Harper is ruining our ability to act as an honest broker.

[Army Guy]

Right... I guess maybe you missed the point. Forgive me if I was unclear. I was attempting to point out that no sufficient definition of 'terrorist' has been given that would condemn Hezbollah as such. They are not terrorists because you say so... so what are the reasons?

Actually there is clear difinitions that clearly define the Hezbullah as a terrorist group. which one would you like. beside the ones below there is also the canadian, us ,and uk verisions all available on goggle.

My Webpage

My Webpage

On this point I will take your lead and ask your questions: Do you have any evidence to support this claim. The story cited below requires some context. For example, what was Hezbollah's explanation for this action. Concievably, Lebanese civilians might interpret the Israeli leveling of an apartment building filled with women and children in much the same as you are interpreting this action... context my friend.

In 1979, Samir Kuntar led a raid that targeted civilians in Nahariya. His group entered the apartment of a young couple, Danny and Smadar Haran. They took Danny and his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, hostage and retreated to the beach. Trapped there, first, according to witnesses, they killed Danny. The murder of her father would be the last scene Einat would see. For then the raiders killed the little girl — by bashing her head against a rock. Back at their apartment, Danny's wife, Smadar, had escaped execution by hiding in the crawlspace above a bedroom with their other daughter, two-year-old Yael. Afraid the child would reveal their hiding place, she had covered Yael's mouth with her hand. When she took her hand away, the mother realized she had smothered her child to death.

I just curious as to how you could compare the above slaughter, which was done with only one brutal aim, to terrorize the family, to inflict as much pain and suffering as they could...To send a clear message of terrorism to the State of Israel and all her people...To a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target.. They did not just kill them , the butchered them, like a red neck would do to a bag of unwanted kittens.

Next are you going to equally compare the D-Day landings , to the acts that were carried out in Nazi death camps.

As for waiting for an explaination, are you serious what could they possiable tell us that would not make this an act other than terrorism. The people of Lebanbon have made thier chioce very clear to the world, they will stand behind the Hezbullah and thier actions...they've done so with thier votes and they've done so with thier actions or lack off.

[gnam]

So we're standing before the world a bunch of elitists, saying "No, do it our way", with absolutely no ability to back it up short of running to the UN?

No... we are standing before the world as a sovereign state (or at least that is the official story) that has recognized that the UN, and more to the point the UNSC, stands as an imperfect (a gross understating of the matter) model for global democratic governance. We don't tell anyone to "do it our way" since canada is hardly in a position to tell anyone anything. However, we do, on occasion, develop our own policies on certain matters and then proceed to suggest those policies as alternative strategies that might be adopted by those Nations serving on the UNSC or who are embroiled in disputes. This is sometimes futile (or sometimes canadian policy just turns out to be plain stupid), but the point is that Canada need not wait for the UNSC to dictate to it what it's official policy ought to be... that was the manner and fashion in which the soviet system operated. A central command develops and decides on policy for a given area and then everyone is 'encouraged' to adopt that policy. You wanna buy into that system... be my guest. However, I will continue to support those governments that seek to develop 'made in Canada' policy initiatives regardless of their effectiveness or the fact that I am currently left with little or no choice in terms of what governments I ought to support.

[Hicksey]

So we're standing before the world a bunch of elitists, saying "No, do it our way", with absolutely no ability to back it up short of running to the UN?

No... we are standing before the world as a sovereign state (or at least that is the official story) that has recognized that the UN, and more to the point the UNSC, stands as an imperfect (a gross understating of the matter) model for global democratic governance. We don't tell anyone to "do it our way" since canada is hardly in a position to tell anyone anything. However, we do, on occasion, develop our own policies on certain matters and then proceed to suggest those policies as alternative strategies that might be adopted by those Nations serving on the UNSC or who are embroiled in disputes. This is sometimes futile (or sometimes canadian policy just turns out to be plain stupid), but the point is that Canada need not wait for the UNSC to dictate to it what it's official policy ought to be... that was the manner and fashion in which the soviet system operated. A central command develops and decides on policy for a given area and then everyone is 'encouraged' to adopt that policy. You wanna buy into that system... be my guest. However, I will continue to support those governments that seek to develop 'made in Canada' policy initiatives regardless of their effectiveness or the fact that I am currently left with little or no choice in terms of what governments I ought to support.

You should read your response. It looks like mine only edited for political correctness.

[gnam]

Sorry I'm obviously a bit of a techno-idiot evidenced by my low success rate in getting the quote function to work... Anyway, ARMY GUY you said:

"Actually there is clear difinitions that clearly define the Hezbullah as a terrorist group. which one would you like. beside the ones below there is also the canadian, us ,and uk verisions all available on goggle."

Then, ARMY GUY you said:

"I just curious as to how you could compare the above slaughter, which was done with only one brutal aim, to terrorize the family, to inflict as much pain and suffering as they could...To send a clear message of terrorism to the State of Israel and all her people...To a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target.. They did not just kill them , the butchered them, like a red neck would do to a bag of unwanted kittens.

Next are you going to equally compare the D-Day landings , to the acts that were carried out in Nazi death camps.

As for waiting for an explaination, are you serious what could they possiable tell us that would not make this an act other than terrorism. The people of Lebanbon have made thier chioce very clear to the world, they will stand behind the Hezbullah and thier actions...they've done so with thier votes and they've done so with thier actions or lack off."

MY RESPONSE:

Well, the Wikipedia entry was interesting (something of an etymological approach to the definition of the term 'terrorism'.), though somewhat unhelpful concerning this discussion.

You will undoubtedly have noticed in your reading of the Wikipedia entry that there are a number of definitions of the term, some of which conflict with one another. I didn't say that I don't undertsand the term 'terrorism.' What I was asking for was some commitment on the part of those who seem to simply bandy the term about as a catch all for everything they deem to be evil in the world. What is wanted is a commitment to define and outline the premises by which one makes use of the term terrosrism. You ask me which definition I would like? My answer is: None... I am not calling anyone a terrorist; thus, I have no responsisbilities for defining that concept (however, if you want my help in developing a working and satisfactory definition that straddles political boundaries I would be willing to participate in such an undertaking under a new discussion thread). Additionally, I was looking for some attempt at definition that was not tautologous and, as such, devoid of meaning. For instance telling me that the definition of terrorism you are working with defines terrorist groups as those who commit or are involved with terrorist acts tells me nothing. You must then go on to define what constitutes the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist act.

Of course a person's resistance to offering these kinds of definitions derives, in part, from the fact that once one does so, as often as not, his/her own definition can be turned against them or those whose policies they are attempting to support through their use of the term. A good example of this arises in Hannah Arendt's reporting on the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann. There she points out that the grounds on which Eichmann was being tried would operate as equally applicable indictments against those americans involved in the Atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (heheh... fooled ya... no attempt to equate the d-day landings with the Nazi death camps). However, the psychological explanation for one's resistance to stable conceptual definition does not release one from the obligation to put forward such a definition insofar as one insists upon usage of the concept. Thus, the question remains: Which definition are 'you' using when you charge a certain group with terrorism? Feel free to elaborate the key points of your definition, I encourage it.

As for the often referenced Samir Kuntar raid, I have already indicated my disgust regarding this particular event. However, when I ask for context I am suggesting that there is more to this tragedy than a disgusting murder on a beach. You, yourself admit as much when you call this an act of terrorism against Israel and her people. In doing so you admit at least that this event has a broader context (Israel and Hezbollah) than the event itself. The problem with the way that this story is told... and retold, and retold, and retold... is that it refuses to admit a broader context into the telling of the story, thereby manipulating the emotional response of the reader and leaving one without the information necessary to consider this event and it's relationship to the Hezbollah/Israel conflict in an informed way. You are being unfair and not just a little dishonest when you tell this story, completely devoid of context, and then proceed to refer to the massacre of dozens of Lebanese civilians (women and children) as "a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target."

Consider, for a moment the manner in which this event might be retold had there been any survivors to tell it. An eye-witness might tell you how a relentless Israeli air strike had pounded out the roads leading from town and to safe ground, leaving those still remaining with little choice but to take cover in what looked like a sturdy building (one of the only ones left standing in any case). Our hypothetical eye-witness would then explain how those people had been hiding there for days with no food or water and no place to go to the bathroom. He might tell you how after the first three days, the stench from human waste was almost unbearable, and still the Israeli bombardment was so fierce and frightening that no one dared go outside. He might say that after a few days of hard prayer the Israeli bombardment seemed to have let up. Then he might tell you how during a discussion of the possibility of going outside to try and find food, and maybe even a different shelter (one not filled with excrement), there was a flash in the far corner of the building and in the next moment there were screams and howls of pain from the injured and dying... some of them missing body parts, one child on fire and burning to death, and some people just dead. He might then tell you that before there was time to even consider getting the injured out of the building the roof began to collapse and when the dust settle he could see that though he had a way out evryone else had been buried... some were still alive and in horrible pain, evidenced by their shrieks and cries for help.... etc, etc, etc. This may be a little over the top.? in any case, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine a scenario in which an eye-witness to the Israeli bombing of a building filled with women and children would describe his/her experience of such an event as "a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target." (your words)

The point here is the manner in which the story is told. On the one hand the israeli bombardment of that building saved countless Israeli lives from a grizzly death by rocket shrapnel. On the other hand The Israeli attack is a savage and cavalier murder carried out by some kid with his finger on a button hundreds of feet above. Likewise, the attacks against Israeli civilians in 1979 resulted in some of the most grusome crimes on record in the region. On the other hand... well we don't know because those of you who have made that story a stock part of any discussion regarding conflict in the middle east seem unwilling or unable to represent that event in its broader context.

That said, the question of context remains... what was the Israeli role in Lebanon at the time? What was happening between Israel and Hezbollah at the time? etc, etc... I won't belabour the point any longer.

[gnam]

So we're standing before the world a bunch of elitists, saying "No, do it our way", with absolutely no ability to back it up short of running to the UN?

No... we are standing before the world as a sovereign state (or at least that is the official story) that has recognized that the UN, and more to the point the UNSC, stands as an imperfect (a gross understating of the matter) model for global democratic governance. We don't tell anyone to "do it our way" since canada is hardly in a position to tell anyone anything. However, we do, on occasion, develop our own policies on certain matters and then proceed to suggest those policies as alternative strategies that might be adopted by those Nations serving on the UNSC or who are embroiled in disputes. This is sometimes futile (or sometimes canadian policy just turns out to be plain stupid), but the point is that Canada need not wait for the UNSC to dictate to it what it's official policy ought to be... that was the manner and fashion in which the soviet system operated. A central command develops and decides on policy for a given area and then everyone is 'encouraged' to adopt that policy. You wanna buy into that system... be my guest. However, I will continue to support those governments that seek to develop 'made in Canada' policy initiatives regardless of their effectiveness or the fact that I am currently left with little or no choice in terms of what governments I ought to support.

You should read your response. It looks like mine only edited for political correctness.

Actually my response looks a little like yours only devoid of cynicism and apathy... while contemporarily common qualities, they are particularly vulgar political traits.... Actually, in all seriousness I think your post misses the point that the UNSC doesn't always act as an honest broker and as such, there needs to be input and agitation from outside of that organization from time to time. Your post seems to suggest that the UNSC will always develop the best policy solutions to world security issues and that the rest of the world should be happy with that, sit back and enjoy the ride... is that what you're saying??? Care to elaborate??

[Army Guy]

Gnam:

Well, the Wikipedia entry was interesting (something of an etymological approach to the definition of the term 'terrorism'.), though somewhat unhelpful concerning this discussion

Actually i thought the wikipedia entry had a definition to fit just about everyone, with most of them repeating basically the same thing. But i think that the below UN version has most of the meat.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

Taken from.

My Webpage

If the whole piont of this exericise is to use the provided definition in another augument to suggest that the west has also sponsored forms of terrorism or have performed War crimes in war. your right they have. history is full of examples.

You ask me which definition I would like? My answer is: None... I am not calling anyone a terrorist; thus, I have no responsisbilities for defining that concept

But you willing go as far as saying that those definitons do not meet your standards, and if you are going to pass judgement on them then you must also be prepared to define them.

I was looking for some attempt at definition that was not tautologous and, as such, devoid of meaning.

(however, if you want my help in developing a working and satisfactory definition that straddles political boundaries I would be willing to participate in such an undertaking under a new discussion thread).

Look your obviously an educated person, myself am just a Soldier, if the UN could not come up with a workable solution do you honestly think we can ?

You must then go on to define what constitutes the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist act.

I will give you what i concieve to be a terrorist act.

Cutting off the head of a soldier or civilian on tape or other media outlet to use as a threat for other gains be it polictical or what ever... That is an act of terrorism.

what is not a terrorist act.

The cutting off the head of a soldier in the heat of combat with a sword. when the act was not to send any message but with the only intention of slaying of the soldier. that is not a terrorist act but a brutal fact of war.

Another act of terrorism.

Conducting a planned cross border raid, with the intention of commiting murder of civilians, but not just killing them, but to kill them in such a way that sends a clear message to the masses and general public...such as bashing a 4 year olds head on the rocks until her life is forever lost. No that takes a special person to carry out that act...that takes a terrorist, a coward.

Of course a person's resistance to offering these kinds of definitions derives, in part, from the fact that once one does so, as often as not, his/her own definition can be turned against them or those whose policies they are attempting to support through their use of the term. A good example of this arises in Hannah Arendt's reporting on the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann. There she points out that the grounds on which Eichmann was being tried would operate as equally applicable indictments against those americans involved in the Atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Explain how the example of Hannah Arendts is a good example. And how you tie the two together. in one example we find a man who was in charge of transporting millions to thier deaths, at one piont becoming the 'Master" his words not mine, with only one goal in mind the final solution... And in the other example we have an action that was taken to save american and allied lives by ending the war early.

I have not read her works or her book on Eichmann, but from snippettes i've read she is Pro germany considering her background.

However, the psychological explanation for one's resistance to stable conceptual definition does not release one from the obligation to put forward such a definition insofar as one insists upon usage of the concept. Thus, the question remains: Which definition are 'you' using when you charge a certain group with terrorism?

Your right, the definition must be black and white and must apply to all ,in all circumstances, no exceptions. The definition i used is the one current used in Canada, or which is a modified version of the UN's.

As for the often referenced Samir Kuntar raid, I have already indicated my disgust regarding this particular event. However, when I ask for context I am suggesting that there is more to this tragedy than a disgusting murder on a beach.

I was not suggesting that you approved or disapproved ,the event . I think the event or what has been publish of the event is self explanatory, and does not require a whole lot of context. To most those facts although not actually stated more or less jump out at you..Why would he have killed them in this matter if not to send a much larger message.

Consider, for a moment the manner in which this event might be retold had there been any survivors to tell it. An eye-witness might tell you how a relentless Israeli air strike had pounded out the roads leading from town and to safe ground, leaving those still remaining with little choice but to take cover in what looked like a sturdy building (one of the only ones left standing in any case). Our hypothetical eye-witness would then explain how those people had been hiding there for days with no food or water and no place to go to the bathroom. He might tell you how after the first three days, the stench from human waste was almost unbearable, and still the Israeli bombardment was so fierce and frightening that no one dared go outside. He might say that after a few days of hard prayer the Israeli bombardment seemed to have let up. Then he might tell you how during a discussion of the possibility of going outside to try and find food, and maybe even a different shelter (one not filled with excrement), there was a flash in the far corner of the building and in the next moment there were screams and howls of pain from the injured and dying... some of them missing body parts, one child on fire and burning to death, and some people just dead. He might then tell you that before there was time to even consider getting the injured out of the building the roof began to collapse and when the dust settle he could see that though he had a way out evryone else had been buried... some were still alive and in horrible pain, evidenced by their shrieks and cries for help.... etc, etc, etc. This may be a little over the top.? in any case, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine a scenario in which an eye-witness to the Israeli bombing of a building filled with women and children would describe his/her experience of such an event as "a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target." (your words)

I not demeaning the pain and anguish that is felt by those that experiance war. As i've seen the effects of war first hand, the sights ,sounds and smells. But it is what it is, a bombing during a war in which they are a part of by they're own choice, meaning they were warned to vacate, they had the means to vacate, they were lots of choices that they could have made.

Things would have been alot different if those same people were dragged out of that same complex by Israelis soldiers and force to watch as they beat the brains out of the children with rocks. Yes the result is the same they are dead, but the intention or malice is not. one is a form of war the other terrorism.

The point here is the manner in which the story is told. On the one hand the israeli bombardment of that building saved countless Israeli lives from a grizzly death by rocket shrapnel. On the other hand The Israeli attack is a savage and cavalier murder carried out by some kid with his finger on a button hundreds of feet above.

No, the piont is a nation is allowed to defend it self, to protect it's citizens be it Israel or Canada "all nations are allowed by inter-national law, and the UN conventions to defend it's self and citizens. once that happens all those actions are covered under the laws that govern conflict period...those laws that are broken are punishable with war crimes... Show me proof that a crime was committed. but on the other hand the crime of brutally bashing a 4 years old head again'st the rocks for the purpose of a terrorist act is a crime, one committed again'st all of us.

That said, the question of context remains... what was the Israeli role in Lebanon at the time? What was happening between Israel and Hezbollah at the time? etc, etc... I won't belabour the point any longer

From her own words. We've all read it a thousand times , tell me what could have possiable happened in that conflict to excuse this murder or to see this attack as nothing more than a terrorist attack.

My Webpage

[Hicksey]

So we're standing before the world a bunch of elitists, saying "No, do it our way", with absolutely no ability to back it up short of running to the UN?

No... we are standing before the world as a sovereign state (or at least that is the official story) that has recognized that the UN, and more to the point the UNSC, stands as an imperfect (a gross understating of the matter) model for global democratic governance. We don't tell anyone to "do it our way" since canada is hardly in a position to tell anyone anything. However, we do, on occasion, develop our own policies on certain matters and then proceed to suggest those policies as alternative strategies that might be adopted by those Nations serving on the UNSC or who are embroiled in disputes. This is sometimes futile (or sometimes canadian policy just turns out to be plain stupid), but the point is that Canada need not wait for the UNSC to dictate to it what it's official policy ought to be... that was the manner and fashion in which the soviet system operated. A central command develops and decides on policy for a given area and then everyone is 'encouraged' to adopt that policy. You wanna buy into that system... be my guest. However, I will continue to support those governments that seek to develop 'made in Canada' policy initiatives regardless of their effectiveness or the fact that I am currently left with little or no choice in terms of what governments I ought to support.

You should read your response. It looks like mine only edited for political correctness.

Actually my response looks a little like yours only devoid of cynicism and apathy... while contemporarily common qualities, they are particularly vulgar political traits.... Actually, in all seriousness I think your post misses the point that the UNSC doesn't always act as an honest broker and as such, there needs to be input and agitation from outside of that organization from time to time. Your post seems to suggest that the UNSC will always develop the best policy solutions to world security issues and that the rest of the world should be happy with that, sit back and enjoy the ride... is that what you're saying??? Care to elaborate??

You try being a truck driver for a week, and see what its like to be viewed as a second-class citizen and you'll understand where the cynicism comes from. If I was apathetic I wouldn't be here discussing the matter don't you think?

I don't think a "made by the UNSC" solution will be the best solution every time. The UNSC is imperfect. But it is the best we have. And if you recall, they did negotiate a cease-fire and pledge to send 15,000 troops to the border to enforce it within two weeks. How was the "Made in Canada" solution better?

[gnam]

You try being a truck driver for a week, and see what its like to be viewed as a second-class citizen and you'll understand where the cynicism comes from. If I was apathetic I wouldn't be here discussing the matter don't you think?

I don't think a "made by the UNSC" solution will be the best solution every time. The UNSC is imperfect. But it is the best we have. And if you recall, they did negotiate a cease-fire and pledge to send 15,000 troops to the border to enforce it within two weeks. How was the "Made in Canada" solution better?

Actually, Until last spring I was a flat-deck tow-truck operator. Before that I was forklift operator, and before that an outboard mechanic in the Northern Queen Charlotte islands. So spare me the 'second-class-citizen' line. It doesn't fly. The fact that you don't feel you get the social respect you deserve is no excuse for a lousy attitude (cynicism). I sympathize with you insofar as you might dislike your job. I don't like mine, but that's not the issue here. If you want to discuss modernity, the contemporary division of labour, and the manifold ways that they demoralize and dehumanize people we could take that up elsewhere. In any case I didn't say that you are a cynical person, just that your comment seems to exhibit a degree of cynicism regarding Canada's ability to have an important role in affecting international politics.

As far as apathy is concened, again this applies more to your comment than to you. The issue is not whether or not you vote, post on forums, or follow politics. The issue is that your comment suggests that Canada should not develop and put forward policy initiatives of its own because the UNSC is busy doing that for us. You seem to be arguing that since the UNSC is 'probably' going to develop policy that 'might' translate into action on international affairs, as it has in the case of the middle east (after one of its outposts was destroyed in that conflict and the media was awash with photo's and video of the carnage and destruction coming out of the area), Canada shouldn't bother. This strategy, you'll recall, worked wonders in Rwanda. While canada missed the boat on that one, it didn't have to. Likewise, the UNSC looked set to do nothing in the Middle east until its key members came under intense international and domestic pressure to find a solution. There is no reason Canada should not have sought to take a leading role on the issue... either in the UN assembly, as a country with unique lobbying opportunities in the united states, or in a more direct way with those states embroiled in the middle east conflict. Insofar as you think otherwise, you would seem to be suggesting that Canada adopt a disposition toward international politics that is essentially characterized by its apathy.

As far as Made in Canada policies are concerned, they are not always the best. However, canada has a history of being a leader within the UN (Canada played an integral role in developing UN papers on torture), and without (the obvious example being the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis). Many Canadians, myself included, would like to see canada continue to take that kind of a role on the international stage. Hence the concern over whether Harper is, or is not ruining Canada's ability to act as an honest broker.

[gnam]

Well, the Wikipedia entry was interesting (something of an etymological approach to the definition of the term 'terrorism'.), though somewhat unhelpful concerning this discussion

Actually i thought the wikipedia entry had a definition to fit just about everyone, with most of them repeating basically the same thing. But i think that the below UN version has most of the meat.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

This is one of four proposed definitions and not the official UN definition. The UN currently has no official definition. While this isn't a bad definition, its drawback is that it would criminalize the israeli state, in addition to hezbollah, for many of it's actions in Gaza as well as some of it's military manouvers in the latest conflict in Lebanon. Likewise, in adopting this definition of terrorism the United States, Canada, and a whole host of other western nations would thereby become terrorist states under UN law (assuming that this definition were adopted as a piece of international legislation).

Then Army Guy you said:

If the whole piont of this exericise is to use the provided definition in another augument to suggest that the west has also sponsored forms of terrorism or have performed War crimes in war. your right they have. history is full of examples.

My response:

Well, the whole point of this excercise is to show that the use of the term 'terrorist' in reference to Hezbollah is not only hippocritical, but also propagandistic because it skews one's understanding of the political situation in the area. In doing so, the political options people see as workable are narrowed to the point where military aggression is seen as the only viable policy. In other words, the use of the term makes intelligent discussion about the middle east difficult, if not impossible.

Army Guy you said:

But you willing go as far as saying that those definitons do not meet your standards, and if you are going to pass judgement on them then you must also be prepared to define them.

I was looking for some attempt at definition that was not tautologous and, as such, devoid of meaning.

My Response:

Wrong I have no standards for the use of the term terrorist... Those standards you refer to are standards one must meet in the definition of any concept... I am saying that as it (the term 'terrorist') is currently defined, the term terrorist is debilitating as regards one's ability to think about the middle east with an open mind. It is a vacuous term that can be used by anyone to label any group they dislike or are opposed to, especially with respect to political groups since politics is largely about the wielding of power. I am essentially suggesting that we drop the use of the term terrorist from our middle east vocabulary, as it were.

(however, if you want my help in developing a working and satisfactory definition that straddles political boundaries I would be willing to participate in such an undertaking under a new discussion thread).

Army Guy you said:

Look your obviously an educated person, myself am just a Soldier, if the UN could not come up with a workable solution do you honestly think we can ?

My Response:

Education has little to do with it. You are clearly not an idiot and niether you nor I are saddled with the kind of economic or political concerns and interests bourn by the UN and its member states. Since we are not beholden to a constituency or members with veto power we are free in ways that the UN is not, free to agree upon defintions of terms and then apply those definitions with ruthless consistency in our discussions and thinking.

Army Guy you said:

I will give you what i concieve to be a terrorist act.

Cutting off the head of a soldier or civilian on tape or other media outlet to use as a threat for other gains be it polictical or what ever... That is an act of terrorism.

what is not a terrorist act.

The cutting off the head of a soldier in the heat of combat with a sword. when the act was not to send any message but with the only intention of slaying of the soldier. that is not a terrorist act but a brutal fact of war.

Another act of terrorism.

Conducting a planned cross border raid, with the intention of commiting murder of civilians, but not just killing them, but to kill them in such a way that sends a clear message to the masses and general public...such as bashing a 4 year olds head on the rocks until her life is forever lost. No that takes a special person to carry out that act...that takes a terrorist, a coward.

My Response:

So the key in your defintion of terrorism is that it is a message generator?? You are saying that the desire to destroy another person(s) is a justified, if brutal, act insofar as it involves soldiers on a battlefield and there is no intent, or attempt to send a message to a wider group (ie. the general public)? Makes you wonder about the US use of a strategy they termed "shock and awe."

Army Guy you said:

Explain how the example of Hannah Arendts is a good example. And how you tie the two together. in one example we find a man who was in charge of transporting millions to thier deaths, at one piont becoming the 'Master" his words not mine, with only one goal in mind the final solution... And in the other example we have an action that was taken to save american and allied lives by ending the war early. I have not read her works or her book on Eichmann, but from snippettes i've read she is Pro germany considering her background.

My Response:

You are right. I wasn't very clear on this point. The idea is that in order to brand Hezbollah as terrorist, rather than simply a militant political group, one must adopt a definition of the term that would apply equally to oneself and one's allies. Our use of the term terrorist is as frought with difficulty as the israeli charges against Eichmann. Those charges would have applied equally to americans involved in the atomic bombings and Arendt recognized this. As for Arendt herself, she was a german jew who fled to the USA when the Nazi's came to power. While she may have been a patriotic german she was about as far as anyone can get from being a Nazi sympathizer. At the end of her report, first published in the New Yorker (I think), she points out that Eichmann was a disgusting human being but that the trial of Eichmann was a farce... anyway, this is way off topic. The point is, to repeat myself, the manner in which we apply the use of the term terrorist is either to loose, such that applies to Israel as well as Hezbollah, or it is so strict that Hezbollah has a reasonable case to support its claim that it is not a terrorist group, but is simply protecting the interests of those it represents.

Army Guy you said:

Your right, the definition must be black and white and must apply to all ,in all circumstances, no exceptions. The definition i used is the one current used in Canada, or which is a modified version of the UN's.

My Response:

I assume, when you talk about the canadian definition you are reffering to bill C-36 as passed by the HOC. Again, the difficulty here is with the fact that, aside from a whole host of other problems, it is readily applicable to George Bush (in truth I don't really see charging this guy with terrorism as a real problem... that's beside the point though), the Israeli state and Hezbollah.

Army Guy you said:

I was not suggesting that you approved or disapproved ,the event . I think the event or what has been publish of the event is self explanatory, and does not require a whole lot of context. To most those facts although not actually stated more or less jump out at you..Why would he have killed them in this matter if not to send a much larger message.

My Response:

Apply this logic in lebanon. what message are the Israeli's sending to Hezbollah and Lebanese citizens when hundreds of lebanese are killed in contrast to several dozen hezbollah fighters.

Army Guy you said:

I not demeaning the pain and anguish that is felt by those that experiance war. As i've seen the effects of war first hand, the sights ,sounds and smells. But it is what it is, a bombing during a war in which they are a part of by they're own choice, meaning they were warned to vacate, they had the means to vacate, they were lots of choices that they could have made.

Things would have been alot different if those same people were dragged out of that same complex by Israelis soldiers and force to watch as they beat the brains out of the children with rocks. Yes the result is the same they are dead, but the intention or malice is not. one is a form of war the other terrorism.

My Response:

It is a cheap parlour trick to hide behind modern technology as a justification for careless and wonton brutality and vengefulness. As far as those people having the means to vacate the area, the facts contradict you. If the UN and red cross found it difficult to get into those areas, how easy must it have been to get out on a few hours notice. Consider also that it's probably not the case that the civilians killed in those areas were probably not the areas top 10% income earners. People without the economic means often have very few choices in situations such as these.

Anyway, I appreciate many of your comments and don't think that I have answered all of your challenges so I'll try to follow up later.

[Army Guy]

Gnam:

This is one of four proposed definitions and not the official UN definition. The UN currently has no official definition. While this isn't a bad definition, its drawback is that it would criminalize the israeli state, in addition to hezbollah, for many of it's actions in Gaza as well as some of it's military manouvers in the latest conflict in Lebanon. Likewise, in adopting this definition of terrorism the United States, Canada, and a whole host of other western nations would thereby become terrorist states under UN law (assuming that this definition were adopted as a piece of international legislation

Although it may be an unoffical UN defination, it is the best one out there. Here is where our piont of views split. And perhaps i've missed your piont, but i don't think this defination applies to nations, governments whom are at war, or conflict with another indiv, group or nation. to clarify, the act of Hezbullah launching rockets at Israel is an act of war, the kidnapping of two Israelis soldiers an act of war,

The act of murdering that 4 year old child an act of terrorism.. because the act was full of malice and hate it's message was malice and hate..and it was carried out knowing this, and for this sole purpose.

If we are about to study every act within war, then yes you would be right to say that every nation east and west would be guilty of some form of terrorism...but there has to be a line we draw like the one drawn by the UN where it states terrorism is a war crime comitted in peace time.

Well, the whole point of this excercise is to show that the use of the term 'terrorist' in reference to Hezbollah is not only hippocritical, but also propagandistic because it skews one's understanding of the political situation in the area. In doing so, the political options people see as workable are narrowed to the point where military aggression is seen as the only viable policy. In other words, the use of the term makes intelligent discussion about the middle east difficult, if not impossible.

It's not hippocritical, that some in the Hezbullah have practiced Terrorist activities in the past. and to be honest so have some of the Israelis.

What political options have the Hezbullah left Israel, i mean really even if Israel gave them back all of thier POWS and the convicted terrorist, gave them back the farms do you honestly think that the Hezbullah will take up farming..So what other polictical avenues are there ?

And your right , there is no intelligent discussion that can be had over peace in the middle east. there has been to much blood spilt, to much hate been fostered, and nobody is willing to take what action is nessicary to procure peace that will last in the middle east.

So the key in your defintion of terrorism is that it is a message generator?? You are saying that the desire to destroy another person(s) is a justified, if brutal, act insofar as it involves soldiers on a battlefield and there is no intent, or attempt to send a message to a wider group (ie. the general public)? Makes you wonder about the US use of a strategy they termed "shock and awe."

Yes, a political generated message, that is strictly meant to change the minds of the people or governments through 'terror" in time of peace or war. For example the The Nazi's mass killing of certain "undesirables' (thier term not mine)could have been considered a terrorist act, along with the bombing of cities with out military targets in them, for the sole purpose of creating panick and terror in the population could have been considered a terrorist act.

Shock and awe is used for the same thing only it's targets are military and in time of war. although its message is meant for both military and civilian.

Our use of the term terrorist is as frought with difficulty as the israeli charges against Eichmann. Those charges would have applied equally to americans involved in the atomic bombings and Arendt recognized this. As for Arendt herself, she was a german jew who fled to the USA when the Nazi's came to power. While she may have been a patriotic german she was about as far as anyone can get from being a Nazi sympathizer.

You'd have to go way out on a limb to make that connection, a man whom prided himself in becoming the best at what he was doing in this case knowly shipping millions of jews etc, to their deaths for no other reason than to rid the riech of thier kind..and justifing it because he had seen dead german civilians in a bomb shelter...and i thought it was the allieds that bombed them not the jews..

and then we compare the him to the men that involved in dropping a bomb that ended the war early and saved the lives of thousands of american soldiers..

I find it difficult to draw a similar comparison between them.

I also find it difficult to believe her opinons to be unbaised, yes she was a jew, but she was also married to a man whom was investigated with war crimes.

anyway, this is way off topic. The point is, to repeat myself, the manner in which we apply the use of the term terrorist is either to loose, such that applies to Israel as well as Hezbollah, or it is so strict that Hezbollah has a reasonable case to support its claim that it is not a terrorist group, but is simply protecting the interests of those it represents.

Hezbullah is a group that not all of it's members are terrorist, but firmily believes in the use of terror as a wpn again'st Israel...

Apply this logic in lebanon. what message are the Israeli's sending to Hezbollah and Lebanese citizens when hundreds of lebanese are killed in contrast to several dozen hezbollah fighters

The people of Lebanon have made a chioce, be it via the voting stations, or by thier support of the Hezbullah. that they approve of the hezbullah actions again'st Israel..one has to just watch thier comments on the News to suggest that a large group of lebanese approve of the hezbullah and their actions.

They are both the same group of people so why is there a clear distinction when there is not.

You can't have your cake and eat it to, yes we approve of your attacks on Israel, we as a nation refuse to do anything about that. Yes the Hezbullah are part of our government, yes they make up a part of our military. So in that regards lebanon is guilty of of attacks again'st Israel period.

It is a cheap parlour trick to hide behind modern technology as a justification for careless and wonton brutality and vengefulness. As far as those people having the means to vacate the area, the facts contradict you. If the UN and red cross found it difficult to get into those areas, how easy must it have been to get out on a few hours notice. Consider also that it's probably not the case that the civilians killed in those areas were probably not the areas top 10% income earners. People without the economic means often have very few choices in situations such as these.

Is it a cheap parlor trick, to fire rockets next to the same building then vacate knowing that it will draw an Israelis reaction. yes it is, but one both sides use it to thier advantage.

No the facts do not contradict me, put yourself into thier shoes. They have lived there for many years, they could judge the situation by just how the israelis were reacting, they knew very earily that this was not a typical response...in fact the Israelis had told everyone very early that there was going to be a ground offensive, they made it very clear with the call up of thousands of reserves it was not going to be a typical response, they knew by the growing amount of armour clearly visable it was not going to be a typical response...

All that would tell me it's time to hit the road, like the thousands that did. be it by car, train boat, or lastly by foot...So did they have choices i'd say a good majority did, poor or rich, if millions of Rwandians could cover hundreds of KMs to get to safety with no more than bare feet then lebanese civilians could also.

Those few that were asked on tv why they stayed most said they were afraid that when they got back everything they had would be gone, again a choice, life over material things.

Am i being cold hearted perhaps, but like i said earily i've seen the effects of war, and the choices that needed to be made would have been easy for me, leave, by any means possiable.

Those that could not leave be it medically OK you've got me there, But war is brutal in the fact that many innocents are going to die, regardless of modern tech or what preparations we take the lebanonese government knows these, so does the lebanonese people. knowing all this they still made thier choices and drew the line in the sand.

[Argus]

As far as Made in Canada policies are concerned, they are not always the best. However, canada has a history of being a leader within the UN

Not actually true.

(Canada played an integral role in developing UN papers on torture)

An empty, rhetorical gesture.

and without (the obvious example being the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis).

Actually that is pretty much the ONLY example, and that was a generation ago.

Many Canadians, myself included, would like to see canada continue to take that kind of a role on the international stage.

What role? The role of occasonally making empty rhetorical gestures that affect no one and are largely meaningless?

[gnam]

What role? The role of occasonally making empty rhetorical gestures that affect no one and are largely meaningless?

Hmmm... a little deja vu?? Oh yeah, I just had this discussion with Hicksey...

[jbg]

What role? The role of occasonally making empty rhetorical gestures that affect no one and are largely meaningless?

Hmmm... a little deja vu?? Oh yeah, I just had this discussion with Hicksey...

And with me as well. There are enough "honest brokers", which I'd define, for your purposes, as countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself.

[gnam]

What role? The role of occasonally making empty rhetorical gestures that affect no one and are largely meaningless?

Hmmm... a little deja vu?? Oh yeah, I just had this discussion with Hicksey...

And with me as well. There are enough "honest brokers", which I'd define, for your purposes, as countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself.

huh?? Lemme get this straight... you are suggesting that I have argued somewhere from a position that is fundamentally hostile to Israel's retaining defensible borders or the ability to take the necessary action to protect itself?? Or are you saying that in your opinion 'honest brokers' are "...countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself??" (above) I don't understand which point you are making.

As for the discussion I was involved in with Hicksey, the one in which Argus simply restates Hickseys position, the position that Canada's ability and right to generate international policy is and ought to amount to nil, I don't recall you having voiced any opinion in that matter. Can you direct me to your entry?

[jbg]

huh?? Lemme get this straight... you are suggesting that I have argued somewhere from a position that is fundamentally hostile to Israel's retaining defensible borders or the ability to take the necessary action to protect itself?? Or are you saying that in your opinion 'honest brokers' are "...countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself??" (above) I don't understand which point you are making.

I'm saying, in my opinion, people are referring to countries (or countries' leaders at any particular time) as being 'honest brokers' who are "...countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself". In other words, they mouth platitutdes supporting Israel, but oppose policies that Israel needs to protect itself in a dangerous part of the world.

As for the discussion I was involved in with Hicksey, the one in which Argus simply restates Hickseys position, the position that Canada's ability and right to generate international policy is and ought to amount to nil, I don't recall you having voiced any opinion in that matter. Can you direct me to your entry?

Maybe later on. Rushing out to work.

[Hicksey]

You try being a truck driver for a week, and see what its like to be viewed as a second-class citizen and you'll understand where the cynicism comes from. If I was apathetic I wouldn't be here discussing the matter don't you think?

I don't think a "made by the UNSC" solution will be the best solution every time. The UNSC is imperfect. But it is the best we have. And if you recall, they did negotiate a cease-fire and pledge to send 15,000 troops to the border to enforce it within two weeks. How was the "Made in Canada" solution better?

Actually, Until last spring I was a flat-deck tow-truck operator. Before that I was forklift operator, and before that an outboard mechanic in the Northern Queen Charlotte islands. So spare me the 'second-class-citizen' line. It doesn't fly. The fact that you don't feel you get the social respect you deserve is no excuse for a lousy attitude (cynicism). I sympathize with you insofar as you might dislike your job. I don't like mine, but that's not the issue here. If you want to discuss modernity, the contemporary division of labour, and the manifold ways that they demoralize and dehumanize people we could take that up elsewhere. In any case I didn't say that you are a cynical person, just that your comment seems to exhibit a degree of cynicism regarding Canada's ability to have an important role in affecting international politics.

My cynicism comes from a few places, not the least of which is the lunacy I told you earlier. If you cannot understand how one could have an apathetic view toward a society that so looks down upon the hand that feeds itself, then I seriously doubt you have ever been a driver.

Secondly, government screws up or half-asses everything it touches. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is a good thing to screw up. Especially when the UNSC has already stepped in with troops and is actively negotiating a lasting ceasefire. My view is that with more nations included in the process, as in the UNSC, the process is more likely to be effective because the likelihood of one nation's interests being in conflict with either of the two involved and affecting the outcome is much less. If Canada wants a say then they ought to seek to gain sufficient affluence to be a sustained member of the UNSC.

Besides, from what I have read here most people who want our government to step in, want them to step in and support a terrorist organization. I cannot support that.

As far as apathy is concened, again this applies more to your comment than to you. The issue is not whether or not you vote, post on forums, or follow politics. The issue is that your comment suggests that Canada should not develop and put forward policy initiatives of its own because the UNSC is busy doing that for us. You seem to be arguing that since the UNSC is 'probably' going to develop policy that 'might' translate into action on international affairs, as it has in the case of the middle east (after one of its outposts was destroyed in that conflict and the media was awash with photo's and video of the carnage and destruction coming out of the area), Canada shouldn't bother. This strategy, you'll recall, worked wonders in Rwanda. While canada missed the boat on that one, it didn't have to. Likewise, the UNSC looked set to do nothing in the Middle east until its key members came under intense international and domestic pressure to find a solution. There is no reason Canada should not have sought to take a leading role on the issue... either in the UN assembly, as a country with unique lobbying opportunities in the united states, or in a more direct way with those states embroiled in the middle east conflict. Insofar as you think otherwise, you would seem to be suggesting that Canada adopt a disposition toward international politics that is essentially characterized by its apathy.

As far as Made in Canada policies are concerned, they are not always the best. However, canada has a history of being a leader within the UN (Canada played an integral role in developing UN papers on torture), and without (the obvious example being the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis). Many Canadians, myself included, would like to see canada continue to take that kind of a role on the international stage. Hence the concern over whether Harper is, or is not ruining Canada's ability to act as an honest broker.

You just said it. Let Canada continue to be whatever influence we can be in the UN. Canada need not be a foreign affairs cowboy. The US steps in every time the UN doesn't agree and everyone whines, now that some of you disagree with the UNSC, you propose Canada do the same thing. The difference between the two is that the US believes it it defending itself, you want Canada to interfere between two other countries where Canada really has no place. I suggest lobbying member countries. A country that positively refuses to offer its military to help solve problems, preferring to come in and clean up afterward has no place in deciding what should be done, nor should they act the monday morning quarterback.

[gnam]

Gnam:

Although it may be an unoffical UN defination, it is the best one out there. Here is where our piont of views split. And perhaps i've missed your piont, but i don't think this defination applies to nations, governments whom are at war, or conflict with another indiv, group or nation. to clarify, the act of Hezbullah launching rockets at Israel is an act of war, the kidnapping of two Israelis soldiers an act of war,

The act of murdering that 4 year old child an act of terrorism.. because the act was full of malice and hate it's message was malice and hate..and it was carried out knowing this, and for this sole purpose.

If we are about to study every act within war, then yes you would be right to say that every nation east and west would be guilty of some form of terrorism...but there has to be a line we draw like the one drawn by the UN where it states terrorism is a war crime comitted in peace time.

Regarding whether or not this one of the four proposed UN definitions is the best, or is better than any other available, I am unwilling to comment on that... I don't think it is of much consequence. The description of a terrorist act as a war crime committed during peace time is another proposed defintion floating around within the UN that is not necessarily a part of the first definition you referenced. Do you mean to fuse the two?? Anyway, what I do find interesting is the fact that you, a member or former member of a military organization, have admitted the point that many nations and/or political groups who currently partake in the rather fashionable trend that involves labelling their enemies 'terrorist' would qualify, upon close scrutiny of their actions (both military and private), as terrorists themselves according to their own definition. (sorry about the sentence length on that one... a bit windy). In effect this casts doubt against your attempt to build a case that suggests that Hezbollah is currently a terrorist organization by any criteria that do not simultaneously condemn many of their enemies.

It's not hippocritical, that some in the Hezbullah have practiced Terrorist activities in the past. and to be honest so have some of the Israelis.

It is hippocritical if the label 'terrorist' constitutes the justification by which you maintain that Israel's recent actions in Lebanon are blameless.

What political options have the Hezbullah left Israel, i mean really even if Israel gave them back all of thier POWS and the convicted terrorist, gave them back the farms do you honestly think that the Hezbullah will take up farming..So what other polictical avenues are there ?

Maybe they would take up farming. In order to answer that question Israel would have to be willing to risk returning the farms.

And your right , there is no intelligent discussion that can be had over peace in the middle east. there has been to much blood spilt, to much hate been fostered, and nobody is willing to take what action is nessicary to procure peace that will last in the middle east.

Do you claim to know what that action is?

Yes, [i define terrorism as] a political generated message, that is strictly meant to change the minds of the people or governments through 'terror" in time of peace or war. For example the The Nazi's mass killing of certain "undesirables' (thier term not mine)could have been considered a terrorist act, along with the bombing of cities with out military targets in them, for the sole purpose of creating panick and terror in the population could have been considered a terrorist act.

Shock and awe is used for the same thing only it's targets are military and in time of war. although its message is meant for both military and civilian.

Well, the Nazis were comparatively quiet about their 'final solution,' this would rule out their inclusion as terrorists by all estimates of the nature of your definition of the term. As for the bombing targets of the Nazi's (devoid of military targets), this line of argument undermines your earlier claims about the justifiable grounds on which the americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, from these comments alone any defense of "shock and awe" (god I can hardly read that military strategy's name without falling out of my seat in a fit of laughter), looks to be on shaky ground.

Our use of the term terrorist is as frought with difficulty as the israeli charges against Eichmann. Those charges would have applied equally to americans involved in the atomic bombings and Arendt recognized this. As for Arendt herself, she was a german jew who fled to the USA when the Nazi's came to power. While she may have been a patriotic german she was about as far as anyone can get from being a Nazi sympathizer.

You'd have to go way out on a limb to make that connection, a man whom prided himself in becoming the best at what he was doing in this case knowly shipping millions of jews etc, to their deaths for no other reason than to rid the riech of thier kind..and justifing it because he had seen dead german civilians in a bomb shelter...and i thought it was the allieds that bombed them not the jews..

and then we compare the him to the men that involved in dropping a bomb that ended the war early and saved the lives of thousands of american soldiers..

I find it difficult to draw a similar comparison between them.

I also find it difficult to believe her opinons to be unbaised, yes she was a jew, but she was also married to a man whom was investigated with war crimes.

Your difficulties with Arendt have little play in light of the rather broad acclaim her report has garnered. In any case, being married to a person investigated for (and cleared on) war crimes in the wake of the Nuremberg trials is about as legitimate a condemnation as being 'investigated' for being a socialist during the MacArthy era.

Whether or not I have to go out on a limb remains in question. What is certain is that I do not have to shimmy out onto the particular twig you suggest since I never attempted to equivocate Eichmann with anyone involved in the manhatten project or the subsequent decisions to bomb those above mentioned cities or carry out those missions. Rather, what I said, or meant to say at any rate, was that in order to convict Eichmann of anything for which there was credible evidence, the Israelis were required to bring him up on charges that were couched in terms so broad that those charges could equally have been applied to Americans involved in the atomic bombings in Japan. I brought this up in an attempt to suggest, by way of analogy, that the concept "terrorist" is frought with the same difficulties as those charges, that it applies to liberally and not strictly to Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quaida, etc. You have gone one further and said yourself that, by your definition, terrorist acts have been committed on all sides of this conflict. Thus, I needn't spend any further effort on this point.

Apply this logic in lebanon. what message are the Israeli's sending to Hezbollah and Lebanese citizens when hundreds of lebanese are killed in contrast to several dozen hezbollah fighters

The people of Lebanon have made a chioce, be it via the voting stations, or by thier support of the Hezbullah. that they approve of the hezbullah actions again'st Israel..one has to just watch thier comments on the News to suggest that a large group of lebanese approve of the hezbullah and their actions.

They are both the same group of people so why is there a clear distinction when there is not.

You can't have your cake and eat it to, yes we approve of your attacks on Israel, we as a nation refuse to do anything about that. Yes the Hezbullah are part of our government, yes they make up a part of our military. So in that regards lebanon is guilty of of attacks again'st Israel period.

OK then, reciprocally, by your Logic, Israel and her people are guilty of attacks against Lebanon and, as such, you no longer have recourse to the complaint that Hezbollah rockets have landed in Israeli neighborhoods. In any case, you yourself have described those attacks as military (see above). Furthermore, by your logic, Lebanon should mobilize its military in order to defend its interests in this conflict. Forgive me for saying so but this line of thinking doesn't really seam conducive to the attainment of peace in the region. Rather, this line of thinking seems quite clearly to promote war, in short, this logic is the logic of the war-monger.

It is a cheap parlour trick to hide behind modern technology as a justification for careless and wonton brutality and vengefulness.

Is it a cheap parlor trick, to fire rockets next to the same building then vacate knowing that it will draw an Israelis reaction. yes it is, but one both sides use it to thier advantage.

OK, so we seem to be at an impasse as far as who is a terrorist, who has behaved well, who did what to whom, who is justified in doing what.... blah blah blah.

As such, does it still seem like a bad idea to drop the 'terrorist' mudslinging? It seems clear from this discussion that to retain that concept and continue to think along the lines of the paradigm that it entails can only lead to hostilities and aggression in the region. Unless that is what is wanted, I maintain my initial position that the paradigm in which this thread has heretofor progressed should be fundamentally changed, beginning with the omission of the 'terrorist' concept, if there is to be any useful or intelligent discussion concerning stability in the middle east.

[Argus]

What role? The role of occasonally making empty rhetorical gestures that affect no one and are largely meaningless?

Hmmm... a little deja vu?? Oh yeah, I just had this discussion with Hicksey...

Not the parts you deleted without replying to. So by all means, give us a summary of Canada's glorious history as an international "honest broker" and all the wonderful things we've been able to accomplish through the years due to our terrific negotation skills and our influence as noble people of virtue, peace and integrity.

If you need extra space, use two pages.

[Argus]

As for the discussion I was involved in with Hicksey, the one in which Argus simply restates Hickseys position, the position that Canada's ability and right to generate international policy is and ought to amount to nil, I don't recall you having voiced any opinion in that matter. Can you direct me to your entry?

Please don't attribute your simplistic understanding of another person's position to me.

You're spouting this fantasy nonsense about Canada the great. My position is that we have NO international reputation of any kind which would lead anyone to respect us as an "honest broker". We could get one, but not under the craven, gutless, dishonest governments we've had over the last two decades. Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality. But we're nowhere near there now. Nobody pays any more attention to us than they do Burkino Faso.

However, the position you have taken is that we should go back to the liberal way of blowing with the wind, of voicing whatever opinion we think is appropriate to national electoral hopes vis a vis ethnic voters, what we hope to make in international trade, what multinational corporate political donors tell us to say, and

just whatever satifies our smug sense of self righteousness. That is not going to get us any influence around the world. It will simply continue to make us international nobodies.

[newbie]

Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality...

Harper has only echoed Bush as of late and I think you know what Bush's America is worth around the world.

[Hicksey]

Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality...

Harper has only echoed Bush as of late and I think you know what Bush's America is worth around the world.

If we had sweet oil contracts with Iraq or were owed 11 billion dollars maybe then we could make such a righteous decision as France, China, Russia and Germany did.

Don't think the countries that opposed Bush's war didn't have their own interests at heart any less than the US did. Their decisions had no more to do with "reason and morality" than Bush's did. They voted to save their own asses--period.

As for Harper, he ought to think in terms of Canada has for a military and what we can actually support. If we have the troops and are willing to dispatch the troops to back up our stance, then go ahead and get involved. Otherwise stay out of it. Don't be a broker or a back-seat-driver -- just stay out of it entirely. In short, unless you can put up ... shut up.

[Argus]

Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality...

Harper has only echoed Bush as of late and I think you know what Bush's America is worth around the world.

So it's about popularity?

I don't care that unlettered savages in shithole countries, ignorant Eurotrash, and Jew-hating Arabs think the US is the great satan. I don't think we should base our positions on whether or not it places distance beween us and them. We should support what is right, morally speaking, and right for us as a nation, not try to suck up to anyone, including the Muslim block at the UN and their paid allies.

And what is both morally right and right for us as a nation is to oppose the rise of Islamic hate and violence.

[Rue]

Hannah Arendt for your interest was in fact Jewish...and a confused one at that. She studied under the well known existential philosopher Martin Heidegger an open sympathizer of Nazism. She actually became romantically involved with him and until she died defended him. She also studied under another noted existentialist Karl Jaspers and wrote many books and essays on totalitarianism, Stalinism, Nazism. She was noted for her history books. She fled France in 1940 to escape the Nazis after fleeing from Germany earlier and was active helping Jewish refugees through-out the world during World War Two and yes probably helped the Zionist movement get many Jews to Israel during and after World War Two.

What makes her life story confusing is that after the war, when she reported on the trial of Adolph Eichmann for The New Yorker magazine, (which she then turned into a book) she raised the concept as to whether evil could be considered a " radical " concept or was in fact just a neurotic tendency ordinary people have where they need to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their actions or inactions.

Many Jews and people openly critical of Nazism felt she was trying to make up intellectual excuses because she was still in love with Heidegger and as a Jew was a tad confused trying to reconcile his Nazi and Facist ideology and anti-semitism.

So in fact I think you are dead on suggesting Arendt was an apologist for Nazism because of her probably misguided conflicting feelings of love for a Nazi and her being Jewish.

So I personally think her comments as to Eichman and Nazism and terrorism suffered and can not be taken seriously although she is a noted historian and written excellent non political history books on World War Two and its origins and the History of Jews in Europe.

That said, I always find it interesting to listen to a soldier's definition of terrorism which is almost always classical in definition and one I subscribe to.

I think we have needlessly clouded what terrorism in this day and age.

Terrorism is in fact simple to define. It is the act of violence to promote a political view-no more, no less.

Terrorism is the action of using violence to express political will.

If a soldier disobeys conventional rules of war (i.e., the Geneva convention) then they could be committing acts that constitute international crimes against humanity. International crimes or war crimes against humanity are often described as being terrorist in nature but it is more appropriate to refer to them as war crimes or crimes against humanity as they are beingc onducted by soldiers violating the Geneva convention or other coventions.

In its pure sense, a terrorist act is committed by a civilian and it can be against other civilians, the public, public property and/or governments and their representatives.

The notion of state terrorism is inaccurate. We have seen people mix these concepts but in fact state terrorism should more accurately be referred to as state promulgated acts of political violence that may have in addition to violating international standards of human rights, broken domestic criminal and

constitutional laws and/or manifested their behaviour in forms of torture and violence.

Terrorism in its classic sense, is a tactic a political group engages in to frighten the public or goevrnment. It is by definition a psychological attempt at scaring people into agreeing with the political views of the terrorist(s). It is an act intended to coerce.

An act of terror is any act against an unarmed civilian by another civilian where the attacker claims he or she has engaged in that act of violence because of their political beliefs.

All acts of terror by their very nature are crimes of homicide, and/or assault and battery and/or kidnapping.

In today's environment people have clouded the issue of terrorism by stating it is understandable and we should look at its root causes.

Well we can look at its root causes but the moment we make the determination that terrorism is understandable then what we are doing is legitimizing it. The fact is no act of terror for any reason can be considered legitimate by a civilized human. We are supposed to use reason and use our intellectual capabilities and abiliti to reason, to solve problems peacefully-terrorism is in fact the failure of humans to think and act rationally. It is an expression of our most basic primative or primal tendency to be violent and kill.

As humans we were given the ability to understand right from wrong and reason unlike animals which supposedly makes us superior, and yet ironically we are the only species on the planet that kills indiscriminately.

Excuse me if I respect whales more then I do humans!

Go figure it.

[gnam]

As for the discussion I was involved in with Hicksey, the one in which Argus simply restates Hickseys position, the position that Canada's ability and right to generate international policy is and ought to amount to nil, I don't recall you having voiced any opinion in that matter. Can you direct me to your entry?

Please don't attribute your simplistic understanding of another person's position to me.

Hmmm... I suppose if you had bothered to read the preceding posts you would find yourself in a better position to talk about my understanding of Hicksey's position. You should note that the point at which Hicksey most directly addressed my comments is the point at which he/she suggests that my comments look like his, "...only edited for political correctness." Thus, the logical inference here is that my understanding of Hicksey's position is dead on and anything but guilty of over-simplification. If anything he/she has charged me with obscuring what he/she takes to be the most important part of his/her position with overly ornate and ultimately superfluous language, the effect of which is meant, supposedly, to 'assuage the sensibilities of minorities and interest groups'... (in single quotes is my inference, I don't think Hicksey ever specifically charged me with that). My criticism of Hicksey's position, his resume and current means of gainful employment aside, has been that I think his recommendations culminate in an international policy position for Canada that would be characterized above all by its apathetic disposition toward global affairs, evidenced by what seems to be Hicksey's claim that Canada should cede its international policy making and brokerage rights to the UNSC. My basic concern here is that this seems to amount to an erosion of Canada's already heavily eroded national sovereignty on the N. american and global stage (As regards canada's eroded sovereignty Hicksey and I, and perhaps you, seem to be in agreement, at least in part). Additionally, I have accused him/her in his/her comments of a level of cynicism regarding Canada's international capabilities. Seeing as you culminated your previous post with a rhetorical question whose content was essentially a paraphrase of Hicksey's stated position, equivocating your two positions was, in all fairness, quite justifiable at the time. In short, you opened that door, I just walked through it.

As for your initial comments:

As far as Made in Canada policies are concerned, they are not always the best. However, canada has a history of being a leader within the UN

Not actually true.

(Canada played an integral role in developing UN papers on torture)

An empty, rhetorical gesture.

and without (the obvious example being the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis).

Actually that is pretty much the ONLY example, and that was a generation ago.

... I will address your comments themselves before I respond to your challenge. The reason that there was no direct response to these comments is that I appealed to an understanding of canada's traditional international role that is quite commonplace for support of my position. In other words I evoked the status quo interpretation of Canada's historical international role and cited evidence, however slight that evidence may be, to support my position. Your challenges, in this case, are devoid of substance. If you are questioning the truth of an assumption that is commonly held to be true (or mostly true) then the onus is on you to outline the grounds for your incredulity. You make no effort in this post to do so. What's more, your objection to the claim that "...canada has a history of being a leader within the UN" (I assume this was the part you objected to, you were unclear on this matter) is subsequently contradicted by you a few lines later when you admit that the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis was a true example of said leadership (even if it is the only one -though this is not my position-, you nevertheless contradict yourself). You then go on to claim that Canada's role in the UN development of its torture papers is an empty rhetorical gesture. In the first place, the extent to which Canada's role in the development of those proposals is empty depends on how effectively those policies and procedures affect the global use of torture. The efficacy of those papers remains to be seen and is, more than less, bound up in the efficacy of the UN as opposed to canada's international stature. Canada's role was simply to take the lead in developing those papers. In the second case, you offer no substantial reason or arguments for others to accept your claim that Canada's role in the development of these papers is an empty rhetorical gesture. Thus the charge 'empty rhetorical gesture', applies more to your comment than to my citation of at least one instance where canada has sought to take on a role in the brokerage of international policy. In any case, your comment is something significantly less than a rebuttal or refutation, and therefore, in the abscence of any clarification or argumentation, not deserving or conducive to a response. Hence my initial decision to delete them.

So by all means, give us a summary of Canada's glorious history as an international "honest broker" and all the wonderful things we've been able to accomplish through the years due to our terrific negotation skills and our influence as noble people of virtue, peace and integrity.

If you need extra space, use two pages.

...My position is that we have NO international reputation of any kind which would lead anyone to respect us as an "honest broker". We could get one, but not under the craven, gutless, dishonest governments we've had over the last two decades. Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality. But we're nowhere near there now....

I certainly will not summarize Canada's international political history here, if you are interested in that sort of reading feel free to visit any library where you will find numerous entries on the subject. However, in the spirit of open discussion and debate I will happily offer a few more pieces of evidence to support my position. Canada is currently, according to the US central intelligence agency, an active member in the following international organizations:

ACCT, AfDB, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, C, CDB, CE (observer), EAPC, EBRD, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITU, MIGA, MINUSTAH, MONUC, NAFTA, NAM (guest), NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OIF, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNMOVIC, UNTSO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO, ZC

... this suggests a very active ministry of foreign affairs, whose accomplishments, both minor and significant I am sure are well documented.

In addition, while canada has been slow to act on and implement environmental standards that would certainly bolster its international credibility regarding disputes in those matters, it has nonetheless signed on to and played an important role in developing many of the following international environmental aggreements:

party to: Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Sulfur 85, Air Pollution-Sulfur 94, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands

signed, but not ratified: Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Marine Life Conservation.

By signing onto and complying with international agreements canada leads by example, exhibiting its willingness to pursue and negotiate diplomatic and treaty resolutions to international disagreements, issues, and disputes.

Additionally, Canada has been a strong advocate for multilateralism over the past 60 years. Acting in the spirit of the Pearson government's peacekeeping policy canada has sought to fascilitate the honest brokerage of international disputes by serving in more than 50 peacekeeping missions, including every mission until 1989, though participation has diminished over the past few years (ref: see wikipedia reference entry on Canada).

Canada's official domestic policy of multiculturalism has piqued quite a bit of interest internationally. Many countries, are looking to canada as a prototype from which to try and deal with the massive immigration problems that are currently facing Europe. Additionally, with the scheduled inclusion into the EU of a number of countries with large Muslim populations, Canada is increasingly being looked to as an international leader in dealing with minority religious groups. Much of the dialogue between the international community and canada is currently taking place at the academic level, and as such, you can view the personal website of at least one of the canadian academics who is currently involved in much of this research at http://www.ianangus.ca/.

Also, the following rankings indicate that Canada retains a fairly lofty international reputation in a number of significant areas:

International rankings

Organization -- Survey -- Ranking

A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine -- Globalization Index 2005 -- 14 out of 111

IMD International -- World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005 -- 5 out of 60

The Economist -- Worldwide quality-of-life index, 2005 -- 14 out of 111

Yale University/Columbia University -- Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005 -- 6 out of 146

Reporters Without Borders -- Press Freedom Index 2005 -- 21 out of 167

Transparency International -- Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 -- 14 out of 159

The Wall Street Journal -- Index of Economic Freedom, 2006 -- 12 out of 157

Canada was ranked number one country by the United Nations' Human Development Index 10 times out of 16 between 1980 and 2004. (The preceding information came from the wikipedia entry on Canada)

In other words, Canada is, by many accounts one of the top 20 leading global countries in a number of areas. Whether Canada deserves these rankings is, of course, not at issue... the point is that contrary to your claim, it is not tue that Canada has "no international reputation."

You're spouting this fantasy nonsense about Canada the great.

Please review my previous posts. Nowhere is the phrase or sentiment "canada the Great" either explicitly or implicitly used.

Nobody pays any more attention to us than they do Burkino Faso.

Not true... see above. At the very least, you must admit that your statement here is grossly exaggerated.

However, the position you have taken is that we should go back to the liberal way of blowing with the wind, of voicing whatever opinion we think is appropriate to national electoral hopes vis a vis ethnic voters, what we hope to make in international trade, what multinational corporate political donors tell us to say, and

just whatever satifies our smug sense of self righteousness. That is not going to get us any influence around the world. It will simply continue to make us international nobodies.

Nowhere have I argued for this position. Please don't attribute your simplistic and largely fabricated understanding of the political position of another group of people to me.

In light of the preceding comments I maintain my position that canada should continue to articulate its own positions in matters of foreign affairs in order to attempt, in its capacity, to act as an honest broker. Blindly following american policy and/or awaiting UNSC council resolutions is dangerous on a number of fronts, both nationally and internationally.

[gnam]

Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality...

Harper has only echoed Bush as of late and I think you know what Bush's America is worth around the world.

So it's about popularity?

I don't care that unlettered savages in shithole countries, ignorant Eurotrash, and Jew-hating Arabs think the US is the great satan. I don't think we should base our positions on whether or not it places distance beween us and them. We should support what is right, morally speaking, and right for us as a nation, not try to suck up to anyone, including the Muslim block at the UN and their paid allies.

And what is both morally right and right for us as a nation is to oppose the rise of Islamic hate and violence.

Actually, what is morally (or otherwise) right for us as a nation (differentiated from the concept of 'state') of Canadians has never really been for us to make a habit of referring, in broad strokes, to entire groups of people in the derogatory, lazy, and essentially thoughtless terms that you seem to have no problem with. Traditionally, that practice has generally fallen to racists and anti-semites... (oops... sorry I forgot to take off my anti-irony sunglasses).