Active Users:324 Time:06/07/2025 11:58:10 PM
Of course I disagree, but that's a different and older debate. Joel Send a noteboard - 16/11/2010 11:10:23 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.

Become? Where have you BEEN since 1948 (and that's a conservative estimate)? Hamas understands the point of terrorism as well as Trostsky did, while Al Qaeda either doesn't or chooses to ignore it. Doesn't legitimize or justify either, but I think it does give the Hamas a very slight leg up for the reasons I've often stated.
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".

Sorry, I swapped Fatah and Hamas (again :<img class=' />) because I have trouble remembering which is which. Arafat blew it, yes, but I think he came to see that and tried to repair the damage--at which point FATAH blew it, seemed to regard him with as much contempt as they did Israel once he deigned to acknowledge outrages like Israels right to exist and a negotiated peace. They ultimately came to see the error of their ways, too, but that just meant they lost popular support and were replaced by Hamas. It's ironic that most of the oldest Western "civilizations" seemingly remain both unable and unwilling to achieve peace for longer than it takes to reload.

Only full Israeli capitulation, virtual suicide, would have given the Palestinians more than Oslo, which implies they weren't there to bargain, but to buy time to rearm and recruit, plus hopefully gain some more diplomatic cover for their next atrocity. Of course, since the Israeli government at the time was negotiating in good faith and committed to peace walking away revealed Fatah and Arafat as the wastes of skin they were. That's the point, that all Mid-East terror groups I know of HAVE no point, only rhetoric and propaganda. A sincere and realistic goal doesn't justify terrorism, but the absence of one reduces "terrorism" to mass murder. You can't rationalize something on the basis of the greater good if you won't accept that greater good as an alternative to the slaughter. That option has been on the table many times, to varying degrees, but only recently has it been seriously considered, and only after the fact, in scenarios like Arafat being beseiged in his own HQ and forced to deal. Offer their stated goals and they still prefer killing more women and children, and that makes them worse than terrorists in my book. Trotsky's no hero, but bin Laden and Co. are better compared to Charles Manson.

We don't ever seem to agree on that one though, and I believe we do understand each others positions, so further discussion will probably just result in retracing the same old paths to no purpose.
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.

Of course it's abstract; it's a moment in time, and a vaguely defined one at that. It is NOT, however, without practical effect, because every revolution in history, successful or not, was the result of individuals deciding things were beyond the point of no return. The success of revolution often hinges on whether "the large majority of people disagrees" which is all the more chilling when we recall that majorities remain capable of error. That's the practical effect: When a large enough percentage of the populace feels reform impossible and rebellion their duty that the prisons can no longer hold them all.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but that remains a common topic of conversation in America, the country whose third President once looked forward to a revolution every four years. It probably always has been and probably always will be; "hunting clubs" aside, that's the reason the Second Amendment was written and remains part of the nations highest law. It's also why I want to be very careful of what I say and what I support, not just because of a pervasive and often paranoid intelligence community, but because the issue of whether rebellion is an urgent patriotic duty remains quite relevant to many Americans. I've no interest in a rebellion, and hence no interest in encouraging one, inadvertently or otherwise. We're still a long way from being unable to fix the system from within, IMHO, and I want to avoid any risk of implying otherwise.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Subversive Websites - 13/11/2010 10:49:15 PM 1278 Views
"Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established govt". - 14/11/2010 01:44:14 AM 674 Views
Re: Gee, thanks dad! *NM* - 14/11/2010 01:32:32 PM 475 Views
Well, I'm hoping I simply disagree with your diction rather than your motives. - 14/11/2010 03:36:57 PM 742 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 745 Views
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God". - 15/11/2010 01:15:33 PM 784 Views
I'm sure bin Laden completely agrees - 15/11/2010 01:32:53 PM 765 Views
When you give me an example of Jefferson murdering women and children that analogy will work. - 15/11/2010 01:49:04 PM 689 Views
yes because Jefferson was a PARAGON of virtue himself - 15/11/2010 02:17:58 PM 787 Views
I wasn't aware I'd made that statement. - 15/11/2010 02:25:27 PM 631 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 362 Views
No, it's a question of precedence. - 15/11/2010 04:13:04 PM 649 Views
His analogy works very well, and you are still being subjective. - 15/11/2010 08:23:25 PM 882 Views
The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 09:17:01 PM 839 Views
Re: The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 10:52:40 PM 663 Views
I don't believe that at all. - 16/11/2010 12:08:26 AM 560 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 16/11/2010 11:52:36 PM 746 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 17/11/2010 01:34:29 AM 734 Views
No, its relevancy is difficult to grasp. - 16/11/2010 07:19:11 AM 834 Views
Maybe I just have an unusual perspective. - 16/11/2010 04:15:39 PM 803 Views
I didn't know they bombed a SCHOOL!!! - 16/11/2010 04:31:24 PM 676 Views
Please. If there were any soldiers in the WTC on 911 it was coincidental. - 16/11/2010 04:40:51 PM 704 Views
perhaps, but not all important targets are military targets. - 16/11/2010 04:57:20 PM 854 Views
Not all important targets are LEGITIMATE targets either. - 16/11/2010 05:06:11 PM 678 Views
I don't wish one, but I hate sidebars - 16/11/2010 05:09:33 PM 723 Views
All about priorities; your call. - 16/11/2010 10:33:53 PM 633 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 678 Views
No, NOW I know what's going on! - 16/11/2010 04:36:04 PM 815 Views
Still doesn't work. - 16/11/2010 04:50:58 PM 815 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 773 Views
First of all, your generalizations were misguided. - 16/11/2010 05:40:55 PM 781 Views
Of course I disagree, but that's a different and older debate. - 16/11/2010 11:10:23 PM 938 Views
I will try to be brief. Try. - 16/11/2010 11:28:28 PM 737 Views
Heh. - 16/11/2010 11:55:40 PM 689 Views
mostly agree - 16/11/2010 11:18:14 PM 629 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 680 Views
sorry - 16/11/2010 11:24:44 PM 732 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 757 Views
Re: Non-sequitur, non-sequitur, CAPS LOCK, opinion, CAPS LOCK. - 15/11/2010 10:45:41 PM 587 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 611 Views
Argggh, ya got me! - 16/11/2010 05:11:41 PM 621 Views
the dictionary has -nia and -iums. - 16/11/2010 05:16:32 PM 713 Views
I prefer "millennia" but recall someone telling me that's not technically right. - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 653 Views
well, in American English, they're apparantly both "correct" *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:13:40 PM 460 Views
In American English, almost anything is. - 17/11/2010 01:02:15 AM 761 Views
It is right. It's the one thing that's easy in Latin and Greek declensions. - 16/11/2010 06:33:12 PM 687 Views
You call then "neutral" over there? Interesting. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:42:00 PM 458 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 743 Views
Yes. I think so, anyway - been a good while since I had Latin. - 16/11/2010 07:12:09 PM 726 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 720 Views
Silly laptops.... - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 810 Views
- 16/11/2010 05:35:22 PM 645 Views
I'm horrible about using "conjugate" as a blanket term. - 17/11/2010 01:09:34 AM 765 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 747 Views
I don't know if it qualifies as subversive... - 14/11/2010 02:47:34 AM 851 Views
Re: That's not bad. - 14/11/2010 01:38:02 PM 715 Views
The Chap - 14/11/2010 01:58:27 PM 617 Views
Thanks. - 14/11/2010 03:04:49 PM 714 Views
All my subversive websites are religious. - 15/11/2010 02:26:42 AM 671 Views
Re: I'm certainly interested. - 15/11/2010 03:37:11 AM 697 Views
Well, okay then. - 15/11/2010 04:23:35 AM 766 Views
Some stuff I think is pretty neat: - 15/11/2010 07:24:41 PM 784 Views
Re: Noice, noice. - 15/11/2010 11:01:31 PM 715 Views
That first link is really good. - 15/11/2010 11:18:25 PM 809 Views
Re: Ha! - 16/11/2010 11:55:42 PM 615 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 717 Views
Re: William Faulkner would be unhappy with my thread. - 16/11/2010 08:29:42 PM 679 Views
My work here is done. - 16/11/2010 08:34:22 PM 632 Views
Re: Yes, it's fairly obvious that you need to respond. *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:40:10 PM 437 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 669 Views
It's not perfect, but it's the lesser of many evils, IMHO. - 18/11/2010 01:12:43 AM 703 Views
You people with your words. - 16/11/2010 08:34:17 PM 808 Views
. - 16/11/2010 08:54:22 PM 589 Views
Re: I still say we should start a band. - 20/11/2010 02:42:48 AM 722 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 724 Views

Reply to Message