And the Wall Came Down

[lost&outofcontrol]

Maybe you should try a follow the conversation before you interject a non sequitur

I was the first to mentioned disproportionate military strength... I think you are the one who is lost. You appear to be concentrating your argument on the reactions to terrorism and its intent without ever addressing the circumstances which give rise to it.

The final intent is to win but the conditions in which a people resort to suicide bombings and to terrorism in general is only found in specific historical circumstances. We can apprehend the precise circumstances in an objective manner by studying the historical instances of terrorism and discovering the characteristics that are alike in them. I've provided links to supports my argument which you have apparently ignored.

We can argue all we want about Israel justification for retaliation. Even if I were to agree with you that Israel actions are justified by the threat of terrorism; it does not address the root cause of terrorism in general. It is merely a reactionary explanation. Cause and effect are part of a larger whole which we must tackle if we are to gain a more thorough understanding of the situation.

Edited March 7, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

I was the first to mentioned disproportionate military strength...

And I tossed it aside as irrelevant and naive. Overwhelming force is how you win. What possible reason would any nation have to lessen their odds and put the lives of their soldiers at risk by not using all available force?

I can certainly see why the terrorists would want less force against them, but why you?

[lost&outofcontrol]

And I tossed it aside as irrelevant and naive. Overwhelming force is how you win. What possible reason would any nation have to lessen their odds and put the lives of their soldiers at risk by not using all available force?

I can certainly see why the terrorists would want less force against them, but why you?

Escalating the situation can only worsen it although I do understand why you would resort to such a simplistic solution given you previous position.

Following your logic, the only possible outcomes are:

1. Complete eradication of the side branded as terrorists, i.e. a holocaust
   
2. A cause and effect scenario ad infinitum without ever addressing the source of opposition
   

Am I to infer from your silence concerning the historical circumstances leading to terrorism that you do not agree with it?

Edited March 7, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[White Doors]

The only reason that people would resort to terrorism is because they think it works.

The only time it works is when we have a majority of people who think there are 'root causes' of terrorism.

ie: You and your mindset in the western world, is the only reason that terrorism is used against us.

Ironic isn't it?

If Israel gives in to terrorism, it will beget more terrorism.

simple really.

You have to make it very clear to the people who advocate terrorism that it is not worth it by killing the people who orchestate it.

Unless, of course, you prefer the terrorists win.

[M.Dancer]

Am I to infer from your silence concerning the historical circumstances leading to terrorism that you do not agree with it?

You can infer that I dismiss it out of hand.

I ask, why did the germans (or japanese) when defeated and occupied not resort to terrorism when their rights and freedams and their livelihood was destroyed?

Maybe they were smarter than the lot leading the arabs?

[DogOnPorch]

You can infer that I dismiss it out of hand.

I ask, why did the germans (or japanese) when defeated and occupied not resort to terrorism when their rights and freedams and their livelihood was destroyed?

Maybe they were smarter than the lot leading the arabs?

Great point. You'd figure the Japanese would have been primo candidates for being post-war suicide bombers. Never happened. The worst case scenarios were poor bastards trapped on Pacific islands thinking the war was still on in 1966, etc.

Had the Emperor been executed....hard to say what results would have happened, then. I doubt they'd be blowing up civilians, though. Germans...different mind-set. There were predictions that the fanatical elements of the Waffen-SS would hide in the Alps and conduct a partisan war (as per Band of Brothers). Never happened, either. They were running to the Alps alright...to escape into Switzerland.

---------------------------------------------------

There is no security on this Earth; there is only opportunity.

---General Douglas MacArthur

[M.Dancer]

Great point. You'd figure the Japanese would have been primo candidates for being post-war suicide bombers. Never happened. The worst case scenarios were poor bastards trapped on Pacific islands thinking the war was still on in 1966, etc.

Had the Emperor been executed....hard to say what results would have happened, then. I doubt they'd be blowing up civilians, though. Germans...different mind-set. There were predictions that the fanatical elements of the Waffen-SS would hide in the Alps and conduct a partisan war (as per Band of Brothers). Never happened, either. They were running to the Alps alright...to escape into Switzerland.

---------------------------------------------------

There is no security on this Earth; there is only opportunity.

---General Douglas MacArthur

Exactly. Then of course if we go through history we see all kinds of resistence or capitulation....but the resort to terror is modern and on the extreme fringe.

where were the spanish republican terrorists after franco won?

French terrorists during the NAZI occupation ~ and lets not try to muddy the issue and call acts of sabotage by the maquee against military and infrastructure terrorism...

[lost&outofcontrol]

The only reason that people would resort to terrorism is because they think it works.

[snip]

Your ability to ignore my argument is staggering. I argue that any people placed with the specific circumstances required for terrorism will resort to it. Of course they think it works, why else would they resort to it. If you place someone in situation x they will do y. The accuracy of the predicted y outcome gets better as you gain more information (about the person and the situation).

You can infer that I dismiss it out of hand.

I ask, why did the germans (or japanese) when defeated and occupied not resort to terrorism when their rights and freedams and their livelihood was destroyed?

Maybe they were smarter than the lot leading the arabs?

Both your examples do not have the required conditions for guerrilla warfare and terrorism to take place (as displayed by the simple and obvious fact that none took place). I don't think the population of Japan was ever occupied by a foreign power which could subdue trough direct military subjugation a population exponentially larger than Palestine. The acceptance of capitalism in its Imperialist form due to its formation during the pre-war period (present in germ form at the very least) in both countries paved the way for a more docile and prepared population as well. The need on the part of the western allies for the quick acceptance by the local population vis-à-vis the Western worlds global domination in the face of a growing soviet threat cannot be overemphasized.

Edited March 7, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

Both your examples do not have the required conditions for guerrilla warfare and terrorism to take place (as displayed by the simple and obvious fact that none took place).

There is a logical fallacy here....I wish I could remember it's name.

[DogOnPorch]

Your ability to ignore my argument is staggering. I argue that any people placed with the specific circumstances required for terrorism will resort to it. Of course they think it works, why else would they resort to it. If you place someone in situation x they will do y. The accuracy of the predicted y outcome gets better as you gain more information (about the person and the situation).

That's Pape's view...sure. But he also says strategic bombing doesn't work. So under what conditions would a Canadian become a suicide bomber?

Both your examples do not have the required conditions for guerrilla warfare and terrorism to take place (as displayed by the simple and obvious fact that none took place). I don't think the population of Japan was ever occupied by a foreign power which could subdue trough direct military subjugation a population exponentially larger than Palestine. The acceptance of capitalism in its Imperialist form due to its formation during the pre-war period (present in germ form at the very least) in both countries paved the way for a more docile and prepared population as well. The need on the part of the western allies of the quick acceptance of its de facto vis-à-vis the local populations roles in the face of a growing soviet threat cannot be overemphasized.

Interesting point re: capitalism germ. However, I own several items from the late 40s that are clearly marked: "Made in Occupied Japan".

--------------------------------------

We'll meet again.

Don't know where.

Don't know when.

---Vera Lynn

[lost&outofcontrol]

There is a logical fallacy here....I wish I could remember it's name.

Your reply is barely worth notice. The argument is not based solely on this point and in fact is merely a result. Can you be any more disingenuous.

[M.Dancer]

Both your examples do not have the required conditions for guerrilla warfare and terrorism to take place (as displayed by the simple and obvious fact that none took place). I don't think the population of Japan was ever occupied by a foreign power which could subdue trough direct military subjugation a population exponentially larger than Palestine. The acceptance of capitalism in its Imperialist form due to its formation during the pre-war period (present in germ form at the very least) in both countries paved the way for a more docile and prepared population as well. The need on the part of the western allies for the quick acceptance by the local population vis-à-vis the Western worlds global domination in the face of a growing soviet threat cannot be overemphasized.

Coming from someone who doesn't know what conventional weapons are, I have to discount by 99% your analysis of what conditions would be appropriate for guerrilla warfare....you seem to be arguing that the reason that Japan didn't behave as the Palestinians do is because of they were subjugated or dealt with harshly. I suppose enduring over 2,500,000 deaths because of war at the hands of the allies is less of a hardship than the Palestinians, who have the highest standard of living of Arabs in the region.....

[M.Dancer]

Can you be any more disingenuous.

Yes. I will study Eyeball's and Higgly's method...

[White Doors]

Your ability to ignore my argument is staggering. I argue that any people placed with the specific circumstances required for terrorism will resort to it. Of course they think it works, why else would they resort to it. If you place someone in situation x they will do y. The accuracy of the predicted y outcome gets better as you gain more information (about the person and the situation).

Both your examples do not have the required conditions for guerrilla warfare and terrorism to take place (as displayed by the simple and obvious fact that none took place). I don't think the population of Japan was ever occupied by a foreign power which could subdue trough direct military subjugation a population exponentially larger than Palestine. The acceptance of capitalism in its Imperialist form due to its formation during the pre-war period (present in germ form at the very least) in both countries paved the way for a more docile and prepared population as well. The need on the part of the western allies for the quick acceptance by the local population vis-à-vis the Western worlds global domination in the face of a growing soviet threat cannot be overemphasized.

Neat, so you look at history and select all the places and times where terrorism happened and you take those 'ingredients' and say voila! this is how you 'make' terrorists! neat how that works.

Too bad you have to toss aside all the other times that it didn't happen with the exact same circumstances.

lol

[lost&outofcontrol]

That's Pape's view...sure. But he also says strategic bombing doesn't work. So under what conditions would a Canadian become a suicide bomber?

I sure Canadians would resort to terrorism if faced with similar circumstances as was faced by previous cases.

Interesting point re: capitalism germ. However, I own several items from the late 40s that are clearly marked: "Made in Occupied Japan".

I'm might not of been very clear. Capitalism was already well developed and was well on its way to becoming modern capitalism which was present in germ form during the pre-war period in both countries. The process was accelerated by the massive amounts of foreign investments ( the simplistic explanation is bribing the population). This partially explains why the local population was more willing to subjugate themselves.

Coming from someone who doesn't know what conventional weapons are, I have to discount by 99% your analysis of what conditions would be appropriate for guerrilla warfare....

As I stated earlier I was not clear enough with the use of the word conventional in the context with which I was using it. Any weapon can be used in an unconventional fashion by way of guerrilla tactics. The fact that Hamas does not have access to weapons which formal armies normally have, i.e. air power, sea power, armored vehicles, support framework (weapons production and purchase) etc... can explain in part why they resort of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

you seem to be arguing that the reason that Japan didn't behave as the Palestinians do is because of they were subjugated or dealt with harshly.

That is not what I'm saying at all. The Western Allies led by the US invested billions in rebuilding Europe and Japan. While the conquered populations of Germany and Japan were subjugated economically as satellites the Western Allies did not eliminate all forms of conscious expression by a policy of inherent inferiority as producers (living agents).

I suppose enduring over 2,500,000 deaths because of war at the hands of the allies is less of a hardship than the Palestinians, who have the highest standard of living of Arabs in the region.....

This is only a relative comparison. In the absolute sense, they are not doing so well... I do not pretend to have all the answered but to reduce the Palestinian people's plight to such a simplistic view of cause and effect as you describe is useless.

Too bad you have to toss aside all the other times that it didn't happen with the exact same circumstances.

Here I thought things could be explained. What a fool I am! Things just happen without any specific reasons. When Japan was defeated in WWII they did not turn to terrorism because they just plum didn't feel like it! When I go to the store to buy milk, it's not because I'm out of milk but because I just felt like go out and getting milk! It's of no use to find out why...

Edited March 7, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[White Doors]

Here I thought things could be explained. What a fool I am! Things just happen without any specific reasons. When Japan was defeated in WWII they did not turn to terrorism because they just plum didn't feel like it! When I go to the store to buy milk, it's not because I'm out of milk but because I just felt like it! It's of no use to find out why...

But your 'why's only serve, for you, to show justification.

You are trying to use your 'why's to justify the use of terrorism. You can study the 'why's all you want, but that does not excuse it's use or make it a legitimate form of struggle.

There are many many ways to put forth a legitimate movement and make it happen as has been demonstrated many, many times in history. Terrorism is one of the worst in terms of obtaining results from a purely rational point of view. It is also THE worst when looking at it from the human cost as well.

Ghandi might not be able to teach us everything, but he could teach the Arab terrorsits a thing or two abnout legitimate struggle. That's assuming their struggle is legitimate to begine with and that their struggle is to advance their cause, and not just to destroy another (Israel).

get it?

They hate the Jews more than they like themselves.

There is no dealing with that.

[DogOnPorch]

I sure Canadians would resort to terrorism if faced with similar circumstances as was faced by previous cases.

Come...I would like to see what conditions YOU think would exist to make Canadians blow themselves up in a crowd of people. Thanks for the link, though. Some of their pre-Islamic examples are terribly weak.

They hate the Jews more than they like themselves.

There is no dealing with that.

Tend to agree. I believe Golda had a similar comment re: terrorism.

----------------------------------------------------

Mr Burns: Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.

[smithers whispers to him]

Mr Burns: Hmm? What? Oh, and by that I mean, of course, it's time for the "Worker of the Week Award".

---The Simpsons

[lost&outofcontrol]

But your 'why's only serve, for you, to show justification.

You are trying to use your 'why's to justify the use of terrorism. You can study the 'why's all you want, but that does not excuse it's use or make it a legitimate form of struggle.

[snip]

We should not ask why for it will only serve as justification?! How do we learn anything new then? How can we rectify situations which we deem unwanted without finding out there cause(s)? Should we only ask why when we like the outcome?

I'm assuming you have a magical way to transcending knowledge through something other than experience. Your opinion interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Edited March 7, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol

[lost&outofcontrol]

Come...I would like to see what conditions YOU think would exist to make Canadians blow themselves up in a crowd of people.

I think placing Canadians in a situation similar to the Iraqi people would do well. This situation would of course included all the joys of living in the hell hole which years of oppression from British - - American - Locally borne tyranny etc... include. Of course I cannot posit cause without result nor can I isolate cause and result unless this included every phenomenal thing. Doing so would be a fallacy of the mind.

[White Doors]

We should not ask why for it will only serve as justification?! How do we learn anything new then? How can we rectify situations which we deem unwanted without finding out there cause(s)? Should we only ask why when we like the outcome?

I'm assuming you have a magical way to transcending knowledge through something other than experience. Your opinion interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I gave you the reason why. Hate.

I did not say that we should not ask why. I said we know why. I said YOU asking why was in reality you subscribing justification FOR it.

ergo, while you plaintively claim yours to be an intellectual excercise, it is, in fact, an idealogical one.

And I'm calling you on it.

If you don't like it, too bad.

If you can refute it - please do.

[DogOnPorch]

I think placing Canadians in a situation similar to the Iraqi people would do well. This situation would of course included all the joys of living in the hell hole which years of oppression from British - - American - Locally borne tyranny etc... include. Of course I cannot posit cause without result nor can I isolate cause and result unless this included every phenomenal thing. Doing so would be a fallacy of the mind.

Can't say I agree with you. Canadians would no doubt conduct a vigorous partisan war against an evil invader as seen in the Cold War movie Red Dawn. But blow themselves up in a crowd to make a point? Nope...don't think so. As mentioned by others...we love ourselves more than we'd hate any enemy. My wife wouldn't be impressed if I blew myself up, for example. However we can find MANY examples online of Muslim wives and mothers being proud of their family members being suicide bombers.

---------------------------------------------

Look up....look wayyy up. And we're on our way to the castle. I'll hurry 'round back so I can go in the backdoor and lower the drawbridge so I can open the big front doors for you.

---The Friendly Giant

Edited March 7, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[M.Dancer]

But blow themselves up in a crowd to make a point? Nope...don't think so. As mentioned by others...we love ourselves more than we'd hate any enemy.

For that exercise we would need be semi literate, half civilized brainwashed fanatics....

[White Doors]

For that exercise we would need be semi literate, half civilized brainwashed fanatics....

WHY Morris WHY???????

lol

[DogOnPorch]

For that exercise we would need be semi literate, half civilized brainwashed fanatics....

72 Virginians...errr, pardon....72 Virgins helps, I suppose. Especially if you recall the South Park explanation of 'why Muslims are always pissed off'.

Mr Garrison to the class: Let's all look at why Muslims are upset. First of all, in the Muslim religion, you're not allowed to have what? Sex. [writes sex on the blackboard] Good. There's no sex until marriage in the Muslim world. Now, this would be fine except that in the Muslim religion you also can't... Anybody? Jack off. [writes jack off on the blackboard] Okay, jacking it is strictly forbidden in the Muslim religion. And what do we know about the places Muslims live? They live in? Good, sand. [writes sand on the blackboard] Now put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim. It's Friday night, but you can't have sex, and you can't jack off. There's sand in your eyes and probably in the crack of your ass, and then some cartoon comes along from a country where people are getting laid, and mocks your prophet. Well, you know what? I'd be pretty pissed off too!!!

---------------------------------------

I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you, idiot. What did you think I said?

---Unknown

Edited March 7, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[lost&outofcontrol]

I gave you the reason why. Hate.

I did not say that we should not ask why. I said we know why. I said YOU asking why was in reality you subscribing justification FOR it.

Move that goal post! This only pushes the question into the background only to emerge later on. I asked why they resort to terrorism, you answer "hate". The next logical question is why they hate. To which I'm sure you have another appropriately short but to the point answer and we will go on ad infinitum. You will not accept terrorism as a historical product, i.e. a real problem rooted in reality. You see the floating tip of the iceberg, as an abstraction of the mind devoid of any relations (terrorism is caused by hate - terrorism is a tool used to gain victory). You see oppositions in isolation from their relations. You identify alienation in its mystical form as hate and brand it as unwanted but you fail to go any farther. Things happen for specific reasons. It is our duty to find out why so that they may not reproduce themselves in the case of unwanted things.

ergo, while you plaintively claim yours to be an intellectual excercise, it is, in fact, an idealogical one.

And I'm calling you on it.

This is again only part of the whole. By gaining a deeper theoretical understanding we can attempt to rectify unwanted situations by putting our theories into practice all the while learning from our experiences What you call ideology, I call science. (not to say that ideology does not exist or anything like that)

If you don't like it, too bad.

I guess this is part of the reason why we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past; we just kind of walk around bumping into things.

But blow themselves up in a crowd to make a point? Nope...don't think so. As mentioned by others...we love ourselves more than we'd hate any enemy.

The simplest reply to this statement is: What about your children, and their children?

I'll let the afternoon and evening crew take over from here. ciao

Edited March 7, 2008 by lost&outofcontrol