Active Users:345 Time:19/07/2025 01:17:57 AM
First of all, your generalizations were misguided. Legolas Send a noteboard - 16/11/2010 05:40:55 PM
There are many groups that one might call Islamic terrorists, but if you're going to lump those with quite concrete goals and operating only in their own country, such as Hamas, together with the likes of al-Qaeda, it's going to become a mess.
Few Mid-East "terrorists" ever reach even that low moral ebb, however; again, we need look no further than the Oslo Agreement to see that, when offered a choice between a negotiated peace and continuing mass murder, most will choose the latter. Offer them what they say they want and they'll reject in favor of more murder. Seems pretty obvious what's going on there, and calling it "terrorism" is being generous, as apalling as that reality is. That's the difference between Fatah and Hamas, because, whatever his other faults and past misdeeds, by the end I think Arafat realized better than any the truth of what I'm saying. If peace, freedom, indepedence and a homeland are within your grasp and you throw it away because you're so in love with killing, you're as great a threat to your own people as to the enemy. It doesn't make anyone in the PLO a saint, by any means, and history has taught me to be very leery of deals with the devil, but I think you understand.

I can't see how it's somehow "worse than terrorism" to continue one's terrorist activities when not satisfied by the offers made by the other side. It's just ordinary terrorism as far as I can see. And while most outsiders will agree that the Palestinians were fools for not closing the deal at Camp David - that was Arafat who was to blame there, though, not Hamas - there is, once again, no objective optimal solution that they morally had to accept. There is no simple straightforward solution in that conflict, it's always a matter of how well both sides can negotiate, and how much they have to grant if they want genuine peace. The Palestinians thought they could get more than they were offered at Camp David. I'd like to think people in Fatah know better now, but those in Hamas really don't seem to. Foolish, yes, but I'm not sure how it somehow makes them "worse than terrorists". It's not as if they said no because they "were so in love with killing".
Oh, WHEN is certainly subjective, that's why each of the Founding Fathers struggled with it and many Americans, perhaps most, still do. But that it can happen, MUST happen for any rebellion to be patriotic rather than treason, is part and parcel with government as a social contract and (I thought) recognized as a truism in most Western states.

Right, but that seems a somewhat abstract point with little practical effect - you can have groups of people deciding revolution is morally just, and acting accordingly, while the large majority of people disagrees. I mean, every revolution or rebellion is carried out by people who think they are doing the morally just thing.
Reply to message
Subversive Websites - 13/11/2010 10:49:15 PM 1279 Views
"Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established govt". - 14/11/2010 01:44:14 AM 675 Views
Re: Gee, thanks dad! *NM* - 14/11/2010 01:32:32 PM 476 Views
Well, I'm hoping I simply disagree with your diction rather than your motives. - 14/11/2010 03:36:57 PM 744 Views
Re: No, you disagree with my motives. - 15/11/2010 01:06:54 AM 734 Views
The Founding Fathers of the US? - 15/11/2010 10:18:32 AM 748 Views
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God". - 15/11/2010 01:15:33 PM 787 Views
I'm sure bin Laden completely agrees - 15/11/2010 01:32:53 PM 766 Views
When you give me an example of Jefferson murdering women and children that analogy will work. - 15/11/2010 01:49:04 PM 690 Views
yes because Jefferson was a PARAGON of virtue himself - 15/11/2010 02:17:58 PM 788 Views
I wasn't aware I'd made that statement. - 15/11/2010 02:25:27 PM 634 Views
nvm, I was going to argue but I have decided not to *NM* - 15/11/2010 07:46:42 PM 441 Views
So you are being completely subjective here? It is wrong, unless it is for a cause you support? *NM* - 15/11/2010 02:30:37 PM 363 Views
No, it's a question of precedence. - 15/11/2010 04:13:04 PM 650 Views
His analogy works very well, and you are still being subjective. - 15/11/2010 08:23:25 PM 883 Views
The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 09:17:01 PM 841 Views
Re: The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 10:52:40 PM 665 Views
I don't believe that at all. - 16/11/2010 12:08:26 AM 561 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 16/11/2010 11:52:36 PM 749 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 17/11/2010 01:34:29 AM 736 Views
No, its relevancy is difficult to grasp. - 16/11/2010 07:19:11 AM 835 Views
Maybe I just have an unusual perspective. - 16/11/2010 04:15:39 PM 804 Views
I didn't know they bombed a SCHOOL!!! - 16/11/2010 04:31:24 PM 678 Views
Please. If there were any soldiers in the WTC on 911 it was coincidental. - 16/11/2010 04:40:51 PM 705 Views
perhaps, but not all important targets are military targets. - 16/11/2010 04:57:20 PM 857 Views
Not all important targets are LEGITIMATE targets either. - 16/11/2010 05:06:11 PM 679 Views
I don't wish one, but I hate sidebars - 16/11/2010 05:09:33 PM 724 Views
All about priorities; your call. - 16/11/2010 10:33:53 PM 635 Views
That's so many hours of my life I'll never get back. - 16/11/2010 10:41:55 PM 731 Views
This your first time on the CMB? - 16/11/2010 11:18:03 PM 680 Views
No, NOW I know what's going on! - 16/11/2010 04:36:04 PM 816 Views
Still doesn't work. - 16/11/2010 04:50:58 PM 817 Views
Those last sentences are going way overboard. - 16/11/2010 05:08:40 PM 682 Views
Terrorism is inexcusable and indefensible, but at least there's a LOGIC to it. - 16/11/2010 05:21:15 PM 775 Views
First of all, your generalizations were misguided. - 16/11/2010 05:40:55 PM 786 Views
Of course I disagree, but that's a different and older debate. - 16/11/2010 11:10:23 PM 943 Views
I will try to be brief. Try. - 16/11/2010 11:28:28 PM 738 Views
Heh. - 16/11/2010 11:55:40 PM 689 Views
mostly agree - 16/11/2010 11:18:14 PM 631 Views
. . . and now I'm thinking you're the one willfully misunderstanding. - 16/11/2010 05:36:15 PM 712 Views
Not willful, at least. - 17/11/2010 12:29:42 AM 681 Views
sorry - 16/11/2010 11:24:44 PM 735 Views
Well, you know what I was going on about, if that helps? *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:25:18 PM 422 Views
"Subversion" has the connotation of treason, however wrongly. - 15/11/2010 01:32:06 PM 759 Views
Re: Non-sequitur, non-sequitur, CAPS LOCK, opinion, CAPS LOCK. - 15/11/2010 10:45:41 PM 588 Views
Either my mind moves much faster than ya'lls, or ya'll are deliberately missing the point. - 16/11/2010 12:05:28 AM 774 Views
I am curious. - 16/11/2010 01:10:52 AM 613 Views
Argggh, ya got me! - 16/11/2010 05:11:41 PM 622 Views
the dictionary has -nia and -iums. - 16/11/2010 05:16:32 PM 715 Views
I prefer "millennia" but recall someone telling me that's not technically right. - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 654 Views
well, in American English, they're apparantly both "correct" *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:13:40 PM 461 Views
In American English, almost anything is. - 17/11/2010 01:02:15 AM 762 Views
It is right. It's the one thing that's easy in Latin and Greek declensions. - 16/11/2010 06:33:12 PM 688 Views
You call then "neutral" over there? Interesting. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:42:00 PM 459 Views
Neutral, neutrum, neuter, whatever. Details. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:45:29 PM 410 Views
Do only neuter words end in -um? - 16/11/2010 06:57:39 PM 745 Views
Yes. I think so, anyway - been a good while since I had Latin. - 16/11/2010 07:12:09 PM 729 Views
Thanks. Maybe that's what I'm remembering. - 16/11/2010 07:17:05 PM 700 Views
IIRC, the number of "n"s was the issue. - 17/11/2010 01:06:24 AM 724 Views
Should definitely be two. *NM* - 17/11/2010 01:48:51 AM 374 Views
Ah, thanks. - 17/11/2010 02:08:08 AM 721 Views
Silly laptops.... - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 812 Views
- 16/11/2010 05:35:22 PM 647 Views
I'm horrible about using "conjugate" as a blanket term. - 17/11/2010 01:09:34 AM 767 Views
I'm definitely missing the point. - 16/11/2010 06:58:17 AM 739 Views
Well, hopefully we've cleared things up now. *MN* - 16/11/2010 05:30:46 PM 748 Views
I don't know if it qualifies as subversive... - 14/11/2010 02:47:34 AM 852 Views
Re: That's not bad. - 14/11/2010 01:38:02 PM 718 Views
The Chap - 14/11/2010 01:58:27 PM 618 Views
Thanks. - 14/11/2010 03:04:49 PM 715 Views
All my subversive websites are religious. - 15/11/2010 02:26:42 AM 673 Views
Re: I'm certainly interested. - 15/11/2010 03:37:11 AM 698 Views
Well, okay then. - 15/11/2010 04:23:35 AM 769 Views
Some stuff I think is pretty neat: - 15/11/2010 07:24:41 PM 786 Views
Re: Noice, noice. - 15/11/2010 11:01:31 PM 716 Views
That first link is really good. - 15/11/2010 11:18:25 PM 812 Views
Re: Ha! - 16/11/2010 11:55:42 PM 616 Views
Re: Also, I like your poems. *NM* - 17/11/2010 01:02:27 AM 403 Views
Re: Dude. - 20/11/2010 02:14:38 AM 765 Views
you mean besides this one? *NM* - 15/11/2010 07:55:03 PM 308 Views
Re: I AM NOT SUBVERTING NEBHEAD!! - 15/11/2010 11:02:10 PM 718 Views
Re: William Faulkner would be unhappy with my thread. - 16/11/2010 08:29:42 PM 682 Views
My work here is done. - 16/11/2010 08:34:22 PM 634 Views
Re: Yes, it's fairly obvious that you need to respond. *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:40:10 PM 439 Views
I often wish I didn't. - 17/11/2010 01:49:33 AM 602 Views
I'm calling you out on this one. - 18/11/2010 12:06:17 AM 672 Views
It's not perfect, but it's the lesser of many evils, IMHO. - 18/11/2010 01:12:43 AM 705 Views
You people with your words. - 16/11/2010 08:34:17 PM 809 Views
. - 16/11/2010 08:54:22 PM 590 Views
Re: I still say we should start a band. - 20/11/2010 02:42:48 AM 723 Views
Re: Man, that attack on Cameron is brutal. *NM* - 20/11/2010 02:47:12 AM 387 Views
Re: Awesome. - 16/11/2010 11:38:29 PM 725 Views

Reply to Message