What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

No way to answer such a long convoluted collection of mostly specious arguments. Fine, holmes, Israel is the greatest evil in the Middle East. They are evil Jews who want to take over the world, and they have committed nothing but crimes on their way to their tyrannical command of their enormous empire, stepping on the backs of these honest Muslims who are only terrorists in self defense, who should be allowed to kill just as many Israelis as (they have staged it to look like) Israelis have killed of their civilians. OK? I give up. I'm sure you will complain that this is not what you are saying.{edit: But it's what I see as the upshot of it.However, I will apologize for simply not having the patience to answer that long convoluted wandering post of yours. Perhaps later. Although I know what the upshot of THAT will be too.}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I went back and reread all of Holmes posts in this thread and I am having some problems finding things. Since you seem to be saying he said these things, maybe you can point them out. Did Holmes really say that or are you just making stuff up? Did Holmes really say that or are you just making stuff up?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I believe that expresses in broad sarcastic language the implications of what he is saying. Certainly it will be the practical result of such ideas in the end. Israel will be more and more vilified as the evil one, and half the world will side with her enemies as the poor victimized oppressed ones, utterly oblivious to the true cause of their actions and their duplicity and lies as they stage things to put Israel in the wrong, and that's how World War III is likely to come about. All kinds of "contexts" will be found in which to explain away the terrorists' agenda, as he explained away Khomeini's. I'm aghast but I shouldn't be surprised. Just have to give up once again as irrationality rules the day.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you saying, just so I am sure and don't spend more time rereading Holmes extremely well written, concise and logical posts looking for where he said those things that ...

he did not say any of those things and you are just making believe he said them?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would take issue with this. More accurately Islamic terrorism would be labeled as the most reported terrorism within western civilization. I would say this because numerous terrorist actions occur in both South America, Africa, (where Islam is far weaker and christianity is the major religion), Eastern Europe (largely christian) and Southeast Asia (mainland is eastern religions the islands have a large population that follow Islam) however, the actions in these areas are largely ignored because these areas aren't terribly important to the west (little if no oil).Example of such would be the Ruwanda , Kosovo, Cambodia (Pol-Pot) ethnic cleansings same thing as terrorism etc. Both inspire terror in particular groups.

Your list sounded like a lot of Marxist-inspired groups besides the Islamic ones, and gave no facts about actions. The existence of groups says nothing. Both Marxism and Islam are major ideologies that promote terrorism. I'm actually interested in the other terrorist actions in the world but you haven't said enough about them. What I do know is that Islam is responsible for most of the terrorism that I know of, all over Asia and the Middle East and now the West. Yes, they are threatening us and that is uppermost in my concern of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Holmes' post, and his posts in general, are convoluted and excessively wordy with many side excursions into irrelevancies, and full of specious apologetics for some position or other that is often hard to identify. I can't believe he would raise the question of how Khomeini's words were translated, on a site full of ex-Muslims who know Arabic. I'm sorry, I just don't have the energy to go through and answer all his petty points. They add up in the end to giving the terrorists freedom to keep doing what they are doing, ignoring their duplicity and deep motives, and pointing the finger at Israel, which is only defending itself. And this is what you all are doing here. Nothing new. I've answered his posts at length today and I just don't have the energy to answer yet another in the same detail. What I said is what it amounts to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So did he say those things you mentioned in Message 241 or ...

he did not say any of those things and you are just making believe he said them?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I did not SAY he *SAID* it. I was characterizing its ultimate implications. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you did just make it up? When you say "I'm sure you will complain that this is not what you are saying." at the end of you knew that it honestly was not what he was saying and you did just make it up.Okay. I think we now understand that you were just making up your own version of what people actually say.Thank you for clearing that up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is what they would claim, and it is how it looks to me upon reading it myself, and their particular interpretation, which they believe is the true one, has certainly wreaked havoc in the world now and in the long history of Islam. But that is my point, this focus on what is the "correct" interpretation is completely useless. It doesn't matter what I think or what you think, it only matters what they think because it is what is fueling terrorism. This prissy academic concern about the "correct" interpretation is just a distraction. Considering how careful I'm being to avoid just this reading of what I'm trying to say I am very puzzled that you managed to do it anyway. How are you finding me "explicitly" claiming in that paragraph that "only the terrorists hold the true literal interpretation?" What I said there is that the source of terrorism is in their interpretation.Ooohhh. You are hung up on the word "literal?" Just dawned on me. Look, if you want to get all semantic about this, I DON'T CARE if we call it "literal" or not. DROP THE "LITERAL" if that's what is so offensive. But this is just a wild goose chase you are taking me on. So I'll drop the "literal" already. Let me rewrite the Offending Paragraph:

quote:

---

I am very aware that many Muslims hold to a nonliteral liberal interpretation of Islam. I am also aware that they are intimidated into silence by the literalists fundamentalist hardliners. But denying that the source of terrorism IS in the fundamentalist reading of the Koran is just putting on blinders, it's not aiding anyone. It keeps the whole thing a mystery, perpetuates a lie about the peaceful nature of Islam. You cannot claim that the peaceful interpretations are correct when you see what Khomeini says above

---

Uh oh, I just reread your post and now I'm confused again. Apparently you AREN'T bother by the term "literal" since you agreed with it in this paragraph above:

quote:

---

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

---

Now I don't have the slightest idea what you are complaining about. Where did I say they hold the "true literal interpretation?" Really, trying to follow you is a nightmare. I do not see that I extended them that far. I'm knocking myself out to avoid extending them that far. And then when I seem to succeed, you complain that I'm not saying anything you don't agree with anyway. This is a wild goose chase. You seem to simply be set to find fault with anything I say, on the most trivial level, refusing to get my main point. This makes this exercise in trying to answer you simply futile. The only reason I'm doing it is because Jar has been having conniption fits about my first reaction to this confused post. I believe that it is open and shut that the literalists' interpretations are thoroughly supported by the Koran and backed up by other Islamic writings and history, BUT it is irrelevant. I don't see how anyone can fail to see this, it seems to me to take bending over backwards to avoid seeing it. I don't care however. I am trying to get the focus off this. You have a different view about what the facts are about what Islam teaches, different from many others who have no doubt studied Islam more than you have, not just the terrorists themselves but many ex-Muslims, who are not afraid to say that those readings about a violent jihad are quite legitimate, and others who have spent time studying it. Therefore you can't just blandly state that you have the facts and the others don't. Nobody said it was. What I have said many times is that there are two sides to Islam because of events in Mohammed's life. When things were going well he preached a peaceful religion; when people refused to accept his teaching he started imposing it on them by force, and killing some for refusing. Khomeini is simply commenting on his view that it's cowardice that embraces only the merciful side of Islam and ignores what he makes only too clear is an out and out murderous side. They don't need due process, he says, all they need is the identity and you can just kill the offender. Uh huh. Well, you got me there. I wonder what he regards as a criminal. I see. Killing someone you consider to be a "criminal" without due process you would equate with that argument. That's unbelievably absurd. The whole tone of Khomeini's speech is to encourage wanton killing, slitting throats and cutting off hands and so on, the opposite of legally conducted executions and war or any humane system of jurisprudence on the earth for that matter. I can hardly believe you could make such a comparison. Who cares if it's "literal?" Why are you hung up on this word? Or hung up on it and then willing to use it yourself to describe the terrorists? "CHANGE Islam?" What a joke. I guess you just dismiss everything that has been shown about Islam's mistreatment of "infidels" throughout its long history, its enslavement of Christians, its subjudgation of Christians and Jews. Or do you just read the islamic anti-Israel apologists? I suppose you interpret all the killing of Christians going on in the world now as political. Oh and you are qualified to determine what is a factual error, and just announce it as a flat fact? Sorry, I trust these ex-Muslims, many of whom certainly know how to read Arabic, over you. No. I refuse to run down this rabbit trail. This is absolutely irrelevant. I do not care what legitimate grievances there may be, and I won't say there aren't any. The point is that NONE OF IT JUSTIFIES the way the Muslims have been dealing with Israel. The only thing that is relevant is that the main motivation of terrorism is to do away with Israel. There is NO excuse, I don't care WHAT the history is, for this mad blind policy that makes negotiation impossible. You cannot justify this policy on the basis of ANY history. YOu cannot justify Hezbollah's insane shelling of Israel on any rational grounds whatever. And you are all so blind you don't see the duplicity in their actions. They are a treacherous enemy. They act in bad faith no matter what they do. They put their civilians in harm's way so that israel will be held responsible and you all eat it up and flatly refuse even to think about the possibility that they've staged this, and that it's THEIR callousness, not Israel's that is doing this. And above all you will not even touch the question of the Koran and religious motivations in all this murder and bad faith. Sorry, holmes, I know you don't want to be lumped with the leftists, but you sure sound like them. I still have NO idea what you are talking about, where I supposedly denied this. YOu just aren't making any sense to me at all. YOu seem to be carrying on this absolutely meaningless argument with me. I draw inferences from it that you deny and I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Again, I don't know why you are carrying on about this since my last four or five posts have specifically AVOIDED arguing this. They are motivated by their reading of the Koran and there is no getting around this whether you want to accept it as the correct reading or not. Trying to palm it all off on political history is a big fat lie. This is ideologically/religiously motivated, the violence and the duplicity, both defined by their reading of Islam. I agree with Buzsaw that the UN resolutions are biased against them and permissive toward islamic terrorism.The reason force is necessary -- absolutely necessary, when the terrorists get too strong or too close -- is that the terrorists will not negotiate. They are ideologically against negotiating. They want to prolong the conflict to gain world opinion on their side, they stage everything to go against Israel, they've made up half their history for this purpose, they want Israel dead and they aren't going to stop their vioent attacks EVER. And you want to stop Israel from taking out their weapons and let them build them up against them. Sorry, force is unfortunately required with such an irrational enemy. None of that justifies their tactics. Their tactics should be condemned ABSOLUTELY, and answered by force if necessary, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASONS FOR THEM. The whole western world, that is cowed by them, is taking this suicidal line, blind to the facts. Yes they are the victim. If the world weren't insane and blind Hezbollah would not be able to do what it has been doing, and Israel would not be obliged to retaliate. NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, justifies their tactics. All Israel's actions have been self defensive, but you all refuse to see this. Hezbollah and the whole terrorist crew are acting out of sheer irrational hatred and revenge and other unworthy motives, but Israel is simply defending itself. Oh yeah, DON'T retaliate and have to live next to ten times the armament, giving access to suicide bombers and continuing crafty excuses not to negotiate and crafty designs to make Israel look bad and kill as many Israelis as possible.Wrong diagnosis of the situation as usual.If you answer this, would you please try to keep your answer to the briefest statement of the most important points? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Victimhood is defined by who is the aggressor and who on the defensive, not by numbers unfortunately hurt in the defensive action. And you are just buying the propaganda when you say they are targeting civilian infrastructure, just buying the whole staged show that the terrorists set up for the gullible west to blame Israel for. Just propaganda and hyperbole holmes. Israel doesn't target civilians. Hezbollah and other terrorist groups are the ones who don't care about civilians and MAKE SURE to put them in harm's way for the PR mileage they get out of sacrificing them. Why aren't you worried about the terrorists' having to live next to these people they are dealing with in bad faith and only want dead?

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)

OK, then I will take back the apology. My first post was a reaction to the wandering prose, but it did express what I gleaned about the effect of your post and ended up concluding even after addressing the entire thing. I'm sure you don't believe what I said, in fact nobody who shares your views would claim to believe that, but those views nevertheless are fueling that very attitude. What you said supports it even if you disavow it. You said basically the same thing that the leftists say and the terrorists say and that almost everybody else here at EvC says in one form or another. The PC party line. I see no real difference. This whole argument that terrorism is provoked by Israel, which is just an apology for murder, is fueling the Naziesque drama which is unfolding in the world.

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)