Why not have a separate folder called

Non-type Discussion area (or something like that)

that can be turned ON or OFF in our user profile.

If we want to post something about Giant Pandas or
Ninja Monkeys or Terrorism Definitions, then we'll
know where to go and others can tune in or tune out
at their leisure.

So what about that new Parkinson site ,eh? ;->

hhp

The name of this area is "General Discussion" and the caption reads "Anything goes." Still, it would seem in the interests of Netiquette to keep the topic contained in the initial subject line and spawn new threads when the focus veers off.

Jaaa?

John, your actions are fine and in the interest of coherent discussion.

...but why not just have a way for people who don't want
all the off-topic stuff (Definition of Terrorism) to turn it off,
without losing the entire General Discussions.

Hrant / William / John(s)./ Matha / whomever else

carry on...

Hrant, your humor/sarcasm is duly noted in my Hrant-isms file.

bj

THANKS!

I have concluded that it is pointless to talk politics here, and will do my best to resist it. However two parting shots.

First, John H., an Israeli liberal who is an old friend, and was there in 48, said that what Israel did then was not terrorism, as it was only directed against the military. However, he does view the attacks now against Arabs in the occupied territories as terrorist.

Second, Hrant, all of your analysis seems to support the 9/11 attacks on the US. Do you in fact approve of them?

...what Israel did then was not terrorism, as it was only directed against the military

An assertion I agree with. Even the bombing of the King David Hotel was clearly a strike against the British military command centre there, and the Irgun actively sought to avoid civilian casualties by alerting the hotel, the neutral French consolate, and the Palestine Post newspaper ahead of the bombing. None of the warnings were taken seriously.

Charges are made that Palestinian civilians were targeted during the '48 war, in order to encourage them to abandon their villages. Frankly, I don't know enough about the evidence to comment.

In my previous message, I was talking about the perception of the Haganah and Irgun campaigns by others, who see only the apparent success of a struggle of illegal, geurilla organisations to win a country for themselves by killing people and blowing things up. Who they were killing and what they were blowing up are details that don't necessarily register in such a perception.

> Do you in fact approve of them?

No, unlike you, I do not support terrorism, murder and theft.

hhp

Hrant, from the other thread:

People are responsible for their actions, whether they're holding a gun or not. You think Blair is not a legitimate military target?! And when somebody in the US for example votes for a president based on the hope that that president will "kill the bastards", he becomes an active part of the problem.

So do you think, after WWII the Nurenberg courts should have hung every German who joined or even voiced any support for the Nazi party? Or do you accept that people can be wrong, and can be brought to understand that they were wrong, and can change their ideas.

Actually, no, I don't think leaders and members of civilian governments are legitimate targets in war (this is not true of military states; and I'm not sure where Bush's status as Commander in Chief leaves him). I don't like Tony Blair, and I don't think the invasion of Iraq was justified even on the grounds that he attempted to justify it, but I don't think that makes him a legitimate target for military action. He is a legitimate target for international legal action, along with any other civilian leader.

Why do you think terrorists focus on killing "non-combatants" in Democracies?

For the same reason that terrorists target civilians in non-democratic countries: because they're soft targets.

According to your previous messages, the USA practices terrorism on a vast scale, but if they're attacking non-democracies such as Iraq, what is the point of terrorism? If you genuinely think that the US deliberately targets civilians, why would that be? It's not like the Iraqi people had any influence on Saddam Hussein's policies.

Gerald, from the other thread:

Are saying that Iraq was a terrorist nation?

Yes, as clear from the targeting of their own civilian population, especially ethnic and religious minorities but also political opponents.

That Bush and Blaire were morally justified in attacking Iraq because of that?

No, unless they're willing to attack everyone, everywhere who deliberately targets civilians. They're neither willing nor capable of that, so it is unsound as a justification for attacking a particular country.

Are you saying that daisy bombs are not terrifying?

No. I'm saying that not everything that is terrifying is terrorism. It depends on whom you are dropping the daisycutter. [There is a completely different discussion to be had about appropriate force during war, but that is not a discussion about terrorism.]

Are you suggesting that it would not be terrifying to be a Palestinian? That Palestinians have not lost innocent people.

Not at all, and I maintain that if the Israeli government and military are deliberately targeting non-combatants then they are terrorists.

Perhaps I can make it clearer by putting it this way: I am taking a politically neutral view of terrorism (but not a morally neutral view). I'm saying that the definition terrorism has nothing to do with the rightness of one's cause, or the desperateness of one's situation. I'm saying that terrorism is an identifiable act that involves the intentional killing or injury of civilians. The fact that life for Palestinians in the occupied territories is terrible and terrifying does not mean that a Palestinian militant blowing up a bus full of civilians in Jerusalem is somehow not terrorism. It is terrorism.

Of course, a political neutral view of terrorism suggests the possibility that terrorism can be justified: a possibility that even supporters of the Palestinian cause, and the Northern Irish Catholic cause, and a hundred other violently expressed causes around the world, are themselves, apparently, uncomfortable with. Hence the unwillingness to call spades spades and terrorism terrorism, and the popular artificial distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Would that not make Israel a terrorist state?

If they deliberately target non-combatants, yes. This was certainly the case when Israeli forces let Phalangist militias into the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila to massacre Palestinian civilians. That was an act of terrorism. Sharon, who was Defence Minister at the time, was forced to resign as a result, but this would be far from sufficient justice even if he hadn't returned as Prime Minister.

So just what do you expect the Palestinian to do? Lie down and die, don't make a fuss because it might upset our dictionary?

Gerald, did you read what I wrote? I never said that the Palestinians should lie down and die, but nor should they pretend that acts of terrorism are somehow not terrorism. Maybe they think it is the only strategy they have -- terrorism has traditionally been the military strategy of the desperate -- but that doesn't make it something other than terrorism.

One more example: when a group of desperate English Catholics decided to blow up the Houses of Parliament and kill the king and his ministers, they became terrorists, although the term didn't exist in 1605. It doesn't make it not terrorism that their civilian targets were in positions of authority, or that their civilian targets were persecuting them, killing their priests and friends, imprisoning them for their beliefs, and stealing their property. It doesn't make it not terrorism that I am sympathetic to their cause, even though they were both morally and politically mistaken in their choice of strategy.

All I have said in this discussion is that we should call terrorism by name when we see it, and not get confused by our sympathies or by the real and desperate plight of many people who resort to terrorism (although this obviously doesn't include Saudi millionaires).

John, I think you're mostly right, but I won't pick on the points I don't agree with, simple because of this: digressions are fine and normal (as long as they're managed), but having a full-fledged off-topic forum on Typophile is not a good idea; my own two instances of participation here have been: a joke; a reply to a direct question. This thread -in fact the existence of this whole "non-typographic" directory- seems like "formalized venting" at best, and that's even worse than regular venting - can you imagine somebody just starting a thread out of the blue about chocolate or something? This is not a cocktail party. Furthermore, it compartmentalizes discourse, and makes us less rounded persons. It's like those web sites where you can customize what news you're exposed to. Autobrainwashing.

Yallabye.

hhp

This is not a cocktail party.

No, but like a cocktail party, one gets to meet people and eventually one ends up talking about things other than what the host invited you to talk about when he said 'Oh, you must meet Hrant and William, they're also interested in type.' You get to know people, and you become interested in what they think about other topics because you know them. Personally, I'd be happy to find out what you think about chocolate.

John,

Williams comments.

"However, he does view the attacks now against Arabs in the occupied territories as terrorist."

This is why the Palestinians are not by legal UN definition terrorist.

Your words.

"Yes, as clear from the targeting of their own civilian population, especially ethnic and religious minorities but also political opponents.

This sounds like you are speaking obout Israel as much as you are about Iraq.

Gerald

Guests that have overstayed their welcome should not exhibit surprise if they are made to feel unwelcome. Or at least uncomfortable for the duration of their stay.

Penguin defines terrorism as revolutionary violence. Also systematic terror and violence for political aims. As such it would include war.

That makes this discussion rather abstract.

The UN makes "special forgiving allowances" for violent activities from people subjected to oppression. That such activities can be interpreted as dutiful.

Gerald

I have been thinking a while about this comment but I just have to do it:

On the 9/11 you got what you paid for, and as long as your country keeps playing dirty to the world you may eventually get more, of course never on the same scale that you give but you will.

Guests that have overstayed their welcome should not exhibit surprise if they are made to feel unwelcome. Or at least uncomfortable for the duration of their stay.

If you don't want guests who overstay their welcome, don't repeatedly invade their country with the stated intent of 'pushing them into the sea'.

The UN makes "special forgiving allowances" for violent activities from people subjected to oppression. That such activities can be interpreted as dutiful.

The fact that an allowance is made for terrorism doesn't mean that it isn't terrorism (and it certainly doesn't make it a duty). This is what I referred to earlier -- what no one seems to want to acknowledge -- that terrorism can be politically and even legally justified (I don't believe it can be morally justified). There was a time when the PLO were proud of their status as international terrorists: before Arafat became media friendly. Abu Daoud, who masterminded the murder of Israeli atheletes at the 1972 Olympics under direct order from Arafat, entitled his autobiography Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist. That is how he identified himself. Indeed, if you decide to pursue terrorism as a strategy, there is a large propaganda impact to be gained from declaring the fact: letting people know that you are targeting them increases the terror. Of course, calling yourself a terrorist in 2003 is going to put you in the gunsights of the world's only superpower, so terrorists are understandably less keen to own the name. That doesn't change the nature of what they do, whether you think it is justified by their circumstances or not.

"(and it certainly doesn't make it a duty)."

Are you suggesting a "dodge the draft movement"?

Naturally there a big drawing card in the citation of sensational terrorism.

"masterminded the murder of Israeli atheletes at the 1972 Olympics"

While ignoring the hum drum, day to day horrors perpetuated on the innocent Palestinians. They are not all terrorists. But they are all treated as such. The particularly "sticky problem" in this situation is that Israel is "the ruling power" putting a legal and morally onerous responsibility upon it. The measure and standards attached are "much higher" than that of the "victims". The Palestinians rely on the governing power for food, transportation systems, health care, sewers, power, fire brigades, telephones, schooling. Even Palestinians require police. All things human. If you read this link you will find that to be very lacking to put it "extremely" mildly.

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/0/8cabd6168b1be4a1c1256981004820e2/$FILE/G0015546.pdf

Terrorism seems to terrify you. It terrifies most of us. I am sure you have some suggestions that would give the Palestinians "hope". Would they be any one of these?

1.) Train and equip the Palestinians with helicopters, jets, state of the art weapons equal to that of Israel. Perhaps matching them with nuclear arms?

2.) Should we stop the injustice.

3.) Or should we just consider Palestinians disposable humans?

"If you don't want guests who overstay their welcome, don't repeatedly invade their country with the stated intent of 'pushing them into the sea'."

Rather than address this issue maybe you could spend some time reading "Divided Jerusalem" by Bernard Wasserstein, Profile Books.

I suppose the question might be, "who's country is it?" Or should I say, did the people that gave it to them actually own it?

hrant: the united states is not a democracy. at least not completely. i think it's something like a federal republic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=federal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=republic
although some definitions of democracy apply, some do not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy
majority rule? not when most people don't even vote. but to you, that's a good thing.
anyway, there's a difference.

hey h�ctor mu�oz huerta, i'll try to control my president if you try to control your brain from opening your asinine mouth, or typing w/your asinine hands. whichever applies.

gerald, why are you picking on john? from what i've read, he's not even arguing about the same topic as you. he has not yet disparaged palestinians, except those that engage in terrorism, but he's saying the same about all terrorists. i think emotion is clouding your faculties.

>>I'm saying that the definition terrorism has nothing to do with the rightness of one's cause, or the desperateness of one's situation. I'm saying that terrorism is an identifiable act that involves the intentional killing or injury of civilians. The fact that life for Palestinians in the occupied territories is terrible and terrifying does not mean that a Palestinian militant blowing up a bus full of civilians in Jerusalem is somehow not terrorism. It is terrorism.

read what he writes before you go off. please.

Issac,

Am I on the wrong page?

I better go look and see what the topic is?

Really hate to tell you this but we are talking about the same thing, John and me. "Definitions of Terrorism". I think John can handle dictionary talk.

Have a nice day Issac. But before you go, which number would you pick. 1.) 2.) or 3)?

#2 sounds good, but then i might have to stage a worldwide protest about invading people's countries and stuff.

No, Gerald, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I've provided a definition of what terrorism is that makes it possible to identify terrorists by their actions: deliberately targeting civilians for death or injury. Anyone who does that -- regardless of their nationality, political or religious allegiance, circumstance, position of power or lack of power -- is practicing terrorism and is a terrorist. What does this have to do with Iraelis and Palestinians? Only as much as some Israelis are terrorists and some Palestinians are terrorists. Calling these people terrorists does not mean that all Israelis and all Palestinians are terrorists, nor does it say anything about the rights and wrongs of the conflict in the Middle East.

As regards giving hope to the Palestinians in the occupied territories, who are in most need of hope, the Arab nations are and always have been in the best position to provide that hope. They have chosen to leave the Palestinians as a festering wound in the side of Israel rather than offer either homes or material assistance. [With the singular exceptance of Jordan, which has always been the home of most Palestinians.] Likewise, the Palestinians' own political leadership offers no hope to its people, being rife with corruption and interested only in maintaining power. A couple of years ago, Canada offered to accept Palestinian refugees as immigrants, so some at least could build new lives in a safe country. The response from Hezbollah, a Palestinian 'political' organisation, was that Canada would be a target of terrorism if it dared to accept Palestinian immigrants.

History is full of refugees leaving their homes and settling elsewhere. In 1948, at the same time as Palestinians fled or were forced from their homes, hundreds of thousands of Jews fled or were forced from their homes in Arab countries -- where their families had lived for centuries -- and settled in Israel. These people are not still living in refugee camps more than half a century later, so why are the Palestinians?

Or perhaps you prefer this parallel: In 1945-46, hundreds of thousands of Germans fled that part of their country that was ceded to Poland in the aftermath of WWII. These refugees found new homes in other countries. When was the last time you heard it suggested that Poland should give that land back to Germany or allow all German refugees to return there?

"Terrorism", or "terrorist" has become a "label of political spin convenience" diminishing it's value for me. Particularly when it permeates with racism.

It reminds me of the game, "who gets to wear the black hat". It's the black guy every time. Never us.

A question one might ask is whether we all consider the Viet Kong to have been terrorists, or liberation fighters. Or should we use another label, communists?

Buzz words are the wet nurse of deceit.

Real quick:
> Hezbollah, a Palestinian 'political' organisation

Hzballa is a Shee'a organization backed mostly by Iran. They share a common enemy with Palestinians, but as the Lebanese Civil War hopefully taught everybody, allies can turn into enemies overnight.

--

Isaac, I think all Hector is saying is that what goes around comes around. Having lived extensively among Arabs, I can state that the extreme reaction that some of them show to ruthless Western Imperalism might not always be fully justifiable, but it is very much understandable - it is in fact a result of a desire for fairness in the Arab psyche, something in fact shared with Americans*. You cannot reduce terrorism by making people angrier. Unless you mean to exterminate them. Your leaders are using you as receivers of resistive violence to make themselves richer. You are cannon fodder for the grandchildren of the wealthy.

* Both Arabs and Americans are a young people, although the latter of course much younger, and perhaps the reason the latter are so easily brainwashed.

hhp

I think any definition of terrorism has to also include the threat of violence.

As far as I can see (but for the moment, I've only glanced at the rest of the thread) noone has mentioned this aspect. Terrorists aren't obliged to actually kill people to spread terror. There are, for example, plenty of terrorists in Northern Ireland who rely on fear alone to achieve their objectives.

Deliberately targeting civilians for death or injury is murder. Killing them to make someone afraid enough to do what you want, makes it terrorism. I think it is safe to say that you can generate the terror without the killing. Most terrorists generally do both, but it's not always the case.

M.

Security checks are being carried out on every commercial airliner in the United States after knives were discovered hidden on two planes.
BBC18/10/03

This, for example is terrorism. Hiding knives in 2 planes causes national panic. Granted, we have the precedent of 9/11 looming in the background but whoever planted the knives didn't kill anyone and probably wasn't even intending to. The result is the same though. The IRA telephoning the BBC and pretending that they've planted a bomb in Paddington station is the same sort of terrorism. Because it's the IRA and the threat is credible, the station will be evacuated.

M.

There are, for example, plenty of terrorists in Northern Ireland who rely on fear alone to achieve their objectives.

But that fear is effective because they or others like them have killed in the past, or have provided other evidence that when they point a gun at your kneecap they wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger. An IRA bomb threat is credible because they've bombed things.

Gerald, I think we're talking past each other. You seem to be talking about how the word terrorist is spun in the media and by politicians; I'm talking about avoiding spin by establishing a definition that is linked to an act rather than to the motives or circumstance of an act. I think this is important because I believe that both those who excuse Israeli terrorism against Palestinians and those who excuse Palestinian terrorism against Israelis are spinning the meaning of the term. The only way to avoid such spin is to refuse to accept motives and circumstances into the definition of an act.


[Hrant, I meant to type Hamas, not Hezbollah. I've been trying to track down the original news story.]

>the extreme reaction that some of them show to ruthless Western Imperalism might not always be fully justifiable, but it is very much understandable

so it may not be justifiable to level a couple of countries because madmen are running them, but it's understandable. i think i get it now.

John,

I appreciate what you are saying. Although I must once again "make note" that the definition of the word "terrorism" is an "act containing violence", as you have mentioned, with "political motive" for which you wish to exclude. For some reason, �political motive� has been substituted by the concept of innocent people. I am not clear who first entered that consideration into this discussion. But �innocent people� can not be found in the definition of terrorism in either my two dictionaries.

Unfortunately innocence is a casualty of war.

To discuss the meaning of a two part word by excluding the second part could certainly lead to some confusion as we both can see.

So you will have to forgive me. Or at least I hope you will.

My biggest objection to �coin word terrorism� is that it leaves no room for "resolution". Most disgusting is the implied "linkage" that "Islamic peoples" are by nature "terrorists". Linkage was the instrument of �American Foreign Policy� as implemented by Richard Nixon. Linkage is not only affective but it can actuate moral benefit. In this case it is affective but morally repugnant.

Certainly skin colour is the implied enemy uniform when crossings into the USA, would you think not? Not only implied, but worse, "applied racism" by way of policy.

Terrorism as we now speak of it is nothing other than a "spin buzz word" designed to baffle the attention impaired. We should call it by a name that has historical traditions that make way for the possibility of resolution. "War, or conflict."

Terrorism, as now coined, implies random drive by shootings, nut case snipers, and sex slayers. For these there is no "resolution" because there nothing to be negotiated.

War and political strife on the other hand give much reason for negotiation. There are more similarities in humans than there are differences. A simple assumption for basis of negotiations. Bill Clinton believed it to be possible.

The cost of winning in the Palestinian conflict is the return of human dignities to its inhabitants. This is a price we can all afford.

But you will not win any war against terrorism by name calling. We are finding that out. There are issues that are needy of address. America is the embodiment of exceptional opportunities with traditions of wisdom. I am not, as some may have previously concluded, �Anti American�.

My two great heroes in politics would be Gandhi and Ronald Reagan. Both were pacifists.
http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=mahatma_gandhi&OFFID=se1
Ronald Reagan read �Diplomacy� Henry Kissinger� Simon & Schuster

very interseting to read it because though i haven't finished it, it was quite like the topic of a little thesis paper i was working on last year : "evil and good in politics"
For M. Bush, terrorism hasn't political motives, nor motives of any kind : the only aim and cause is "evil".
No nation succeed in definying terrorism, so they do lists, lists of terrorists groups. No critaria bacause no definition : lists, made more politicallty and accordingly to events and diplomacy than logical argument.

I think this guy reads the typophile forum.


http://metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-42/methaus.htm

"hey h�ctor mu�oz huerta, i'll try to control my
president if you try to control your brain from
opening your asinine mouth, or typing w/your
asinine hands. whichever applies."

How rude

Real quick, if late:
> I meant to type Hamas, not Hezbollah.

Actually, Hamaas does not claim to be a political organization: it's the military sister organization to Fatah, which is a bona fide political organization. Yes, it's confusing (perhaps intentionally so), but it's really no different than pretending for example that the two US political parties have different goals (in reality they both represent the worship of the same god: Dollar), or denying that the judiciary and the police force of the city of Glendale are in a permanent 69 position.

--

Hector, you have to understand: dissent is not tolerated in the US. If you don't agree that Americans are Good and those who fight Americans are Evil, then you must be stupid.

hhp

dudes, it's not the dissent, it's the thought that
the people who died a couple of years ago deserved
it. palestinian children don't deserve to grow up without
parents any more or less than israeli children, or american,
or rwandan, or whatever. no one "got what they paid for."
i stand by my statement, however rude it may have been.

Certainly, the poor innocent people* (most of whom were immigrants, of course...) didn't deserve to be duped and put at such risk by their own government. As an American, I am angry at the system for creating the cornerstone of the motivation for such murder (for nothing more than the personal material gain of 5% of the population), and possibly even allowing it to take place - never forget Pearl Harbor.

* Although I maintain that an individual's innocence is tainted if he votes (for anybody) in such a decrepit and rigged system. On the other hand, death is too severe a punishment for voting.

hhp

...never forget Pearl Harbor.

The notion that the Roosevelt administration knew about the planned Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, and allowed it to happen in order to justify US entry into WWII, has been kicking around for some years now, with the result large numbers of people simply assume that it is true. Perhaps someone can summarise the evidence? It may indeed be true, but I'm not inclined to accept it on hearsay.

Can I add one thought, please quote facts. There are many TV programs that promote that there were aliens from Rosswell, but no hard facts. So it gets down to what you believe. I have one hard fact in Iraq and Afganistan there are 1-3 american soldiers who die every day. Now that might not be more than die in Texas (about the same size as Iraq) but they didn't have to join the army becuause of the economy. We are loosing our youth to an ocupation, is that right? I don't know but it feels bad. Dan

I didn�t said somebody deserved to die, I meant that you (the US) provoked it by decades of
dirty work all around the world and that the
scale of this particular issue compared with
the damage that you (the US) have made is
insignificant:

If we made a minute of silence for the 4000
victims of the Twin New York Towers crashes, then
we would have to make 13 minutes of silence for
the 130 000 victims of the US bombings on
the previos gulf war, after, 20 minutes for the
200 000 irianies killed by the iraquies with
money and weapons provided to Saddam Hussein by
the same who chased him. 15 minutes for the 150
000 russian and afghan death during the Taliban
regimen trained and arised by the CIA. 10 minutes
for the 100 000 japanese death in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Add an Hour for the Vietnam war victims, add to the count: Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Camboya, Chile, etc...

This information came from an email that
forwarded a couple of weeks afther the crashes on
the towers, and may notbe completely precise, but
these are the facts ! (by the way add another
minute for crappy stuff like the french fries issue and infinite justice or enduring freedom
names).

By the way this is terrifing...