Israel & the Arab World

[Shwa]

No, I don't think that's the case at all. My point is that, to these fellows, there is some baleful entity called "the left," which holds exactly every opinion in concert. Therefore, since (or so is the claim) somebody here once expressed support for Hamas...it logically follows that I personally also support Hamas. There are no distinctions, no discrete differences among "leftist" opinion.

So it would appear that they all agree precisely with Lictor on every point.

This is their formulation, not mine.

Yes, our points are agreeable in that they are equating the attributes of one instance with its metaphorical referrant. And it seems this is often a one-to-one swap of attributes. In other words: "As IF genocidal actions retain the same form in all regions of the world through all of history." Replace the struck through words with "leftist opinion" "social conciousness" or any other descriptive category that fits your view or view that you support on a particular topic. There appears to be no granularity or range to their view.

Therefore how could they not equate your "leftist" opinion with support for the Hamas? See what I mean?

So when we talk about the debating methodology, I would revise this:

"So it would appear that they all agree precisely with Lictor on every point."

To this:

"So it would appear that they all FAIL precisely LIKE Lictor on every point."

The difference here is that Lictor is only one point on the scale, a low point mind you, but a scale nonetheless.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, our points are agreeable in that they are equating the attributes of one instance with its metaphorical referrant. And it seems this is often a one-to-one swap of attributes. In other words: "As IF genocidal actions retain the same form in all regions of the world through all of history." Replace the struck through words with "leftist opinion" "social conciousness" or any other descriptive category that fits your view or view that you support on a particular topic. There appears to be no granularity or range to their view.

Therefore how could they not equate your "leftist" opinion with support for the Hamas? See what I mean?

Yes, I get you now. (We had a not-dissimilar discussion on genuine fears of the communist threat...the genuineness perhaps often quite divorced from how objectively real those fears were.)

At any rate, you could well be right.

[edit] I will add, however, that such a swap-of-attributes approach, while more than merely common, need not neccessarily be estranged from a more nuanced, reasoned worldview, based on a kind of sympathy (if not compassion, which can be difficult to summon for a debating adversary): I can understand notions like "The right wing always thinks that......" And while such broad categorizations can be useful as a kind of shorthand, they become hostile to reason when used as a personalized critique, so long as the critique is inaccurate.

And either way, to say that "the right wing always thinks that...." is automatically going to be categorically false.

In other words, when people say "The left likes government intervention," I have no issue with it; it is not really true in every case, but there is a general truth to it that makes it, at least roughly, fair enough.

But if someone looks around at lefty criticisms of Israel, then says "Bloodyminded [or even "the left" generally] is apologizing for Hamas," there is no longer a defensible generality that can be summoned as justification. It's a flatly untrue assertion, and that's all there is to it.

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ironstone]

That whole argument is entirely fallacious. I wouldnt blame Israel for all the problems of the muslim world but the idea that Israels geographical size actually means what the author says it does is quite frankly too stupid to bother discussing.

Arabs ARE the undergod. Israel won a war against a lot of those countries in 6 days. They also have nuclear weapons and the unconditional military and diplomatic backing of a world super power that has nuclear fleats and hundreds of thousands of troops in the region.

Don't forget that there was a time that some of the Arab countries had unconditional military and diplomatic backing from the USSR,by no means a military weakling back then.

[Bonam]

But DogonPorch wasn't speaking in some general sense, nor indicating disagreement with people who might make such claims about Gaza.

He was attributing certain opinions to me, specifically.

I am not some spokesperson for something called "the left"; and when posters like DogonPorch accuse me of "apologizing for Hamas," when I have done nothing of the sort (ever; in any capacity) I'm certainly not going to agree with him, or "see his point"...because he has no point.

What is most remarkable about his "you're a terrorist-supporter" frothings is that he, objectively, is a terrorist-supporter. So long as the terrorism in question is supported or sanctioned by the noble and freedom-loving Western powers.

This is a common stance, unfortunately. JBG has similarly defended such things, when backed into a corner. It would appear, for some of our resident right-wingers who pretend to oppose terrorism, that they don't oppose it on principle; they oppose it in a thoroughly partisan sense only.

To sum up: I oppose terrorism; they do not.

Which rather changes the paradigm of these discussions, I should think.

You oppose your own definition of terrorism, which basically seems to includes any violent action that causes harm to civilians. Your harshest critiques of this "terrorism" are usually on those "terrorist" acts which you attribute to Western nations, because you believe it is your duty to impose a higher standard on these nations (as per our discussion in another thread). JBG and DoP condemn terrorism in its more commonly accepted definition.

You have a tendency to want to redefine terms to suit your particular purposes, whether it is terrorism, or, as in another thread, political correctness. While your definitions may perhaps in some cases make some sense, they are not the widely used or understood definitions. Redefining terms and then operating as if these redefinitions have been accepted by everyone else does not seem to me like an effective debating tactic.

By the way, the common definition of terrorism has nothing to do with being partisan (partisan referring here to party affiliation, not to partisan paramilitary forces).

Edited October 7, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

You oppose your own definition of terrorism, which basically seems to includes any violent action that causes harm to civilians. Your harshest critiques of this "terrorism" are usually on those "terrorist" acts which you attribute to Western nations, because you believe it is your duty to impose a higher standard on these nations (as per our discussion in another thread). JBG and DoP condemn terrorism in its more commonly accepted definition.

You have a tendency to want to redefine terms to suit your particular purposes, whether it is terrorism, or, as in another thread, political correctness. While your definitions may perhaps in some cases make some sense, they are not the widely used or understood definitions. Redefining terms and then operating as if these redefinitions have been accepted by everyone else does not seem to me like an effective debating tactic.

By the way, the common definition of terrorism has nothing to do with being partisan (partisan referring here to party affiliation, not to partisan paramilitary forces).

The word terrorism has been redefined all to hell over the last decade but it sure as hell wasnt BM that did it.

The real meaning of the word is....

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

This of course can also describe the actions of armies and nation states. Thats the definition.

Now... Since 911 people have tried to change the definition of terrorism to mean something like "people who dont cooperate with the west". THAT is the real redefinition that has gone on.

[bloodyminded]

You oppose your own definition of terrorism, which basically seems to includes any violent action that causes harm to civilians.

Nope. I'm talking specifically about the Indonesian State terror that wiped out half a million to a million "communists" (ie people with leftist philosophies) and then wiped out perhaps a third of the East Timorese population, through an act of utter and incontrovertible aggression.

Also, support for the Contras, who were explicitly a terrorist group. "Terrorism" is even used as a descriptor in the CIA manual given to the Contras, and they suggest the targeting of "soft targets" (ie civilians and civilian infrastrusture).

Your harshest critiques of this "terrorism" are usually on those "terrorist" acts which you attribute to Western nations, because you believe it is your duty to impose a higher standard on these nations (as per our discussion in another thread). JBG and DoP condemn terrorism in its more commonly accepted definition.

My definition of "terrorism" for purposes of this discussion is "the intentional targeting and murder of civilians for thr express purpose of spreading terror, for political ends."

You think that's too broad a definition? Really? Does it need the word "Islamic" to make it properly specific?

It's a perfectly conventional definition.

You have a tendency to want to redefine terms to suit your particular purposes, whether it is terrorism,

See above.

or, as in another thread, political correctness./quote]

Even if you're right (and I don't think you are), my "terrorism" definition is perfectly reasonable.

While your definitions may perhaps in some cases make some sense, they are not the widely used or understood definitions.

See above. My "terrorism" definition IS a mainstream, widely-accepted definition.

Redefining terms and then operating as if these redefinitions have been accepted by everyone else does not seem to me like an effective debating tactic.

Then don't do it. You are now declaring that terrorism is not terrorism. (again: see my definition above.)

Edited October 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

Here we have yet another case of the sky not being blue...

[GostHacked]

Terrorism is the threat of action, not the action itself. This is the classical definition of terrorism.

But media has drilled into our brains that terrorism = islam. Which is patently false. We see terrorism (new definition) all over the place commited by all sorts of people. The terror attacks from non-muslims flies under the radar because it does not get good ratings and does not contribute to the air of what they want you to think terrorism is.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But media has drilled into our brains that terrorism = islam. Which is patently false. We see terrorism (new definition) all over the place commited by all sorts of people. The terror attacks from non-muslims flies under the radar because it does not get good ratings and does not contribute to the air of what they want you to think terrorism is.

Nope....terrorism has been so defined long before Islamic associations, from the IRA & PLO to Timothy McVeigh, which most definitely got good "ratings". Your revisionist history will not change that.

[GostHacked]

Nope....terrorism has been so defined long before Islamic associations, from the IRA & PLO to Timothy McVeigh, which most definitely got good "ratings". Your revisionist history will not change that.

No arguments here, the IRA, PLO and the even the FLQ were classified as terror groups. As was the Weather Underground. However since 9/11 happened, we hear more about islam=terrorism way more than we hear *.*=terrorism.

A chrisitian extremist group in the US gets about 30 mins of airtime. While the Fort Hood shooter was played out for months after the incident. MSM is doing much of the revisionism that we are all buying into.

[bush_cheney2004]

No arguments here, the IRA, PLO and the even the FLQ were classified as terror groups. As was the Weather Underground. However since 9/11 happened, we hear more about islam=terrorism way more than we hear *.*=terrorism.

No "we" don't...I don't know what you're getting from Canadian media.

A chrisitian extremist group in the US gets about 30 mins of airtime. While the Fort Hood shooter was played out for months after the incident. MSM is doing much of the revisionism that we are all buying into.

Speak for yourself.....and increase your time horizon...grasshopper.

[DogOnPorch]

No arguments here, the IRA, PLO and the even the FLQ were classified as terror groups. As was the Weather Underground. However since 9/11 happened, we hear more about islam=terrorism way more than we hear *.*=terrorism.

A chrisitian extremist group in the US gets about 30 mins of airtime. While the Fort Hood shooter was played out for months after the incident. MSM is doing much of the revisionism that we are all buying into.

If Christian extremist groups were responsible for 85%+ of the planet's terror attacks, perhaps they'd get the same star treatment as the Muslim terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Edited October 7, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

No "we" don't...I don't know what you're getting from Canadian media.

You sure you don't know what I am getting from Canadian Media? That seems odd, coming from you.

Speak for yourself.....and increase your time horizon...grasshopper.

How far back do you want me to go to help prove whatever point you were going to make?

[M.Dancer]

How far back do you want me to go to help prove whatever point you were going to make?

Ummmm...how long do you think Tim McViegh was in the news?

[DogOnPorch]

Ummmm...how long do you think Tim McViegh was in the news?

Can you recall a more recent "Christian extremist" terror attack?

(crickets chirp)

Yeah...me neither.

[M.Dancer]

Can you recall a more recent "Christian extremist" terror attack?

(crickets chirp)

Yeah...me neither.

You know there have been other non islamic attacks...just not here or on the US. IRA attacks, seldom as they are still get headlines...more in the UK than here..as do Basque peace overtures in SPain...

[Shwa]

Can you recall a more recent "Christian extremist" terror attack?

(crickets chirp)

Yeah...me neither.

Does Scott Roeder count?

Although this sort of thing stays in the news for quite sometime...

[DogOnPorch]

You know there have been other non islamic attacks...just not here or on the US. IRA attacks, seldom as they are still get headlines...more in the UK than here..as do Basque peace overtures in SPain...

All screaming "Go and do thou likewise" as the switch is flipped, no doubt.

[DogOnPorch]

Does Scott Roeder count?

Although this sort of thing stays in the news for quite sometime...

That was a murder...you know...as seen on fine shows like Law & Order.

Here's a terrorist attack...just so we can all be on the same page.

[Shwa]

That was a murder...you know...as seen on fine shows like Law & Order.

Here's a terrorist attack...just so we can all be on the same page.

So are you defining 'terrorist attack' by the scale of the actual attack amd simple murders, bombings, plots and such don't really count?

[DogOnPorch]

So are you defining 'terrorist attack' by the scale of the actual attack amd simple murders, bombings, plots and such don't really count?

I define terrorism by my own personal experience with the animal. Ditto for murders.

[DogOnPorch]

Next up: coffee without cream = terrorism.

[Post To The Left]

Can you recall a more recent "Christian extremist" terror attack?

(crickets chirp)

Yeah...me neither.

Well right off the bat: Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. They are a Christian Fundamentalist terrorist group that wants to set up theocracy in Uganda ruled by the Christian Bible and the Ten Commandments.

Then we can talk about the Jewish terrorist groups in Israel. They used to kidnap British soldiers, hold them for randsom, murder them and then bobby trap their bodies in hopes of killing more innocent lives.

Of course the IRA, the anti-abortion terror attacks, Ku Klux Klan, etc, etc

[Post To The Left]

If Christian extremist groups were responsible for 85%+ of the planet's terror attacks, perhaps they'd get the same star treatment as the Muslim terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Have you actually gone through this page? 85% seems a little high. True Islamic terrorists have stepped up their attacks recently but the number of suicide attacks between 1980-2000 are as stands:

168 The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka and in India

52 Hizbullah and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon, Kuwait and Argentina

22 Hamas in Israel

15 The Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) in Turkey

8 The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Israel

2 Al-Qaida in East Africa

1 The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) in Croatia

1 The Islamic Group (IG) in Pakistan

1 Barbar Khalsa International (BKI) in India

1 The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria

Tamil Tigers far outpaced any Muslim group. And I haven't really gone through the wiki page but just scanning it appears a lot of the 80s was dominated by communist groups in Europe, Christian groups in Lebanon and American sponsored terror groups in South America.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Post To The Left

[DogOnPorch]

Now if I could just encourage them all to blow themselves up.