What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

First, thanks for admitting in the other thread that I made my point. The fact that Israel has a history of collective punishment against other people is important to understanding how people respond to Israel in recent times, regardless of what historical or theological issues relate to the area in general. I find this highly ironic. Israel was formed by an admittedly imperialist movement called Zionism, which is directly related to a faction of extreme Jewish fundamentalism.The indigenous population was amenable to jews living and working there and had been for a very long time. There were squabbles but nothing huge.Then the Zionist movement, backed by the British gov't (solidified after a terrorist campaign by Zionists against the British territorial occupiers), formed an empire by cutting arbitrary borders to achieve a ruling minority within a portion of the region. This was not an act of coexistence, and was in the face of calls for coexistence by others.It inherently disenfranchized all nonjews inside this new "realm" and outside, cutting off families and property with no regard of its practical impact.If you actually believe in freedom and democracy, then Israel should be anathema to you. It was a fundamentalist racial/religious state imposed by fiat on a diverse population over the will of the majority there.It is no wonder that they responded badly to this, and continue to find it upsetting, especially in light of US propaganda that we are "for" democracy and freedom. What we have shown in practice is that we are for them knuckling under to whatever Israel wants.I am not suggesting that this makes terrorism acceptable as a response. Just that not all anti Israeli actions are terrorist in nature or connected to some fundamentalist Islamic activity. Palestinians in specific (and now the Lebanese) have some very legitimate gripes, some we'd be more than willing to use violence to solve if it happened to us.And on the flipside, Israel is the direct product of a religious fundamentalist movement which used terrorism in its campaign to achieve statehood, and at least on the local level (putting aside the question of state terrorism) continues to engage in terrorist actions against nonIsraelis (and it should be noted they sometimes harm nonjews within Israel).The settler movement in specific contains especially rabid elements, who have even killed Jewish Israeli leaders who have defied their will to expand their god given empire. It was they, and not Palestinians, who commited the first large scale massacre in the region, including suicide attacks and bombings. It was they, and not the Palestinians, who murdered the Israeli PM because a peace agreement had been reached and an end to the violence was in sight.These are the facts Faith. If you do not understand this, then you need to read more history (including recent history). You can even read stuff written by the Zionist leaders themselves like Sharon, Yahu, or the neoconservatives in Washington who advocated an aggresive pro Israeli stance. They discuss their own imperialist plans openly.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument with you. Members of the zionist movement and its supporters have called it an empire, which denotes an imperialist attitude. If you want to call it something else then fine, I'm not stuck on the term imperialism. But the facts on the ground remain.There is about 0 difference between the rabid zionist movements and the rabid Islamic movements... except that zionists want to impose their will on an area where they were not and are not the practical majority population.And the size of Israel is not the question. Its about activities, not the size of the region covered which determines "imperialist" agendas.On the flipside you keep calling me a leftist, and using leftist descriptions, which is a total misuse of that terminology. I am NOT a leftist. I am quite conservative on some issues, most especially the ones that impact this particular issue. Well, I personally agree with that statement, with the exception that I want to live in a nation that is a democratic republic, and will work to support that form of gov't for wherever I am living. I do believe that it is one of the more practical forms of gov't.But what does that have to do with my point? I said that Israel is NOT a true democracy and so people in the region are upset because the US claims to be advancing that in the region by aiding Israel over their own interests. Heck, we are now down to having invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy and use Israel as the example of the "sole democracy" in the region. Its blatant hypocrisy and you didn't deal with that point.Contrary to democratic ideals, Israel denied peaceful majority rule in order to form the nation and acquire new lands to stretch its borders. Oh wait, that must be one of my unfounded assertions.You know for all of your claims to have read so much, and statements about how I only make unsupported claims, you have yet to cite ONE source for any of your statements. In fact, when challenged on a single claim of mine in the other thread I managed to prove to you quite sufficiently that I did have evidence to back it, which means YOU WERE WRONG. You don't think I have plenty to support my claims here?But I'm not going to make it that easy. I'm throwing the gauntlet to you first.I have claimed that the state of Israel was imposed on an indigenous population that vastly outnumbered Jews residing there. The indigenous population was not averse to living with jews or forming a singular nation with jews. It was zionists who demanded that a nation be formed to their demands with them alone as its controllers, and at times engaged in terrorist actions to achieve that end.Forming Israel involved the intentional parsing of land so that Jews would have a contiguous area where they were a voting majority that would be maintained as such.This parsing disenfranchised the local populations by splitting families and property with no respect for their practical welfare. Non jews inside Israel were forced into the position of voting minority in lands they in reality outnumbered jews. Those outside Israel lost ability to move and conduct family/business as they had for centuries and were forced to choose between a split land with little power, or statelessness.Afterward more land has been grabbed by settler movements, members of which have harmed Palestinians and Israelis alike, whatever is needed to grow Israel to what they view as its proper borders. This included murdering an Israeli PM they viewed as a traitor because he had signed peace accords which looked like they were going to work, but cost them land they wanted to expand into.You dissed all of the above claims as unsupported finger waving leftist propaganda. YOU put your money where your mouth is! Show your sources, with quotes, that refute these claims, or rather support your own version of history and politics of Israel. Given that I was challenging your claims to start with that would make sense anyway.I am particularly disturbed that you are trying to pass off the assination of the Israeli PM by hardcore zionists as being some flaky assertion of mine. Its pretty damn well documented, including by Israelis. In fact it was mentioned by Israelis within the last couple years when Sharon came under the same threat for ceding territory. 1) They don't have that kind of firepower. They can't invade small portions of Lebanon without an influx of more missiles from the US. I mean in case you didn't hear, while all of this is going on we are continuing to arm the Israelis so they can continue their attacks.Heck, Israel can't maintain its status as occupier of the Palestinian territories without US support. It has long been standing on the shoulders of the US giant.2) They don't have the people power for such an agenda. At least the British could claim some sort of large population at home as well as reason for influence (trade and naval power which could injure trade of others). That is they could exert influence by themselves and had reason to expand. Israel has enough problems trying to maintain a majority population within its ever increasing borders, as small as they are, and has NOTHING to offer the region such that they could exert some sort of "charismatic" influence.I can't believe you are trying to argue that because they haven't wiped out their neighbors they must have benign intentions. They have been oppressing the indigenous population from the inception of Israel and have taken territories and assets (like water) according to their own desires, over the practical welfare of everyone else. Prove it. You and Buz have both been saying things which have NO resemblance to what I have learned about that region, and so far you both keep getting proven wrong. Time for you to put up or shut up on the above facts.I should say your claim to having read a bit stands in stark contrast to your recent admission you haven't researched much detail about Israel, in order to excuse your last mistake.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Terrorism is worldwide. That's the first fact. It is not limited to Islamic fundamentalists. That is the second. It is not capable of toppling the US or taking it over. That is the third.There is a very real danger posed by certain Islamic extremists at this time. But there are still other threats in this world, and indeed much greater ones. NK and China pose significant security issues and they have little to do with terrorism or Islam.On the home front I face more challenges to my person from Xian fundamentalists peaceful or not, than Islamic terrorists.The problem is that people like you seem not to be able to put the threat into realistic terms, and spread it out to cover all of Islam, rather than specific portions where the real threat comes from. Uhhhhh... I haven't given shit to any Islamic terrorist. The only one asking for appeasement and getting it is the Bush administration, usually by convincing the voting public through blind misinterpretation of facts.Who has gained real power over the last 6 years? The presidency. Who has taken away freedoms long held as sacred to conservatives? The President.Sorry but you have the wrong analogy, with the exception that Hitler did use fear of other people (in this case Jews and Poles and...) to convince a gullible german public they needed to give him as much power as it took to protect them.By the way, post 201 is also for you and calls on you to actually provide evidence you have factual evidence for your position.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

And you are choosing a very select group of interpretations, rather than the widest held interpretation. Why do you ignore the larger group telling you what they hold Islam to be, and insist on using what more radical elements say as well as detractors of Islam itself? Yes, when dealing with militant muslim fundamentalists, just as it is important to understand what Xian and Jewish militant fundamentalists say when we are discussing them. The problem is that you equate the militant fundamentalists with the majority of Islam and indeed help propagate their claims that they embody true Islam. 1) Evidence for this claim. I don't remember Khomeini ever making such a statement.
2) While he may CLAIM to be reading it literally, that's an easy claim to make and he might not be. How would you know as you have already admitted you can't interpret it literally and rely on others to do so?
3) The fact that many did not follow Khomeini and do not now, and in fact wars were fought between his followers and others directly inside of Iran, not to mention outside of it, sort of squashes your claim that his reading is thought "literal" by muslims in general. I mean some do but not all or the majority. Its like me saying to you the Pope tells me what the Bible literally says so I know what Xians and you as a Xian must believe. Yes it would. Once you calm down and understand that there are different interpretations you can stop villifying Islam in such a broad sense and deal with the activities of militant Islamic fundamentalists in specific. That would allow you and others like you to build sound policies which aid moderate muslims rather than alienate them and so increase recruitment to the more radical elements. You are out of touch with reality. While Israel has been the victim of terrorism, so have the Palestinians and others in the region. There really are such thing as Zionist terrorist groups who kill muslims. In fact they set the trend before we had Islamic terrorists.In any case the real victims in the region are the people who were disenfranchised by the creation of Israel, and then forced to live under an occupation for decades (and still do so). The idea that we (and they) should envision Israel as some benign put upon entity whose demands should be met at all costs is an absurdist hypocrisy that no one is going to swallow... except diehard Israeli apologists in the US and Israel.Its simply not going to happen and the sooner you wake up and deal with the reality on the ground the better. Your kind of attitude is what is perpetuating the problem.Witness the current conflict in Lebanon. Hezbollah was no doubt the instigator, but they originally attacked only military personnel and even as this war has escalated to civilian populations have killed a total of 74 people, the majority (44) being soldiers. On the flipside Israel "responded" to Hezbollah by initially targeting civilian infrastructure, and continues to pummel civilians despite increasing numbers of outrageous tragedies that would have already resulted in UN condemnation except for US's veto power. Israel has killed 550 people, 500 being civilians.That you could look at such stats and then claim that people should feel Israel is innocent and blame Hezbollah and the Lebanese as the CAUSE of the ongoing misery is bizarre on its face.Israel needs to react in ways that recognizes the FACT that it is going to be neighbors with these people after the fighting is over. All this does is create new generations of people with legitimate problems with the state of Israel. I will plug my posts, numbers 201 and 203. There I asked you to provide evidence for your claims regarding Israel. If you don't understand its history, you can't tell others how they should view it or its policies. The second post addresses mr hanson's views, or at least your conclusions drawn from his remarks.And by the way Judaism has nothing to do with Israel. Israel is a nation. While it was created and operated by a radical militant wing of Jewish fundamentalism, and enjoys the support of many within the Jewish community, it is not synonymous with the religion nor approved of by all Jews. There are large numbers who feel its institution was against the principles of Judaism, or just plain an impractical ideological driven plan. Thus being anti Israel is not synonymous with being anti Jewish at all.Further, being critical of its policies is not synonymous with being anti Israel or anti Jewish. Israeli Jews have been openly critical of its policies. Like any nation, it will have some diversity of opinion even among its supporters.Thus heaping such condemnations on its critics, or additionally claiming that they must be supporting terrorist agendas, is pretty unrealistic. If peace is your true aim then perhaps you ought to be starting with questions of who wants it and under what conditions, and finding those that are willing to compromise (and you be willing to compromise) to find acceptable solutions, rather then claiming everyone needs to bow down to Israel.Edited by holmes, : put in someEdited by holmes, : putting in the cause

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Last two replies of yours are answered in this one... If your point is that militant fundamentalists believe they follow the only true literal interpretation of the Quran, that this interpretation promotes violence against all enemies, and that it is likely impossible for us to convince them otherwise then I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. I know I wouldn't.The problem only occurs when you extend commentary to suggest that the terrorists do in fact hold the only true literal interpretation, which is both inaccurate, counterproductive, and insulting. Here is an example... In that quote you explicitly claim that only the terrorists hold the true literal interpretation, your evidence apparently being references to quotes by extremists. That begs the question... do the extremists actually hold the true literal interpretation? Their popularity or threat to competitors does not justify any conclusions regarding that question Why you insist on extending your arguments that far is not clear.On the question of correct interpretations I am left puzzled why you keep acting as if I am trying to whitewash Islam. Why would I care? If the Quran said people should kill others and take over the world I'd be more than happy to point that out. It is not my religion, and peaceful or not in intent it still undercuts many of my own beliefs and so is an antagonist to me personally. Interestingly enough I was pointing out the mistake of supporting Islamic militants back when Republicans (like Reagan and Bush Sr) were saying how wonderful they were (to fight atheism) and trained them in tactics they are using against us today.I think that's a key point here. I recognized the threat posed by Islamic militants back when many Republicans thought they were allies and downplayed their explicitly violent rhetoric as somehow helpful to us. Their threat remains the same today, and I still criticize them as I did in the past. I'm just not willing to make statements that are not factually true about Islam because I don't need to in order to address the threat. Okay, there are some problems. First of all he appears to be addressing pacifism mentioned directly within the Quran and that it is a popular subject among mullahs, which means Islam is not devoid of such concepts. He is indicating that there are other verses and history which allow for violent action, and in the full quote is shown to be discussing how it is to be applied to enemies, most specifically criminals. This reads exactly like Xian fundies who argue with pacifists among their ranks that war and executions are compatible with Xianity.Second, if it is true he said this and meant it as a call to change Islam into an aggressive forward moving worldwide violent campaign (Quran says kill and imprison, rather than Quran says kill and imprison those who have transgressed against you) it does not suggest why his reading should be considered literal.Third, this is trusting translation to a source that is less than unbiased. I have no idea if this is actually attributable to him or is an accurate translation. Looking over the site I found pages like this and this which contain gross factual errors and clearly biased commentary with no sources to back them up.You repeatedly criticized me for making comments without backing them up... where are their sources? On that note...I tried to discuss the divergent causes for terrorism against Israel and the US based on the history of Israel. You simply asserted my claims were false. I then repeated my version and challenged you to prove that that your version of Israeli history and roots of violence their are accurate using sources.If your criticisms are good enough for me they are good enough for you. Find factual sources to back up your whitewashed version of Israeli history or admit you are blowing smoke on the issue. I already proved you wrong in the other thread and I can do so again.Like I said, you appear to be in such denial you are unwilling to admit zionists murdered an Israeli PM to disrail a peace plan that was showing progress. Even Israelis are straightforward that this occured. What appeasement? Please point this out. I was against the Mujhadeen when Reagan and Bush supported them with US tax dollars. I was against the Taliban when Bush and Cheney were making deals with them. I fully agreed with a war in Afghanistan except in how it has been carried out which is NOT TO COMPLETION.I was against the war in Iraq primarily because it weakened our position against AQ by diverting resources and increased the power of fundamentalists, particularly Iranian supported fundamentalists which you seem to have a problem with yourself. Since we did go to war I am hoping something good can come out of it for the Iraqi people (after all I was against our support for Saddam in the first place) and I don't think we should pull our troops out until a stable gov't is achieved.Thus you can't peg me as some pacifist liberal, and especially not as an appeaser. If you have some support for that claim then give it. Otherwise take it back. It doesn't. Repeatedly suggesting violent interpretations are the correct literal interpretation alienates potential allies and leads to poor resolution of the conflicts we are facing.You also cannot win this by claiming force must be used and Israel is blameless. While force will likely be necessary there must be boundaries on that force. All possible action is not practical and indeed is not legal. Israel has crossed those lines repeatedly. Whether you want to admit it or not they are STILL in violation of multiple UN resolutions dating back years, and have broken int'l law repeatedly in the Lebanese conflict. I pointed out how it is driven by more than just politics and religious ideology, and by rather practical/personal issues. The indiscriminate nature of Israeli responses, and policies of collective punishment (which I PROVED to you exist) lead to real anger and legitimate motivation for retaliation. How will they kill me? ??? Israel is not the victim when it kills 10 times more innocent people than its attackers, and in addition has targeted civilian infrastructure which acts as collective punishment.It was certainly provoked. Its response has changed its position from victim to victimizer, in the same vein that if somebody beat up your friend you don't get to claim victim status when you proceed to blow up the attackers entire neighborhood killing many innocent families in the process.It is the worst form of vigilantism, and does not acknowledge the fact that they will have to live next to these people they just injured for years to come.Edited by AdminFaith, : to correct URL and to eliminate repeating portions of the post.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's not the right apology. That is an insult designed to look like an apology. I thank jar for coming to my defense in this matter and sticking to it. What he showed, and for which I deserve an actual apology, is your having made up things I never wrote, and positions in direct contradiction to things I clearly did.Whether the cause is your finding my writing style lengthy and meandering is besides the point, the result (what you did) was not warranted and not just a bit unfair. If I find your posts generally devoid of facts, biased, and poorly analyzed I think you'd agree that does not give me the right to make stuff up about what you are saying or meaning.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The Lebanese are on the defensive at this point as well as anyone else within Lebanon, with Israel being the aggressor. There is a point where numbers of innocents killed or displaced do matter regardless of the "benevolent" intentions of a defensive force. The Israelis admit having blown up civilian infrastructure on purpose. One of their first targets was a civilian airport. I'm going by what they say, not Hezbollah. First of all they have in the past. That said, I am not claiming they are doing so right now. What I have been saying is that whether they intend to hit civilians or not, their actions indicate they are incapable of discriminating to a point that is criminally negligent.Just because a person has been attacked, they do not have a right to any and all means of retaliation, particularly those which are likely to cause large numbers of innocent deaths.From a practical standpoint alone, Israel's actions in lebanon show such a disparity it is ludicrous to claim they are advancing a fight against their enemy. A change in tactics is in order. You are right, and I don't support hezbollah or any other terrorist group. But that does not change the nature of what Israel is doing, intentionally or not. I have said Hezbollah is clearly the provocateur in this case. But here's the rub, they started by attacking purely legitimate targets. Whatever they have done in the past, they confined attacks in this case to military targets, until Israel retaliated by hitting civilian targets in Lebanon.This is where Israel began making errors. When you kill 10 times as many innocents as enemy you are creating new enemies who are not going to want to live next to you. So Israel kills large numbers of Lebanese they admit are not their enemy, why? Whatever their intent, the effect is alienating good neighbors (by their own admission).In the end terrorist groups are not nations, they are groups, and furthermore they are criminal. I do not expect criminal organizations to abide by the law binding nations, I expect nations to, particularly as they have to think of the longterm consequences for large civilian populations on both sides of their border.As I have said I was criticizing terrorist organizations for a long time, including back when Republicans were supporting them with US cash and expertise. To suggest my criticism of Israeli activity is equivalent to or suggests support for or lacking criticism of terrorist organizations is not accurate or fair.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That wasn't an apology, so there is nothing to retract. Saying I'm sorry your stupid and ugly is an insult, and not taking responsibility for what you have done. That's interesting since much of my position is culled from purely conservative sources and in direct defiance of leftist positions. At the very least I have said that I support a continued presence in Iraq until a stable gov't is formed, which is diametrically opposed to liberal dogma on the issue.I also want you to put your money where your mouth is and show me one thing that I say that the terrorists say... or apologize for that odious and fallacious claim. You are the one claiming that they have the true interpretation "because Khomenei says so" which I have been bucking from the get go. Show where I said that or apologize. I never had and never would say such a thing. Terrorism has many different roots and agendas.AQ, one of our main enemies, claims to be somehow connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but it clearly is not and just uses that as cover. Get it? No matter their pretense our main enemy at this time has NO real connection or interest in the Palestinians besides self promotion.However some groups ARE provoked by Israeli activities, at the gov't level, or at the local (settler) level (their terrorist actions are given free passes). Some are offended by the existence of Israel as a nation regardless of what it does, and some by jews.One cannot address all groups with the same stroke, regardless of whether one condemns their activities. It is to completely miss the roots of the problem and possible solutions.I will now deal with your reply to my original post.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well my first question would be how you square the passages that extoll mercy and peace with your interpretation. Khomenei felt they were necessary to address (which means they exist) so I'd be interested in why you agree with Khomenei over the larger group of mullahs he was addressing who think different.My second one is what do you know about the long history of Islam? Their early days were no less bloody than that of Jews and Xians at that time. They then shifted into a very long period of protecting Jews and science from Xian persecution. That it changed again does not suggest anything other than that the religion is as much open to cultural movements as Judaism or Xianity which have also gone back and forth over time. I do agree, so why do YOU keep bringing it up? Most people here are clearly put off by your insistence on discussing that issue when the subject is Islamic terrorism. If YOU dropped it, my guess is so would everyone else. No my problem was not just with "literal". Can't you read your own writing or is it too meandering for you? Check this sentence out... If that does not say I cannot claim peaceful interpretations are correct, you'd better rewrite it. I personally do not claim the Quran is inherently "peaceful" but must point out it has many more peacefull and merciful passages than warlike ones (which apparently is why Khomenei was facing the opposition he was facing). What's more the warlike passages tend to be limited in scope and prohibitive of many types of violent action.Thus it is like all other religious texts in that there are many viable literal interpretations, and the only thing one must take at face value is what an adherent claims to believe for themself, and not what is "truth"... though as I said I am sort of compelled to note there is a lot more peace and mercy going on in the Quran than in Jewish and Xian texts, so I'm pretty sympathetic to muslims who emphasize those goals as more important. I hope I have cleared that up, but to repeat just in case... You continually describe terrorists as being the literalists as opposed to everyone else, and said that peaceful interpretations CANNOT be said to be true because of what people like Khomenei say. That pretty much limits the options on who holds the only true literal interpretation. And yet you then proceed to do it again. Do you not know what "thoroughly" means? If you mean to say that there is material within the Quran which allows people to form a warlike interpretation, then there is no argument.Clearly people have done so. Just as Catholics and Abortion clinic bombers have formed interpretations based on the Bible many other Xians do not agree with. It would be incorrect for me to claim that their interpretation is throroughly supported by the Bible, right? After all there are plenty of people who disagree and can point to inconsistencies which by definition makes the alternate interpretation less than thoroughly supported. And yet you persist in making this insinuation that the terrorists have the valid interpretation. Look Faith I have known muslims and they hold different interpretations and I have read the Quran and come up with a different read. I also can find many groups that do not agree with the warlike interpretation.I find your comment here bizarre as that also means I am not allowed to decide that Catholicism is not the valid form of Xianity, using the exact same criteria. Heck, I can turn around and claim that YOU can't decide what is a valid form of Xianity too.There are plenty of "experts" in all religions. The end result is that there are a lot of different valid interpretations, it all depends on personal choice regarding emphasis of certain passages... even from a literal perspective. Gee I wonder where I keep getting the impression that you are delivering a biased view which claims Islam involves and inherent promotion of violence? Yes, clearly Khomenei is preaching something along those lines (though I'm sure he'd call it justified killing, just like the Abortion clinic bombers). What you have yet to show is what justification he has for any of his claims?That he claims to be a true and inerrant scholar of Islam does not make him either. 1) I was including those Xians that advocate the "execution" of people like gays, blacks, jews, and abortion doctors (and everyone in their vicinity).
2) I find this particularly interesting, especially in your insistence on due process in an earlier sentence. In our current war on terrorism Bush himself has enacted a scheme of no trial and no due process as a form of legitimate warfare against criminals. Many evangelists have backed this up. Are you now taking a stand against Bush and the fundies defending his treatment of "unlawful combatants"? They may call it "rendering" but that is a euphemism for torture... just as bad as neck slitting and all else. No, but I also recognize that there have also been long stretches where they protected both Xians and Jews, most specifically Jews from Xians. Also there has been mistreatment by Xians and Jews of muslims and many other religions and cultures. If taken in total, all three of you are like a macabre three stooges episode.That you choose to emphasize the bloody aspects of certain sections of Islam, and downplay the same aspects of certain sections of Xianity and Judaism is telling. Muslims are also being killed. So are Jews. So are Bhuddists. So are atheists. I care that all of these people are being killed. They all have many different factors because there are so many different perpetrators. I'm just not sure why you insist on lumping varieties of people into one group with one aim, and show a disproportionate concern for Jews and Xians getting killed when others are currently suffering much greater casualties. All your source did was state facts with no sources. You apparently believe their claim solely on the fact that they are ex-muslim? I will point out one factual error right now, the made the same fallacious claim you did above, by not recognizing that not all of Islam's history is filled with persecution of jews and indeed acted as protectors of them against Xian aggression. They also skipped over the fact that most greek knowledge was preserved by them against Xian attempts to destroy it. You show one factual source for their version of history and I'll show mine. Ahem, the same can be said for Israeli treatment of muslims (and Xians by the way). I didn't. The Hezbollah does not have "their civilians", as they are a group and not a nation. You probably mean to say that they engage in activities such that military engagement against them is likely to result in civilian casualties (that is they blend in). Well it sure as hell is Israel's responsibility (and stupidity) if they fall for that trap then.There are many ways to engage an enemy. The proper choice is the one that results in few civilian casualties, and only when necessary. There have been too many instances where this was clearly NOT the case in the recent invasion of Lebanon for you to claim they are making proper or legal military decisions.Or let me pass this to you... can you show me why they must bomb Lebanon in the manner they have to achieve their aims, especially in light of the fact that they aren't achieving their aims and instead inflicting massive civilian casualties? What is the relevance, particularly when you say you have no interest in discussing valid interpretations? How does addressing the Quran and religious motivation lead us to any possible solution to the problem? Really? Give your reason for this. Use any resolution you want. Buz was so clueless about the UN he didn't even know Israel was a member, so I'm not sure why you think he'd be more knowledgable about the nature of UN resolutions or what they even address. Note that you are responding to a statement of mine that explicitly agreed force is likely to be necessary, but its nature would have to be bounded... that is not all military action becomes legitimate just because force is required. That didn't answer my question. You claim my position is suicidal. How will I be killed? Why is Israel obliged to retaliate in a way that kills ten times more civilians than their enemy and indeed is barely making a dent in their enemy's forces?I mean let's look at facts. Hezbollah has managed to kill almost as many Israeli soldiers as Israel has killed Hezbollah militants. I'm no super expert in military strategy but that is not called a winning strategy. That Israel is managing to hit 10 times the number of innocent people in the process as those they are aiming at makes it a pretty wreckless and stupid strategy.Perhaps you can discuss your ideas on military strategy where that makes some sort of sense. I absolutely condemned the illegitmate tactics used by Hezbollah. I am now consistently applying my criteria regarding legitimate conduct of military operations to Israel as well. Explain why that should not be done.I realize Hezbollah targets civilians and Israel may not. There are more rules to warfare than no targeting of civilians. One might note again of course that in this case Hezbollah did not start by attacking civilians. I using grenades on a crowded street to defend yourself against an attacker justified? Explain. 1) Many more times nonIsraelis have been killed than Israelis. If their goal was simply to kill Israelis Hezbollah is losing.
2) Why is Israel being so stupid as to fall for their trap? Why could they not be clever and employ methods which target their enemies better and avoid so many atrocities. If their intention is NOT to kill civilians, and defeat Hezbollah, they are losing.I have tried to stay short and to the point. There were many to be addressed.If you want to slim down the reply concentrate on why discussing the Quran and religion is important when you believe "true interpretation" doesn't matter, why we should believe religion is the guiding factor when there are diverse terrorist organizations with many different backgrounds and agendas, and why Israel is justified in using the FORM of force it has chosen when it appears so counterproductive and is in violation of int'l law regarding armed conflict.That last one is pretty important. If terrorist group's tactics are what make them condemnable in an absolute sense, why does Israel get off the hook when their tactics are equally illegitimate?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I was not rationalizing terrorism. You claimed my position was patently leftist, and I explained how it wasn't. How can I be rationalizing terrorism when I was and still am for the war in Afghanistan, for keeping the troops in Iraq now that they are there to make sure a stable gov't emerges to defeat the terrorist elements now enjoying a free hand there, and agree that Israel had a right to react against Hezbollah? Once again, you have said that the warlike interpretations are THOROUGHLY supported, which is different than "legitimate". You have also stated that people who maintain a peaceful interpretation CANNOT because of what terrorists and certain ex-muslims have said about Islam. So you can dance around semantically all you want, what you are implying is quite clear.Here, let's try this simple thing. Can you agree that while some within Islam are capable of building a warlike interpretation of the Quran from portions of that text and historical references, others are equally able to build a peaceful interpretation of the Quran from portions of that text and historical references, and that ultimately there is no single correct literal interpretation of that text nor mandates regarding the use of violence for that faith? Can you read Faith? Take a look at that quote in yellow. IT was certainly provoked. ITS response has changed its position from victim to victimizer. The quote makes NO sense if IT refers to Hezbollah. IT refers to Israel and I am clearly stating that it was provoked. I think I have mentioned several times over many posts that I totally agree that Hezbollah provoked a response from Israel, and Israel was justified in responding with force. The whole point of my argument is that it was the nature of ITS response which dictates that it is doing wrong... not that it responded. I am not justifying terrorism, I am explaining to you why some feel it is justified for reasons beyond religious and political dogma. Your argument has so far been that religion is the basis, I am telling you it is not always related to religion.The concept of an eye for an eye revenge as justice is found throughout monotheist doctrines and so when people feel wronged they often seek revenge regardless of the practical costs. I don't agree with that tactic, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it doesn't exist.And despite all of your pronouncements against terrorism, zionists engaged in terrorism against Britain and Arabs to get Israel formed, and have engaged in terrorist acts to this day. Heck shortly after 911 it was discovered that the JDL was engaged in a plot to bomb mosques and kill a US congressman. Its in the news and a matter of public record. Yes there IS NO JUSTIFICATION, but they all do it and feel it is justified and its not all based in religion. Well that assertion sure was easy. If you don't care to explain your position on moral or legal issues, at the very least I would like to see an argument for why it is justified tactically.Despite being better armed than Hezbollah, with vastly superior technology, and in far greater numbers, the Israelis have lost pretty much one soldier for every militant they kill, while at the same time taking out 10 innocent civilians and causing a mass refugee crises. Even a nonexpert can do the math and see that the methodology is NOT WORKING.Under what scheme do you consider this advisable, other than doing any violence is good, analysis of results be damned?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hey, illegal is illegal. That the initial attacker commits an illegal act does not allow for you to commit illegal acts (even if different ones). And yes they are all illegitimate.That you will not listen will not change that fact logically, morally, legally, or practically. Bye bye.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I might ask if you think Israel would or should attack their own communities in the same way they have Lebanese communities if Hezbollah managed to sneak in that far... if not, why not?In addition, you have yet to address the completely nonmoral nonlegal question I posed to you regarding Israel's actions. Out of all the possible military options at their disposal, how does it make any sense to move forward with a plan that results in losses for their military at essentially a 1-1 ratio with a vastly inferior enemy force, while inflicting high casualties among innocent civilian populations?I'm just not getting how it works for you even if you are ardently pro Israel and excusing them on all other grounds.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

So to your mind Israel could legitimately use WMDs on Lebanon, if they felt that would end the threat posed by Hezbollah? If not, why not?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)