Reasons for the crashing in WTC

[DingBat]

I think, to a great extent, the Palestinians are as much prisoners of Islamic extremism as anyone else.

I think that there cannot, and will not, be any peaceful resolution to the problems in Israel until:

1) Islamic fundamentalism is curtailed.
2) Islamic leaders STRONGLY denounce the anti-modernity that is the primary component of fundamentalism.
3) Islamic leaders STRONGLY support the freedoms we take for granted: religious tolerance, human rights, democracy, free economies, etc.

There are still too many in the Islamic world who are preaching the "we are not to blame, someone else has done this to us", anti-modern, backward looking, message for there to be any progress in settling the differences between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Any peace would necessarily be based on tolerance for the other side. This is something that is totally against what the fundamentalists stand for and therefore, it is not likely it will be permitted.

/bruce

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Listen an entire Cyndi Lauper CD and I guarentee you will be willing to consider ending a human life...

She had been quietly, happily erased from my memory cells until I read this... Curse you!

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Why does Arafat have to pull back his "terrorists" while the Israeli army can go around blowing up any no. of Palestinians

Why is it perfectly legitimate for the Israelis to treat Arafat as a terrorist, while Ariel Sharon bullies him around?

About arms sales, when the Israelis get hundreds of tons of weapons, if the Palestinians so much as get themselves a gun to defend themselves, there is International Condemnation, Israeli incursion and rocket attacks. IS THIS NOT UNFAIR

In the light of recent events, as I remenbered this small point you've made in this big discussion, I just wanted to say one thing, man...

Looks like history have prooved you right.

Regards .

 

[bigfatron]

I find the comparison of Northern Ireland and the Middle East an interesting one. Sure, the scale is different, but the fundamental components appear to be similar.

First, why the attack on the WTC?
well, the IRA believed for many years that if they caused enough carnage in London, the British would stop supporting their 'clients', the Protestant majority in NI, and give in. Moreover, attacks in London caused massive economic damage and generated headlines around the workld, which attachs in Belfast did not. Finally they wanted to visit some of the pain on Britain that they felt Britain was allowing to be visited on them.

I would imagine the 'logic' of the Al Quaeda was very similar - cause headlines, inflict pain on the American people ('show them what it felt like') ad drive the US to disengage from supporting Israel.

The parallel seems close enough to me.

Before we get too adamant that an act of terrorism is self-evidently 'insane' it's worth remembering that a known terrorist (Menachem Begin) went on to be PM of Israel and welcome in the White House, as well as a past senior politicians in the Republic of Ireland and a number of senior politicians now in government in Northern Ireland. Clearly terrorism can and does achieve goals on occasions, amongst them an independent Israel and an independent Ireland, neither of which would be seen now as a bad thing by most.
Then, consider the position in N Ireland in the 1960's when the 'Troubles' began:
- the province had devolved government which permitted the Catholic minority some form of participation but skewed opportunity and influence strongly toward the Protestant majority.
- civil rights demonstrations began and were rapidly hijacked by extremists on both sides,
- there was disproportionate use of miltary force, dirty wars and deliberate targetting of non-combatant civilians on both sides, and considerable involement in fraud, drug running and prostitution amongst the supposedly 'pure' liberation and counter-liberation movements.
- substantial elements of the minority group's representatives (the IRA) and their backers (the Irish republic) were explicitly committed to the destruction of the status quo and forcible integration into the neighbouring country, which had a different culture and political structure (the Irish republic has the most 'theological' Catholic constitution in Europe)
- moderate voices existed on both sides but had difficulty making themselves heard and could not restrain the hardliners
- the minority group had the support of a substantial international diaspora.
- the majority group felt under siege and threatened;
- the majority group have a substantial internal minority that are religiously motivated and resist any form of compromise on almost theological grounds (characterising the Pope as the anti-christ, for example)

Sound familiar?

the priniciple difference up until now is that the perceived 'sponsor' of the majority position, in this case the UK Government, was an active participant that suffered considerable pain as a result of the actions of the minority's militants (the IRA) whereas in the Middle East the sponsor of the strongest party (the US as sponsors of the Israelis) had not suffered similar pain until September 11.

The initial reaction from the US Government has been similar to that from the Conservative administration in the UK, that is sanctioning a backlash that affected all Catholics (substitute here Palestinians), culminating in the disaster that was Bloody Sunday.

The effect was to create a generation of members of the minority community with no trust in the possibility of a fair settlement through negotiation, and led to more, not less, atrocities on both sides.

It took twenty years for us in the UK to realise the folly of this approach, to consider the genuine grievances on the minority side, to take on the vested interests of the majority. It has been a long and painful process.

There remain people committed to destroying the NI Peace Accord on both sides of the religious divide, from the Real IRA who killed 29 civilians at Omagh, to the Protestant paramilitaries who assasinate random catholics simply for their religion. The situation is imperfect. yet it is better than it was, and for that we should be grateful.

In NI an agreement was reached that has been close to collapse on many occasions, yet enough key people on both sides have been genuinely committed to its success that it has survived the blackest moments.

In the Middle East, it seems to me, there is one significant difference and a huge obstacle in the strength of the religious right in Israel and the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. He and they do not appear to want peace except on their terms. Sharon has regularly denounced Oslo (an agreement that is a signed treaty that has been reneged upon, not exclusively but principally by Israel). The religious right believe in their fundamental right and duty to live on the West Bank, regardless of the well-being of those who already live there.

The issue of settlements has been key and fatal to the peace process in the Middle East - as a result of it there is no commitment from Israel, as a nation, to a workable peace. In Northern Ireland terms we are back to 1970, when the Catholic minority wanted a fair deal on housing and jobs which the Protestants simply refused to allow. As a result of this absolute denial, frustration mounted and moved into protest, then riot and finally terrorism.

The lessons of Northern Ireland I guess are as follows:
- violence begets violence
- terrorism breeds on lack of hope, immensely fertile ground today in the West Bank and Gaza
- there is always a reason behind an act of terrorism; it might make absolutely no sense from our frame of reference, but nevertheless there will be a reason that appears valid within the terrorists' frame of reference
- the desire not to 'reward' terror conflicts powerfully with the absolute need to examine the drivers of conflict and address legitimate greivances. Despite the anguish that this will generate, these grievances must be addressed in order to make progress. Failure to do so is a form of collective punishment which is both wrong and self-defeating.
- the only party in this conflict powerful enough to engender change was the US. Sadly in not forcing Israel to honour its commitments under Oslo the chance has been missed, probably for a generation. That is not at all the fault of the American people, but is the responsibility of the American political establishment, who have treated Middle Eastern politics as some kind of bath that can be dipped in and out of at will.

None of this excuses what happened to the WTC - it was a dreadful and terrible act.

In the end the only solution is to talk to the acknowledged representatives of each side and try to reach a compromise. Both sides must give and take, and both sides must accept that extremists on either side will try with all their might to break the process. They must be big enough to stand firm AGAINST their own sides' agitators.

If you think I start from a point of anti-American or anti-Israeli bias, please consider: I speak as someone who lost a friend on 9/11. I also speak as someone who survived two very near-misses from IRA bombs in London in the 1980's. It took me a while to work this out, to stop being angry.

Sadly I cannot see any progress on this - Israel's abrogation of Oslo leaves Arafat compromised, castrated and unable to control his own extremists, the upper hand has been given to those palestinians who said that theonly solution is violence - they have been 'proved' right. In turn this means that there is and will be no willingness in Israel to compromise. Neither Arafat or Sharon are capable of going that extra mile, and I doubt Sharon was ever interested in doing so.

So I see no solution, only more violence, until a new generation of leaders emerge on both sides that are interested in peace. It appears that lessons from NI cannot be transferred, only re-learned the hard way.

Cheers to all lovers of peace in a dark world
BFR

Oh, just one other thought: when the IRA were being funded by Americans in the 70's, should the UK government have bombed Boston? And, if not, why not?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

In answer to the last quip, because they knew which side their bread was buttered, and because NORAID was not a state institution.
There were significant US law enforcement operations against PIRA men trying to buy weapons in CONUS, including Stingers and Redeyes.

 

[Sodak]

- the desire not to 'reward' terror conflicts powerfully with the absolute need to examine the drivers of conflict and address legitimate greivances. Despite the anguish that this will generate, these grievances must be addressed in order to make progress. Failure to do so is a form of collective punishment which is both wrong and self-defeating.

An excellent post, bigfatron. In particular, this passage sums up well one of the major stumbling blocks in resolving conflict. Not just international terrorism, but right down to that which occurs between individuals. It involves acknowledging the grievances of the other party - with the possibility of accepting responsibilty for contributing to them. This is where most gov'ts (or any other party) fall short.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by fredlc


In the light of recent events, as I remenbered this small point you've made in this big discussion, I just wanted to say one thing, man...

Looks like history have prooved you right.

Regards .

Always my fav subject at school, even if the teacher was rotten

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by fredlc


In the light of recent events, as I remenbered this small point you've made in this big discussion, I just wanted to say one thing, man...

Looks like history have prooved you right.

Regards .

Uh huh. This is the same "fair" that sees the UN used to sponsor anti-Israeli resolutions? (Btw, the EU should be ashamed of itself).

Seems it's not the killing that really bothered everyone. It's just that the Israelis were better at it than the Palestinians that really pissed everyone off.

/bruce

 

[FredLC]

Please elaborate... i'm not quite following you...

 

[Evie]

Have you been sleepign since 9/11 Dingbat? World condemnation of terrorism has been very strong.

There was no need to let them know we don't approve. I think everyone already got the point with no serious effect on how much attack there are weakly.

Israel, on the other hand, was in need of some serious international condemnation for ITS part in the mess. (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Israeli have done worse than the palestinians. They're both equally wrong as far as I'm concerned).

One must not fall in the mistake of blindly associating what the Israeli are doing with the Afghanistan strikes, which is what the Israeli government want us to do (then again the palestinians want us to see them as the FLN (Algeria), or random other colonial liberation heroic movements, etc.

The Afghanistan strikes were aimed at a government which has between this : 0 and this : nil popular support, and a specific terrorist group whose popularity's was in the same range. They were fought by forces who had not been illegitimately and despite repeated UN calls to withdraw occupying the territories in which the strike took place since 1967. The Afghan strikes did not involve turning refugees camp in "Ground Zero, Middle East edition" (A canadian newsreporters who managed to actually get a look described Genin as just that). Rubbles of house with the objects that were within everywhere, with someone a random human piece poking out. Some walls sometime left standing - never a complete house.

But then, the FLN, or Vietcong (the anti-france one), or whatever, only involved local rebellion to free illegitimately occupied territory from french occupation. It didn't threaten france in its whole existence, unlike the recent terrorist attacks.

In both case, there's a difference, and its major. (I will now note that both sides are accusing the other of using civilians as human shields. PErsonally, I believe none and both - that is, I don'T completely believe either and I don't completley disbelieve either. The Israeli claims it was necessary to save their soldiers and that only a few dozens palestinians died, the Palestinians of course have a different version about unnecessary slaughters. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle, of course.)

 

[redtom]

Can I say just how disgraced I am with my left wing brothers being pacifists during the current anti-terrorism conflicts.

Lefty's tend to have a stupid sense of idolising the West's enemies no matter how brutal, sick and twisted they are, Stalin, Saddam, Bin Ladin etc. This is not to say that the right wingers are any more right, Saddam (initially), Sharon(don't give me your Zionist lies about he never hurt a thing), Hitler,.

Back to my original point, why do left wingers support such undemocratic and murderous ****s whilst lamenting there democratic governments at home.

Why don't left wingers support the war against terrorism?

PS. Don't mention how stupid Dubya is!

PSS. Or Sharon!

 

[Evie]

Ah, your pardon, but I fully support the war against *TERRORISM* of the *UNITED STATES*. What I was doing above was just that : Differenciating the attacks on the Talibans and Al Qaeda from the anti-Palestinian campaign of Israel.

1-I do not support Saddam. I do support actions aiming to remove him and his friends for power. I do not however support the overlong continuation of the embargo, which was maintained even when it was clearly hurting civilians and doing no good.

2-As for Iran, I'm reserving judgement where it comes to them. They seem to be slowly improving, though perhaps too slowly.

3-Arafat, like Sharon, needs to go. The old falcons have long since outlived their political usefulness. If they ever had one, which I personally doubt.

4-The arab world, as a whole, need to change and adapt to the modern world. However, they are afraid of westernization. One is tempted to suggest that they look at Japan, which is without challenge a pretty modern state while maintaining a reasonable level of specificity - Japan is not the West, far from it.

5-The Islamic leaders need to state once and for all that killing for the faith is NOT acceptable and does NOT lead to heaven.

On the other hand, what the Israeli are currently doing has gone far beyond the scope of a war against terrorism and into the realm of answering terrorism with terrorism. Which I will not support.

And I do not like Bush, but over his other policies (READ : we-are-the-world-ism, which is damn annoying), not the war against terrorism.

I do not like either american F-16 dropping bombs on canadians soldiers, but that wan't a willing attack on Canada.

And as a closing note to Dingbat, the US of A should be ashamed of their statement that they would veto any attempt to send an international investigation team to Genin by the UN. The light NEED to be shed on this, and neithe rside can be trusted with sheding it for us.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by redtom
Can I say just how disgraced I am with my left wing brothers being pacifists during the current anti-terrorism conflicts.

Lefty's tend to have a stupid sense of idolising the West's enemies no matter how brutal, sick and twisted they are, Stalin, Saddam, Bin Ladin etc. This is not to say that the right wingers are any more right, Saddam (initially), Sharon(don't give me your Zionist lies about he never hurt a thing), Hitler,.

Back to my original point, why do left wingers support such undemocratic and murderous ****s whilst lamenting there democratic governments at home.

Why don't left wingers support the war against terrorism?

I am very much at the left side of the political circle, and I have no opposition to battling terrorism. Killing al-qaida fighters is not problematic, in my opinion.

I doubt many leftists support undemocratic and murderous ****s - what they maybe oppose is US involvement in bringing them down. As for grumbling about their own lands, it is simply a matter of wanting to improve the system in which they live. They are very likely proud to be american, to be able to enjoy the standard of living and freedoms. Their own democratic gov't may be great, but it is not perfect. Striving to continuously improve it is nothing less wanting the best for this country, and for all in it.

Are you on a university campus, or among other uninformed youth? Who ever supported Hussein, Hitler or Stalin? Or bin-Laden, for that matter? Maybe some apologist pacifist who is just the left's equivalent to the Limbaugh dittoheads, but it's not fair to brand all leftists with that idiocy. If their main concern is the price of pot, you can't take them very seriously in their political rants. I get the feeling you refer to a small subset of left thinking people...

Why I think many on the left oppose the Cheney administration's war on terrorism is that it has quickly opened the doors for ultra conservatives to try to limit freedom and liberty at home. Why should people not oppose that? Limiting freedom for supposed safety is something many leftists refuse to give. Why many conservatives are so quick to claim patriotism while wanting to limit liberty is more puzzling to me. Also, according to some, it mixes both the publically stated mission and political goals. Nobody is pointing out that Bush had earlier promised to reduce US involvement overseas. Even naysayers accept that action had to be taken. How it is being taken is what is argued.

Besides, you just can't ignore that Bush is a dork.

 

[FredLC]

Hey, Sodak, i don't have tendencies neither to the left nor to the right wing. I like to think that i mingle in the middle.

Nonetheless, i'll pair with you on that last post.

See, when the september 11 first happened, one of the 1th readings i've done on the matter addressed the shrinkage of the arabic world in those last centuries.

Altough i don't have it at my hands to make a proper translation, the main point basically was:

In the past, while the christian world was closed in feuds, it was a poor, undeveloped land. The open Arab World, on the other hand, was the pearl of the east.

After the crusades, altough the Arabic World have won, a feeling of separation and untrust was born within them, and they preety much closed themselves. At the same time, the Christian world opened up.

Results? Places were switched, and now it's the Christian world that is developed.

So, any "patriotism", or fake patriotism that tries to justify the closing of borders and the taking away of freedom (be it of foreigns or of it's own citzens) is plain ignorance, and probably the fastest shortcut to repeat the mistakes of the past.

If the 20th century prooved anything, it is that freedom brings prosperity, while exclusions and privations leads to poverty and undevelopment.

By the way, Mr. Right-wing sir, it seens to me that left-wing people with pacifist tendencies are not defending undemocratic governments, but just saying that opening fire against those governments is hardly the best way to make them become democratic.

Personally, i doubt that the leaders there will have an epifany under a bullets salvo. And that kind of behavior just encourage more and more neurotic suicide bombers to support the tirannical leaders.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that you are mistaking the criticism of that approach for an idiotic support to those governments. Well, there's a BIG difference.

Regards .