Root Cause of the Mid-East Crisis is...

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Your right that terrorism in and of itself is not the core problem. A more accurate statement would be that terrorism is the visible consequence of an irrational and dangerous belief system. Terrorism is the direct cause of many problems in the middle east, the belief system is the proximate cause. That is, it is because of certain beleifs that hezbollah and hamas etc exist and their existence and actions are the direct cause of continued violence.

Extra note: People have tried to convince me that it is poverty, oppression etc which causes terrorism and therefore those who are the oppressors, in the current situation they would say Israel, are to blame. If this is true then show me a Tibetan terrorist. Explain why Ghandi or MLK were not terrorists. There is a difference between an armed uprising brought on by oppression, real or perceived, such as the USA revolution which was delcared all nice and formal like, and the middle eastern terrorists who DELIBERATLY target civilians to make a point. Also remeber that Osama bin Laden is a rich man who has not been oppressed by anyone; his problems are purely religious.

Cliff notes version:

Religion=irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs=irrational actions. Irrational actions (suicide bombing, terrorism)=pissed off victims. Pissed off victims=retaliation. Rinse and repeat last step indefinetly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrorism is not a consequence of a belief system. At least not if you are implying that it is a consequence of the religion in the region.

Terrorism has been used by Christians (Ireland, is a recent example), the Tamil Tigers (I think they are Hindu) in Sri Lanka, the ANC(used some terrorist tactics, like blowing up clubs), the Jews (the Irgun, etc), all of these were used to achieve a political goal. Most of the time the goal has been to free themselves of a political oppression.

Getting away from the emotive response to the impact of terrorism (the smashed discos, the mangled bodies etc) and concentrating on the emotionals state of the people (the population and not just the individual) committing the acts provides clues to the answer to the root causes.

[Chris Alger]

I don't dispute that Hizbollah wishes to destroy Israel. I deny that this equates with genocide. If it does, then explain why Israel's position of no Palestinian state doesn't similarly equate with an intention to exterminate Palestinians.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are too many factors, many overlapping and interrelated, to isolate a "root cause" of Israel's and Hizbollah's mutal terrorist campaigns. However, if we look for factors that rank high on the list of most obvious and most ignored, we must conclude that Israel's U.S.-backed determination to retain colonies in the occupied territories -- in stark contrast to the Arab and world consensus of making peace with Israel if it withdraws -- stands out as the most significant.

Almost any mainstream discussion that focuses on the word "terrorism" is almost by definition absurd. Terrorism means using violence against civilians (or defenseless innocents) to create fear that in turn might achieve political or other social goals. By this definition, both the U.S. and Israel are states with an extensive and unapologetic history of terrorism, the former having targeted and killed millions of civilians to further its aims.

To weasel out of this historical fact, terrorism is usually defined so that it excludes these states and allow them to retain terrorism as a military option. One defintion limits terrorism to irregular or guerilla forces (and hope that no one looks up the history of U.S.-backed irregualr terrorists in the Carribean and Latin America). Another is to contrast "war" with "terrorism," so that civilians targeted and killed by regular military forces can be shrugged off as "collateral" damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words: "I hate america! I'll apologize for anyone who isn't america, no matter what they do, because america has done things I don't like in the past. This means that anyone is excused for any atrocity they commit because after all america has done indecent things. Americans have no right to object to immoral acts because their govt has at some point in the past committed immoral acts."

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder, did you blush while typing this?

I mean, is this "your country, right or wrong?"

Should Chris Alger "love it or leave it?"

If we don't go shopping will "the terrorists win?"

And do they "hate us for our freedom?"

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"Israel kills civilians as collateral damage while hunting for those who attacked them."

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could begin by explaining how shelling all main roads, shelling airports and seaports, and shelling fuel supply depots and civilian factories constitutes "hunting for those who attacked" Israel.

[ QUOTE ]
"You are forgetting the important modifier of violence. INTENTIONAL. Based on your sentence above, all war would be terrorism as it has violence, civilians die, people become afraid, and political ends are achived."

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not forgetting it at all and would actually go further: intentionality is everything. Where I think I differ with you is that I would look first to the traditional rules of intentionality that define murder. You would consider only part of them.

You seem to emphasize the targeting of a specific person or persons, as when a spouse is killed for the insurance money, or when someone steps into a bus intending to kill everyone on board. Obviously murder; we agree. But the common law defintion of murder -- and I mean first degree murder, nothing less -- includes both deliberate and intentional killing and reckless killing with extreme disregard for human life. It is no defense to the arsonist who burns down a building that although he knew people were there and would probably be killed, he had no particular desire that any of them die, that the deaths he caused were mere "collateral damage." (Nor is it any defense, as some on this forum have suggested, that the killer's ability to murder even more people had he put his mind to it suggests a lack of culpability).

Similarly, if Israel randomly shells a refugee camp or suburb in the vague hope of hitting terrorists but actually kills a lot of civilians, I would call that a war crime more than a legitimate military action. Remember that these aren't errant shells or accidental bombings but the deliberate and premediated use of lethal force against civilian centers when those doing the bombing either realize or recklessly disregard the fact that many civilians will die.

Another area I think we disagree about is the need to consider all the evidence. You seem satisfied with the statements of Israeli officials. I would demand concrete evidence that the particular targets were necessary to accomplish particular and legitimate objectives. I would consider the number of civilians killed and their location with regard to military targets. I think we can agree -- perhaps not -- that when Israel bombs numerous targets with no discernable connection with Hizbollah and when 90% of the people it kills are civilians, that Israel has a lot of explaining to do, in the absence of which it should be censured. Without more, I'd shrug off professions of "collateral damage" as the expected and invariable downplaying of tragedy that convey no real information. The tendency in the U.S., however, is the opposite: whenever Israel makes professions of trying to avoid civilian deaths, we shrug off the loss of civilian life (often while condemning Arabic culture for insufficient respect for it).

Another factor I would consider is the exploitation of civilian deaths by the dealer of so-called "collateral damage." Assume, for example, that as a general rule Israel has no more right to terrorize Lebanese merely to pressure the Lebanese government than Hizbollah has to terrorize Israelis to pressure the Israeli government. But let's say that in the course of attacking military targets Israel kills so many civilians that the Lebanese government decides to accede to Israeli demands. Does Israeli get a freebe here, so that its military actions are scarecly worse than those against military targets with no exploitable, yet "collateral," terror? I don't think so and would consider the likelihood of collateral terror an element in judging the morality of the action.

What do you think?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I sympathize with Hizbollah because America bombed Dresden and Combodia?? If not then what is your point?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that no one in the history of the world has ever said or implied that Americans should sympathize with Hizbollah because of Dresden, Cambodia or any other U.S. atrocity.

My point was clear. Try again.

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
They are mutual terror campaigns because they both target civilians to create fear that in turn might further poltical aims. And I don't see what you mean by "bad press for Israel." The handful of pundits and U.S. leaders who have denounced Israel's targeting of civilians have been swamped by those praising it, especially on TV. Israeli terrorism can't even be called what it is; we are limited to the "disproportionate force" euphemism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this might be true in the US the same certanly doesn't apply in europe. Here many newspapers and some poiticians have come flat out and called the attack on Lebanon either "state terrorism" and/or a breach of international law.

Also my gut feeling is that most western europeans would be either positive or indiffrent to the EU imposing economic sanctions (or other similiar methods) against Israel right now. Sympaties in europe for Israel has definitly been severly hurt by their attack on Lebanon.

Many consider this a mostly unprovoked attack or even war on a soverign and for all intents and purposes defenseless state and as such a blatant breach of international law. Personaly I don't think most americans understand how important the concept of international law is to many people in europe and how important it is to safeguard that concept.

/Bjorn