[luke warm]

Quote

"You choose to ignore the Iran/Iraq war as 'violence' because it happened 18 years ago"

I don't do so. It is violence. What I said was that the huge spike in worldwide terrorism which started in 2003 wasn't the result of a war which had ended 15 years before, but rather with the invasion of Iraq which took place in 2003.

no, the "spike" in terrorism is the direct result of the way in which terrorism is measured... as i mentioned in a previous post, the behavior of iraq toward its neighbors and its own citizens, in the hussein era, is terrorism by definition.. yet it isn't counted as such... do so and see how the numbers look

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 21 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

no, the "spike" in terrorism is the direct result of the way in which terrorism is measured... as i mentioned in a previous post, the behavior of iraq toward its neighbors and its own citizens, in the hussein era, is terrorism by definition.. yet it isn't counted as such... do so and see how the numbers look

When you offered your definition of terrorism you neglected a very basic part of the equation. Traditionally, many definitions of terrorism hinged on whether an action was committed by a State as opposed to a non-state actor. For example, the definition of terrorism used by the US state department prior to 2001 was

"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

I'm certainly willing to admit that the Batthist regime in Iraq was responsible for significant amounts of pain and suffering for both its own people and its neighbors. Even so, if you exclude the Iran-Iraq War I doubt that the total number of killings committed by the Batthist regimes matches the bloodshed associated with with US invasion.

[sceptic]

Going back to original post

Should someones neighbours be allowed to make someone move because they will endanger them?

Why not, if I lived next door with my kids I would be pissed off with her and happy if they moved on.

I may choose not to move if I lived on my own, that is my choice, but do I have the right to protect my children?, in fact is it not my duty as a parent to do something to remove danger to them. they are too young to understand what is happening and therefore are unable to make a decision for themselves.

I have to move? nope she can bugger off.

If this is a matter of principles, or protecting the rights for freedom of speech, then the governments should manage it, but do any of us have faith in the corrupt bigotted bunch of idiots that rule us all, I doubt it very much, so all you can do is protect your own


btw Anyone here live in a country that has not violated peoples basic Human rights over the last few hundred years???

we are all as bad as each other, oppression and terrorism takes many forms.

Did we really invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam, when the replacement won't be any different (I use the Shah of Iran as an example) did we not interfere there and look at the stae of play now??

we really are lead by some idiots and the best thing is someone must have voted them in?

People can only sort out there own problems if they want to, it never pays to interfere in other peoples live, I suspect that statement is one that wont be listened to

[helene_t]

luke warm, on May 21 2006, 10:57 PM, said:

no, the "spike" in terrorism is the direct result of the way in which terrorism is measured... as i mentioned in a previous post, the behavior of iraq toward its neighbors and its own citizens, in the hussein era, is terrorism by definition.. yet it isn't counted as such... do so and see how the numbers look

Sure. Then again, Sadam is an atteist, it was only during the second golf war when he desperatly needed to boost patriotism that he started pretending to be a believer. So this can hardly be what Peter refers to as moslem violence/terrorism. Of curse, one could argue that Islam is not the core issue, just a label to put on some other conflict.

While terrorism as such probably evolved some 500.000.000 years ago when the nervous systems of animals became advanced enough to feal (and respond to) fear, the present upsurge in Arab and/or Moslem violence against Western societies probably begun with the independance of Israel, allthough there had been some strugles against the colonial powers in Northern Africa earlier.

Wayne: It sounds as if you think it is ms. Ali's own fault that she's a terrorist target. In a way it is (like it's every victim's own fault that they became a victim because they could just have hired a bodyguard). But our society desperatly needs people like ms. Ali that dare to speak up for human rights. Saying that it is her own fault is saying that if we just all surrenderd to the terrorists and abandonded our belief in human rights, we would get peace. Even if this is true (it may be true in a narrow perspective) it is not a clever thing to say. The court's ruling is a victory for the terrorists and encourages them to continue their activities.

You don't seem to have much confidense in the wisdom of Dutch civil cervants. Are Dutch judges an exception? Or do you think the neighbours should just take justice in their own hand and throw ms. Ali out?

[luke warm]

sceptic, on May 21 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

Why not, if I lived next door with my kids I would be pissed off with her and happy if they moved on.

I have to move? nope she can bugger off.

If this is a matter of principles, or protecting the rights for freedom of speech, then the governments should manage it, but do any of us have faith in the corrupt bigotted bunch of idiots that rule us all, I doubt it very much, so all you can do is protect your own

sorry wayne, i don't quite understand this... my feelings are, why don't her neighbors (or damn near the whole country) support her?

when people say "the government" they sometimes forget that they *are* the government ... in the final analysis, people of all countries will have to take a stand

[sceptic]

my point is,

1/. if you are going to insult or disagree with these fanatics Publically, then you know you are setting yourself as a target

2/. The governement should be saying what she said not individuals

3/. If you are daft enough to say something to offend someone, you shoould be prepared to consider the impact on those around you

4/. freedom of speech does not exsist, I have some opinions that would get me banned from these forums or prosecuted under current laws, if I were to voice them, I do not say them publically as they would embarass some of my friends or endanger them (albeit a lower level) if I was to spout these off publically

so my point is if you are going to say these things, then be prepared to stand and be counted for them and you are right we should stand and support these people

Quote

my feelings are, why don't her neighbors (or damn near the whole country) support her?

I wish I could answer that, but alas I cant

[helene_t]

sceptic, on May 22 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

1/. if you are going to insult or disagree with these fanatics Publically, then you know you are setting yourself as a target

Fair enough, That's what I was refereing to when I said that s aying that it is her own fault is saying that if we just all surrenderd to the terrorists and abandonded our belief in human rights, we would get peace.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on May 22 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

That's what I was refereing to when I said that saying that it is her own fault is saying that if we just all surrenderd to the terrorists and abandonded our belief in human rights, we would get peace.

right... that seems to fit in with the definition of appeasement... someone used that word and was criticized for it... i don't know why

Quote

When you offered your definition of terrorism ...

actually it wasn't my definition, it was the dictionary's... in any event, given that definition, there are no innocents... all countries, all religions, all peoples are guilty on some level... i simply object to the 'blame america' crowd... why not blame the terrorists? another pet peeve of mine is when reference is made to the iraqi terrorists as "insurrgents"... they are either terrorists or they aren't... if they are, call them that... if they aren't, don't count their acts as terrorism