On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM, denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Michael Dinowitz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .... > > I'm sorry. I'll name Hizballah, Hamas, Al Queda and the 'others' > > individually. Don't want to be insensitive to murdering scum. > > Please do. It'll make it harder to lump "others" in there. "Others" > meaning you and me. > > > > "Terrorist" is such a loaded term. I remember battles about what a > > > "hacker" is... > > > > > Not going to play this word game again. A terrorist is a terrorist no > matter > > how you want to play it. > > Sure, words have meanings. But my argument wasn't about the word so > much as the application.
And I'm arguing that the application is apt. Again, the example of the innocent students murdered the other day. Not soldiers, not military advisers or workers, students. > That was the crux of my "freedom fighter" comment. I'm against "acts > of terror", obviously, but I'm also against loose labels. A freedom fighter who kills civilians for the very fact of them being civilians of the 'other' side is no longer a freedom fighter but is instead a terrorist murderer. That's a very exact label, not a loose one. > Are there folks you can think of that were our "buds" but that are now > "terrorists", or vice versa? Saudi Arabia Yup. Their goal, and some of our fearless leaders goals. Fear is > good for control. But we do it too so we can dilute the fact that they do it. Want to rail on the FUD created by the American government? have fun but by putting it in the same sentence as the FUD created by terrorists dilutes both and gives the feeling of 'moral equivalence' . They do it but we do it too so we shouldn't complain. > Us are those who want to live in peace, like those yeshiva students > minding > > their own business and studying. Them is the murderer who killed 8 and > > wounded 30 of them. And as for us against them, I wonder who were > dancing in > > the street, giving out candies and praising the 'heroic martyr'? We > shall > > know no peace until there is a value for life which seems to be missing > on > > the part of 'those' groups (see above) and on the part of those peoples > (the > > dancing palestinians) > > Oh, sure. I can tell by experience that "them" conveys meaning. I'm > sure that it's all about pure Fear, no agendas or anything like that, > right? > > Hamas represents all Palestine peoples, just like our .gov represents > all US peoples. Never said that but even those who do not support Hamas seemed to be dancing in the street (in Lebanon and PA controlled areas) > Are you really so sure yours is the only side that yearns for peace? > That is the logic I'm trying to prevent. We must work with each > other, at the end, if we want to get anywhere. Or we can disdain > compromise, and stick to absolutes, and get nowhere. Which side is offering more and more land? Which side is removing its people from their homes to give it to the other side? Which side is holding back its military from killing every man, woman and child in Gaza as a response to the daily rocket attacks? And don't give me the "well, it was their land" answer because its not an answer and not 100% true. Most of the land was won in defensive wars. There was no Arab Palestine. Gaza was owned by Egypt and never gave it to the Palestinians. The west bank was owned by Jordan who never gave it to the Palestinians. > > > > > Real strength doesn't need to look strong, basically. (Quite often > > > doesn't, in my experience.) > > > > That sounds really nice but doesn't play in other cultural arena's. > > I could give two shits for how it plays in other cultural arenas. It's > the truth. And that's the reason we can't have peace or beat the terrorists/militants/insurgents/activists/boy scouts. Because you and many others don't care about their culture or how to respond to it. > > "Seeing is believing" is a logical fallacy, quickly discovered. I > could care less about the simpletons. If you speak based on what others say without seeing and/or experiencing for yourself then you are not speaking from anything real. Sorry, but thats the bottom line. > We didn't huff and puff before, and nobody fucked with us. What's > changed again? (Don't, for the love of god, say nine el--) What changed? nothing. Remember Beirut? Remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Remember Lockerby? All pre-9/11 and all from the same cultural area and in the case of the first two, the same source. > Let's make a point of telling people we'll fuck with them first? > Retarded. I like the "don't mess with us or else" better. Again, cultural problems. If you say your bad then it has to be tested and if not, your dog food. At least in certain cultures that you don't seem to care about (your statement above) > Oh yeah, I forget. Unless we start acting like "them", we'll become > "them". Great logic! Who said act like them? Did you because I'm sure it wasn't me. > > > > > Winning minds is less about blowing people to bits. Fighting a war > IS > > > about blowing people to bits. > > > > Again, you're talking American culture. > > No, I'm talking progress. And Peace. Which will not happen without paying attention to the culture in question. Does peace mean permanent end to violence or a hudna or temporary peace? Ignoring the culture for some abstract goal of peace is doomed to failure unless both sides are looking at the same thing and they are not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256130 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
