Israel, Gaza, And Everyone Else

[AngryJock82]

Perspective? What are they supposed to do, throw water balloons back at them? When Al Qaida terrorists flew jets into our towers we rained down overwhelming technology on their heads. The actual war losses were overwhelmingly one sided. It isnt the free worlds fault that we have all the technology and ability to defend ourselves. Perhaps the Palestinians need to kick Hamas out once and for all- they have done nothing for the overall protection of their people.

That's a superb point you make. Individual terrorists to something obscene and the US and its allies go into overdrive committing wild acts of state terrorism totally out of kilter with what has been done to them. And where did that get us? Thousands more dead Americans and Brits and other allies and tens of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis. And guess what, the world rather than having sympathy for the victims of terror ended up hating the US and increased the likelihood of terror happening again. Who lost? The American and British people with the introduction of draconian anti-terror laws. Good point mate, well made.

[AngryJock82]

Great, same thoughts that those who carried out the bus bombing just barely seemed to have had. Beautiful.

Yup. It's horrible but it's true. And it's the exact same thoughts that the IDF have been having when they're carrying out their targeted assassinations. Beautiful.

[Kemara]

Acts of terror do bring about change and peace talks.

Whatever "peace" is facilitated by acts of terror or the threat of terror will never last. One side will always feel aggrieved and justified in going back on any agreement.

[Mudcat]

I think Israel is losing it's political value with it's biggest backer. It's got lots of enemies that are continually becoming more competitive militarily. These folks seem to want the Jews pushed into the sea.

Right now the Israeli's have the best bush hogs and bailing machines in the region. My advice would be to make hay while the sun shines.

[Rob Osborn]

Acts of terror do bring about change and peace talks. It's terrible and I am not arguing that terrorism is good but it brings the opposition to the negotiating table. Look at the IRA, just one of many examples. Also, Israel is committing massive acts of terror right now too and in much greater measure. I find it therefore difficult to reconcile your view that Israel wants peace whilst at the same time it's killing innocent women and children. Hamas wants peace and independence as does Israel, it's the detail that is the issue.

You must have very distorted views on what terrorism is.

[Ron Beron]

Whilst I think it's terrible, a bit of bloodletting focuses the mind of the principle actors and engages the international community. And with attention turned to Gaza the chances of carving out peace increase.

Hopefully, it is not your blood.

[slamarwi]

This is a challenging question and much more complex than most, especially with several thousand years of "water under the bridge." Here's my best short-answer version.

The proximity of the Jews and Arabs to each other, combined with the charter language of Hamas calling for the dissolution of Israel, and their flagrant terrorist tactics of sending rockets willy-nilly into Israel combined with the rigid policies employed by the Jews to enforce the Gaza boundries of the 1950 armistice, do not create a climate for neighborly conduct.

Obviously, I have over-simplified the current geo-political history, but there is only one person that can resolve the wars and contentions of the Mideast. Unfortunatley, things get much worse before He comes with the solution.

Het Beste - lwiscombe

[canard78]

Perspective? What are they supposed to do, throw water balloons back at them? When Al Qaida terrorists flew jets into our towers we rained down overwhelming technology on their heads. The actual war losses were overwhelmingly one sided. It isn't the free worlds fault that we have all the technology and ability to defend ourselves. Perhaps the Palestinians need to kick Hamas out once and for all- they have done nothing for the overall protection of their people.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We turned the WW2 French Resistance into folk heroes.

Why were Gadafi's opponents in Libya called Freedom fighters (whom we supported) but in the Syria they were initially called Protesters (and we spent a long time ignoring them).

[bcuzbcuz]

I might be looking at this too simplistically for some, and I am happy for them to hold a more complex view, but this is how I see it. There is a group of people on one side of line killing another group of people on the other side of the line. Who did what to whom is irrelevant in light of the fact that people from both sides of the line are having their brains splattered all over the ground. My theological understanding of Israel has no influence on my views that people killing people is the most important issue of this mess. I am not pro-any side of the line and I am not anti-any side of the line, I just want the killing to stop and I want children to be able to go to school, have fun and not live in fear. I might be accused of being naive, I dont believe I am, I just dont think that the intricate political details of the sitution are as important as people being killed. I am expressing my wish for the situation and I am confident that my wish is in line with what Heavenly Father would want. I dont think He cares a great deal about the intricate political details of the situation, nor of any covenant relationship, when His children on both sides of the line are killing and being killed. People who look at this situation get caught up in the details and sometimes forget what is most imporant. My simplistic view, FWIW.

I agree with your post 100%.

[bcuzbcuz]

The blame game is played by both Palestine and Israel. I consider both countries guilty of terrorism and acts that ultimately harm their own people. Both sides show an inability listen.

My solution is equally naive as some others here. Would Israel dare to bomb anywhere in the Gaza strip if important US dignitaries were there? Would Palestine dare send any rockets into Israel if important leaders and dignitaries from the Arab world were moving about in Israel? Are there many people in the world who would dare to place themselves in harms way to protect the innocents on either side? My hope is that a real peace corp will gather, not armed to the teeth, but merely willing to declare, by putting themselves in danger, that this idiocy of conflict must stop? It's naive, I know, but threats and terror with weapons has achieved diddly squat

[AngryJock82]

Whatever "peace" is facilitated by acts of terror or the threat of terror will never last. One side will always feel aggrieved and justified in going back on any agreement.

Does your definition of acts of terror extend to state terrorism, you the kind of terror that comes when a vastly superior force drops bombs on built up areas with impunity?

[AngryJock82]

You must have very distorted views on what terrorism is.

My views on Terrorism are developed by three years studying the phenomenon at undergraduate level and another year at MA level at Warwick university in England. My five years service in the British Army's intelligence corps which included an operational tour of Iraq also contributed greatly. So if your suggesting that my view of terrorism is distorted because my appreciation of it extends beyond that of simply accepting whatever my political leaders tell me it is, I guess you're absolutely right. Might I suggest that you read up a little on terrorism, its roots and foundations before you make such comments.

[Calm]

Does your definition of acts of terror extend to state terrorism, you the kind of terror that comes when a vastly superior force drops bombs on built up areas with impunity?

The use of "one side" as opposed to naming which side would imply that he sees any side, government or civilian, as capable of engaging in terror.

You have been reading his posts, right?

Edited November 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[AngryJock82]

Hopefully, it is not your blood.

Yes indeed. I went to Iraq for the 'War on Terror' mate and thankfully I came back physically in tact. If anything 9/11 should have taught you that reprisal attacks on terrorism often have very little to do with the initial attack. What evidence is there linking Bin Laden to 9/11 other that Bush saying so. Afghanistan didn't give him up because they wanted to see evidence and the US refused to provide any. Why? Because there was none. Nevertheless noncooperation precipitated a thus far 11 year occupation with thousands more deaths than the initial attack caused. Now lets look at Iraq. We were told that we needed to go in there because they were amassing weapons of mass destruction which were going to be given to Bin Laden to use as dirty bombs or to hold the world to ransom. So we went in and how many dirty bombs or WMDs were there? None. Interesting to note that there again was no evidence of Sadam or Osama having a friendship. Quite the opposite in fact as Bin Laden wanted to go to war with Iraq due to its invasion of Kuwait but instead the Kuwaiti government turned to the US.

All I'm suggesting is that just because a government says something doesn't mean that's the reality. My argument is upheld by reality and recent history. I state hard truths, flippant comments offer nothing other than more of the rhetoric that justifies and perpetuates the majority of the violence - state based - that goes on in the world. Ask yourselves this if blowing up a bus is illegitimate why is blowing up an apartment block ok? Both are structural violence aimed knowingly at civilians and both result in the deaths of innocents. Is anyone going to argue that a uniform makes it ok? Killing on both sides is equally morally repugnant.

[AngryJock82]

The use of "one side" as opposed to naming which side would imply that he sees any side, government or civilian, as capable of engaging in terror.

You have been reading his posts, right?

Here is where my views on terror come from. I invite anyone interested in garnering a more nuanced and less emotive view of terror to engage with this material:

A.F. The Economist ’20 Years of Terror’ available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/global-terrorism-deaths

Bercovitch, J. ‘Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century: Principles, Methods and Approaches’ (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009).

Bergen, P., Cruickshank, P. ‘The Iraq Effect: The War in Iraq and its Impact on the War on Terrorism’ available at http://www.lawandsecurity.org/publications/Iraq_Effect_Full_Study.pdf

Bevins, A. the Guardian ‘Major’s secret links with IRA leadership revealed’ Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1993/nov/28/northernireland

Bhatia, Michael V., ‘Fighting Words: Naming Terrorists, Bandits, Rebels and Other Violent Actors’, (Third World Quarterly Vol. 26 No.1, 2005)pp. 5–22.

Blakeley, R. ‘Brining the State Back into Terrorism Studies’ (European Political Science Vol.6, 2007).

Booth, K. ‘The Human Faces of Terror: Reflections in a Cracked Looking Glass’ (Critical Studies on Terrosim Vol.1 No.1)

Burnham, G. Lafta, R. Doocy, S and Roberts, L. ‘Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey’ (Baltimore, MD, USA, Oct. 2006).

Bush, G.W. ‘As Prepared for delivery: Remarks of the President to members of the Knesset’ (May 15 2008). Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121083798995894943.html Date Accessed

Clark, I. ‘Limited Nuclear War’ (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982).

Coogan, T.P. ‘The IRA’ (New York: Palgrave, 2002).

Crenshaw, M. ‘How Terrorism Declines’, (Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.3, no.1, 1991).

Crenshaw, M. Terrorism, Legitimacy, and Power: The Consequences of Political Violence (Middletown, (Wesleyan University Press 1983).

Crenshaw, M. ‘The Psychology of Political Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21^st Century’ (Political Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2. Jun.,2000)

Gunning, J. ‘Hamas In Politics: Democracy, Religion and Politics’ (London: Hurst 2007).

I Casualties http://icasualties.org/.

Jackson, R. ‘The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies’ (Paper prepared for the International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Conference, 26‐29 March, 2008, San Francisco, USA).

Jackson, R. ‘Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism’ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005).

Kahn, M.S. ‘London Bomber Video’ 2 September 2005, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206708.stm

Laqueur, W. ‘Terrorism’, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1977).

Mesquita, E.B. ‘Conciliation, Counter-Terrorism, and Patterns of Terrorist Violence: A Comparative Study of Five Cases’ (International Organization Vol. 59 No.1, 2005.

Nadarajah, S. and Dhananjayan S. ‘Liberation Struggle or Terrorism? The Politics of Naming the LTTE’, (Third World Quarterly Vol26(1), 2005).

Neumann, P.R. ‘Negotiating with Terrorists’ (Foreign Affairs, Vol.86, No.1 Jan.-Feb., 2007).

Post, J. ‘Prospects For Nuclear Terrorism: Psychological Motivations and Constraints’ (Conflict Quarterly Vol. VII, number three, Summer 1987).

Rummel, S. J. ‘Death by Government’ (New Brunswick, New Jersey Transaction Book, 1994).

Sageman, M. ‘Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the 21^st Century’ (Philadelphi, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).

Schmid, A. P. and Jongman, A.J. ‘Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literature’,(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2005).

Sederberg, P. 'Defining Terrorism', (Annual Review of Conflict of Knowledge, New York:

Garland Publishing, 1991).

Shanahan, T. Betraying a certain corruption of the mind: how (and how not) to define terrorism’ (Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol3:2, 2010).

Silke, A., ed., ‘Research on terrorism’ (London: Frank Cass, 2004).

Silke, A. ‘The Road Less Travelled: Recent Trends in Terrorism Research’, in A. Silke (ed.) Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures, (London: Frank Cass, 2004).

Simon, J.D. ‘Misperceiving the Terrorist Threat’ RAND Publication Series, R-3423-RC, June 1987.

Spector, B. Negotiating With Villains Revisited: Research Note (International Negotiation 8 (3): 613-621).

Stohl, M. ‘Old myths, new fantasies and the enduring realities of terrorism’ (Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2008, 1:1,), pp. 5-16.

Toros, H. ‘Terrorists, Scholars and Ordinary People: Confronting Terrorism Studies with Field Experience’, (Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2008, 1:2)pp. 279-292.

Toros, H. ‘We Don't Negotiate with Terrorists!: Legitimacy and Complexity in Terrorist Conflicts', (Security Dialogue, Vol.39, No.4, 2008).pp. 407-426.

Toros, H. ‘Terrorism, Talking and Transformation: A Critical Approach’ (Oxford: Routledge 2012).

United Nations, 2002. Report of the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism,

Annex to A/57/273 S/2002/875. New York: United Nations.

Unknownnews http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#fn15

US Department of State terrorism definition available at: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/enemy/index.htm#enemy

US Department of State Sept 9, 1993 ‘Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchance of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat’ Available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20070815080734/http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22579.htm (Date Accessed March 21 2012).

Van Engeland, A and Rudolph, R.M. ‘From Terrorism to Politics’ (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2008).

Weinberg, L.B., Davis, P.B. ‘Introduction to Political Terrorism’ (New York: McGraw Hill, 1989).

Zartman, W.I and Alfredson, T. ‘Negotiating with Terrorists and the Tactical Question’, paper presented at PIN workshop ‘Negotiating with Terrorists’, (Luxemburg: 9 June 2006).

[Kemara]

Does your definition of acts of terror extend to state terrorism, you the kind of terror that comes when a vastly superior force drops bombs on built up areas with impunity?

What difference does it make? Peace facilitated via killing or threats of killing (war, police action, state terrorism, gang turf war etc) will never last. By nature of the facilitation tool (killing or threat of klling) there will be an aggrieved party and that party will at some point seek to remedy the aggrievement. A peace agreement facilitated by killing is an oxymoron.

[AngryJock82]

Germany until Afghanistan has never gone to war and neither has Japan since WW2 and the 'facilitation tool' was the bomb and starvation and those worked. In fact, short of the Swiss, these are the two most pacific states on the planet. Violence can be a catalyst to bring about change. Think about your own revolutionary war or the civil war. There's peace there. Don't get me wrong, war is very far from the most effective tool, but it does do the job of refocusing the mind and bringing combatants with bloodied noses to the table. That's my only point. The violence has forced them to the table. As for lasting peace, there has been excellent works written on truth and reconciliation commissions that you might be interested in reading. Such strategies help with the healing in post conflict environments.

The root cause of most traditional conceptions of terrorism is when a powerful state marginalize a constituency they have control over and then ignore their legitimate concerns.

[Kemara]

If anything 9/11 should have taught you that reprisal attacks on terrorism often have very little to do with the initial attack. What evidence is there linking Bin Laden to 9/11 other that Bush saying so. Afghanistan didn't give him up because they wanted to see evidence and the US refused to provide any. Why? Because there was none. Nevertheless noncooperation precipitated a thus far 11 year occupation with thousands more deaths than the initial attack caused. Now lets look at Iraq. We were told that we needed to go in there because they were amassing weapons of mass destruction which were going to be given to Bin Laden to use as dirty bombs or to hold the world to ransom. So we went in and how many dirty bombs or WMDs were there? None. Interesting to note that there again was no evidence of Sadam or Osama having a friendship. Quite the opposite in fact as Bin Laden wanted to go to war with Iraq due to its invasion of Kuwait but instead the Kuwaiti government turned to the US.

Doesn’t this run counter to your previous comments?

Acts of terror do bring about change and peace talks. It's terrible and I am not arguing that terrorism is good but it brings the opposition to the negotiating table.

How did all these acts of terrorism result in change, peace talks and bring the opponents to the negotiating table?

Let’s accept for the sake of this post that al-Qaeda engaged in an act of terrorism by bombing the twin towers, how did that result in change, peace talks and bring the terrorised (USA) and the terrorist (al-Qaeda) to the negotiating table? Let’s accept for the sake of this post that the USA engaged in an act of terrorism by invading Iraq, how did that result in change, peace talks and bring the terrorised (Iraq) and the terrorist (USA) to the negotiating table?

I state hard truths, flippant comments offer nothing other than more of the rhetoric that justifies and perpetuates the majority of the violence - state based - that goes on in the world.

Shouldn't we therefore be seeing change, peace talks and opponents coming to the negotiation table?

[Kemara]

Germany until Afghanistan has never gone to war and neither has Japan since WW2 and the 'facilitation tool' was the bomb and starvation and those worked.

And all these decades later there are still aggrieved people who, if they could, would seek to remedy that aggrievement.

[Calm]

And all these decades later there are still aggrieved people who, if they could, would seek to remedy that aggrievement.

Hate is a remarkably persistent emotion that is too easily inherited by the next generation. Pity that love doesn't seem to have the same 'genetic' facility but seems instead to have to be learned anew each generation.

[WalkerW]

Here is where my views on terror come from. I invite anyone interested in garnering a more nuanced and less emotive view of terror to engage with this material:

A.F. The Economist ’20 Years of Terror’ available at: http://www.economist...errorism-deaths

Bercovitch, J. ‘Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century: Principles, Methods and Approaches’ (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009).

Bergen, P., Cruickshank, P. ‘The Iraq Effect: The War in Iraq and its Impact on the War on Terrorism’ available at http://www.lawandsec..._Full_Study.pdf

Bevins, A. the Guardian ‘Major’s secret links with IRA leadership revealed’ Available at: http://www.guardian....northernireland

Bhatia, Michael V., ‘Fighting Words: Naming Terrorists, Bandits, Rebels and Other Violent Actors’, (Third World Quarterly Vol. 26 No.1, 2005)pp. 5–22.

Blakeley, R. ‘Brining the State Back into Terrorism Studies’ (European Political Science Vol.6, 2007).

Booth, K. ‘The Human Faces of Terror: Reflections in a Cracked Looking Glass’ (Critical Studies on Terrosim Vol.1 No.1)

Burnham, G. Lafta, R. Doocy, S and Roberts, L. ‘Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey’ (Baltimore, MD, USA, Oct. 2006).

Bush, G.W. ‘As Prepared for delivery: Remarks of the President to members of the Knesset’ (May 15 2008). Available at: http://online.wsj.co...l Date Accessed

Clark, I. ‘Limited Nuclear War’ (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982).

Coogan, T.P. ‘The IRA’ (New York: Palgrave, 2002).

Crenshaw, M. ‘How Terrorism Declines’, (Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.3, no.1, 1991).

Crenshaw, M. Terrorism, Legitimacy, and Power: The Consequences of Political Violence (Middletown, (Wesleyan University Press 1983).

Crenshaw, M. ‘The Psychology of Political Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21^st Century’ (Political Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2. Jun.,2000)

Gunning, J. ‘Hamas In Politics: Democracy, Religion and Politics’ (London: Hurst 2007).

I Casualties http://icasualties.org/.

Jackson, R. ‘The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies’ (Paper prepared for the International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Conference, 26‐29 March, 2008, San Francisco, USA).

Jackson, R. ‘Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism’ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005).

Kahn, M.S. ‘London Bomber Video’ 2 September 2005, available at: http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/4206708.stm

Laqueur, W. ‘Terrorism’, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1977).

Mesquita, E.B. ‘Conciliation, Counter-Terrorism, and Patterns of Terrorist Violence: A Comparative Study of Five Cases’ (International Organization Vol. 59 No.1, 2005.

Nadarajah, S. and Dhananjayan S. ‘Liberation Struggle or Terrorism? The Politics of Naming the LTTE’, (Third World Quarterly Vol26(1), 2005).

Neumann, P.R. ‘Negotiating with Terrorists’ (Foreign Affairs, Vol.86, No.1 Jan.-Feb., 2007).

Post, J. ‘Prospects For Nuclear Terrorism: Psychological Motivations and Constraints’ (Conflict Quarterly Vol. VII, number three, Summer 1987).

Rummel, S. J. ‘Death by Government’ (New Brunswick, New Jersey Transaction Book, 1994).

Sageman, M. ‘Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the 21^st Century’ (Philadelphi, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).

Schmid, A. P. and Jongman, A.J. ‘Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literature’,(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2005).

Sederberg, P. 'Defining Terrorism', (Annual Review of Conflict of Knowledge, New York:

Garland Publishing, 1991).

Shanahan, T. Betraying a certain corruption of the mind: how (and how not) to define terrorism’ (Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol3:2, 2010).

Silke, A., ed., ‘Research on terrorism’ (London: Frank Cass, 2004).

Silke, A. ‘The Road Less Travelled: Recent Trends in Terrorism Research’, in A. Silke (ed.) Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures, (London: Frank Cass, 2004).

Simon, J.D. ‘Misperceiving the Terrorist Threat’ RAND Publication Series, R-3423-RC, June 1987.

Spector, B. Negotiating With Villains Revisited: Research Note (International Negotiation 8 (3): 613-621).

Stohl, M. ‘Old myths, new fantasies and the enduring realities of terrorism’ (Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2008, 1:1,), pp. 5-16.

Toros, H. ‘Terrorists, Scholars and Ordinary People: Confronting Terrorism Studies with Field Experience’, (Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2008, 1:2)pp. 279-292.

Toros, H. ‘We Don't Negotiate with Terrorists!: Legitimacy and Complexity in Terrorist Conflicts', (Security Dialogue, Vol.39, No.4, 2008).pp. 407-426.

Toros, H. ‘Terrorism, Talking and Transformation: A Critical Approach’ (Oxford: Routledge 2012).

United Nations, 2002. Report of the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism,

Annex to A/57/273 S/2002/875. New York: United Nations.

Unknownnews http://www.unknownne...lties.html#fn15

US Department of State terrorism definition available at: http://www.state.gov...index.htm#enemy

US Department of State Sept 9, 1993 ‘Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchance of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat’ Available at: http://web.archive.o...a/rls/22579.htm (Date Accessed March 21 2012).

Van Engeland, A and Rudolph, R.M. ‘From Terrorism to Politics’ (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2008).

Weinberg, L.B., Davis, P.B. ‘Introduction to Political Terrorism’ (New York: McGraw Hill, 1989).

Zartman, W.I and Alfredson, T. ‘Negotiating with Terrorists and the Tactical Question’, paper presented at PIN workshop ‘Negotiating with Terrorists’, (Luxemburg: 9 June 2006).

Thank you for the reference list.

[AngryJock82]

Doesn’t this run counter to your previous comments?

How did all these acts of terrorism result in change, peace talks and bring the opponents to the negotiating table?

Let’s accept for the sake of this post that al-Qaeda engaged in an act of terrorism by bombing the twin towers, how did that result in change, peace talks and bring the terrorised (USA) and the terrorist (al-Qaeda) to the negotiating table? Let’s accept for the sake of this post that the USA engaged in an act of terrorism by invading Iraq, how did that result in change, peace talks and bring the terrorised (Iraq) and the terrorist (USA) to the negotiating table?

Shouldn't we therefore be seeing change, peace talks and opponents coming to the negotiation table?

Excellent point and thanks for raising it. But no, I don't see that my points run contrary to each other, but they do require further elaboration. Look at the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, IRA, Hamas and ETA as a few examples of where groups who have been labelled as terrorists and are in negotiations with the governments they are hostile to. How long have these intractable conflicts been going on for? Decades and decades. It is only when the more powerful state actor realizes that it cannot win that it looks to negotiate, annihilate or retreat. Also there is geographical commonality.

There are differences in the current War on Terror model of fighting terrorism but we can still see some threads of these more traditional conflicts named above. For example, Twin Towers was precipitated by US foreign policy (which is what we're going with for the sake of this post) rather than a marginalization of a domestic constituency. What is common between these governments and the West's War on Terror is that they all initially took a hard-line stance with their opponents, but then slowly softened and made concessions when the destruction of their enemies proved too costly, either in lives of public/international opinion. There is evidence supporting the fact that Allied forces have negotiated with enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan e.g. negotiating with the Jaish al-Mahdi and the Taliban. Initially this was totally off the table at the start of the invasion but more and more dialogue has prevailed as the death toll has risen.

The allies have subsequently been defeated in Iraq - which has resulted in their entire withdrawal. There was no glorious victory, no one hailed the West as the bringers of freedom and virtue. We invaded, we were beaten due to the loss of life and popular domestic support and so we left. Had this been a southern uprising the US which would be more comparable to the fighting we see in Spain and N. Ireland etc, there would be no retreat in the traditional sense. Instead militants would be forced to talk more when victory was shown to be unattainable.

The War on Terror has now evolved to targeted assassinations of backward mountain men incapable of mounting a serious attack on a goat much less the Fortress America - but something has to be seen to be done in order to justify the billions spent on homeland security. Unfortunately the US has now become a victim of its own rhetoric. I hope this clarifies my position. The authors I've cited above make the case much more compellingly than I ever could.

[bcuzbcuz]

I founda goodarticle over at FLAME that discusses the issue briefly-

http://www.factsandl...org/ad_114.html

I totally agree with Israel and their wanting to utterly and completely dismantle Hamas which is an organized terrorist group. What do you think would happen here in America if Al Qaida totally infiltrated Cuba and were then launching missiles into America and killing innocent civilians? We would reign down armaggedon on that poor country I guarentee it.

The Palestinians have rejected every call for treaty and peace with Israel. They want to see Israel destroyed and they fully support every terrorist act that they themselves instigate to keep Israel living in fear. Its time for us and Israel to clean house!

Sounds like you've bought into the "bombed back to the stone age" nonsense?

[wenglund]

Can we all at least agree that the super hero in the latest cease fire was Hillary Clinton? Say what you will about her plastered-down hairdo and her haggard look, but upon landing following a long flight, she was able to accomplish in a matter of minutes what neither side was able finesse for weeks. Who can doubt the healing power and self-evident softening affect on both sides of her weeks earlier broadcast apologizing for and expressing outrage against the video that sparked the spontaneous protest in Benghazi?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 22, 2012 by wenglund

[slamarwi]

Wade, Thanks for the perspective. While it's true that Hillary does not garner any fashion points and has never been high on my favorites list (Collateral damage from Bill), but she does a good job and replacing her with the insidious Susan Rice would truly be unfortunate.

het beste - lwiscombe