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.
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".
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.
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.
Subversive Websites
13/11/2010 10:49:15 PM
- 1199 Views
"Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established govt".
14/11/2010 01:44:14 AM
- 595 Views
Re: Gee, thanks dad! *NM*
14/11/2010 01:32:32 PM
- 447 Views
Well, I'm hoping I simply disagree with your diction rather than your motives.
14/11/2010 03:36:57 PM
- 658 Views
Re: No, you disagree with my motives.
15/11/2010 01:06:54 AM
- 666 Views
Jesus, who was executed for treason, is another relatively famous subversive. *NM*
15/11/2010 01:43:22 AM
- 372 Views
Re: I believe I've heard of him. Played centerfield for the Braves? *NM*
15/11/2010 03:38:17 AM
- 385 Views
The Founding Fathers of the US?
15/11/2010 10:18:32 AM
- 672 Views
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God".
15/11/2010 01:15:33 PM
- 710 Views
I'm sure bin Laden completely agrees
15/11/2010 01:32:53 PM
- 693 Views
When you give me an example of Jefferson murdering women and children that analogy will work.
15/11/2010 01:49:04 PM
- 612 Views
yes because Jefferson was a PARAGON of virtue himself
15/11/2010 02:17:58 PM
- 701 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
- 338 Views
No, it's a question of precedence.
15/11/2010 04:13:04 PM
- 579 Views
government as a social contract is an opinion.
15/11/2010 07:47:57 PM
- 631 Views
Government as social contract is accepted everywhere political power doesn't come out of a gun.
15/11/2010 09:26:19 PM
- 749 Views
His analogy works very well, and you are still being subjective.
15/11/2010 08:23:25 PM
- 809 Views
The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point.
15/11/2010 09:17:01 PM
- 759 Views
Re: The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point.
15/11/2010 10:52:40 PM
- 582 Views
I don't believe that at all.
16/11/2010 12:08:26 AM
- 491 Views
I'm sorry, at what point did he say he wished to overturn social contract philosophy?
16/11/2010 01:47:49 AM
- 572 Views
Heaven forbid anyone put words in peoples mouths.
16/11/2010 04:38:20 PM
- 783 Views
uhm, he did not say every rebel is a traitor.
16/11/2010 04:49:23 PM
- 527 Views
Re: uhm, which "he" are we speaking of here?
16/11/2010 04:58:12 PM
- 763 Views
dude, so your issue is that you're afraid the CIA is going to show up on your door?
16/11/2010 05:01:38 PM
- 713 Views
My issue is not inviting trouble just to impotently shake my fist at omnipotent but faceless evil.
16/11/2010 10:31:54 PM
- 5868 Views
They also don't get paid to waste their superiors time with silly conversations on silly websites *NM*
18/11/2010 10:56:36 AM
- 453 Views
The US had a guy tortured in Syria for a year because of silly converse on a silly website.
18/11/2010 04:03:14 PM
- 621 Views
No, its relevancy is difficult to grasp.
16/11/2010 07:19:11 AM
- 756 Views
Maybe I just have an unusual perspective.
16/11/2010 04:15:39 PM
- 725 Views
I didn't know they bombed a SCHOOL!!!
16/11/2010 04:31:24 PM
- 596 Views
Please. If there were any soldiers in the WTC on 911 it was coincidental.
16/11/2010 04:40:51 PM
- 637 Views
perhaps, but not all important targets are military targets.
16/11/2010 04:57:20 PM
- 774 Views
Not all important targets are LEGITIMATE targets either.
16/11/2010 05:06:11 PM
- 598 Views
I don't wish one, but I hate sidebars
16/11/2010 05:09:33 PM
- 644 Views
All about priorities; your call.
16/11/2010 10:33:53 PM
- 562 Views
No, NOW I know what's going on!
16/11/2010 04:36:04 PM
- 741 Views
Still doesn't work.
16/11/2010 04:50:58 PM
- 734 Views
Those last sentences are going way overboard.
16/11/2010 05:08:40 PM
- 599 Views
Terrorism is inexcusable and indefensible, but at least there's a LOGIC to it.
16/11/2010 05:21:15 PM
- 698 Views
First of all, your generalizations were misguided.
16/11/2010 05:40:55 PM
- 710 Views
Of course I disagree, but that's a different and older debate.
16/11/2010 11:10:23 PM
- 856 Views
mostly agree
16/11/2010 11:18:14 PM
- 567 Views
"Treason never prospers, what's the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason".
16/11/2010 11:30:55 PM
- 648 Views
I agree with the title - that seems to be a good quote to define when treason stops becoming treason
16/11/2010 11:39:37 PM
- 643 Views
. . . and now I'm thinking you're the one willfully misunderstanding.
16/11/2010 05:36:15 PM
- 635 Views
sorry
16/11/2010 11:24:44 PM
- 655 Views
Equally sorry if I've somehow done SOME Islamic TERRORISTS a disservice.
17/11/2010 12:44:34 AM
- 695 Views
"Subversion" has the connotation of treason, however wrongly.
15/11/2010 01:32:06 PM
- 681 Views
Re: Non-sequitur, non-sequitur, CAPS LOCK, opinion, CAPS LOCK.
15/11/2010 10:45:41 PM
- 518 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
- 679 Views
I am curious.
16/11/2010 01:10:52 AM
- 538 Views
Argggh, ya got me!
16/11/2010 05:11:41 PM
- 537 Views
the dictionary has -nia and -iums.
16/11/2010 05:16:32 PM
- 639 Views
I prefer "millennia" but recall someone telling me that's not technically right.
16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM
- 566 Views
well, in American English, they're apparantly both "correct" *NM*
16/11/2010 06:13:40 PM
- 433 Views
It is right. It's the one thing that's easy in Latin and Greek declensions.
16/11/2010 06:33:12 PM
- 614 Views
Do only neuter words end in -um?
16/11/2010 06:57:39 PM
- 665 Views
IIRC, the number of "n"s was the issue.
17/11/2010 01:06:24 AM
- 661 Views
Oh yes, because you're very much in danger!!!
16/11/2010 01:51:58 AM
- 503 Views
The Secret Service once tracked down a teenager who wrote a death threat on a bill he passed.
16/11/2010 05:30:18 PM
- 642 Views
All my subversive websites are religious.
15/11/2010 02:26:42 AM
- 594 Views
Re: I'm certainly interested.
15/11/2010 03:37:11 AM
- 623 Views
Well, okay then.
15/11/2010 04:23:35 AM
- 690 Views
Always liked Sojourners, though I've not been by there in an Age.
15/11/2010 01:43:51 PM
- 643 Views
Some stuff I think is pretty neat:
15/11/2010 07:24:41 PM
- 711 Views
Re: William Faulkner would be unhappy with my thread.
16/11/2010 08:29:42 PM
- 604 Views
My work here is done.
16/11/2010 08:34:22 PM
- 561 Views
Re: Yes, it's fairly obvious that you need to respond. *NM*
16/11/2010 11:40:10 PM
- 412 Views
I often wish I didn't.
17/11/2010 01:49:33 AM
- 529 Views