spin. So I agree, there's a snag, it's a tricky task. And I agree PC is one of the most dispicable evils perpetrated on the language. Somewhere in the middle are words which don't spin.

Maybe if we defined their position.

Jihadists is probably good for some of them. I don't think Al Sadr is a jihadist. But Zarqawi was certainly a jihadist, Zawahiri is a jihadist.

anti-zionist is descriptive but out

anti- is always negative and so should be avoided (you notice the left press always says anti-abortionists, rather than RTL, and they say pro-choice, the federalists called the confederates anti-federalists in an election campaign, and won, which is where the name comes from.)

arab nationalists? islamic nationalists? maybe a broader group than jihadists?
if you want an islamic republic, or islamic rule/society, you're an islamic nationalist. It's long but not too bad. isnats. I invented a word.

Quote:
I guess we could use “ultra radicals”, but that’s probably being used by some Seattle garage band.

Free radicals :)

Quote:
Actually, I think terrorist accurately defines Hezbollah. This is the group that invented the suicide bomber; they continually raid Northern Israel to coerce Israeli policy.

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)

Quote:
Both the US and Brits currently defines Hezbollah militant wing as a terrorist organization.

I., and probably most people in both the US and the UK would define the govts of the US and UK as radical extremists.
I think that's fair. Not even slightly slighting them.
The MSM, for all practical purposes, is zionist, which is not a conspiratorial statement, it's blatantly obvious to anyone reading them, they never take an anti-zionist position, even under the extreme circumstances.

But the problem is complicated when the Israelis say "we killed 1000 hezbollah terrorists and 64 civilians" or something like that, which is an absurd position. the just redefine lebanese terrorists as civilians as they go along. Worse yet, a vocal minority here of ignorant people, think now that terrorism is the dominant ideology of the arab, and that's something they pick up from the language used.

More importantly, we're not trying to sway votes here, at the forum, we're trying to communicate. Swaying these votes is worth nothing to anyone. So, as an exercise in communication, we should head towards an understanding. I'll bet a lot of people here have an more positive view of hezbollah than I do, and others have a more negative view than yours. A neutral term defines hezbollah as that organization, without the stigma., to the end of avoiding that argument about our differing views on hezbollah which may not be the point of the subject matter, as it isn't here, and yet I ranted about it, all of which gets in the way.

Quote:
However, that doesn’t mean that we pretend that actual Lebanese terrorist groups aren’t terrorists.

no one's sayign we should, but there's not a lot of terrorism. Hezbollah didn't bomb trains in spain, and no ones saying they did. They bomb israel, but there's a war on. And I don't know about everyone else here, but when Israel arrested the Hamas parliment members, I recognized that instantly for what it was, an act of war. I said so, oh look, Israel's going to war. War is war, you can't wage war and claim your opponent is a terrorist at the same time.

Quote:
Also Al-Qaeda and mujahideen are two different things. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. A mujahideen is an Arab terrorist and/or guerrilla fighter.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:14 PM

STILLFLYIN

Important definitions I think that need to be made more public:
Lawful Combatant: A soldier, participant in a levee en masse or lawful resistance movement; entitled to protection as a prisoner of war.

Soldier: A belligerant who: is commanded by an officer responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates, bears a fixed, distinctive embelem recognizable at a distance, bears arms openly and obeys the laws of war.

Levee en masse: a spontaneous arming of the populace upon the approach of enemy forces, does not continue beyond the occupation of contested territory by enemy forces or the the repulsing of the attack by the levee en masse or the by arrival friendly reenforcements.

Lawful Resistance Movement: A resistance movement whose participants: bear arms openly during millitary engagements and during the pre-engagement deployment, and obey the laws of war

Unlawful Comatant: A belligerant not meeting the qualifications for lawful combatancy (see above). If captured is Not a prisoner of war.

All refrences taken from 1949 Geneva Convention and/or 1977 Geneva Protocol

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:31 PM

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.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:58 AM

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 armaments, but you have to realize we're a very long way from that in the ME and our current tactic is not helping.
If we wanted hezbollah to disarm, invading and disarming them is not the solution, it's an act of war. Political parties in the muslim world are armed because they can't trust each other to obey the election winner's orders, they can't trust each other not to kill each other in their sleep. At the moment, this sort of institution, which i would call militia party, or party with a militia, is a long way from being extinct in the ME. We would need to downscale the political conflict, not upscale it.

Quote:
If the truth be told, Al Qaeda hasn’t existed for some time now. The US/UK led invasion of Afghanistan essentially destroyed it,

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.

Quote:
but Al Qaeda was essentially a network of many terrorist organizations.

Sure, this is what I would have said this too, but it was also a network of many other things, charities etc. Everything's not so black and white in muslimland. But also, I thought that it was a container, containee issue, like saying "the US is an oil company."

Quote:
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.”

Sorry, my error, yeah, I knew it's a word meaning 'warrior' but I thought when OBL refers to 'the mujahideen' he's refering to an organization, not just random rebels. My bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:16 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:11 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:17 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 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.

Quote:
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.

Political correctness is evil. Plain and simple, it's brainwashing. It's nazi-esque, that's not what I'm trying to do here.
I want a level debate on which issues can be discussed. When I came back into this forum, it was like walking into the middle of a crossfire.
The difference, as I said before, between this and PC is not just that it's centrist instead of left. The difference is that in PC., it's against the rules to take a particular position, that's not what I'm trying to do at all. I just want a language of diplomatic exchange to use so that we don't waste 80% of our posts (i think that's what it was when I came in) attacking each other's terms.

Quote:
Quote:
There was peace-time? Did I miss something?

Very possibly.

lol

Quote:
Quote:
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.

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?
And, I'm being devil's advocate to some extent, I think the WoT did have something to do with knocking sense into SF, but I think there is a fine line between discourage opposition and encouraging opposition, and Israel has crossed that fine line in lebanon. A whole lot of people think we crossed that line in Iraq, I think maybe with Abu Ghraib, but probably not the broader Iraq policy (maybe the clinton sanctions cross that line)

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Sure, otherwise it either becomes easy to strike, or it gets upgraded to 'army.' I guess the stock line would be the Hagel argument, 'why is it larger, did we do that?' which is a valid point. Not the only point, but we have put up some decent recruiting posters for Osama and co over at Haditha, Bagramm et al.

I guess my main argument here is a carrot/stick one, or a honey/vinegar. I think we've gone overly vinegar stick in the ME, and israel has gone way over, (knocking down neighborhoods etc.) and I think that too much stick is overly dangerous, because then it grows in opposition to you.
I'm not saying too much carrot honey can't do the same thing, sure, people might say 'this is the good life' but, it's a fine line, and that line, IMHO, might be a few steps back from where we are now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:13 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 Kingdom. It was under civil authority of the UK. Israel gave up that civil control when they abandoned their occupation of Lebanon.

In any event, I have no intention of rewriting history to redefine Hezbollah and Hamas to suit their supporters. So we might as well move on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:30 PM

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)

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.

Quote:
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.

Israel had more or less constant infringements and attacks on palestine, but this isn't really the argument. I'm not going to play did not so I'll let it slide. I disagree, and leave it at that. I think Israel has extended beyond it's mandate, I'm not arguing at all that Hamas was never a terrorist organization, that would be a stupid thing to say. I think once they made the effort to become a political party, they became a different word. Esp. if they're across the negotiating table from me.

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?

Quote:
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.

Not arguing. I think we have a position of strength. I actually think that terrorism only happens in the absence of political discourse. That's why the only terrorists we get in america besides outsiders like arabs are various separatist groups, black power, white power, etc., because that's the only debate we silence. IMHO.

The need for power in a debate becomes relevent to what you want to get out of it. If Bin Laden was brought to the table by a totally enfeebled US whose as he had just kicked, he would ask for arab oil to be owned by arabs, for us to not support SA, Israel, etc. and for there to be no westerners on arab soil. Which is why we need power at the table, no argument there, because those are absurd demands. But I might differ somewhat on what gives us the most power at the table. Stick only campaigns have no soft power, and have often overused the stick as a result of their lack of soft power. If bill gates went to india to negotiate about making laws more friendly to microsoft, he'd bring a whallop of soft power. If the indians say no, there go not only jobs, but support for hospitals, schools, etc. So, Gates, with no military might whatsoever to swing, would probably weild a weighty hammer at the table in india.

Quote:
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 Kingdom. It was under civil authority of the UK. Israel gave up that civil control when they abandoned their occupation of Lebanon.

True. I can't help but feel, objectively, that Israel is acting as an expansionist power and is not seriously threatened. But that aside., Israel can negotiate with lebanon, it is not true that war is the only diplomatic tool available to a nation state.

Quote:
In any event, I have no intention of rewriting history to redefine Hezbollah and Hamas to suit their supporters. So we might as well move on.

No one is asking you to. realize their supporters are probably everyone on the left, making a majority of the forum, so debate becomes impossible. In the frame of the current situation, I think hezbollah is being an ass and an idiot, and should have used their resources to evacuate people rather than attack israel, which seems totally quixotic to me. They love the image of david and goliath, or worse yet, they actually think with WWII weapons they can win. But a lot of liberals I've talked to think that it's noble. I can't support israel's way of handling the situation, or Hamas' but I agree, we should move on. Terrorist stays, but it can't be used to apply to a population as a whole. I'm not happy with it being used to describe what I essentially think is the political opposition. (someone just used it to describe democrats.)

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?
I know something about the situation more than the general public, but not as much as you I'd guess, I know that this is a pertinent question, probably more than "should it be ruled by dublin" which I suspect is a green/orange one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:26 PM