PFLP assassination of Israeli government minister
David Joseph Greenbaum
Just reported on NPR and on BBC shortwave, the Israeli Minister for
Tourism, Rehavam Ze'evi, who was an MK for National Union-Yisroel
Baytaynu (We are building the land of Israel), was assassinated in the
Hyatt in East Jerusalem. The Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine has claimed responsibility for the murder, in retaliation for
Israeli "targeted killings" of Islamic militants.
National Union-Yisroel Beiteinu was one of the right-most parties in the
Knesset, with seven MK's. Ironically, Rehavam Ze'evi and his
ministerial partner, Infrastructure Minister Avigdor Lieberman,
announced their resignations from Sharon's national unity government
yesterday, effective Wednesday (today) afternoon, as the NU-YB faction
was withdrawing its support for the government. The NU-YB felt that
Sharon was kowtowing to Peres and the left-wing of Avoda in permitting
Peres to meet with Arafat, and was in general hewing to Oslo and far too
soft on Arafat.
The only right-wing party in Knesset outside of Sharon's coalition
before the withdrawal of NU-YB was the National Religious Party.
Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
Dave G.
--
One of the more popular cuts: pressed shank braised with smoker's
phlegm. It may take a few tries to get Uncle Hank to hack up enough
Lucky sauce, so be patient.
David Joseph Greenbaum
in fleeting electrons:
>
>Just reported on NPR and on BBC shortwave, the Israeli Minister for
>Tourism, Rehavam Ze'evi, who was an MK for National Union-Yisroel
>Baytaynu (We are building the land of Israel), was assassinated in the
>Hyatt in East Jerusalem. The Popular Front for the Liberation of
>Palestine has claimed responsibility for the murder, in retaliation for
>Israeli "targeted killings" of Islamic militants.
To add information
>PFLP: Assassination to Avenge Israeli Killing of Mustafa
>(IsraelNationalNews.com) The fax sent by the PFLP organization claiming
>responsibility for the assassination of Minister Rechavam Ze’evi stated
>the murder was to avenge Israel’s killing of PFLP general secretary Abu
>Ali Mustafa, in his Ramallah office in September.
>Two air-to-surface missiles were fired from an air force Cobra
>helicopter gunship into the Ramallah office of Popular Front for the
>Liberation of Palestine general secretary Abu Ali Mustafa, killing him.
>Mustafa was considered the right hand of PFLP leader George Habash.
For further information, see
"http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=23" for a
précis on George Habash and the PFLP.
This is the PFLP, not the PFLP-General Command (headed by Achmad
Jibril).
Nancy Lebovitz
David Joseph Greenbaum <dj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>Just reported on NPR and on BBC shortwave, the Israeli Minister for
>Tourism, Rehavam Ze'evi, who was an MK for National Union-Yisroel
>Baytaynu (We are building the land of Israel), was assassinated in the
>Hyatt in East Jerusalem. The Popular Front for the Liberation of
>Palestine has claimed responsibility for the murder, in retaliation for
>Israeli "targeted killings" of Islamic militants.
>
>National Union-Yisroel Beiteinu was one of the right-most parties in the
>Knesset, with seven MK's. Ironically, Rehavam Ze'evi and his
>ministerial partner, Infrastructure Minister Avigdor Lieberman,
>announced their resignations from Sharon's national unity government
>yesterday, effective Wednesday (today) afternoon, as the NU-YB faction
>was withdrawing its support for the government. The NU-YB felt that
>Sharon was kowtowing to Peres and the left-wing of Avoda in permitting
>Peres to meet with Arafat, and was in general hewing to Oslo and far too
>soft on Arafat.
>
>The only right-wing party in Knesset outside of Sharon's coalition
>before the withdrawal of NU-YB was the National Religious Party.
>
>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Johan Anglemark
>>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
>>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
>
>My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
>go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it? The
Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that the
Palestinians respond in kind?
-j
--
Johan Anglemark - http://anglemark.pp.se
Lejd av Upsala SF-sällskap - http://sfweb.dang.se
Dan Kimmel
"Johan Anglemark" <jo...@anglemark.pp.se> wrote in message
news:Xns913D7D0B81C81j...@192.9.201.2...
> My trusted friend Nancy Lebovitz wrote in msg <9qjibg$c...@netaxs.com>:
>
> >>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
> >>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
> >
> >My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
> >go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
>
> I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
> premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it?
The
> Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that the
> Palestinians respond in kind?
The Israelis target *known* terrorists and they retaliated by killing a
tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
Johan Anglemark
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>> I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
>> premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it?
>> The
>> Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that the
>> Palestinians respond in kind?
>
>The Israelis target *known* terrorists and they retaliated by killing a
>tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
Oh yes, I see the difference. I just don't see why I should be _surprised_
that they hit back.
Nancy Lebovitz
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Johan Anglemark" <jo...@anglemark.pp.se> wrote in message
>news:Xns913D7D0B81C81j...@192.9.201.2...
>> My trusted friend Nancy Lebovitz wrote in msg <9qjibg$c...@netaxs.com>:
>>
>> >>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
>> >>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
>> >
>> >My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
>> >go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
>>
>> I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
>> premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it?
>The
>> Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that the
>> Palestinians respond in kind?
You're probably right. It's unreasonable of me, but I just wasn't braced
for one more goddamned thing happening. In fact, lots more goddamned
things are going to happen, and that one, at least, has no perceptible
connection with 9/11.
>
>The Israelis target *known* terrorists and they retaliated by killing a
>tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>My trusted friend Nancy Lebovitz wrote in msg <9qjibg$c...@netaxs.com>:
>
>>>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
>>>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
>>
>>My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
>>go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
>
>I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
>premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it? The
>Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that the
>Palestinians respond in kind?
Those "big shots" are, by in large, perpetuating terrorist attacks on
Israel. So, what is Israel supposed to do? Ignore the attacks?
Reoccupy _all_ the land now under control of the Palestinian Authority
and Lebanon to boot, and enforce order there? Arafat certainly won't
stop the terrorists in his midst, so what is Israel supposed to do?
It strikes me that Israel policy of "targeted responses" is both just
and proportionate. Once we finish with the Taliban and El Queda as
well as Iraq, I think we should give the Palestinians a hard, brutal
choice: stop the terrorism, or accept Israeli governance, and all that
entails. Then, if they do stop the terrorism, give them a square
deal.
--
Pete McCutchen
Alter S. Reiss
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ec8ostckrisckvm2j...@4ax.com...
(. . .)
> It strikes me that Israel policy of "targeted responses" is both just
> and proportionate. Once we finish with the Taliban and El Queda as
> well as Iraq, I think we should give the Palestinians a hard, brutal
> choice: stop the terrorism, or accept Israeli governance, and all that
> entails. Then, if they do stop the terrorism, give them a square
> deal.
And if they decide not to do either, then what?
--
October 2001, Alter S. Reiss
"Or, alternatively, being attacked by a squid."
Pete McCutchen
<alter...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:ec8ostckrisckvm2j...@4ax.com...
>
>(. . .)
>
>> It strikes me that Israel policy of "targeted responses" is both just
>> and proportionate. Once we finish with the Taliban and El Queda as
>> well as Iraq, I think we should give the Palestinians a hard, brutal
>> choice: stop the terrorism, or accept Israeli governance, and all that
>> entails. Then, if they do stop the terrorism, give them a square
>> deal.
>
> And if they decide not to do either, then what?
Israel moves in and governs.
--
Pete McCutchen
Alter S. Reiss
Israel really doesn't want to do that. That's what Israel had been
doing from 67 until the nineties. It wasn't just US pressure that made them
stop doing that -- it was a shot at ending the constant, low level attacks.
Israelis, almost universally, don't want to put up with another thirty years
of intifada; I don't think that the US could give them enough to change
their minds about that.
However, I'd bet that most Israelis would be willing to accept American
governance of the Territories. Want to try that?
Dan Kimmel
"Alter S. Reiss" <alter...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9qk79h$oje71$1...@ID-72420.news.dfncis.de...
Or we could try to create a Palestinian homeland somewhere else, say in
Mississippi. I don't know why Israel should give up land for that purpose.
It's not like the Arabs were interested in doing so when THEY held the
territories from 1948 to 1967, or did much to get the Palestinians out of
the refugee camps at ANY time in the past fifty plus years.
It's time to face reality: beating up on Israel is good policy for the Arab
states because it directs the anger of the masses away from those in power.
Otherwise, they don't give a damn for Arafat or his cause.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> It strikes me that Israel policy of "targeted responses" is both just
> and proportionate. Once we finish with the Taliban and El Queda as
> well as Iraq, I think we should give the Palestinians a hard, brutal
> choice: stop the terrorism, or accept Israeli governance, and all that
> entails. Then, if they do stop the terrorism, give them a square
> deal.
AYKB, nothing is simple. I'm not convinced it's even possible for
"the Palestinians" to stop the terrorism. I put the phrase in quotes
because it's not entirely clear who "the Palestinians" are, or that
they can meaningfully act in concert. To whom do we issue the demand?
The current leadership? The entire Palestinian population?
Probably the Palestinian Authority can and should do more to stop
terrorism by Palestinians. In fact, Arafat has ordered his security
forces to find and arrest the killers, according to
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/index.html>.
Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
can't accomplish anything.
I don't mean this as a trick question, or even as an implied
disagreement with what you wrote. I don't know myself what a
plausible answer might be. It's even possible that there is none.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.
Pete McCutchen
<alter...@msn.com> wrote:
>> > And if they decide not to do either, then what?
>>
>> Israel moves in and governs.
>
> Israel really doesn't want to do that. That's what Israel had been
>doing from 67 until the nineties. It wasn't just US pressure that made them
>stop doing that -- it was a shot at ending the constant, low level attacks.
>Israelis, almost universally, don't want to put up with another thirty years
>of intifada; I don't think that the US could give them enough to change
>their minds about that.
> However, I'd bet that most Israelis would be willing to accept American
>governance of the Territories. Want to try that?
Turkey. I think maybe we should give the Palestinian Mandate to
Turkey. Though they might have their hands full with what used to be
Iraq. Besides, Israel is going to have its hands full with Zimbabwe.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>Probably the Palestinian Authority can and should do more to stop
>terrorism by Palestinians. In fact, Arafat has ordered his security
>forces to find and arrest the killers, according to
><http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/index.html>.
Yes. I suspect that Arafat didn't sanction this hit. He let the
genie out of the bottle, but this particular aspect of it he doesn't
like.
>
>Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
>discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
>and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
>the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
>whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
>Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
>do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
>can't accomplish anything.
OK, I'll answer you. Note that, while my end goal is to end up with a
liberal democracy called "Palestine," I may have to do a few illiberal
things along the way.
First, I call Bush and Sharon and persuade them to have another
meeting at Camp David. With respect to Israel, I put on the table a
settlement offer similar to the one Barak either did or did not offer
me the last time we were here. I want as much as I can from Israel,
but the most important thing is to get a deal. I'm a pretty good
negotiator, and, even if Sharon is a hardass, I think I can get a
fairly reasonable one.
But I want more. First of all, I explain to both Sharon and Bush that
my people are not ready for democracy. If we had a democratic state
tomorrow, they'd vote me out and vote in some asshole who would undo
my deal and try to destroy Israel. _I_ understand that living next to
the most advanced country in the Middle East will be good for my
people, but some people don't. So, for the next ten or fifteen years,
I get to rule by decree, and both the US and Israel are going to
overlook my occassional human rights violation.
Then I give to Sharon my Little Black Book which has the names and
addresses of every terrorist leader that I know of, who is located
either in Palestine or Lebanon. I don't want them rotting in some
prison, while their sympathizers hijack airplanes and take hostages to
get them free; I want them dead. But I can't do it, so I want the
Mossad to do it for me, in a relatively short period of time. I want
a Night of the Long Knives. I'm going to bitch and moan a bit when it
happens, and condemn the Zionist oppressors, but, in reality, I'll be
happy about it. My own security forces will suffice to keep the
problem in check thereafter.
I explain to Bush and Sharon that, if we're going to make this peace
thing work, I have to have an economically prosperous country. If
we're poor while the Israelis aren't, it's going to cause friction.
So I want free trade agreements with both Israel and, the United
States. Israel because it's my closest neighbor and the it has the
best economy in the region; the US because it's, well, the United
States. World's biggest economy, and all that. And I want the US to
give tax breaks to US companies that invest in Palestine. I want a
bit of aid, but not for any Big Project. Mostly I want to use it to
defray the cost of my government, because I want very low taxes. I'll
hire Milton Friedman to advise me on my economic policy and Richard
Epstein to write my legal code. (OK, maybe I won't mention them in
the press releases. I'll do it quietly.)
As I said, my goal is to end up with a liberal democracy, but, for the
present, I'm going to be pretty authoritarian. My people are going to
have near-total economic liberty, within the framework of a night
watchman state, but I'm going to crack down pretty hard on political
dissent, particularly if it shades over into opposition to Israel. It
goes without saying that terrorists are going to really get cracked
down upon.
The first step to developing a liberal democracy is getting a legal
code (which Professor Epstein is secretly advising me on) and judges
who are rock solid. Property and contract rights are going to
enforced from the get-go, and I'll do everything I can to put in
sophisticated banking, corporations, and securities laws.
Sophisticated, but very business-friendly.
Now I turn to education reform. Out goes the antisemitic propaganda.
No, we don't try to make the kids love Jews, at least not at first.
But outright hate propaganda is eliminated. I want some aid from the
US on this, but please, no educrats. The curriculum isn't going to go
much into politics, mostly concentrating on subjects that will make
them productive citizens. Start with giving the kids with a solid
grounding in math and science, as well as languages -- from the first
day of pre-school, they learn to speak and write in Arabic, Hebrew,
and English. Somewhat older kids get neoclassical microeconomics and
public choice theory. Start 'em on that around, say, ten or so.
David Friedman will help me on that one, I'm sure. (Though again, I
won't mention his name.) I strongly encourage cultural exchanges with
the US. I'm sure President Bush will be happy to help me on that one,
as well.
After about ten or fifteen years, my country is richer than Hong Kong,
but in no danger of being annexed by China. I draft the perfect
constitution, tripartite legislature and all, and we transition to
full-fledged democracy. After being elected our first elected
President, I serve one term and then leave public life, to spend my
waning years basking in the glow of the world's esteem, and writing my
memoirs, so as to win a second Nobel Prize, this time for literature.
(Do they offer second awards for the Peace Prize? If I pull this off,
I deserve it.) Plus, I can sit around in my study, and contemplate
the stuffed corpses of the legion of failed assassins who tried to
bump me off, somewhere along this long and winding road to Libertaria.
OK, you asked me what I would do. Is it realistic? Well, Lord Kalvan
could probably do it.
>
>I don't mean this as a trick question, or even as an implied
>disagreement with what you wrote. I don't know myself what a
>plausible answer might be. It's even possible that there is none.
Of course there is. See above.
--
Pete McCutchen
Brett Paul Dunbar
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes
Ze'evi wasn't an official, he was a Cabinet minister who happened to
hold the tourism portfolio, presumably Sharon had put him somewhere he
couldn't do much harm, as he was, by any standards, a far right
extremist. He openly advocated policies such as ethnic cleansing of the
Gaza strip and West Bank.
Due to Israeli assassinations of a number of Palestinian politicians, I
was expecting one of the more extreme Palestinian terrorist groups to
retaliate by killing a right wing member of the Israeli Cabinet, so I
was frankly unsurprised when it happened, although saddened, and Ze'evi
does seem to have been a particularly likely candidate.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Brett Paul Dunbar
Mark Atwood
>
> Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
> discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
> and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
> the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
> whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
> Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
> do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
> can't accomplish anything.
This actually sounds like it could be an interesting Infocom game.
Does anyone remember the old Windows 2.0 game "Balance Of Power"?
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
> I'll hire Milton Friedman to advise me on my economic policy and
> Richard Epstein to write my legal code. (OK, maybe I won't mention
> them in the press releases. I'll do it quietly.)
And DeSoto to set up the property law regeme and manage the setting up
of title deed register and business licensing.
Mark Atwood
condemn the Zionist oppressors, but, in reality, I'll be
> happy about it. My own security forces will suffice to keep the
> problem in check thereafter.
> watchman state, but I'm going to crack down pretty hard on political
> dissent, particularly if it shades over into opposition to Israel. It
> goes without saying that terrorists are going to really get cracked
> down upon.
> Now I turn to education reform. Out goes the antisemitic propaganda.
> No, we don't try to make the kids love Jews, at least not at first.
> But outright hate propaganda is eliminated. I want some aid from the
> US on this, but please, no educrats. The curriculum isn't going to go
> much into politics, mostly concentrating on subjects that will make
> them productive citizens. Start with giving the kids with a solid
> grounding in math and science, as well as languages -- from the first
> day of pre-school, they learn to speak and write in Arabic, Hebrew,
> and English.
> After about ten or fifteen years, my country is richer than Hong Kong,
> but in no danger of being annexed by China.
The rest of the Islamic World is going to go to war against you.
David T. Bilek
>Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> writes:
>>
>> Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
>> discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
>> and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
>> the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
>> whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
>> Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
>> do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
>> can't accomplish anything.
>
>This actually sounds like it could be an interesting Infocom game.
>
>Does anyone remember the old Windows 2.0 game "Balance Of Power"?
>
Sure: Chris Crawford rocks. You could play it without using Windows,
I think, but I don't remember how. I was 11 at the time, so I hope I
can be forgiven. The two games I most wanted to see a modern version
of (before I got CTS) were Starflight and Balance of Power.
Coincidently enough, given recent events, I almost always ended up
destroying the planet over Afghanistan.
Lets hope Dubya does better than 11-year-old me.
-David
("Our reply is headed over the North Pole")
Alter S. Reiss
> On 17 Oct 2001 16:49:09 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> wrote:
(. . .)
> >
> >Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
> >discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
> >and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
> >the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
> >whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
> >Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
> >do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
> >can't accomplish anything.
>
> OK, I'll answer you. Note that, while my end goal is to end up with a
> liberal democracy called "Palestine," I may have to do a few illiberal
> things along the way.
>
> First, I call Bush and Sharon and persuade them to have another
> meeting at Camp David.
Not going to happen. Sharon's government has been having defections on
the far right because he agreed to let Peres talk to Arafat. Sharon isn't
going to a summit unless Arafat can deliver a cease fire that will last for
more than the three or four hours that the last couple have.
> With respect to Israel, I put on the table a
> settlement offer similar to the one Barak either did or did not offer
> me the last time we were here. I want as much as I can from Israel,
> but the most important thing is to get a deal. I'm a pretty good
> negotiator, and, even if Sharon is a hardass, I think I can get a
> fairly reasonable one.
If Arafat were to take a deal that is equivalent to what Barak put on
the table today, he'd be dead tomorrow. The Palestinians have not, as a
group, really enjoyed the last year or so, and they're not going to accept
getting nothing out it. There are large and popular groups opposed to peace
with Israel, and if Arafat took that deal he couldn't even count on the
support of his own faction.
> But I want more. First of all, I explain to both Sharon and Bush that
> my people are not ready for democracy. If we had a democratic state
> tomorrow, they'd vote me out and vote in some asshole who would undo
> my deal and try to destroy Israel. _I_ understand that living next to
> the most advanced country in the Middle East will be good for my
> people, but some people don't. So, for the next ten or fifteen years,
> I get to rule by decree, and both the US and Israel are going to
> overlook my occassional human rights violation.
Bear in mind the fact that you have Parkinson's, and you've had it for a
while. Don't make any plans that involve you living for another fifteen
years.
>
> Then I give to Sharon my Little Black Book which has the names and
> addresses of every terrorist leader that I know of, who is located
> either in Palestine or Lebanon. I don't want them rotting in some
> prison, while their sympathizers hijack airplanes and take hostages to
> get them free; I want them dead. But I can't do it, so I want the
> Mossad to do it for me, in a relatively short period of time. I want
> a Night of the Long Knives. I'm going to bitch and moan a bit when it
> happens, and condemn the Zionist oppressors, but, in reality, I'll be
> happy about it. My own security forces will suffice to keep the
> problem in check thereafter.
A number of names on that list have wide popular support. Kill two of
them at once, and there will be mass insurection. Kill all of them, and
it's war with most of the Arab world. These aren't isolated loonies --
these are the heads of the largest political factions in Palestine.
(. . .)
Dan Kimmel
"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tTIXwHPz...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk...
Israel has not engaged in any "assassinations of a number of Palestinian
politicians." They have targeted actual *terrorists.* These were people
who did things like setting off bombs at crowded discotheques or busy
marketplaces. To compare that in any way with shooting some politician
whose views you find odious is pretty odious itself.
I know it's polite in some circles to see this as "tit for tat" violence,
but that's only by people who don't follow what is actually going on in the
Middle East.
Dan Kimmel
>
> >Probably the Palestinian Authority can and should do more to stop
> >terrorism by Palestinians. In fact, Arafat has ordered his security
> >forces to find and arrest the killers, according to
> ><http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/index.html>.
>
> Yes. I suspect that Arafat didn't sanction this hit. He let the
> genie out of the bottle, but this particular aspect of it he doesn't
> like.
No doubt, but when you permit all manner of terrorist violence and run
propaganda demonizing Israel in your media, you have to expect that some
factions are going to up the ante. This is a logical outcome of
Palestinian Authority policy that has made it clear for more than a year
that they have no interest in a peaceful resolution or, indeed, in
co-existance with Israel.
> >
> >Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
> >discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
> >and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
> >the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
> >whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
> >Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
> >do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
> >can't accomplish anything.
>
> OK, I'll answer you. Note that, while my end goal is to end up with a
> liberal democracy called "Palestine," I may have to do a few illiberal
> things along the way.
>
> First, I call Bush and Sharon and persuade them to have another
> meeting at Camp David. With respect to Israel, I put on the table a
> settlement offer similar to the one Barak either did or did not offer
> me the last time we were here. I want as much as I can from Israel,
> but the most important thing is to get a deal. I'm a pretty good
> negotiator, and, even if Sharon is a hardass, I think I can get a
> fairly reasonable one.
Sounds reasonsable, but it begs the question: Arafat *had* that offer on the
table. He didn't negotiate. He didn't counteroffer. He walked out and
launched the current intifada.
Some of your either ideas were interesting and/or provocative, but alas your
premise -- that Arafat wants to eventually preside over a prosperous,
democratic Palestine -- has no connection with reality.
Shane Stezelberger
Greenbaum) wrote:
>This is the PFLP, not the PFLP-General Command (headed by Achmad
>Jibril).
Thanks. I'm forever getting the two confused.
--
Shane Stezelberger
sstezel at erols dot kom
Laurel, MD
Niall McAuley
>This is the PFLP, not the PFLP-General Command (headed by Achmad
>Jibril).
Splitter!
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
David G. Bell
<3bce61c9...@nntp.we.mediaone.net> dbi...@mediaone.net
"David T. Bilek" wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2001 21:47:59 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> writes:
> >>
> >> Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
> >> discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
> >> and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
> >> the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
> >> whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
> >> Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
> >> do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
> >> can't accomplish anything.
> >
> >This actually sounds like it could be an interesting Infocom game.
> >
> >Does anyone remember the old Windows 2.0 game "Balance Of Power"?
> >
>
> Sure: Chris Crawford rocks. You could play it without using Windows,
> I think, but I don't remember how. I was 11 at the time, so I hope I
> can be forgiven. The two games I most wanted to see a modern version
> of (before I got CTS) were Starflight and Balance of Power.
Starflight was interesting, not too complicated an economic/logistic
side to things. Just like Elite, it would maybe be a little too easy to
make a modern version too tricky all around.
What would be interesting would be a network-play version of that sort
of game, perhaps with the possibility that hyperspace jumps use more
fuel the shorter time they take, so you can start a jump and go to bed,
or burn obscene quantities of fuel (and engine life) and just have time
a brew a fresh supply of Qafi.
I used to be in a PBM game that ran more-or-less in real time. One day
real time was one year game time (STL starships in a star cluster, and
light-speed lag on your sensors). There could be a big problem with
out-of-game communication, but that sort of daily-turn game might work
fairly well.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
The singer who is no longer, and no shorter, than he was last week. He's
about the same length in his stocking moolies.
Pete McCutchen
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> I'll hire Milton Friedman to advise me on my economic policy and
>> Richard Epstein to write my legal code. (OK, maybe I won't mention
>> them in the press releases. I'll do it quietly.)
>
>And DeSoto to set up the property law regeme and manage the setting up
>of title deed register and business licensing.
Of course. Hernando I can credit publicly, because his name alone
won't cause outrage among my more reactionary elements.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sounds reasonsable, but it begs the question: Arafat *had* that offer on the
>table. He didn't negotiate. He didn't counteroffer. He walked out and
>launched the current intifada.
Dan, I'm on your side on this one. Really. I think that the
Palestinians have some legitimate grievances, but I also think that
they could have gotten them settled via negotiations. They haven't,
because, by-in-large, they don't want peace. They want victory --
which means they want the destruction of Israel. Kevin claims that
Barak's offer was less tangible than is often supposed, and that
Arafat didn't really have the offer quite on the table, but, even so,
Arafat broke his promise -- made at Oslo -- to settle disputes via
negotiations and instead launched the intifada. I think he probably
could have had a good deal, if he'd wanted it. He chose war instead.
_I_ think it's because he doesn't really want a deal.
>
>Some of your either ideas were interesting and/or provocative, but alas your
>premise -- that Arafat wants to eventually preside over a prosperous,
>democratic Palestine -- has no connection with reality.
No, that was the premise of the question. "Imagine you are Arafat,"
my interlocutor asked. _I'd_ rather have a democratic, prosperous
Palestine, rather than fight a continual low-level war with Israel.
Arafat has different preferences. Plus, he's a Marxist, so he'd fuck
up his country if he had one. I'd turn it into Hong Kong.
--
Pete McCutchen
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> writes:
> > Here's a thought experiment. You wake up tomorrow morning and
> > discover that you are Yasser Arafat. You have all of his knowledge
> > and capabilities as well as your own. Your goal is peace; interpret
> > the word as you like, but it's not just the absence of war. Assume
> > whatever secondary goals you like (a Palestinian state, security for
> > Israel, access to holy sites for all, democracy, etc.) What do you
> > do? Note that if you alienate enough of your own constituency, you
> > can't accomplish anything.
>
> This actually sounds like it could be an interesting Infocom game.
The closest analogy I can think of is JUNTA.
> Does anyone remember the old Windows 2.0 game "Balance Of Power"?
That came for Windows? I only saw and played it on the
Mac.
Great game. If you played the U.S., the assumptions were
all stacked pro-Soviet; if you played the U.S.S.R., the
assumptions were all stacked pro-American. I usually
managed to avoid nuclear holocaust.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
Kevin J. Maroney
<br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ze'evi wasn't an official, he was a Cabinet minister who happened to
>hold the tourism portfolio, presumably Sharon had put him somewhere he
>couldn't do much harm, as he was, by any standards, a far right
>extremist. He openly advocated policies such as ethnic cleansing of the
>Gaza strip and West Bank.
>
>Due to Israeli assassinations of a number of Palestinian politicians, I
>was expecting one of the more extreme Palestinian terrorist groups to
>retaliate by killing a right wing member of the Israeli Cabinet, so I
>was frankly unsurprised when it happened, although saddened, and Ze'evi
>does seem to have been a particularly likely candidate.
It is worth emphasizing that this assassination was a horrible act
even as it was completely unsurprising. There are major elements
within the Palestinian population who don't want the peace process to
proceed, and who see assassination and terror as a great tool for
blocking it.
Note that this is the first time an Israel minister has been
assassinated to block the peace process since Rabin.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Kevin claims that
>Barak's offer was less tangible than is often supposed,
I made no such claim that I am aware of. What I quoted from the NYROB
article was that *Arafat* saw the offer as less tangible than it
probably was because it was wrapped up with a bunch of new Israeli
violations of the Oslo accords.
I'm glad to see that you're reading other people's arguments closely.
Dan Kimmel
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:54:40 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Sounds reasonsable, but it begs the question: Arafat *had* that offer on
the
> >table. He didn't negotiate. He didn't counteroffer. He walked out and
> >launched the current intifada.
>
> Dan, I'm on your side on this one. Really. I think that the
> Palestinians have some legitimate grievances, but I also think that
> they could have gotten them settled via negotiations. They haven't,
> because, by-in-large, they don't want peace. They want victory --
> which means they want the destruction of Israel. Kevin claims that
> Barak's offer was less tangible than is often supposed, and that
> Arafat didn't really have the offer quite on the table, but, even so,
> Arafat broke his promise -- made at Oslo -- to settle disputes via
> negotiations and instead launched the intifada. I think he probably
> could have had a good deal, if he'd wanted it. He chose war instead.
> _I_ think it's because he doesn't really want a deal.
And, to be fair, because he doesn't want to die. Because he has utterly
failed to prepare his people for peace, if he took any moves toward an
actual settlement, he would be a marked man.
Abba Eban's pithy quote is as true as ever: the Palestinians have never
missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Jo Walton
p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net "Pete McCutchen" writes:
> Turkey. I think maybe we should give the Palestinian Mandate to
> Turkey.
What makes you think they'd be any better than they are with their own
Kurdish minority? Or their Greek minority?
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
*THE KING'S PEACE* out now *THE KING'S NAME* out in November from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Mark Atwood
>
> It is worth emphasizing that this assassination was a horrible act
> even as it was completely unsurprising. There are major elements
> within the Palestinian population who don't want the peace process to
> proceed, and who see assassination and terror as a great tool for
> blocking it.
Are their *any* elements larger than individual people who have learned
to keep their head down and their mouths shut who *do* want the "peace
process" to actually proceed?
Brett Paul Dunbar
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
With European help you should ultimately be able to get a phased Israeli
withdrawal to the 1967 borders. I don't think anything less is going to
be acceptable to the Palestinians in the long term, and that has been
the position of most European governments for a long time.
>
>But I want more. First of all, I explain to both Sharon and Bush that
>my people are not ready for democracy. If we had a democratic state
>tomorrow, they'd vote me out and vote in some asshole who would undo
>my deal and try to destroy Israel. _I_ understand that living next to
>the most advanced country in the Middle East will be good for my
>people, but some people don't. So, for the next ten or fifteen years,
>I get to rule by decree, and both the US and Israel are going to
>overlook my occassional human rights violation.
>
>Then I give to Sharon my Little Black Book which has the names and
>addresses of every terrorist leader that I know of, who is located
>either in Palestine or Lebanon.
That'll get you Assassinated, and cause civil war, which is one of the
reasons Arafat will never be able to do it.
> I don't want them rotting in some
>prison, while their sympathizers hijack airplanes and take hostages to
>get them free; I want them dead. But I can't do it, so I want the
>Mossad to do it for me, in a relatively short period of time. I want
>a Night of the Long Knives. I'm going to bitch and moan a bit when it
>happens, and condemn the Zionist oppressors, but, in reality, I'll be
>happy about it. My own security forces will suffice to keep the
>problem in check thereafter.
Not that you'll be around to worry about it, being dead.
>Now I turn to education reform. Out goes the antisemitic propaganda.
>No, we don't try to make the kids love Jews, at least not at first.
>But outright hate propaganda is eliminated. I want some aid from the
>US on this, but please, no educrats. The curriculum isn't going to go
>much into politics, mostly concentrating on subjects that will make
>them productive citizens. Start with giving the kids with a solid
>grounding in math and science, as well as languages -- from the first
>day of pre-school, they learn to speak and write in Arabic, Hebrew,
>and English. Somewhat older kids get neoclassical microeconomics and
>public choice theory.
The problem with neo-classical economics is that it is dogmatic and, in
several aspects, just plain wrong, the economy does not behave the way
neo-classical dogma claims it must. Virtually every major central bank
has switched to neo-Keynesian policies, this was then followed by a
prolonged period of sustained growth with low inflation Japan persisted
with neo-classical approach, and has had a a deep and prolonged
depression, the only period of significant growth in the last decade
coming when a neo-Keynesian policy was briefly adopted, and ending when
Japan reverted to a neo-classical policy.
> Start 'em on that around, say, ten or so.
>David Friedman will help me on that one, I'm sure. (Though again, I
>won't mention his name.) I strongly encourage cultural exchanges with
>the US. I'm sure President Bush will be happy to help me on that one,
>as well.
>
>After about ten or fifteen years, my country is richer than Hong Kong,
>but in no danger of being annexed by China. I draft the perfect
>constitution, tripartite legislature and all, and we transition to
>full-fledged democracy. After being elected our first elected
>President, I serve one term and then leave public life, to spend my
>waning years basking in the glow of the world's esteem, and writing my
>memoirs, so as to win a second Nobel Prize, this time for literature.
>(Do they offer second awards for the Peace Prize? If I pull this off,
>I deserve it.) Plus, I can sit around in my study, and contemplate
>the stuffed corpses of the legion of failed assassins who tried to
>bump me off, somewhere along this long and winding road to Libertaria.
>
>OK, you asked me what I would do. Is it realistic?
No, the economics are just plain wrong for a start, and the politics
absurd.
Brett Paul Dunbar
>
>"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:tTIXwHPz...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <qxdz7.142594$W8.34...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> Due to Israeli assassinations of a number of Palestinian politicians, I
>> was expecting one of the more extreme Palestinian terrorist groups to
>> retaliate by killing a right wing member of the Israeli Cabinet, so I
>> was frankly unsurprised when it happened, although saddened, and Ze'evi
>> does seem to have been a particularly likely candidate.
>
>Israel has not engaged in any "assassinations of a number of Palestinian
>politicians." They have targeted actual *terrorists.* These were people
>who did things like setting off bombs at crowded discotheques or busy
>marketplaces. To compare that in any way with shooting some politician
>whose views you find odious is pretty odious itself.
You may not see killing one of the political leaders of the PFLP as an
assassination but the PFLP certainly did, along with a large proportion
of the Palestinian population. Whatever you call it the policy was an
act of utterly reckless stupidity on the part of the Israeli government,
given that it was nearly inevitable that they would respond in kind (in
their view anyway).
>
>I know it's polite in some circles to see this as "tit for tat" violence,
>but that's only by people who don't follow what is actually going on in the
>Middle East.
Dan Kimmel
> In message <Pxyz7.144008$W8.35...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:tTIXwHPz...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message
<qxdz7.142594$W8.34...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
> >> Due to Israeli assassinations of a number of Palestinian politicians, I
> >> was expecting one of the more extreme Palestinian terrorist groups to
> >> retaliate by killing a right wing member of the Israeli Cabinet, so I
> >> was frankly unsurprised when it happened, although saddened, and Ze'evi
> >> does seem to have been a particularly likely candidate.
> >
> >Israel has not engaged in any "assassinations of a number of Palestinian
> >politicians." They have targeted actual *terrorists.* These were people
> >who did things like setting off bombs at crowded discotheques or busy
> >marketplaces. To compare that in any way with shooting some politician
> >whose views you find odious is pretty odious itself.
>
> You may not see killing one of the political leaders of the PFLP as an
> assassination but the PFLP certainly did, along with a large proportion
> of the Palestinian population. Whatever you call it the policy was an
> act of utterly reckless stupidity on the part of the Israeli government,
> given that it was nearly inevitable that they would respond in kind (in
> their view anyway).
So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
sides.
Pete McCutchen
<br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Then I give to Sharon my Little Black Book which has the names and
>>addresses of every terrorist leader that I know of, who is located
>>either in Palestine or Lebanon.
>
>That'll get you Assassinated, and cause civil war, which is one of the
>reasons Arafat will never be able to do it.
I think my comment at the end made it clear that I know that.
>
>> I don't want them rotting in some
>>prison, while their sympathizers hijack airplanes and take hostages to
>>get them free; I want them dead. But I can't do it, so I want the
>>Mossad to do it for me, in a relatively short period of time. I want
>>a Night of the Long Knives. I'm going to bitch and moan a bit when it
>>happens, and condemn the Zionist oppressors, but, in reality, I'll be
>>happy about it. My own security forces will suffice to keep the
>>problem in check thereafter.
>
>Not that you'll be around to worry about it, being dead.
Good thing I'm not Arafat, then!
>
>>Now I turn to education reform. Out goes the antisemitic propaganda.
>>No, we don't try to make the kids love Jews, at least not at first.
>>But outright hate propaganda is eliminated. I want some aid from the
>>US on this, but please, no educrats. The curriculum isn't going to go
>>much into politics, mostly concentrating on subjects that will make
>>them productive citizens. Start with giving the kids with a solid
>>grounding in math and science, as well as languages -- from the first
>>day of pre-school, they learn to speak and write in Arabic, Hebrew,
>>and English. Somewhat older kids get neoclassical microeconomics and
>>public choice theory.
>
>The problem with neo-classical economics is that it is dogmatic and, in
>several aspects, just plain wrong, the economy does not behave the way
>neo-classical dogma claims it must. Virtually every major central bank
>has switched to neo-Keynesian policies, this was then followed by a
>prolonged period of sustained growth with low inflation Japan persisted
>with neo-classical approach, and has had a a deep and prolonged
>depression, the only period of significant growth in the last decade
>coming when a neo-Keynesian policy was briefly adopted, and ending when
>Japan reverted to a neo-classical policy.
I said _microeconomics_, not _macroeconomics_. Monetary policy is
about macro, not micro. Neoclassical microeconomics is basically
right. Macro is something about which we know much less. Central
bankers act as much on instinct as they do on theory. Of course,
Keynes continues to be influential, but so too are the monetarists.
The claim that Japan oscillated from neo-classical to neo-Keynsian
policies and back is not particularly accurate, but, in any case, I
think it's clear that Japan's policies go deeper than monetary policy.
In particular, they've got real demographic problems, and their
banking system needs some serious work.
>
>> Start 'em on that around, say, ten or so.
>>David Friedman will help me on that one, I'm sure. (Though again, I
>>won't mention his name.) I strongly encourage cultural exchanges with
>>the US. I'm sure President Bush will be happy to help me on that one,
>>as well.
>>
>>After about ten or fifteen years, my country is richer than Hong Kong,
>>but in no danger of being annexed by China. I draft the perfect
>>constitution, tripartite legislature and all, and we transition to
>>full-fledged democracy. After being elected our first elected
>>President, I serve one term and then leave public life, to spend my
>>waning years basking in the glow of the world's esteem, and writing my
>>memoirs, so as to win a second Nobel Prize, this time for literature.
>>(Do they offer second awards for the Peace Prize? If I pull this off,
>>I deserve it.) Plus, I can sit around in my study, and contemplate
>>the stuffed corpses of the legion of failed assassins who tried to
>>bump me off, somewhere along this long and winding road to Libertaria.
>>
>>OK, you asked me what I would do. Is it realistic?
>
>No, the economics are just plain wrong for a start, and the politics
>absurd.
No, the economics are right, but the politics absurd.
--
Pete McCutchen
Doug Wickstrom
<36mBaEBJ...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>
Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> excited the
ether to say:
>The problem with neo-classical economics is that it is dogmatic and, in
>several aspects, just plain wrong, the economy does not behave the way
>neo-classical dogma claims it must. Virtually every major central bank
>has switched to neo-Keynesian policies, this was then followed by a
>prolonged period of sustained growth with low inflation Japan persisted
>with neo-classical approach, and has had a a deep and prolonged
>depression, the only period of significant growth in the last decade
>coming when a neo-Keynesian policy was briefly adopted, and ending when
>Japan reverted to a neo-classical policy.
Interesting analysis of Japanese fiscal problems. Too bad it's
wrong.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"Look, if you don't like my parties, you can leave in a huff. If that's
too soon, leave in a minute and a huff. If you can't find that, you can
leave in a taxi." --Groucho Marx
Tom Scudder
> In article <1ampstkb8pfras3hp...@4ax.com>
> p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net "Pete McCutchen" writes:
>
> > Turkey. I think maybe we should give the Palestinian Mandate to
> > Turkey.
>
> What makes you think they'd be any better than they are with their own
> Kurdish minority? Or their Greek minority?
Or, needless to say, their Armenian minority?
Tom Scudder
> Mark Atwood wrote:
> > Does anyone remember the old Windows 2.0 game "Balance Of Power"?
>
> That came for Windows? I only saw and played it on the
> Mac.
>
> Great game. If you played the U.S., the assumptions were
> all stacked pro-Soviet; if you played the U.S.S.R., the
> assumptions were all stacked pro-American. I usually
> managed to avoid nuclear holocaust.
I could win as the Soviets on "easy" level, but only because the
Americans didn't really care much if I invaded (oops, "supported the
revolutionaries in") Iran.
Pete McCutchen
<nims...@uswest.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:04:57 +0100, in message
><36mBaEBJ...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>
> Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> excited the
>ether to say:
>
>>The problem with neo-classical economics is that it is dogmatic and, in
>>several aspects, just plain wrong, the economy does not behave the way
>>neo-classical dogma claims it must. Virtually every major central bank
>>has switched to neo-Keynesian policies, this was then followed by a
>>prolonged period of sustained growth with low inflation Japan persisted
>>with neo-classical approach, and has had a a deep and prolonged
>>depression, the only period of significant growth in the last decade
>>coming when a neo-Keynesian policy was briefly adopted, and ending when
>>Japan reverted to a neo-classical policy.
>
>Interesting analysis of Japanese fiscal problems. Too bad it's
>wrong.
Monetary policies. Fiscal policies have to do with government
spending. Monetary policy has to do with the central bank.
--
Pete McCutchen
Avedon Carol
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> You may not see killing one of the political leaders of the PFLP as an
>> assassination but the PFLP certainly did, along with a large proportion
>> of the Palestinian population. Whatever you call it the policy was an
>> act of utterly reckless stupidity on the part of the Israeli government,
>> given that it was nearly inevitable that they would respond in kind (in
>> their view anyway).
>
>So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
>schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
>leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
>sides.
Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>>So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
>>schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
>>leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
>>sides.
>
>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
No, but killing them does.
--
Pete McCutchen
Margaret Young
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Johan Anglemark" <jo...@anglemark.pp.se> wrote in message
>news:Xns913D7D0B81C81j...@192.9.201.2...
>> My trusted friend Nancy Lebovitz wrote in msg <9qjibg$c...@netaxs.com>:
>>
>> >>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian killed
>> >>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
>> >
>> >My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
>> >go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
>>
>> I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
>> premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it?
>The
>> Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that the
>> Palestinians respond in kind?
>
>The Israelis target *known* terrorists and they retaliated by killing a
>tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
>
Was this not the member of the cabinet who characterized Palestinians
as "lice". And who had just resigned because he thought the current
government was too liberal and easy on Palestinians? I got the general
impression that he was viewed as a real and powerful enemy of the
Palestinians.
Margaret
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Kevin J. Maroney
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
>>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
>>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
>>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
>
>No, but killing them does.
I'm sure that Rehavam Ze'evi is pleased at how effective the targeted
sanctions against the PFLP have been at causing them to change their
behavior.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
> >>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> >>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> >>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
> >
> >No, but killing them does.
>
> I'm sure that Rehavam Ze'evi is pleased at how effective the targeted
> sanctions against the PFLP have been at causing them to change their
> behavior.
I believe the argument here is that made by proponents of
the death penalty: the deceased Palestinian figures _will_
in fact no longer do that to which Israel objects.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
doesn't buy it
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>>The Israelis target *known* terrorists and they retaliated by killing a
>>tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
>>
>
>Was this not the member of the cabinet who characterized Palestinians
>as "lice". And who had just resigned because he thought the current
>government was too liberal and easy on Palestinians? I got the general
>impression that he was viewed as a real and powerful enemy of the
>Palestinians.
Note that this is one reason Israel really ought to amend its
constitution to do away with proportional representation. For its own
good, Israel really can't afford to have these extremist parties that
can take down the government at will. It really makes effective
action very difficult.
--
Pete McCutchen
Michael J. Lowrey
> Note that this is one reason Israel really ought to amend its
> constitution to do away with proportional representation. For its own
> good, Israel really can't afford to have these extremist parties that
> can take down the government at will. It really makes effective
> action very difficult.
The problem with the Israeli election system is not
proportional representation. The problem is that they have:
1. A single election district, which is the entire country;
2. A system which allows any faction, however microscopic,
to hare off and form a separate party; and
3. A system which creates few advantages to remaining a
member of a larger party ("larger" here having rather a
small value).
I don't presume to tell another country how to run
themselves; but an electoral system more like the Irish one
would probably be helpful there.
And don't tell me about the nonsense of Ireland and her
political parties, I know far too much far too well; but
compared to the instability of the current Israeli system...
--
Michael J. Lowrey
poli.sci. geek
Dan Kimmel
"Avedon Carol" <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7q60tt09itlj8kng4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:50:10 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> >> You may not see killing one of the political leaders of the PFLP as an
> >> assassination but the PFLP certainly did, along with a large proportion
> >> of the Palestinian population. Whatever you call it the policy was an
> >> act of utterly reckless stupidity on the part of the Israeli
government,
> >> given that it was nearly inevitable that they would respond in kind (in
> >> their view anyway).
> >
> >So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
> >schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
> >leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
> >sides.
>
> Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
Different point entirely. Yes, we should understand how they see
themselves. But no, we do not have to share in their self-delusions and
rationalizations. Stalin no doubt thought he was a jolly old fellow, too.
Dan Kimmel
At least they realized that direct election of the P.M. was a mistake, and
have done away with that.
Dan Kimmel
"Margaret Young" <mmy...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:9dh0ttor0cr3psler...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:00:38 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Johan Anglemark" <jo...@anglemark.pp.se> wrote in message
> >news:Xns913D7D0B81C81j...@192.9.201.2...
> >> My trusted friend Nancy Lebovitz wrote in msg <9qjibg$c...@netaxs.com>:
> >>
> >> >>Somebody is trying to start a war. The last time a Palestinian
killed
> >> >>an Israeli government official, Israel invaded Lebanon.
> >> >
> >> >My mind reels with paranoid hypotheses--or do people just occasionally
> >> >go nuts when nothing drastic enough has happened lately?
> >>
> >> I don't see that at all. I see a tit-for-tat response to Israeli
> >> premeditated murders of Palestinian big shots. What's so nuts about it?
> >The
> >> Israeli have been doing it for months, why are you so surprised that
the
> >> Palestinians respond in kind?
> >
> >The Israelis target *known* terrorists and they retaliated by killing a
> >tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
> >
>
> Was this not the member of the cabinet who characterized Palestinians
> as "lice". And who had just resigned because he thought the current
> government was too liberal and easy on Palestinians? I got the general
> impression that he was viewed as a real and powerful enemy of the
> Palestinians.
Who was so effective he was given the tourism portfolio. To the terrorists,
*any* Jew is an "enemy."
Nancy Lebovitz
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Margaret Young" <mmy...@umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:9dh0ttor0cr3psler...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:00:38 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
>> >
>> >tourism official, and you don't see the difference?
>>
>> Was this not the member of the cabinet who characterized Palestinians
>> as "lice". And who had just resigned because he thought the current
>> government was too liberal and easy on Palestinians? I got the general
>> impression that he was viewed as a real and powerful enemy of the
>> Palestinians.
>
>Who was so effective he was given the tourism portfolio. To the terrorists,
>*any* Jew is an "enemy."
>
the fellow in charge of it may have more influence than most tourism
ministers. Anyone actually know?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
John Lorentz
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Israel has not engaged in any "assassinations of a number of Palestinian
>politicians." They have targeted actual *terrorists.
According to vague statements released by Israel. It'd be nice if
they released any evidence besides "we know he did it"--like, say, the
US has passed on about bin-Laden to folks like Pakistant, to prove
their case.
(This is, of course, ignoring things like the tendency of the Israeli
Army to randomly shell Palestinean homes. But heck, that 12-year-girl
may have grown up to be a terrorist someday, so let's kill her now.)
"Justice" via assassination doesn't gain a lot of outside support.
--
John
Dan Kimmel
"John Lorentz" <jlor...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:3jp0ttgnjalsqgctb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:54:39 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Israel has not engaged in any "assassinations of a number of Palestinian
> >politicians." They have targeted actual *terrorists.
>
> According to vague statements released by Israel. It'd be nice if
> they released any evidence besides "we know he did it"--like, say, the
> US has passed on about bin-Laden to folks like Pakistant, to prove
> their case.
You mean the way we provided the evidence to the Taliban when they asked for
it? The way it's all been made public so the whole world can judge?
> (This is, of course, ignoring things like the tendency of the Israeli
> Army to randomly shell Palestinean homes. But heck, that 12-year-girl
> may have grown up to be a terrorist someday, so let's kill her now.)
Randomly? Sorry, not in this universe.
> "Justice" via assassination doesn't gain a lot of outside support.
Perhaps if they would ask very nicely -- and do a lot more dying -- Arafat
might condescend to actually keeping the terrorists behind bars instead of
rounding up the usual suspects and then releasing them again?
You need to do a reality check.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:36:51 GMT, Pete McCutchen
> <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
> >>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> >>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> >>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
> >
> >No, but killing them does.
>
> I'm sure that Rehavam Ze'evi is pleased at how effective the targeted
> sanctions against the PFLP have been at causing them to change their
> behavior.
He personally may well not be. On the other hand, I far prefer my
enemy to engage in assassination of government ministers, even
marginal and irrelevant ones, than to blow up pizza restaurants.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Rob Hansen
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
For that individual, yes. But in terms of improving things, targetting
individuals this way is has the same effect as cutting the head off a
hydra.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Joel Rosenberg
> Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:36:51 GMT, Pete McCutchen
> > <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
> > >>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> > >>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> > >>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
> > >
> > >No, but killing them does.
> >
> > I'm sure that Rehavam Ze'evi is pleased at how effective the targeted
> > sanctions against the PFLP have been at causing them to change their
> > behavior.
>
> He personally may well not be.
I don't know about the after-death stuff, but it's no secret that the
Israeli policy is to estimate the effectiveness of its assassination
policy by the number of organizers of terrorist bombings that they
kill, with the notion -- worth examining, certainly -- that there will
be less than a one-to-one replacements of the organizers.
The IDF judges its effectiveness by how many Israeli deaths are
prevented; the terrorists -- if you believe Hamas/Tanzim/IJ
pronouncements, which I do in this -- judge their effectiveness by how
many Jews they kill. The first is a lot harder to measure.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:36:51 GMT, Pete McCutchen
> <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:45:54 +0100, ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
> >>>schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
> >>>leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
> >>>sides.
> >>
> >>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> >>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> >>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
> >
> >No, but killing them does.
>
> For that individual, yes. But in terms of improving things, targetting
> individuals this way is has the same effect as cutting the head off a
> hydra.
> --
That's certainly one view; it's pretty clearly not the view of the US
or the UK governments, which are targetting both individuals and
groups in Afghanistan.
Avedon Carol
So, stupid arguments spawn even stupider ones. That's a kind of
progress, I guess.
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:50:10 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>>> You may not see killing one of the political leaders of the PFLP as an
>>> assassination but the PFLP certainly did, along with a large proportion
>>> of the Palestinian population. Whatever you call it the policy was an
>>> act of utterly reckless stupidity on the part of the Israeli government,
>>> given that it was nearly inevitable that they would respond in kind (in
>>> their view anyway).
>>
>>So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
>>schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
>>leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
>>sides.
>
>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
assasinating them?
Yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties in doing this.
Martin Wisse
--
Space Opera. It's not over until the fat lady explosively
decompresses...
- Matt Ruff, rasfw
Martin Wisse
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"John Lorentz" <jlor...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
>news:3jp0ttgnjalsqgctb...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:54:39 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
>> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Israel has not engaged in any "assassinations of a number of Palestinian
>> >politicians." They have targeted actual *terrorists.
>>
>> According to vague statements released by Israel. It'd be nice if
>> they released any evidence besides "we know he did it"--like, say, the
>> US has passed on about bin-Laden to folks like Pakistant, to prove
>> their case.
>
>You mean the way we provided the evidence to the Taliban when they asked for
>it? The way it's all been made public so the whole world can judge?
Yes, I'm still frustrated about that as well, but at least the US has
shown evidence to their allies, even if it's too complicated for us poor
dim folks to understand and we should let our governments worry about
it.
It's also one of the reasons I'm an opponent of the war waged against
Afghanistan. If you want my support for something, you will have to
convince me first of the merit of your case.
>> (This is, of course, ignoring things like the tendency of the Israeli
>> Army to randomly shell Palestinean homes. But heck, that 12-year-girl
>> may have grown up to be a terrorist someday, so let's kill her now.)
>
>Randomly? Sorry, not in this universe.
Not randomly, I agree. I do believe Israel is not particularly anxious
to cause the deaths of civilians, even Palestinian ones.
however, executions by Apache is going to cause civilian deaths.
>> "Justice" via assassination doesn't gain a lot of outside support.
>
>Perhaps if they would ask very nicely -- and do a lot more dying -- Arafat
>might condescend to actually keeping the terrorists behind bars instead of
>rounding up the usual suspects and then releasing them again?
The trouble is that it seems Israel's policy to keep Aafat and the
Palestinians in limbo on a lot fo things, keeping walking a tight rope
between total repression and a real peace. For the Palestinians there's
no real progress, for the Israelies there are the ongoing attacks.
It's like the Intifadah all over again; that one shining moment when it
seemed the problems of the two people where beginning to get solved,
seems to have disappeared.
Have the Oslo agreements ever been completely realised?
Dan Kimmel
"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:3bd243de...@news.demon.nl...
Begin with: the Palestinian Authority refuses to arrest and extradite them,
but instead gives them support.
As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
Dan Kimmel
Let's see: Israel gave up a so much territory that *most* Palestinians are
now under PA control. They have allowed infrastructure to be built up (like
the PA airport). They have allowed armed Palestinians to take over
policing.
And what have they gotten in return: PA media and schools which continue to
demonize Israel instead of preparing the Palestinians for peace. Suicide
bombings. A convoluted procedural maneuver that permits Arafat to say that
they recognizes Israel's right to exist when the PA charter and other policy
statements continue to say otherwise. A walkout of negotiations when Barak
offered Arafat 98% of the disputed land, and partial control of Jerusalem --
a deal so daring that most of Israel would have had to be convinced to take
it, and one likely never to be repeated; Arafat didn't even make a
counteroffer.
You tell me who is at fault that the peace process got disrailed.
Joel Rosenberg
The Jews, of course. Everybody knows that the promises that Arafat
made were tentative and revocable, whether they were specific -- the
number of armed individuals he'd be allowed, which he's quintupled, or
not putting a PA facility in Jerusalem before final status
negotiations were completed -- or more general, like stopping
terrorism, rather than flicking the switch on and off.
Sheesh.
Randolph Fritz
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:45:54 +0100, ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol)
> wrote:
>>
>>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
>>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
>>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
>
> And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
> as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
> assasinating them?
>
There is no "normal process of justice" when nations are in
conflict. :-(
Randolph
Joel Rosenberg
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:45:54 +0100, ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:50:10 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> ><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"Brett Paul Dunbar" <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> >>> You may not see killing one of the political leaders of the PFLP as an
> >>> assassination but the PFLP certainly did, along with a large proportion
> >>> of the Palestinian population. Whatever you call it the policy was an
> >>> act of utterly reckless stupidity on the part of the Israeli government,
> >>> given that it was nearly inevitable that they would respond in kind (in
> >>> their view anyway).
> >>
> >>So what should Israel do to the people who blow up pizzarias and
> >>schoolbuses, pin medals on them? To call a terrorist thug a "political
> >>leader" is to create an utterly false moral equivalency between the two
> >>sides.
> >
> >Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> >to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> >terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
>
> And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
> as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
> assasinating them?
You mean, like, say, extraditing them? That would require, of course,
an extradition agreement -- see the Oslo accords, which quite
specifically do require the PA to arrest and extradite -- and actual
enforcement of such -- see fantasies, because the PA refuses to
extradite.
Mark Atwood
> mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:
> >
> > And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
> > as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
> > assasinating them?
>
> You mean, like, say, extraditing them? That would require, of course,
> an extradition agreement -- see the Oslo accords, which quite
> specifically do require the PA to arrest and extradite -- and actual
> enforcement of such -- see fantasies, because the PA refuses to
> extradite.
Send them to juvi?
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> writes:
> > mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:
> > >
> > > And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
> > > as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
> > > assasinating them?
> >
> > You mean, like, say, extraditing them? That would require, of course,
> > an extradition agreement -- see the Oslo accords, which quite
> > specifically do require the PA to arrest and extradite -- and actual
> > enforcement of such -- see fantasies, because the PA refuses to
> > extradite.
>
> Send them to juvi?
>
Actually, they do have a history of arresting some, err, "alleged"
terrorists, and letting them go home for lunch, visits, and sleep,
until they're turned loose altogether. (I'm not making this up, you
know...)
That said, punishment for crimes against the PA tends to be a bit
more, err, firm in the PA.
Martin Wisse
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>news:3bd243de...@news.demon.nl...
<...>
>> And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
>> as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
>> assasinating them?
>>
>> Yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties in doing this.
>
>Begin with: the Palestinian Authority refuses to arrest and extradite them,
>but instead gives them support.
Well, yeah.
>As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
Martin Wisse
--
"Check out these HOT lounge chairs do anything but lounge!
Better get that garden hose!"
<http://www.furnitureporn.com>
Dan Kimmel
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:29:45 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
> >news:3bd243de...@news.demon.nl...
>
> <...>
>
> >> And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
> >> as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
> >> assasinating them?
> >>
> >> Yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties in doing this.
> >
> >Begin with: the Palestinian Authority refuses to arrest and extradite
them,
> >but instead gives them support.
>
> Well, yeah.
>
> >As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
>
> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
No, this is a war that has been declared on the civilized world. This
transcends politics, religion, and economics. The closest parallel to this
is piracy on the high seas a couple of centuries ago. We have to make it
clear that NO nation is a safe haven for terrorists. Any nation (including
Cuba, which Bush refuses to talk to because of the anti-Castro Cuban
Republicans in Florida) that is willing to shut down terrorist bases should
be welcome. Any nation that provides them a safe harbor should be seen as
the equivalent of terrorists. When the Taliban is overthrown, the war with
Afghanistan will be over. The war against terrorism ought to continue.
Martin Wisse
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry Dan, but this is so much bullshit.
There is no war against terrorism, nor is it possible to wage a war
against a concept.
Nor does the US in truth wants a war against terrorism. At most, they
want Bin Laden dead, his organisation destroyed and hence to stop a
repeat of the September 11 attacks. If the current mood will allow th
egovernment to settle some grudges (Iraq, Lybia perhaps) that's gravy.
But there won't be bombardments of ETA training camps or Sinn Fein
offices any day soon.
Nor has war been declared on the civilised world. That's pompous,
overwrought rhetoric, not something that's of any matter in this. The
people responsible for the attacks are not after the downfall of
civilisation, they attacked the US because of it's Middle East politics.
They have a specific set of goals, not something grandiose and
ridiculous as the destruction of civilisation.
And not to forget, the west, including the US is not exactly clean with
rregards to terrorist actions either...
Martin Wisse
--
The series makes me think of those websites which keeps
opening new browser windows, and each of those windows
spawns more windows, until the whole system locks up.
Dan Krashin [about the Wheel of Time series]
Martin Wisse
We're not talking nations here though, we're talking about people Israel
has been assasinating, because they're terrorists and criminals.
And we have ben building a normal process of justice between nations.
Vide the International Court of Justice, here in Den Haag.
Yes, this is imperfect. No, this is not a reason to give up on the
concept.
Martin Wisse
--
I'm sick of idiots of all colours, nationalities and ideological
persuasions.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic, RASSEFF.
Dan Kimmel
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:51:59 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
> >
> >No, this is a war that has been declared on the civilized world. This
> >transcends politics, religion, and economics. The closest parallel to
this
> >is piracy on the high seas a couple of centuries ago. We have to make it
> >clear that NO nation is a safe haven for terrorists. Any nation
(including
> >Cuba, which Bush refuses to talk to because of the anti-Castro Cuban
> >Republicans in Florida) that is willing to shut down terrorist bases
should
> >be welcome. Any nation that provides them a safe harbor should be seen
as
> >the equivalent of terrorists. When the Taliban is overthrown, the war
with
> >Afghanistan will be over. The war against terrorism ought to continue.
>
> Sorry Dan, but this is so much bullshit.
Translation: "Sorry Dan, I am unable to refute you logical so I am reduced
to barnyard epithets."
>
> There is no war against terrorism, nor is it possible to wage a war
> against a concept.
One can certainly wage a war against any nation providing safe harbor for
terrorists. We did it against piracy, and piracy is not a major problem of
our sea lanes any more.
> Nor does the US in truth wants a war against terrorism. At most, they
> want Bin Laden dead, his organisation destroyed and hence to stop a
> repeat of the September 11 attacks. If the current mood will allow th
> egovernment to settle some grudges (Iraq, Lybia perhaps) that's gravy.
> But there won't be bombardments of ETA training camps or Sinn Fein
> offices any day soon.
That may be so, but that does not mean a war against terrorism is
impossible, only that there may be a lack of will.
> Nor has war been declared on the civilised world. That's pompous,
> overwrought rhetoric, not something that's of any matter in this. The
> people responsible for the attacks are not after the downfall of
> civilisation, they attacked the US because of it's Middle East politics.
> They have a specific set of goals, not something grandiose and
> ridiculous as the destruction of civilisation.
No, it is a factual statement. The terrorists are, indeed, attacking
Western civilization. What is bin Laden's beef? It's *not* Israel. He
didn't say boo about the Palestinians until recently. This is about the US
having a military base in Saudi Arabia at the *Saudi's* request. This is
because any non-Muslim is seen by these extremists as being "infidels." So
please spare us the empty rhetoric about this being a matter of a political
issue with "a specific set of goals." If this was *merely* about getting
the US out of Saudi Arabia, they might have attacked the base. Flying
planes into buildings on the other side of the world is an act of terrorism,
not a political statement.
> And not to forget, the west, including the US is not exactly clean with
> rregards to terrorist actions either...
Please, spare us the absurd moral equivalencies.
Dan Kimmel
> On 20 Oct 2001 17:59:41 GMT, Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3bd243de...@news.demon.nl>, Martin Wisse wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:45:54 +0100, ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol)
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
> >>>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
> >>>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
> >>
> >> And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
> >> as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
> >> assasinating them?
> >>
> >
> >There is no "normal process of justice" when nations are in
> >conflict. :-(
>
> We're not talking nations here though, we're talking about people Israel
> has been assasinating, because they're terrorists and criminals.
>
> And we have ben building a normal process of justice between nations.
> Vide the International Court of Justice, here in Den Haag.
>
> Yes, this is imperfect. No, this is not a reason to give up on the
> concept.
Yeah, maybe after all the Jews are dead we can reassess, eh?
This is *not* about criminality. If it were, Arafat would be joining forces
with Israel to bring the terrorists to justice. Instead he has made it
perfectly clear that that won't be happening. Your complaint seems to be
that Israel has decided to fight back rather than content itself with
sending a stern letter to the editor of the Times.
Vicki Rosenzweig
23:57:01 GMT:
For some value of "our," maybe--it's a major problem in the waters
off southeast Asia.
>
>> Nor does the US in truth wants a war against terrorism. At most, they
>> want Bin Laden dead, his organisation destroyed and hence to stop a
>> repeat of the September 11 attacks. If the current mood will allow th
>> egovernment to settle some grudges (Iraq, Lybia perhaps) that's gravy.
>> But there won't be bombardments of ETA training camps or Sinn Fein
>> offices any day soon.
>
>That may be so, but that does not mean a war against terrorism is
>impossible, only that there may be a lack of will.
A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an unambiguous
and essentially unbiased definition of terrorism. By unbiased I mean
that the definition shouldn't include the nationality or religion of
either the victims or the terrorists: I shouldn't need to know whether
an incident occurred in New York, Tel Aviv, or Baghdad to know whether
it's an act of terrorism.
>
>> Nor has war been declared on the civilised world. That's pompous,
>> overwrought rhetoric, not something that's of any matter in this. The
>> people responsible for the attacks are not after the downfall of
>> civilisation, they attacked the US because of it's Middle East politics.
>> They have a specific set of goals, not something grandiose and
>> ridiculous as the destruction of civilisation.
>
>No, it is a factual statement. The terrorists are, indeed, attacking
>Western civilization. What is bin Laden's beef? It's *not* Israel. He
>didn't say boo about the Palestinians until recently. This is about the US
>having a military base in Saudi Arabia at the *Saudi's* request. This is
>because any non-Muslim is seen by these extremists as being "infidels." So
>please spare us the empty rhetoric about this being a matter of a political
>issue with "a specific set of goals." If this was *merely* about getting
>the US out of Saudi Arabia, they might have attacked the base. Flying
>planes into buildings on the other side of the world is an act of terrorism,
>not a political statement.
Careful, here. Yes, bin Laden and his supporters are barbarians: but
you're coming close to defining "civilization" as "Western, non-Islamic"
culture. It's not that simple: there are civilized Muslims, and
barbarians in the West.
>
>
>> And not to forget, the west, including the US is not exactly clean with
>> rregards to terrorist actions either...
>
>Please, spare us the absurd moral equivalencies.
>
I think it's my turn to translate as "I can't refute, so I'll throw
a few choice adjectives in." Where was the war on terrorism when a
US-backed regime murdered innocent people in the streets of Washington?
If we're serious about rooting out terrorism, we have to realize that
it doesn't always speak Arabic, or attack Westerners.
To say that we are not entirely pure isn't to say that you or I are
as bad as Al-Qaeda; but to say that you and I are not bin Laden is not
to say that the US government has never supported or condoned
terrorism. We call it "paramilitaries," or "anti-insurgency," but
there's little practical difference to the people whose villages are
destroyed because someone thinks they might have the wrong sympathies.
We didn't call it "terrorism" when "disappear" became a transitive
verb in Latin America, because the governments in power called
themselves anti-Communists.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Joel Rosenberg
> A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an unambiguous
> and essentially unbiased definition of terrorism.
Why is that required, rather than preferable?
Keith F. Lynch
> Where was the war on terrorism when a US-backed regime murdered
> innocent people in the streets of Washington?
Who? What? When? Where?
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Dan Kimmel
"Vicki Rosenzweig" <v...@redbird.org> wrote in message
news:fv74ttk6hnv53ad92...@4ax.com...
> Quoth "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> on Sat, 20 Oct 2001
> 23:57:01 GMT:
>
> >
> >"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
> >news:3bdff115...@news.demon.nl...
> >> Nor has war been declared on the civilised world. That's pompous,
Yes, there are civilized Muslims. Of course. Some of them even are able to
condemn terrorism without a whole bunch of qualifiers. As for Muslim
nations, if we you substitute "democratic" to "civilized" I would love to
hear about them. As for "barbarians in the West," Pat Buchanan aside, who
did you have in mind?
> >> And not to forget, the west, including the US is not exactly clean with
> >> rregards to terrorist actions either...
> >
> >Please, spare us the absurd moral equivalencies.
> >
> I think it's my turn to translate as "I can't refute, so I'll throw
> a few choice adjectives in." Where was the war on terrorism when a
> US-backed regime murdered innocent people in the streets of Washington?
The streets of Washington? Terrorism? Have you mistyped a word here or are
redefining them to the point of meaninglessness?
> If we're serious about rooting out terrorism, we have to realize that
> it doesn't always speak Arabic, or attack Westerners.
No argument there. But now lets here what nations outside of the Middle
East are harboring terrrorists. Sudan, Libya, and Somalia are more African
than Middle Eastern, and Sudan (odious as the slavemongering regime is) is
taking steps against terrorist bases there. North Korea? Cuba? Given your
sweeping generalizations, it would help if you could come up with a *few*
facts.
> To say that we are not entirely pure isn't to say that you or I are
> as bad as Al-Qaeda; but to say that you and I are not bin Laden is not
> to say that the US government has never supported or condoned
> terrorism. We call it "paramilitaries," or "anti-insurgency," but
> there's little practical difference to the people whose villages are
> destroyed because someone thinks they might have the wrong sympathies.
> We didn't call it "terrorism" when "disappear" became a transitive
> verb in Latin America, because the governments in power called
> themselves anti-Communists.
So your argument is essential this: because the US back odious regimes in
Chile and El Salvador, are hands are now so dirty that we are unable to lead
a fight against terrorism?
My response is that a.) our actions in those nations was wrong and we should
not be surprised if people *there* hate us and b.) our actions had nothing
to do with "terrorism."
Avram Grumer
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
Because otherwise it's not a War On Terrorism, but a War On Whoever The
Government Feels Like Fighting Today.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er va ivbyngvba bs gur Qvtvgny Zvyyraavhz
Pbclevtug Npg.
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <ur8rxi...@winternet.com>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> writes:
> >
> > > A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an unambiguous
> > > and essentially unbiased definition of terrorism.
> >
> > Why is that required, rather than preferable?
>
> Because otherwise it's not a War On Terrorism, but a War On Whoever The
> Government Feels Like Fighting Today.
>
> --
Why is that necessarily so?
Nancy Lebovitz
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>>
>> >As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
>>
>> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
>
possibly your canonical examples for each, and some sketch of
where the boundary between them is?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Joel Rosenberg
I think we're faced, in much of this, with gray areas and "I know it
when I see it", and that's the sort of thing that people can honestly
disagree about -- just as people can honestly feel (as some do) that
it's okay for the US Federal government to send in masked police to
kick in somebody's door because that somebody is believed not to have
paid a $200 tax.
Avram Grumer
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>
> > In article <ur8rxi...@winternet.com>,
> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an
> > > > unambiguous and essentially unbiased definition of terrorism.
> > >
> > > Why is that required, rather than preferable?
> >
> > Because otherwise it's not a War On Terrorism, but a War On Whoever
> > The Government Feels Like Fighting Today.
>
> Why is that necessarily so?
How could it be otherwise? How could you distinguish between the two
cases without having a good definition of terrorism?
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <uadyl8...@winternet.com>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> >
> > > In article <ur8rxi...@winternet.com>,
> > > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an
> > > > > unambiguous and essentially unbiased definition of terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > Why is that required, rather than preferable?
> > >
> > > Because otherwise it's not a War On Terrorism, but a War On Whoever
> > > The Government Feels Like Fighting Today.
> >
> > Why is that necessarily so?
>
> How could it be otherwise? How could you distinguish between the two
> cases without having a good definition of terrorism?
>
> --
Imperfectly, of course -- with the check on the government being not a
dictionary, or a formal definition, but the electorate.
Randolph Fritz
>
> Imperfectly, of course -- with the check on the government being not a
> dictionary, or a formal definition, but the electorate.
>
This, I am sure, will work as well as the electorate's restraint on
the abuses of police power in the USA. :-( And that's people
responding to mistreatment of their own.
No. If any justice system is to be respected as just, we must do
justice, and be seen to do justice. And that means things like
writing laws, and explaining them, and having courts that are
trustworthy.
It is interesting how, as soon as we start trying to frame this as a
problem of crime control, we are drawn to the discussion of
international governance.
Randolph
Avram Grumer
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>
> > In article <uadyl8...@winternet.com>,
> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > In article <ur8rxi...@winternet.com>,
> > > > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an
> > > > > > unambiguous and essentially unbiased definition of
> > > > > > terrorism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is that required, rather than preferable?
> > > >
> > > > Because otherwise it's not a War On Terrorism, but a War On
> > > > Whoever The Government Feels Like Fighting Today.
> > >
> > > Why is that necessarily so?
> >
> > How could it be otherwise? How could you distinguish between the
> > two cases without having a good definition of terrorism?
>
> Imperfectly, of course -- with the check on the government being not
> a dictionary, or a formal definition, but the electorate.
...which will be split between the people who say "That's not terrorism,
we need to stop" and "Hey, why don't we do something about this
terrorism over here" and "Hey, now we're engaging in terrorism of our
own" and "You folks all shut up and let our wise president do what's
best," and none of them having any basis for pointing to the beginning
of the War On Terrorism and saying "Hey, _that's_ what we were talking
about when we started down this path" because it wasn't defined.
It's the "essentially unbiased" part of Vicki's post that I'm most
interested in. I think our government's current standard for terrorism
is largely dependent on who's committing it.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>But now lets here what nations outside of the Middle
>East are harboring terrrorists.
Great Britain?
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>In article <zBkA7.76739$WW.38...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>>news:3bd9c878...@news.demon.nl...
>>>
>>> >As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
>>>
>>> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
>>
>Would you guys care to give your definitions for crime and war? Or
>possibly your canonical examples for each, and some sketch of
>where the boundary between them is?
War is something that's done between nations, or reasonable equivalents
of nations. Not between a nation and a small terrorist group.
The reason I think of the attacks of 11-SEP-2001 as crime, instead of an
act of war, is simply because we've, for the most part, always treated
terrorism as a crime.
Furthermore, I think to use the terminology of war for this, is
unhelpful in stopping terrorism.
Martin Wisse
--
What most blocking software does best is take up room on your hard drive
and interfere in a random way with your web-browsing.
--Avram Grumer, rasseff.
David G. Bell
<hboA7.147279$W8.37...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
dan.k...@worldnet.att.net "Dan Kimmel" wrote:
> One can certainly wage a war against any nation providing safe harbor for
> terrorists. We did it against piracy, and piracy is not a major problem of
> our sea lanes any more.
It's still rather more common than you might think. Parts of the
African coast, the sea routes past Singapore and into the South China
Sea, places like that.
There aren't the pirates with ships who could take on a treasure ship
from the Indies, or the organised bands who could do what Drake and
Morgan did. The last vestiges of that scale of piracy were the Barbary
States of North Africa, which I suppose are what you were referring to,
and perhaps Chinese waters between the World Wars of the last century.
What's interesting is the speed with which Britain went from being a
country which supported the Caribbean pirates against Spain to being one
of the countries which hunted down pirates. It was partly European
politics -- Spain was no longer _the_ superpower -- and partly a change
in the world beyond the Line. Some of the pirates moved into the Indian
Ocean, but the world had changed.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
The singer who is no longer, and no shorter, than he was last week. He's
about the same length in his stocking moolies.
Martin Wisse
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>news:3bdff115...@news.demon.nl...
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:51:59 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
>> >>
>> >> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
>> >
>> >No, this is a war that has been declared on the civilized world. This
>> >transcends politics, religion, and economics. The closest parallel to
>this
>> >is piracy on the high seas a couple of centuries ago. We have to make it
>> >clear that NO nation is a safe haven for terrorists. Any nation
>(including
>> >Cuba, which Bush refuses to talk to because of the anti-Castro Cuban
>> >Republicans in Florida) that is willing to shut down terrorist bases
>should
>> >be welcome. Any nation that provides them a safe harbor should be seen
>as
>> >the equivalent of terrorists. When the Taliban is overthrown, the war
>with
>> >Afghanistan will be over. The war against terrorism ought to continue.
>>
>> Sorry Dan, but this is so much bullshit.
>
>Translation: "Sorry Dan, I am unable to refute you logical so I am reduced
>to barnyard epithets."
Nu-uh. If it was that, that would've been the only part of my post. But
honestly, I cannot see how a supposedly intelligent person can say the
above *and* keep a straight face.
It was stupid when it came out of Bush mouth, it's stupid now.
>> There is no war against terrorism, nor is it possible to wage a war
>> against a concept.
>
>One can certainly wage a war against any nation providing safe harbor for
>terrorists. We did it against piracy, and piracy is not a major problem of
>our sea lanes any more.
Wanna bet?
Clue: take a look at the South Chinese Sea, or the Indonesian archipelo,
or the Philipines.
>> Nor does the US in truth wants a war against terrorism. At most, they
>> want Bin Laden dead, his organisation destroyed and hence to stop a
>> repeat of the September 11 attacks. If the current mood will allow th
>> egovernment to settle some grudges (Iraq, Lybia perhaps) that's gravy.
>> But there won't be bombardments of ETA training camps or Sinn Fein
>> offices any day soon.
>
>That may be so, but that does not mean a war against terrorism is
>impossible, only that there may be a lack of will.
There will always be a lack of will, a desire to only go after the
current shitlist.
And you know, nations are not entirely agreed on who is a terrorist or
not... Whose definitions do you use?
I'm betting you wouldn't want Sharon frex being considered a terrorist
to wage war on... Should the US attack France too, for having commited
terrorist acts in New Zealand? Ireland harbours terrorists too, you
know, and guess where lots of their support came and comes from?
Contras, those were surely terrorists, better bomb Reagan's current
mansion too!
>> Nor has war been declared on the civilised world. That's pompous,
>> overwrought rhetoric, not something that's of any matter in this. The
>> people responsible for the attacks are not after the downfall of
>> civilisation, they attacked the US because of it's Middle East politics.
>> They have a specific set of goals, not something grandiose and
>> ridiculous as the destruction of civilisation.
>
>No, it is a factual statement. The terrorists are, indeed, attacking
>Western civilization. What is bin Laden's beef? It's *not* Israel. He
>didn't say boo about the Palestinians until recently. This is about the US
>having a military base in Saudi Arabia at the *Saudi's* request. This is
>because any non-Muslim is seen by these extremists as being "infidels." So
>please spare us the empty rhetoric about this being a matter of a political
>issue with "a specific set of goals." If this was *merely* about getting
>the US out of Saudi Arabia, they might have attacked the base. Flying
>planes into buildings on the other side of the world is an act of terrorism,
>not a political statement.
It's both. And it's still not an attack on the whole of Western
civilisation, as you admit yourself in the above. You yourself say he
has specific goals in mind and is working to realise those goals.
Incidently, he has attacked US bases in Saudi Arabia, hasn't he?
but more to the point, clearly Bin Laden did think that attacking the
WTC and the Pentagon would help him in his goal. There are a few
assumptions we in rasseff have been hashing out ever since the attacks,
about how that could be. Perhaps he wanted to draw the US in a long,
tedious war in the Middle East, perhaps he was inspired by Somalia.
>> And not to forget, the west, including the US is not exactly clean with
>> rregards to terrorist actions either...
>
>Please, spare us the absurd moral equivalencies.
Not so absurd in the context on a "war on terrorism". Even apart from
the fact that there are people pissed off about the US attacks on
Serbia, Iraq and Sudan, there have been US sponsored terrorists and the
US has at least overthrown one democratic elected government by the use
of violence...
Martin Wisse
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.--Charles Babbage
Martin Wisse
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>news:3be0f3c1...@news.demon.nl...
>> On 20 Oct 2001 17:59:41 GMT, Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3bd243de...@news.demon.nl>, Martin Wisse wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:45:54 +0100, ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Doesn't matter; if you're going to deal with the other side, you need
>> >>>to know how they perceive themselves. Calling them criminals or
>> >>>terrorists doesn't change how they are going to behave.
>> >>
>> >> And if you call them criminals, doesn't it follow you should treat them
>> >> as such, hence submit them to the normal process of justice, instead of
>> >> assasinating them?
>> >>
>> >
>> >There is no "normal process of justice" when nations are in
>> >conflict. :-(
>>
>> We're not talking nations here though, we're talking about people Israel
>> has been assasinating, because they're terrorists and criminals.
>>
>> And we have ben building a normal process of justice between nations.
>> Vide the International Court of Justice, here in Den Haag.
>>
>> Yes, this is imperfect. No, this is not a reason to give up on the
>> concept.
>
>Yeah, maybe after all the Jews are dead we can reassess, eh?
Dan, honey, have a little clue please.
David G. Bell
jo...@winternet.com "Joel Rosenberg" wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
>
> > In article <uadyl8...@winternet.com>,
> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > In article <ur8rxi...@winternet.com>,
> > > > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A war against terrorism would require, at minimum, an
> > > > > > unambiguous and essentially unbiased definition of terrorism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is that required, rather than preferable?
> > > >
> > > > Because otherwise it's not a War On Terrorism, but a War On Whoever
> > > > The Government Feels Like Fighting Today.
> > >
> > > Why is that necessarily so?
> >
> > How could it be otherwise? How could you distinguish between the two
> > cases without having a good definition of terrorism?
> >
> > --
>
> Imperfectly, of course -- with the check on the government being not a
> dictionary, or a formal definition, but the electorate.
Florida, Mr. Rosenberg, Florida.
Mike Scott
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
Wars are conflicts between soverign states. If Israel wants to go to war
with Palestine, they have to recognise it as a state first (they don't
necessarily have to recognise the PA as its legitimate government,
however). Until they do so, whatever they choose to do in those
territories is a police action, not a war.
--
Mike Scott
mi...@plokta.com
Mike Scott
Shall we start by retroactively annulling the outcomes of such terrorist
actions as the US War of Independence and the founding of the state of
Israel, so as not to encourage others to think that terrorists can
achieve their aims?
--
Mike Scott
mi...@plokta.com
Janet Kegg
>Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>> Where was the war on terrorism when a US-backed regime murdered
>> innocent people in the streets of Washington?
>
>Who? What? When? Where?
Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffat were murdered on 21 September 1976
when the car they were in exploded as it was going around Sheridan
Circle in northwest DC. Letelier was a former Allende government
official. He and Moffat were employees of the Institute for Policy
Studies. The car bombing was the work of Pinochet's agents.
-- Janet
Janet Kegg
<w3qA7.134391$3d2.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Dan
Kimmel wrote:
>
>"Vicki Rosenzweig" <v...@redbird.org> wrote in message
>news:fv74ttk6hnv53ad92...@4ax.com...
>> I think it's my turn to translate as "I can't refute, so I'll throw
>> a few choice adjectives in." Where was the war on terrorism when a
>> US-backed regime murdered innocent people in the streets of Washington?
>
>The streets of Washington? Terrorism? Have you mistyped a word here or are
>redefining them to the point of meaninglessness?
Sheridan Circle in Washington DC, the neighborhood of embassies. The
assassination of Orlando Letelier (former Chilean ambassador to US
under Allende) by car bomb 25 years ago was a terrorist act by the
Pinochet government. Also killed was Ronni Moffit (whose name I got
wrong in my other response).
Details at http://www.tni.org/pinochet/index.htm
-- Janet
Avedon Carol
wrote:
Is this some kind of a joke, Joel?
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>In article <zBkA7.76739$WW.38...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>>news:3bd9c878...@news.demon.nl...
>>>
>>> >As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
>>>
>>> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
>>
>Would you guys care to give your definitions for crime and war? Or
>possibly your canonical examples for each, and some sketch of
>where the boundary between them is?
Crime is where you're supposed to give up your civil rights to protect
the children. War is when you're supposed to give up your civil
rights (and possibly your children) to show how patriotic you are.
It's simple, really.
Avedon Carol
Wisse) wrote:
>On 21 Oct 2001 03:14:07 GMT, na...@unix1.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <zBkA7.76739$WW.38...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
>>>news:3bd9c878...@news.demon.nl...
>>>>
>>>> >As with bin Laden, this is not about crime, but about war.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with that. It is about crime, not war.
>>>
>>Would you guys care to give your definitions for crime and war? Or
>>possibly your canonical examples for each, and some sketch of
>>where the boundary between them is?
>
>War is something that's done between nations, or reasonable equivalents
>of nations. Not between a nation and a small terrorist group.
>
>The reason I think of the attacks of 11-SEP-2001 as crime, instead of an
>act of war, is simply because we've, for the most part, always treated
>terrorism as a crime.
>
>Furthermore, I think to use the terminology of war for this, is
>unhelpful in stopping terrorism.
No, but it's bloody helpful in whipping up a lot of flag-waving and
putting us on a permanent war footing and letting the media pretend
they are being patriotic (rather than merely partisan) by talking
about the unelected Bush as if he were something other than a buffoon,
and making excuses for passing even more outrageous legislation that
funnels tax money ear-marked for the use of The People over to fat cat
arms manufacturers. Oh, yeah, and it's a fine way to explain away the
fact that we are again openly playing patty-cake with a number of
repressive, corrupt governments.
In short order, the hard-liners in Pakistan will very possibly
overthrow the current government, and then we'll discover we have a
nuclear power against us. A nuclear power run by crazy people.
Bombing Kabul was a stupid idea. Calling for bombing and war was a
stupid idea. None of this is going to make New Yorkers any safer.
None of this is going to reduce terrorism - if anything, it can only
exacerbate the problem.
And the rabbit keeps right on smirking. And why shouldn't he?
Whoever flew those planes into the WTC gave him just what he needed to
make people afraid to mention that he doesn't belong in the White
House and is making things worse for the US every single day. New
York's - and America's - tragedy is Bush's triumph.
_That_ is why it's a "war" and not just crime.