Arafats gift to civilization [Archive]

E.J.Armstrong

4th October 2003, 06:21 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Why would an article about suicide bombing in Morocco mention Arafat? The assertion is mine, not the reporters. Does this distinction confuse you? Do you think I need to write a scientific paper complete with footnotes whenever I want to express an opinion on an internet message forum?
Naturally you are entitled to air your opinion - as is anyone else. The difference on this site, as a sceptics site, is that when you make a claim you may be asked to justify the claim in exactly the same way that James Randi asks mediums, psychics and clairvoyants to justify their claims. They frequently chose not to do so as they are entitled to do. Refusal however lets others assesss how much weight to give their claims.

To recap your own claim you started a thread entitled 'Arafats gift to civilization'(sic) with no question marks. You then went on to present a link which made no mention of Arafat. If you don't want to support our claims and consider your assertions to be self evident can I just ask why you post on this site? Would a clairvoyent site might be more appropriate perhaps?

If you want to resort to personal abuse like Cleopatra when asked to support your claims then that is fine by me but when you make a claim (particularly about other posters) you may be asked to justify it. At least, unlike Cleopatra, you have not tried to stop debate on a thread you started because someone had the temerity to ask you to justify your own claims.

Many things could have happened, maybe they got the idea from a fortune cookie. But given that the girls contacted Muslim fundamentalist groups to get information on Jihad, what is more likely to be their inspiration? Islamic Arabs in the West Bank? Or the secular Tamil suicide bombers in Sri Lanka?
The article you linked to specifically stated that it was Osama Bin Laden's work that fascinated them. Perhaps that might be a clue for you?

As I have siad before you may be right and you may be wrong but you have merely asserted your views to be the case. I have provided evidence that the Tamils are more statistically likely to have been the role models. If you don't want to rely on the article you quoted I wonder why you linked to it. Hmm, so only liberal democracies get targeted by suicide terrorist campaigns. I wonder why that is? Good question. Given that Israel doesn't have the death penalty for people tried under the law can they be considered liberal when the Israeli government assassinates suspects around the world without trial and in such a way that innocent children are killed and as such terrorise innocent Palestinians. Not very liberal is it?Sharon is targeting untried suspects? Yes. The whole world can see that Sharon is targetting untried suspects. The suspects who bombed the UK government were tried under the law and incarcerated. Their family homes were not bulldozed and children playing near their homes were not killed in helicopter attacks.Enemy combatants don’t get the benefit of due process. There is not a nation in the world that believes otherwise. If you want these terrorists to get due process, then the people to look towards is the Palestinian Authority. So long as they abdicate this authority and refuse to prosecute these terrorists on their own, you have nothing to complain about from Israel. The Palestinian Authority should indeed try all suspected terrorists and all Hamas and Hizbollah terrorist suspects should be arrested and put under trail for their crimes. Israel however has largely destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority and hindered their ability to do so. Israel is also not prosecuting people suspected of crimes. It is assassinating many of them. If you cannot see the difference then so be it. The rest of the world can.

You and the US people would not support the collective punishment of innocent people in the US so I question why you support it elsewhere?

Can I remind you that the UK government under similar provocation behaved under the law with few exceptions and put IRA suspects through fair trials. This is unlike the process in the USA where people can be declared enemy combatants and incarcerated with children at Guantanamo Bay outside the remit of the US constitution to be tried under secret processes without the right of appeal against death sentences in a travesty of normal justice. At least they are being put under trial of a dodgy sort - unlike in Israel.

I have no interest in terrorists of any type. I do have an interest in the rule of law being followed and innocent people being protected from aggressive groups or governments. Unless all democratic societies follow the rule of law how can they tell others to do what they themselves won't?

JAR

4th October 2003, 01:56 PM

It's possible that different peoples have independently come up with the concept of the suicide attack at different times.

Chaos

4th October 2003, 02:06 PM

I suspect it has nothing to do with specific peoples.

I can think of two reasons why someone would make a suicide attack:

- he is desperate enough to kill whoever is the target of the attack that he gives up his live for it

or

- he is very religious and has been told the attack is god´s will and/or he was promised a very comfortable afterlife as a reward for martyrdom.

Neither is specific to a specific people.

JAR

4th October 2003, 02:41 PM

JAR

4th October 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
I suspect it has nothing to do with specific peoples.

I can think of two reasons why someone would make a suicide attack:

- he is desperate enough to kill whoever is the target of the attack that he gives up his live for it

or

- he is very religious and has been told the attack is god´s will and/or he was promised a very comfortable afterlife as a reward for martyrdom.

Neither is specific to a specific people.
Whether suicide attacks are specific to a specific people was not the point of my post.

The point of my post was that if one guy does a suicide bombing and then another guy does one later on, the second guy to do a suicide bombing didn't necessarily get his idea from the first guy. He could have come up with the idea of doing a suicide bombing on his own.

Chaos

4th October 2003, 02:58 PM

I agreed with you, JAR. Sorry, I should have made this clearer.

Mycroft

4th October 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Naturally you are entitled to air your opinion - as is anyone else. The difference on this site, as a sceptics site, is that when you make a claim you may be asked to justify the claim in exactly the same way that James Randi asks mediums, psychics and clairvoyants to justify their claims. They frequently chose not to do so as they are entitled to do. Refusal however lets others assesss how much weight to give their claims.

James Randi takes the time to point out the error of such claims, and challenges them to reproduce their results under circumstances where illusionists tricks can be eliminated. Perhaps you could emulate his example by pointing out the error of my assertion? Keep in mind that I am not making any paranormal claims, I am simply pointing out that events of today have a link with events of the past.

Suicide terror against civilians was pioneered in the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict. I give credit to Arafat as being a primary leader of the side that uses that tactic. If you want to refute that point, go ahead, but I must point out that you haven’t been doing a very good job so far.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The article you linked to specifically stated that it was Osama Bin Laden's work that fascinated them. Perhaps that might be a clue for you?

If you think OBL should share credit for this culture of death, I will cheerfully agree with you. I’m even willing to agree that the Tamil Tigers get a share of the credit, as should anyone who murders random citizens. At the same time, I will point out that Arafat and his activities predate all these other examples you bring up. OBL gets his share of the blame, but who was his inspiration?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong The whole world can see that Sharon is targetting untried suspects. The suspects who bombed the UK government were tried under the law and incarcerated. Their family homes were not bulldozed and children playing near their homes were not killed in helicopter attacks.

The IRA eventually slowed down when their financing dried up and when world opinion (and corresponding political pressure) made it clear that nobody but the IRA was in favor of Irish violence. That’s not likely to happen in the West Bank anytime soon, though I hope I’m wrong on that point.

I will also point out that the UK tried these suspects under law because they maintained political control over the territories. If you think Israel should take back the political control they gave away in 1993 so that they can capture terrorists and put them on trial, I will agree with you.

Failing that, maybe they should look to Peru and their solutions to terrorism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The Palestinian Authority should indeed try all suspected terrorists and all Hamas and Hizbollah terrorist suspects should be arrested and put under trail for their crimes. Israel however has largely destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority and hindered their ability to do so. Israel is also not prosecuting people suspected of crimes. It is assassinating many of them. If you cannot see the difference then so be it. The rest of the world can.

That’s their excuse now. What was it back in ’93? Lacking resources to pursue terrorism is a problem that can be solved, has the PA asked anyone for help on this issue? Have they gone to the negotiation table and said, “We would like to crack down on these terrorist elements but we lack the resources. Can the United States provide help?” Why haven’t they done this? Do you think the United States would say no?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong You and the US people would not support the collective punishment of innocent people in the US so I question why you support it elsewhere?

Here I will hold you to your own standards. Document this “collective punishment” and show me how it’s different from the results of any other armed conflict.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong I have no interest in terrorists of any type. I do have an interest in the rule of law being followed and innocent people being protected from aggressive groups or governments. Unless all democratic societies follow the rule of law how can they tell others to do what they themselves won't?

So how do you think a democratic society should react to a non-democratic society whose leaders openly encourage terrorism? You’ve been talking about the rule of law, do you think Israel should suspend the PA’s government, move in and start rounding people up?

E.J.Armstrong

6th October 2003, 04:42 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
James Randi takes the time to point out the error of such claims, and challenges them to reproduce their results under circumstances where illusionists tricks can be eliminated. Perhaps you could emulate his example by pointing out the error of my assertion? Keep in mind that I am not making any paranormal claims, I am simply pointing out that events of today have a link with events of the past.
As I understand it, James Randi simply asks people to do what they claim to be able to do - without prejudging the outcome. If someone claims to be able to walk on water I understand that he is perfectly willing to believe them if they can actually do what they claim, under mutually agreed conditions.

You made a claim in the title of your thread - one that was not backed up by the article you linked to. That article pointed out that the girls specifically talked about their fascination with a completely different group. There was no support for your claim other than assertion in the face of the evidence provided by the article you linked to.

You are correct in that this isn't a scientific forum, which requires detailed proof and as I have stated before you may be right and you may be wrong but the evidence you did cite contains nothing concrete to support the title of your thread.
Suicide terror against civilians was pioneered in the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict. I give credit to Arafat as being a primary leader of the side that uses that tactic. If you want to refute that point, go ahead, but I must point out that you haven’t been doing a very good job so far.
The following quote has certain interesting modern parallels (from http://www.interdisciplines.org/terrorism/papers/1/22) where it appears that Roman, Greek and Jewish civilians were murdered.In The Jewish War, written nearly two thousand years ago, Josephus described the revolt against Roman rule in Judea. Judea then included what is now much of modern Israel and Palestine. The uprising began with bands of youths throwing stones, and Roman soldiers using wooden staves instead of swords to control the crowds. Then Zealots and Sicarii – partisan groups with a millenarian message of Jewish resurgence and salvation - began to up the ante with acts of “terrorism” (as Josephus called it), including suicide dagger attacks in public forums against Jews who collaborated with Romans, against Greek interlopers who settled and desecrated the sacred soil of Israel, and against the Romans who ruled the land. As the “terrorists” had hoped, Rome’s increasingly brutal reaction to ever more outrageous partisan actions eventually mobilized much of the general Jewish population to support the uprising. If you think OBL should share credit for this culture of death, I will cheerfully agree with you. I’m even willing to agree that the Tamil Tigers get a share of the credit, as should anyone who murders random citizens. At the same time, I will point out that Arafat and his activities predate all these other examples you bring up. OBL gets his share of the blame, but who was his inspiration? Osama Bin Laden is clearly a self admitted major terrorist and should be targetted as such. Unfortunately the USA supported and supplied him when it suited - as was the case with many terrorists around the world, such as Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega. It seems that Arafat's activities were not necessarily the initial model for suicide attacks on civilians (see above). The IRA eventually slowed down when their financing dried up and when world opinion (and corresponding political pressure) made it clear that nobody but the IRA was in favor of Irish violence. That’s not likely to happen in the West Bank anytime soon, though I hope I’m wrong on that point. With regard to Irish violence - many Americans financially supported Noraid when the IRA were actively terrorising my country.The IRA still effectively terrorise Northern Ireland because they have refused to hand in their weapons. This has not stopped Bush and Blair dealing with their political representatives.
The British government did not bulldoze the houses of family members of the IRA as Sharon has done and the UK government did not collectively punish nationalists in reprisals for IRA attacks as Sharon is doing in Israel. I note that the houses of the family of the American Taliban remain unbulldozed as do the homes of the family members of Timothy McVeigh. I will also point out that the UK tried these suspects under law because they maintained political control over the territories. If you think Israel should take back the political control they gave away in 1993 so that they can capture terrorists and put them on trial, I will agree with you. The British government also did not attack the territory of Ireland at a time when they suspected that the Irish were providing support to the IRA. The British government did not treat the nationalists in Northern Ireland in the same way Sharon treats the Palestinians. Israel has effectively occupied much of Palestine on occasion. Perhaps it was not able to carry out the arrest of suspects at those time either. That’s their excuse now. What was it back in ’93? Lacking resources to pursue terrorism is a problem that can be solved, has the PA asked anyone for help on this issue? Have they gone to the negotiation table and said, “We would like to crack down on these terrorist elements but we lack the resources. Can the United States provide help?” Why haven’t they done this? Do you think the United States would say no? I don't speak for anybody other than myself. Like many others I have watched the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority being destroyed at a time when it was being asked to use it to take action. I also happen to think you have a very good argument here and have stated the Palestinian Authority should arrest terrorist suspects. So should Israel. I notice that some Prime Ministers of Israel were involved in terrorism as well. Do you consider that to be the same or different?Here I will hold you to your own standards. Document this “collective punishment” and show me how it’s different from the results of any other armed conflict. I have already provided examples where the family of terrorists within the US have not had their homes bulldozed or collectively punished in a manner similar to that chosen by Sharon. Perhaps you can show me where the homes of family members of Timoth McVeigh were bulldozed or where the family members of the American Taliban were destroyed? When collective punishment was carried out at Waco an enormous uproar erupted in the USA about that event.

I have already talked about many examples from Northern Ireland where, despite members of the government being blown up the British governmnet did not collectievly punish the nationalist people of Northern Ireland in the same way Sharon is doing in Palestine.

Sharon has targeted suspects in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children. That is collective punishment and a way of terrorising innocent Palestinains. Sharon has bulldozed the houses of innocent people across Palestine such as in Jenin etc. Sharon has collectively punished Palestinians by stopping married couples from living together if one partner is Palestinian.
In conclusion on this point about collective punishment here is a link from an Israeli organisation which includes members of the Knesset. They describe themselves thus: -
'B'TSELEM - The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.' The site is http://www.btselem.org/English/Houses_and_Fields_Destruction/Collective_Punishment.aspSo how do you think a democratic society should react to a non-democratic society whose leaders openly encourage terrorism? You’ve been talking about the rule of law, do you think Israel should suspend the PA’s government, move in and start rounding people up?I have already responded to your request elsewhere but Cleopatra was successful in censoring debate and you chose to categorise my response to your questions as spew without having the courtesy of debating their accuracy. I did however take the time to respond, unlike Cleopatra, for whom this appears to have some of the attributes of a no-go area.

On this specific question and as mentioned before, I believe that Israel is fully entitled to act according to international law. I don't believe that it should suspend the PA government because it, while flawed in major ways, is still potentially an avenue to move things forward. It should however engage the terrorists in all the range of ways successfully used by other governments around the world. This includes the use of all legal force during the commission of crimes or attacks and the use if counter-intelligence to stymie planned attacks or crimes in conjunction with other states, where necessary. It should act equitably on behalf of all its citizens. It should use all appropriate and legal remedies to limit the incursion of terrorists into Israel.

In Northern Ireland the army eventually accepted that military action, on its own, was not a solution to the underlying reasons for the terrorist attacks. In summary, they instituted fairer political and economic treatment for all the people of Northern Ireland on a long term basis. As a result, there now is a peace process, albeit a patchy and stuttering one with many residues of the previous thirty odd years still clouding the atmosphere.

Mycroft

7th October 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You are correct in that this isn't a scientific forum, which requires detailed proof and as I have stated before you may be right and you may be wrong but the evidence you did cite contains nothing concrete to support the title of your thread.

The statement was rhetorical. You’re trying to debate it on literal grounds.

Arafat did not invent terrorism. What he has done is made a career of terrorism that spans fifty years, and continues today. He, and others like him, have created a culture of terror among Muslim countries (as well as some non-Muslim countries) where murdering random civilians is seen as an acceptable way to advance political change. This culture is so prevalent, that a couple of 14 year-old girls in Morocco have seen it as a way to give meaning to their lives.

I see these children as a personal tragedy within a cultural tragedy. The authors of these tragedies are the clerics who justify this martyrdom, the Osama Bin Laden’s, who organize financial backing and “spiritual” guidance, and the Arafat’s who promote new and greater butcheries and keep them in the media spotlight, gloating over the blood they spill.

You want to argue that maybe these girls took their inspiration from 12th century Jewish militants? Go ahead, but if you’re honest, you will recognize the contribution Arafat has made in creating this culture of death.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Osama Bin Laden is clearly a self admitted major terrorist and should be targetted as such. Unfortunately the USA supported and supplied him when it suited - as was the case with many terrorists around the world, such as Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega.

When the U.S. backed Bin Laden, he was struggling against a Soviet invasion, and even that’s been called into question. Does it change anything that the U.S. may have backed him once? I don’t think so, he still is what he is.

Hussein and Noriega, that’s the rhetorical sleight of hand I accused you of earlier. United States support of third world dictators is a different subject, I don’t have to defend United States cold war foreign policy to condemn terrorism. If you want to state that the United States has blood on its hands, I will agree with you. I vote for the candidates I think are least likely to support such policies.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
With regard to Irish violence - many Americans financially supported Noraid when the IRA were actively terrorising my country.The IRA still effectively terrorise Northern Ireland because they have refused to hand in their weapons. This has not stopped Bush and Blair dealing with their political representatives.

My understanding is that Gerry Adams has turned the IRA away from violence and has turned in a lot of their weapons, that the remaining militant factions are splinter groups that don’t recognize Adam’s leadership. You sound closer to the situation; maybe you can fill me in on the details.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The British government did not bulldoze the houses of family members of the IRA as Sharon has done and the UK government did not collectively punish nationalists in reprisals for IRA attacks as Sharon is doing in Israel. I note that the houses of the family of the American Taliban remain unbulldozed as do the homes of the family members of Timothy McVeigh. The British government also did not attack the territory of Ireland at a time when they suspected that the Irish were providing support to the IRA.

The U.S. government has overthrown two governments as a response to one terrorist attack, the British helped. If you want to compare, my opinion is that bulldozing some homes is pretty mild by comparison. Given that our response to foreign terrorism is so extreme, I bet we will develop some pretty stiff ways of dealing with domestic terrorists if we have more experience with them.

Personally, I have no sympathy if the family home of a suicide-bomber gets bulldozed. If they raised him/her, they had a hand in making him what he was. At the same time, I agree that if the wrong home gets bulldozed, that’s an injustice, but it doesn’t invalidate the policy.

You have to understand that policies like that are born in frustration. They try to negotiate and get nowhere. A peace agreement is signed, and then the Palestinian-Arabs ignore their obligations under it. Other measures against terrorism get just as much criticism…so what are they supposed to do? The family of a suicide-bomber gets a cash prize of three to five thousand dollars plus a monthly pension of $100. That’s a lot of money in a region where the per capita income is $1700 per year. Some kid blows himself up at a bus stop, and the next day Palestinian-Arab TV shows an interview where his mother says how proud she is and that it’s her third son to “martyr” himself in that way. Bulldoze their house? Hell yeah! That’s mild!

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Like many others I have watched the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority being destroyed at a time when it was being asked to use it to take action. I also happen to think you have a very good argument here and have stated the Palestinian Authority should arrest terrorist suspects. So should Israel.

You have to ask yourself, what would it take for Israelis to go in and start arresting people? How would the Palestinian-Arabs react to that? How would the Palestinian Authority react to it? Do you think it wouldn’t be condemned as a provocation?

If I thought that were a viable solution, I’d support it. I don’t think it is, so that leaves us with the either the Palestinian-Authority doing it, or the Israelis targeting them in military strikes. Since the Palestinian-Authority won’t do it and won’t even try to think of ways it could be done, that leaves us with the situation as it is now.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I notice that some Prime Ministers of Israel were involved in terrorism as well. Do you consider that to be the same or different?

Yes and no. It’s common that when I get involved in these discussions and I condemn Palestinian-Arab terrorism for someone else to say, “Oh yeah? Well this Israeli government official was involved in x activity 60 years ago.” That’s a red herring. The only purpose of saying something like that is to imply that since everyone is bad, then nobody is any worse than anyone else, which isn’t true.

To put it another way, if Arafat had renounced terrorism and was honesty working towards peace where Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs could live next to each other, I’d have no problem with him representing the Palestinian-Arab people despite his terrorist background. I wouldn’t like it, I’d still think it was reason to be very cautious about his motives, but I’d accept it. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have already talked about many examples from Northern Ireland where, despite members of the government being blown up the British governmnet did not collectievly punish the nationalist people of Northern Ireland in the same way Sharon is doing in Palestine.

I disagree with your definition of collective punishment.

I will also add that you need to look at how you use the word “Palestine”. Right now, there is no place called Palestine. In the days of the British Mandate, the word referred to the region that is now covered by the Gaza Strip, Israel, the West Bank, and the nation of Jordan. “Palestine” as in Palestine Liberation Organization means Israel.

I’ve mentioned before that the PLO was formed in 1964, three years before Israel took the West Bank from Jordan. This is important because many people assume that the goal of the PLO is/was to liberate the West Bank, but it’s not. When the organization was formed, the West Bank was already under the control of the Palestinian nation of Jordan. Their goal is/was to liberate Israel (called Palestine) from the Israelis (Jews).

Keep this in mind if you ever read the PLO charter.
Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Sharon has targeted suspects in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children. That is collective punishment and a way of terrorising innocent Palestinains. Sharon has bulldozed the houses of innocent people across Palestine such as in Jenin etc. Sharon has collectively punished Palestinians by stopping married couples from living together if one partner is Palestinian.

Jenin was a battle. Jenin was a refugee “camp” that had been turned into a terrorist training camp. Buildings were bulldozed there because they had been mined with explosive booby traps.

At the time, Jenin was big news because after the Israelis went in, the Palestinians claimed there was a massacre, that the Israelis had killed some 800 civilians. This was later proved false, but as with many lies, people have a tendency to remember what they heard first, even if it’s corrected later.

As for the marriage thing, every nation claims the right to limit immigration and citizenship. While the law is controversial, I have to point out that it doesn’t prevent anyone from living together, it just prevents them from living together in Israel.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
On this specific question and as mentioned before, I believe that Israel is fully entitled to act according to international law. I don't believe that it should suspend the PA government because it, while flawed in major ways, is still potentially an avenue to move things forward. It should however engage the terrorists in all the range of ways successfully used by other governments around the world. This includes the use of all legal force during the commission of crimes or attacks and the use if counter-intelligence to stymie planned attacks or crimes in conjunction with other states, where necessary. It should act equitably on behalf of all its citizens. It should use all appropriate and legal remedies to limit the incursion of terrorists into Israel.

Well, at least you believe they’re entitled to defend themselves. That puts you way ahead of the rest of the jokers around here.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In Northern Ireland the army eventually accepted that military action, on its own, was not a solution to the underlying reasons for the terrorist attacks. In summary, they instituted fairer political and economic treatment for all the people of Northern Ireland on a long term basis. As a result, there now is a peace process, albeit a patchy and stuttering one with many residues of the previous thirty odd years still clouding the atmosphere.

I’ve read about the IRA, it’s history. What I never understood is the exact nature of these grievances that justified 80 years of bloodshed. As near as I can tell, the northern Irish got pissed off when England granted sovereignty to the rest of Ireland but not them. Can you tell me more?

E.J.Armstrong

10th October 2003, 06:56 PM

originally posted by MycroftArafat did not invent terrorism. What he has done is made a career of terrorism that spans fifty years, and continues today. He, and others like him, have created a culture of terror among Muslim countries (as well as some non-Muslim countries) where murdering random civilians is seen as an acceptable way to advance political change. This culture is so prevalent, that a couple of 14 year-old girls in Morocco have seen it as a way to give meaning to their lives. Arafat has indeed been involved with terrist crimes, as were the founders of Israel. There was no mention of Arafat specifically in the article you cited. In the absences of such a direct connection and in the face of the specifically stated alternative connection in the article, if we follow your argument some might argue that the IRA used Menachim Begin as a role model for their terrorist activities. see these children as a personal tragedy within a cultural tragedy. The authors of these tragedies are the clerics who justify this martyrdom, the Osama Bin Laden’s, who organize financial backing and “spiritual” guidance, and the Arafat’s who promote new and greater butcheries and keep them in the media spotlight, gloating over the blood they spill. I agree it is a personal tragedy and a tragedy for the Middle East. Perhaps we might gain some insight by studing more closely what drives them to give up their lives and what if anything provides the clerics their justification for the crimes. You want to argue that maybe these girls took their inspiration from 12th century Jewish militants? Go ahead, but if you’re honest, you will recognize the contribution Arafat has made in creating this culture of death. I recognise the possible contribution of Arafat and modern leaders of Israel and the Tiger Tamils and the IRA and historic terrorists and Manuel Noriega and the Hashashim and the contras and the terrorists who attacked the people in East Timor. Like me, you have provided no direct evidence for your claim so I guess my alternatives might be as possible as yours or they might not. I just am not as sure as you appear to be, particularly in the face of the stated reason in the article you cite.When the U.S. backed Bin Laden, he was struggling against a Soviet invasion, and even that’s been called into question. Does it change anything that the U.S. may have backed him once? I don’t think so, he still is what he is. That the USA supplied Osama Bin Laden I believe is a very germaine fact. The US involvement was rather more interestinging than you indicate. The following is from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm.The United States began secretly arming Islamist rebels fighting the leftist government of Afghanistan in July 1979. According to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the decision to aid these fundamentalist militias was based in part on the hope that it would provoke the Soviets to invade, which they did that December. U.S. support for Islamist rebels dramatically increased in the coming years, with 80% of the aid going to the Hekmatyar faction, the most extremist of the seven major mujahadin factions fighting the Soviets and their Afghan allies. The reason for wanting to encourage a Soviet invasion and to support the opposition group least likely to compromise was the hope that the Soviets would be bogged down in a debilitating counter-insurgency war, which would thereby assist America’s Cold War aims. Soviet forces withdrew in 1989, but U.S. support for Hekmatyar continued and a coalition of mujahadin groups ousted Afghanistan’s leftist government in 1992. Not satisfied with the Islamic coalition government that resulted, Hekmatyar forces shelled the capital of Kabul, killing thousands of civilians and making a stable government impossible. Out of the ensuing chaos rose the Taliban militia, which seized power in 1996 and imposed a theocratic fascism upon the country. The mujahadin were therefore not exactly great examples of democratic respect when the US supplied them. The USA has a history of supporting terrorist groups, as did the USSR, as did many other countries.Hussein and Noriega, that’s the rhetorical sleight of hand I accused you of earlier. United States support of third world dictators is a different subject, I don’t have to defend United States cold war foreign policy to condemn terrorism. If you want to state that the United States has blood on its hands, I will agree with you. I vote for the candidates I think are least likely to support such policies. Far from being a sleight of hand, of a rhetorical or any other form, this point was made specifically because it is very much at the heart of this debate. The US and Israel have both (as well as many other countries) supported and/or carried out terrorist acts at times they considered to be appropriate in their histories. Unfortunately other people may have taken a lead from that and supported terror at what they also consider to be appropriate times for them. My understanding is that Gerry Adams has turned the IRA away from violence and has turned in a lot of their weapons, that the remaining militant factions are splinter groups that don’t recognize Adam’s leadership. You sound closer to the situation; maybe you can fill me in on the details. Unfortunately the IRA remains in control of weapons dumps they claim have put out of use. The weapons have not been destroyed and much of the population fear that they could be put back into use in a short time - though possibly not in 45 minutes. Adams and McGuiness have been the front men using those weapons as bargaining chips in getting the IRA's political aims realised. Not unsurprisingly, the other side of the equation and many ordinary citizens feel threatened by this situation, particularly when in Oct 2002 and in the wake of the devolution crisis and calls for the IRA to disband, the IRA issued a statement announcing that it was suspending talks with the decommissioning body. Weapons removal is not merely an issue for the IRA. It also is still a real concern with many Loyalist terror groups. The U.S. government has overthrown two governments as a response to one terrorist attack, the British helped. If you want to compare, my opinion is that bulldozing some homes is pretty mild by comparison. Given that our response to foreign terrorism is so extreme, I bet we will develop some pretty stiff ways of dealing with domestic terrorists if we have more experience with them. The British helped in Iraq recently, essentially against the wishes of the British people. The conclusion many have come to is that Blair decided to help Bush invade Iraq in advance and whatever the evidence, in order to advance his post prime ministerial career. As a major supporter of Blair, pre-Iraq 2, I look forward with interest to him vacating his office as soon as conveniently possible and going to live in America where he can be showered with what he appears to hanker after - namely medals from George W. Bush and jobs with large payments for life from the rubber chicken circuit in the USA. In my opinion, those medals will be awarded for his valour in the face of the British people. Unfortunately that was not what he was elected for.

Recent history doesn't actually support your thesis here. The fact is that the family homes of Timothy McVeigh's relatives remain unbulldozed, as do the family homes of the American Taliban's relatives - (cf the frankly dodgy treatment of those untried people in Guantanomo Bay). Those direct examples show that what Sharon is doing to innocent Palestinians is never likely to happen within the US. Personally, I have no sympathy if the family home of a suicide-bomber gets bulldozed. If they raised him/her, they had a hand in making him what he was. At the same time, I agree that if the wrong home gets bulldozed, that’s an injustice, but it doesn’t invalidate the policy. I am saddened that you see so little problem with collective punishment. Apart from being illegal within the USA, your thesis is also factually incorrect. In Northern Ireland many terrorist sympathisers came from within families bitterly opposed to terrorism. Did you call for the Unabombers family homes to be bulldozed because they presumably made him what he was, or McVeigh's family - after all according to your thesis they made him as well?

If you took your argument to its logical conclusion, one would ask why aren't the families of all murderers also given the death penalty or at least have their houses razed to the ground? According to your thesis they are also culpable. Why aren't the family of the Enron criminals who supported the Republican and Democratic parties also jailed because they presumably had an impact on those particular crimes. I seem to remember that Bush's children broke the law by illegally drinking alcohol. Should George W. Bush be put in jail for their crimes? It does not make sense. Collective punishment is an affront to decent norms. When it is carried out, experience all around the world, including in Northern Ireland, shows that it generates deep ill will and yet more terrorists - as Sharon very well knows.You have to understand that policies like that are born in frustration. They try to negotiate and get nowhere. A peace agreement is signed, and then the Palestinian-Arabs ignore their obligations under it. Other measures against terrorism get just as much criticism…so what are they supposed to do? The family of a suicide-bomber gets a cash prize of three to five thousand dollars plus a monthly pension of $100. That’s a lot of money in a region where the per capita income is $1700 per year. Some kid blows himself up at a bus stop, and the next day Palestinian-Arab TV shows an interview where his mother says how proud she is and that it’s her third son to “martyr” himself in that way. Bulldoze their house? Hell yeah! That’s mild! I understand frustration only too well. A relative of mine was blown to pieces for the crime of employing people of both religions. I did not believe that the appropriate response to that was to murder innocent children when targetting a suspect. I do not believe that an appropriate response to that is to bulldoze the houses of innocent people.

One of the characteristicsics of a decent democratic state is it's ability to stick to the rule of law in the face of provocation. If a democratic state does not stick to decent norms, on what basis can it demand others do what it won't? That is when terrorists win over democracy. It is not only those in the Middle East who get rewarded for terror. I understand that the American Taliban negotiated a lesser sentence for himself and has started a post graduate degree course where as his co-accused get put in a legal limbo. The USA must be ashamed of its much vaunted legal system when it won't even give suspects an internationally respected fair trial. At least Bush isn't using them and their families for target practice as Sharon is doing in Palestine.You have to ask yourself, what would it take for Israelis to go in and start arresting people? How would the Palestinian-Arabs react to that? How would the Palestinian Authority react to it? Do you think it wouldn’t be condemned as a provocation? While it would no doubt be regarded as provocative I think that arresting people and putting them through a fair trial is a lesser provocation than killing innocent children while assassinating suspects. As such, I think the response would be not as aggressive. Because I do not suscribe to the 'Sharon is stupid' argument, I believe that he understands that quite well.If I thought that were a viable solution, I’d support it. I don’t think it is, so that leaves us with the either the Palestinian-Authority doing it, or the Israelis targeting them in military strikes. Since the Palestinian-Authority won’t do it and won’t even try to think of ways it could be done, that leaves us with the situation as it is now. I believe your analysis fails to provide for all the range of options open to Sharon. There are many alternative options, of which the one discussed immediately above, is merely an example.

In the long entrenched situation in Palestine and the wider Middle East a long term solution is necessary. This, I believe, should encapsulate both military and political components and contain aspects of ground giving by men of vision on both sides. Unfortunately the vision of both Arafat and Sharon is lacking, so what should be done? Perhaps, like Northern Ireland, the most powerful authority needs to act in the best interests of all its citizens in a fair and equitable way under the law over an extended period of time. This will eventually lower support for the terrorists because, despite continual provocation (such as when Israel was attacked by Scud missile in the first Gulf war and it diod not respond), the major power is seen to be acting in a democratic and lawful way by the immediate population and the wider world.

I am not naive enough to believe that terrorists will ever be cleared from the world but the rump can be dealt with by vigorous, lawful and fair military and police action, characterised by an absence of the collective punishment that is currently fuelling the aggression, which both Sharon and Arafat seem to want or be unable or unwilling to prevent. Yes and no. It’s common that when I get involved in these discussions and I condemn Palestinian-Arab terrorism for someone else to say, “Oh yeah? Well this Israeli government official was involved in x activity 60 years ago.” That’s a red herring. The only purpose of saying something like that is to imply that since everyone is bad, then nobody is any worse than anyone else, which isn’t true. With respect - not at all. The purpose of drawing that comparison is to to point out that the leaders of Israel demonstrated to others around the world that terrorist activity can work. That it happened some time ago is irrelevant. It still happened within living memory and it was still terrorism.
What interests me is time bar implicit in your reply. You have already referred to the history of Arafat over a period of fifty years yet all of a sudden you say to mention something 60 years ago is a red herring. Can I suggest what's a red herring for the goose is a red herring for the gander? That is if you want to take all terror properly into account.

If we attack some groups for terrorist activities then we should attack all terrorist activities. That is at the very core of my arguments. All terrorists are wrong, not only the ones you don't like.

The argument is def9nately not that because one group was bad everyone else can be bad. THe argument is very much that things can be turned round but only if all sides, not just one, get their act I will also add that you need to look at how you use the word “Palestine”. Right now, there is no place called Palestine. In the days of the British Mandate, the word referred to the region that is now covered by the Gaza Strip, Israel, the West Bank, and the nation of Jordan. “Palestine” as in Palestine Liberation Organization means Israel. I agree that I have not defined what I mean by Palestine. I however use it deliberately to show that I believe there should be a palestinian state that is not subject to an apartheid wall. In essence I mean that area which I believe should be part of a separate Palestinian state. That area does not wholly lie within Sharon's apartheid wall or the Palestinian ghetto he seems intent on creating by carrying out internationally unacceptable attacks on innocent people and using the response he appears to want and incites ( however wrong it is), to justify more land grabbing. My definition of what Palestine should be is possibly very close to what Colin Powell believes it should be.I’ve mentioned before that the PLO was formed in 1964, three years before Israel took the West Bank from Jordan. This is important because many people assume that the goal of the PLO is/was to liberate the West Bank, but it’s not. When the organization was formed, the West Bank was already under the control of the Palestinian nation of Jordan. Their goal is/was to liberate Israel (called Palestine) from the Israelis (Jews). I simply believe that the state of Israel has every right to exist on the land that is internationally recognised as theirs and I believe in their right to defend that land under the law. Jenin was a battle. Jenin was a refugee “camp” that had been turned into a terrorist training camp. Buildings were bulldozed there because they had been mined with explosive booby traps. There we disagree, as with so many other things it seems. If Sharon was so happy with what he did I wonder why he stopped international observers observing events? A British ex-military observer reportedly concluded that the destruction was way above what the military action demanded. The UN criticised Palestinian groups for using civilians as shields. It also criticised the IDF for the same thing.At the time, Jenin was big news because after the Israelis went in, the Palestinians claimed there was a massacre, that the Israelis had killed some 800 civilians. This was later proved false, but as with many lies, people have a tendency to remember what they heard first, even if it’s corrected later. Some people might. I have seen documentaries which went into detail about what happened. This showed that a number of civilians were killed - some of them shot in the back. As an example of what happened in Jenin the following comes from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2102081.stmThe Israeli army has apologised for causing the deaths of six-year-old Ahmad Abu Aziz and his 13-year-old brother Jamil, but said the tank crew opened fire to deter Palestinians breaking a curfew and approaching them.

However, the footage shows a tank firing the first of two shells, at close range, at a group of civilians who are running away.

The dead boys' father, Youssef Abu Aziz, told the BBC that they had gone outside to buy chocolate, thinking the Israeli curfew imposed on their city had been lifted.
The Oxford Compact English Dictionary defines massacre as amongst other things 'murder (esp. a large number of perople ) cruelly or volently.' In Northern Ireland the killing of 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday is regarded by many as a massacre. I understand that over 23 non-combatant civilians were killed at Jenin.As for the marriage thing, every nation claims the right to limit immigration and citizenship. While the law is controversial, I have to point out that it doesn’t prevent anyone from living together, it just prevents them from living together in Israel As I said, an apartheid law and part of a process of collectively ghettoising a group of people. The apatheid regime in South Africa also forced married couples to live apart within the same country. I’ve read about the IRA, it’s history. What I never understood is the exact nature of these grievances that justified 80 years of bloodshed. As near as I can tell, the northern Irish got pissed off when England granted sovereignty to the rest of Ireland but not them. Can you tell me more? The IRA still has arms dumps under its own control and it withdraws cooperation with the international inspectors when it wishes. That is very much current events.

If I was to tell you the story in the depth it deserves it would strain the patience of most here and after doing so many would not agree with me. In itself that is perhaps not very different to the situation in Israel.

To speak only a little about the complexity of the start of the 'Troubles' - like almost every country in the world Ireland as a whole was subject to massacre and land grabs by different groups at different times and in the North a proportion of the tension stems from the propinquity of groups long on memory and short on forgiveness (an unfortunately ubiquitous aspect of human behaviour). After partition, some rights, such as fair employment, were denied to a proportion of the population over many years. Cities were also gerrymandered. This prevented one side from being able to elect their fair share of representatives.

These problems resulted in growing demands for equal civil rights and produced an active but essentially peaceful civil rights movement. The then police service did not always protect every part of the population with equal fervour. Burntollet Bridge was a major example (see http://politics.guardian.co.uk/northernirelandassembly/story/0,9061,581745,00.html for more details) when the police allowed 'ultras' or men armed with weapons to attack a peaceful march without intervening as they should. Calls for protection for other attacks were not immediately met by the IRA, who were nicknamed 'I Ran Away' after another episode http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/northern_ireland/2001/provisional_ira/1969.stm In fact it was the British army which was welcomed by the nationalist community in Belfast as their protectors in the earliest days of the troubles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/gcsebitesize/history/ni1965_85/3army_test.shtml.

The 'Troubles'then took their sorry downward spiral after that with many comentators, who were unwilling to take the time to understand the true situation, characterising events simply as a religious argument. While this was indeed an element of the mix, there were many other aspects, some of an ancient historical tribal aspect of which the partition of Ireland was a major factor for the IRA and some others. The historical aspect can be seen in many ways, including the fact that battles, one of which took place in the late 1600's, are still commemorated on a yearly basis.

Mycroft

11th October 2003, 12:03 AM

Gawd, I thought I was long winded!

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Arafat has indeed been involved with terrist crimes, as were the founders of Israel. There was no mention of Arafat specifically in the article you cited. In the absences of such a direct connection and in the face of the specifically stated alternative connection in the article, if we follow your argument some might argue that the IRA used Menachim Begin as a role model for their terrorist activities.

To come to that conclusion you would have to ignore the religious influence on these girls actions.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I agree it is a personal tragedy and a tragedy for the Middle East. Perhaps we might gain some insight by studing more closely what drives them to give up their lives and what if anything provides the clerics their justification for the crimes. I recognise the possible contribution of Arafat and modern leaders of Israel and the Tiger Tamils and the IRA and historic terrorists and Manuel Noriega and the Hashashim and the contras and the terrorists who attacked the people in East Timor. Like me, you have provided no direct evidence for your claim so I guess my alternatives might be as possible as yours or they might not.

Of that list of yours, only Arafat, the Tamil Tigers and the Hashisham used suicide terror. The Hashisham didn’t pick random targets, the Tamil Tigers are not Muslim, which leaves us with Arafat as the most direct influence.

Thank you for providing the direct evidence I was too lazy to do on my own.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I just am not as sure as you appear to be, particularly in the face of the stated reason in the article you cite. That the USA supplied Osama Bin Laden...

Your link doesn’t work and your quote doesn’t mention OBL.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Far from being a sleight of hand, of a rhetorical or any other form, this point was made specifically because it is very much at the heart of this debate. The US and Israel have both (as well as many other countries) supported and/or carried out terrorist acts at times they considered to be appropriate in their histories. Unfortunately other people may have taken a lead from that and supported terror at what they also consider to be appropriate times for them.

The United States military action in Panama has nothing to do with two girls wanting to be suicide bombers in Morocco. I don’t need to justify Panama to condemn terror elsewhere. Suggesting anything else is just a distraction/diversion tactic. It is rhetorical sleight of hand.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Recent history doesn't actually support your thesis here. The fact is that the family homes of Timothy McVeigh's relatives remain unbulldozed, as do the family homes of the American Taliban's relatives - (cf the frankly dodgy treatment of those untried people in Guantanomo Bay). Those direct examples show that what Sharon is doing to innocent Palestinians is never likely to happen within the US.

There have been very severe changes in the United States in regards to terror. We have not started bulldozing homes, but we have lost civil liberties and privacy. There will be more, much more, if we suffer more terrorism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you took your argument to its logical conclusion, one would ask why aren't the families of all murderers also given the death penalty or at least have their houses razed to the ground? According to your thesis they are also culpable. Why aren't the family of the Enron criminals who supported the Republican and Democratic parties also jailed because they presumably had an impact on those particular crimes. I seem to remember that Bush's children broke the law by illegally drinking alcohol. Should George W. Bush be put in jail for their crimes? It does not make sense. Collective punishment is an affront to decent norms. When it is carried out, experience all around the world, including in Northern Ireland, shows that it generates deep ill will and yet more terrorists - as Sharon very well knows.

We have laws like that in our war on drugs.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I understand frustration only too well. A relative of mine was blown to pieces for the crime of employing people of both religions.

Then I would think you would be less sympathetic to terrorists.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
One of the characteristicsics of a decent democratic state is it's ability to stick to the rule of law in the face of provocation. If a democratic state does not stick to decent norms, on what basis can it demand others do what it won't?

On what basis do you demand restraint from the Israelis but not civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs? You characterize everything they do as a response to Israeli oppression as though these people are children who are not responsible for their actions. The Palestinian-Arabs are not children, they are not stupid, and they are not savages. We can and should expect restraint and civilized behavior from them as well.

You can complain all you want about building walls and bulldozing homes, but the truth is these things are a response to terrorism, and if the terrorism would end, so would these other things you criticize so much. The blood and injustice are on the hands of Arafat, who failed to live up to even his most basic responsibilities under the Oslo agreement. If he had, there would be no bulldozing or security walls, we would have another Palestinian-Arab state that’s five years old already.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In the long entrenched situation in Palestine and the wider Middle East a long term solution is necessary. This, I believe, should encapsulate both military and political components and contain aspects of ground giving by men of vision on both sides.
Unfortunately the vision of both Arafat and Sharon is lacking, so what should be done?

A long term solution requires a willing Palestinian-Arab partner. Period. At the moment, there is no such thing.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Perhaps, like Northern Ireland, the most powerful authority needs to act in the best interests of all its citizens in a fair and equitable way under the law over an extended period of time. This will eventually lower support for the terrorists because, despite continual provocation (such as when Israel was attacked by Scud missile in the first Gulf war and it diod not respond), the major power is seen to be acting in a democratic and lawful way by the immediate population and the wider world.

Unfortunately your definition of “fair and equitable” means that Israel should do nothing while Jews die.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The purpose of drawing that comparison is to to point out that the leaders of Israel demonstrated to others around the world that terrorist activity can work. That it happened some time ago is irrelevant. It still happened within living memory and it was still terrorism.

I agree with you there. When Peres traded concessions for empty promises, he proved that terrorism works.

rikzilla

11th October 2003, 05:58 AM

Mycroft,

Arafat's true gift to civilization is what he's currently got growing in his guts.

-z

BTW, Do yourself a favor and ignore EJ...he's been suspected of cutting and pasting stuff to his posts just to turn them into mind-bending, thread-killing monsters. The old "scroll the chat room technique". To debate him you'll have to devote time to wade through it all, and he's a brick wall......I hate to see you wasting your time man.

Baker

11th October 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
And that justifies the title of your thread? You may be right you may be wrong however it is normal practice on this site to provide evidence for your claims. Can you supply a definite link between the girls and Arafat or is your claim merely a figment of your imagination and mere supposition?

Well first there is the Palestinian Textbooks that teaches their children to grow up to be suicide bombers

This is a link to the direct translation of the New Palestinian Textbooks if anyone can dispute this please do however MEMRI has an untarnished reputation of their translations.

http://memri.org/book/MEMRI_Book_PGS.pdf
Pages of important interest.
page 14
page 20
page 28
page 43
page 64

These are recent Palestinian Authority Friday Sermons Broadcast on Palestinian Television

This is a direct translation from Palestinian Television

"…Muhammad, Allah's Messenger, heralded to those killed for Allah that they are Allah's most preferred people. When a man comes to the Messenger of Allah and says, 'Who is the man most preferred by Allah?' [Muhammad] says: 'A believer who participated in Jihad with his body and his money for the sake of Allah.' These are the people most preferred by Allah.

"Blessings to those who wage [Jihad] with their body and are killed for the sake of Allah. Blessings to those who fight by means of their money and spend it for the sake of Allah…

"If we go back in the time tunnel 1400 years, we will find that history repeats itself. Here the Messenger of Allah calls to do justice, and he holds on to it by willpower, by determination and by faith in Allah. He calls to do justice, but he is besieged by members of his own tribe, the infidel Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula. Likewise, he was besieged by two powers – Persia in the east and Byzantium in the west. They have besieged him, and they exactly represent today's USSR and America. Persia represents Russia in the east, and Byzantium represents America in the west. And indeed, Persia [collapsed] first in the east, as Russia fell first here in the east. And thus, if Allah wills it, America will collapse, as Byzantium collapsed in the west.

"The struggle between truth and falsehood continues, and it is ancient. There is no escape from [the fact] that victory goes to the men of truth, even if it takes a long time. This is a matter of belief to which we hold, because victory belongs to the men of truth, as long as they cling to their truth, holding on to their unity and their unity of action. The men of truth will be victorious, with Allah's help. We will be victorious here in Palestine, as long as the men of Palestine hold on to their Islamic and national principles, and to unbroken ranks and their unity of action…

"The Prophet [Muhammad] could, by means of unbroken ranks, conquer Byzantium, the greatest power compared to today's America – and this without a single martyr falling from among the Muslims… The men of Byzantium fled their posts and cities when they heard of the army of the Prophet, and this is without a single Muslim Shahid falling. The Prophet could, by means of the unity of the Muslim ranks and its awakening, defeat the America of that time, as we will defeat America as long as it supports our enemy, as long as America insists on being against our people and against our cause and our holy places, and against our people and our leadership. As long as America holds these criminal opinions, we will defeat it with Allah's help.

"Indeed, we consider America to be our No. 1 enemy, as long as it supports our enemy. Must we be killed by only American planes? [Must] our homes be destroyed only by means of American tanks? Must our enemy control us only by means of American support? America is our No. 1 enemy, and we see it as our No. 1 enemy as long as we learn from the lessons of the Battle of Tabouk [which took place in October 630 AD] :'Make ready for them whatever you can of armed strength and of mounted pickets.' [Koran 8:60] We are prepared and ready, but victory is from Allah…"
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP57403

This isn't quite a direct link but it shows a strong influence from coming from Arafat.

E.J.Armstrong

14th October 2003, 01:01 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
Gawd, I thought I was long winded! My apologies - never mind the quality, feel the width. To come to that conclusion you would have to ignore the religious influence on these girls actions. Perhaps it has as much logical validity as your own. I don't suscribe to the notion that for people to do the same things they must be of the same religion.Of that list of yours, only Arafat, the Tamil Tigers and the Hashisham used suicide terror. The Hashisham didn’t pick random targets, the Tamil Tigers are not Muslim, which leaves us with Arafat as the most direct influen Your thesis not only omits the Sicari but appears to promote the strange idea that people have to be of the same religion to do the same things. The Sicari were not Muslims.Your link doesn’t work and your quote doesn’t mention OBL. Apologies - the link was copied from the site I quoted. The quote shows that the US supplied Mujahadin groups who used terror against the people of Afghanistan. Your argument seems to be that it is OK to support terrorists when it suits. The United States military action in Panama has nothing to do with two girls wanting to be suicide bombers in Morocco. I don’t need to justify Panama to condemn terror elsewhere. Suggesting anything else is just a distraction/diversion tactic. It is rhetorical sleight of hand. You seem to be suggesting that Arafat can engage in terrorism around the world and have followers but the USA can support terror around the world and it won't. There have been very severe changes in the United States in regards to terror. We have not started bulldozing homes, but we have lost civil liberties and privacy. There will be more, much more, if we suffer more terrorism. Like I say, recent history doesn't support your thesis. Your argument might however begin to have more weight when the USA starts bulldozing the homes of innocent people, collectively punishes innocent family members of suspects and begins the wholesale assassination of suspects. We have laws like that in our war on drugs Perhaps you can supply some examples of where the type of action Sharon takes is happening in the USA? Then I would think you would be less sympathetic to terrorists I am afraid that you still do not get it. Let me try again. I am not sympathetic to terrorists. My wider family have suffered at the hands of terrorists.

I am against terrorism of all shades, including where governments assassinate suspects without trial and where suicide bombers kill people. I am against groups who bulldoze innocent peoples houses or terrorist groups who bomb buses. I am against the killing of innocent children, whoever does it. I am for justice for all - not terror for anyone. On what basis do you demand restraint from the Israelis but not civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs? I hope that you are not being offensive for the sake of it because you yourself have accepted that I have repeatedly stated that all Israelis are entitled to live in peace as are all innocent Palestinians. You characterize everything they do as a response to Israeli oppression as though these people are children who are not responsible for their actions. The Palestinian-Arabs are not children, they are not stupid, and they are not savages. We can and should expect restraint and civilized behavior from them as well. You are simply factually incorrect in this latest assertion about me once again. Can I just suggest that you look at where I posted The UN criticised Palestinian groups for using civilians as shields. and I saidI also happen to think you have a very good argument here and have stated the Palestinian Authority should arrest terrorist suspects Perhaps you failed to notice those points and many others? If we expect restraint of anyone, as we should, shouldn't we practise it ourselves?You can complain all you want about building walls and bulldozing homes, but the truth is these things are a response to terrorism, and if the terrorism would end, so would these other things you criticize so much. I hope you mean terror on all sides, as I do. I believe that the proper response to terror is the rule of law, not assassinating suspects in circumstances which guarantee the deaths of innocent children and bulldozing the houses of innocent people. The blood and injustice are on the hands of Arafat, who failed to live up to even his most basic responsibilities under the Oslo agreement. If he had, there would be no bulldozing or security walls, we would have another Palestinian-Arab state that’s five years old already. Arafat indeed has blood on his hands. So had the founders of Israel. You appear to fail to see any problems with what Sharon has done and is doing. I call for terror to stop on all sides. Do you?A long term solution requires a willing Palestinian-Arab partner. Period. At the moment, there is no such thing. Perhaps treating everyone equitably would be a good start.Unfortunately your definition of “fair and equitable” means that Israel should do nothing while Jews die. I am afraid that is another verifiably false statement. You have complained about the length of my posts so let me conclusively demonstrate just once how false this latest claim is. I stated of Israel It should however engage the terrorists in all the range of ways successfully used by other governments around the world. This includes the use of all legal force during the commission of crimes or attacks and the use if counter-intelligence to stymie planned attacks or crimes in conjunction with other states, where necessary. For some reason you have also chosen to mention one religion. I object to bombs in buses whether they kill children or adults, Hindus or Jews, Catholics or Protestants, Muslims or Shintoists, black or white and I object to apartheid wherever and whenever it exists. I agree with you there. When Peres traded concessions for empty promises, he proved that terrorism works. I notice that you chose not to engage in the substantive point.

All Israelis are entitled to live in peace and free from terror, as are all innocent Palestinians.

E.J.Armstrong

14th October 2003, 01:06 PM

originally posted by Rikzilla...he's been suspected of cutting and pasting stuff to his posts just to turn them into mind-bending, thread-killing monsters

Ahh the Rikzilla moment. Making claims without being man enough to back them up. Perhaps one day, like Sylvia Browne he will?

Larspeart

14th October 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Ed
They were driven to it, it is not their fault, it is a valid form of conflict, it is the fault of the Jews, it is the fault of the US.

Oh get over yourself! Can't you just see crazy as crazy?

God (no pun), where are your values?

Mycroft

14th October 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Your thesis not only omits the Sicari but appears to promote the strange idea that people have to be of the same religion to do the same things. The Sicari were not Muslims.
The point remains that you have failed to show a more direct connection to other groups.
Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I also happen to think you have a very good argument here and have stated the Palestinian Authority should arrest terrorist suspects

And this seems to be the heart of our disagreement. In the absence of the Palestinian-Authority arresting terrorist and putting them on trial, military strikes against their leaders is a reasonable response. You define this as terrorism, I don’t.

E.J.Armstrong

14th October 2003, 01:44 PM

originally posted by Baker
Well first there is the Palestinian Textbooks that teaches their children to grow up to be suicide bombers
Agreed that there are many ways in which people have been and are being encouraged to be suicide bombers. That is a great offence to human decency. Did the girls read these and act on them? Perhaps you have further material which confirms that point?

The main problem with this and Mycroft's claim is that, at the moment, there is no evidence that Arafat had anything to do with the actions of the two girls. The link Mycroft provided explicitedly states that it was another terrorist who was suposedly a subject of fascination for the girls. While not ruling out the possibility that Mycroft's claim might actually be true, if it had validity perhaps Arafat might have been mentioned somewhere in his link? As he isn't we are left to speculate on which, of the many possible role models discussed above, was the one that influenced them. Assuming we don't believe what the article actually says that is.

E.J.Armstrong

14th October 2003, 02:02 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
The point remains that you have failed to show a more direct connection to other groups.
Unfortunately, as the author of the original claim it is for you - not me - to show that your claim is true. The fact that you consider it to be true does not make it true. And this seems to be the heart of our disagreement. In the absence of the Palestinian-Authority arresting terrorist and putting them on trial, military strikes against their leaders is a reasonable response. You define this as terrorism, I don’t. While this may indeed be one of several areas where we differ, unfortunately you still do not characterise my opinions accurately. It is not defence against terrorism that I am against - it is some of the methods being used which I have an issue with. I believe that targetting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and collective punishments such as bulldozing the houses of innocent people are, de facto, acts of terror against innocent people as is the use of innocent people as human shields, whoever does it.

Lest you misunderstand me again, let me reiterate. All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror, as are all innocent Palestinians and for that matter everyone else around the world.

Mycroft

14th October 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Unfortunately, as the author of the original claim it is for you - not me - to show that your claim is true. The fact that you consider it to be true does not make it true.

Arafat promotes fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder. I am willing to concede that there are others who also promote fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder, but they contribute to, not diminish Arafat’s contribution.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
While this may indeed be one of several areas where we differ, unfortunately you still do not characterise my opinions accurately. It is not defence against terrorism that I am against - it is some of the methods being used which I have an issue with. I believe that targetting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and collective punishments such as bulldozing the houses of innocent people are, de facto, acts of terror against innocent people as is the use of innocent people as human shields, whoever does it.

Lest you misunderstand me again, let me reiterate. All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror, as are all innocent Palestinians and for that matter everyone else around the world.

There is no such thing as a war where civilians are not killed. While we may wish it otherwise, this is a simple truth that cannot be denied. In this conflict, one side has consistently left the door open to peace, while the other side has consistently escalated the violence to sabotage every peace agreement. The Oslo peace agreement, for example, led to an increase of Palestinian-Arab terror, not a decrease.

While I understand your objection to some of these methods, I point out that they are a direct result of the Palestinian-Authority failing to live up to their own responsibilities and policing terror on their own.

Baker

17th October 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Agreed that there are many ways in which people have been and are being encouraged to be suicide bombers. That is a great offence to human decency. Did the girls read these and act on them? Perhaps you have further material which confirms that point?

Unless they never want to school in Palestinian or never watched Palestinian Television then no you are saying that if I don't have a photo of the girls studying Palestinian text books or watching television that I have no claim despite the over whelming odds that they more then likely did.

The main problem with this and Mycroft's claim is that, at the moment, there is no evidence that Arafat had anything to do with the actions of the two girls. The link Mycroft provided explicitedly states that it was another terrorist who was suposedly a subject of fascination for the girls. While not ruling out the possibility that Mycroft's claim might actually be true, if it had validity perhaps Arafat might have been mentioned somewhere in his link? As he isn't we are left to speculate on which, of the many possible role models discussed above, was the one that influenced them. Assuming we don't believe what the article actually says that is.

The links I posted above is the main point Mycroft was trying to make influencing and encouraging is just as bad Arafat personally strapping the bombs on the girls.

E.J.Armstrong

18th October 2003, 03:29 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Arafat promotes fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder. I am willing to concede that there are others who also promote fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder, but they contribute to, not diminish Arafat’s contribution. If we are to take your assertion at face value (which, with the lack of any corroboration in the article you cited, is difficult to do) then one logical implication appears to be that some modern terrorists around the world have taken their lead from some founding Prime Ministers of Israel. There is no such thing as a war where civilians are not killed. While we may wish it otherwise, this is a simple truth that cannot be denied. In this conflict, one side has consistently left the door open to peace, while the other side has consistently escalated the violence to sabotage every peace agreement. The Oslo peace agreement, for example, led to an increase of Palestinian-Arab terror, not a decrease.

While I understand your objection to some of these methods, I point out that they are a direct result of the Palestinian-Authority failing to live up to their own responsibilities and policing terror on their own. In war, not everything is acceptable. Sharon is directly responsible for his own actions, as is Arafat. If we condemn terrorism, as we all should, then surely we should condemn all terrorism, without differentiation, whoever has practised or whoever does practise it.

E.J.Armstrong

18th October 2003, 03:49 AM

[I]originally posted by Baker[/}
Unless they never want to school in Palestinian or never watched Palestinian Television then no you are saying that if I don't have a photo of the girls studying Palestinian text books or watching television that I have no claim despite the over whelming odds that they more then likely did.

I for instance do not see French TV and would not understand most of it if I did, although France is very much closer to the UK than Morocco is to Palestine.

You may be right or you may be wrong. In order to take a claim from assertion to reality however some corroboration is necessary. It is nice to believe that what we feel is correct is in fact correct. Nice, but not always true, whatever the odds are. On that basis a lot more innocent people would be put to death on the USA's death row.

The links I posted above is the main point Mycroft was trying to make influencing and encouraging is just as bad Arafat personally strapping the bombs on the girls. I agree that not only is all terrorism wrong but encouraging terrorism is wrong. On the matter of the specific claim made by Mycroft however, unless I am wrong, you have agreed that there is nothing concrete connecting the actions of the two girls to Arafat in the material either you or Mycroft posted. If you are trying to claim that the girls actually saw this material and were influenced by it then, as mentioned above, a few more details are necessary. Is it likewise possible for anyone to be influenced by the actions of the founders of Israel or the IRA?

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If we are to take your assertion at face value (which, with the lack of any corroboration in the article you cited, is difficult to do) then one logical implication appears to be that some modern terrorists around the world have taken their lead from some founding Prime Ministers of Israel.
Did the founding Prime Ministers of Israel strap explosives to themselves? Did they consult with Muslim clerics?

One of the twins planned to blow herself up in the wines and spirits section of the supermarket, press reports have said.

Did the Prime Ministers of Israel have anything against alcohol?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In war, not everything is acceptable. Sharon is directly responsible for his own actions, as is Arafat. If we condemn terrorism, as we all should, then surely we should condemn all terrorism, without differentiation, whoever has practised or whoever does practise it.
When Sharon encourages children to strap explosives on themselves and commit murder-suicide, I will equate him with Arafat. Until that happens, I will condemn Arafat and applaud Sharon's efforts to fight his terror.

a_unique_person

19th October 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
When Sharon encourages children to strap explosives on themselves and commit murder-suicide, I will equate him with Arafat. Until that happens, I will condemn Arafat and applaud Sharon's efforts to fight his terror.

Yes, he is a good man, he only encourages armed men to attack helpless civilians.

E.J.Armstrong

22nd October 2003, 01:46 PM

originallly posted by Mycroft
Did the founding Prime Ministers of Israel strap explosives to themselves? Did they consult with Muslim clerics?
No, I am quite sure they didn't. The problem with your argument however is that, despite not providing any solid evidence of the claim that forms the basis for this thread, you still claim the girls were influenced by Arafat. Now, you may be right and you may be wrong but on the basis of your own logic, which I doubt, it is just as likely that terrorists all around the world have also been influenced by some of the actions of some of the founders of Israel. Did the Prime Ministers of Israel have anything against alcohol? I don't know. Why not ask Sharon? Why did some of the founders of Israel murder innocent people in terrorist attacks?When Sharon encourages children to strap explosives on themselves and commit murder-suicide, I will equate him with Arafat. Until that happens, I will condemn Arafat and applaud Sharon's efforts to fight his terror. I condemn everyone who attacks children or uses children to kill other people. Hamas and Hezbollah are primary culprits, of that there is no doubt. Unfortunately Ariel Sharon is targeting suspects in a manner that is intentionally careless of the lives of children. That is an act of terrorism against the innocent people of Palestine. When it becomes generally acceptable on US soil you might let me know.

Mycroft

22nd October 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

No, I am quite sure they didn't. The problem with your argument however is that, despite not providing any solid evidence of the claim that forms the basis for this thread, you still claim the girls were influenced by Arafat.
What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion? I don’t see how looking through books or newsprint to find a quote from some other writer who has made the same connection that I have will change anything.

The simple truth is that Arabic/Muslim culture has embraced this idea that suicide murder has become not only acceptable, but good. Something worthy of admiration and honor. This has spread far beyond the Israeli/Arab conflict so that 14 year old girls thousands of miles away now contemplate blowing themselves up so that their empty lives can be given meaning similar to other “martyrs” who are glorified.

Now, did Arafat personally call these girls and say, “We don’t have enough random death in Morocco, can you please die for us?”

Of course not, and neither did I claim that he did.

What I do claim is that Arafat has had a hugely successful career as a terrorist. As such he is a primary contributor to this culture that encourages pride when people die while murdering innocents. Through terror, he has made himself the leader of millions, he has created a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions, and personal power to rival that of heads of state.

Did Arafat invent terrorism? No, but he has advanced it tremendously. The first systematic recruitment and training of suicide bombers came from this conflict, as did the first airline hijackings.

Is Arafat the only successful terrorist? No, there are plenty. I single Arafat out because he has achieved fame and power far in excess of other terrorists. The contributions of other terrorists in advancing this culture of death should not be discounted, but neither do they take away from Arafats contribution.

Might others have had a more direct influence on the girls? Of course. Most certainly the Muslim clerics that gave them literature on jihad.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Unfortunately Ariel Sharon is targeting suspects in a manner that is intentionally careless of the lives of children

Except that the Israelis show more concern for the well being of the Palestinian-Arabic children than the Palestinian-Arabs do. When children are encouraged to join protests and throw rocks, when schools are closed so that children will be available to participate in uprisings, when suicide-bomber trading cards are printed and sold, and bomb-making factories are placed near schools…it adds up to a rather ugly picture that suggests the Palestinian-Arabic leadership understands the propaganda value of dead child statistics.

E.J.Armstrong

25th October 2003, 02:33 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion? I don’t see how looking through books or newsprint to find a quote from some other writer who has made the same connection that I have will change anything.
Then it seems clear that you are not interested in the actual truth of the matter. A truth which is stated in the article you linked to and which you have ignored.
On that basis of your own logic then the death row in the USA would have even more falsely convicted people. The simple truth is that Arabic/Muslim culture has embraced this idea that suicide murder has become not only acceptable, but good. Something worthy of admiration and honor. This has spread far beyond the Israeli/Arab conflict so that 14 year old girls thousands of miles away now contemplate blowing themselves up so that their empty lives can be given meaning similar to other “martyrs” who are glorified. And in what way did the culture of the founders of Israel allow them to murder innocent people through terrorist bombings. Is that different? Of course not, and neither did I claim that he did. It's easy to knock down a straw man isn't it? Not very helpful but easy.What I do claim is that Arafat has had a hugely successful career as a terrorist. As such he is a primary contributor to this culture that encourages pride when people die while murdering innocents. Through terror, he has made himself the leader of millions, he has created a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions, and personal power to rival that of heads of state. Unfortunately you started a thread which made a specific claim. In support of that claim you linked to a site which not only mentioned nothing in support of you claim but specifically countermanded it.

Ariel Sharon is currently engaged in de facto terrorising the innocent people of Palestine. I think it's time all terrorism stopped immediately and all terrorists and all those who supported and facilitated terrorism in Israel or elsewhere such as Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law.Is Arafat the only successful terrorist? No, there are plenty. I single Arafat out because he has achieved fame and power far in excess of other terrorists. The contributions of other terrorists in advancing this culture of death should not be discounted, but neither do they take away from Arafats contribution. I don't think he achieved as much power as some of the founders of Israel who also engaged in terrorism.Might others have had a more direct influence on the girls? Of course. Most certainly the Muslim clerics that gave them literature on jihad. I agree and possibly another, just as likely influence, might have been the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel?Except that the Israelis show more concern for the well being of the Palestinian-Arabic children than the Palestinian-Arabs do. When children are encouraged to join protests and throw rocks, when schools are closed so that children will be available to participate in uprisings, when suicide-bomber trading cards are printed and sold, and bomb-making factories are placed near schools…it adds up to a rather ugly picture that suggests the Palestinian-Arabic leadership understands the propaganda value of dead child statistics. You seem to have a propensity for allocating entire peoples a single viewpoint. Does that mean you agree that Ariel Sharon is targetting suspects (not people tried under the law) in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children and that he is bulldozing the homes of innocent people?

Mycroft

25th October 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Then it seems clear that you are not interested in the actual truth of the matter. A truth which is stated in the article you linked to and which you have ignored.

Let me get this straight: You deny Arafat’s contribution to modern terrorism and claim that would-be Muslim suicide-bombers are just as likely to have been influenced by Jewish extremists from 60 years ago as they are to have been influenced by contemporary Muslim suicide-bombers even though their methods are identical to the contemporary Muslim terrorists…and you say I’m not interested in truth?

I’ll tell you what, show me some Jewish suicide-bombers. Show me some Jews, Zionist or otherwise, who have strapped explosives onto their bodies and purposefully targeted civilians.

Are there any? I don’t know, maybe.

Show me that the number of Jewish suicide-bombers in all the world in the last 100 years to equal just 1% of the number of Muslim suicide-bombers, and I will ignore the differences in religion, the separation of time, and concede the point to you. If you can do that, I will agree that these girls may have been influenced by Jewish terrorists and I will drop the subject.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
On that basis of your own logic then the death row in the USA would have even more falsely convicted people.

You’re going to have to explain this in more detail. It makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
And in what way did the culture of the founders of Israel allow them to murder innocent people through terrorist bombings. Is that different?

I don’t remember ever endorsing terror of any kind. The closest I may have come is saying that if Arafat had given up terrorism, I might find him an acceptable representative of the Palestinian-Arab people. That’s not to say that I find his terrorism acceptable, just that if overlooking it advanced the peace process, then it’s more important to advance peace.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It's easy to knock down a straw man isn't it? Not very helpful but easy. Unfortunately you started a thread which made a specific claim. In support of that claim you linked to a site which not only mentioned nothing in support of you claim but specifically countermanded it.

Maybe you need to clarify this “specific claim” I’ve made. Your understanding seems different from mine.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Ariel Sharon is currently engaged in de facto terrorising the innocent people of Palestine...

Not all violence is terrorism.

If you want to expand the discussion to say that all violence is bad or that all violence is morally equivalent then that’s another discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think it's time all terrorism stopped immediately and all terrorists and all those who supported and facilitated terrorism in Israel or elsewhere such as Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law.

If you mention Sabra and Shatila, don’t forget Damour.

If you believe that the person who ordered the massacres at Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law, I think I agree with you, but if I remember my history correctly (I should look it up, but I’m too lazy) I think the reason he wasn’t is because shortly afterward he was elected head of state in Lebanon.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't think he achieved as much power as some of the founders of Israel who also engaged in terrorism. I agree and possibly another, just as likely influence, might have been the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel?

You’ve stated this again and again, and my response is still to look at the differences in methods and culture. That the girls in Morocco were influenced my Muslim concepts if Jihad and martyrdom is a commonality with the Palestinian-Arab militants. That the girls in Morocco contemplated wearing explosives is another commonality. There are no such commonalities with the Israeli militants from 60 years ago.

If you want to say that the Israeli militants from 60 years ago were also wrong, then I might agree with that, but that’s a different topic.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You seem to have a propensity for allocating entire peoples a single viewpoint.

Whenever you speak of groups of people it is necessary to use generalities. When you speak of cultural values it is understood (or should be) that not every member of that cultural group will share all of those values. I agree that it is important to make that distinction. The recent poll that shows that 59% of the Palestinian-Arabs support continued violence against Israel even if they gained complete control of all the the West Bank and Gaza does imply that the other 41% don’t. Recognizing this, however, doesn’t make that 59% any less disturbing.

I mention that as an example. If you want to discuss that statistic, please do it in the other thread.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Does that mean you agree that Ariel Sharon is targetting suspects (not people tried under the law) in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children and that he is bulldozing the homes of innocent people?

I think I’ve made my position on these questions clear. I will go over them one more time for you:

Characterizing terrorists as “suspects” and suggesting that they are entitled to due process is confusing a military action with a police action. The police authority that would be responsible for arresting terrorists and granting them due process is the Palestinian-Authority, which employs terrorists as policemen and has refused to take action against terrorists. By default, that leaves Israeli military action as the only way to combat terrorism directly. In summary, it’s the fault of the Palestinian-Authority that terrorists don’t get due process.

Yes, innocent people do die in war. This is sad, but I’m not aware of any nation in any period of history that has been able to fight a war without civilian casualties. If you know of a way that this can be done, I’m sure that your advice is needed among world military leaders as urban warfare becomes more and more common. The Geneva Convention places the responsibility for civilian casualties with those who place military targets, which includes combatants, among civilian populations. By that standard, I hold the Palestinian-Arabic militants responsible for Palestinian-Arabic civilian casualties and deem it a war crime.

I have no personal objection to bulldozing the homes of terrorists. Any criticisms I might have on that policy would be limited to its effectiveness and application, not on the policy itself.

If you wish to debate any of those three topics, I will be more than happy to do so; however I ask that you take it to another thread. In the interest of moving on with the discussion, if you simply re-state these questions without adding anything new or giving any reason why my opinions should be different, I will simply respond that I have already answered them.

E.J.Armstrong

31st October 2003, 06:11 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Let me get this straight: You deny Arafat’s contribution to modern terrorism and claim that would-be Muslim suicide-bombers are just as likely to have been influenced by Jewish extremists from 60 years ago as they are to have been influenced by contemporary Muslim suicide-bombers even though their methods are identical to the contemporary Muslim terrorists…and you say I’m not interested in truth? I am afraid that once again you do not have it straight. I have never denied that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism. I have however challenged your simple and unsupported claim that forms the title of this thread.

You asserted that the girls would have been influenced by Arafat's 50 year terrorist history yet you apparently fail to see how the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel a mere 10 years or so earlier could have influenced them. The girls you used to support the title of your thread actually told us who fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat. I’ll tell you what, show me some Jewish suicide-bombers. Show me some Jews, Zionist or otherwise, who have strapped explosives onto their bodies and purposefully targeted civilians.

Are there any? I don’t know, maybe. It seems that you are in fact happy to pursue a number of issues on this thread and to ask questions about them.
I don't know either. I do know that some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorism and that terror assisted in securing the formation of their state. Show me that the number of Jewish suicide-bombers in all the world in the last 100 years to equal just 1% of the number of Muslim suicide-bombers, and I will ignore the differences in religion, the separation of time, and concede the point to you. If you can do that, I will agree that these girls may have been influenced by Jewish terrorists and I will drop the subject. You seem to still be labouring under the idea that people have to be of the same religious group to engage in suicide terrorism. I have already shown that particular notion to be false - see discussion about the Tamils. In the same way other forms of terrorism do not require the perpetrators to be the same religion. I would just point out Northern Ireland where religious differences did not stop similar methods being used.
You’re going to have to explain this in more detail. It makes no sense to me. Happy to do so. I trust that you won't complain later on when I do so. You stated What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion? Let me take your requirments in turn. I have already demonstrated that terrorists do not have to be of the same religion to participate in terror. What the shared cultural influences are between Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVeigh and Menachim Begin? Shared cultural influences are therefore not necessary to engage in similar acts of terror. Finally, can I ask how many groups including the founders of Israel used bombs to kill innocent people indiscriminately? That include many different terrorist groups around the world and therefore is an invalid criterium.

For a case to be proven in your eyes therefore, all you need is common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion. If that was all that the courts in the USA needed to find a person guilty then there would be even more innocent people on death row and being put to death in the USA's killing cells. I am afraid the criteria you use establish nothing more than prejudice and are useless in establishing the truth of anything.I don’t remember ever endorsing terror of any kind. The closest I may have come is saying that if Arafat had given up terrorism, I might find him an acceptable representative of the Palestinian-Arab people. That’s not to say that I find his terrorism acceptable, just that if overlooking it advanced the peace process, then it’s more important to advance peace. I didn't say that you did. You do however seem to have difficulty accepting that the founders of Israel used terror in their fight to establish their country ad in clarifying how that was different to any other terrorist groups on whom the WOT is now being waged apparently. Maybe you need to clarify this “specific claim” I’ve made. Your understanding seems different from mine. The title is 'Arafats (sic) gift to civilization' and as justification you cited the article discussing the actions of the two girls. Not all violence is terrorism.

If you want to expand the discussion to say that all violence is bad or that all violence is morally equivalent then that’s another discussion.
I have never said that all violence is terrorism. In fact, as you well know, I have indicated that Israel is entitled to use all force allowed by law to prevent terrorist acts. I have also been very specific in describing some of the terrorist acts Sharon is currently engaged in. Targeting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and bulldozing the houses of innocent people are deliberate acts of terror against innocent Palestinians. If you mention Sabra and Shatila, don’t forget Damour.

If you believe that the person who ordered the massacres at Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law, I think I agree with you, but if I remember my history correctly (I should look it up, but I’m too lazy) I think the reason he wasn’t is because shortly afterward he was elected head of state in Lebanon. I am more than happy to mention all atrocities. Let me remind you what I actually did say. I said..all those who supported and facilitated terrorism in Israel or elsewhere such as Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law. I am happy to confirm that the word 'all' means 'all' . I don't differentiate. If my memory also serves me right one of the generals involved in providing the terrorists with access to the camps has been elected Prime Minister of Israel. You’ve stated this again and again, and my response is still to look at the differences in methods and culture. That the girls in Morocco were influenced my Muslim concepts if Jihad and martyrdom is a commonality with the Palestinian-Arab militants. That the girls in Morocco contemplated wearing explosives is another commonality. There are no such commonalities with the Israeli militants from 60 years ago.

If you want to say that the Israeli militants from 60 years ago were also wrong, then I might agree with that, but that’s a different topic.
I have shown that the criteria you use are arbitrary and do not satisfactorily categorise terrorist influences. You have repeatedly failed to provide any concrete evidence for the claim that forms the title of this thread. In fact it is specifically contradicted in the material you supplied to support the claim. On the basis of your own logic it is therefore open to anyone who wants to suggest that the terrorists who helped found Israel might just as easily have been the influences for the girls. That suggestion would also contradict the evidence provided by you, is around the time span of influence you quoted and those terrorists were also happy to use bombs to kill innocent people to achieve their own aims and therefore has as much commonality and merit as your own claim. Whenever you speak of groups of people it is necessary to use generalities. When you speak of cultural values it is understood (or should be) that not every member of that cultural group will share all of those values. I agree that it is important to make that distinction. The recent poll that shows that 59% of the Palestinian-Arabs support continued violence against Israel even if they gained complete control of all the the West Bank and Gaza does imply that the other 41% don’t. Recognizing this, however, doesn’t make that 59% any less disturbing.

I mention that as an example. If you want to discuss that statistic, please do it in the other thread.
Can I just suggest again that if you see fit to raise questions and introduce material into a thread then others will see fit to reply in that thread. Israelis are entitled to live in peace and free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians. You failed to post a link to the poll so we don't know what other pertinent questions were asked? For example did anyone ask how many Israelis support the terrorist actioons of Sharon or how many wanted to build a ghetto in Palestine? Perhaps the answers to those questions might also be disturbing?Characterizing terrorists as “suspects” and suggesting that they are entitled to due process is confusing a military action with a police action. The police authority that would be responsible for arresting terrorists and granting them due process is the Palestinian-Authority, which employs terrorists as policemen and has refused to take action against terrorists. By default, that leaves Israeli military action as the only way to combat terrorism directly. In summary, it’s the fault of the Palestinian-Authority that terrorists don’t get due process. For some reason you seem to believe that just because a prime minister says a person is a terrorist that automatically makes him or her a terrorist. The law simply doesn't work like that in civilised countries. If Blair or Bush tried that in the USA or the UK they would be booted out of office very quickly. They are also subject to the law and human rights. The law that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. The word of Ariel Sharon never has been, is not and never will be proof of guilt. It seems that he is currently under investigation on other fraud charges. That is rightly allowing him to put his case for the defence. I contrast that with his sentences of death without appeal on innocent children. The world can spot hypocrital governments when it sees them and both Arafat and Sharon are hypocrites. Yes, innocent people do die in war. This is sad, but I’m not aware of any nation in any period of history that has been able to fight a war without civilian casualties. If you know of a way that this can be done, I’m sure that your advice is needed among world military leaders as urban warfare becomes more and more common. The Geneva Convention places the responsibility for civilian casualties with those who place military targets, which includes combatants, among civilian populations. By that standard, I hold the Palestinian-Arabic militants responsible for Palestinian-Arabic civilian casualties and deem it a war crime. I wonder if this war is against the Palestinian Authority, terrorists, innocent Palestinians or people Sharon decides he wants assassinated because he doesn't want the bother of having to go to the law to find someone guilty. I have no personal objection to bulldozing the homes of terrorists. Any criticisms I might have on that policy would be limited to its effectiveness and application, not on the policy itself Are you saying that the US govermnet should now go out and bulldoze the family homes of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber? That is the logic of your own words.

If you saying that all the homes bulldozed in Palestine belong to terrorists and no homes of innocent people have been bulldozed then that would indeed be a novel suggestion.

I do not agree that your home can be bulldozed and your baby sister blown up by a missile attack just because the Ariel Sharon equivalent in the USA suspects a Timothy McVeight might be living in your area. If you wish to debate any of those three topics, I will be more than happy to do so; however I ask that you take it to another thread. In the interest of moving on with the discussion, if you simply re-state these questions without adding anything new or giving any reason why my opinions should be different, I will simply respond that I have already answered themIf you do not wish to discuss certain matters perhaps you might not raise them. You are naturally entitled to raise whatever issues you like in a thread, but on a sceptics site when you make a claim you might be asked to provide evidence to support them. Perhaps you have now located some?

Mycroft

31st October 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am afraid that once again you do not have it straight. I have never denied that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism. I have however challenged your simple and unsupported claim that forms the title of this thread.

Yet common sense would suggest that you would have to disagree[i] that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism to object to the title of this thread.

[i]Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You asserted that the girls would have been influenced by Arafat's 50 year terrorist history yet you apparently fail to see how the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel a mere 10 years or so earlier could have influenced them. The girls you used to support the title of your thread actually told us who fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat.

That’s because the only commonalities between these girls and these other militants from 60 years ago is that both were violent. Clearly the activities of these girls have more in common with the suicide-murderers of the West Bank.

To make an analogy, if I were to say that Elvis was heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, you wouldn’t expect me to show more than similarities in musical style and performance to support this assertion. If you were to claim that Elvis was very likely equally influenced by Hayden, that wouldn’t make any sense. Clearly they were both involved in music, but that’s where the similarity ends. You might be able to make an argument that Hayden had some influence on Elvis, but he clearly had much more in common with Chuck Berry.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't know either. I do know that some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorism and that terror assisted in securing the formation of their state.

Okay. Once again the only similarity you can show is violence. If you can also show similarities in methods, culture, and targets, then we have a discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You seem to still be labouring under the idea that people have to be of the same religious group to engage in suicide terrorism. I have already shown that particular notion to be false - see discussion about the Tamils

Not at all. People of all religions engage in violence. However if a fundamentalist Christian bombed an abortion clinic, one would correctly assume that his primary influences were other fundamentalist Christians who also bombed abortion clinics, and not Muslim nationalists in the Middle East.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Happy to do so. I trust that you won't complain later on when I do so. You stated

Let me take your requirments in turn. I have already demonstrated that terrorists do not have to be of the same religion to participate in terror. What the shared cultural influences are between Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVeigh and Menachim Begin? Shared cultural influences are therefore not necessary to engage in similar acts of terror. Finally, can I ask how many groups including the founders of Israel used bombs to kill innocent people indiscriminately? That include many different terrorist groups around the world and therefore is an invalid criterium.

Can you show me where Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh or Menachim Begin used suicide-terror?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
For a case to be proven in your eyes therefore, all you need is common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion. If that was all that the courts in the USA needed to find a person guilty then there would be even more innocent people on death row and being put to death in the USA's killing cells. I am afraid the criteria you use establish nothing more than prejudice and are useless in establishing the truth of anything.

Now you’re confusing apples with kiwis. While common modus operandi can be used as evidence in a court of law to prove guilt, I was using it to demonstrate influences.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I didn't say that you did. You do however seem to have difficulty accepting that the founders of Israel used terror in their fight to establish their country ad in clarifying how that was different to any other terrorist groups on whom the WOT is now being waged apparently.

I do? I haven’t commented on it except to say their influence was likely less than Arafat’s in inspiring the Moroccan girls actions. How they may or may not be different from terrorists on whom the WOT is now being waged is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have never said that all violence is terrorism. In fact, as you well know, I have indicated that Israel is entitled to use all force allowed by law to prevent terrorist acts. I have also been very specific in describing some of the terrorist acts Sharon is currently engaged in. Targeting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and bulldozing the houses of innocent people are deliberate acts of terror against innocent Palestinians.

Well, you and I disagree with that. That civilians get killed is not proof that civilians are targeted.

If a Palestinian-Arab terrorist were to blow himself up in the midst of a group of Israeli soldiers and a civilian happened to get killed, I would not say that he was targeting civilians. In that circumstance, he targeted soldiers. While I still don’t support his cause, I would say that his action is in a different category than the suicide-bomber who set himself off in a café.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am happy to confirm that the word 'all' means 'all' . I don't differentiate. If my memory also serves me right one of the generals involved in providing the terrorists with access to the camps has been elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The man who failed to anticipate Sabra and Shatila is head of state in Israel, the man who ordered it done is head of state in Lebanon, and the man who ordered Damour is head of state (sort of) of the Palestine Authority. Of these three, only one has been investigated and censured for their actions.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have shown that the criteria you use are arbitrary and do not satisfactorily categorise terrorist influences. You have repeatedly failed to provide any concrete evidence for the claim that forms the title of this thread.

Sure I have. I have demonstrated common methods and cultural influences. You simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In fact it is specifically contradicted in the material you supplied to support the claim. On the basis of your own logic it is therefore open to anyone who wants to suggest that the terrorists who helped found Israel might just as easily have been the influences for the girls. That suggestion would also contradict the evidence provided by you, is around the time span of influence you quoted and those terrorists were also happy to use bombs to kill innocent people to achieve their own aims and therefore has as much commonality and merit as your own claim.

Except that there are fewer commonalities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
…You failed to post a link to the poll so we don't know what other pertinent questions were asked? For example did anyone ask how many Israelis support the terrorist actioons of Sharon or how many wanted to build a ghetto in Palestine? Perhaps the answers to those questions might also be disturbing?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066799672944

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
For some reason you seem to believe that just because a prime minister says a person is a terrorist that automatically makes him or her a terrorist. The law simply doesn't work like that in civilised countries. If Blair or Bush tried that in the USA or the UK they would be booted out of office very quickly. They are also subject to the law and human rights. The law that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. The word of Ariel Sharon never has been, is not and never will be proof of guilt…

This seems to be a re-hash of the due process issue. I believe that enemy combatants do not have the right of due process, you believe they do. Further, I point out that the authority that would be able to grant these people due process is the Palestinian Authority who has refused to take this responsibility. Do you have anything new to add?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
…Are you saying that the US govermnet should now go out and bulldoze the family homes of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber? That is the logic of your own words.

You keep trying to maneuver me into stating a position on bulldozing homes. I will point out that I do not need to express an opinion on this in order to support my position that Arafat has contributed to the culture of terrorism that has influenced the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you do not wish to discuss certain matters perhaps you might not raise them. You are naturally entitled to raise whatever issues you like in a thread, but on a sceptics site when you make a claim you might be asked to provide evidence to support them. Perhaps you have now located some?

I don’t have a problem debating any aspect of the Israeli/Arabic conflict with you. I do think that you’re being a little dishonest in how you go about it. For weeks now you’ve been pretending that your disagreement with me is about my choice of title for this thread, yet in the actual discussion you keep bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with it.

If you truly believe that Israeli militants from 60 years ago are likely to have had as much influence on the girls in Morocco as modern day terrorists in the West Bank led by Arafat, then support that. Show me how commonalities in method, targets, culture and religion should be overlooked in favor of the one commonality of violence.

Or, if all this is really just a pretext for you to talk about how you believe that defensive military action is the moral equivalent of terrorism, that you’re against bulldozings, checkpoints, security fences and anything else that might slow terrorists down, then be honest about it and we will talk about that.

E.J.Armstrong

1st November 2003, 02:20 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
Yet common sense would suggest that you would have to disagree[i] that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism to object to the title of this thread.

Then you will have to quote where I said that he hadn't. I notice that once again you haven't produced any evidence for your assertions. Assertions that contradict the actual printed facts.
That’s because the only commonalities between these girls and these other militants from 60 years ago is that both were violent. Clearly the activities of these girls have more in common with the suicide-murderers of the West Bank The most important commonality surely is that they both used bombs for the furtherance of their causes. The taking of innocent life is a commonality. The North African experience is a commonality. The disregard of decent behaviour is a commonality. The use of terror is a commonality.To make an analogy, if I were to say that Elvis was heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, you wouldn’t expect me to show more than similarities in musical style and performance to support this assertion. If you were to claim that Elvis was very likely equally influenced by Hayden, that wouldn’t make any sense. Clearly they were both involved in music, but that’s where the similarity ends. You might be able to make an argument that Hayden had some influence on Elvis, but he clearly had much more in common with Chuck Berry. The founders of Israel were terrorists of the modern era and used bombs to kill innocent people and to terrorise entire groups of people. On the basis of your analogy the girls are just as likely to have been influenced by the terrorist acts of Begin and Sharon as Arafat.Not at all. People of all religions engage in violence. However if a fundamentalist Christian bombed an abortion clinic, one would correctly assume that his primary influences were other fundamentalist Christians who also bombed abortion clinics, and not Muslim nationalists in the Middle East. Terrorists are terrorists. The idea that one terrorists ensures he is copying coreligious terrorists is not a requirement for the reasons I have already given. The IRA trained in Libya. For your argument to hold any water presumably there must be a group of Libyan Catholic terrorists somewhere. I look forwards to seeing your evidence for their existance.Okay. Once again the only similarity you can show is violence. If you can also show similarities in methods, culture, and targets, then we have a discussion. It appears that you have not looked at the material I have posted because you keep repeating things I have shown are not necessary. However let me ask you again what cultural similarities are there between the IRA and Menachim Begin? What religious similarities are there between Menachim Begin and the IRA? They used the same methods, didn't they? Why are the terrorist acts of the founders of Israel and the IRA different? If your thesis is correct, where are the Catholic terrorists in Libya?Can you show me where Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh or Menachim Begin used suicide-terror All those people were terrorists. Despite all the differences in their cultural and religious backgrounds they all used similar terrorst methods. The Tamil terrorists and Hamas and also from different religious, cultural backgrounds yet used the same methods and targets. Ipso facto your thesis cannot be completely accurate. Now you’re confusing apples with kiwis. While common modus operandi can be used as evidence in a court of law to prove guilt, I was using it to demonstrate influences. I do believe you were trying to use it to prove the correctness of your thesis. If applied to other areas the horrific consequences I noted would occur.I do? I haven’t commented on it except to say their influence was likely less than Arafat’s in inspiring the Moroccan girls actions. How they may or may not be different from terrorists on whom the WOT is now being waged is beyond the scope of this discussion. It seems that you fail to see how, on the basis of your own logic it is just as likely that the girls were influenced by the terrorist acts of the founders of Isreal. Well, you and I disagree with that. That civilians get killed is not proof that civilians are targeted. We certainly do and I find it very sad that you fail to distinguish between people Sharon says are guilty and people who are guilty of a crime. They are not now, never have been and never will be, the same thing. You also fail to distinguish apparently between choosing to assassinate people and choosing to assassinate people in a way that guarantees innocent children are murdered. If a Palestinian-Arab terrorist were to blow himself up in the midst of a group of Israeli soldiers and a civilian happened to get killed, I would not say that he was targeting civilians. In that circumstance, he targeted soldiers. While I still don’t support his cause, I would say that his action is in a different category than the suicide-bomber who set himself off in a café. If anyone carries out a terrorist act where innocent people can be killed then they are guilty of a terrorist act against civilians.The man who failed to anticipate Sabra and Shatila is head of state in Israel, the man who ordered it done is head of state in Lebanon, and the man who ordered Damour is head of state (sort of) of the Palestine Authority. Of these three, only one has been investigated and censured for their actions You really don't seem to read my posts. Once again you resort to the 'Sharon is stupid argument' against the evidence that not only was he warned about the possibility of atrocity before it happened, the army he was in charge of helped facilitate it happening by lighting up the sky and he was told it was happening yet did nothing to prevent it. I want all these characters charges and tried for what they did. All of them.Sure I have. I have demonstrated common methods and cultural influences. You simply refuse to acknowledge them. Not only have I acknowledged them, I have shown that they cannot be definitively relevant because, if you were correct, there would be Catholic terrorists in Libya. On the basis of your own argument, how were Catholic terrorists from Northern Ireland influenced by Muslim terrorists in Northern Africa. Perhaps the word 'Northern' is the commonality you seek?Except that there are fewer commonalities. Use of bombs. Attempt to achieve aims by force. Menachim Begin surely was prepared to die in what he did, unless he was a coward. Idealism. Stupidity. Murderous intent. Mislead by fanatics. They lived half a continent away. (Is that one of your commonalities?)

With reference to the poll. As I thought, none of the relevant material was addressed. This seems to be a re-hash of the due process issue. I believe that enemy combatants do not have the right of due process, you believe they do. Further, I point out that the authority that would be able to grant these people due process is the Palestinian Authority who has refused to take this responsibility. Do you have anything new to add? I can see that once Ariel Sharon has declared that someone is guilty, in your eyes that is sufficient for them to be guilty. That is very sad and if it was done on the streets of the USA would result in riots. In civilised countries there is something called the presumption of innocence. That you do not appear to belive in it for Palestinians is sad and frightening.You keep trying to maneuver me into stating a position on bulldozing homes. I will point out that I do not need to express an opinion on this in order to support my position that Arafat has contributed to the culture of terrorism that has influenced the girls in Morocco. I am not trying to do anything other than use the logic of your own words to show how it would not be accepted in civilised countries around the world as well as the USA. That you do not wish to debate the logic of your own words is up to you. I don’t have a problem debating any aspect of the Israeli/Arabic conflict with you. I do think that you’re being a little dishonest in how you go about it. For weeks now you’ve been pretending that your disagreement with me is about my choice of title for this thread, yet in the actual discussion you keep bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with it. Ah the old dishonesty trick. And I am pretending as well for good measure. If you want to start threads and link to an article that does nothing but contradict your assertions then go ahead. You ask questions and bring up mattrers that you won't debate. Did it occur to you that might be a tad, how can I put this delicately, dishonest?If you truly believe that Israeli militants from 60 years ago are likely to have had as much influence on the girls in Morocco as modern day terrorists in the West Bank led by Arafat, then support that. Show me how commonalities in method, targets, culture and religion should be overlooked in favor of the one commonality of violence. I have repeatedly shown you why the so-called commonalites you suggested cannot be entirely relevent. See also my comments on the Catholic terrorists in Libya suggested by your own logic. You yourself brought up Arafat's 50 year history yet have difficulty accepting that something around 60 years can be relevant. Perhaps you have a logical reason why you draw a dividing line at 50 years rather than 60 years? You are also once again being disingenuous in describing my arguments. I have repeatedly used the logic of your own position to suggest that other influences might be more appropriate on the basis of your own arguments. You ignored the influences actually stated in the article you supplied as justification for your claim. That being the case, isn't anyone else also entitled to ignore the influences cited in the article and wouldn't that be just as silly. Methods, bombs. Targets, innocent people. Culture, North African. Religion, Ah yes Catholics aren't primarily influenced by Protestants or Muslims but they can use the same methods as Israelis and Libyans! Or, if all this is really just a pretext for you to talk about how you believe that defensive military action is the moral equivalent of terrorism, that you’re against bulldozings, checkpoints, security fences and anything else that might slow terrorists down, then be honest about it and we will talk about that. Once again you mischacterise what I have been specifically and clearly saying throughout this thread but that seems to be an unfortunate characteristic of yours. Either you want to talk about the logic of the title of your own thread or you don't. Either you want to raise questions and have them answered or you don't. Either you want a debate around the matters you raise or you don't. Which is it? Be honest.

Mycroft

1st November 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The most important commonality surely is that they both used bombs for the furtherance of their causes. The taking of innocent life is a commonality. The North African experience is a commonality. The disregard of decent behaviour is a commonality. The use of terror is a commonality.

Your list of commonalities does not distinguish these girls from Arafat. If you could think of commonalities that these girls share with the founders of Israel but not Arafat, then you would have an argument.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The IRA trained in Libya. For your argument to hold any water presumably there must be a group of Libyan Catholic terrorists somewhere. I look forwards to seeing your evidence for their existance.

You’re the one establishing a link between the IRA and Libya. If Libya trained IRA members, then the influence is direct and does not need further support. I’m not claiming that these girls were trained by Arafat or any other Palestinian-Arab group, only that the actions of Arafat and such groups have created the culture where these girls have chosen to emulate suicide-terrorists.

The IRA also trained narco-terrorists in Colombia. While I might assume that Colombian narco-terrorists are also Catholic, I would not place as much importance on that because there is no interpretation of Catholicism (that I know of) that is used to justify terrorism in the same way that radical Islam does with its teachings on Jihad.

E.J.Armstrong

7th November 2003, 06:41 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Your list of commonalities does not distinguish these girls from Arafat. If you could think of commonalities that these girls share with the founders of Israel but not Arafat, then you would have an argument. I have never argued that they were not commonalities with many other terrorist groups, simply that there many commonalities between the girls and the terrorists who founded Israel. I do not share your thesis that you have to be a member of the same religion to carry out the same terrorist acts for the many reasons I have already given.

I still await you providing any hard evidence that the girls were actually influenced by Arafat as opposed to the man they actually stated they were fascinated by, namely Osama Bin Laden. It seems you don't have any.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. You’re the one establishing a link between the IRA and Libya. If Libya trained IRA members, then the influence is direct and does not need further support. I’m not claiming that these girls were trained by Arafat or any other Palestinian-Arab group, only that the actions of Arafat and such groups have created the culture where these girls have chosen to emulate suicide-terrorists. In that case can I ask who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel? Did they independently come up with the idea that murdering innocent people with bombs is a justified way of getting their own way?The IRA also trained narco-terrorists in Colombia. While I might assume that Colombian narco-terrorists are also Catholic, I would not place as much importance on that because there is no interpretation of Catholicism (that I know of) that is used to justify terrorism in the same way that radical Islam does with its teachings on Jihad. It seems that you are relying on extremists views of Islam. The Old Testamant of the Bible is part of the belief structure for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For the record there are many violent messages in the bible which called for the murder of children and women. So-called fundamentalist Christians have carried out terrorist killings at abortion clinics. One such terrorist was happy to go to his death for his actions if necessary. Islam is therefore not unique in having extremists justifying murder on the basis of its teachings.

Let me say that I am happy that you have a certain opinion about Arafat. That is your perogative. Unfortunately, in relation to the girls, the material you suppplied did not even mention the word Arafat. Your arguments therefore amount to guilt by association.

It is also difficult to see why the terrorist acts of Arafat can influence potential terrorists but the terrorist acts of the founders of Israel cannot. Were the terrorists who founded Israel fundamentally different from other terrorists and were they not prepared to die for their cause during the commission of their crimes, if necessary?

All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians.

Mycroft

7th November 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have never argued that they were not commonalities with many other terrorist groups, simply that there many commonalities between the girls and the terrorists who founded Israel. I do not share your thesis that you have to be a member of the same religion to carry out the same terrorist acts for the many reasons I have already given.

You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants. This is my refutation of your claim that the early Israeli militants could have been equal influences on these girls.

It was never my thesis that terrorists have to share the same religion to be terrorists. However, that the girls in Morocco sought information from Muslim fundamentalists groups and received information on Jihad is significant because a fundamentalist Muslim interpretation of Jihad is also an important factor in Palestinian-Arabic terrorism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong You are of course entitled to your opinion. In that case can I ask who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel? Did they independently come up with the idea that murdering innocent people with bombs is a justified way of getting their own way?

That’s an excellent question with many assumptions that deserve examination. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It seems that you are relying on extremists views of Islam. The Old Testamant of the Bible is part of the belief structure for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For the record there are many violent messages in the bible which called for the murder of children and women. So-called fundamentalist Christians have carried out terrorist killings at abortion clinics. One such terrorist was happy to go to his death for his actions if necessary. Islam is therefore not unique in having extremists justifying murder on the basis of its teachings.

Yes, I am relying on an extremist view of Islam. In a discussion where an extremist view of Islam is an important motivating factor in terrorism, that is appropriate. It is also appropriate to point out that there are interpretations of Islam that repudiate terrorists and their actions. I agree that other religions are also used to justify violence, and that this is also a problem.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Let me say that I am happy that you have a certain opinion about Arafat. That is your perogative. Unfortunately, in relation to the girls, the material you suppplied did not even mention the word Arafat. Your arguments therefore amount to guilt by association.

Not at all. Since the girls in Morocco did not associate with Arafat, there is no guilt by association. I am looking at Arafat’s contributions to fundamentalist Islamic-Arab culture.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong It is also difficult to see why the terrorist acts of Arafat can influence potential terrorists but the terrorist acts of the founders of Israel cannot.

I never claimed that Israeli militants could not influence other people, I only reject your claim that they were an influence equal to Arafat on the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Were the terrorists who founded Israel fundamentally different from other terrorists and were they not prepared to die for their cause during the commission of their crimes, if necessary?

That’s a great question and well worth exploring. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement. Perhaps we should start a new thread where these other issues you keep bringing up can be discussed?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians.

On this we agree.

E.J.Armstrong

8th November 2003, 08:27 AM

You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants. This is my refutation of your claim that the early Israeli militants could have been equal influences on these girls. Unfortunately you have yet to show that there is a single commmonality that has not been used by other terrorists around the world today and through the ages. The idea that terrorist tactics, such as bombs to force others to give you what you want, is IMHO by far the most important commonality and one that has been used by many hundreds of different groups in recent times.

Bush is engaged in the 'War on Terror' not the War on Terrorists who use Suicide Methods'. As such, he recognises that terror is the critical common thread. All terrorists should be condemned, whether or not they are government leaders and irrespective of when they carried out their atrocities, be it 50 or 60 years ago.

The heart of this dicussion is that, in the absence of hard evidence, you have decided to use the 'commonality' argument as sufficient proof of your claim.

Using your argument of commonality however, Mathama Ghandi could not have been the prime influence on subsequent peaceful protests around the world because not everyone who used his methods was from his cultural or religious background even if they used the same methods. Doesn't really wash, does it?It was never my thesis that terrorists have to share the same religion to be terrorists. However, that the girls in Morocco sought information from Muslim fundamentalists groups and received information on Jihad is significant because a fundamentalist Muslim interpretation of Jihad is also an important factor in Palestinian-Arabic terrorism. It seems we agree that religion is not a unique commonality. The girls may have sought information from Muslim fundamentalist groups but not from Arafat apparently. That’s an excellent question with many assumptions that deserve examination. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement. That some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorist atrocities to get their own way is simply historical fact, it is also I feel, very much at the heart of this discussion. You have made a claim based on commonalities about the actions of the girls and on terrorist leader. In the absence of hard evidence for your case I have shown that on precisely the basis you used, others could argue that the girls were also influenced by other terrorist leaders from the same land. You keep backing away from the logic of your own argument in this particular area. Yes, I am relying on an extremist view of Islam. In a discussion where an extremist view of Islam is an important motivating factor in terrorism, that is appropriate. It is also appropriate to point out that there are interpretations of Islam that repudiate terrorists and their actions. I agree that other religions are also used to justify violence, and that this is also a problem. Then we agree there is no definitive commonality here either.Not at all. Since the girls in Morocco did not associate with Arafat, there is no guilt by association. I am looking at Arafat’s contributions to fundamentalist Islamic-Arab culture. You associated the actions of the girls with Arafat, not me and not the girls. It is therefore for you to show the validity of that association.I never claimed that Israeli militants could not influence other people, I only reject your claim that they were an influence equal to Arafat on the girls in Morocco. I have already indicated that my alternatives might be valid influences or they might not. My thesis merely is that, on the basis of your own logic, others could equally validly argue that the terrorists who founded Israel are also possible influences on the girls.That’s a great question and well worth exploring. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement. Perhaps we should start a new thread where these other issues you keep bringing up can be discussed? Feel free. My concern is that, having taken issue with the core claim on this thread with a logically equivalent alternative, you consider that to be outside the scope of the discussion.

Mycroft

8th November 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The idea that terrorist tactics, such as bombs to force others to give you what you want, is IMHO by far the most important commonality and one that has been used by many hundreds of different groups in recent times.

These commonalities are most important in what way? In proving that terrorism is bad?

If you want to say that terrorism is bad, then yes, it’s important to look at how terrorism is bad. While I agree that terrorism is bad, that wasn’t a part of my thesis, and it’s not necessary to show how terrorism is bad to demonstrate a link between Arafat and the girls in Morocco. Recognizing that terrorism is bad does not take away from my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture of terrorism that led the Moroccan girls to their actions.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Using your argument of commonality however, Mathama Ghandi could not have been the prime influence on subsequent peaceful protests around the world because not everyone who used his methods was from his cultural or religious background even if they used the same methods. Doesn't really wash, does it?

Not at all. The absence of a commonality in one case does not negate it’s importance in another case. I will cheerfully concede, for example, that Palestinian-Arab terrorists may have been an influence on Tamil-tiger terrorists, even though only a tiny percentage of the Tamil-Tigers are Muslim. I will also concede that IRA terrorists were an influence on Colombian narco-terrorists even though their political goals are very different.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
My concern is that, having taken issue with the core claim on this thread with a logically equivalent alternative, you consider that to be outside the scope of the discussion.

Except that your alternative is not logically equivalent. You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants.

You take issue with my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco to plan suicide-terror. What I consider to be outside the scope of the discussion is anything that does not directly address that assertion. That’s why I won’t discuss how early Israeli terrorists were different from other terrorists because the issue is how they are different (or the same) from the girls in Morocco.

I think that your continued participation in this thread has nothing to do with your disagreement with my assertion (as I have answered many times over every point of disagreement) but has more to do with your desire to vilify the Israelis and make them seem to be the equivalent of the Palestinian-Arab terrorists. If that’s your goal, I think you should be honest about it, and confine your discussions on that to the other threads where those issues are discussed. If you want to continue to bash my assertion that Arafat has played a role in shaping the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco, at least come up with something new.

E.J.Armstrong

14th November 2003, 10:31 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
These commonalities are most important in what way? In proving that terrorism is bad?
I simply pointed out the most important commonality between terrorists. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines terrorist as 'a person who uses violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.' Violent and intimidating methods are therefore the defining characteristics. Terrorists can also work for governments, as well as non-governmental groups.
If you want to say that terrorism is bad, then yes, it’s important to look at how terrorism is bad. While I agree that terrorism is bad, that wasn’t a part of my thesis, and it’s not necessary to show how terrorism is bad to demonstrate a link between Arafat and the girls in Morocco. Recognizing that terrorism is bad does not take away from my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture of terrorism that led the Moroccan girls to their actions. If you assert that Arafat contributed to a culture of terrorism I would not disagree with you. As to whether he actually influenced the Morrocan terrorists to their actions is a different matter and you may also be right and you may be wrong. It is presumably as accurate however to say that other terrorists from the same area, who also contributed to the culture of terrorism, could as equally have influenced the girls - given that the girls made no reference to Arafat whatsoever and other terrorists from the area could be said to have been more successful. Except that your alternative is not logically equivalent. You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants. With respect, as you have already conceded that terrorists can be influenced by terrorists from different cultural backgrounds, ring fencing one particular group of successful terrorists does not seem to be entirely logical. I would have thought they would be candidates for being the most influential terorists simply because they could be said to have achieved many of their aims. You take issue with my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco to plan suicide-terror. What I consider to be outside the scope of the discussion is anything that does not directly address that assertion. That’s why I won’t discuss how early Israeli terrorists were different from other terrorists because the issue is how they are different (or the same) from the girls in Morocco. I take issue specifically with the fact that you have provided no hard evidence for your assertion. I have repeatedly said that you may be right and you may be wrong but the evidence you provided made no reference whatsoever to Arafat.

To illustrate the logic of your case, I chose to highlight another group of terrorists who operated in the same area of the world and suggested that, by ignoring the girls' statements about who fascinated them, as you have, it would be as logical to suggest the other terrorists were a major influence. I think that your continued participation in this thread has nothing to do with your disagreement with my assertion (as I have answered many times over every point of disagreement) but has more to do with your desire to vilify the Israelis and make them seem to be the equivalent of the Palestinian-Arab terrorists. If that’s your goal, I think you should be honest about it, and confine your discussions on that to the other threads where those issues are discussed. If you want to continue to bash my assertion that Arafat has played a role in shaping the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco, at least come up with something new. Then you would be wrong again. You continue to misrepresent my views because not only have I repeatedly pointed out that Israelis are entitled to live free from terror as are all innocent Palestinians but I have never implied or stated that every Israeli is equivalent to Palestinian-Arab terrorists. If a Palestinian commits a terrorist act then he is a terrorist. So is a citizen of any other country in the world, including the UK and Israel, now or in the past.

I have also merely responded to the points you have made. If you wish to present some real evidence, feel free. Until then, given the logic of your own case, there are other valid alternatives. That you choose not to discuss one of them is naturally your perogative.

Mycroft

14th November 2003, 01:28 PM

E.J.Armstrong

15th November 2003, 06:43 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
So obviously one needs to look at factors other than those that define terrorism.
Why?
So you can keep on trying to exclude one group of terrorists from consideration?That is my assertion. If you do not disagree, why do you continue to argue? Because that is not your assertion.

Can I remind you that you specifically cited Arafat as the prime influence on the girls, despite there being no hard evidence that he influenced the girls whatsoever and in the face of the girls own words about who actually did influence them. In so doing you avoided an obvious logical alternative, namely the terrorists who helped found Israel. They remain a possible primary influence on the girls.At last we have something new. Now you say they might have been influenced by the Jewish militants because they were more successful. With respect there is nothing new here at all. I have cited the main commonality between the girls and the Israeli militants namely that they were terrorists who wanted to achieve their aims by murdering innocent people in the same area of the world. It makes sense that someone looking for a role model would do well to pick someone who has been successful, but that alone is not evidence. Many people make decisions that do not lead to success. Do you have evidence to support this hypothesis? I am happy to go through the logic of your own arguments again. Before I do so, and as you have specifically now raised a question regarding Israeli terrorists, can I just ask if you agree that some of the founders of Israel were terrorists who murdered innocent people in terrorist acts? This wold help clarify that you agree we are both talking about groups of terrorists who operated in the same area of the world at roughly the same time period.

Conceding that terrorists can be influenced by terrorists from different cultural backgrounds is not evidence that a specific group of terrorists were influenced by another group of terrorists. If you can find evidence, that would make an interesting discussion. It is your responsibility to justify your own claim. I have raised an alternative based not on my logic but on your own. When you find evidence to support your claim I will be pleased to discuss it.

Mycroft

15th November 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Why?
So you can keep on trying to exclude one group of terrorists from consideration?

Because violence and intimidation is common to all terrorism, these factors can not be used to distinguish between terrorist groups. This is why I can provide more commonalities between the girls in Morocco and the Palestinian-Arab terrorists than you can between the Moroccan girls and early Israeli militants. Because the commonalities you name are inherant to the definition.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Because that is not your assertion.

Can I remind you that you specifically cited Arafat as the prime influence on the girls, despite there being no hard evidence that he influenced the girls whatsoever and in the face of the girls own words about who actually did influence them.

Can I remind you that your objection to my argument is based on the title of the thread? I say, "Arafat's gift to civilization." You freely admit that Arafat has contributed to the culture of terrorism, yet you continue to object. Why?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In so doing you avoided an obvious logical alternative, namely the terrorists who helped found Israel.

How is this logical when the girls actions are more similar to the actions of groups under Arafat's influence? Far from avoiding it, I've addresed it head on every time you've brought it up.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong I have cited the main commonality between the girls and the Israeli militants namely that they were terrorists who wanted to achieve their aims by murdering innocent people in the same area of the world.

Again, these commonalities are common to all terrorists, and even groups that are not terrorists. So how are they useful in showing that one group had more influence on another group?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong It is your responsibility to justify your own claim.

I've justified it and beaten it to death. Shall I say it again? Because these girls chose methods (suicide bombing) and targets (random shoppers) that are similar to those chosen by Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, because they were also influenced by a radical interpretation of Islamic Jihad, I conclude they were influenced by an Arabic culture of terror. A culture Arafat has been a primary figure in creating. If they had chosen to use a car bomb or guns, or if they had chosen military targets, I would not make this connection because those methods are much more common and not at all characteristic of the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong I have raised an alternative based not on my logic but on your own.

How very puzzling. My logic depends on finding similarities between different terrorist organizations while excluding factors that are common to all terrorist organizations. Your logic depends on ignoring similarities between terrorist organizations except for factors that are common to all terrorists organizations. How do you claim to use my logic?

E.J.Armstrong

16th November 2003, 04:28 AM

originally posted by MycroftBecause violence and intimidation is common to all terrorism, these factors can not be used to distinguish between terrorist groups. This is why I can provide more commonalities between the girls in Morocco and the Palestinian-Arab terrorists than you can between the Moroccan girls and early Israeli militants. Because the commonalities you name are inherant to the definition.
You keep avoiding the question so let me ask you one more time as you asked about them. Do you agree that some of the founders of Israel were terrorists who murdered innocent people in terrorist acts in order to achieve their own aims and were prepared to die for their cause during the commission of their crimes against humanity?

Mycroft

16th November 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You keep avoiding the question so let me ask you one more time as you asked about them. Do you agree that some of the founders of Israel were terrorists who murdered innocent people in terrorist acts in order to achieve their own aims and were prepared to die for their cause during the commission of their crimes against humanity?

I didn't answer the question because it doesn't relate to the topic, and it still doesn't. When I realized that your goal was not to argue the merits of my thesis but to take my comment on Arafat and turn it into a criticism of the Israelis, I decided only to comment on what relates directly to my opening post.

You want to divert the topic. I understand that. You believe, probably correctly, that if you can shift the topic to something similar but different from the original premise, that people will forget that your first argument was weak and unsupportable.

If you want me to comment on this other issue, I will be happy to. Just bring it up in another thread, or start a new thread.

E.J.Armstrong

17th November 2003, 01:53 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
I didn't answer the question because it doesn't relate to the topic, and it still doesn't. When I realized that your goal was not to argue the merits of my thesis but to take my comment on Arafat and turn it into a criticism of the Israelis, I decided only to comment on what relates directly to my opening post.
I take it that the answer is No - you are not prepared to adddress matters of relevant fact. That is entirely your perogative.

I'm afraid that in refusing to address matters of simple fact you once again mischaracterise my position. The reason I took issue with your original claim was primarily because of the complete lack of hard evidence for it. Not only that, your assertion flew in the face of the fact that the girls had specifically stated who influenced them. It wasn't Arafat.

It also seems clear that you regard simple comment or questions on certain matters of facts, that are directly relevant to the title of this thread, as as criticism of all Israelis. Can I just suggest that insinuation is disingenuous in the extreme. Unfortunately it simply won't wash any more. Let me remind you again of what I have stated many times before.

All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror as are all innocent Palestinians.

Commenting on the fact that some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorist attacks is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a criticism of all Israelis, no matter how much you chose to falsely characterise it as such. It is a simple statement of fact. In exactly the same way, I would not believe that a factual comment by you that some Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland were terrorists would be a criticism of all Catholics and Protestants, or everybody in Northern Ireland. If you were to make such a statement I would be more than happy to agree with you that it was a relevant statement of fact and wouldn't require you to start a completely new thread to do so or that yes, they might have been a prime influence on other terrorists in certain circumstances.
You want to divert the topic. I understand that. You believe, probably correctly, that if you can shift the topic to something similar but different from the original premise, that people will forget that your first argument was weak and unsupportable. Sadly once again you are simply factually incorrect. Could I just point out that it was you, not me, who made the original claim. It was you who offered no hard evidence to support your original claim about Arafat. It is you, not me, who declined to take the word of the girls you offered in support of your original assertion, in favour of an entirely different person. It is you, not me, who won't answer agree on simple matters of fact. It is you, not me, who is preventing debate on an issue central to the assertion which forms the title of the thread.
If you want me to comment on this other issue, I will be happy to. Just bring it up in another thread, or start a new thread. Please see my previous comments. I fail to see why you wouldn't erect similar and arbitrary no-go zones elsewhere, particularly when on another thread, despite me addressing your questions, you declined even to respond, instead characterising my considered response as 'spew'. It won't wash again I'm afraid. As the not so famous bard said 'Twice bitten, once shy'.

With that background in mind, I trust you will forgive me when I reiterate that either you want to fully debate the subject you raised here on this thread or you don't. It's entirely up to you. It seems that you don't and won't. So be it.

Mycroft

17th November 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I take it that the answer is No - you are not prepared to adddress matters of relevant fact. That is entirely your perogative.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror as are all innocent Palestinians.

I agree. I would go further and say that everyone is entitled to live free from terror.

Yet, I think there may yet be a difference in understanding here. You seem to define “terrorist” more broadly than I do. Here is the definition I use:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

And for the footnote defining “noncombatants”:

(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

Using these definitions, we can see that the Palestinian-Arab citizenry does indeed have a problem with terrorists targeting them, mostly in the form of Palestinian-Arabic terrorist groups killing collaborators or performing other terrorist act in relation to some power struggle or another between terrorist groups.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Commenting on the fact that some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorist attacks is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a criticism of all Israelis, no matter how much you chose to falsely characterise it as such. It is a simple statement of fact.

Did I say it was a criticism of all Israelis? No, I did not. What I said is that is was a diversionary tactic. Again, nice try.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Sadly once again you are simply factually incorrect. Could I just point out that it was you, not me, who made the original claim. It was you who offered no hard evidence to support your original claim about Arafat. It is you, not me, who declined to take the word of the girls you offered in support of your original assertion, in favour of an entirely different person…

Pointing to similarities in methods, targets, and religious motivations is my hard evidence. The discussion is about a social phenomenon. I’m not claiming that Arafat gave direct orders to these girls, or even that he cares much about the situation in Morocco. I’m claiming that he influenced the culture that made their actions acceptable. For this assertion, my evidence is appropriate.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
…It is you, not me, who won't answer agree on simple matters of fact. It is you, not me, who is preventing debate on an issue central to the assertion which forms the title of the thread.

Central to the assertion? By all means, please explain how.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
With that background in mind, I trust you will forgive me when I reiterate that either you want to fully debate the subject you raised here on this thread or you don't. It's entirely up to you. It seems that you don't and won't. So be it.

I think it has been fully debated. You tried to demonstrate how other militant organizations could have been influences on the Moroccan girls equal to or greater than Arafat, and your evidence is lacking, your arguments weak. Still, if you have something new, I’ll be more than happy to see it.

E.J.Armstrong

20th November 2003, 11:02 AM

originally posted by MycroftThe term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Your definition appears to be somewhat lacking in a couple of respects. Firstly, terrorism can be carried out for more than political eg religious reasons. Secondly, there does not necessarily have to be combatant and non-combatant elements eg a military target which has not attacked anybody can also be terrorised (your explanation of the footnote appears to go some way to support this). Thirdly, I trust your definition incorporates the fact that governmental bodies or bodies directly or indirectly supported by governments can carry out terrorist activities. Using these definitions, we can see that the Palestinian-Arab citizenry does indeed have a problem with terrorists targeting them, mostly in the form of Palestinian-Arabic terrorist groups killing collaborators or performing other terrorist act in relation to some power struggle or another between terrorist groups. You seem to be under the impression that I consider Palestinians can only be terrorised by Israelis. Not at all. Naturally Palestinians can be terrorised by Palestinian terrorists in exactly the same way that Israeli terrorists could also terrorise citizens of Israel if they wished or Catholic and Protestant terrorists could target Catholic and Protestant people in Northern Ireland. I am against all terrorists not just some of them.Did I say it was a criticism of all Israelis? No, I did not. What I said is that is was a diversionary tactic. Again, nice try. Once again it seems I have to remind you of your own words. You statedWhen I realized that your goal was not to argue the merits of my thesis but to take my comment on Arafat and turn it into a criticism of the Israelis, I decided only to comment on what relates directly to my opening post. Unfortunately for your latest claim you attached no modifiers to the word 'Israelis' such as 'some', or 'a few' or 'a subset' of 'Israelis'. None at all. Hope that helps. Pointing to similarities in methods, targets, and religious motivations is my hard evidence. The discussion is about a social phenomenon. I’m not claiming that Arafat gave direct orders to these girls, or even that he cares much about the situation in Morocco. I’m claiming that he influenced the culture that made their actions acceptable. For this assertion, my evidence is appropriate. On the basis of your argument of influence then all terrorists could be said to have influenced the culture that made terrorist actions acceptable. I am prepared to discuss all possible influences and that would include the terrorists who helped found Israel. Unless of course no terrorists from other religions or using similar methods can influence each other. It seems there is other 'hard evidence' at least as 'solid' as your own. Central to the assertion? By all means, please explain how. I may be missing something here. You selected one terrorist as the prime influence on the girls against even the evidence you cited in support of that claim. I have suggested, on the basis of that approach, that other terrorists should also be considered fully and openly. You apparently don't even want to accept, that another terrorist group, which also contributed to the culture of terrorism in the self-same area were in fact terrorists. That of course is up to you. I think it has been fully debated. You tried to demonstrate how other militant organizations could have been influences on the Moroccan girls equal to or greater than Arafat, and your evidence is lacking, your arguments weak. Still, if you have something new, I’ll be more than happy to see it. If you are happy with your assertion then fine. I have merely used the logic of your own approach to show how poorly based it was.

Luckily, in most courts hard evidence does not consist of opinion. I sincerely hope that should you ever accidently find yourself near a murder committed by another person of the same religious background as youself, who used a gun similar to the one you own and who came from the same cultural background as yourself, the judge has a bit more judgement than to send you to death row on the basis of that 'hard evidence' alone.

Should he chose to ignore the neighbourhood gang of dangerous gun toting individuals as possibile culprits because they had previously used a different type of gun and ignore the only witness who stated unequivocally that it wasn't you, I am however sure you would understand completely that he was only doing his job and accept that he was completely justified in his assertion of your guilt.

Mycroft

20th November 2003, 02:48 PM

On the definition of terrorism:

The definition I quoted I found at the website of some military academy. I think it’s a good definition. I think that if you think about it, you will realize that religious terrorism also has a political aspect. If you can think of a contrary example, please do. While governments do engage in acts of violence, when they do we label it something other than terrorism, so I think the sub-national aspect to the definition is also relevant.

On your other points:

I wasn’t saying that Palestinian-Arabs could be terrorized by Palestinian-Arab terrorist groups, I was pointing out that they are terrorized by Palestinian-Arab terrorist groups.

The United States justice system is based on a presumption of innocence. That is not a neutral presumption, it is a biased presumption that favors the defendant. In a murder trial, the standard of evidence is much higher than for other crimes, which may be higher than for other forms of debate. It is not appropriate to hold evidence in other types of debate to the standard of a murder trial. This discussion is about cultural influences, so it is appropriate to consider cultural influences (such as religion) and other indications of culture (such as behavior) as evidence.

The rest of your post is a re-hash of material we have already beaten to death. You claim to use my logic and my reasoning, yet you ignore the basis of my logic. Because these girls chose methods (suicide bombing) and targets (random shoppers) that are similar to those chosen by Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, because they were also influenced by a radical interpretation of Islamic Jihad, I conclude they were influenced by an Arabic culture of terror. A culture Arafat has been a primary figure in creating. If they had chosen to use a car bomb or guns, or if they had chosen military targets, I would not make this connection because those methods are much more common and not at all characteristic of the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists.

Until you address these similarities that I identify or find similarities with other terrorist organizations that are not inherent to the definition of terrorism (and thus common to all terrorist organizations) you can not claim to use my logic or my reasoning.

E.J.Armstrong

23rd November 2003, 04:34 AM

originall posted by Mycroft
The definition I quoted I found at the website of some military academy. I think it’s a good definition. I think that if you think about it, you will realize that religious terrorism also has a political aspect. If you can think of a contrary example, please do. While governments do engage in acts of violence, when they do we label it something other than terrorism, so I think the sub-national aspect to the definition is also relevant. I am glad that you think its a good definition. Unfortunately I think that if a definition has to be expanded upon by the use footnotes the definition is probably lacking.

I am also very cocerned that you seem to think that when a government engages in terrorism it is called something else but you decline to state what that is.

When a government engages in or supports terrorism directly or indirectly it is still terrorism and the government is engaged in terrorism.

Perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean?I wasn’t saying that Palestinian-Arabs could be terrorized by Palestinian-Arab terrorist groups, I was pointing out that they are terrorized by Palestinian-Arab terrorist groups. I agree. I also agree that Israel under Sharon is terrorising them. Do you agree?The United States justice system is based on a presumption of innocence. That is not a neutral presumption, it is a biased presumption that favors the defendant. In a murder trial, the standard of evidence is much higher than for other crimes, which may be higher than for other forms of debate. It is not appropriate to hold evidence in other types of debate to the standard of a murder trial. This discussion is about cultural influences, so it is appropriate to consider cultural influences (such as religion) and other indications of culture (such as behavior) as evidence. You may like to call it evidence. I call it prejudice. Prejudice in the face of the hard evidence provided by the girls themselves as to who fascinated them.

The rest of your post is a re-hash of material we have already beaten to death. You claim to use my logic and my reasoning, yet you ignore the basis of my logic. Because these girls chose methods (suicide bombing) and targets (random shoppers) that are similar to those chosen by Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, because they were also influenced by a radical interpretation of Islamic Jihad, I conclude they were influenced by an Arabic culture of terror. A culture Arafat has been a primary figure in creating. If they had chosen to use a car bomb or guns, or if they had chosen military targets, I would not make this connection because those methods are much more common and not at all characteristic of the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists. And this isn't? Interesting.

No matter how you try to characterise it, your logic remains flawed. I have already demonstrated and you have accepted, that you do not have to be either from the dame religion or from the same country or the same culture to be influenced. Once again you seem to be saying that Arafat contributed to a climate of terror but the terrorists who helped found Israel didn't. You seem to believe that there is a difference between Arab terror and Israeli terror. Terror is terror. Until you address these similarities that I identify or find similarities with other terrorist organizations that are not inherent to the definition of terrorism (and thus common to all terrorist organizations) you can not claim to use my logic or my reasoning. Unfortunately your logic involves ignoring the words of the girls. Your logic involves saying that one group of terrorists can contribute to the climate of terror but another group apparently cannot. Your logic involves ignoring the primary commonalities in favour of other ones. Your logic involves saying that Arab terrorists can only primarily be influenced by Arab terrorists.

If you were really interested in addressing the logic of your own words you would address the following question.

If Arabs can only be primarily influenced by Arab terrorists, who was it that influenced the Israeli terrorist who helped found Israel?

Mycroft

23rd November 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am glad that you think its a good definition. Unfortunately I think that if a definition has to be expanded upon by the use footnotes the definition is probably lacking.

You think clarifying the term “noncombatant” takes away from the definition? How so?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am also very cocerned that you seem to think that when a government engages in terrorism it is called something else but you decline to state what that is.

When the Chinese government rounds up dissidents, places them in prison camps where they are used for slave labor, holds public executions and harvests organs for sale on the international market, one can assume that part of the reason they do this is to create fear among the population. We don’t call it terrorism, we call it oppression. This distinction in terms does not in any way reduce the horror of these atrocities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
When a government engages in or supports terrorism directly or indirectly it is still terrorism and the government is engaged in terrorism.

When a government provides training, funds and other support to sub-national terrorist groups, we call that state-sponsored terrorism. When governments take action directly, we call it war, or military action.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You may like to call it evidence. I call it prejudice. Prejudice in the face of the hard evidence provided by the girls themselves as to who fascinated them.

Finding similarities in terrorist activity is prejudiced? How so?

And this isn't? Interesting.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
No matter how you try to characterise it, your logic remains flawed. I have already demonstrated and you have accepted, that you do not have to be either from the dame religion or from the same country or the same culture to be influenced.

Right, and I never claimed otherwise. However, if there are religious or cultural influences, it doesn’t make sense to ignore them either.

The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. For many, their interpretation of “Jihad” means a personal struggle against sin and corrupting influences. These people are just as horrified by terrorist’s actions as you and I. However, when religious leaders preach interpretations that call for violence, when you have terrorists who purposefully die while killing people believing this will guarantee them glory in the afterlife making them “martyrs”, then we have a clear religious influence in terrorism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Once again you seem to be saying that Arafat contributed to a climate of terror but the terrorists who helped found Israel didn't. You seem to believe that there is a difference between Arab terror and Israeli terror. Terror is terror.

A straw-man argument. If you would confine your argument to what I say instead of your interpretation of what I seem to be saying, we could move on.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Your logic involves saying that one group of terrorists can contribute to the climate of terror but another group apparently cannot. Your logic involves ignoring the primary commonalities in favour of other ones. Your logic involves saying that Arab terrorists can only primarily be influenced by Arab terrorists.

Another straw-man argument. I never said any of those things and I have already explained why looking at factors that are fundamental to the definition of terrorism is not helpful in distinguishing between terrorist groups. If you have some logical reason to believe this is wrong, please state your case. Repeating the same straw-man argument over and over again does not advance the dialogue.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B If you were really interested in addressing the logic of your own words you would address the following question.

If Arabs can only be primarily influenced by Arab terrorists, who was it that influenced the Israeli terrorist who helped found Israel? [/B]

The question is flawed. I never said that Arab terrorists can only be influenced by other Arab terrorists. In fact, we’ve been over it at length.

E.J.Armstrong

28th November 2003, 06:31 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
You think clarifying the term “noncombatant” takes away from the definition? How so?
As already indicated, military combatants and non-combatants can be terrorised. The Geneva Convention indicates ways in which this can happen by laying down limits to acceptable behaviour, even in war. As I said if an explanation needs to be explained perhaps the explanation isn't adequate?We don’t call it terrorism, we call it oppression. Oppression is merely a subset of terrorism. A definition of terrorism does not need to differentiate between different types of perpetrators. When a government provides training, funds and other support to sub-national terrorist groups, we call that state-sponsored terrorism. When governments take action directly, we call it war, or military action. I wonder what you call CIA actions in South America and Iran to destabilise democratically elected bodies? That was a direct action by a government. On your definition they would be wars. When were they declared in Congress? Finding similarities in terrorist activity is prejudiced? How so?

And this isn't? Interesting.
If you really want to debate the similarities between various terrorist groups I am more than happy to do so. Unfortunately, you won't even discuss basic facts about certain terrorist groups.

Prejudice occurs when you prejudge things. You prejudged matters by ignoring the evidence of the girls' words in favour of your own assertions which are unsupported by hard evidence. Right, and I never claimed otherwise. However, if there are religious or cultural influences, it doesn’t make sense to ignore them either. If it doesn't make sense to ignore possible secondary influences surely it makes as much sense to compare primary influences such as a readiness to bomb innocent people to death for the same bits of land and a readiness to die during the commisssion of those crimes. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. For many, their interpretation of “Jihad” means a personal struggle against sin and corrupting influences. These people are just as horrified by terrorist’s actions as you and I. However, when religious leaders preach interpretations that call for violence, when you have terrorists who purposefully die while killing people believing this will guarantee them glory in the afterlife making them “martyrs”, then we have a clear religious influence in terrorism.
Agreed. And the Bible has also been used to justify terrorist acts by fundamentalists. Sharon is engaging in terrorist acts against Palestinians. Is that religiously influenced?
A straw-man argument. If you would confine your argument to what I say instead of your interpretation of what I seem to be saying, we could move on. Once again you misrepresent me. Please note the use of the word seem. It indicates a possibility or probability based on your own words as used in this thread. You are of course at liberty to explain why is wrong, if it is, or not, as the case may be. As you will not, in the absence of any rational argument against my point, which is supported by the evidence on the thread it still stands. Another straw-man argument. I never said any of those things and I have already explained why looking at factors that are fundamental to the definition of terrorism is not helpful in distinguishing between terrorist groups. If you have some logical reason to believe this is wrong, please state your case. Repeating the same straw-man argument over and over again does not advance the dialogue. Another straw man. The issue here can not be distinguishing between terrorist groups because if it was you would be prepared to discuss fully all possible terrorist groups. You are not. The issue is whether the assertion that forms the title of this thread is warranted by the evidence you cited. It does not. You are of course entitled to opinion.

Let me say again that I am happy that you are happy in your assertion. I am also more than happy to listen to actual evidence (that is actual evidence, not repeated assertion) when you find some and discuss it as long as you don't persist in raising artificial barriers to relevant areas. The question is flawed. I never said that Arab terrorists can only be influenced by other Arab terrorists. In fact, we’ve been over it at length. Why not address the simple question then? Who influenced the terrorists who helped found Israel? It flows directly from the logic of your own assertions and seeks to establish how sensible your assertions are.

You certainly don't have to answer it or any other questions and you certainly are permitted to carry on refusing to discuss some logical consequences of your assertions. When you are ready to discuss the implications of your own words please let me know.

Mycroft

28th November 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
As already indicated, military combatants and non-combatants can be terrorised. The Geneva Convention indicates ways in which this can happen by laying down limits to acceptable behaviour, even in war. As I said if an explanation needs to be explained perhaps the explanation isn't adequate?

Right. It is precisely because military personnel can be terrorized that the footnote was necessary. I think it’s interesting that you object to the existence of the footnote without objecting to the content. The footnote adds clarity; does your argument depend on obfuscation?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Oppression is merely a subset of terrorism. A definition of terrorism does not need to differentiate between different types of perpetrators.

I disagree. There are many things a government may do that can be called oppression but not terrorism, and differentiating between types of perpetuators (as well as their actions) is central to the definition of terrorism.

It seems odd to me that you’re arguing with the definition of terrorism that I’ve provided without providing a definition of your own. Perhaps if you did that we could advance the discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I wonder what you call CIA actions in South America and Iran to destabilise democratically elected bodies? That was a direct action by a government. On your definition they would be wars. When were they declared in Congress?

When a government provides training, funds and other support to sub-national terrorist groups, we call that state-sponsored terrorism. When governments take action directly, we call it war, or military action.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you really want to debate the similarities between various terrorist groups I am more than happy to do so. Unfortunately, you won't even discuss basic facts about certain terrorist groups.

Is your memory so short? We’ve discussed similarities among many terrorists groups. Rejecting your argument that similarities that are fundamental to the definition of terrorism are as useful in gauging influences as are similarities that are unique to specific terrorist groups is not the same as refusing to discuss them. We have discussed them, your arguments on that point are weak.

Let me draw an analogy; If I were to say that the body style of the PT Cruiser was influenced by American car design of the 50’s, it wouldn’t make any sense for you to come along and say that since the PT Cruiser has an engine, it’s body style could also have been influenced by boats and airplanes. All motorized vehicles have engines, to make any sense you would have to find similarities in the body styles of the boats and airplanes.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Prejudice occurs when you prejudge things. You prejudged matters by ignoring the evidence of the girls' words in favour of your own assertions which are unsupported by hard evidence.

We have not ignored the girl’s words. They say they were influenced by OBL, and I believe them. At the same time, their methods, motivations and choice of targets are also reminiscent of Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, so my thesis finds an influence there as well. We have already been over this.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If it doesn't make sense to ignore possible secondary influences surely it makes as much sense to compare primary influences such as a readiness to bomb innocent people to death for the same bits of land and a readiness to die during the commisssion of those crimes.

To beat a dead horse, all terrorists are willing to bomb innocent people. If it doesn’t distinguish between organizations then it isn’t useful in tracing influences.

There is a difference between being willing to die for a cause and purposefully committing suicide. People who have demonstrated a willingness to risk their life include terrorists, guerilla fighters, soldiers, police officers, firefighters and even mothers and fathers defending their family. I’m sure a little thought can produce many more examples.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Agreed. And the Bible has also been used to justify terrorist acts by fundamentalists. Sharon is engaging in terrorist acts against Palestinians. Is that religiously influenced?

If Sharon were committing terrorist acts against Palestinian-Arabs and if they were religiously influenced (and I disagree with both) would that make him an influence on the girls in Morocco? Is Sharon a fundamentalist Islamic cleric who preaches an interpretation of Jihad that promises suicide bombers a place in paradise?

You see, even if we agree with your assumptions, you’re still not making a connection. Making a case for moral equivalency between the Palestinian-Arabs and the Israelis doesn’t take away from the influences between the Palestinian-Arabs and the girls in Morocco, nor does it advance the idea that other terrorist groups could have influenced the Moroccan girls. It’s a different subject.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Once again you misrepresent me. Please note the use of the word seem. It indicates a possibility or probability based on your own words as used in this thread. You are of course at liberty to explain why is wrong, if it is, or not, as the case may be. As you will not, in the absence of any rational argument against my point, which is supported by the evidence on the thread it still stands.

Except that I have already explained the flaw many times, and you still keep bringing up the same arguments.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Another straw man. The issue here can not be distinguishing between terrorist groups because if it was you would be prepared to discuss fully all possible terrorist groups. You are not. The issue is whether the assertion that forms the title of this thread is warranted by the evidence you cited. It does not. You are of course entitled to opinion.

So far we have discussed the early Israeli militants, Tamil Tigers, Colombian narco-terrorists, the IRA, Peruvian terrorism, and even the CIA and the U.S. government. If you think there is something relevant in any of these groups or other yet unnamed, feel free to bring it up.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You certainly don't have to answer it or any other questions and you certainly are permitted to carry on refusing to discuss some logical consequences of your assertions. When you are ready to discuss the implications of your own words please let me know.

If you feel the question is somehow relevant to our discussion, then make your case.

E.J.Armstrong

29th November 2003, 04:25 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
Right. It is precisely because military personnel can be terrorized that the footnote was necessary. I think it’s interesting that you object to the existence of the footnote without objecting to the content. The footnote adds clarity; does your argument depend on obfuscation? It's really quite simple, if you have to explain your explanation then perhaps your original explanation is lacking. I disagree. There are many things a government may do that can be called oppression but not terrorism, and differentiating between types of perpetuators (as well as their actions) is central to the definition of terrorism. I disagree. Your definition excluded national groups. It is possible for national groups to engage in terror in order to influence groups of people including governments, as shown by the actions of the CIA and the KGB, time and time again around the world. It seems odd to me that you’re arguing with the definition of terrorism that I’ve provided without providing a definition of your own. Perhaps if you did that we could advance the discussion. It would only be odd if you didn't read my posts. But you did actually read my post. In fact, not only did you read my definition of terrorism but you quoted it back to me when you posted the following Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I simply pointed out the most important commonality between terrorists. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines terrorist as 'a person who uses violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.' Violent and intimidating methods are therefore the defining characteristics. Terrorists can also work for governments, as well as non-governmental groups. When a government provides training, funds and other support to sub-national terrorist groups, we call that state-sponsored terrorism. When governments take action directly, we call it war, or military action. The CIA took direct action. On your definition, that is war. Is your memory so short? We’ve discussed similarities among many terrorists groups. Rejecting your argument that similarities that are fundamental to the definition of terrorism are as useful in gauging influences as are similarities that are unique to specific terrorist groups is not the same as refusing to discuss them. We have discussed them, your arguments on that point are weak. If you were actually interested in discussing the difference between various groups of terrorists and interested in discussing the logic of your own argumentas you would answer this simple question. Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel?

Given your repeated refusal to answer that simple question I surmise it is because your answer would highlight how much credence your argument of religious and cultural influences should be given - namely very little.Let me draw an analogy; If I were to say that the body style of the PT Cruiser was influenced by American car design of the 50’s, it wouldn’t make any sense for you to come along and say that since the PT Cruiser has an engine, it’s body style could also have been influenced by boats and airplanes. All motorized vehicles have engines, to make any sense you would have to find similarities in the body styles of the boats and airplanes. THat would make sense if it was relevant. If you are actually interested in analogies why not answer my simple question then. That would demonstrate very effectively how much credence to give your argument of influence. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy with your assertion is the one I gave previously. One you ignored. I saidLuckily, in most courts hard evidence does not consist of opinion. I sincerely hope that should you ever accidently find yourself near a murder committed by another person of the same religious background as youself, who used a gun similar to the one you own and who came from the same cultural background as yourself, the judge has a bit more judgement than to send you to death row on the basis of that 'hard evidence' alone.

Should he chose to ignore the neighbourhood gang of dangerous gun toting individuals as possibile culprits because they had previously used a different type of gun and ignore the only witness who stated unequivocally that it wasn't you, I am however sure you would understand completely that he was only doing his job and accept that he was completely justified in his assertion of your guilt. We have not ignored the girl’s words. They say they were influenced by OBL, and I believe them. At the same time, their methods, motivations and choice of targets are also reminiscent of Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, so my thesis finds an influence there as well. We have already been over this. The royal 'we' I presume. I have repeatedly pointed out that the terrorists who founded Israel used bombs to kill innocent people, so the methodology and targets are the same and they were also prepared to die in the commission of their crimes so we have similarities on all three points. Palestinian Arabs are also Semites - so even more similarities.
To beat a dead horse, all terrorists are willing to bomb innocent people. If it doesn’t distinguish between organizations then it isn’t useful in tracing influences. Why not answer my simple question then? QUOTE]There is a difference between being willing to die for a cause and purposefully committing suicide. People who have demonstrated a willingness to risk their life include terrorists, guerilla fighters, soldiers, police officers, firefighters and even mothers and fathers defending their family. I’m sure a little thought can produce many more examples.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously equating terrorists with mothers defending their children? The terrorists who founded Israel and those who formed the IRA decided in cold blood to blow innocent people to pieces. When did mothers defending their children see fit to blow up innocent children with bombs?

There is fundamentally little difference between bombers who kill innocent people and are prepared to die committing their actrocities and bombers who takes their own life achieving the same aim. One group runs away and might be killed, the other doesn't run away and are killed. Either way the object of the exercise is exactly the same - many innocent people are blown apart. If the first group lives, they go on to killl more innocent people, therefore they are likely to be at least as dangerous and probably more dangerous with their repeated attempts to kill innocent people. They is likely to be a primary influence on terrorists all around the world. You just won't answer a simple question about them.If Sharon were committing terrorist acts against Palestinian-Arabs and if they were religiously influenced (and I disagree with both) would that make him an influence on the girls in Morocco? Is Sharon a fundamentalist Islamic cleric who preaches an interpretation of Jihad that promises suicide bombers a place in paradise? Sharon is not only committing terrorist acts against innocent people but his own armed forces are starting to rebel against the illegal acts he is asking them to carry out. I would like to know what your basis is for saying that his terrorist acts are not religiously based. I don't know. He very well might be an influence on the girls in Morocco. If they had access to F-16s and helicopters then yes, they might very well use them in the same way as Sharon, namely in circumstances which guarantee that innocent children would die and to assassinate people who have not been tried under the law or people that their leader said were terrorists. Circumstances that a growing number in the elite Israeli airforce are no longer prepared to countenance. You still won't answer a simple question about the terrorists who helped found Israel. You see, even if we agree with your assumptions, you’re still not making a connection. Making a case for moral equivalency between the Palestinian-Arabs and the Israelis doesn’t take away from the influences between the Palestinian-Arabs and the girls in Morocco, nor does it advance the idea that other terrorist groups could have influenced the Moroccan girls. It’s a different subject. You have yet to establish with actual evidence, as oppposed to assertion, that the influences were any more real than those provided by the terrorists who founded Israel. You still won't answer a simple questions about those terrorists, which would test your assertion of influence. Why not open up the discussion to all possible groups and answer my simple question instead of refusing to answer it?Except that I have already explained the flaw many times, and you still keep bringing up the same arguments. You still won't answer a simple question. The difference between us is that I am happy to answer all questions, you aren't.So far we have discussed the early Israeli militants, Tamil Tigers, Colombian narco-terrorists, the IRA, Peruvian terrorism, and even the CIA and the U.S. government. If you think there is something relevant in any of these groups or other yet unnamed, feel free to bring it up. I have repeatedly brought it up and you have repeatedly declined to answer it. Why not address my simple question? Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel? If you feel the question is somehow relevant to our discussion, then make your case. I have repeatedly done so. The terrorists who founded Israel including Menachem Begin used bombs to kill innocent people as the girls planned and as Arafat has done. They were prepared to die in the effort as the girls were. Interestingly, I note that Arafat has not died maybe he just influenced those who influenced the person who actually fascinated the girls. I note that the US helped train and supply the person who actually did fascinate the girls. On the basis of your argument shouldn't the US also be considered as much of an influence as Arafat?

The terrorists who founded Israel were Semites, as are the Palestinians and as possibly the girls are. You made an argument of influence. If your argument has any value then answering the following question would help assess the value of it.

Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel?

If your thesis holds water for the girls then logically you should be happy to demonstrate its validity by testing it with another group of terrorists, active in the same area as Arafat. Up to now you won't. You appear to feel that your thesis is untestable and not useful in predicting anything.

I am happy that you are happy with your assertions. When you are ready to answer a simple question to assess its worth, let me know. Until then ...

Mycroft

29th November 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I simply pointed out the most important commonality between terrorists. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines terrorist as 'a person who uses violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.' Violent and intimidating methods are therefore the defining characteristics. Terrorists can also work for governments, as well as non-governmental groups.

And I pointed out that defining characteristics are not useful in determining if one group had a greater or lesser influence on another. You have to look at other characteristics.

Another analogy: If I were to say that of all mammals, the panther is most closely related to the leopard, it wouldn’t make any sense for you to come in and say that dolphins are more closely related because they are also warm blooded, have mammary glands and give birth to live young. These are defining characteristics of all mammals, and using this logic would lead to the absurd conclusion that all mammals are equally related. To refute my argument, you would have to find a different mammal that is more similar, and you would have to look at characteristics other than being warm blooded, mammary glands and giving birth to live young.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you were actually interested in discussing the difference between various groups of terrorists and interested in discussing the logic of your own argumentas you would answer this simple question. Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel?

Given your repeated refusal to answer that simple question I surmise it is because your answer would highlight how much credence your argument of religious and cultural influences should be given - namely very little.

Saying that one group of terrorists influenced another is not the same as saying that all terrorists groups were influenced by another. There is no answer I could give to the question that would add to or take away from my thesis. It is another topic. You might as well ask who influenced King Henry V to invade France and fight the battle of Agincourt for all the relevance it has to the topic.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Are you seriously equating terrorists with mothers defending their children? The terrorists who founded Israel and those who formed the IRA decided in cold blood to blow innocent people to pieces. When did mothers defending their children see fit to blow up innocent children with bombs?

No, the point is there is a difference between committing suicide and being willing to die for a purpose.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
There is fundamentally little difference between bombers who kill innocent people and are prepared to die committing their actrocities and bombers who takes their own life achieving the same aim…

Perhaps that’s true in a moral sense, but we are talking about methodology. From that point of view, there is a huge difference.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
…I would like to know what your basis is for saying that his (Sharon’s) terrorist acts are not religiously based. I don't know...

It’s your point and not at all central to my argument. If you don’t know, how is it that you said he is religiously motivated? And not to be distracted from the question I asked, if he were religiously motivated, how would that make him an influence on the girls in Morocco? Is Sharon a fundamentalist Islamic cleric who preaches an interpretation of Jihad that promises suicide bombers a place in paradise?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You have yet to establish with actual evidence, as oppposed to assertion, that the influences were any more real than those provided by the terrorists who founded Israel…

My thesis involves Arafat and the girls in Morocco, it doesn’t mention Israelis at all. If you want to refute my thesis by proving that another group had an influence that was greater, it’s up to you to make your case. To use my previous analogy, if I want to talk about the relationship between panthers and leopards, I don’t need to talk about dolphins. If you think dolphins are important, it’s up to you to prove that they are, not me to prove that they are not.

Mycroft

29th November 2003, 09:56 PM

One more thing:

I think your definition of terrorism is too broad. It doesn't exlude lawful miilitary action.

E.J.Armstrong

30th November 2003, 04:27 AM

originally posted by MycroftAnd I pointed out that defining characteristics are not useful in determining if one group had a greater or lesser influence on another. You have to look at other characteristics. So you did post my words that you claimed I hadn't supplied. I would rather take the word of the Oxfod Dictionary than yours I'm afraid. You have demonstrated often enough that yo are not prepared to properly consider all options or even answer a simple question because it would show the paucity of logic in your claim.Saying that one group of terrorists influenced another is not the same as saying that all terrorists groups were influenced by another. There is no answer I could give to the question that would add to or take away from my thesis. It is another topic. You might as well ask who influenced King Henry V to invade France and fight the battle of Agincourt for all the relevance it has to the topic. If it is so irrelevant what harm can be done by answering it. THat is unless you know that by answering the paucity of logic in your assertion would be clearly demonstrated. Still not answering simple questions. When you are readfy to discuss the implications of your own claim please let me know.No, the point is there is a difference between committing suicide and being willing to die for a purpose. So the suicide bombers are not dying for a purpose. Really. Perhaps that’s true in a moral sense, but we are talking about methodology. From that point of view, there is a huge difference. So we are not talking about influence then? It’s your point and not at all central to my argument. If you don’t know, how is it that you said he is religiously motivated? And not to be distracted from the question I asked, if he were religiously motivated, how would that make him an influence on the girls in Morocco? Is Sharon a fundamentalist Islamic cleric who preaches an interpretation of Jihad that promises suicide bombers a place in paradise? I know you find it difficult to remember your own words but at least stop misrepresenting me. You brought religious influence into the argument not me. Perhaps you might read my coments for a change. He might be an influence on the girls in Morocco as a terrorist who gets his own way by terrorism.My thesis involves Arafat and the girls in Morocco, it doesn’t mention Israelis at all. If you want to refute my thesis by proving that another group had an influence that was greater, it’s up to you to make your case. To use my previous analogy, if I want to talk about the relationship between panthers and leopards, I don’t need to talk about dolphins. If you think dolphins are important, it’s up to you to prove that they are, not me to prove that they are not. You have yet to answer a simple question which would test your theory. That you are not prepared to answer it says everything about how we should take your thesis. On what basis do you imagine that you can ask questions when you won't answer them.

Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel?

Sound of crickets chirping.

Mycroft

30th November 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So you did post my words that you claimed I hadn't supplied. I would rather take the word of the Oxfod Dictionary than yours I'm afraid.

I overlooked a single paragraph among some two months worth of arguments. My bad.

I’ll add again that while the Oxford English dictionary is a well respected publication, I do think this definition is too broad as it does not exclude lawful military actions.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You have demonstrated often enough that yo are not prepared to properly consider all options or even answer a simple question because it would show the paucity of logic in your claim.

We’ve considered every option that you’ve brought up.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If it is so irrelevant what harm can be done by answering it. THat is unless you know that by answering the paucity of logic in your assertion would be clearly demonstrated. Still not answering simple questions. When you are readfy to discuss the implications of your own claim please let me know.

If you can think of an answer to the question that will demonstrate the paucity of my logic, feel free to provide it. Again, if you want to refute my thesis, the burden is on you. I believe it’s an irrelevant diversion, but I welcome your attempts to show otherwise.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So the suicide bombers are not dying for a purpose. Really.

Straw-man. I said that that there is a difference between committing suicide and being willing to die for a purpose. That is not the same as saying that suicide bombers are not dying for a purpose.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So we are not talking about influence then?

Straw-man. You said there is little difference between bombers who are prepared to die and bombers who take their own life. I pointed out that the difference is in methodology. That is not the same as saying we are not talking about influence.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I know you find it difficult to remember your own words but at least stop misrepresenting me. You brought religious influence into the argument not me. Perhaps you might read my coments for a change.

Right. I did bring it up. If you think it applies in any way other than what I’ve mentioned, feel free to demonstrate how.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
He might be an influence on the girls in Morocco as a terrorist who gets his own way by terrorism.

He might be, but that wouldn’t distinguish him from Arafat either.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You have yet to answer a simple question which would test your theory. That you are not prepared to answer it says everything about how we should take your thesis. On what basis do you imagine that you can ask questions when you won't answer them.

Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel?

On two basis:

1) The question is based on your straw-man assertion that I claimed that Arabic terrorists can only be influenced by other Arabic terrorists. Since I never made any such assertion, the question is flawed.

2) It’s not relevant. There is no possible answer that could add to or take away from my thesis. If you think otherwise, it’s up to you, not me, to make your case. To use my previous analogy, I don’t have to talk about dolphins to compare panthers and leopards. If you think dolphins are relevant, explain how and we can go from there. Until then I don’t feel at all obligated to pander to an obvious diversion.

E.J.Armstrong

2nd December 2003, 03:40 PM

originally posted by MycroftI overlooked a single paragraph among some two months worth of arguments. My bad. If you say so. I’ll add again that while the Oxford English dictionary is a well respected publication, I do think this definition is too broad as it does not exclude lawful military actions. I believe the definition is completely fit for the purpose as it does not need to be explained and if military action falls within the definition then that also is, by definition, terrorism. We’ve considered every option that you’ve brought up. The royal 'we' again. You won't consider a simple test of your hypothesis namely Who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel?
If you can think of an answer to the question that will demonstrate the paucity of my logic, feel free to provide it. Again, if you want to refute my thesis, the burden is on you. I believe it’s an irrelevant diversion, but I welcome your attempts to show otherwise. Interesting that you are devoting so much effort avoiding answering a simple question. You cited the girls as support for your claim yet they specifically stated that it was someone other than Arafat who fascinated them. In the absence of hard evidence you then resorted to linking Arafat into the claim by resorting to commonalities. Commonalities you agreed were not necessary for other groups.Straw-man. I said that that there is a difference between committing suicide and being willing to die for a purpose. That is not the same as saying that suicide bombers are not dying for a purpose. If you were answering simple questions I might ask the following - assuming that they both die in the process and that they both successfully kill dozens of innocent people what is the practical difference in the outcome between Hamas suicide bombers and Stern gang menbers? Straw-man. You said there is little difference between bombers who are prepared to die and bombers who take their own life. I pointed out that the difference is in methodology. That is not the same as saying we are not talking about influence. Could I just point you to the question mark once again. Are we talking about methodology and influence or as you stated, simply methodology? Right. I did bring it up. If you think it applies in any way other than what I’ve mentioned, feel free to demonstrate how. I am no longer clear what you are claiming any more. Another simple question that might remain unanswered. What exactly are you claiming now?He might be, but that wouldn’t distinguish him from Arafat either. Yet you chose Arafat as the prime influence. 1) The question is based on your straw-man assertion that I claimed that Arabic terrorists can only be influenced by other Arabic terrorists. Since I never made any such assertion, the question is flawed. You actually statedWhat solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion? On that basis you ruled out the terrorists who founded Israel as being a prime influence. I am not clear what exactly you are claiming any more. 2) It’s not relevant. There is no possible answer that could add to or take away from my thesis. If you think otherwise, it’s up to you, not me, to make your case. To use my previous analogy, I don’t have to talk about dolphins to compare panthers and leopards. If you think dolphins are relevant, explain how and we can go from there. Until then I don’t feel at all obligated to pander to an obvious diversion. If you don't want to answer questions that test the logic of your thesis then don't. Answering it would merely test if your assertion was valid with another group active in the same territory at roughly the same time. All you feel you need to demonstrate a terrorist influence is common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion. Is there something intrinsically wrong with with testing that assertion with another terrorist group? I always thought that those who seek the truth are open to all tests of their ideas.

You stated near the start of the thread that
The innovation I am speaking of is not just dying in the attack, many soldiers are prepared to do that, but dying in attacking civilians. Let me quote you something about Deir Yassin from http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dycg.htm.
Eliahu Arbel, an officer of the Haganah, visited Deir Yassin on April 10, 1948 at the request of Haganah District Commander David Shaltiel. He wrote: "On the following day, after the operation, I inspected the village, in accordance with the order of General Shaltiel. Accompanied by an officer of the attacking unit, I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gun fire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses." In that atrocity innocent civilians were deliberately attacked and massacred. Some of the attackers died attacking a village of civilians.

If we take your own words at face value it is clear that your innovation of dying while attacking civilians in the Middle East has an role model earlier than Arafat amongst terrorist groups who helped found Israel and as we know there are many even earlier models in history. You refuse to discuss who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel. That is fine by me. However, it is clear that they could easily have influenced the girls from Morocco who were also interested in undertaking terrorist atrocities against civilians if we all ignore the fact that it was actually Osama Bin Laden who actually fascinated them and it was a muslim cleric who originally said that their plans were not legal.

Mycroft

2nd December 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
On that basis you ruled out the terrorists who founded Israel as being a prime influence. I am not clear what exactly you are claiming any more.

Yes, I understand that. You’ve worked very hard at obfuscation. I could go through all this line by line, but that would be impossible to follow and by the time you responded, it would be impossible to maintain any sort of context, so let me hit the main themes and see if I can clarify some things:

First I would ask if your definition of terrorism covers all military action, or are there some military actions that you would agree are not terrorism?

Yes, I know the Moroccan girls expressed an admiration for OBL. My thesis does go beyond just the scope of the article, if it didn’t I would just have copied the article without comment. Because the actions of the girls bear a striking similarity to Palestinian-Arabic terrorist actions in the disputed territories in Israel, I conclude that there is an additional influence that is not mentioned in the article. This influence I call Arafat’s gift to civilization.

You imply that I should be able to “test” this hypothesis by looking for an influence to early Israeli militants. This is false. Seeing an influence between two terrorist groups does not imply a similar influence will be found with any other group. Finding or not finding a similar influence to another group will not add or take away from the influence seen between the Palestinian-Arab terrorists and the Moroccan girls.

To use my previous analogy, If I were to say that of all mammals, the panther is most closely related to the leopard, that hypothesis would not be tested by asking what animal is most closely related to the dolphin. The relationship between panthers and leopards does not imply a similar relationship with other animals, and I don’t have to find a similar relationship between other animals to take note of the relationship between panthers and leopards.

I could say, I can’t think of another animal that is related to the dolphin in the same way that a panther is related to the leopard. Having said that, the panther is still very similar to the leopard, it is neither more or less similar to the leopard than it was before.

Or I could say, I think the porpoise is very closely related to the dolphin, maybe as closely related as the panther is to the leopard. Has that changed anything of my first hypothesis? No! The panther is still very similar to the leopard, neither more nor less similar than it was before. The similarity between dolphins and any other animal is irrelevant to the similarities between panthers and leopards.

On suicide bombings:

There is a difference between committing suicide and being willing to risk your life. You can use semantics to try to minimize the difference, you draw moral comparisons, but you can’t erase the difference.

On Deir Yassin:

I’ve read about it, both pro and con. Some claim that what happened there was an atrocity, that the town had declared it’s neutrality and should have been left alone. Others claim that Arab militants were taking refuge there and that the town was a legitimate military target. I’m not going to argue about the right or wrong of Deir Yassin, that’s way beyond the scope of our discussion, but there is one thing I can say about the event with absolute certainty:

It has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.

On the Islamic influences of terror:

Yes, you are correct to point out that initially a Muslim cleric told the girls that their plans were illegal. I’m glad for that, it shows the lie to those who would claim that Islam is bad. I personally am a religious man who has a deep respect for other good people who are also religious, even if their religion is different from mine.

However, the article goes on to say:
The sisters then contacted two Muslim fundamentalist groups in Morocco - Ahl Assounna wal Jamaa and Al Hijra wa Attakfir - who sent the twins documents on Jihad, or holy war, Al Ittihad al Ichtiraki wrote.
"This reassured the two sisters as they plotted their suicide attack," the paper wrote.
This clearly demonstrates that the girls themselves saw an Islamic influence in what they were doing. When the first cleric gave them an answer they didn’t like, they sought the advice of different clerics. One can only speculate on what was in those documents on Jihad sent to the girls, but it did reassure them.

E.J.Armstrong

4th December 2003, 02:46 PM

originally posted by MycroftYes, I understand that. You’ve worked very hard at obfuscation.
Once again I am sorry that you choose to start by misrepresenting me. If you want to substantiate your claim of obfuscation I will be more than happy to reply to your evidence.

This not a life or death situation here. It is a sceptics discussion board. I have asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer a simple question, fundamently aimed at testing the validity of your assertion of influence, don't. I could go through all this line by line, but that would be impossible to follow and by the time you responded, it would be impossible to maintain any sort of context, so let me hit the main themes and see if I can clarify some things: Feel free. First I would ask if your definition of terrorism covers all military action, or are there some military actions that you would agree are not terrorism?
I am somewhat intrigued that you start by asking me questions in order to clarify what you (not me) are claiming. Nevertheless, although you rule a simple question off limits, let me address your questions once again.

I believe there are indeed some military actions which do not fall under the definition of terror. As I have mentioned before, I believe that Israel is entitled to use all legal force to stop terrorist bombings happening. Using the Israeli airforce to assassinate suspects in circumstances which guarantee innocent children die, is however not one of them, as some of the pilots themselves seem to be agreeing. Many in the UK believe that the bombing of Dresden also crossed the line.Yes, I know the Moroccan girls expressed an admiration for OBL. My thesis does go beyond just the scope of the article, if it didn’t I would just have copied the article without comment. Because the actions of the girls bear a striking similarity to Palestinian-Arabic terrorist actions in the disputed territories in Israel, I conclude that there is an additional influence that is not mentioned in the article. This influence I call Arafat’s gift to civilization. I distinguish between actual influence and asserted influence. They are not the same. As you know, there is not one word from the girls which demonstrates Arafat was an actual influence on them. In the absence of such hard evidence, you have chosen to assert (or in your words, conclude) that Arafat had an influence on the basis of religion, modus operandi and culture. You feel this is all you need to demonstrate actual influence as opposed to asserted influence. That is where we differ.You imply that I should be able to “test” this hypothesis by looking for an influence to early Israeli militants. This is false. Seeing an influence between two terrorist groups does not imply a similar influence will be found with any other group. Finding or not finding a similar influence to another group will not add or take away from the influence seen between the Palestinian-Arab terrorists and the Moroccan girls. Unfortunately you appear to still confusing actual influence with asserted influence. You have yet to demonstrate that there is any actual influence by Arafat on the girls. Just because you are of the same religion, culture and use the same methods as another person does not demonstrate actual influence. It only demonstrates that you are of the same religion, culture (a wonderfully wooly term)and use the same methods.

In the absence of hard evidence your thesis therefore rests on the assertion that all you need to conclusively demonstrate influence is three specific factors. If they were indeed so conclusive, one would imagine that you would be very interested in showing what part those three specific factors played in influencing other terrorist groups. The terrorists who founded Israel are, at first sight, good candidates for analysis.

Corroboration by other terrorist groups, if found, would then support your use of the three factors in the case of the girls, because let me reiterate - you have no hard evidence whatsoever of influence by Arafat.
To use my previous analogy, If I were to say that of all mammals, the panther is most closely related to the leopard, that hypothesis would not be tested by asking what animal is most closely related to the dolphin. The relationship between panthers and leopards does not imply a similar relationship with other animals, and I don’t have to find a similar relationship between other animals to take note of the relationship between panthers and leopards. If that were a relevant analogy I would be happy to pursue it. Unfortunately it is not because you still need to differentiate between actual influence and asserted influence. In the absence of any hard evidence of actual influence you chose to claim that three specific facors conclusively demonstrated influence. This can be tested, if not proved, by looking at how your claimed factors work with other terrorist groups. If they were relevant to other groups then they might have some relevance. You won't do that therefore there can be little confidence that they are of any use in the case you chose to cite.

If the terrorists who founded Israel thought up all their terrorist methods by themselves and weren't influenced by any other terrorists a simple question arises - why couldn't the girls do the same?

If the terrorists who founded Israel were however influenced by other terrorists the question arises, who were they? What was their religion? If it was different from the Stern Gang and Irgun, couldn't the girls also be different. Etc. That is why testing your thesis with the terrorist who founded Israel is relevant and might give it some credibility. It is a question of sauce for the goose sauce or sauce for the gander?
There is a difference between committing suicide and being willing to risk your life. You can use semantics to try to minimize the difference, you draw moral comparisons, but you can’t erase the difference. The problem is that this argument simply doesn't work in practice. I note that once again you won't answer simple questions.

Let me look at the real effects of terrorism. There is absolutely no practical difference between a suicide bomber who kills ten people and a non-suicide terrorist who dies blowing up ten people. In both cases you have one dead bomber and ten dead innocents. The families of the ten killed by the suicide bomber have a dead family member, in exactly the same way as the families whose members were killed by a non-suicide bomber.

In fact it can be argued that non-suicide bombers are worse because, if they survive and run away from their atrocities like cowards, they still terrorise other innocent people by their very existence. All terrorist bombers are wrong at all times but the successful suicide bomber is, by definition, not going to kill anyone else. The non-suicide bombers however can, and on many occasions do, bomb and murder innocent people again and again and again.I’ve read about it, both pro and con. Some claim that what happened there was an atrocity, that the town had declared it’s neutrality and should have been left alone. Others claim that Arab militants were taking refuge there and that the town was a legitimate military target. I’m not going to argue about the right or wrong of Deir Yassin, that’s way beyond the scope of our discussion, but there is one thing I can say about the event with absolute certainty:
It has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.
It has everything to do with the fundamentals of your own argument however. In relation to Arafat you claimed that Innovation deserves credit. The first to conceive an idea and put it into practice should get mention when the idea or action is put to use in other places at other times. You then stated The innovation I am speaking of is not just dying in the attack, many soldiers are prepared to do that, but dying in attacking civilians. Some terrorists died murdering civilians in Deir Yassin quite early in the modern Middle East conflict. It wasn't Arafat's work.Yes, you are correct to point out that initially a Muslim cleric told the girls that their plans were illegal. I’m glad for that, it shows the lie to those who would claim that Islam is bad. I personally am a religious man who has a deep respect for other good people who are also religious, even if their religion is different from mine.I am happy you agree that there are many good Muslims. Many presumably, who are against terrorism and who are happy to live in peace with their neighbours - whoever they are. This clearly demonstrates that the girls themselves saw an Islamic influence in what they were doing. When the first cleric gave them an answer they didn’t like, they sought the advice of different clerics. One can only speculate on what was in those documents on Jihad sent to the girls, but it did reassure them. Therefore we have hard evidence that those specific clerics influenced the girls. What still escapes me however is what that has got to do with Arafat? Is it simply that he is of the same religion as the initial cleric who told the girls what they were planning was illegal and of the vast numbers of Muslims who are against terrorism?

You have said before that you are look for similarities between terrorist groups that differentiate them from other terrorist groups rather than similarities which are inherent in the definition of a terrorist. That may be a reasonable aim. It would not however demonstrate actual influence. I feel that is a fundamental problem for your thesis.

Mycroft

4th December 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I believe there are indeed some military actions which do not fall under the definition of terror. As I have mentioned before, I believe that Israel is entitled to use all legal force to stop terrorist bombings happening.

Okay, we agree so far…

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Using the Israeli airforce to assassinate suspects in circumstances which guarantee innocent children die, is however not one of them, as some of the pilots themselves seem to be agreeing. Many in the UK believe that the bombing of Dresden also crossed the line.

Here is where we begin to disagree. Is it your opinion that any military action that results in the death of a noncombatant is a terrorist action?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I distinguish between actual influence and asserted influence. They are not the same…
…Unfortunately you appear to still confusing actual influence with asserted influence…

I am not confusing actual influence with asserted influence. That is the topic of our argument. You disagree that my asserted influence is an actual influence.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In the absence of hard evidence your thesis therefore rests on the assertion that all you need to conclusively demonstrate influence is three specific factors. If they were indeed so conclusive, one would imagine that you would be very interested in showing what part those three specific factors played in influencing other terrorist groups. The terrorists who founded Israel are, at first sight, good candidates for analysis.

I did not assert that all I need to demonstrate influence are these three specific factors. Rather, because I find those similarities, I conclude there is an influence. Do you understand the difference? If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find completely different similarities..

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Corroboration by other terrorist groups, if found, would then support your use of the three factors in the case of the girls, because let me reiterate - you have no hard evidence whatsoever of influence by Arafat.

Maybe, but the absence of such a factor in another case doesn’t weaken my argument. As I said, if one were to look for influences in other groups, one might find completely different similarities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If that were a relevant analogy I would be happy to pursue it. Unfortunately it is not because you still need to differentiate between actual influence and asserted influence. In the absence of any hard evidence of actual influence you chose to claim that three specific facors conclusively demonstrated influence.

Again, I’m not claiming that those three specific factors are necessary to demonstrate influence in every case. I’m claiming that because I find them in this case, there is in influence. If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find different similarities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
This can be tested, if not proved, by looking at how your claimed factors work with other terrorist groups. If they were relevant to other groups then they might have some relevance. You won't do that therefore there can be little confidence that they are of any use in the case you chose to cite.

And here my previous analogy works very well in illustrating a point: Except for the commonalities that all mammals share, the similarities between panthers and leopards are different than the similarities between dolphins and porpoises. Not finding the same similarities between dolphins and porpoises does not in any way makes panthers and leopards less similar.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If the terrorists who founded Israel thought up all their terrorist methods by themselves and weren't influenced by any other terrorists a simple question arises - why couldn't the girls do the same?

One line of thought could lead to the other, but that has more to do with the thinking process than any factual correlation. The question could also stand on its own without reference to any other group.

Could the girls in Morocco have thought up their actions all on their own?

Maybe, but given the similarities between their plans and the actions of Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, it seems unlikely. The Palestinian-Arab terrorists make the news a lot, and we do know these girls were literate.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If the terrorists who founded Israel were however influenced by other terrorists the question arises, who were they? What was their religion?...
How many times do we have to go over this religion thing before you give up this straw-man? The commonality isn’t Islam, it’s the specific teaching by some radical/fundamentalist Islamic clerics of shahid or martyrdom where you can get a fast-track to heaven through suicide-murder.

Some examples using a different religion:

Both the IRA and the American Mafia are both predominantly Catholic and both are/have been perpetuators of extreme violence. This in no way implies any connection or influence between these two groups. Why? Because they do their violence in spite of, not because of, their religion. Religion is not a common motive.

By comparison, the Inquisition was very much a product of Catholic teachings. Even though it took place in many countries over some five hundred years or more, the influence is direct between place to place and time to time. If today someone were burned alive for heresy against the Catholic church, I’d say the perpetuators were very likely to have been influenced by the same people who perpetuated the Inquisition from the 13th century C.E. to the 18th century C.E.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Let me look at the real effects of terrorism. There is absolutely no practical difference between a suicide bomber who kills ten people and a non-suicide terrorist who dies blowing up ten people. In both cases you have one dead bomber and ten dead innocents. The families of the ten killed by the suicide bomber have a dead family member, in exactly the same way as the families whose members were killed by a non-suicide bomber.

From a moral point of view, you could make an argument that there is no difference, and I might even agree with you, but isn’t that beyond the scope of our discussion? I’m not comparing the morality of the girls in Morocco to the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, just their methods.

If by “real effects” you mean “dead people” then using the same logic I could say that the Moroccan girls were influenced by the makers of whiskey. After all, there is no “practical difference” between someone who dies from a terrorist attack and someone who dies from a drunken driving accident.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In fact it can be argued that non-suicide bombers are worse because, if they survive and run away from their atrocities like cowards, they still terrorise other innocent people by their very existence. All terrorist bombers are wrong at all times but the successful suicide bomber is, by definition, not going to kill anyone else. The non-suicide bombers however can, and on many occasions do, bomb and murder innocent people again and again and again.

Okay, so you say the individual non-suicide terrorist is worse, because in the long run he can kill more people. That makes sense in and of itself, but in the case of suicide-terrorists I’d add that the real bad guys are the ones who recruit, indoctrinate, and make bombs for the ones who carry out the attacks, and who are likely to kill even more people in the long run because being removed from the actual violence, they are far less likely to ever be caught. Who then is the greater coward?

But that’s all arguing moral equivalency. Saying one group is better or worse than another goes beyond the scope of our argument, it has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It has everything to do with the fundamentals of your own argument however. In relation to Arafat you claimed that

Yes, by quoting me out of context, you manufacture an excuse to bring up Dier Yasin. I was making a distinction between Kamikazes and suicide bombers. The Kamikazes targeted U.S. Navy warships. While horrifying, I would still deem Kamikaze attacks within the realm of lawful warfare, and in no way similar to what the girls in Morocco planned.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am happy you agree that there are many good Muslims. Many presumably, who are against terrorism and who are happy to live in peace with their neighbours - whoever they are. Therefore we have hard evidence that those specific clerics influenced the girls. What still escapes me however is what that has got to do with Arafat? Is it simply that he is of the same religion as the initial cleric who told the girls what they were planning was illegal and of the vast numbers of Muslims who are against terrorism?

Arafat publicly praises shahids. From looking at his career, I would think his brand of Islam has more in common with the clerics that sent the girls literature on Jihad than with the cleric that told them their plans were illegal.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You have said before that you are look for similarities between terrorist groups that differentiate them from other terrorist groups rather than similarities which are inherent in the definition of a terrorist. That may be a reasonable aim. It would not however demonstrate actual influence. I feel that is a fundamental problem for your thesis.

Yet after more than two months of arguing, you are unable to produce a more likely influence.

E.J.Armstrong

5th December 2003, 04:05 AM

Just before we start on this one I would just like to put some things into context.

1/ You ask questions but often won't answer them.

2/ You started you last but one post with an anallegation about me regarding obfuscation. Are you going to defend by your allegation and supply evidence or not? If not, are you going to apologise? perhaps it was just another of your assertions ?

At least start dealing with some of my questions about your own claims.

Or not - it is entirely up to you but I will highlight your continued failure to do so on a thread your started.

Mycroft

5th December 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Just before we start on this one I would just like to put some things into context.

1/ You ask questions but often won't answer them.

I’ve explained why the question on who influenced the early Israeli militants is irrelevant and how any issue that would arise from that question can be discussed independently of the question. If you feel there are other questions that I’ve overlooked and are important, feel free to list them and I will address them. In general, I try to address important points while avoiding issues that are not central and might threaten to diverge off-topic.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
2/ You started you last but one post with an anallegation about me regarding obfuscation. Are you going to defend by your allegation and supply evidence or not? If not, are you going to apologise? perhaps it was just another of your assertions ?

At least start dealing with some of my questions about your own claims.

Or not - it is entirely up to you but I will highlight your continued failure to do so on a thread your started.

I didn’t follow up on your obfuscation issue because that’s not central to the argument and could easily become a distraction. I do think you are purposefully obfuscating the issues, but to discuss it would only add to the obfuscation.

You want me to supply evidence? Anywhere where I’ve noted your arguments as straw-man arguments is an example. Also wherever you’ve attempted to shift the argument from a direct discussion of who may have influenced the Moroccan terrorists to an argument of moral equivalency. I’m sure given some thought I could come up with other examples, but I don’t think it’s that important. Consider this my evidence supplied. No, I do not plan to apologize. If you want to discuss it further, I will be happy to in another thread or in private messages.

E.J.Armstrong

6th December 2003, 05:33 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
I’ve explained why the question on who influenced the early Israeli militants is irrelevant and how any issue that would arise from that question can be discussed independently of the question. If you feel there are other questions that I’ve overlooked and are important, feel free to list them and I will address them. In general, I try to address important points while avoiding issues that are not central and might threaten to diverge off-topic I am happy that you feel happy with the inherent truth of your assertions. You however, failed to support the assertion that forms the title of this thread with any hard evidence.

In the absence of any hard evidence for actual influence you claimed that a subset of commonalities is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of your allegation. Those commonalities do not demonstrate the fact of influence. They demonstrate that there are a subset of commonalities.

The fact that you persistently refuse to answer a simple question of central relevance to the truth of your claims shows that you not open to a full and frank discussion about your own claims. I didn’t follow up on your obfuscation issue because that’s not central to the argument and could easily become a distraction. I do think you are purposefully obfuscating the issues, but to discuss it would only add to the obfuscation. Let me just summarise this: -
1/ You made an unsubstantiated claim
2/ You were asked to provide evidence and justify it.
3/ You refused and
4/ Inferred the truth of your claim by its mere statement.

Can I just suggest that this is a characteristic of mediums and psychics through the ages. You want me to supply evidence? Anywhere where I’ve noted your arguments as straw-man arguments is an example. Sorry, I thought you just claimed that discussing your claim would only lead to more obfuscation? I have repeatedly pointed out that you repeatedly failed to notice question marks and that when the argument accurately reflects your views then it is not a straw man. It is part of the debate - not obfuscation. Also wherever you’ve attempted to shift the argument from a direct discussion of who may have influenced the Moroccan terrorists to an argument of moral equivalency. Please provide evidence. Or not, as you wish.I’m sure given some thought I could come up with other examples, but I don’t think it’s that important. So justifying your own claim properly is not important to you. Interesting.Consider this my evidence supplied. You have seen fit not to post a single one of my words to justify your claim. No, I do not plan to apologize. Noted.If you want to discuss it further, I will be happy to in another thread or in private messages. I have invited you to justify your claims, with actual evidence rather than assertion, out in the open where you made them. You won't do that. So be it.

E.J.Armstrong

6th December 2003, 06:32 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Here is where we begin to disagree. Is it your opinion that any military action that results in the death of a noncombatant is a terrorist action? No.I am not confusing actual influence with asserted influence. That is the topic of our argument. You disagree that my asserted influence is an actual influence. I agree that you have not demonstrated actual influence. I did not assert that all I need to demonstrate influence are these three specific factors. Rather, because I find those similarities, I conclude there is an influence. Do you understand the difference? If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find completely different similarities.. Once more you are factually incorrect. When I pointed out that
'...despite not providing any solid evidence of the claim that forms the basis for this thread, you still claim the girls were influenced by Arafat.' you said
' What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion?' In other words you do not need any other evidence other than the three factors. You therefore asserted exactly what I stated you asserted. Do you understand what you said?Maybe, but the absence of such a factor in another case doesn’t weaken my argument. As I said, if one were to look for influences in other groups, one might find completely different similarities Can I just refer you back to your claim restated in the last post. You have demonstrated that there are some similarities between the girls and other terrorists. Unfortunately that is not evidence of actual influence. I have demonstrated that there are commonalities between the girls and different terrorists. In exactly the same way that is not evidence of actual influence.

Again, I’m not claiming that those three specific factors are necessary to demonstrate influence in every case. I’m claiming that because I find them in this case, there is in influence. If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find different similarities. You choose one subset of commonalities other people can choose other commonalities. All they demonstrate are commonalities, not actual influence. And here my previous analogy works very well in illustrating a point: Except for the commonalities that all mammals share, the similarities between panthers and leopards are different than the similarities between dolphins and porpoises. Not finding the same similarities between dolphins and porpoises does not in any way makes panthers and leopards less similar. If you were actually interested in supporting yuor claim of actual influence as opposed to asserted influence I would have thought that you would have been happy to test your ideas, given the lack of hard evidence. I am happy that you are happy in your assertion. You still have not demonstrated actual influence however.Maybe, but given the similarities between their plans and the actions of Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, it seems unlikely. The Palestinian-Arab terrorists make the news a lot, and we do know these girls were literate. Israeli terrorism makes the news a lot as well. It seems that you agree you do not know what the actual influences were.How many times do we have to go over this religion thing before you give up this straw-man? The commonality isn’t Islam, it’s the specific teaching by some radical/fundamentalist Islamic clerics of shahid or martyrdom where you can get a fast-track to heaven through suicide-murder How many times do I have to point out the question mark. You previously indicated that three factors were all you needed to demonstrate influence. Of those religion was one of them. If religion is not a factor then presumably terrorist of other religions could influence the girls as well?If by “real effects” you mean “dead people” then using the same logic I could say that the Moroccan girls were influenced by the makers of whiskey. After all, there is no “practical difference” between someone who dies from a terrorist attack and someone who dies from a drunken driving accident. Not sure what you are trying to say here. You claimed to not answer irrelevant questions. Nevertheless, unlike you, I will. I am talking about people who die from terrorist atrocities not car accidents? What difference does it make to the families if it was the suicide bomber or non-suicide terrorist died during the commisssion of the crime? Is one somehow better than the other?in the case of suicide-terrorists I’d add that the real bad guys are the ones who recruit, indoctrinate, and make bombs for the ones who carry out the attacks, and who are likely to kill even more people in the long run because being removed from the actual violence, they are far less likely to ever be caught. Who then is the greater coward? The organisers of suicide bombers are a bad lot indeed. Doesn't that also apply to the people who recruited the terrorists who helped found Israel. They also ran away and incited murder over and over again or, once again, are they a very special case not to be discussed?But that’s all arguing moral equivalency. Saying one group is better or worse than another goes beyond the scope of our argument, it has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco. Then don't discuss it if you feel it is irrelevant. Why not simply produce some actual evidence of actual influence to support the claim you made about the girls in Morocco?Yes, by quoting me out of context, you manufacture an excuse to bring up Dier Yasin. I was making a distinction between Kamikazes and suicide bombers. The Kamikazes targeted U.S. Navy warships. While horrifying, I would still deem Kamikaze attacks within the realm of lawful warfare, and in no way similar to what the girls in Morocco planned. I did not manufacture an excuse. I used your own actual words to show that other groups were already doing what you accussed Arafat of innovating. Once again, you don't seem to like being faced with the logic of your own words and when people do so you resort to silly accusations. If you don't want your own words to be used in debate, why engage in debate.Arafat publicly praises shahids. From looking at his career, I would think his brand of Islam has more in common with the clerics that sent the girls literature on Jihad than with the cleric that told them their plans were illegal. Can I just remind you that while I am happy that you are happy with what you think, imagine, allege or conclude, you still need to demonstrate actual influence with actual evidence.Yet after more than two months of arguing, you are unable to produce a more likely influence. There is a difference between actual influence and likely influence. You made the claim. To demonstrate actual influence you need actual evidence. Perhaps you agree that you do not actually know who influenced them.

Mycroft

6th December 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
No.

Okay, so you don’t feel that every military operation that results in noncombatant casualties qualifies as terrorism, but would you say that some do?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
'...despite not providing any solid evidence of the claim that forms the basis for this thread, you still claim the girls were influenced by Arafat.' you said
' What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion?' In other words you do not need any other evidence other than the three factors. You therefore asserted exactly what I stated you asserted. Do you understand what you said?

I’m not sure I understand your meaning. Saying that those three factors is enough to demonstrate an influence in this case is not the same as saying that those same three factors are required in every case. Naturally I understand my own words, the question is do you?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Can I just refer you back to your claim restated in the last post. You have demonstrated that there are some similarities between the girls and other terrorists. Unfortunately that is not evidence of actual influence. I have demonstrated that there are commonalities between the girls and different terrorists. In exactly the same way that is not evidence of actual influence.

The commonalities you pointed to are also commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists and so were useless in saying that one group was more likely to have influenced them than the other group. That’s why I pointed out that commonalities that were definitive of terrorism were not useful.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You choose one subset of commonalities other people can choose other commonalities.

You make me want to dredge up some of Cain’s headache photos. What do you mean other people can choose other commonalities? If you can find other commonalities that suggest the Moroccan terrorists may have been influenced by another group, and if these other commonalities are not integral to the definition of terrorism so that they are commonalities with all terrorist groups, then you may have the basis for a solid counter-argument to my thesis. In more than two months, you have not been able to do this.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong All they demonstrate are commonalities, not actual influence.

How else do you demonstrate influence? If I were to say one artist was influenced by another, what I mean is that there are similarities in there work that suggests the second artist drew inspiration from the first. Sure, it’s great if the second artist actually says he was influenced by the first, but if for whatever reason the artist is unavailable for comment, the similarities still stand as evidence of the influence.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you were actually interested in supporting yuor claim of actual influence as opposed to asserted influence I would have thought that you would have been happy to test your ideas, given the lack of hard evidence. I am happy that you are happy in your assertion. You still have not demonstrated actual influence however.

I think that your failure to knock down my thesis for more than two months is a pretty good test. I am more convinced now than I was when I first posted the article that my observation is correct.

I’ve already told you why I think the specific test you mention is illogical and irrelevant, but I’ll be happy to test it in other ways if you can think of a good way to do it.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Israeli terrorism makes the news a lot as well. It seems that you agree you do not know what the actual influences were.

It seems that you’re still beating that straw-man to death. Israel does indeed make the news a lot, but not Israeli shahids who blow themselves up.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
How many times do I have to point out the question mark. You previously indicated that three factors were all you needed to demonstrate influence. Of those religion was one of them. If religion is not a factor then presumably terrorist of other religions could influence the girls as well?

Presumably, but the girls requested and received information on Jihad from Muslim clerics. Clearly, religion was a factor. That in itself does not exclude other terrorist groups from being an influence, but you have been unable to produce one with more commonalities than the Moroccan terrorists share with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists.

How many different ways do I have to explain this? Saying that religion is a factor in this case is not the same as saying religion has to be a factor in every case. Pointing to this commonality of Jihad between the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists and the Moroccan terrorists is not the same as saying that only Islamic terrorists can be looked at. It’s just that so far the non-Islamic terrorists you’ve mention have not had as much in common with the Moroccan terrorists as the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am talking about people who die from terrorist atrocities not car accidents? What difference does it make to the families if it was the suicide bomber or non-suicide terrorist died during the commisssion of the crime? Is one somehow better than the other?

If you only look at the body count, then you’re correct; there is no difference between a suicide bomber and a non-suicide bomber, but if you only look at body count then there is no difference between a terrorist attack and any other method a person might die violently. What difference does it make to the families if it was a terrorist or a drunk driver? Is one somehow better?

As far as our conversation goes, it doesn’t matter. The issue isn’t better or worse, it’s method. One method is the same as was chosen by the Moroccan terrorists, the other is not. No matter how much you beat that dead horse, it’s not going to move.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The organisers of suicide bombers are a bad lot indeed. Doesn't that also apply to the people who recruited the terrorists who helped found Israel. They also ran away and incited murder over and over again or, once again, are they a very special case not to be discussed?

We’ve been discussing Israeli militants for more than two months now, and in all that time you have been unable to show how they are similar to the Moroccan terrorists in any way that the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists are not also similar to the Moroccan terrorists. Let me ask you; what’s so special about them that you insist on bringing them up again and again when you can’t demonstrate their relevance to the discussion?

E.J.Armstrong

10th December 2003, 02:57 PM

originally posted by MycroftOkay, so you don’t feel that every military operation that results in noncombatant casualties qualifies as terrorism, but would you say that some do?Yes.I’m not sure I understand your meaning. Saying that those three factors is enough to demonstrate an influence in this case is not the same as saying that those same three factors are required in every case. Naturally I understand my own words, the question is do you? You indicated that you needed only the three factors to conclude that the girls were specifically influenced by Arafat. Even though the three factors are not uniquely identified either with the girls or with Arafat. If you are now saying something else, please elaborate. The commonalities you pointed to are also commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists and so were useless in saying that one group was more likely to have influenced them than the other group. That’s why I pointed out that commonalities that were definitive of terrorism were not useful. That is not my point. Let me ask you to clarify your claim. Are you saying that the three commonalities you chose to cite are enough to conclude that Arafat was the actual influence on the girls?You make me want to dredge up some of Cain’s headache photos. What do you mean other people can choose other commonalities? If you can find other commonalities that suggest the Moroccan terrorists may have been influenced by another group, and if these other commonalities are not integral to the definition of terrorism so that they are commonalities with all terrorist groups, then you may have the basis for a solid counter-argument to my thesis. In more than two months, you have not been able to do this. In more than two months you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of actual influence. All you have demonstrated are a few commonalities. Let me ask you once more. Are you still claiming that your three commonalities are definitive proof of actual influence by Arafat on the three girls or just that he might have influenced them?How else do you demonstrate influence? If I were to say one artist was influenced by another, what I mean is that there are similarities in there work that suggests the second artist drew inspiration from the first. Sure, it’s great if the second artist actually says he was influenced by the first, but if for whatever reason the artist is unavailable for comment, the similarities still stand as evidence of the influence. Here is the core problem with your argument. Not only did the artists say that they weren't influenced by the person you claim influenced them but they actually specifically cited another person entirely.

Does painting in a pointilistic technique represent influence. Both Australian aboriginals and european painters used the same technique without any influence whatsoever. So technique is not definitive. Does contemporanaeity demonstrate actual influence? No. Because the artist could havve been influenced by another person who used the similar techniques or came up with them independently.

The central problem for you is that demonstrating commonalities does not demonstrate actual influence. I think that your failure to knock down my thesis for more than two months is a pretty good test. I am more convinced now than I was when I first posted the article that my observation is correct I am happy you are happy with your assertion. If you imagine that your reasoning is sound, good for you. The problem however remains that you have found not one single piece of hard evidence to corroborate your claim. In the absence of said hard evidence you have resorted to commonalities to demonstrate actual influence. I am sorry that you do not see it but there is a real and material difference between actual influence and asserted influence. They might or might not correspond.

I’ve already told you why I think the specific test you mention is illogical and irrelevant, but I’ll be happy to test it in other ways if you can think of a good way to do it. I am happy that you believe you don't need to test your thesis. You assert that a demonstration of actual influence in the case of the girls can be achieved merely by the use of a small number of commonalities. Unfortunately it still remains after two months merely an assertion.It seems that you’re still beating that straw-man to death. Israel does indeed make the news a lot, but not Israeli shahids who blow themselves up. Sorry, still not with you. Did the girls cut off all news of the Tamil Tigers or did they only hear of Palestinian suicide bombers on their news channels?Presumably, but the girls requested and received information on Jihad from Muslim clerics. Clearly, religion was a factor. That in itself does not exclude other terrorist groups from being an influence, but you have been unable to produce one with more commonalities than the Moroccan terrorists share with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists. After all this time you still seem to be labouring under the impression that commonalities are proof of actual influence. To conclude actual influence you need hard evidence such as the girls informing us that they were influenced by Arafat. Interestingly,they informed us that it was Osama in Laden who fascinated them. Do you believe that using the same methodologies is proof of influence?How many different ways do I have to explain this? Saying that religion is a factor in this case is not the same as saying religion has to be a factor in every case. Pointing to this commonality of Jihad between the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists and the Moroccan terrorists is not the same as saying that only Islamic terrorists can be looked at. It’s just that so far the non-Islamic terrorists you’ve mention have not had as much in common with the Moroccan terrorists as the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do. So the girls could have been influenced by terrorists of another religion.If you only look at the body count, then you’re correct; there is no difference between a suicide bomber and a non-suicide bomber, but if you only look at body count then there is no difference between a terrorist attack and any other method a person might die violently. What difference does it make to the families if it was a terrorist or a drunk driver? Is one somehow better? I don't think so but as we are looking at terrorists here, is there a difference, in your opinion, between suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers? If so, what is it?As far as our conversation goes, it doesn’t matter. The issue isn’t better or worse, it’s method. One method is the same as was chosen by the Moroccan terrorists, the other is not. No matter how much you beat that dead horse, it’s not going to move. Is the fact that different groups of people choose the same method of murder proof of the actual influence of one specific person on two specific people?We’ve been discussing Israeli militants for more than two months now, and in all that time you have been unable to show how they are similar to the Moroccan terrorists in any way that the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists are not also similar to the Moroccan terrorists. Let me ask you; what’s so special about them that you insist on bringing them up again and again when you can’t demonstrate their relevance to the discussion? I have happily demonstrated their particular relevance on many separate occasions.

They were a major terrorist force operating in the same area as Arafat and slightly predating him but otherwise who also murdered many innocent women and children in terrorist attacks and thereby defined most of the culture of terrorism in that area, as well as across the world. Their terrorist activities also did not stop their people voting them into high political office. They seem to well positioned to be a test case.

I have also pointed out a thesis is only as valuable as its predictive abilities and in the absence of actual evidence you concocted a thesis concerning certain aspects of human behaviour namely, the presence of three specific commonalities allows you to definitively conclude the presence of actual influence of one individual on two others.

Unless the three individuals you cited are somehow unrepresentative of the human species then your thesis should be expected to have some applicability beyond those three individuals. Apparently it doesn't, according to you, its author.

We are therefore left with only those three individuals and three commonalities. As your thesis has no predictibility at all then you need hard evidence to support it as its veractity cannot be demonstrated anywhere else. Assertion is not hard evidence and commonalities which are not unique to the individuals involved are not evidence of actual influence.

Many British darts players are from the same culture, of the same religion and use the same methods or types of darts. They may indeed even be from the same city and play in pubs, use the same front foot, use the same hand and drink the same beer. That is not still not enough to demonstrate that one individual influenced another although the many commonalities distinguish them from darts players in general. Now, if one of them said that he was indeed influenced by the other, that would indeed be hard evidence.

Mycroft

10th December 2003, 09:53 PM

I think you and I are the only ones left reading this thread. Judging by the level of boredom it inspires in me, I can’t say that the lack of interest in others is surprising. However, I’ll pursue it a bit longer.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Yes.

Okay, so we’ve established that by your definition, some military action that results in the death of civilians may be considered terrorist, and others not. Can you tell me what distinguishes the two?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Here is the core problem with your argument. Not only did the artists say that they weren't influenced by the person you claim influenced them but they actually specifically cited another person entirely.

Where did the girls say they were not influenced by Arafat or the Palestinian-Arab terrorists?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Does painting in a pointilistic technique represent influence. Both Australian aboriginals and european painters used the same technique without any influence whatsoever. So technique is not definitive.

And yet if an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own. Even if the artist were to claim these other possibilities, such a claim would be met with skepticism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Sorry, still not with you. Did the girls cut off all news of the Tamil Tigers or did they only hear of Palestinian suicide bombers on their news channels?

If you wish to present evidence that the Tamil Tigers receive more media attention in Morocco than do the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, go ahead. In the meantime, I will point out that their actions are still more similar to the Palestinian-Arab terrorists than they are to the Tamil Tigers.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't think so but as we are looking at terrorists here, is there a difference, in your opinion, between suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers? If so, what is it?

Well, the most obvious difference and the one that’s most relevant to our discussion is that one is a suicide bomber and the other is a non-suicide bomber. To suggest that they are the same is to ignore this definitive distinction. :hit:

Are there other distinctions? Sure, there are both tactical and religious distinctions as well. As I can’t imagine their relevance to our discussion, they will have to await another time.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have also pointed out a thesis is only as valuable as its predictive abilities …

Who said my thesis was not predictive? I predict more Islamic suicide-terror. Do you disagree?

There was a lot more to your post that I chose not to respond to. Without exception, these were all issues we have already dealt with in depth and where further repetition can not possibly add anything to the discussion. If you insist on continuing this, can you at least try to come up with something new? Not just new, but relevant?

E.J.Armstrong

12th December 2003, 08:11 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
I think you and I are the only ones left reading this thread. Judging by the level of boredom it inspires in me, I can’t say that the lack of interest in others is surprising. However, I’ll pursue it a bit longer.
That's very gracious of you.Okay, so we’ve established that by your definition, some military action that results in the death of civilians may be considered terrorist, and others not. Can you tell me what distinguishes the two? When it breaks the Geneva Convention for one. Where the law recognises it as illegal and its aim is to terrorise entire populations. Where entire groups of people are collectively punished for the actions of a few, such as is happening daily in Palestine. When it is waged in a way that has a cynical disregard to civilian lives and where other alternatives are available. This includes assassinating suspects in circumstances which guarantee innocent children and peple are killed. Where demonstrably innocent people are terrorised with methods that have no other useful reason for carrying out the action, such as deliberately bulldozing the homes of innocent people. Where the military personnel involved recognise that the actions are illegal. Where international law recognises that the actions are terrorist in nature. Where it seeks to terrorise for the sake of it. Where the purpose is ethnic cleansing. Where did the girls say they were not influenced by Arafat or the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? I think this demonstrates, as much as anything, the lack of hard evidence for your claim. You made a specific claim. It is for you to justify it. I would have thought that on a sceptics site you would have recognised that the fact that the girls did not say something is not actual evidence of anything other than they did not say anything and interestingly, you can't even provide hard evidence of that.And yet if an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own. Even if the artist were to claim these other possibilities, such a claim would be met with skepticism It demonstrates, does it not, that the same methods can arise completely independently? If you wish to present evidence that the Tamil Tigers receive more media attention in Morocco than do the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, go ahead. In the meantime, I will point out that their actions are still more similar to the Palestinian-Arab terrorists than they are to the Tamil Tigers. Still not with you. You claimed that the reason the girls were influenced by one group was because they were on TV. Are you now saying that there is a minimum number of times a terrorist has to be on TV before they are an influence? If you mean they were more similar to Palestinian terrorists are you referring again to religion? I thought I'd disposed of that as a definitive influence a long, long time ago. Well, the most obvious difference and the one that’s most relevant to our discussion is that one is a suicide bomber and the other is a non-suicide bomber. To suggest that they are the same is to ignore this definitive distinction. As I was talking about the practical differences in the result of their terrorist work perhaps you have a meaningful difference?Are there other distinctions? Sure, there are both tactical and religious distinctions as well. As I can’t imagine their relevance to our discussion, they will have to await another time. Now theres a surprise. Who said my thesis was not predictive? I predict more Islamic suicide-terror. Do you disagree? You may be right. However, once again you seem to have difficulty remembering your own words. Let me gently remind you.
'I’m claiming that because I find them in this case, there is in influence.' You italicised 'this'.

I note that you have steadfastly refused to test your so-called predictive thesis to the terrorists who founded Israel but are happy to relate it to other Islamic terrorists. I wonder what the people in North America would have done if they had been treated in the way the Palestinians have been treated? Perhaps the War of Independence tells us something?

You really do need to justify your claims with hard evidence. After two months you have failed to do so. When you do eventually find some please let me know. In the meantime I am happy that you are happy with your assertions. Perhaps you might like to have a bit more information about Israeli suicide bombers? In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up. They wrote to their comrades in adjacent cells... From http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html

It seems that the terrorists of the Irgun, Hagganah and Stern Gangs were into suicide bombs before Arafat. I wonder how they thought up the idea of murdering others while blowing themselves up but you won't test your thesis against them. Pity. One thing is clear though they can't have got it from Arafat. Perhaps they got it independently and their example has merely been used by others, after all, despite their terrorism they are promoted as heroes on the internet by Israeli interests (you were saying about glorifying terrorists) and maybe the girls have access to the internet as well as the TV you claim they probably watched.

Mycroft

12th December 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think this demonstrates, as much as anything, the lack of hard evidence for your claim. You made a specific claim. It is for you to justify it. I would have thought that on a sceptics site you would have recognised that the fact that the girls did not say something is not actual evidence of anything other than they did not say anything and interestingly, you can't even provide hard evidence of that.
How does catching you in a falsehood demonstrate any of that? You said the girls claimed Arafat did not influence them, but you did not provide any documentation. I suggest you either do so or withdraw the statement. It is not up to me to prove they did not say it, if you say they said it, it’s up to you to either document it or withdraw the claim.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It demonstrates, does it not, that the same methods can arise completely independently?

Any number of things could happen, but when you hear hoof beats you think of horses not zebras. If an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own without compelling evidence to suggest these less likely explanations might be true.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Still not with you. You claimed that the reason the girls were influenced by one group was because they were on TV. Are you now saying that there is a minimum number of times a terrorist has to be on TV before they are an influence? If you mean they were more similar to Palestinian terrorists are you referring again to religion? I thought I'd disposed of that as a definitive influence a long, long time ago.

This really doesn’t deserve a response. I get tired of repeating myself after you purposefully mangle my words. If you feel that the Tamil Tigers are more similar to the terrorists in Morocco or for any reason are more likely to have been an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, then please make your case. In the meantime, asking me to clarify my statements again and again and building straw-men from thick-headed interpretations of what I say does not constitute an argument.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
As I was talking about the practical differences in the result of their terrorist work perhaps you have a meaningful difference?
Again, this really doesn’t deserve a response. The question has been asked and answered many times. If by practical difference in the result you mean dead people, then there is no practical difference in any method a person might die. Disease, accident, murder, war, if all you look at is the result then it’s all the same. On the other hand, if you look at the methods that people die, then there is an astonishingly wide variety of methods. Including the distinction between suicide terror and non-suicide terror.

If you have some point to make, then make it. If not, then asking the same question over and over again will only get the same answer.

In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up. They wrote to their comrades in adjacent cells... From

Very interesting. However a quick glance at the source shows it’s not a very good comparison.

First, the author states that these men resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up, but very shortly afterwards he states that the plan was to throw the explosives at the guards, implying that their own deaths may not have been a requirement.

Second, they never carried out this plan. Instead they used the explosives to commit suicide without hurting anyone else.

Now if you want to make a case that Feinstein and Barrazani are more likely candidates to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists, I’ll be very interested in hearing why you think that might be true.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I note that you have steadfastly refused to test your so-called predictive thesis to the terrorists who founded Israel but are happy to relate it to other Islamic terrorists.
Answered already. You asked a specific question I deemed irrelevant. If you’re not willing to demonstrate the relevance of your question, why do you keep bringing this up?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I wonder what the people in North America would have done if they had been treated in the way the Palestinians have been treated? Perhaps the War of Independence tells us something?

It won’t tell us who influenced the girls in Morocco. Why do you keep introducing these diversions?

This is the kind of statement that leads me to believe that your goals in participating in this discussion have less to do with your opinion on this topic and more to do with using it as a platform to push your pro-Palestinian-Arab anti-Israeli agenda. How the Palestinian-Arabs or the early American revolutionaries feel about anything has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.
Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You really do need to justify your claims with hard evidence. After two months you have failed to do so. When you do eventually find some please let me know. In the meantime I am happy that you are happy with your assertions. Perhaps you might like to have a bit more information about Israeli suicide bombers?

Isn’t this the heart of it? No matter what evidence I provide, you’re going to say it’s not good enough despite the fact that in two and a half months you haven’t been able to refute any of it or provide a more likely influence on the girls.

These girls in Morocco made a plan to make one of themselves into a human bomb and kill civilian shoppers in a store. In doing so, they sought advice from Muslim clerics on Jihad. The most prominent example of this sort of behavior in the world is in the disputed territories in Israel with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, where Shahids are not only common but glorified. It’s ludicrous to think they may have thought of this on their own with so many prominent examples of this behavior available, and it’s extremely unlikely that they drew their inspiration from other groups who’s behavior is only similar in a superficial way.

Is this proof beyond all doubt? No, it’s not. But to that degree of certainty is really only available in mathematics. When the issue is sociological, this proof is as good as it gets without actual statements or interviews with the girls in question, and those are unavailable.

I suggest we end this discussion. You are unconvinced, I stand by my thesis, and we have no new material to cover. Very few debates result in any other conclusion.

E.J.Armstrong

13th December 2003, 04:02 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
How does catching you in a falsehood demonstrate any of that? You said the girls claimed Arafat did not influence them, but you did not provide any documentation. I suggest you either do so or withdraw the statement. It is not up to me to prove they did not say it, if you say they said it, it’s up to you to either document it or withdraw the claim.I meant to say is that not only did the girls fail to mention Arafat they specifically cited who did influence them. I apologise for having changed that on the umpteenth time of having to repeat it.Any number of things could happen, but when you hear hoof beats you think of horses not zebras. If an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own without compelling evidence to suggest these less likely explanations might be true. Are you saying the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they were definitely influenced by Arafat? This really doesn’t deserve a response. I get tired of repeating myself after you purposefully mangle my words. If you feel that the Tamil Tigers are more similar to the terrorists in Morocco or for any reason are more likely to have been an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, then please make your case. In the meantime, asking me to clarify my statements again and again and building straw-men from thick-headed interpretations of what I say does not constitute an argument. Don't respond then. As far as I can tell from your responses you stated Israel does indeed make the news a lot, but not Israeli shahids who blow themselves up. as an indication that the girls did not hear of Israeli suicide bombers and therefore were unlikely to be influenced by them. You will no doubt correct me if that was not your intention and you meant something entirely different. Assuming my understanding of your point is correct then, if we are talking about methodology, I assume the Tamil Tigers were also on television therefore the girls may also have been influenced by them as well as the internet and TV promoted methodologies of Osama Bin Laden or Feinstein and Barrazzani. First, the author states that these men resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up, but very shortly afterwards he states that the plan was to throw the explosives at the guards, implying that their own deaths may not have been a requirement. There is no criticism on the internet site of their original plan to blow up themselves and other innocent people They duly committed suicide using bombs. Just like the girls they did not achieve their plan. I wonder if you condemn their original plan.Now if you want to make a case that Feinstein and Barrazani are more likely candidates to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists, I’ll be very interested in hearing why you think that might be true. If we ignore Osama Bin Laden as the influence then the terrorism of Feinstein and Barrazzani is currently being promoted on an Israeli site. On that site their murder of an innocent person is not condemned and neither is their plan for a suicide bombing. In fact, they are praised as heroes. They could not have been influenced by Arafat so they must either have come up with the plan independently or copied it off someone else. In exaxtly the same way, the girls could have been influenced by what they saw promoted on TV, or on the Internet. Answered already. You asked a specific question I deemed irrelevant. If you’re not willing to demonstrate the relevance of your question, why do you keep bringing this up? I have already explained this on many separate occasions. Nevertheless I am happy to do so once again. In the absence of any hard evidence whatsoever and despite the girls stating who fascinated them, you erected a thesis where all you needed to conclude influence was three commonalities. None of those commonalities are unique to the girls or Arafat. Given the proximity of Arafat's activities and the Stern Gang and the Hagannah in time and place and both Israeli and Hamas suicide bombings being lauded on the Internet, they both might have an influence.

Are you saying that the three commonalities you chose to cite are enough to conclude that Arafat was the actual influence on the girls?Do you condemn all terrorism and illegal acts of war?It won’t tell us who influenced the girls in Morocco. Why do you keep introducing these diversions? This is a discussion board. Your assertions have implications. That you won't discuss some of them is noted. This is the kind of statement that leads me to believe that your goals in participating in this discussion have less to do with your opinion on this topic and more to do with using it as a platform to push your pro-Palestinian-Arab anti-Israeli agenda. How the Palestinian-Arabs or the early American revolutionaries feel about anything has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco. So, the two factors of asking questions on a discussion board and pointing out material facts influences you to conclude the truth of this, your latest false claim?

I have repeatedly condemned Palestinian violence and terrorism and am more than happy to condemn all of it again, right now. Do you condemn all Israeli violence and terror? I have repeatedly stated that all Israelis are entitled to live in peace as are all innocent Palestinians, so, on the basis of those statements, I have leant more towards the Israeli side. I am not anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian in the same way as I am not anti-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I am simply anti-terror and pro-peace. I am pro-hard evidence rather than assertion.
Isn’t this the heart of it? No matter what evidence I provide, you’re going to say it’s not good enough despite the fact that in two and a half months you haven’t been able to refute any of it or provide a more likely influence on the girls. Another false claim I'm afraid. The heart of the matter for me is that you made the claim that all you needed to conclude actual influence was three factors. Now you may be right and you may be wrong, as I have repeatedly stated. None of the three factors however is unique to either Arafat or the girls and you cannot conclude actual influence of one man on the two girls without hard evidence to support the claim, especially when they specifically stated who it was that fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat.

If we exclude the person who did fascinate them, the terrorists who helped found Israel also contributed enormously to the culture of terror in the Middle East and could also have influenced the girls into imagining that terror, (of whatever sort, none unique to Islam) would achieve their aims. These girls in Morocco made a plan to make one of themselves into a human bomb and kill civilian shoppers in a store. In doing so, they sought advice from Muslim clerics on Jihad. The most prominent example of this sort of behavior in the world is in the disputed territories in Israel with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, where [i]Shahids are not only common but glorified. It’s ludicrous to think they may have thought of this on their own with so many prominent examples of this behavior available, and it’s extremely unlikely that they drew their inspiration from other groups who’s behavior is only similar in a superficial way. The first and main Muslim cleric stated that their plan was illegal. I note that nowhere in that section do you mention that you can conclude the actual influence of one person on the two girls from three non-unique commonalities. It seems we are getting somewhere. Glorifying terrorism is not just the domain of the Palestinians or the Irish or the British or North Americans. The Israeli sites I posted glorifies suicide bombers as well. Is this proof beyond all doubt? No, it’s not. But to that degree of certainty is really only available in mathematics. When the issue is sociological, this proof is as good as it gets without actual statements or interviews with the girls in question, and those are unavailable. At last.

Your three, non-unique factors are insufficient to conclude actual influence. You are just convinced in your own mind that they are.
I suggest we end this discussion. You are unconvinced, I stand by my thesis, and we have no new material to cover. Very few debates result in any other conclusion. As you wish. My point is however, not one of conviction. It is one of fact.

You believe that you can conclude actual influence by one specific person on two specific people on the basis of your three, non-unique factors. So be it.

The fact also remains that a wide range of groups, including some governments from around the world including North America and Europe, contributed to the culture of terrorism in the Middle East. That culture of terrorism could also be said to be their gift to civilisation.

Mycroft

14th December 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Are you saying the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they were definitely influenced by Arafat?

After more than two and a half months, I can’t imagine my position really needs more clarification.

You keep throwing up less likely candidates for influence on the Moroccan terrorists without making any real case for them. You can find other groups that have one characteristic in common, but you can’t find other groups that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do.

The Tamil Tigers. Yes, their use of suicide-terror is a commonality with the Moroccan terrorists. Are they more similar than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? I don’t think so, but if you do please make a case for it.

Feinstein and Barrazzani: The website you quoted puts to doubt that they really planned a suicide-bombing. It says they planned to throw their explosives at their captors. Further, in the end they merely committed suicide with their explosives. Do you really think they may have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists? If so, do you really think they may have been more of an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? It seems unlikely to me, but if you think so, please make a case for it.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So, the two factors of asking questions on a discussion board and pointing out material facts influences you to conclude the truth of this, your latest false claim?

No. That you continually try to divert the topic does. Such as in the following example:

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have repeatedly condemned Palestinian violence and terrorism and am more than happy to condemn all of it again, right now. Do you condemn all Israeli violence and terror?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The Israeli sites I posted glorifies suicide bombers as well.

How? It seemed like a dry recitation of history to me.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The fact also remains that a wide range of groups, including some governments from around the world including North America and Europe, contributed to the culture of terrorism in the Middle East. That culture of terrorism could also be said to be their gift to civilisation.

Yet among all these suspects, you can’t find one that is more similar to the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists.

Troll

14th December 2003, 02:17 PM

Jane's had an article discussing the Tamil tigers suicide bombers, I'm still trying to find the same article again and will link when I find it, I posted it at a porn site's discussion bored about 2 months ago.

According to Jane's modern day suicide bombings are attributed to Arafat and his fatah movement. It was also an issue in his taking over the PLO which is from another source.

Troll

14th December 2003, 02:37 PM

Here we go

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jtsm/jtsm010917_1_n.shtml

"Since the technique was first perfected in the early 1980s, it has been grimly successful, most recently in the wrenching 11 September attacks in New York and Washington. While Sri Lanka and Palestine generate the most suicide bombings, the attacks against the USA dwarf all others in their planning, complexity and success. Individual suicide bombers present military and security officials with difficult detection and prevention problems for improvised explosive devices. Israel has developed a proactive approach with its ‘targeted killings’ programme, but the long-term viability of such an operation remains to be seen."

Now yes there were kamikaze attacks on military targets, and some sent kids with grenades in shoe-shine kits up to military personel. But killing civilians via an explosion that will result in the death of the person wanting to kill them is a fairly new concept and it began with Arafat.

E.J.Armstrong

15th December 2003, 04:37 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
After more than two and a half months, I can’t imagine my position really needs more clarification Then all you need to do is answer a simple question. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they definitely were influenced by Arafat? You keep throwing up less likely candidates for influence on the Moroccan terrorists without making any real case for them. You can find other groups that have one characteristic in common, but you can’t find other groups that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do. Sorry. Must have missed your hard evidence for actual influence. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or definitely were influenced by Arafat. The Tamil Tigers. Yes, their use of suicide-terror is a commonality with the Moroccan terrorists. Are they more similar than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? I don’t think so, but if you do please make a case for it. Are you saying that Arafat definitely influenced the girls or might have influenced the girls? Feinstein and Barrazzani: The website you quoted puts to doubt that they really planned a suicide-bombing. It says they planned to throw their explosives at their captors. Further, in the end they merely committed suicide with their explosives. Do you really think they may have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists? If so, do you really think they may have been more of an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? ...Can I just point out what the Official Irgun site actually claims for the two terrorists. it says 'In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up.' That is quite clear as to their intentions. THe site also says 'they died together as heroes.' As suicide bombers they are being actively promoted as heroes on an Israeli site. I don't rule them out as influences on the girls. Do you? If so you might like to justify your view.No. That you continually try to divert the topic does. Such as in the following example: You made a demonstrably false statment about me. I demonstrated that it was false and asked a question to clarify your own views. It seems that discussion about matters relating to the thread you started is now the crime of deliberate diversion. Who would do such a thing? Clearly discussion must be banned from discussion boards and people should not be asked to justify their claims. I cry out for absolution for my crimes from the god of assertion.How? It seemed like a dry recitation of history to me. Er it calls suicide bombers and terrorists, heroes. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines a hero amongst other things as '1 a person noted or admired for courage, outstanding achievements etc.'Yet among all these suspects, you can’t find one that is more similar to the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists. Your claim relates to Arafat. Are you claiming that Arafat actuallyinfluenced the girls or might have influenced the girls? The Israeli site is actively promoting suicide bombers on the internet as heroes. It might have been them. You have yet to tell us why it wasn't.

Mycroft

15th December 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Then all you need to do is answer a simple question. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they definitely were influenced by Arafat?

You’re serious, aren’t you? I thought you were being purposefully obtuse, but after two and a half months of arguing, you’re still not clear what you’re arguing against, are you?

If you have the free time to carry this on, you certainly have the time to scroll back and find one of the many times I’ve stated my position and figure it out.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Sorry. Must have missed your hard evidence for actual influence. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or definitely were influenced by Arafat.

Is this your way of saying you can’t find another group of terrorists that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Are you saying that Arafat definitely influenced the girls or might have influenced the girls?

Is this you’re way of saying you’re not going to try to make a case that the Tamil Tigers are more similar and more likely to have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Can I just point out what the Official Irgun site actually claims for the two terrorists. it says 'In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up.' That is quite clear as to their intentions. THe site also says 'they died together as heroes.' As suicide bombers they are being actively promoted as heroes on an Israeli site. I don't rule them out as influences on the girls. Do you? If so you might like to justify your view.

Yet in the very next paragraph it says:

"It" referred to the two grenades which Feinstein and Barazani planned to hurl at the executioners when they came to escort them to the gallows.

So were they going to blow themselves up with their captors? Or were they going to hurl the grenades at their executioners? These sound like two different things to me. It’s questionable if this was even planned to be a suicide bombing.

You are correct that the site did describe them as heroes, but it boggles the mind to suggest that a couple of 14 year-old prostitutes would have had enough knowledge of history to even be aware of a couple of Jewish Irgun fighters who, at best, failed in their attempt at suicide bombing 56 years ago much less look to them for inspiration over hundreds of successful contemporary Palestinian-Arab suicide-bombers, when it’s doubtful that Feinstein and Barazani even planned a suicide bombing.

You pointed out that Feinstein and Barazani were “glorified” on that one website. I’ll point out that website was published in Hebrew and translated into English. The primary languages of Morocco are Arabic and French. Do you think there are any Arabic or French websites that would “glorify” Jewish Irgun fighters? Do you think that beggars and prostitutes in Morocco have access to the internet? Do you think that someone wanting to be a suicide-bomber would rather draw their inspiration from people who succeeded in this aspiration, or someone who apparently failed, and may never have planned it to begin with?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You made a demonstrably false statment about me. I demonstrated that it was false and asked a question to clarify your own views. It seems that discussion about matters relating to the thread you started is now the crime of deliberate diversion. Who would do such a thing? Clearly discussion must be banned from discussion boards and people should not be asked to justify their claims. I cry out for absolution for my crimes from the god of assertion.

When you bring up irrelevant issues, I wonder what your motives are for doing it. The feelings of patriots from the US war of independence are not relevant to a discussion comparing Moroccan terrorism to Palestinian-Arab terrorism, and condemnation of Palestinian-Arab terrorism is not required to note similarities between them and other terrorist groups. Now, are you demonstrating that my statement was false? Or are you just asserting that my statement was false?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Your claim relates to Arafat. Are you claiming that Arafat actuallyinfluenced the girls or might have influenced the girls? The Israeli site is actively promoting suicide bombers on the internet as heroes. It might have been them. You have yet to tell us why it wasn't.

I have to tell you why it wasn’t? I don’t think so. To go back to my previous analogy, if I note a similarity between panthers and leopards, I don’t have to discuss dolphins to make my point. If you think dolphins are more similar to panthers than leopards are, you make the case for it.

In other words, if you think a couple of 14 year-old Islamic-Arab prostitutes in Morocco were more likely to look to a couple of Jewish Irgun fighters who committed suicide in prison some 56 years ago for inspiration than hundreds of contemporary examples of successful Palestinian-Arab suicide-terrorists, then feel free to make your case. I do not have to try to prove a negative.

E.J.Armstrong

16th December 2003, 07:13 AM

originally posted by MycroftYou’re serious, aren’t you? I thought you were being purposefully obtuse, but after two and a half months of arguing, you’re still not clear what you’re arguing against, are you?

If you have the free time to carry this on, you certainly have the time to scroll back and find one of the many times I’ve stated my position and figure it out.
I am serious actually. You don't have to answer any questions. Even the simple ones.Is this your way of saying you can’t find another group of terrorists that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do? THis is my way of asking a question . Note the question mark. I note that you don't do simple questions. You have failed to demonstrate actual influence. When you find actual hard evidence for your claim make sure and let me know. Is this you’re way of saying you’re not going to try to make a case that the Tamil Tigers are more similar and more likely to have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists? Still not answering questions I see. Nothing new there. Unlike you, I do not conclude actual influence in the absence of hard evidence. So were they going to blow themselves up with their captors? Or were they going to hurl the grenades at their executioners? Are you saying that we cannot believe the Official Irgun site? Let me repeat what the site actually says. It says.In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up. Unless the Official Irgun site is lying they clearly planned to be suicide bombers and the Israeli site calls them heroes. In other words an official Israeli site is glorifying suicide bombers. It’s questionable if this was even planned to be a suicide bombing. It's only questionable if you believe that the Official Irgun site is lying. THey are very specific about what the two terrorists planned. I note that you won't condemn either their terrorism, their planned suicide bombing or the glorification of the terrorists as heroes. What was it you were saying about Palestinians?You are correct that the site did describe them as heroes, but it boggles the mind to suggest that a couple of 14 year-old prostitutes would have had enough knowledge of history to even be aware of a couple of Jewish Irgun fighters who, at best, failed in their attempt at suicide bombing 56 years ago much less look to them for inspiration over hundreds of successful contemporary Palestinian-Arab suicide-bombers, when it’s doubtful that Feinstein and Barazani even planned a suicide bombing. The problem for you is that 1/ they need no knowledge of history at all because 2/ the suicide bombing of Israeli terrorists is currently being promoted on the internet for all to see. 3/ According to the official Irgun site the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing. Are you saying the Official Irgun site are liars? I note you won't comdemn their planned suicide bombing. Do you condemn the planned suicide bombing or not?You pointed out that Feinstein and Barazani were “glorified” on that one website. I’ll point out that website was published in Hebrew and translated into English. The primary languages of Morocco are Arabic and French. Do you think there are any Arabic or French websites that would “glorify” Jewish Irgun fighters? I have absolutely no idea. Do you? Are you saying that the girls were definaitely not influenced by the terrorists promoted on the Israeli site? Have you enough actual data to draw a conclusion on this as well?Do you think that beggars and prostitutes in Morocco have access to the internet? I don't know. Do you? Is it now your argument that they definitely haven't got access to the internet and can't have been influenced by the Israeli site that glorifies a planned suicide bombing?Do you think that someone wanting to be a suicide-bomber would rather draw their inspiration from people who succeeded in this aspiration, or someone who apparently failed, and may never have planned it to begin with? I don't know. Do you? You still seem to be sayinng that the Official Irgunsite is lying. Are they?When you bring up irrelevant issues, I wonder what your motives are for doing it. My comments have been very relevant to the discussion. It must be hard for you, always on guard for people asking your opinion with simple questions. How dare they do such a thing. A discussion board should never be used for discussion. The feelings of patriots from the US war of independence are not relevant to a discussion comparing Moroccan terrorism to Palestinian-Arab terrorism, and condemnation of Palestinian-Arab terrorism is not required to note similarities between them and other terrorist groups. Now, are you demonstrating that my statement was false? Or are you just asserting that my statement was false? Are you serious? Do you not know what my position is after all this time? Unlike you however I am happy to enlighten you as to my position. You made a claim. It is for you to substantiate ite it. I have shown that your views may or may not correspond with the truth but you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to conclude actual influence especially given that there is not one commonality which is unique to the girls or Arafat and the girls actually specified who fascinated them. As you seem to have forgotten. It wasn't Arafat. Israeli terrorists planned suicide bombings before Araffat and they are currently being lauded as heroes on an Israeli site. I note you won't condemn Isreali terrorists. That is what I call bias.I have to tell you why it wasn’t? I don’t think so. To go back to my previous analogy, if I note a similarity between panthers and leopards, I don’t have to discuss dolphins to make my point. If you think dolphins are more similar to panthers than leopards are, you make the case for it. You are free to think whatever you like. I have no problem with that. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I am happy that you are happy with your assertion.

YOu don't have to discuss anything on a discussion board. Unfortunately, your three commonalities are insufficient to demonstrate actual influence. I am glad that you are no longer claiming that you can conclude actual influence from three non-unique commonalities, particularly when the girls might have been influenced by the planned suicide bombing of Israeli terrorists as currently lauded on an Israeli site.

Mycroft

16th December 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong The problem for you is that 1/ they need no knowledge of history at all because 2/ the suicide bombing of Israeli terrorists is currently being promoted on the internet for all to see. 3/ According to the official Irgun site the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing. Are you saying the Official Irgun site are liars? I note you won't comdemn their planned suicide bombing. Do you condemn the planned suicide bombing or not?

One does not need to say anyone is a liar to point out that two statements that contradict each other made by the same person cast doubt on both statements. I'm sure the mistake was unintentional.

I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary.

The girls may have gotten their idea from a fortune cookie, they may have received a psychic message from Uri Geller, or these Arabic/French speaking Muslim beggar/prostitutes may have cruised the internet and gotten their inspiration from a Hebrew/English website talking about the activities of some Jews who committed suicide 60 years ago while being completely ignorant of hundreds of examples of contemporary suicide-bombings by Muslim/Arabs in the disputed territories of Israel.

All of these possibilities are equally likely. Since proving a negative is so very difficult, I cannot disprove the 60 year-old Jewish suicide theory, the Uri Geller theory, the fortune cookie theory, or even disprove that my cat does not change colour when nobody is looking at her. Come to think of it, my cat may have traveled to Morocco and spoken to these girls, giving them their idea. She does sometimes stay out all night, how am I to know where she goes?

However, given the similarities between the plans of these Moroccan twins and the hundreds of examples of suicide-terror produced by the Palestinian-Arabs, I do indeed conclude that it was the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that influenced them and not the Jewish suicides, my cat, Uri Geller or even a fortune cookie. While these other possibilities cannot be disproven, Occam's Razor gives me the certainty to make my statement with confidence.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. I suggest you take a closer look at my cat. She is an avowed Zionist, having never condemned any Israeli action from the founding of the Irgun to the modern day.

E.J.Armstrong

16th December 2003, 09:54 AM

originally posted by MycroftOne does not need to say anyone is a liar to point out that two statements that contradict each other made by the same person cast doubt on both statements. I'm sure the mistake was unintentional. I wonder how you can so often be so sure. Are you a spokesman for the Irgun site?

The Official Irgun site states that the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing to kill themselves at the same time as other innocent people. Unfortunately they are lauded as heroes on the Israeli site. Simple facts I'm afraid.I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary. I am afraid I have no idea what you mean by moral ambiguity. Is that a euphimism for supporting their planned suicide atrocity?The girls may have gotten their idea from a fortune cookie, they may have received a psychic message from Uri Geller, or these Arabic/French speaking Muslim beggar/prostitutes may have cruised the internet and gotten their inspiration from a Hebrew/English website talking about the activities of some Jews who committed suicide 60 years ago while being completely ignorant of hundreds of examples of contemporary suicide-bombings by Muslim/Arabs in the disputed territories of Israel. So you couldn't conclude actual influence. I'm glad that's clear. However, given the similarities between the plans of these Moroccan twins and the hundreds of examples of suicide-terror produced by the Palestinian-Arabs, I do indeed conclude that it was the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that influenced them and not the Jewish suicides, my cat, Uri Geller or even a fortune cookie. While these other possibilities cannot be disproven, Occam's Razor gives me the certainty to make my statement with confidence. Certainty, confidence? Still not with you. I thought we agreed that you haven't got any hard evidence. All you have are three non-unique commonalities. If you think they were influenced, that's one thing. You haven't proved it. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. I suggest you take a closer look at my cat. She is an avowed Zionist, having never condemned any Israeli action from the founding of the Irgun to the modern day. I merely shown that you haven't provided sufficiant evidence to conclude that there was influence. If your weren't being facetious, perhaps your cat is actually interested in discussion?

Mycroft

16th December 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I wonder how you can so often be so sure. Are you a spokesman for the Irgun site?

The Official Irgun site states that the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing to kill themselves at the same time as other innocent people. Unfortunately they are lauded as heroes on the Israeli site. Simple facts I'm afraid.

Just as it’s a simple fact that in the very next paragraph it’s stated that their plan was to throw the explosives at their captors, which contradicts the statement that they planned to blow up themselves and their captors. One does not throw explosives if ones goal is to blow oneself up with someone else. How many times do we have to go over this? With enough editing, you can make anyone seem to say anything.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am afraid I have no idea what you mean by moral ambiguity. Is that a euphimism for supporting their planned suicide atrocity?

No. I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary. If in that you read something that seems to support suicide, then that has more to do with your reading skills than anything I say.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So you couldn't conclude actual influence. I'm glad that's clear.

Sure I can. That you bring up possibilities from woo-woo land doesn’t in any way take away from the similarities I’ve noted.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Certainty, confidence? Still not with you.

If you google Occam’s Razor you might catch on. Essentially it’s the idea that one shouldn’t look at unlikely possibilities when much more simple and likely possibilities are available. Hoof beats usually mean horses, not zebras.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I thought we agreed that you haven't got any hard evidence. All you have are three non-unique commonalities. If you think they were influenced, that's one thing. You haven't proved it. I merely shown that you haven't provided sufficiant evidence to conclude that there was influence. If your weren't being facetious, perhaps your cat is actually interested in discussion?

If we disagree on what hard evidence is and what is required to make a case, we can hardly be said to agree on if I have hard evidence or not. What we do agree on is that you’ve failed to provide a more likely candidate to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists.

I’ll be more than happy to pass on any comments you may have to my cat, but I have to warn you; she is stubborn and will never confess to having influenced the Moroccan terrorists.

E.J.Armstrong

19th December 2003, 03:17 AM

originally posted by MycroftJust as it’s a simple fact that in the very next paragraph it’s stated that their plan was to throw the explosives at their captors, which contradicts the statement that they planned to blow up themselves and their captors. One does not throw explosives if ones goal is to blow oneself up with someone else. How many times do we have to go over this? With enough editing, you can make anyone seem to say anything.
The problem for you is that the terrorist supporting site is very clear about what the two terrorists planned. It was a suicide bombing. If they didn't plan a suicide bomb attack I wonder why it says they did? After saying they planned a suicide bomb attack it calls the terrorists, heroes. Those heroes are then reported on the site to have been buried in the martyrs graveyard. They really can't be much more clear where their support lies and you haven't condemned their terrorist acts.

You haven't answered the question. Are an Irgun spokesman? If you object to the promotion of suicide bombers and terrorists on their site you could ask them to remove the material. That might be a sensible solution. The site is designed to promote a group, which even Hagannah called terrorist.

Sharon is in good company assassinating mere suspects. When terrorists from the Irgun were tried and sentenced to death as per the law, the Irgun kidnapped and hung two innocent British soldiers. Murder and terrorism. That is the legacy the Irgun gave to Palestine. It's a pity that some still follow their lead.
No. I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary. If in that you read something that seems to support suicide, then that has more to do with your reading skills than anything I say. Sorry for having the temerity to ask questions. I really must stop that on a discussion board.Sure I can. That you bring up possibilities from woo-woo land doesn’t in any way take away from the similarities I’ve noted. The fundamental problem for you is that you claim you can with certainty conclude actual influence of one individual on two named individuals with nothing more than similarities, none of which are unique to the individuals concerned. I am happy you are happy with your assertion of actual influence but unfortunately you can't prove it. When you can, be sure to let me know. James Randi is also running a prize for people who are convinced of their assertions and feel they can prove them.

I have taken one possibility from the Official Irgun site which is currently praising planned suicide terrorists as heroes. Perhaps that is what you meant by woo-woo land, as I have no idea what woo-woo means exactly. Is it a bad thing for the terrorists of the Irgun to be from woo-woo land?

If you google Occam’s Razor you might catch on. Essentially it’s the idea that one shouldn’t look at unlikely possibilities when much more simple and likely possibilities are available. Hoof beats usually mean horses, not zebras. I see. This merely confirms the dearth of hard evidence for your assertion. When you resort to Occam's razor as confirmation of your claim then you must be getting desperate. Occam's Razor might suggest that two silver balls in a case are made of silver. Unfortunately they might as easily be of different materials.

I am very glad that you aren't in charge of criminal justice. There would be more innocent people on death row if that was your approach to justice. Sorry, silly point. You don't believe in equality of treatment for Palestinians and Israelis either. Your justice is already unfair. If we disagree on what hard evidence is and what is required to make a case, we can hardly be said to agree on if I have hard evidence or not. What we do agree on is that you’ve failed to provide a more likely candidate to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists. After all this time, you still don't get it. You made a claim of certainty about actual influence. You have repeatedly been given many different possible influences, including an Israeli site which is currently actively promoting planned suicide bombers as heroes on the internet and yet you are certain on the basis of three non-unique connonalities that you have proved actual influence. The girls actually stated who fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat. You feel you have proved something. I am very happy for you. I’ll be more than happy to pass on any comments you may have to my cat, but I have to warn you; she is stubborn and will never confess to having influenced the Moroccan terrorists. You do seem to feel happy to speak on behalf of a remarkably eclectic group. Cats and the Irgun. Whatever next?