posted
Firstly; Let us define terrorism: The word "terrorism" is controversial, with no universally agreed definition. The way the term is used varies widely, with descriptive and prescriptive applications, and is often used in its prescriptive (normative) sense to signal that the political violence of an enemy is regarded as unjustified or unjustifiable. As a result, those accused of being terrorists rarely identify themselves as such, instead using terms such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, activist, insurgent, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi, mujaheddin, or fedayeen.
Definitions of "terrorism" generally involve some or all of the following:
A terrorist act is generally unlawful. It is violent and may be life threatening. The violence is politically motivated. The direct targets are civilians. The direct targets may not be the main targets. The main targets may be one or more nation-states, governments, or societies; or a political, ethnic, or religious group, or an industry or commercial operation, within those societies. The objective is usually to intimidate the main targets. There may or may not be a claim of responsibility. The perpetrator is usually a non-state entity. Where there is direct state involvement, the state actors are clandestine or semi-clandestine. See State terrorism.
So we can use both "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" interchangably.
So, lets have some examples: The first geurilla war would be when Napoleon invaded Spain and the Spaniards began a "little war" against the French thus an example of "terrorism" when did it end? When Spain was Liberated by the English.
Now lets fast forwards a hundred years or so to the Second World War, to the Russian steepe.
Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, and Batlic Statian Paritsans (see Freedom Fighter) were usually at first Red Army soldiers who got lost in the retreat or managed to escape behind german lines out of the pockets during 1941 Operation barbarossa. At first they were mostly bandits with only a few deliberate attmepts to raid german supply lines until they were all organized into an effective arm of the Armed forces, and the Russian Partisan movement only ended when A they met up with the Red Army and were disbanded and thrown into Penal battalions or B when the last bit of the Rodina was liberated in 1944.
Thus Partisanism in Russia only ended when the land was liberated.
Next, there were also "Freedom fighter" (as deemed by the Allies but considered as Terrorists by the Germans hmm) movements in France and any other country occupied by the Fascists. They only ended when in case A or Case Francais when France was Liberated by the Allies or B in the case of Eastern Europe when the Red Army entered Eastern Europe. Or case C in Poland where the Warsaw uprising was crushed by the Germans.
In the case of Eastern Europe the Red Army's control of information, and transportation was so complete and total that when the Partisans disarmed they couldn't rearm and try to fight the Red Army, (except in cases where the freedom fighters were Communists like Marshall Tito who instead were set up as the new government).
Thus I see only 2 ways that terrorism/freedom fighterism of any kind ever finished.
When A the land they were fighting for was Liberated and restored to them or B when a totalitarian power took control of the situation and with Draconian measures crushed the resistance.
Things don't look good right now because A) Israel is a democratic nation and cannot resort to Draconian measures and B) If they give the terrorists everything they want the state of Israel will nolonger exist.
IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I want to congratulate you on a well constructed post (from a spelling/grammatical standpoint). I've criticized you in the past for misspellings and grammatical errors, and your effort in this instance is noted. I skimmed it, but I only noticed one misspelled word.
That said, I don't have an answer for your question, but I do offer a different definition of terrorism.
Terrorism isn't defined by the goal. It's defined by the method. The idea behind terrorism is to influence through fear. The objectives can be political, religious, social, or environmental. But the method is always to force change by inducing panic.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see that option A has anything to do with democracy. 'We kill 200 Palestinians for every Israeli killed' might be an option of last resort to be embraced by Israelis, but it's definitely there.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The idea behind terrorism is to influence through fear.
The idea behind an overwhelming military force is also to influence through fear. The distinction between an army and a terrorist's goal is primarily between the types of targets that are attacked(i.e. military and civilian).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The distinction between an army and a terrorist's goal is primarily between the types of targets that are attacked(i.e. military and civilian). "
So the car bombings in Beirut weren't terrorism?
I disagree. I think terrorism is merely the way the enemy accomplishes the same goal.
Another definition of terrorism might be:
"Any form of warfare that effectively emasculates conventional military equipment and tactics."
or:
"We don't like the way they conduct war, because we have no effective means to fight it."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t think terrorism can ever be ‘defeated’ but situations can change so individual groups of terrorists can stop. There will always (in the foreseeable future) be another group with another grievance somewhere in the world.
The IRA is supposed to be in the process of decommissioning their weapons. Will this be the end of terrorism in Northern Ireland? No. For the last couple of nights there have been petrol bombs thrown and guns fired, this time by loyalists. There are other republican groups that have broken from the IRA and vow to continue terrorism. But there is hope that a solution will finally be found. More and more people on both sides are getting sick of the violence and have appreciated the relative peace of the last few years.
Extremist Muslim terrorism looks further from a solution, but that doesn’t mean one will not be found in the future. But what about places like Chechnya? Where will be the next part of a country to try to get independence? What will be the next country invaded by a neighbour that uses terrorism to try to make them leave?
Terrorism is part of the world today. Hopefully one day it will not be, but for now it is a weapon used by people who believe in their cause but do not have an army to fight with. Hopefully in the future these groups will realise that they loose sympathy from people who might help by attacking civilians. For that to happen we need a way for people who feel they have a cause to get headlines and support without killing people. Any ideas?
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terrorism can never be totally defeated, because there will always be ruthless, evil people in the world...or courageous, self-sacrificing freedom-fighters, YMMV.
However, the question of whether or not terrorism can be defeated as a frequent method of politics...that's much less open-ended, I think. I think the answer to that-and most especially whether certainly TYPES of terrorism, for certain causes-can be eliminated is 'yes'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
GA, my point was that there really is no distinction except in cases where civilians are targeted. Otherwise "terrorism" is just a new form of conventional warfare.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Joe Haldeman's The Forever Peace, a way was found to destroy the entire galaxy. The ultimate terrorist's weapon, and some would be crazy enough to try it. A way to end terrorism was absolutely essential.
quote:The idea behind an overwhelming military force is also to influence through fear.
Not true. The idea behind overwhelming military force is that it's a deterrent. Not because it inspires fear, because unless it can all be deployed at once there's always an area of maximum vulnerability where a smaller force can overpower a larger one at the point of attack.
Like China having a billion man military won't stop anyone from entering into combat with them, because there isn't a battlefield large enough to fight on. Their size of their military just means anyone'll think twice before invading them.
But that's another discussion entirely.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We don't like the way they conduct war, because we have no effective means to fight it."
Another reason why terrorism is dependent on fear. How do you fight a phantom? That's how terrorism becomes really effective. A few successful strikes will paralyze the entire population, because they know there's no real prevention possible.
[ September 13, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok, this has become a discussion on the goals/methodes of terrorism (somewhat); though the purpose of discussion how to end it is still hear somepeople are under the impression that it "never ends" but as I pointed out there are plenty of historical precedents to when terrorism ended (I mentioned the more notable ones, and the ones easiest to define/talk about, there are definatly other more obscure ones).
The problem was that it ended only 2 ways.
1- The terrorist/freedom fighters got what they want, as in 100% what they want not some silly wussy compromise.
2- A totalitarian power so ruthless in its application of Military force and Covert-Ops that all current resistence movements were easily disarmed and none were ever EVER able to take place EVER AGAIN.
And in the Israeli-Palistinian issue Israel can do neither options without A) Dismantling their own nation. or B) Sacrifing their Liberal Democratic society, and fundamental freedoms for the benefits of security.
That was the original point, a frustrated question in the midst of reality, "How can we do this?" For we are between a rock and a hard place and every choice we make will be between the frying pan and the pot, every choice will effect every issue for generations to come and for Israel, a wonderful nation, an Island of Light in a sea of darkness is in the prediciment of a lifetime. So I ask again, what can we do if our only choices are to either kill our body or kill our soul?
IP: Logged |
2. When was the last time the U.K. experienced an attack by the Angry Brigade?
And, given the recent decision of the Provisional IRA to disarm, it's possible that the terrorism in Northern Ireland will come to an end without either the terrorists winning or a totalitarian regime crushing the terrorists (unless you consider the U.K. totalitarian.)
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's another way to end terrorism - ignore it.
It sounds unbelievable, but if you simply treat terrorism like a natural disaster then it loses all its power. It's almost impossible to do, but there it is.
And it won't end all terrorism, just one specific instance.
Terrorism as a whole can't be stopped for the forseeable future.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm totally in agreement with you. The reason that tactic works, by the way, is that one goal of terrorism is to do things that have a demoralizing, amplification effect on the target population. Destroy a building and ruin the economy...that sort of thing.
If we fail to rise to the bait, while calmly and rationally pursuing the people who ordered or perpetrated the attack, we may lose out on the satisfaction of immediate retaliation, but we win in the following ways: - we don't destroy our way of life - we don't panic and throw money away on useless, ineffective gestures - we don't escalate already volatile situations.
Ultimately, we need one more thing in order to STOP terrorism. That is, we need to take away its appeal. They can't recruit people who are happy with their life. So, we work hard to make sure that people are not stuck, disenfranchised and ready to do anything to break the cycle.
But WE will never win the war on terrorism because we can't do any of the above.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see world peace coming about any time soon, and given the number of world militaries with highly sophisticated and modern equipment and tactics, perhaps the rise of guerilla tactics in those not so equipped is inevitable.
I think the best real tool we have against terrorism is effective distribution of accurate information. Terrorism thrives in a mentality that dehumanizes an oppressive "other", an enemy that cannot be reasoned with and must not be coddled or negotiated with, but can only be destroyed.
We need to convince suicide bombers that their lives are worth living, beyond the vague possibility that their martyrdom will somehow make the lives of those they identify as their own better somewhere up the line. And we need to convince them the lives they might take are not enemies but human beings, and their taking is a grave injustice.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We need to convince suicide bombers that their lives are worth living, beyond the vague possibility that their martyrdom will somehow make the lives of those they identify as their own better somewhere up the line.
Or that there is no afterlife and that they've got to make the best with what they've got?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's another way to end terrorism - ignore it.
I'm also in total agreement with this. Terrorism thrives in a multimedia age. If we could somehow convince the news media to not report acts of terrorism, that alone would make a big dent in it.
But we've got to recognize that as a society. We've done that before, with "loose lips sink ships." The papers stopped reporting ship departures, because they recognized a direct correlation between printing those departures and u-boat successes off the N.J. coast.
I've said this before, that during the Columbine shootings the commentator I was listening to during the live feed actually mentioned that this would cause "copycat" shootings. Why it didn't occur to the producers of those news organizations that copycats would be less likely if they didn't break into daytime programming is beyond me, except that they didn't want to get scooped.
If the news media and law enforcement could get together and come up wiht some guidelines for reporting this kind of event (where there is a correlation between reporting an event and repeat events) so that the information is available, but not sensationalized, it would go a long way in the right direction.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Bob hit the nail right on the head there.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ah but you see, in a democratic society the media thinks with its nuts first and wallet second (vice versa?) The media sees a story, and wil try to profit on it, and will print it, cause a huge reaction, the bigger the better for them.
For Totalitarian governments, its a matter of pride and national security (sounds familiar?) if they allow such a resistence to gain ground and spread they will lose their control of the people and risk losing power and could never ignore the problem.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: There's another way to end terrorism - ignore it.
It sounds unbelievable, but if you simply treat terrorism like a natural disaster then it loses all its power. It's almost impossible to do, but there it is.
Um... not had much experience with terrorism, I see.
Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent.
I don't get it. Why does it seem that I have more respect for those bloodthirsty terrorist murderers and supporters and accomplices of terrorist murderers than the "moderates"?
Edit: replaced the phrase "sons of camels" (which had intended to be a euphemism to begin with) as per requests. I think it flowed better before, but I bow to the demands of the Professionally Offended.
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent
That's not terrorism, that's war. Two very different animals with very different motives and goals.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not necessarily. Terrorism is simply a tactic to be used in war. That's a little hard for some to come to grips with, but there are no rules in warfare except those you apply to yourself, and those rules cannot be applied to your opponent.
A commander can do whatever he wants if he thinks it will accomplish an objective. Terrorism is the label we have applied to this tactic because we have chosen not to use it, and wish to seperate it from what we call "conventional warfare."
I personally don't think terrorism can be defeated if for no other reason than it's been around so long. The first instances of terrorism I can think of are the Assassins during the First Crusade, and that was roughly 1000 years ago. My memory doesn't serve me to well, but I'm sure there are other examples before that.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the word Terrorism is used far more often than is warranted. American revolutionaries were terrorists by the definition so commonly used. Sam Addams, and often times George Washington and others, were all terrorists. Loyalists were pillaged and captured and held for ransom, and were in general terrorized in heavily Tory areas during the revolution.
But they are heroes, so, let's just brush all that under the rug shall we?
I think Palestinian terrorists would get a lot further with civil disobedience than they are getting with suicide bombings. Or even a combination of the two. One suicide bomber attacks in Tel Aviv, and a large group of peaceful protestors stage a non-violent silent protest in Jerusalem. Not that I'm advocating such an action, but given the sometimes trigger happy nature of the IDF, I think an incident involving murdered non-violent protestors would be a very likely outcome.
Peaceful protests won't do anything in Iraq, because the American forces there would let them do whatever they want in that regard. And thus they will never achieve their goal. It will only work when the oppressor has a hair trigger.
I do think terrorism as a whole will one day be defeated. Simply saying that there will always be evil people in the world is far too simplistic, and shows a lack of understanding of the sources and causation of terrorists. The current problem in Israel hasn't ALWAYS been there. Sure, there have always been problems there, but this specific problem is relatively recent.
I think there are more solutions than A. The bad guys win and B. Ruthlessly crushing them. Nation building CAN be successful, if you make reaonable goals, and understand the situation you are stepping into. The US rarely understands the situation it is stepping into, and thus usually ends up screwing it up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Terrorism, by the modern definition, has been around since well before Roman times. The Greeks and Persians used it. I'm betting it was used even before then. But they didn't call it terrorism, they called it warfare.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is true, the Spartans used guerrilla warfare at Thermopoli, the Mongols would kill the population of entire villages to scare others into surrendering, and there are accounts of Bodicia (around the time of the Roman Emperor Claudius) wiping out the entire Roman colony of Londinium for the same reason (even though it was populated pricipally by Britons, not Romans).
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened at Thermopylae was in my opinion nothing even close to terrorism, though maybe they call it that by todays standards. Two military forces met, the invaders and the defenders, the latter being the lesser force, but in many ways being of a higher caliber.
Were it me, I'd do anything I could to win. And back then, they generally did.
And I was under the impression that Bodicia's burning of Lodinium killed mostly Roman citizens. Either way, that is balanced by the following battle, in which Bodicia was defeated, and thousands of men, women and children were slaughtered by the Roman legions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Terrorism is the label we have applied to this tactic because we have chosen not to use it, and wish to seperate it from what we call "conventional warfare."
I categorize this as 'guerilla warfare', not terrorism. I think you can have terrorism in regular warfare, but it's comparitively rare. I can't think of an example (too early in the morning) but I feel certain someone else can.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Trojan Horse could be viewed as terrorism, though. It just succeeded completely in the first attempt.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent.
Lisa, could you clarify this a bit? While I believe your meaning is that Arab terrorists would be "happy as little clams" to be ignored, what you have written could be interpreted that all Arabs would be happy to have the terrorist actions be ignored. Please help me to know that you don't believe all Arabs to be "bloodthirsty sons of camels." Or at bare minimum, since I'm not authorized to police thoughts (yet), that you didn't intend to say it here.
posted
Chances are no. Terrorism is not the same as guerilla warfare. Terrorism is striking out at the citizens generally, while Guerilla warfare is not(well unless the army is somewhat corrupt or you have a situation like in vietnam where a citizen can turn soldier in a matter of seconds, not that it makes it any better).
Posts: 42 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Geurilla warfare is in my mind an acceptable means to to wage war if the odds are overwhelmingly against you. Mao used it and won and used it well. The thing with geurilla warfare is that it relies almost 100% on maintaining the support of the people, inorder when times are rough to become "fish among water" as Mao termed it. Once you start attacking your own civilians you lsoe that support and you are then left out into the open and easily crushed.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
PJ.... policing thoughts will aid you to no avail in my case, you read my thoughts and you'll go blind .
IP: Logged |
posted
Guerilla warfare is being entirely categorized as terrorism. Setting off a roadside bomb to blow up a humvee isn't terrorism, it's guerilla warefare. Same thing with ambushes, and firefights in the middle of cities.
The Bush Administration uses the term terrorism so often to describe these things because he knows it's the only thing that will rally any sort of support to a dying cause. If he called it what it was, they'd lose even more support.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a supporter of the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush both times. But I do agree there needs to be a distinction between attacks targeting civilians and attacks targeting military forces. Only the former should be referred to as terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration, for that matter) have blurred that line. For example, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole should not have been labeled a terrorist act.
However, since the forces opposing U.S. troops in Iraq are in fact using terrorism (targeting civilians), it is legitimate to label them generally as terrorist forces, even if they sometimes attack military targets.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent.
Lisa, could you clarify this a bit? While I believe your meaning is that Arab terrorists would be "happy as little clams" to be ignored, what you have written could be interpreted that all Arabs would be happy to have the terrorist actions be ignored. Please help me to know that you don't believe all Arabs to be "bloodthirsty sons of camels." Or at bare minimum, since I'm not authorized to police thoughts (yet), that you didn't intend to say it here.
--PJ
I'd be happy to clarify. All of the Arab nations, without exception, are correctly described as in my post. Not all Arab individuals are. Furthermore, I would say that the vast majority (near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference) of self-described Palestinian Arabs who live in the Middle East are willing supporters and accomplices to those who actually carry out terrorist actions.
Edit: ... and are consequently also as described in my previous post.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent
That's not terrorism, that's war. Two very different animals with very different motives and goals.
And yet the differences can be blurred. If the Arab war against Israel is indeed a war, then acts of terrorism are war crimes.
I haven't noticed the "militants" and "freedom fighters" who blow up children being called "war criminals" any time lately.
posted
I don't watch the news, so I don't really know what they're called. But regardless of how the media refers to stuff like that, it doesn't change the fact that terrorism and guerilla warfare are two seperate things. No amount of arguing changes that either.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be happy to clarify. All of the Arab nations, without exception, are correctly described as in my post. Not all Arab individuals are. Furthermore, I would say that the vast majority (near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference) of self-described Palestinian Arabs who live in the Middle East are willing supporters and accomplices to those who actually carry out terrorist actions.
Hopefully that kind of attitude isn't prevelant among Israelis, otherwise it's no surprise that it looks like there is no end in sight to the conflict there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I would like to go on the record as finding it offensive and prejudicial. I also think the terminology you used is inappropriate for this message board, and I would request that you remove it from your post.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
ummmm which comment? While her comments are flamitory they are noentheless relevent to the discussion.
IP: Logged |
posted
Such a very strange opinion as the Jordan government is on fairly good terms with Israel, and while Egypt's relations are somewhat strained at the moment, for a long period there was significant cooperation and connection building with Israel.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be happy to clarify. All of the Arab nations, without exception, are correctly described as in my post. Not all Arab individuals are. Furthermore, I would say that the vast majority (near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference) of self-described Palestinian Arabs who live in the Middle East are willing supporters and accomplices to those who actually carry out terrorist actions.
Hopefully that kind of attitude isn't prevelant among Israelis, otherwise it's no surprise that it looks like there is no end in sight to the conflict there.
On the contrary. The lack of that view among too many Israelis has been a major contributor to the ongoing conflict.
I mean, honestly. Open your eyes and look. There has not been a single time that Israel has agreed to a concession that the Arabs haven't responded by upping the violence. They've been firing rockets into Israel from Gaza all this last week, and it barely qualifies as news.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: starLisa, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I would like to go on the record as finding it offensive and prejudicial. I also think the terminology you used is inappropriate for this message board, and I would request that you remove it from your post.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, ElJay. I hope you never find yourself in the situation that so many Israelis are in of being targets simply because they exist.
You are welcome to complain about my post, and if required to do so, I will amend it. I hope that I will not be required to do so, since it is accurate.
Are you disturbed at all about the fact that the State of Israel just rendered thousands of its own citizens homeless and jobless, and that the Arab reaction has been to immediately use the vacated area as a place from which to launch rockets and grenades into Israel? If not, then your feelings probably aren't going to concern me overly much.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Such a very strange opinion as the Jordan government is on fairly good terms with Israel, and while Egypt's relations are somewhat strained at the moment, for a long period there was significant cooperation and connection building with Israel.
Do you know that it's illegal for a Jew to live in Jordan? To own property in Jordan? Do you know that the Egyptians continue to officially praise suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians?
Does it bother you that not one single concession has ever been made by the Arabs? Not one? Israel has friggin' armed the Palestinian Arabs with assualt rifles, and uniformed Palestinian Arabs have used those same rifles to murder Israeli Jews?
Do you know that the majority of the arms now being smuggled into Israel for Arab terrorists are coming from Egypt?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't get it. Why does it seem that I have more respect for those bloodthirsty sons of camels than the "moderates"?
I think that this, specifically, is what ElJay finds prejudicial. Care to rephrase?
I find your whole tone to be a little superior, but that's certainly within your rights. I don't think anyone's objecting to that, but maybe phrasing things a little more thoughtfully would be in order.
EDIT: By the way, when Pop commented on the phrase I quoted, that was the nice way of saying to rephrase it. The next step, I imagine, will be "requiring" you to rephrase. We typically give people the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
