Active Users:435 Time:01/07/2025 02:12:43 PM
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 1274 Views
"Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established govt". - 14/11/2010 01:44:14 AM 670 Views
Re: Gee, thanks dad! *NM* - 14/11/2010 01:32:32 PM 474 Views
Well, I'm hoping I simply disagree with your diction rather than your motives. - 14/11/2010 03:36:57 PM 738 Views
Re: No, you disagree with my motives. - 15/11/2010 01:06:54 AM 732 Views
The Founding Fathers of the US? - 15/11/2010 10:18:32 AM 740 Views
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God". - 15/11/2010 01:15:33 PM 781 Views
I'm sure bin Laden completely agrees - 15/11/2010 01:32:53 PM 761 Views
When you give me an example of Jefferson murdering women and children that analogy will work. - 15/11/2010 01:49:04 PM 685 Views
yes because Jefferson was a PARAGON of virtue himself - 15/11/2010 02:17:58 PM 784 Views
I wasn't aware I'd made that statement. - 15/11/2010 02:25:27 PM 628 Views
nvm, I was going to argue but I have decided not to *NM* - 15/11/2010 07:46:42 PM 439 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 361 Views
No, it's a question of precedence. - 15/11/2010 04:13:04 PM 646 Views
His analogy works very well, and you are still being subjective. - 15/11/2010 08:23:25 PM 879 Views
The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 09:17:01 PM 834 Views
Re: The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 10:52:40 PM 657 Views
I don't believe that at all. - 16/11/2010 12:08:26 AM 557 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 16/11/2010 11:52:36 PM 743 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 17/11/2010 01:34:29 AM 731 Views
No, its relevancy is difficult to grasp. - 16/11/2010 07:19:11 AM 830 Views
Maybe I just have an unusual perspective. - 16/11/2010 04:15:39 PM 801 Views
I didn't know they bombed a SCHOOL!!! - 16/11/2010 04:31:24 PM 673 Views
Please. If there were any soldiers in the WTC on 911 it was coincidental. - 16/11/2010 04:40:51 PM 701 Views
perhaps, but not all important targets are military targets. - 16/11/2010 04:57:20 PM 849 Views
Not all important targets are LEGITIMATE targets either. - 16/11/2010 05:06:11 PM 672 Views
I don't wish one, but I hate sidebars - 16/11/2010 05:09:33 PM 717 Views
All about priorities; your call. - 16/11/2010 10:33:53 PM 631 Views
That's so many hours of my life I'll never get back. - 16/11/2010 10:41:55 PM 728 Views
This your first time on the CMB? - 16/11/2010 11:18:03 PM 673 Views
No, NOW I know what's going on! - 16/11/2010 04:36:04 PM 811 Views
Still doesn't work. - 16/11/2010 04:50:58 PM 810 Views
Those last sentences are going way overboard. - 16/11/2010 05:08:40 PM 680 Views
Terrorism is inexcusable and indefensible, but at least there's a LOGIC to it. - 16/11/2010 05:21:15 PM 770 Views
First of all, your generalizations were misguided. - 16/11/2010 05:40:55 PM 779 Views
Of course I disagree, but that's a different and older debate. - 16/11/2010 11:10:23 PM 933 Views
I will try to be brief. Try. - 16/11/2010 11:28:28 PM 732 Views
Heh. - 16/11/2010 11:55:40 PM 688 Views
mostly agree - 16/11/2010 11:18:14 PM 628 Views
. . . and now I'm thinking you're the one willfully misunderstanding. - 16/11/2010 05:36:15 PM 708 Views
Not willful, at least. - 17/11/2010 12:29:42 AM 677 Views
sorry - 16/11/2010 11:24:44 PM 728 Views
Well, you know what I was going on about, if that helps? *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:25:18 PM 421 Views
"Subversion" has the connotation of treason, however wrongly. - 15/11/2010 01:32:06 PM 752 Views
Re: Non-sequitur, non-sequitur, CAPS LOCK, opinion, CAPS LOCK. - 15/11/2010 10:45:41 PM 584 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 769 Views
I am curious. - 16/11/2010 01:10:52 AM 607 Views
Argggh, ya got me! - 16/11/2010 05:11:41 PM 616 Views
the dictionary has -nia and -iums. - 16/11/2010 05:16:32 PM 711 Views
I prefer "millennia" but recall someone telling me that's not technically right. - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 648 Views
well, in American English, they're apparantly both "correct" *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:13:40 PM 459 Views
In American English, almost anything is. - 17/11/2010 01:02:15 AM 758 Views
It is right. It's the one thing that's easy in Latin and Greek declensions. - 16/11/2010 06:33:12 PM 683 Views
You call then "neutral" over there? Interesting. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:42:00 PM 456 Views
Neutral, neutrum, neuter, whatever. Details. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:45:29 PM 408 Views
Do only neuter words end in -um? - 16/11/2010 06:57:39 PM 738 Views
Yes. I think so, anyway - been a good while since I had Latin. - 16/11/2010 07:12:09 PM 719 Views
Thanks. Maybe that's what I'm remembering. - 16/11/2010 07:17:05 PM 695 Views
IIRC, the number of "n"s was the issue. - 17/11/2010 01:06:24 AM 721 Views
Should definitely be two. *NM* - 17/11/2010 01:48:51 AM 374 Views
Ah, thanks. - 17/11/2010 02:08:08 AM 718 Views
Silly laptops.... - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 807 Views
- 16/11/2010 05:35:22 PM 641 Views
I'm horrible about using "conjugate" as a blanket term. - 17/11/2010 01:09:34 AM 762 Views
I'm definitely missing the point. - 16/11/2010 06:58:17 AM 734 Views
Well, hopefully we've cleared things up now. *MN* - 16/11/2010 05:30:46 PM 743 Views
I don't know if it qualifies as subversive... - 14/11/2010 02:47:34 AM 849 Views
Re: That's not bad. - 14/11/2010 01:38:02 PM 710 Views
The Chap - 14/11/2010 01:58:27 PM 614 Views
Thanks. - 14/11/2010 03:04:49 PM 711 Views
All my subversive websites are religious. - 15/11/2010 02:26:42 AM 667 Views
Re: I'm certainly interested. - 15/11/2010 03:37:11 AM 693 Views
Well, okay then. - 15/11/2010 04:23:35 AM 763 Views
Some stuff I think is pretty neat: - 15/11/2010 07:24:41 PM 780 Views
Re: Noice, noice. - 15/11/2010 11:01:31 PM 713 Views
That first link is really good. - 15/11/2010 11:18:25 PM 807 Views
Re: Ha! - 16/11/2010 11:55:42 PM 613 Views
Re: Also, I like your poems. *NM* - 17/11/2010 01:02:27 AM 401 Views
Re: Dude. - 20/11/2010 02:14:38 AM 763 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 713 Views
Re: William Faulkner would be unhappy with my thread. - 16/11/2010 08:29:42 PM 675 Views
My work here is done. - 16/11/2010 08:34:22 PM 629 Views
Re: Yes, it's fairly obvious that you need to respond. *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:40:10 PM 436 Views
I often wish I didn't. - 17/11/2010 01:49:33 AM 598 Views
I'm calling you out on this one. - 18/11/2010 12:06:17 AM 666 Views
It's not perfect, but it's the lesser of many evils, IMHO. - 18/11/2010 01:12:43 AM 699 Views
You people with your words. - 16/11/2010 08:34:17 PM 803 Views
. - 16/11/2010 08:54:22 PM 586 Views
Re: I still say we should start a band. - 20/11/2010 02:42:48 AM 720 Views
Re: Man, that attack on Cameron is brutal. *NM* - 20/11/2010 02:47:12 AM 385 Views
Re: Awesome. - 16/11/2010 11:38:29 PM 721 Views

Reply to Message