Interview with a would be suicide bomber

[a_unique_person]

I link to this story for those curious about what the actual motivation is for this act.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1042349.htm



TONY EASTLEY: It's hard to imagine what drives someone to strap explosives to their body and set off to kill others.

Islamic suicide bombers are usually young men but recently more and more young women are giving up their lives to kill. Of the last four suicide bombings against Israelis, two have been conducted by women.

While some have been successful, about 20 others have been caught on their way to attacks. One of them is Obeida Khalil.

Middle East Correspondent Mark Willacy travelled to Israel's HaSharon prison to talk with this would-be suicide bomber.

(sound of prison cell door being unlocked)

MARK WILLACY: Putting down her Koran, Obeida Khalil holds her right hand over her chest in Muslim greeting as I enter her cramped cell. She has large dark eyes which shine out from just under her headdress, but throughout our interview she remains impassive.

OBEIDA KHALIL (translated): There are many reasons why I tried to carry out a suicide bombing. I was very young when the first Palestinian Intifada happened, but I saw how the Israelis killed little children and how they destroyed our houses.

During this Intifada I was engaged, but four days before our wedding my fiancé was killed by the Israelis. Since then my family has started to carry out attacks. My brother and my female cousin were suicide bombers.

MARK WILLACY: Obeida Khalil used to look after old people in her hometown of Nablus, but one day three years ago she went looking for someone who could give her a suicide bomb belt.

The 27-year-old wanted to blow herself up at the Tel Aviv central bus station, just like her brother did.

But just before setting off for her target, Israel's Shin Bet security agency arrested her at the home of the Islamic Jihad militant who was arranging the attack.

There are 75 women security prisoners in HaSharon gaol. Some were caught on their way to carrying out suicide bombings, others helped attackers reach their target.

[zenith-nadir]

Here is another very interesting article.

Palestinian militant turned peacemaker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3430077.stm)

It's from the BBC, which I defy anyone to call pro-Israel...hahaha

From kindergarten we were taught that Jews were dogs," said Walid. "We were taught that Jews were the converts of monkeys, that Jews were Sabbath breakers and prophet killers.

My whole dream was to die as a shaheed [martyr]. At demonstrations I would open my shirt hoping to be shot - but the Israelis would never shoot at the body, so I never succeeded," he said.

Walid was eventually caught and imprisoned in the Muscovite Prison in Jerusalem, but was released after a few weeks. He returned to violence straight away, bombing an Israeli bank in Bethlehem.

"I was taught songs about killing Jews. You need to get rid of the education system where they are teaching this type of thing and get rid of the terrorist groups. It will take a generation, but until then, there's not going to be peace, it doesn't matter what kind of land settlement you have."

The course of Walid's life took a turn when his parents sent him to the United States to get a better education.

[zenith-nadir]

For those interested in what is taught in school in Israel and the Palestinian Authority here is the only website on earth which keeps track of that kind of thing;

It's called the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP)

CMIP Website (http://www.edume.org/reports/)

The present report on Palestinian Authority school books deals with 14 newly received books, in addition to 26 high school final examinations in various subjects from the years 2000 and 2002.


Some examples;

Israel's name does not appear on any of the maps of the land included in the newly received, (Palestinian school), books. Nor does any city established by the Jews in modern times, Tel Aviv for example, appear on any map.

Jerusalem is presented as exclusively Palestinian and as the capital of the State of Palestine. The Jews are not mentioned as part of its history.

Peace, Tolerance, Co-existence - No material advocating these ideals has been found in the newly received textbooks or in the final exams, which continue the trend already identified in the rest of the PA books that have been published so far.

The, (Palestinian school), textbooks studied for this complementary report do not change the picture presented by the CMIP former report of Nov. 2001. The Jews are still presented in a negative light historically, yet at the same time denied any part in the history of the country shared by them and the Palestinians. Israel is still not recognized as a sovereign state, but is rather presented as a foreign entity imposed in 1948 on the land. It is a source of aggression, death and destruction to the Palestinians, especially the refugees among them who aspire to return to their former homes within its territory. Hence, no peace is sought after, but rather a war against Israel as the usurper, aggressor and occupier is to be waged.

Palestinian education does not foster peaceful relations with Israel, nor does it support the peace process between the two parties.




note:In November 1998, UNRWA was requested by the US Administration to verify CMIP's report on PA Textbooks.

UNRWA specialists limited its checking to the quotes from schoolbooks used for grades one to ten, since UNRWA was not in charge of secondary education.

UNRWA's review which was completed in February 1999, largely corroborated CMIP's findings.

[Tmy]

Is suicide bombing so unfathomable???

Look in the states, people are mailing ricin posion to Congress because of TRUCKING REGULATIONS!!! People shoot at police when they come to take their property. Shoot spouces and lawyers who want to take their money. Riot when there sports teams lose.

Imagine their recation if they were occupied by a what they see as a foriegn army?????

As a kid I remember the movie Red Dawn. Its a classic piece of Cold war propanganda. Its really laughable to watch it now.
The heros were a bunch of high school kids who were basically terrorists fighting off Russian occupiers. I dint think ofthem as terrorists, but thats what they were.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I link to this story for those curious about what the actual motivation is for this act.



AUP, you show your bias yet again with this simple sentence.
"I link to this story for those curious about what the actual motivation is for this act."

So, you believe there is one, and only one possible motivation for terrorism? The base motive of vengeance? Or perhaps you prefer to call it "desperate vengeance"??

If you are trying to clue me in on the basic nobility of the Palestinian suicide bomber this is not the way to do it AUP. If some government murders my fiance, blowing up their innocent citizens on a bus doesn't really serve justice, nor would it properly serve my own sense of vengeance....since one should seek vengeance against the guilty, not the innocent.

Nope, sorry. The motive you illustrate in your link is but one aspect of a many faceted movement. Terrorism is fueled by much more than mere response to percieved Israeli evils. It's far easier to percieve such evils in a society steeped in anti-Jewish hate from the cradle to the early grave.

-z

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is suicide bombing so unfathomable???

Look in the states, people are mailing ricin posion to Congress because of TRUCKING REGULATIONS!!! People shoot at police when they come to take their property. Shoot spouces and lawyers who want to take their money. Riot when there sports teams lose.

Imagine their recation if they were occupied by a what they see as a foriegn army?????

As a kid I remember the movie Red Dawn. Its a classic piece of Cold war propanganda. Its really laughable to watch it now.
The heros were a bunch of high school kids who were basically terrorists fighting off Russian occupiers. I dint think ofthem as terrorists, but thats what they were.



The anti-Russian movies in the early 80's are an example of propoganda.

Remember "Rocky IV" with Dolph Lundgren...hahahaha...priceless.

Palestinians are humans, and they are taught to hate jews from kindergarden..(see: CMIP documentation)..they are taught that martyrdom is the greatest goal they can possibly acheive.

What if Canada, (Eh!), taught their children that America didn't exsist? That no maps in Canada showed America or American cities on it? What if Canada taught their children that Americans were dogs and converts of monkeys? What if Canada taught their children songs about killing Americans?

How would that change the way Canadians viewed Americans?


I am not anti-palestinian...I am anti-Palestinian Authority....what the Palestinian Authority has done to the Palestinians is far worse that what Israel has done.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I am not anti-palestinian...I am anti-Palestinian Authority....what the Palestinian Authority has done to the Palestinians is far worse that what Israel has done.

Amen!

[rikzilla]

The Palestinian people are indeed to be pitied! They are a captive population in thrall to a leadership of terrorists.

The same thing was starting to happen to Afghanistan. The lesson of Yasser Arafat and the PLO is that terrorism legitimized by the UN and the Nobel "Peace" Prize = a legitimate form of war, and a proper way to force stronger governments and NGO's to do your bidding.

The real lesson is that terrorism must never be rewarded as it has been in the past. It only grows into a worse problem. Now Palestinians view terrorism as a legitimate way to get what they want. A way that is fuelled by the blood of their youngest and most gullible people.

-z

[epepke]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
What if Canada, (Eh!), taught their children that America didn't exsist? That no maps in Canada showed America or American cities on it? What if Canada taught their children that Americans were dogs and converts of monkeys? What if Canada taught their children songs about killing Americans?

This reminds me of something. I was looking at a British road atlas a few years ago (I think I was trying to tour Wales at the time; I'm not sure which trip it was. Although everything in Britain and Northern Ireland was highly detailed, the entire land mass of the Republic of Ireland was just blank, white paper. No Dublin, no nuthin'. This seemed quite odd to me. I realize that it may not exactly be the responsibility of a British map-maker to provide a detailed map of Eire, but every North-, South-, and Central-American map I've ever seen at least shows the areas near the border.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is suicide bombing so unfathomable???

Look in the states, people are mailing ricin posion to Congress because of TRUCKING REGULATIONS!!! People shoot at police when they come to take their property. Shoot spouces and lawyers who want to take their money. Riot when there sports teams lose....

The suicide bombers have been manipulated into dispair for the purpose by their leaders. This is not the same as being angry enough to kill or break things.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by epepke


This reminds me of something. I was looking at a British road atlas a few years ago (I think I was trying to tour Wales at the time; I'm not sure which trip it was. Although everything in Britain and Northern Ireland was highly detailed, the entire land mass of the Republic of Ireland was just blank, white paper. No Dublin, no nuthin'. This seemed quite odd to me. I realize that it may not exactly be the responsibility of a British map-maker to provide a detailed map of Eire, but every North-, South-, and Central-American map I've ever seen at least shows the areas near the border.



I can't remember seeing a map like that although I don't doubt your word. I suspect the reason is that the map makers would have to pay an extra fee to publish the Irish map info and didn't want to do this.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


The suicide bombers have been manipulated into dispair for the purpose by their leaders. This is not the same as being angry enough to kill or break things.

Oddly enough a muslim british citizen living in London in a well integrated environment, doing business studies at college, and regarded as a peaceful non agressive person can also become a suicide bomber.

See here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2991823.stm)

Clearly he wasn't in despair in your sense. Was it religion? Some strange compulsion to self sacrifice? A search for meaning? I've no idea really but we should be wary of simple answers.

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla>:The lesson of Yasser Arafat and the PLO is that terrorism legitimized by the UN and the Nobel "Peace" Prize = a legitimate form of war, and a proper way to force stronger governments and NGO's to do your bidding. What do you mean?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Nikk
Oddly enough a muslim british citizen living in London in a well integrated environment, doing business studies at college, and regarded as a peaceful non agressive person can also become a suicide bomber.


An interesting article about him.

British bombers posed as peace activists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/02/wbomb02.xml)

Hanif, 21, was a secondary school pupil at Cranford Community College, Hounslow, west London, where he achieved good results in business studies....

After leaving school he travelled extensively in the Middle East and studied Arabic at Damascus university......

Al Muhajiroun, the extremist group led by Omar Bakri Mohammed, held meetings at the mosque in Hounslow where Hanif worshipped and has a strong presence in Derby.


And another interesting one;

Why did two quiet, well-liked young British men travel to Israel to become suicide bombers? (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901030512-449450,00.html)

Hanif was studying business at college, had worked part-time at Heathrow Airport and also reportedly grew more and more interested in religion. He eventually went to Damascus University in Syria to study Arabic with the aim of teaching it in London....

Somewhere along the way, the two men became radicalized, an experience shared by other British Muslims. The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, jailed for life in the U.S. for trying to blow up an airliner in December 2001, changed from an amiable young man into an extremist...

Somewhere, too, middle-class Omar Saeed Sheikh was turned, and the clever London School of Economics student took jihad to the extreme. He was sentenced to death in Pakistan for the kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl....

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Nikk


Oddly enough a muslim british citizen living in London in a well integrated environment, doing business studies at college, and regarded as a peaceful non agressive person can also become a suicide bomber.

Clearly he wasn't in despair in your sense. Was it religion? Some strange compulsion to self sacrifice? A search for meaning? I've no idea really but we should be wary of simple answers.

Of course I was speaking of folks raised in Palestine when I wrote of manipulation, but that doesn't preclude some Muslim "Richard Corey" from despairing for his private own reasons. That would be a mystery of a particular individual.

And certainly the business of taking others with you has to do with religion, or at least prevailing ideology.

Search for meaning? Gee-*****-whiz!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
The suicide bombers have been manipulated into dispair for the purpose by their leaders. This is not the same as being angry enough to kill or break things.

Even being angry enough to kill or break things is not the same thing as being angry enough to kill civilian populations.

I get serious cognitive dissonance from these discussions. Whenever I read about Palestinian textbooks, hear statements by actual Palestinians, it's all about Jews. Period.

Now, taking that at face value, suicide bombings make perfect sense. Go blow up some Jews, get a free ticket to Paradise. Hey, double win!

However, when listening to or talking to Western pundits, practically the first thing that you hear is how it's all about the Israel, not Jews. Sometimes it's about the very existence of Israeal, sometimes it's only about disputed territories or borders past 1967. It's not Jews per se that are the trouble; it's Israeal.

From that perspective, suicide bombings make not the slightest approximation of what might optimistically be called one iota of sense, unless they were actually carried out specifically on military and political targets. Civilian targets are worse than useless, because you only need a couple of functioning brain cells to figure out that Israel isn't going to be cowed by them.

This causes cognitive dissonance with respect to Western pundits, and I have so far only been able to come up with a few ways out of it, any of which or a combination of which may apply:

1) Suicide bombers are really a minority who is just plain out to lunch. In this case, justification of how suicide bombing is natural and understandable fall on their face.

2) All the statements coming from Palestinians and other Arab groups are just plain lies. In this case, most of the justification on the part of Western pundits falls apart.

3) Western pundits are applying inappropriate standards to the Middle East. In that case, all statements by Western pundits on what should be done or what is being done wrong fall over.

4) Western pundits actually understand the situation but are cynically manipulating it for their own purposes.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by epepke
3) Western pundits are applying inappropriate standards to the Middle East. In that case, all statements by Western pundits on what should be done or what is being done wrong fall over.



The concept of martyrdom and jihad became painfully clear on 9-11 to the "West".

There is no negotiation with someone who desires to kill you and will gladly kill themselves to do it.

Western pundits are applying inappropriate standards to the Middle East.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

What if Canada, (Eh!), taught their children that America didn't exsist? That no maps in Canada showed America or American cities on it? What if Canada taught their children that Americans were dogs and converts of monkeys? What if Canada taught their children songs about killing Americans?

How would that change the way Canadians viewed Americans?


I thought that's how we viewed you already. Except that we like your money and don't think you are worth killing ourselves over ;)


[on topic] the scariest thing I saw was a news piece on a sticker book the Palestinian kids could get where they collect stickers of martyrs. I can't find a link to it but it was on a Canadian tv station.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
the scariest thing I saw was a news piece on a sticker book the Palestinian kids could get where they collect stickers of martyrs. I can't find a link to it but it was on a Canadian tv station.


I haven't seen that. But can believe it.

Look here:

Schumer, Clinton Call for Eradication of Hate Rhetoric by the Palestinian Authority (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/2001/06/2001614111.html)

June 14, 2001 - In the wake of a recent cease-fire agreement in the Middle East, US Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) today praised the Bush Administration's efforts in helping the Israelis and the Palestinians reach a cease-fire, but said that President Bush should make clear that no real peace can come unless the Palestinians eradicate the use of hateful, anti-Israeli rhetoric in official statements, school books and newspapers.

Schumer and Clinton noted that while Chairman Yasir Arafat speaks of peace to Israel and the West, he continues to call for the destruction of Israel when talking to the Palestinian people. Comments made by Arafat and other Palestinian officials, along with materials taught to schoolchildren frequently call for violence against the Jewish people and the destruction of Israel.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Now Palestinians view terrorism as a legitimate way to get what they want. A way that is fuelled by the blood of their youngest and most gullible people.

-z

You would expect that from a bunch of religious fanatics but what is most disturbing is that people like a_unique_person view the Palestinian terrorism as legitimite self defense/last resort/etc......

[epepke]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Western pundits are applying inappropriate standards to the Middle East.

I would tend to agree with that, but my primary interest in coming up with the list is not so that one can be picked, but how it seems that at least one has to be picked, and any of them are reasonable cause to doubt that Western pundits, no matter how well they claim to understand the history, even have a clue.

What I guess happened was that in the middle-to-late 1980's, a sort of party line developed in American (and possibly European) academia, especially self-described "progressive" academia. Part of this was a kind of mythology described by Edward Said in his book Orientalism. The rest of it consisted of the traditional Western liberal Enlightenment assumptions.

This approach was not directly contraindicated at the time. At least, it was not clearly possible to rule it out. Quite a few things happened. The Oslo accords got signed. The earlier Intifada went away. Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin got the Nobel peace prize. The Isrealis elected some more peaceful people to rule them.

And then, in a handful of years, it all went to hell. Arafat walked out of the 2000 Camp David talks. The offer at Camp David was considered a sign of Israeli weakness. A new Intifada arose. Isreal elected some more warlike people.

OK. Nice idea. Shame about the reality. Totally didn't work. Time to think up something else.

However, it's very hard for most people to admit that they were wrong, and it's apparently a crisis of faith for progressives. Some leave the fold (e.g. Christopher Hitchens), but those who remain have to produce ever more contradictory and convoluted arguments to continue to support their beliefs.

So, we're treated to descriptions of settlements essentially similar to the one presented in 2000, simultaneously asked to extend Western notions of peace and asked to believe we should consider as natural models that have been on their way out in the West since 1917, and asked to ignore such salient facts as that there were Jews in Canaan before 1920, that Israelis made plenty of Uzis before they got American rifles, and that Israel probably has more than one-hundred nuclear warheads.

And a lot of it is just hysteria, rather than marshalling an argument and at least trying to make it appear coherent, jumping up and down and back and forth between points and pointing fingers, accusing anyone who isn't jumping back and forth and pointing fingers of being racist, or thinking that some people are genetically inferior, or some such nonsense. All of this serves the purpose of distracting away from how, when they jump, they are jumping over holes in their own arguments.

A few have shifted their position. Very few are willing to shift it completely and call for extermination of Isrealis, or even driving Israel into the sea. (Although I have seen the Simon Wiesenthal center recommend that Israelis emigrate en mass to the US.) But there is more talk questioning the continued existence of Israel. The majority, however, seem to me just to have this wishful thinking that Israel would just quietly vanish and not make waves.

Unrealistic, of course, but improving the realism would require some serious questioning of Western liberal Enlightenment values.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


AUP, you show your bias yet again with this simple sentence.


So, you believe there is one, and only one possible motivation for terrorism? The base motive of vengeance? Or perhaps you prefer to call it "desperate vengeance"??

If you are trying to clue me in on the basic nobility of the Palestinian suicide bomber this is not the way to do it AUP. If some government murders my fiance, blowing up their innocent citizens on a bus doesn't really serve justice, nor would it properly serve my own sense of vengeance....since one should seek vengeance against the guilty, not the innocent.

Nope, sorry. The motive you illustrate in your link is but one aspect of a many faceted movement. Terrorism is fueled by much more than mere response to percieved Israeli evils. It's far easier to percieve such evils in a society steeped in anti-Jewish hate from the cradle to the early grave.

-z

A thousand pardons, oh moronic one. An interview with a would be suicide bomber. I tried to have just as brief an intro as I could so as not to distract from the interview about a subject on which there has been much debate. Once again, a thousand pardons. No, ten thousand.

[Mycroft]

The 27-year-old wanted to blow herself up at the Tel Aviv central bus station, just like her brother did.

Later in the interview she says:

OBEIDA KHALIL (translated): If the Israelis were on their own land I would not go there to kill them. But on my land, of course I'll kill them.

So if Tel Aviv isn't Israeli land, what is?

Just a little something to think about for those Palestinian-Arab supporters who deny that the Palestinian-Arabs want to "liberate" all of Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Later in the interview she says:



So if Tel Aviv isn't Israeli land, what is?

Just a little something to think about for those Palestinian-Arab supporters who deny that the Palestinian-Arabs want to "liberate" all of Israel.

I'm am not denying anything, just passing on the interview. As Rickzilla was so kind to point out, this was the view of one person. Not all Palestinians are suicide bombers or aspire to be one. However, it does raise the issue, was it wise to create Israel? How many Israelis are content with the original borders of Israel and how many, such as the Likud extremists, have always been driven by the aim of taking over all the 'traditional' lands of the bible. (although exactly what these borders could be is highly debateable.) Many Jews still ask this question too.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I'm am not denying anything, just passing on the interview. As Rickzilla was so kind to point out, this was the view of one person. Not all Palestinians are suicide bombers or aspire to be one. However, it does raise the issue, was it wise to create Israel? How many Israelis are content with the original borders of Israel and how many, such as the Likud extremists, have always been driven by the aim of taking over all the 'traditional' lands of the bible. (although exactly what these borders could be is highly debateable.) Many Jews still ask this question too.

Ok, let's go from a hypothetical assumption that it was not wise to create Israel. What do your propose to be done now, for all the Jews to up and leave?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Ok, let's go from a hypothetical assumption that it was not wise to create Israel. What do your propose to be done now, for all the Jews to up and leave?

no

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


no

Ok.

Do you think they should not respond with force to suicide bombers and those who support them at all?

[a_unique_person]

I think I have already said, both sides will go on killing each other for many years to come. Both sides are not yet exhausted with the violence. I have referred to Northern Ireland as a guide before. That has taken about 100 years for even an unstable peace to come.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think I have already said, both sides will go on killing each other for many years to come. Both sides are not yet exhausted with the violence. I have referred to Northern Ireland as a guide before. That has taken about 100 years for even an unstable peace to come.

That doesn't answer my question.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by epepke

1) Suicide bombers are really a minority who is just plain out to lunch. In this case, justification of how suicide bombing is natural and understandable fall on their face.

Of course as a count of individuals, suicide bombers are a very small minority. The problem is s system that encourages and indeed glorifies it.

Just as I support the military actions of the USA while being a life-long civilian, and most in the military necessarily do not see combat.

So too there is there is a culture of support for suicide bombers.

The difference is the difference between military combat and suicide bombing. Both entail killing people. The objective of the latter is to kill as many people as possible.

And there is a different mindset between risking your life and intending to die.

2) All the statements coming from Palestinians and other Arab groups are just plain lies. In this case, most of the justification on the part of Western pundits falls apart.

This is the least of it. They are telling the truth when they say time and again that they want to kill us all.

They may not negotiate in good faith, but their hate is completely sincere.

3) Western pundits are applying inappropriate standards to the Middle East. In that case, all statements by Western pundits on what should be done or what is being done wrong fall over.

In this case "Western standards" means ordinary human decency. This is equivalent to saying that the Arabs aren't really human, while being sympathetic. This is racist and unacceptable.

4) Western pundits actually understand the situation but are cynically manipulating it for their own purposes.

Western pundits do not understand the situation but are foolishly attempting to cynically manipulate.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir



The concept of martyrdom and jihad became painfully clear on 9-11 to the "West".

There is no negotiation with someone who desires to kill you and will gladly kill themselves to do it.

Western pundits are applying inappropriate standards to the Middle East.

You appear to be implying two things

1) If you will cause death and destruction to a group of people without the death of yourself, you are a superior person
2) Palestinians collectively are mad suicide bombers, and hence there is no need to negotiate with them.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You appear to be implying two things

1) If you will cause death and destruction to a group of people without the death of yourself, you are a superior person
2) Palestinians collectively are mad suicide bombers, and hence there is no need to negotiate with them.


I am not impying anything. You are. not once but twice.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You appear to be implying two things

1) If you will cause death and destruction to a group of people without the death of yourself, you are a superior person

I didn't see anything at all to imply that.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
2) Palestinians collectively are mad suicide bombers, and hence there is no need to negotiate with them.

As opposed to your implication that the state of Israel was a bad idea so there is no need to negotiate with them?

[Skeptic]

I'm am not denying anything, just passing on the interview. As Rickzilla was so kind to point out, this was the view of one person.

AUP, someone just told me all Australians should be killed, mutliated, and destroyed, due to them being evil and worthless people.

Of course, "I am not defending anything, I'm just passing on the view of this person".

(Me??????????????????

Having anything against Australians???????????????????

Whatever gave you that insane idea?)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
In this case "Western standards" means ordinary human decency. This is equivalent to saying that the Arabs aren't really human, while being sympathetic. This is racist and unacceptable.

I don't really agree with that.

I think that some of the standards that Western culture had, say, around 1900, are much more applicable.

However, a certain number of things happened between 1914 and 1945. Not everybody had such a good time over that period. To some extent, I think, the West modified some of its values over that period and decided that there were certain luxuries in the conflicting set of impulses that is the human brain that could not be afforded. Of course, they haven't been completely gotten rid of, but there do seem to be cultural forces in the West pushing them away.

The cost of this adaptation is a certain cultural homogeneity and lack of excitement that many have decried: McDonalds in Paris, Cheddar Cheese made in Canada and New York. The advantage is that maybe we can avoid destroying ourselves.

We may, in a self-congratulatory tone, talk about what is left as "ordinary human decency," but for most of the history of the West, these ideals do not seem to have dominated. Consider what Samuel Pepys wrote about whether it would be to the advantage of England to have a war with the Dutch. Or slavery. Or even for a recent example, E.E. Doc Smith's The Skylark of Space, published in 1928, which deals with genocide in a casual fashion which is alarming today.

These people in the West were just as human as we are now. To point out their flaws doesn't imply that they were less than human. "Human" involves many possibilities, and some of them aren't so nice.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I didn't see anything at all to imply that.



As opposed to your implication that the state of Israel was a bad idea so there is no need to negotiate with them?

As I have stated before, the creation of Israel was a bad idea, but it is here now, and isn't going away. There is indeed a need to negotiate with them. What is galling is that this 'facts on the ground' factor is still being extended with ever increasing numbers of settlements. One mistake can be forgiven, repeating the same mistake in 2004 is getting beyond the pale.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm am not denying anything, just passing on the interview. As Rickzilla was so kind to point out, this was the view of one person.

AUP, someone just told me all Australians should be killed, mutliated, and destroyed, due to them being evil and worthless people.

Of course, "I am not defending anything, I'm just passing on the view of this person".

(Me??????????????????

Having anything against Australians???????????????????

Whatever gave you that insane idea?)

There has been much speculation on the motives of suicide bombers here, without actually getting one to state their case. This interview is the evidence of one. You can take or leave it as you please.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You appear to be implying two things

1) If you will cause death and destruction to a group of people without the death of yourself, you are a superior person
2) Palestinians collectively are mad suicide bombers, and hence there is no need to negotiate with them.



There is no negotiation with someone who desires to kill you and will gladly kill themselves to do it.



Can you interpret this any other way?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Can you interpret this any other way?

I don't see the connection you do between these two quotes. Can you expand some?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Of course as a count of individuals, suicide bombers are a very small minority. The problem is s system that encourages and indeed glorifies it.

Just as I support the military actions of the USA while being a life-long civilian, and most in the military necessarily do not see combat.

So too there is there is a culture of support for suicide bombers.

The difference is the difference between military combat and suicide bombing. Both entail killing people. The objective of the latter is to kill as many people as possible.

And there is a different mindset between risking your life and intending to die.

This is the least of it. They are telling the truth when they say time and again that they want to kill us all.

They may not negotiate in good faith, but their hate is completely sincere.

In this case "Western standards" means ordinary human decency. This is equivalent to saying that the Arabs aren't really human, while being sympathetic. This is racist and unacceptable.


Western pundits do not understand the situation but are foolishly attempting to cynically manipulate.

I think you and Cleopatra may have some common ground here.

[Skeptic]

In this case "Western standards" means ordinary human decency. This is equivalent to saying that the Arabs aren't really human, while being sympathetic. This is racist and unacceptable.

Hear, hear. This is the most under-noted point about the whole "but we need to understand their culture" idea about Arabs--that they are savages which simply must not be held to the same standard of decency real human beings should.

It's the equivalent of having more lenient rape laws for blacks, under the belief that it is, after all, part of the black man's "different culture" (read: inferior genes)--he just can't help himself and not rape a white woman once in a while.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hear, hear. This is the most under-noted point about the whole "but we need to understand their culture" idea about Arabs--that they are savages which simply must not be held to the same standard of decency real human beings should.

The trouble is that standards can be applied with respect to what should happen or with respect to what does happen. For want of better words, I'll call the former "value" and the latter "descriptive."

I'm not going to define these standards of human decency too closely, but we don't need that. Just a thumbnail sketch is good enough. It includes the idea that killing innocents is bad, for example. Let's say that we've decided that they are universal and not quibble about it.

Even so, it cannot be possible that it is both valid to apply them with respect to value and description everywhere. If they both held everywhere on an individual basis, there would simply be no crime. If they both held everywhere on a cultural basis, there would simply be no warfare. Since there obviously is crime and warfare, this doesn't work.

So, in practice, one has to choose between them in a large number of cases. (One could also abandon both, but I'm assuming a desire to keep one.)

Some people (group 1) prefer to keep the value standards universal, which requires having descriptive standards that vary. So, in order to keep the impression that people in the Middle East should behave according to these standards (value application), the empirical evidence forces upon me the conclusion that to a large extent that they actually do not behave according to these standards (descriptive application), and I also have to recognize that there is significant cultural support for behaving against the standards.

Other people (group 2) prefer to keep the descriptive standards universal, which requires having value standards that vary. That is, since behaviors actually are different, there must be some reason that they're all just as OK. This requires a lot of cognitive juggling. Impulses such as the whole Hatfield/McCoy schtick that a lot of people in the West try to suppress, for good reason, are presented as perfectly natural. Ideals that are no longer common in the West, such as an obsessive attachment to dirt, are presented as if they were still valid. McGuffins like poverty are trotted out, as if they were not themselves partially a result of cultural attitudes. Ironically, it also cognitively requires the presence of some Sauron-like oppressor, to which the standards do not apply at all, so it becomes self-defeating.

Now, it should be obvious by now that I am a member of Group 1, and it is Group 2 and the mismatched descriptive standards that I am criticizing.

However, each group can call the other "racist" with about the same amount of justification, which is, probably, little or none.

[demon]

How are those horrible pikeys doing Rik?

"The lesson of Yasser Arafat and the PLO is that terrorism legitimized by the UN and the Nobel "Peace" Prize = a legitimate form of war, and a proper way to force stronger governments and NGO's to do your bidding."

Kissinger having the Nobel Peace Prize was the clue. Arafat should have refused it on humitarian grounds.

[demon]

zilla:
"The Palestinian people are indeed to be pitied! They are a captive population in thrall to a leadership of terrorists.

The same thing was starting to happen to Afghanistan..."

Your reasoning here is exquisite.
The people of Afghanistan were delivered into the hands of murderous terrorists by the US. During the 1970s and most of the 1980s, the country had a relatively progressive government, which the US despised because it happened to be supported by the USSR. So, the CIA funded massive terrorist operations by fundamentalists (the Mujahadeen), knowingly and deliberately provoking the Soviets into responding. When they did, the US ratchetted up the support even more and imported and trained terrorists to fight a proxy war against the Soviets in order to pull them into the "Afghan trap" and give them their own Vietnam (If Zebigniew Breszinsky is to be believed).

The Taliban actually grew out of second-generation Mujahadeen who were disillusioned by the corruption of 1st generation of terrorists, such as Najibullah and Gulbuddin Hikmetyar, who the US put into power. Their sudden emergence in 1994 and rapid growth was also greatly strengthened by external aid from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and, in all likelihood, the US, in the form of finance, arms and advisers.
Certainly, until the late 1990s, the US turned a blind eye to the Islamic fundamentalism and regressive social policies of the Taliban and never put any pressure on Pakistan or Saudi (from where the taliban get their religious ideology of wahhabism) to stop funding them. According to Ahmed Rashid "The Clinton administration was clearly sympathetic to the Taliban, as they were in line with Washington’s anti-Iran policy and were important for the success of any southern pipeline from Central Asia that would avoid Iran. The US Congress had authorised a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilise Iran, and Tehran had accused Washington of funnelling some of these funds to the Taliban—a charge that was always denied by Washington" (Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, p. 46).

The US put the mujahadeen in power, and they supported the Taliban as well. It was only when the Taliban stopped being useful that the US decided something had to be done. 9-11 provided an excellent pretext, despite the fact the attacks had nothing to do with Afghanistan and that there was (by Colin Powell's own admission) no presentable evidence that they had anything to do with Bin Laden. The massive and utterly illegal bombing that followed may have (temporarily) put the Taliban out of power but it did so only to let the various mujahadeen warlords back into power -with US assistance. They are now making life hell for ordinary Afghans once more.

That's a great record for US intervention:

Fund terrorists to otherthrow government and install terrorist government.
Fund terrorists who otherthrow first terrorist government and form second terrorist government.

Bomb second terrorist government and fund first set of terrorists to form third terrorist government.

(meanwhile, the Taliban are gaining ground once more...)

Inspired, really.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by demon
zilla:
"The Palestinian people are indeed to be pitied! They are a captive population in thrall to a leadership of terrorists.

The same thing was starting to happen to Afghanistan..."

Your reasoning here is exquisite.

/snip/

That's a great record for US intervention:

Fund terrorists to otherthrow government and install terrorist government.
Fund terrorists who otherthrow first terrorist government and form second terrorist government.

Bomb second terrorist government and fund first set of terrorists to form third terrorist government.

(meanwhile, the Taliban are gaining ground once more...)

Inspired, really.

I thought it went:-

1978 Communist coup. Daoud killed and replaced by Taraki;

1979 Taraki killed, replaced by Amin;

1979 Amin executed and replaced by Karmal, Soviet Union invade in
December.


Damn cunning of the Yanks to mastermind all that.