How Widespread is this Point of View?

[Ashock]

"I've lived in Turkey for a few months and in all of the Baltic states for close to a year combined. Where have you lived..... outside of your ivory tower?"

I asked if you had an *argument*. One of those rationalistic notions that appeals to ivory tower types.

Instead, I got an argument-from-authority fallacy, along with an ad-hominem fallacy thrown in for good measure.

I don't doubt you have more experience on the topic than I do. That's why I'm not here trying to convince people of my particular view of things. I don't know enough to put together a credible big picture of what's going on. But I do know enough about history to be skeptical. If you haven't got any arguments to support your assertions, then I will don't feel much need to believe them.

-Jester
[right][snapback]94300[/snapback][/right]

I'll be honest with you here. I do not like you. Since I do not like you, I do not want to waste my time arguing with you about this or anything else, including the merits of the metric system. However, here's something to ponder on. Take a look at what is going on in France right now. Muslim assimilation is going well there, no?
See, often in life you can't arrive at your conclusions based on theoretical data. You have to look at reality.

From now on, I would prefer it if you would refrain from answering my posts, or at least expecting me to answer yours. Don't worry, you'll be joining a small but tight nit group.



Have a nice day.



-A

[Jester]

"From now on, I would prefer it if you would refrain from answering my posts, or at least expecting me to answer yours. Don't worry, you'll be joining a small but tight nit group."

Answer my posts or not, as you wish. I almost never respond to you anyway, except to ask for clarification for the gross generalizations you throw around, usually at the expense of Muslims.

I've been civil to you, and only asked for intellectual argument. If what I've said is enough to cause you grief, then so be it. You can do as you please.

But you can't post unsubstantiated generalizations on a *public forum*, then act as if I'm invading some deeply personal space by responding. Or, rather, you can, and do, but it's just not very polite.

So, if you want to ignore me, do so. You will, I'm sure. If you want me to stop posting as I do, then stop making these generalizations. It is to those, and not to you, that I am responding.

Regards,

-Jester

[Guest]

I still think we are underestimating the signifigance of a desire to assimilate(whish is partly but not wholes related to my thoughts on modern liberalism).

Immigrants who embrace assimilation - assimilate. This happens regarless of their religion in most cases.
This was the status quo for US immigrants though most og the 19th and 20th centuries.

Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews and Irish who came to America looked "becoming an American" as a good thing. Sure some people resented them but the desire to be an American ovr came the resistance.
Yes they kept some traditions and often religion - but importantly they identified themselves as Americans.

Now look at France right now. I wonder how many of those rioters are/were proud to be French. I suspect most never felt llike they even had a chance to be really "French".

[Minionman]

(Maybe Newton's Laws rather than Hegel?&nbsp; Action <-> Reaction?)
[right][snapback]94298[/snapback][/right]

Equilibrium. dumpo the two cultures in like chemicals, let them mix and bang into each other, see where they end up.


For that matter, am still looking for an explanation of how differences between the Europian countries effect the europian union. Would prefer someone different to make a try this time, who can give some better descriptions.

[Jester]

Just remembered this, which you post reminded me of. It's from my favorite writer, so it's a compliment:

"We know (or think we know) that history is a perplexing, incessant web of causes and effects; that web, in its natural complexity, is inconceivable; we cannot think about it without resorting to the names of nations. Moreover, such names are ideas that operate within history, that rule and transform history."

-Jorge Luis Borges, A Note on the Peace

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Equilibrium.&nbsp; dumpo the two cultures in like chemicals, let them mix and bang into each other, see where they end up.
For that matter, am still looking for an explanation of how differences between the Europian countries effect the europian union.&nbsp; Would prefer someone different to make a try this time, who can give some better descriptions.
[right][snapback]94325[/snapback][/right]

May I suggest you hit google and try for some articles on the EU from UK, German, NL, Italian, Spanish and French papers? A good blend of editorials from disparate viewpoints will probably help you form a picture in your mind.

Occhi

[eppie]

However, here's something to ponder on. Take a look at what is going on in France right now. Muslim assimilation is going well there, no?

[right][snapback]94302[/snapback][/right]

Do you want an answer on this question?
I think I can just go for a "I don't think you understand the situation in France very much"

[Ashock]

Do you want an answer on this question?
I think I can just go for a "I don't think you understand the situation in France very much"
[right][snapback]94372[/snapback][/right]

Hmm, perhaps you're right. To back up your point, please name one country in the world, not counting Muslim countries naturally, where Muslims assimilated well. Make it one country that they did not conquer.


-A

[Fragbait]

Liberals arcoss the world have been very big on maintaining your old culture when you move
[right][snapback]94237[/snapback][/right]

Ahem...
You mean liberals as in 'liberal = amenable to changes, tolerant' as opposed to 'consercative = conserving, maintaining and traditional' ???

I can't quite follow your logic. It most likely are the conservatives who maintain their 'old culture' when they move.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Fragbait]

I've been dealing on and off with the so called "war on terror," or rather, the Modern/Western civilizations attempts to deal with Muslim terrorists since 1983.
[right][snapback]94146[/snapback][/right]

Hi,

"Modern/Western civilizations" dealt with the same 'terrorists' before 1983 (whatever milestone that date marks for you) in a quite different way, i.e. supporting the regime of two shahs that had broadly lost contact to their 'subjects'; delivering weapons (poison gas, too) and economic aid to Saddam after the 79' islamic revolution in Iran; watching him slay Irans for 6 years then changing sides and supplying Iran with weapons which were paid by money spend in the Iran-Contra Affair 1986; and so on.

Question is:
What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

That he spreads terror? The U.S. did that repeatedly, as did Germany etc. So that 'cannot' (can it? think about it) be a valuable definition.

That he kills civilians? Please don't get me started. Again Germany, Turkey (The Osmanic Empire) and the U.S. spring to mind.

That he kills because he believes his religion tells him to? Explain the 'axis of evil' to me. Also keep the crusades in mind.

That he works in an underground network of drugs and weapons? Again, I will mention the Iran-Contra Affair.

That he is willing to die for his motives? Must people are willing to die for something.

I'm beginning to think: what really makes a terrorist a terrorist is the lacking support of a strong government. Maybe of a G-8 state. The terrorist as well as some big states often enough have some very weird perceptions of the world. Yet they don't have a powerful legitimate base to back it up. That's why they are then hunted down over the world.


I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything about assaults. But I'm saying that it is often (no, not only sometimes) very very hard to judge who is more at fault.

Greetings, Fragbait

[jahcs]

<snip>

Question is:
What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

That he spreads terror? The U.S. did that repeatedly, as did Germany etc. So that 'cannot' (can it? think about it) be a valuable definition.

That he kills civilians? Please don't get me started. Again Germany, Turkey (The Osmanic Empire) and the U.S. spring to mind.

That he kills because he believes his religion tells him to? Explain the 'axis of evil' to me. Also keep the crusades in mind.

That he works in an underground network of drugs and weapons? Again, I will mention the Iran-Contra Affair.

That he is willing to die for his motives? Must people are willing to die for something.

I'm beginning to think: what really makes a terrorist a terrorist is the lacking support of a strong government. Maybe of a G-8 state. The terrorist as well as some big states often enough have some very weird perceptions of the world. Yet they don't have a powerful legitimate base to back it up. That's why they are then hunted down over the world.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything about assaults. But I'm saying that it is often (no, not only sometimes) very very hard to judge who is more at fault.

Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]94380[/snapback][/right]

Terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Terrorist)

The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence," and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall outside the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as representing the bounds of conventional warfare.

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definitions typically employed by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".

Because of the above pejorative connotations, those accused of being "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle — separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, insurgent, paramilitary, guerrilla, (from guerra, Spanish for "war"), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning "struggler"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom").

Key criteria
Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most official definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act.

Violence — According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic [of terrorism] generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Whether property destruction is considered violent is also a common debate, especially with regard to the actions of the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.
Target – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as direct targets in the absence of a state of war.
This definition would exclude acts of war and attacks on military targets. It would pertain regardless of whether the attackers made an attempt to reduce civilian casualties. For example, the Zionist organization Irgun preceded many of its attacks (notably the 1946 King David Hotel bombing) with warnings to the press, the target, or the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine. They were nevertheless considered terrorists by the British. ETA and the Provisional IRA are also known for issuing warnings. In contrast, groups such as Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades who use attacks against civilian targets seek to maximize casualties, and therefore never issue warnings.
Objective – As the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation in the main target audience , which may be a government, a whole society, or a group within a society. Terrorist acts are therefore designed and may be deliberately timed to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and fear. The intention may be to provoke disproportionate reactions from governments.
Motive – Terrorists acts may be intended to achieve political or religious goals, which include the spread of fear and mayhem. The terrorist who acts as a mercenary, or gun-for-hire, may also be acting for personal gain: for example, see Abu Nidal. A gang of bank robbers who kill a bank manager, blow up his vault, and escape with the contents would not be classed as terrorists, but if they were to execute the same assault with the intention of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks, and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists. This definition excludes organized crime.
Perpetrator – Most definitions of terrorism do not include legitimate governments as terrorist actors, unless acting clandestinely and in the absence of a state of war. Acts of war, including war crimes and crimes against humanity are regarded as distinct from terrorism, as are overt government repression of its own civilians, the Holocaust, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it does not rule out "state-sponsored terrorism", in which a government supports terrorist activity in another state, though this might instead be regarded as low-intensity warfare between sovereign states. Those who disagree with these definitions may use the term "state terror" to describe the actions of official groups such as the Gestapo, the KGB and the Stasi of East Germany against dissidents or ethnic minorities among their own citizens.
Legitimacy – Many official state definitions include that the act must be unlawful.

Wilkipedia strikes again

The current media driven culture flings the word terrorist around with wild abandon. For example, I hear graffiti "artists" now classified as terrorists instead of vandals. A criminal with several offenses is now often called a terrorist also. The current misuse of the word terrorist is definitely getting out of hand.

[Occhidiangela]

[quote=Fragbait,Nov 8 2005, 05:05 AM]
Hi,

"Modern/Western civilizations" dealt with the same 'terrorists' before 1983 and a load of other tripe.[QUOTE]

Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions. If you want to play games with words, go ahead, but you can't fool me.

The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran, until overthrown, just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq, just as the current parties are the recognized government of Iran. Likewise Emperor Louis Napoleon was the legit leader of France before overthrown by the Third Republic. Chancellor Kohl used to lead the legitimate government of Germany. Kim Jong Il is the legit leader of North Korea.

The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives of their nation state. Learn what a nation state is before you try your sophistry again on this topic, since the UN made up member nations all of whom are nation states.

Therefore, as the legit governments of nation states, none of these governments are terrorists, they can't be. They are national organs, with an obligation to protect and defend their people as best they can. They may endorse and support terrorists on the side, like Islamic Jihad, IRA, specifically Hezbollah, Ansar Al Islam, and for all I know, Tim McVeigh and his buddies who hit Oklahoma City.

What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?

Terrorists are members of extranational organizations who use terror as a tool to achieve a political end.

If you can't understand what an extranational organization is -- Doctors Without Borders, REd Cross, Red Crescent, Amnesty International, the Davos group, the Free Masons, what have you -- then you can't understand what a terrorist organization and what a terrorist is. Many extranational organizations go to great pains to work within the law, local and international.

The terrorist explicity works outside the law and lawful structure as it exists, since he feels the system will not enable him to achieve his ends. Under international law he is an outlaw in the old sense of the word. Problem is, someone provides him food, shelter, and succor, or at least a place to operate from while turning a blind eye . . . exactly the kind of set up prohibited by the old laws covering the status of "out law."

That is why the Taliban went down. They provided succor and aid to an outlaw organization, and they were happy to do nothing about it. Taliban were, at the time, the legitimate government of Afghanistan, who have since been replaced via legitimate means: A UN sanctioned act of force.

Al Qaeda is one of many extranational organization that uses force, violence and terror to achieve a political end without having to worry about protecting their "innocent," civilian population as legitimate governments (the good, the bad, and the ugly) must. It is not accountable to any government, per se. MI 6 or Mossad, on the other hand, are organizations who may work in the shadows for the British/Israeli Government, but are answerable to the legit government, and through the legit government to other governments via treaties, letter of agreement, protocol, extradition, etcetera. The Pasderan in Iran as well. They may do illegal things, but there is lawful process for recourse to that via legitimate means through their government.

No such structure exists for dealing with Hezzbolla or Al Qaeda, for example, since no government "owns" them, though some slide support to them on the sly. The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul.

Do you need any further explanation on what a terrorist is in the context of this conversation, in the context of international law, or in the context of global politics as they now exist? Or are you going to keep playing silly word games?

Occhi

[Fragbait]

Thanks jahcs, I could have thought about Wikipedia myself. It is a great source of information, although views on certain topics differ between the different language versions of Wikipedia.

"terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces
[right][snapback]94389[/snapback][/right]

This actually fits quite nicely with what I've said.

typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle — separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, insurgent, paramilitary, guerrilla, (from guerra, Spanish for "war"), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning "struggler"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom")

Or, as some (especially persons who are concerned) might say in some cases, 'World Police', 'defenders of freedom', 'crushers of the axis of evil'.

Terrorist acts are therefore designed and may be deliberately timed to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and fear.

I guess that is the best definition I've read so far.

Those who disagree with these definitions may use the term "state terror" to describe the actions of official groups such as the Gestapo, the KGB and the Stasi of East Germany against dissidents or ethnic minorities among their own citizens.

Alright then. If I'm ever to critic U.S. or other nation's 'terrorist' actions, I'll call them 'state terror'.

Thanks, jahcs. What a neutral and informative reply.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Fragbait]

Let me state something ahead: no harm intended.

My, my. We're up the pole a little bit, aren't we? If only I found which part of my reply acted as a red banner for your horns...
But I'm not going there. Just saying that you can look at jahcs to see how a neutral answer would look like.

To get to the point:

"Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions."
- this adds utterly nothing to the discussion. Thanks anyway. May I also refer to my signature.

"The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran"
- the legitimate government is supported by the populace. Which the Shah was not, since broad parts of it hated him for adhering too fast and subservient to the quite exploitive (at that time) and untraditional ways of the Western civilizations.

"just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq"
- You should hear yourself talk. He was (how do I put it prudently...) 'enforced' as the dictator of a military-supported one-party-state by the "Western civilizations". Nothing much legit here, if you ask me.

"The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives"
- again, see legit above. Just because a U.S. dominated UN in fear of the cold war and under the influence of followers of the U.S. accepts them, it ain't legit. That's (only a little bit, I will admit) comparable to the palestinian situation, and also the situation of 'Taiwan' or the 'Republic of China' comes to mind. And I'm not even sure that Saddam (at least in the late years before 'war'), Kim Jong-il and Ayatollah Khomeini attended to UN meetings all the time.

"specifically Hezbollah"
- the Hezbollah were the army that helped Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini to re-establish an islamic nation state of Iran. His Army. Officially instructed and authorized, and since he was the instance that held all the power, I can't see what complicates the matter here.

"What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?"
- jahcs (and wikipedia) answered that quite well, thanks to him.

"If you can't understand what an extranational organization is"
- Don't you get personal. Referal to my signature.

"It is not accountable to any government, per se. MI 6 or Mossad, on the other hand, are organizations who may work in the shadows for the British/Israeli Government, but are answerable to the legit government, and through the legit government to other governments via treaties, letter of agreement, protocol, extradition, etcetera. The Pasderan in Iran as well."
- My... That's quite similar to what I've said. Different charges though, and why not so? This is essential for all discussions.

"The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul."
- which could be interpreted as supporting terrorists, don't you agree?

Also it is interesting that you don't lose one word about the Iran-Contra Affair. And one last word: I know that politics is a hot button with you, Occhi. And I wasn't trolling. Just dipping you into the sauce of what might well come close to the opinion of quite a few europeans. Don't color it all black and white, man. It just isn't like that.

Oh, and to the original question: I think this p.o.v. is quite widespread in the European Union. I guess that, while ~20% don't know if growing immigration and integration of islamic people is good or bad, about 35% rather resent it, and about 55% rather welcome it, many of them thinking that it's essential to establish peace in the middle east in the long term. Course these aren't official numbers, just mine.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Occhidiangela]

EDITED since the tags went all goofy on me.

"Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions."
- this adds utterly nothing to the discussion. Thanks anyway. May I also refer to my signature.

"Not even your signature can save you from me." :lol:

Oh, and to the original question: I think this p.o.v. is quite widespread in the European Union. I guess that, while ~20% don't know if growing immigration and integration of islamic people is good or bad, about 35% rather resent it, and about 55% rather welcome it, many of them thinking that it's essential to establish peace in the middle east in the long term. Course these aren't official numbers, just mine.

Interesting insight, thank you. :D Let's assume your numbers are pretty close to the mark. How is welcoming the immigrants essential to establishing peace in the Middle East in the long term. By taking population pressure of the Mid East? By changing cultural norms through mixing? Can you elaborate on that? I think I get the indifferent position, and somewhat the contra position.

The rest of this is rebuttal to your replies on the other stuff. Feel free to ignore, as it is a digression from the real question I was asking of our European Lurkers.

"The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran"
- the legitimate government is supported by the populace. Which the Shah was not, since broad parts of it hated him for adhering too fast and subservient to the quite exploitive (at that time) and untraditional ways of the Western civilizations.

The underlined statement is false, unless you live in a dream world or a classroom. I wish it were true. :o The UN would be less of a mess were your assertion true. If all nations in the UN were indeed led by governments of functioning constitutional republics, accountable to their people (considering of course diverging views within any nation) rather than a mix of autocracies to democracies, the UN would be more effective.

"The consent of the governed" is not the only form of recognized government. Practical legitimacy arises when a government is recognized by other governments. I agree with you that this leaves the Palestinian Arabs in a strange sort of limbo. They are not a nation state, but could be called a nation. I see them as conquered, and the losers of a territorial war, since 1948. Stinks to be them, and many are trying to change that condition. Politics is a game where the play is continuous. Nothing is fixed or final.

When an ambassador arrives and is treated as the representative of his country, he is recognized, and thus his country gains legitimacy. That has been the norm and the standard since long before the UN was around.

"just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq"
- You should hear yourself talk. He was (how do I put it prudently...) 'enforced' as the dictator of a military-supported one-party-state by the "Western civilizations". Nothing much legit here, if you ask me.

So, why did China, France and the UK have embassies in Iraq if the government was not legit? Was it not recognized? Why did any nation accept an Iraqi ambassador from Saddam Hussein while he as in power? Why did the UN? He might have been a jerk. Stalin was a jerk, but he was the recognized head of state of a nation state. Saddam and Iraq had a recognized rep to the UN. Ambassadors to many nations. Legitimacy under the conventions of international practice. Saddam led the government of record. And so on.

If you remember that the United Nations began as the alliance of nations who defeated Germany and Japan, and later expanded to include others, and then grew into "League of Nations, part II" you see how Chiang Kai Shek's government, the Kuomintang, was a charter member, and Mao's was not. It took nearly 30 years to resolve that political snarl, but the People's Republic of China was in every way a legitimate government in China, even if Washington refused to "recognize" it. Loads of other nations recognized the PROC.

ROC and PROC were recognized differently by different governments. They still sent their ambassadors to other nations, and as nation states had status. Their governments were able to work within international laws and conventions, not constrained by some US puppet mastery of the planet earth.

"The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives"

- again, see legit above. Just because a U.S. dominated UN in fear of the cold war and under the influence of followers of the U.S. accepts them, it ain't legit. That's (only a little bit, I will admit) comparable to the palestinian situation, and also the situation of 'Taiwan' or the 'Republic of China' comes to mind. And I'm not even sure that Saddam (at least in the late years before 'war'), Kim Jong-il and Ayatollah Khomeini attended to UN meetings all the time.

It is not "the US" alone, it is the entirety of the international polity: hundreds of governments. US dominated UN? Were you alive in the 60's and 70's? It was an organization well used politically by America's opponents, led by the USSR and the "non aligned bloc." It's not just recently that the UN has been a forum for objecting to American policy. Anyone with a hand in the game of international politics tries to use the UN as a tool to further its ends. Its original purpose has morphed, and of course having become an institution, it is infected with the disease of bureaucracy. So it goes. :unsure:

Khomeni and Kim Il Sung had embassies, and sent ambassadors to, other nations if not all nations. No matter that the US did not "recognize" Sung's government, other nations did. It was the government of the People's Republic of Korea just as Chiang's was the government of the Republic of China (confined to Taiwan. The Kuomintang's pretensions of return to power in the mainland were a joke. )

"specifically Hezbollah"
- the Hezbollah were the army that helped Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini to re-establish an islamic nation state of Iran. His Army. Officially instructed and authorized, and since he was the instance that held all the power, I can't see what complicates the matter here.

Not even a nice try.
From the DOS web site.

Hizballah (Party of God)
a.k.a. Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine

Description
Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to increasing its political power in Lebanon and opposing Israel and the Middle East peace negotiations. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran.

Activities
Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and is a suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires. In fall 2000, it captured three Israeli soldiers in the Shabaa Farms and kidnapped an Israeli noncombatant whom it may have lured to Lebanon under false pretenses.

The Hezbollah is a fine working examples of a terrorist organization. The Iranian army, the legitimate forces of Iran, are not. Nor are the Pasdraran. (Special Ops of Iran.) The Iranian army fought Saddam's Iraq. The Hezbollah is a terrorist organization in every sense of the word. Why?

External Aid
Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria.

You will note that it is not a department of the Iranian or Syrian government, it is thus an extranational organization. Even if US and Iran have strained relations, there are legitimate avenues for interaction via governments whose ambassadors are in Teheran. There is no such relationship with Hezbollah.

Khomeni was not the legit head of government until the Shah was deposed and he took over, and most importantly, was able to stay in power.

"What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?"
- jahcs (and wikipedia) answered that quite well, thanks to him.

No, it didn't, which is why I went to the detail that I did. It dances around the topic in true, gutless, academic fashion.

"If you can't understand what an extranational organization is"
- Don't you get personal. Referal to my signature.

So, do you get it? Your reply was no reply.

"The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul."
- which could be interpreted as supporting terrorists, don't you agree?

Sure, the US' Reagan (and I think Carter) administrations support various Mujahadeen groups against the Soviet ally/client (pick your descriptive) government. What's your point? The Cold War was on. The so called "war on terror" was not.

Also it is interesting that you don't lose one word about the Iran-Contra Affair.

What about it? What does that have to do with the price of bread in Bangkok, Frag?

The international community is NOT, nor has it ever been, united in its treatment of terrorists and terrorism. There is still considerable disagreement on how to deal with it: as a criminal matter, INTERPOL and all that, or as a matter of foreign policy of a conventional sort. The irony in the second aproach, and it is indeed rich, is that the second approach can afford a terrorist organization a perception of the legitimacy that conventional political organs have accrued through practice, without having to take on any of the responsibilities of a state.

Occhi

[Ashock]

US dominated UN?&nbsp; Were you alive in the 60's and 70's?&nbsp; It was an organization well used politically by America's opponents, led by the USSR and the "non aligned bloc."&nbsp; [right][snapback]94468[/snapback][/right]

I will attest to that. The UN was considered a good friend by the USSR. That alone speaks volumes about it and it's totalitarian/communist roots. Them roots are deep.



-A

[Fragbait]

Hail Occhi,

Considering your first question:

Let's assume your numbers are pretty close to the mark. How is welcoming the immigrants essential to establishing peace in the Middle East in the long term. By taking population pressure of the Mid East? By changing cultural norms through mixing?

[See, I'm using the stylish quotation fields to increase readability]

I don't know if they are close or not, it's just my personal political feeling. If we assume them, the situation at hand presents itself as such:
More than a half of the populace of the EU welcomes immigration and / or integration of new members into the EU (as long as they fit certain criterias), and my attempt at explaining it would be that folks have understood the need to get closer to what was once the 'foreign' middle east. The middle east's weight is increasing, and cultural as well as religious (which influence each other) conflicts have been the outcome. Much of the hate in the world comes from envy, and I'm sure there's a lot of 'why do they have it so good in those western capitalistic pagan countries, while we are starving or at least live under less than average conditions?'-thinking in some of the islamic states. Me and others think that an approach to the problem may be to get these (lands) to disintegrate this envy, abolish their prejudices and come closer to us both in a cultural and economic way. It may be naive, but isn't integrating more and more nations in a common unity, slowly dismantling borders and antipathies and ending up in a huge world-wide conglomeration of friendly states that still have their identities a tempting and delicious vision? Yes I know this sounds a whole lot like the murmurous 'World Peace' that those beauty queens stutter forth when asked about their wish had they one free. but on the other hand - who would have guessed that a thing like the EU was possible back in the days when Napoleon and the 2 times the Krauts tried to rule this continent alone?

A third of the European populace is sceptic and resents the integration of Turkey as such, whether they fulfill the hurdles or not. How and why? Part of it is based on straight, simple xenophobia. Many of the folks that resent Turkey also resented the eastern enlargement of the EU, and still are heavily biased vs. some of the eastern states. Heck - they would be biased vs. the western states, too, but then again - there quickly comes the atlantic ocean and rest for their minds at last. Another part of it is based on the latest half decade and the terror that was spilled out of its Pandora's box. Many fail to see why these people would conduct such assaults, and unseeingly blame the Islam and it's promise to let each martyr ascend directly to paradise compared with the believe that the Islam (maybe with the 'people of the book' - namely Judaism and Christianity) is the only real religion, and that they believe to have the holy mission to spread it (I'm getting vague here - don't know in how far that holds true) for all the pain and anguish that has been caused these days, which surely doesn't help the integration cause. And then there's the fact that Turkey still doesn't admit the Armenian Genocide, which additionally fuels the fire of mistrust.


Concerning your other assertions:

Practical legitimacy arises when a government is recognized by other governments

You mean like, let's say a new state declares itself - take the kurds - and 60% of the governments of the UN accept it and 40% don't? Unfortunately, that'll never happen, because that would possibly create a field of tension inside of the UN. In most cases, if there are different p.o.v. concerning this new state, usually 2-3 strong states stand for the one p.o.v. and 1-2 strong states for the other. The rest of states will then decide which states are better to have as allies, and jump on their bandwagon. Heck, some smaller states even joined the extra-UN 'coalition of the willing', in spite of not having a single soldier or tank in excess to help with! If this is the reality (and I'm sadly beginning to realize it is) then that's indeed nothing other than the (oligarchic) reign of strong economic states, further fueling the fire that is envy. Sad.

Was it not recognized?

I fear, my friend, the right question is 'why was it recognized?'. And I'm telling you the answer from my p.o.v.: Because it was the best for all economic super-powers. It was tolerated as the 'lesser' evil considering the hunger for oil that these states had (and have), and considering the menacing islamic revolution that had just took place in Iran on the one side, and the menace of communism on the other.

Were you alive in the 60's and 70's? It was an organization well used politically

No, I was not. But yet the next sentence makes clear what I mean: 'used politically'. Do you see were we're heading at? Let's leave it at that: the UN is not neutral. It has an opinion of its own, which is majorly influenced by the (economically and politically) strongest nations being members.

Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to increasing its political power in Lebanon and opposing Israel and the Middle East peace negotiations. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran

I will be eager to change my opinion, and maybe today they are a terrorist organization, but back in 1979/1980, they represented the army of the head of state of Iran, the army of Iran, took orders from Khomeini and carried them out, and were not comparable to the 'army' of the puppet-government, mostly officers and foot men who just changed sides after it was clear who would 'win' the revolution.

If you can't understand what an extranational organization is

Yes, I do understand what an extranational organization is. But... what is your point exactly? To Me, the main criteria (since jahcs quoted it from wiki) is the fact that terrorists try to get public attention, while secret services usually don't. They may do similar things, and of course these are equally immoral, but they are (quite, yet not in character and structure) different. I can grasp that better now.

What's your point?[...]What about it? What does that have to do with the price of bread in Bangkok

Maybe I did not make myself clear. I'll try that now. When the U.S. do such things as actively supporting rebellions and assassins all over the world, they do nothing else than states like Afghanistan did - fuel illegal networks of fanatics (partly), but surely not of future leaders. You wouldn't want a man to lead a country that killed 200 people in the past, because you'd suspect him to be violent and crazy. As long as the U.S. (and not only the U.S.) actively but secretly support nationalistic yet capitalistic groups against what you call 'legit' governments, as long as there is so much intriguing with weapons and cash etc. these cabalist states will be no better than the states that they populistically like to call 'axis of evil'. [You recognize by now how disturbed I am by that phrase]

The international community is NOT, nor has it ever been, united in its treatment of terrorists and terrorism. There is still considerable disagreement on how to deal with it

I fully agree with you. And I'm guessing it can take long times to make terms on this subject. I'm pleased by this discussion by now, yet I fear my assertions have been a bit lengthy - forgive me for that. I hope I answered many of your (implicite) questions sufficiently.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Occhidiangela]

Hoping the tags don't blow up on me.

Yes I know this sounds a whole lot like the murmurous 'World Peace' that those beauty queens stutter forth when asked about their wish had they one free. but on the other hand - who would have guessed that a thing like the EU was possible back in the days when Napoleon and the 2 times the Krauts tried to rule this continent alone?

If you look at it with lateral thinking, and a good beer down your throat, the current EU is an attempt to rebuild the Holy Roman Empire without the Holy. :-) And with a lot less horse manure, since European rail service is so excellent. (Note the touch of envy in my post here.) So was the Third Reich, though this is NOT an attempt to invoke Godwin's law.

Concerning your other assertions:

You mean like, let's say a new state declares itself - take the kurds - and 60% of the governments of the UN accept it and 40% don't?

That is what happened with Israel. A few nations recongnized it, and over time more did. Some still don't.

Unfortunately, that'll never happen, because that would possibly create a field of tension inside of the UN.

There is already a field of tension. If enough governments recognize a new nation, and yes, a few of the big ones like Germany, India, US, Russia, China would surely help, it is the government of record. Yes, a war will probably ensue, as did the war post-Yugoslavia's break up, when Germany was one of the first to recognize Croatia. *shrugs* The world's a bloody place.

I fear, my friend, the right question is 'why was it recognized?'. And I'm telling you the answer from my p.o.v.: Because it was the best for all economic super-powers.&nbsp; It was tolerated as the 'lesser' evil considering the hunger for oil that these states had (and have), and considering the menacing islamic revolution that had just took place in Iran on the one side, and the menace of communism on the other.

Your argument falls down with the Iran example, among others. One of the few nations who has had continual grief wth Iran since '79 is the US. Everyone else has pretty much dealt with them, and are they not UN members still?

No, I was not. But yet the next sentence makes clear what I mean: 'used politically'. Do you see were we're heading at? Let's leave it at that: the UN is not neutral. It has an opinion of its own, which is majorly influenced by the (economically and politically) strongest nations being members.

You are right about the UN. There are three tiers of UN. Permanent SC members, rotating SC members, and the great unwashed General Assembly, or as I call them in my blacker moods, the terminal wogs and the temporary wogs.

Hezbollah is what it is. Today is 2005, November 9. Hezbollah was never anything OTHER THAN an extranational organization. Your note of it supporting Khomeini was extranational, vis a vis the Shah, the government of record at the time. QED.

Yes, I do understand what an extranational organization is. But... what is your point exactly? To Me, the main criteria (since jahcs quoted it from wiki) is the fact that terrorists try to get public attention, while secret services usually don't.

No, that is NOT the main criterion. Wiki is full of the usual sh**. The E.N.O. is a free agent with no responsibility other than to its own existence. The secret agency is an agent of a legitimate government with responsibilities for an entire population. That is the critical functional and legal distinction.

When the U.S. do such things as actively supporting rebellions and assassins all over the world, they do nothing else than states like Afghanistan did - fuel illegal networks of fanatics (partly), but surely not of future leaders. You wouldn't want a man to lead a country that killed 200 people in the past, because you'd suspect him to be violent and crazy. As long as the U.S. (and not only the U.S.) actively but secretly support nationalistic yet capitalistic groups against what you call 'legit' governments, as long as there is so much intriguing with weapons and cash etc. these cabalist states will be no better than the states that they populistically like to call 'axis of evil'.&nbsp; You recognize by now how disturbed I am by that phrase

Working through proxies has been done for ages. Millenia. That is international politics at work. America got some help in that regard, from Louis XVI. Washington was no terrorist, but Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty were certainly close to the modern definition.

BTW: The Axis of Evil speech was one of the great political stupidities of all time, in American political rhetoric. We agree on that, you and I. It pissed me off at the time, as I had felt that our relationship with Iran had been effed up for long enough. We are getting better and working with Viet nam, why not Iran? Then, the "up yours" speech.

STUPID. (At the time of the speech I was a serving officer and could not thus post some of my sentiments without breaking the law.)

Thanks, Frag, that you reminded me of my original intention NOT to turn this into an Occhi attacks Europeans, we've had enough of that, and for your insights. All welcome, if not all agreed. :D

Occhi

[Fragbait]

since European rail service is so excellent
[right][snapback]94489[/snapback][/right]

What? You've got to be kidding here (Well maybe you are, but I'll spin on a bit nevertheless). At least in Germany (the only region I know/care about its rail service), for the area of personal transportation, DB (Deutsche Bahn, the German railroad company) is just insufficient. While it may work between big cities, it's a real p.i.t.a. when you want to use it from less urban territories. Latenesses, 'Rail-Backup-Transportation', high prices and average comfort are the main reasons why the people travelling via DB are mostly either fans of travelling via rail, business men or just reliant on it as a means of transport - the rest of them takes the car (that's why DB doesn't perform strongly).

[little example: my hometown to my university city: ~115 km.
By train:
Single ticket DB: 20€.
Bavarian Ticket (better): 17€.
2 People sharing a Bavarian Ticket Multi: 24/2=12€.
Getting to and from the train: 1*1,40€ + 1*2€ = 3,40€.
Which amounts to: 15,40€.
Now the car (for 100 km):
Fuel consumption: 6.5l priced with today's 1.18€/l = 7.67€.
Tax and assurance: 500€/year / 15000km/year = 3.33€.
Obsolescence for a 7 year old car: ~500€/year / 15000km/year = 3.33€.
Abrasion: ~150€/year / 15000km/year = 1€.
So with two persons, for 100 km the costs via car amount to 7.67€ per person. 115 km yield 8.82 €, even passing down the basic car maintaining costs (which many drivers, including me, don't). Unless fuel doesn't see a big step-up in pricing (which it will eventually - if this is so bad is another discussion), driving by car is still cheaper than taking the train. (not talking about speed yet)]

A French ex floor neighbor of mine once mucked me about our rail service system, stating that their's was way better - and I had no reason not to believe him. (Yet of course I portended that France is much more centralized than Germany, which simplifies many things ;) )

Thanks [...] for your insights

My pleasure. :blush:

Greetings, Fragbait

[eppie]

I will attest to that. The UN was considered a good friend by the USSR. That alone speaks volumes about it and it's totalitarian/communist roots. Them roots are deep.
-A
[right][snapback]94472[/snapback][/right]

O please. Just because other countries don't like the fact that the US as a member 1: does not pay their share 2: choses when to agree and when to "just do what it likes itsself because with an army this big nobody dares to say anything about it" does not mean that it has totatitarian/communist roots.

These seem like the words of a somehow very frustrated person.