Trying to arrange my thinking after watching the live TV coverage of the events in Russia, and reading about what had transpired up to that point. The whole tragedy sickened me.

Apparently, before the hell-bound terrorists activated one of their "hoop" bombs (placed over the basketball goals in order to kill as many starved, dehydrated children as possible), the Russian authorities were having immense problems keeping many of the Russian parents of the hostage children from storming the school with weapons brought from home.

I know where I would be, if I was in that situation.

One of the quotes I read sums it up best, "NOTHING on this earth can justify this."

Does anyone that is not an Islamic extremist still sympathize with these "freedom" fighters? I think they have sealed their fate, and the fate of all those that share their brand of "liberation" of Chechnya.

How much more evil can you get?

There has to be some way of removing the idealogy that bred this sort of mindset from the earth.

I'm really at a loss for words here, but had to post something. A sad smiley face would not do this justice, so I'll just end here.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040903/140/f1uvk.html

Does anyone that is not an Islamic extremist still sympathize with these "freedom" fighters?

The terrorist methods of the Chechen rebels are completely evil and inexcusable. It doesn't however meant their goal of self rule in Chechnya is necessarily wrong. You might also want to consider that this round of terrorist attacks started just after the peaceful method of change, democtatic elections, was allegedly fixed by the Russians.

One shouldnt also blame the religion, as Christian Crusaders killed innocents in the middle ages though we have become more civillized. Islam has a broad interpretation and those "Freedom Fighters" have abused it and yes they do deserve what comes to them in the afterlife. But to blame it on religion is irogance. I have met many islamic people in college, have made friends with Arabs in local businesses (other then gas stations too) stations. I have yet to meet one that I would hardly call a terrorist.

Kalest MoonGlade
65th Stormwarden of Tunare
~Fennin Ro~

i hate these bastards that lay waste to lives in the name of god. imo, russia, china, and u.s. need to get together with all our nukes and bombs, figure out where most of these nutjobs are coming from, and just carpet bomb a 100 square mile radius and make a nice glass sea out of them.

And that would make you better than them of course. Don't just kill the terrorists, kill the families and children that happpen to live there as well.
Hell, even ignore what Russia has done to them in the past and consider the Chechens as the ones who started it all.

Thank god for good reason and justice.

Seriously though, I cringe at what they did, what they attempted, and how it all turned out. I do so even more at the manner in which Russia handled it. Anyone remember how they solved the Moscow theatre hostage situation a couple years ago?

Hey! Lets throw in this really cool gas, kill over 125 innocent people, and maybe get the Terrorists also!

*golf clap*

The terrorists are despicable, but the Russians have no brains. Both get people killed.

I mourn the loss of so many innocent lives.

The evil part of me thinks that the terrorists families should be kidnapped and treated in the way they treated their hostages. Maybe if terrorists had to fear for the lives of their families they'd think twice about this stuff.

But like I said, I don't agree with myself on this topic, it just would feel just somehow.

Lest we forget that in 1776, our founding fathers were considered terrorists. The difference, in my mind, is that we attacked arms with arms, and we 'terrorized' via financial means.

That being said, I wonder how things might have been different if we had been able to bomb buildings or take british children hostage in our own fight for independence.

I do see a difference in the Chechens/Palestinians vs. Al Qaida and those sorts of nutjobs. In the first, their land and their sovereignty were taken from them by force by outsiders. Al Qaida is essentially the KKK wearing robes with no hoods.

Terrorism is not a good thing by any stretch. But as devil's advocate, what would you be willing to do if some other country took over your property, your house, your land, your government, and claimed you no longer had any right to any of it?

As for the Al Qaida type terrorists, for them, if you could make that 100 square miles of glass only affect the guilty, I'd be all for it.

Hmmm... I think there's a difference between terrorists and revolutionaries or insurgents.

I could be wrong, probably am, but I don't recall any stories about our founding fathers going over to England and holding school children hostage with muskets and cannons. I'm sure that there were excesses on both sides and probably things we'd cringe at but no one strapped lightning rods to their bodies and ran into the marketplace during thunderstorms to blow themselves, and any passersby, up. I'm reading a biography of Benjamin Franklin, who invented the lightning rod, and figured out a lot of stuff about electricity. Anyway, he actually liked the English and spent time in England as a young man.

I would make the distinction that terrorism isn't really in the same category as insurgents or revolutionaries. Its the means they use. I think we're used to people fighting "the man". If you're an insurgent or revolutionary you fight the guys in charge and their people, you don't intentionally target the innocent bystanders. That's where I think terrorism as a means of fighting is a little different. You might also be an insurgent and a revolutionary, but you're a terrorists when you intentionally target innocents just to strike fear into the population. Either that or just a nut-job, like the Oaklahoma city bomber and the Unibomber and people like that.

A revolutionary might strap explosives to his/her body and run into parliment and detonate himself. A terrorist would run into a crowded marketplace and do it.

If any of you are old enough to remember the 1960's and the Black Panthers and some of the radical groups back then, I wouldn't call them terrorists. They struck out at the establishment, the representatives of the government like the police (for the most part). I wouldn't call them terrorists but more like revolutionaries.

I think you have to have an overwhelming hatred of your enemy and indifference to the loss of your own life in order to perpetrate the sort of stuff terrorists are doing these days.

I don't have any sympathy or understanding for any group, no matter how wronged they were, that do this sort of thing to children.

Popular revolutions are not terrorists events... Even an unpopular revolution is not a terrorist act. 1776 Revolutionaries were not terroriststs. They wanted Britan to leave and fought an army to do so. They did not execute children for the purpose to induce fear.

The Crimea has a long history streching back to the Goths, Visgoths, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Romans, Ottoman-Turks and Russians. The below is a good recent history.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/chechnyatime1.html

Saying that these people want to rule their own land and linking the Palestinians to these people is a a little naieve. Both groups have one common link... These groups wish to use terrorism to get their way. The reason for this can be explained in a couple of ways.

- Some want Islamic control and death before compromise is the rule.
- Both of these locations have dubious forms of representative government. That said, if representative government was actually implement then EVERYONE would be praying toward Mecca and punishment for not doing so would be death.

Change will only occur when these people accept civilized methods of making change and not acts of barbarism.

I want to leave one last link.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/

Ah, another topic to use to rip each other's throats out with.

You can not negotiate with terrorists or kidnappers. They just keep asking for more once they know you will give in.

I don't think the intent of my post is being understood the way I meant it. Here are a couple of other questions:

1. If the american colonialists had had access to the weaponry and explosives and technology of today, how would things have been different? (We already were sinking british ships, which, since it is killing trade merchants, one might classify as terrorism)

2. If the terrorists of today only had muskets and pitchforks and fairly poor quality black powder, how would the terrorists of today be different?

And as a point of clarification:

I do not lump together the Al Qaida's of the world and people like the Chechens or the Palestinians. A couple more things to try to make clear what I was saying:

1. If your country had been taken from you (by force or by the UN or whatever) 60-80 years ago, and you were not allowed to bear arms, how would you go about attempting to get your country back? Particularly when no one in the international community will even recognize you as a country.

2. That being said, Al Qaida was never a country. They, and similar groups, are a bunch of nutjobs who want to rule the earth. I can think of a few other people in history who wanted to rule the earth. It didn't work out well for them. This is why I likened them to the KKK only without the hoods. They want to take their religious/moral doctrine and attempt to force the entire rest of the world, via fear, into believing as they believe. They are not fighting to regain a home they lost, they are fighting out of some warped sense that they are Right and everyone else is Wrong.

For Al Qaida and the likes, I have no tolerance at all.

For those who are attempting to regain their homeland, for them, I have slightly more tolerance. In their position, I don't know what I would do.

Well, I still maintain the difference is that terrorists intentionally target non-combatants, bomb in the marketplace kind of thing. To quote Monty Python, their three chief weapons are fear, surprise and a ruthless efficiency, although not a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

To compare to the American Revolution, targetting British merchant ships, which probably would take non-combatants down, had a strategic element in that the American colonists were being forced to buy British goods and prevented from manufacturing their own stuff just so England had a captive market. A terrorist act would target a passenger ship rather than a merchant ship.

1. If your country had been taken from you (by force or by the UN or whatever) 60-80 years ago, and you were not allowed to bear arms, how would you go about attempting to get your country back? Particularly when no one in the international community will even recognize you as a country.

I think there's a difference between Guerilla warfare and terrorism. Generally rebels, at least to my knowledge, have been fighting the occupying authority, not the non-combatants.

Really I think the difference between terrorists and other types of conflict is simply the means they use. If you are intentionally killing non-combatants to inspire terror in your enemy, you're a terrorist. If you're sinking their ships because they're a resource of the enemy, I think that's a bit different. If you're boarding their ships, taking hostages, stealing their goods and saying "Arrrrr!" then you're a pirate. :)

(We already were sinking british ships, which, since it is killing trade merchants, one might classify as terrorism)Read Panamah's post. Killing trade ships isn't terrorism, because the intent is to starve a country by shutting off its trade. I realize "terrorism" has taken on a broad definition in the U.S. recently to include "everyone foreign I don't like especially those Muslim guys", but to have "terrorism" the main intent has to be <i>to create terror</i>, not to weaken the enemy.

Killing schoolchildren is terrorism because their deaths will not practically affect the balance of power at all, and they are targeted because they will create the most terror in the other side. The goal of these psychos is to make the government accede to their demands because the government is too afraid of what civilians will be targeted next.

One key to beating it is to never, <i>ever</i> give terrorists the message that their tactics will be effective. Thanks to the idiot population of Spain, however, that has gotten a lot harder.
If the terrorists of today only had muskets and pitchforks and fairly poor quality black powder, how would the terrorists of today be different?It wouldn't. Thankfully, most terrorists are extremely low-tech and don't have nuclear weapons or gunships. But you can bet if they didn't have bombs, they'd use knives, rocks, or their bare hands.
For those who are attempting to regain their homeland, for them, I have slightly more tolerance. In their position, I don't know what I would do.I can't believe you'd be "tolerant" towards terrorists, Chechnyan, Palestinian, or otherwise. No political agenda can justify those kinds of actions, let alone the political control of plots of land. If you even think for a second that you would resort to the same tactics, I don't know whether to feel pity or alarm.

I also think that rebels who have half a brain realize they have to live with the people they're fighting against, and the rest of the world, after they win their cause. If you want to win back your country you're not going to gain sympathy to your cause by killing masses of non-combatants. The rest of the world is going to really, really look at you with suspicion, if you ever do attain your goal, you're going to still look like a villain with the blood of innocents on your hands. Don't expect much respect or cooperation during your regime or foreign aid, unless you figure out how to blackmail it out of people.

Its not that clear cut Panamah. Terrorists only thrive because of the sympathisers who shield and supply them. The IRA in Northern Ireland were able to persist for a long time because of civilians who supported their attacks, dismissing the innocent death as casualties of war. Through Noraid and other channels the terrorist IRA gained a lot of finance from US citizens, something many Americans probably want to forget during the war on terror.

Yeah, you're right, Anka. I totally forgot about European terrorists.

Hrm. I don't seem to be able to put my thoughts into an understandable coherent text posting, so maybe I'll just stop trying.

As for this:If you even think for a second that you would resort to the same tactics, I don't know whether to feel pity or alarm.

If you decided to forcibly attempt to evict me from my home, then yes, you should be alarmed. I would do everything in my power to keep my home and make you go away. If all I have is rocks and molotov cocktails, then that is what I would use.

All that being said I do NOT support terrorism. I did say that I had somewhat more sympathy for those who are attempting to get their homes back from usurpers. I have zero sympathy for those who simply want to take over the world.

Using the other example cited here, I seem to recall that Ireland tried for multiple centuries to regain it's sovereignty prior to the IRA coming into being. And, IIRC, eventually, the tactics they used lead to an actual conversation between Ireland and England, resulting in a settlement which was acceptable to both parties. It also seems that lately the more Israel tries to crack down on the Palestinians, the less world support Israel is garnering.

For the record, and once again, I do not support terrorism. I can, however, see how, when all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, a person might feel that that is the only way to not get trompled on.

As for the children, that was so far beyond wrong it is incomprehensible.

If you decided to forcibly attempt to evict me from my home, then yes, you should be alarmed. I would do everything in my power to keep my home and make you go away. If all I have is rocks and molotov cocktails, then that is what I would use.


Ah, but who would you throw the cocktails and rocks at? Those trying to remove you or the people walking by trying to get to the grocery store?

I think your trying to say you'd throw them at the "removers". A terrorist would decide that the "removers" would back down if they started burning the people going to the grocery store.

Has anyone considered that some of these terrorists probably do it for the power trip and publicity? I don't think the Chechen ones were but there are one or two others I think do it for just this reason.

For the record, and once again, I do not support terrorism. I can, however, see how, when all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, a person might feel that that is the only way to not get trompled on. As for the children, that was so far beyond wrong it is incomprehensible.What exactly <i>is</i> your view? In sentence 1, you say you don't support terrorism. In sentence 2, however, you say you can understand it, so you're saying you passively support it -- you wouldn't actively engage in it, but you wouldn't go out of your way to stop it either. In sentence 3, you say you oppose one terrorist method, but in sentence 2 you already said terrorism is comprehensible, so you're contradicting yourself.

It seems like you'd be willing to turn a blind eye to terrorist methods as long as they claim that they're trying to win back a "homeland" -- a very, very dangerous attitude considering the history of the past 100 years. No political agenda justifies terrorism.Has anyone considered that some of these terrorists probably do it for the power trip and publicity?I'd wager that's definitely a <i>part</i> of it, especially since most of the terrorists are bred to hate their enemy.

Another part of it, I think, is that they have absolutely nothing to lose. They have almost no money or power, and life is meaningless to them because they are brainwashed to believe that the afterlife is better. Ironically, one possible solution (or a part of a solution) to the problem might be to <i>give</i> them something to lose by raising their standard of living.

What exactly is your view?

My view is that there are very few black and white, yes and no, absolute statements in this world.

Based on several definitions in this thread about what constitutes a terrorist, the US's current involvement in Iraq (and previous involvements in Viet Nam and Korea) could constitute terrorism.

No political agenda justifies terrorism.

We (the US) have slain civilians who were on their way to the grocery store in the name of "democracy". The only difference is that we did it with something bigger than a molotov cocktail. We have killed children. We have bombed hospitals. We have killed non-combatants in our air raids and ground raids to push our beliefs and our 'cause' onto a sovereign country. All the while we condem those who do the same thing with less advanced weaponry in support of the cause they believe in. The innocents are just as dead whether they're killed by a smart bomb or killed by a suicide bomber in a car or killed by a plane flying into a building.

Flying planes into the world trade center is one of the few black and whites that I see. Killing elementary school children in the name of a cause is also a black and white. I see absolutely no good coming of these actions at all. They draw no positive support from any world power. Going back to the Israel/Palestine situation, the Palestinians are actually beginning to garner more international support as Israel continues down a slippery slope of attempting to turn Palestine into a sheet of glass.

And what of that? Do the statements made in this thread wishing we could turn the middle east into a sheet of glass constitute terrorist ideas? Wiping out entire countries, civilians and military alike, to impose our ideals and causes and morals? For what purpose? To intimidate anyone else who might have differing ideas from us? That sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

To the victor, it is a rout. To the loser, it is a slaughter. One man's terrorist is another man's liberator. At the moment, we are the victors, therefore we frame the other side as the terrorists, because certainly if we are winning, we can't be terrorists, right?

How far would you go to defend your home, or to try to regain what was once yours but was taken by force? Chechnya tried for a number of years to secede from Russia via political means, all of which failed.

I do not believe in terrorism as a tool. I am saying that I can see what would push a person to do such acts, even while disagreeing with the methods.

For the record, I believe very strongly in the concept that violence begets violence. Once headed down that road, it is difficult to stop the wheel from turning. I am also extremely opposed to violence in ALL forms, including our current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more covert ways to go after the truly heinous bad guys.

Absolutely there are no black & whites in life. Terrorism is hard to define and it probably depends, to some extent, what side you're on.

In any war there are civilian casualities despite, what I hope, is a damn good effort to avoid them. I know that is often not the case, even in Vietnam, WWII there are cases where someone's army perpetrated terrible acts on civilians. There are even governments that do it to their people. I'd call them terrorist governments.

I don't know if I can always blame israel for how they react to repeated acts of terrorism. If we had Canadians coming over the border and randomly exploding themselves in shopping malls, we'd probably retaliate eventually. Do it for enough years and it'd probably turn into a sort of capulet vs montagues, hatfields vs mccoy thing. I think there's a point you can cross where both sides hate each other so much that conflict resolution is nearly impossible, short of obliterating one or the other or both. Or having someone else step in and impose a halt at gun point. Kind of like those fights with your sibling where Mom threatens you both with spankings if you don't cut it out.

I don't know the history of Chechnya but I don't think just because a province wants to secede from their country it gives them any rights whatsoever. I don't care that 300 years ago it was part of the Ottoman empire or whatever. Can you imagine if the South didn't like the results of the civil war and Alabamans and Georgians were modern day terrorists?

Border disputes are the worst. Everyone can draw on their history to prove whatever they want. So if you don't get your way, become terrorists? Can you imagine if the native americans decided they wanted their land back? But I just heard something that native americans might have come here from Australia (new evidence someone found). So what right do they really have to it? :)

And, IIRC, eventually, the tactics they used lead to an actual conversation between Ireland and England, resulting in a settlement which was acceptable to both parties.

There isn't a full Northern Ireland settlement yet, but the breakthrough was actually made by renunciation of terrorism. Sinn Fein, the political side of the IRA, have in the past had democratically elected representatives but they refused to participate in what they saw as an 'occupying government'. Progress was only made when the protestant and catholic terrorists began a ceasefire and the existing democratic representatives worked out a peace plan together.

Northern Ireland politics are still a complete mess though and make no sense to anyone outside the region. On a site note it's also worth saying that Wales and Scotland also now have devolved government, obtained through entirely democratic means.

What exactly is your view? In sentence 1, you say you don't support terrorism. In sentence 2, however, you say you can understand it, so you're saying you passively support it -- you wouldn't actively engage in it, but you wouldn't go out of your way to stop it either. In sentence 3, you say you oppose one terrorist method, but in sentence 2 you already said terrorism is comprehensible, so you're contradicting yourself.

To defeat terrorism you have to understand it. You can't send missiles at a concept. You can't send missiles at it's causes either such as nationalism, racism, poverty, injustice, or lack of representation. There's no point try to exert justice on a suicide bomber after they've killed 50 people, you have to stop them strapping on a bomb in the first place. You have to understand the reasons why people are willing to kill themselves and others and take those reasons away from them. I agree 100% with Jinjre's post, very well said.

I don't know the history of Chechnya but I don't think just because a province wants to secede from their country it gives them any rights whatsoever.

If a good democratic majority of a province wants independence then why not? As with everything in life it's more complicated than that, but the principle is moderately sound. It's a right that's been fought for by many nations including the US, the eastern bloc, almost all the old colonial empires, well almost everyone maybe. Given that people can choose to be ungovernable, how could you stop a province splitting away except with guns and violence?

Based on several definitions in this thread about what constitutes a terrorist, the US's current involvement in Iraq (and previous involvements in Viet Nam and Korea) could constitute terrorism.

We (the US) have slain civilians who were on their way to the grocery store in the name of "democracy". We have killed children. We have bombed hospitals.You're missing the point. The key is the intent and goal of the attacker, not necessarily the numbers and types of bodies that stack up. It was not our goal to kill children and non-combatants; they were caught in the crossfire, as they are in every war. Our goal was to kill the militants with the guns and government officials. By historical warfare standards, we made a good effort to avoid civilian casualties.

Terrorists want exactly the opposite. They <i>want</i> as many civilian casualties as possible, to put the population in a panic. They don't attack military targets to weaken the nation, because their goal is to conquer by fear, not by might.

Do you see the difference now? "Terrorist" isn't a generic term for "bad guy", it has a specific meaning referring to the way you attack an enemy.

Strickening the population with panic via suicide bombers, or strickening the population with panic via an onslaught of massive military might...the population is still striken with panic.

The mother who grieves for the loss of her child due to a "terrorist attack" does not grieve any less than the mother who grieves for the loss of her child due to "crossfire".

While I understand your difference between terrorist and non-terrorist, I do not see much difference in the outcome. If Bin Laden had had at his disposal the massive military might which we have at our disposal, would he have flown a few planes into buildings? Or would he have turned the entire continent of North America into a nuclear wasteland? Their goal of conquering by fear is simply because they lack the means of conquering by might.

The problem lies not with the weaponry. The problem lies with the people behind it. Call it what you will, dead is dead.

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and rocks." ~A. Einstein.

While I'm at it:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

1000+ Americans dead. Well over 10,000 Iraqis dead.

Dead is dead. And for what?

Another thing to keep in mind when comparing islamic terrorists with american revolutionists is that terrorists don't typically care about the "rules of war". I believe in the 17th century they still followed some form of the rules of engagement. See: encyclopedia of american military history.

"Rules of War" are a modern artificial concept. Go back to the old Roman and Greek myths and you'll see the heroes were often celebrated for using wits, trickery, and deception to defeat enemies. Nobody particularly worried whether the Greeks were wearing uniforms or not when the wooden horse was hauled into Troy.

The Geneva convention probably needs updating now to address modern concerns before it loses relevance. The people in Guantanamo bay shouldn't be outside all forms of justice, but since many are effectively 'stateless' people it doesn't make sense to just return them to their home countries like usual prisoners of war. The Geneva convention should be updated to define terrorists and their status.

something to keep in mind you guys, those with the most guns are the ones who pronounce policy and write history. as an example, in the history of the united states, when the native americans at the time managed to actually win one of their battle with the U.S. Military, the morning paper would read something like, "HEATHENS MASSACRE THE BRAVE SOLDIERS OF THE 7TH CAVALRY AT LITTLE BIG HORN!!!"

on the other hand, when the U.S. Military showed up and completely surrounded an indian village filled with men, women and young children, then killed every breathing being there, it showed up in the newspaper as "U.S. MILITARY WINS A GREAT BATTLE AGAINST THE BLOOD-THIRSTY SAVAGES!!!!"

its all about the perspective of the winner, and in this day and age, the united states is the "winner." now, one of the things that really tweaks my nads, as though this mess of an oil-war we are in isn't enough, is our response to this business in russia. where do WE get off telling the Russians that they need to sit down and talk to these terrorists?!?!?! hearing that on tv, coupled with the whole republican 'if you don't re-elect us you will all die in a terrorist attack' fear campaign...canada is really looking better and better every year.

WTF is our problem?

canada is really looking better and better every year.


I've said the same thing to several members of my family.

If Bin Laden had had at his disposal the massive military might which we have at our disposal, would he have flown a few planes into buildings? Or would he have turned the entire continent of North America into a nuclear wasteland? Their goal of conquering by fear is simply because they lack the means of conquering by might.

Well, terrorism usually originates from an issue. It's purpose is to make the issue known by drawing attention of the media. How do they do this? Attacks, obviously. Their goal is not to provoke fear, it's to draw the cameras. If Bin Laden had the military power the United States has today, he would not lay waste on a country just because he wants to prove a point. People around a country lead by Bin Laden would live in fear by they sheer size of his military power, and I'm sure they would agree to solve whatever issues he may have.

Well spoken, Jinjre.

I had much sympathy for Chechnya until recent years, when they started bringing in the terror tactics from Muslim allies.

While it is politically correct to mouth the platitudes about how not all muslims are nutjobs like those we see in the news...it doesn't change the fact that everywhere Islam spreads...it brings terror. Be it in the Middle-East or North-West Asia, the Pacific, the Sudan, or France.

Regardless of what the religion is "supposed" to be, it is not a religion of tolerance. Nowhere will you find a majority Islamic nation with tolerance for "infidels".

Lest we forget that in 1776, our founding fathers were considered terrorists. The difference, in my mind, is that we attacked arms with arms, and we 'terrorized' via financial means.

That being said, I wonder how things might have been different if we had been able to bomb buildings or take british children hostage in our own fight for independence.

I do see a difference in the Chechens/Palestinians vs. Al Qaida and those sorts of nutjobs. In the first, their land and their sovereignty were taken from them by force by outsiders. Al Qaida is essentially the KKK wearing robes with no hoods.

Terrorism is not a good thing by any stretch. But as devil's advocate, what would you be willing to do if some other country took over your property, your house, your land, your government, and claimed you no longer had any right to any of it?

As for the Al Qaida type terrorists, for them, if you could make that 100 square miles of glass only affect the guilty, I'd be all for it.

Ahem, please learn about the "Palestinians" before making such statement. They never had sovereignty. The only times, in recorded history, when what is now modern Israel was ruled by native persons was the relatively few times Jews had sovereignty there. For the vast majority of the millenia, the region has been ruled by outside forces. The closest Arabs ever had to sovereignty there was Persian, Assyrian, or Turkish rule.

Secondly, noone took over their land. They left. War came in '48 and they left their homes (at the suggestion of their Arab "brethren") hoping the Arabs would overrun the Jews. It didn't happen, and now the Arab world would rather they remain homeless refugees and terrorists in order to push for the destruction of Israel, rather than provide them places in the greater Arab world.

Finally, at the same time some 600,000 Arabs fled the land mandated them by the UN, some 800,000 Jews were expelled from their homes in various Arab lands. Rather than pen those Jews up in refugee camps and send them money so long as they terrorized Arab civilians, Israel accepted those expelled Jews and integrated them into society.

Also, please remember that Israel only took control of Gaza and the West Bank in '67, during the third Arab-Israeli war, instigated by the Arabs.

For 19 years Egypt, Syria, and Jordan held the lands which were to become Palestine. Why didn't they allow the "Palestinians" to create the sovereign nation they all feel they deserve? Because they didn't want a Palestinian nation. They wanted Israel wiped off the map so they could split it up between themselves. Only after repeated losses to Israel in conventional wars, did they decide to change their tactics and fight for a "Palestinian nation", not that they seriously want a Palestinian nation.

Never forget that under Barak, Israel was willing to give the Palestinians everything they wanted. A sovereign nation with East Jerusalem as its capital. Everything, except the "Right of Return". That wasn't enough. They insisted on this so called "Right of Return", knowing full well that Israel can never permit that since it would instantly make Jews a minority in their own nation (Imagine 11 million Lutherans insisting they wanted to move immediately into the Vatican).

The idea of Palestians as a displaced people fighting for freedom is a fallacy propogated by the Arab League. The reality is, its Arab who have kept them exiled for political ends.

Going back to the Israel/Palestine situation, the Palestinians are actually beginning to garner more international support as Israel continues down a slippery slope of attempting to turn Palestine into a sheet of glass.

Israel has never had international support. Not since the brief period immediately after WWII when the UN decided to give Jews a homeland.

They've had support, alternately, from Britain, France, Germany and the United States over the years, but the world, as a whole, has been a political enemy of Israel from the get go, due to Arab influence within the UN.

Interestingly enough, in recent years Poland has been a huge financial supporter of Israel. I think they are afraid that if the Jews loose Israel, they'll all move back to Poland again =P

While it is politically correct to mouth the platitudes about how not all muslims are nutjobs like those we see in the news...it doesn't change the fact that everywhere Islam spreads...it brings terror.

I think Hitler was saying the same things about Jews in 1940 and he could bring enough 'evidence' to the table to convince a nation or two. Stalin probably said the same sort of thing too when he felt the need to fill a Gulag or two. There are problems in contempary muslim nations and beliefs but it doesn't make them intrinsically evil.

When I have to realistically fear for my life were I to enter any nation where Islam is the majority, because I'm a Jew, I deem that religion to be intrisically evil. Individuals I judge on a case by case basis as I meet them, but as a whole, you'll forgive me if I deem the religion evil. They are the antithesis to everything I am and believe in and would as soon see me gone as give me the time of day.

If jews consider muslims to be evil because of the behavior of the muslim nations and muslims consider jews to be evil because of the behavior of the jewish nation, you're locked in viscous circle that can do no good.

Jews never wanted to drive the muslims into the sea, or scourge the earth of the Muslims. Muslims have been trying to butcher Jews for a hundred and fifty years.

Jews have only been in a position to successfully fight back against those who would see us second hand citizens (or just dead) for the past 60 years, we will do so. Anti-semetic Europeans be damned.

Anti-semetic Europeans be damned.

Quite right, but there aren't that many anti-semitic western europeans now. There are plenty of people currently with anti-muslim sentiment, but seemingly not as many as some other places.

There are a slew of anti-semetic western europeans.

Being anti-Israel is, for all intents and purposes, being anti-semetic.

France is rife with blatant anti-semetism (though in fairness its due to the large muslim population from the Lavant).

In Norway they label all Israeli products with a yellow star...so people can know which products to boycott.

it doesn't change the fact that everywhere Islam spreads...it brings terror.The religion is just a convenient excuse to brainwash a small minority of people -- just as Christianity was an excuse through the centuries to kill, torture, and forcibly "convert" countless people on Earth, but is now relatively docile. You can twist just about anything to mean "kill your enemy and you will be rewarded in the afterlife", so getting rid of Islam is not going to solve the problem. Also, constantly expressing your hatred of it just reinforces the cycle of revenge, making the situation worse.

Being anti-Israel is, for all intents and purposes, being anti-semetic.

Absolute, complete, and utter rubbish. Objective, impartial observers of the middle east can find faults in all nations and they don't suddenly become anti-semitic, anti-muslim, or anti-arab when they speak about those faults. The people who boycotted South Africa in the apartheid years were not the enemies of the south african people but actually in reterospect their friends.

I looked up the 'Norway yellow star Israel' on google and this is what I found

'The final result was that some Norwegian grocers, dissatisfied with Israel's political stance, made grumbling noises about planning to boycott or slap special labels on Israeli food imports, but within a few days they had all reconsidered and decided to address their dissatisfaction through other means. An American writer jumped the gun and editorialized on the issue without verifying whether the grocers had ever followed through on their threats.'

and surprisingly

'Central members of Kristiansand Progress party claims Hitler’s «Mein Kampf» and the Koran are one of the same, and they want Islam banned in Norway. «It is about high time Norway and Europe make the ideology Islam and the practice of this, illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism,» Udnæs said.'

It looks to me as if they have the same number of loonies and bigots in Norway as they have everwhere else.

Absolute, complete, and utter rubbish. Objective, impartial observers of the middle east can find faults in all nations and they don't suddenly become anti-semitic, anti-muslim, or anti-arab when they speak about those faults. The people who boycotted South Africa in the apartheid years were not the enemies of the south african people but actually in reterospect their friends.


Not absolute rubbish. There is no such thing as objective, impartial observers of the middle east.

And to equate Israel with Apartheid South Africa is an example of just that.

There is no such thing as objective, impartial observers of the middle east.

Yes there are. How can you presume that it's so special? The middle east may be the centre of the world to some people but to others it's just another spot on the map. US observers were able to come into Northern Ireland, another fractious and supposedly intractable conflict, and bring some common sense to people who still intrinsically hate their neighbours even after 5 years of peace.

If you don't like equating SA and Israel then instead equate the friends of SA with the friends of Israel, friends pressing for voluntary change for better in those countries. Israelis are free to tell people not to meddle in their affairs and can choose their own politics, but it doesn't mean people are anti-semitic for disagreeing with those politics.

I believe Marx said once: "Religion is an opiate of the masses". Or rather, the "control" of the masses, as it is said in spanish.

Hrm. I don't seem to be able to put my thoughts into an understandable coherent text posting, so maybe I'll just stop trying.


Ha Ha, I would critize your opinion but how can you critize noncogent thoughts... *grin*

Absolutely there are no black & whites in life.

Is that statement absolutely true?

We (the US) have slain civilians who were on their way to the grocery store in the name of "democracy". The only difference is that we did it with something bigger than a molotov cocktail. We have killed children. We have bombed hospitals. We have killed non-combatants in our air raids and ground raids to push our beliefs and our 'cause' onto a sovereign country. All the while we condem those who do the same thing with less advanced weaponry in support of the cause they believe in.

The US does not go out of its way to kill civilians but if these terrorists hide in a school, what is the US to do? Starve them out? Is that not an act of terror as you define it?

Moltov cocktails are not the issue but taking French journalists or taking Turkish truck drivers or taking Iraqi political officials and lopping off their heads is the issue. Video tapped executions where the victim begs for mercy and the end result is their head in a basket delivered to the US military.

The US does its level best to not kill civilians. Unforunatly terrorists stand next to civilians while shooting at the US military.

The last I knew, the US was trying to get a gov't operating in Iraq that does not operate with torture chambers and other less than desireable motivations. Abru grab(sp) is a stain on our occupation of Iraq but that just shows the necessity of an Iraqi civilan gov't in charge. A gov't that would protect the lives of those people. Which contrasts with what the terrorists have to offer.

To defeat terrorism you have to understand it. You can't send missiles at a concept. You can't send missiles at it's causes either such as nationalism, racism, poverty, injustice, or lack of representation. There's no point try to exert justice on a suicide bomber after they've killed 50 people, you have to stop them strapping on a bomb in the first place. You have to understand the reasons why people are willing to kill themselves and others and take those reasons away from them. I agree 100% with Jinjre's post, very well said.



I agree with what you say but the last sentence. Was the American Civil war justified? Was the Confederacy justified to succeed from the Union? Is slavery acceptable? What crosses the line?

Conflict occurs due to policy and the question becomes.... Is the policy worth death and human struggle?

Ex: Freeing Northern slaves, Selling arms to England/French before the Lusitinia was sunk, Lend/lease program, embargos of oil, embargos of steel, supporting a Jewish state in the wake of the Holocalst and containment of Communist expansion.

Were these policies worth it? All of these caused armed conflict of some type.

The religion is just a convenient excuse to brainwash a small minority of people -- just as Christianity was an excuse through the centuries to kill, torture, and forcibly "convert" countless people on Earth, but is now relatively docile. You can twist just about anything to mean "kill your enemy and you will be rewarded in the afterlife", so getting rid of Islam is not going to solve the problem. Also, constantly expressing your hatred of it just reinforces the cycle of revenge, making the situation worse.

Christanity was not that way before the Roman Empire made it so. Religion as a gov't is dangerous. Despots need justification for their rule and Religion lends nicely to that justification. The current Muslim world is no different.

When religion is removed as a justification for a state you get a more reasoned policy. Ridding the world Islam won't solve this terrorism but ridding the world of religious despots will.

If Islam was not such a large religion, we would not be talking about these problems. A small religion can be isolated and left alone but so many that can be so easily influenced has to be dealt with and not left alone.

Is that statement absolutely true?

I'm not sure, it's a gray area for me. :p


When religion is removed as a justification for a state you get a more reasoned policy. Ridding the world Islam won't solve this terrorism but ridding the world of religious despots will.

How do you figure that? The countries that seem to have bred the worst terrorists don't have religious despots: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran come to mind. Iran is a democracy, Saudi Arabia has a monarchy, Pakistan has a .... general who deposed the last president... I think.

I had a long discussion with a friend last night and he told me what the Chechnya rebellion is about... they want to be independent and install their own muslim theocracy.

How do you figure that? The countries that seem to have bred the worst terrorists don't have religious despots: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran come to mind. Iran is a democracy, Saudi Arabia has a monarchy, Pakistan has a .... general who deposed the last president... I think.

Iran is a Theoracacy.

Pakistan is a "strong man" that uses the Koran to control dissent.

Saudi Arabia has a king on life support(in coma) and the order of inheritance is in doubt. That is, UBL could become the next king of Saudi Arabia... Saudi Arabia has a monarch "ordained" by God... That is how monarchy functions.

Iran is a democracy. The people vote for and elect their government. Of course, to get on the list to be voted for, the Clerics have to approve you. Still, that's a democracy.

You stated that "religious despots" was the problem. I'm pointing out to you that it isn't religious despots, its generally religion and despots that is *part* of the problem. The real problem is the people are ignorant, uneducated and turn to religion to solve their problems. And their religious leaders are telling them to do stupid things. The solution... well, that gets a little tougher. I think education and a higher standard of living would do a lot to quell things.

Just because people are alowed to vote doesn't make it a democracy. There are many contries around the world where people "vote" their dictators into office. North Korea, comes to mind. Only if you don't vote for the dictator you have the chance to starve to death. Calling Iran a democracy because they can vote is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy because Hitler was elected too.