A short quiz

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 76

A short quiz

Author:

legolas

Topic:

Racism

Posted:

Oct 21, 2001

Comments:

Two assassinations. Two important politicial leaders. Two different sides of a long standing conflict. Two different American responses. Please use only a #2 pencil, and be sure to answer all questions. You have 20 minutes. You may begin.

More stories about Racism

	Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
	Good Golly
	Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
	An instance of Western cultural chauvinism
	Open Source? More Like Openly Racist
	Boom City, USA

Compare and Contrast...

Wednesday, 17 October, 2001
Mid-East awaits Israeli response to killing
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has blamed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for the assassination of far-right cabinet minister Rehavam Zeevi, who was killed on Wednesday.

Zeevi, a 75-year-old former general, was the head of the right-wing National Union Party and resigned from the government on Monday in protest at Israel's military pull-out from Hebron.
He was shot in a Jerusalem hotel on the day that his resignation from cabinet was due to come into effect.

Aides to Mr Arafat have denied responsibility for the killing and say the Palestinian leader has ordered the arrest of the people who carried it out.

US President George W Bush has condemned the killing "in the strongest terms", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

"This despicable act is further evidence of the need to fight terrorism," Mr Fleischer said in a statement released during a stop in California as Mr Bush headed to China for a summit.

--------------------------------------------------
Monday, 27 August, 2001
Israel kills key Palestinian leader
The leader of the radical Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has been killed in an Israeli attack.

Palestinian sources say Abu Ali Mustafa died when at least two missiles struck his office in the West Bank town of Ramallah, not far from the offices of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Israeli military forces confirmed that they had carried out the attack, saying the missiles were fired by a helicopter gunship.

A US State Department official, referring to past American criticism of what it calls "targeted killings" by Israel, said: "Our views on such attacks are well-known."

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Washington's failure to intervene was "dangerous for the region, for our interests and even for the Israeli people".

--------------------------------------------------
Now, write a 1000 word essay on why any Islamic millitant group could possibly hate the United States of America.

	No. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by elenchos on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:43:14 PM PST

	I don't have much interest in writing an essay for you. I'd much rather read what you have to say on all this. Are you saying we got what we deserved because ____________________? Or what? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	That's pretty inconsiderate of you. (none / 0) (#6)
	by legolas on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:18:41 PM PST

	I posted this story because I wanted to stimulate constructive conversation about the possible consequences of United States foreign policy. Part of what makes Western society great is that it is founded on the concept of Democracy, that input by everybody will truly find the right course. By refusing to contribute and mearly taking, you are taking the dangerous path towards a society based on the masses accepting a single predetermined ideology, the likes which were seen in the former USSR and George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four". What right do you have attack the very fabric which makes up our great society? --legolas

	I see. (none / 0) (#7)
	by elenchos on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:23:10 PM PST

	So how do you think I should approach answering your questions? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	With... (none / 0) (#9)
	by legolas on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:28:01 PM PST

	a fork. --legolas

	Woah! Slow Down There! (none / 0) (#11)
	by egg troll on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:32:55 PM PST

	Sounds like someone is cutting-and-pasting from the Howard Zinn reader. Can you explain, in your own words, there, Noam, how exactly the previous poster was attack[ing] the very fabric which makes up our great society? Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	Howard Zinn? (none / 0) (#13)
	by legolas on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:42:12 PM PST

	I don't exactly know who Howard Zinn is, so i'm pretty sure i didn't copy and paste from him. I don't know who Norm is either. I don't know what causes you to make these baseless allegations, so would you care to enlighten me? And, my argument stands. By destroying the conversational nature of this article in favour of one predetermined view, he is rejecting the basic premises of Democracy, insomuch as everybody has an input, instead of being mindless CommieBots. --legolas

	Howard and Noam (none / 0) (#14)
	by egg troll on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:56:14 PM PST

	I think that you would really enjoy Howard Zinn's works. And you would definately enjoy Noam Chomsky. They're both very articulate and intelligent men, who I used to agree with when I was younger. I believe they city of Berkely had virtually deified them both. Check it out. Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	And then... (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 12:35:19 PM PST

	They're both very articulate and intelligent men, who I used to agree with when I was younger. So, what happened there sport? You just became a hopeless cynic like the rest of us? Isn't it true that you still 'agree' with them, but that you consider them impotent and ineffectual now, and believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket no matter what the pathetic little left does? That kind of nihilistic perspective I can understand, even if it does so often come wrapped up in a snide, holier-than-thou attitude. But if you're saying that you no longer agree with the left's conclusions re: US foreign policy anymore, I find that hard to fathom. Not that it's without its precedents...

	Nope (none / 0) (#26)
	by egg troll on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 12:55:17 PM PST

	I no longer share the same viewpoints with them that I once did. I'm no more cynical now than I was before. I just think that both Chomsky and Zinn would like to live in an ideal world, and thats not possible. To put it briefly, I used to be idealistic. Now I'm much more pragmatic. I'd rather have half a loaf than none at all, and I don't think any thing can live up to the impossible expectations of Chomsky and his followers. Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	What's your point? (none / 0) (#5)
	by egg troll on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:16:35 PM PST

	You've gone 90% of the way to making a statement. Don't quit at the end and expect us to finish it for you. As far as I'm concerned, both of these clowns deserved to die for their habits of throwing gasoline onto fires. I say we call it even and everyone live happily ever after. Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	Bingo. (none / 0) (#8)
	by legolas on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:26:04 PM PST

	I say we call it even and everyone live happily ever after. You found my point exactly. (And you said that you weren't going to finish it for me. HA!) --legolas

	Oh you clever monkey! (none / 0) (#10)
	by egg troll on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:31:33 PM PST

	Oh you are the ape who stood before the monolith, aren't you? Tricked me, just like Superman used to get Mxelplix to say his name backwards and be returned to his own dimension. Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	What can I say? (none / 0) (#12)
	by legolas on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:33:13 PM PST

	It ain't easy being green. --legolas

	The Record Set Straight. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:00:54 AM PST

	Greetings from the heart of the military-industrial complex. We have been monitoring this, the most controverisal site on the web, for some time now, and I must say that what I've seen here does indeed confirm that Adequacy.org is a serious threat to our sinister plans. You people will richly deserve the relentless campaign of DoS attacks we will soon be launching against your site from massive sever complexes in secret locations around the world. Before we put a stop once and for all to your dissemination of dangerous ideas, I feel it would be unsporting of me not to indulge you a little Bond-Villain type explanation of our nefarious plot for global domination. First, as I'm sure you are all well aware, we control the government of the United States, and are thus responsible for the State Department's decision to softball the Israei assassination while condemning the Palesinian hit. It should be no problem for your nimble minds to reach the obvious conclusion that we support Israel because they make use of our jets, helicopters, missles, and other equipment in their political killing. The Palestinians, by contrast, resort to shootings, suicide bombing, and rock-throwing, none of which are going to help me make payments on my Lexus. Furthermore, the impersonal manner of the Israeli assassinations help desensitize their citizens to the messy consequences of violence. This helps prolong the fighting, which in turn leads to the need for them to to purchase more of our products. Contrast this with the murderous ten-year war between Iraq and Iran, one of the high points of the '80's as far as we're concerned, in which the United States, selling weponry to both sides, remained merrily neutral as the golden youths of those ancient enemies, Babylon and Persia, slaughtered one another at a truly impressive rate. I won't bore you with the little details of our efforts, how we fund weepy Holocaust movies line Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful to keep the "Jews as victims" theme fresh in the public consciousness, or how, when someone like director Oliver Stone gets a little too close to exposing our past activites (cough JFK cough), we slowly sneak trace amounts of mercury into his daily coffee until the man is such a gibbering loonburger that no one takes him seriously. None of that. It's time to wrap it up. Now is the time where you, the brave souls behind Adequacy.org ask, with Bond-like defiance: "Do you expect us to applaud?" And I get to answer: "No, I expect you to find your site replaced with "Server Not Found" messages on thousands of browsers around the world!!! Well... that certainly was an inelegant comeback, wasn't it? Oh well: Muhahahahahahahahahaaa!

	A Simple Difference: (none / 0) (#16)
	by moriveth on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:17:18 AM PST

	Israel is killing terrorists, while the Palestenian assassins are murdering cabinet ministers. While Rehavam Zeevi might have adopted a strident tone at times, his words were not slaughtering Palestenian women and children. The US's condemnations of Israel are the height of hypocrisy, when the US is itself targeting bin Laden for assassination. And the Arab world's condemnations are laughable, more evidence of the moral bankruptcy of modern Islam. Do they truly think that murderers deserve to get away with their crimes? Abu Ali Mustafa was not murdered--he was executed. However just Israel's measures might be, I cannot not support them as a simple matter of tactics. There is no doubt that Israel's assassinations can never put an end to Islamic terrorists who seek nothing other than their own ends--nor, I think, is the elimination of terrorism the Israeli government's goal. In this sense, the relationship between the terrorists and the Israeli army is symbiotic: the Palestenian suicide bombers give the Israeli right wing a reason to exist, while the Israelis reward the terrorists with glorious death in jihad. A positive feedback loop with happy results for both parties--albeit not for the US.

	Double standards (none / 0) (#17)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 05:25:43 AM PST

	Israel is killing terrorists, while the Palestenian assassins are murdering cabinet ministers. As much as it pains me to do so, I think I'm going to have to take issue with this one. According to the information reported by Legolas (it's too late in the evening for me to actually confirm it for myself; I'm not arguing that point anyway) the Palestinians shot a cabinet member who was taking himself out of the picture, and the Israelis retaliated with a gunship attack. Hm. I'm normally biased toward Israel (my interpretation of history is that the Hebrews tend to get picked on by their neighbors), but gunship diplomacy doesn't sit well with me, no matter who does it. The Palestinians were certainly in the wrong for assassinating an Israeli, no matter who he was. The Israelis then aggravated the situation by taking arbitrary retribution for the act, not even bothering to ask if the guilty parties were in the building they targeted. In my mind, that makes this an issue of mutual terrorism. They're both wrong. Your Mileage May Vary. A troll's true colors.

	Hypocracy in Action! (none / 0) (#18)
	by tkatchev on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 08:07:15 AM PST

	People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Unless you are willing to take a stand against the totalitarian hypocratic government of the U.S.? Do you have the balls? -- Peace and much love...

	Face it. (0.00 / 1) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:30:27 AM PST

	The USSR *LOST* the cold war. GET OVER IT.

	"totalitarianism" (none / 0) (#21)
	by nathan on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:56:27 AM PST

	You have made this allegation several times, but only backed it up in the most gnomic, cryptic way. Here you seem to state that the USA is a 'totalitarian society,' without a totalitarian government per se; here you state that it's a 'totalitarian empire,' which is a little confusing to me, because the word totalitarianism refers to the internal organization of the state rather than its behaviour abroad, which is the normal connotation of empire.[1] Here you state that it's liberalism that is the destructive totalitarian ideology rather than anything specific to the U.S.A. Do you mean to tell me that the U.S.A. is a society dominated by totalitarian liberalism? I'm afriad I don't follow, but I'm always interested in unravelling knots. Please respond. Nathan [1] See Webster's Revised Unabridged, def. 2. ------------------------------------------------ -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I know you're probably trolling... (none / 0) (#22)
	by tkatchev on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 12:13:55 PM PST

	...but I'll bite. I'll present my ideas in an easily-digestible list form: The U.S. is a country that has a totalitarian society. (Stemming from its roots in "Christian" fundamentalism -- the puritans and the mormons.) The U.S. has a government that exports strong-arm liberalist totalitarianism to other countries of the world. "Totalitarian" means a social structure that stifles dissent and tries to control what each person thinks. An oppressive government structure is "authoritarian". There is a difference. In that respect, the U.S. is totalitarian, but not authoritarian. Any more questions? -- Peace and much love...

	Yes, I have a question ... (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 12:54:38 PM PST

	What planet are you from? First, maybe you need to learn what the word "totalitarian" really means: absolute, centralized control. It is near synonym of authoritarian and despotic. Second, your complaint that the U.S. government "stifles dissent and tries to control what people think" is completely and utterly ridiculous. CNN is not the only information source out there. You have the freedom to read and even publish almost anything you wish. You are able to read information from other countries, which is not and cannot be under local government control. The U.S. has its problems, and American power structures have its criminals, but by asserting that America is of all things a totalitarian state you demonstrate what a moron you are. Ili, vi nedostatochno vremeni proveli v bivshem Sovietskom Soiuze, shtob' znat chto takoye nastoyaschiy TOTALITARIANISM?!

	La-la land. (none / 0) (#31)
	by tkatchev on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 10:16:35 PM PST

	You say that "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" are the same thing. Then why do we have two different words? Answer: because it's two different concepts. "Authoritarian" comes from the word "authority". "Totalitarian" comes from the word "total control". Do you see the difference here? To be in "total control" you don't need storm troopers and death squads. In fact, if you want to be in total control, you need to get rid of coercive methods as quickly as possible, because the plebs tend to get angry if you push them around too much. There is a difference between a totalitarian and a conformist society; it is a difference of "you're different; I don't like you" and "you're different; fuck off and die". P.S. Actually, I spent enough time in the xUSSR to know totalitarianism when I see it. Trust me, the U.S. is a totalitarian society. -- Peace and much love...

	There is a difference (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:37:55 PM PST

	The U.S. government exercises a much higher degree of control than I'd like, but it is not totalitarian (for the time being). You have the option of not listening to government propaganda, of disagreeing with it, and even vehemently and publically opposing it. If you don't like what the government and CNN say, you can publish your own newspaper, hold protests, whatever. You do not have to worry about the KGB coming in the middle of the night and whisking you away to a gulag for dissent. That's totalitarianism. We may have our bullshit Republicrat two-party system, and we might have our CNN, a few Federal-level police agencies, and much more nasty things. But we are a world away from totalitarianism. The other extreme is anarchy; you don't want one or the other, you want a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle. What we have right now is more towards the former than I'd like, but to call it totalitarianism is absolutely ridiculous and borderline offensive. In any case, this is getting off-topic and obscure. If you want to continue this discussion in more depth, feel free to e-mail me at nd@infidels.org. -Nathan

	Sigh. (none / 0) (#35)
	by tkatchev on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 01:30:54 PM PST

	Again, the U.S. is a totalitarian society, not totalitarian government. Second, in the xUSSR nobody was taken in the middle of the night by the KGB. At least not since Stalin's death. Yes, indeed, in the xUSSR you could voice your protest. However, you could forget about getting a proper job or getting your thoughts out to an audience, if you tried it. There was no physical coercion in the xUSSR[1]. Though some especially persistent dissidents were put in mental homes. (All strictly legal, with independent medical opinions, etc. Besides, some of them were indeed truly insane.) You need to realize that totalitarianism is always a strictly psychologal sort of coercement. The point of a totalitarian society is to replace reality with a gotesque calque that would prevent the citizens from noticing how fucked up they really are. Remember "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength"? This is strictly psychological coercement. Remember how the book ended? (If not, read it again.) That is what totalitarianism is all about. The last few paragraphs is really the point of the book. [1] Again, after Stalin's death. Though even during Stalin's death, the executions and emprisonments were mostly random. Most of the hard-line Marxist Communists were repressed by Stalin, regardless of their political opinions. (Some of these people supported the government right to the end, right up to the moment when they were executed!) -- Peace and much love...

	coercion in '1984' (none / 0) (#40)
	by nathan on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 05:54:17 PM PST

	If the ol' memory serves, the psychological coercion was enforced and normalized by physical coercion (execution, torture.) Didn't they threaten to shove Smith's face in a cage full of rats before they broke him? Without the Ministry of Love to suppress dissent, the state's attempts to persuade would have been laughable and pathetic, instead of bone-chillingly credible. Are you seriously trying to say that there was no gulag?!? Do I have to reread Solzhenitsyn as well as Orwell? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Jesus H Christ on a Stick... (none / 0) (#42)
	by tkatchev on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:18:58 PM PST

	Goddamn, are you truly that stupid or just pretending? Read my message again. There was no gulag after Stalin's death. OK? O.b. 1984 -- if you remember, there wasn't really any physical torture. It's not like there were thugs that started beating him or anything; the worst they did was scare him with some rats. Big deal. No, the scary part was how everything they did was minutely and very precisely calculated to provide maximum psychological impact. That is what is so scary about 1984; not the oppressive government machine in the book, (which is really pretty tame compared to some we saw in real life, e.g. Nazi Germany) but the depth of psychological manipulation it showed. (If you remember, even the "dissident" movement in the book was equally totalitarian and evil. The book effectively shows that manipulation of the human psyche is boundless.) -- Peace and much love...

	Wrong. (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:47:01 AM PST

	Members of my family have had close aquaintances removed in the middle of the night silently by the KGB in the 1970s and 80s.

	They are lying. (none / 0) (#48)
	by tkatchev on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 12:05:39 AM PST

	They are simply lying. The American government used to pay hard cash ($$ in "refugee welfare" or somesuch) for such "testimony". Please don't try this bullshit on me, I live in Russia and I am an ethnic Russian. All you have is some friends of your relatives telling stories, who are also probably not even ethnic Russians. (Which I'm willing to be on, BTW.) -- Peace and much love...

	no gulag... (none / 0) (#45)
	by nathan on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 11:44:40 AM PST

	I'm certainly not so stupid as to take your word for it with no sources in defiance of what I've read. Frankly, you're a crank, and your blazingly offensive tone doesn't make you more credible. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Whatever. (none / 0) (#49)
	by tkatchev on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 12:07:11 AM PST

	OK. Keep up the goodthink, anybody who disagrees with the Man is probably a liar and a crank. Whatever. -- Peace and much love...

	goodthink? (none / 0) (#50)
	by nathan on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:41:09 AM PST

	You have yet to source anything. What 'Man' are you talking about, anyway? For the record, Solzhenitsyn didn't even get out of the camps until 1956. So much for 'nothing after Stalin.' And with five seconds of webwork, I found this line: "Forced labor [sic] camps continued to exist, although on a small scale, into the Gorbachev period." I never claimed that the Gulag remained on a Stalinist scale until 1991, but political imprisonment and forced labour did remain. The reason I call you a 'crank' is because you are aggressive, opinionated, obnoxious, rude, and uncivil, and you expect me to take your word over evidence. The last one is the real problem. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	you may also be a 'Nathan...' (none / 0) (#39)
	by nathan on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 05:50:28 PM PST

	but posting anonymously and signing your post in my style is irresponsible. Not that you even got it right, you ersatz Nathan. N -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Uhhh (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:41:28 AM PST

	Get off your megalomaniac pills; I simply signed my post with my real first name. Actually, it doesn't even look like yours since I used a hyphen. So fuck off and die.

	fine, but. (none / 0) (#46)
	by nathan on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 11:46:00 AM PST

	That's still a little irresponsible. Your FOAD reaction is crass. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I'll admit this was a little kuro5ive. (none / 0) (#27)
	by nathan on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:21:40 PM PST

	I wrote: I'm afraid I don't follow, but I'm always interested in unravelling knots. Please respond. Ok, I'm done doing that now. Sorry. That was a tad soapy. Your definition of "totalitarian" abuses a perfectly useful word by expanding its definition to no benefit. Your definition is therefore uselessly provocative because, by misapplying a loaded term, it incites to controversy those who (rightly) resist having their opinions slandered. Totalitarianism refers specifically to the state's controlling citizen's beliefs, and stifling all dissent, through the bureaucratic machinery of the modern industrial state. The word totalitarianism was coined to describe this specific idea. The word you want to use is "conformist." You can blather on all day about the USA being conformist. It probably is in some circles. Americans may have a tendency to conform at the expense of comprimising their principles (although this is a serious allegation.) Who cares? The point is that, in the USA, you can hold a dissenting viewpoint, and no-one comes to your house to kill you... at least, from the state. You might hate simpering-chimpthink, but it's a long road from there to totalitarianism in the USA. Calling the USA "totalitarian" just channels the debate away from more legitimate, less boneheadedly-contentious complaints against the very things that bother you about it. I specifically disavow the expected allegation that this is a minor, semantic point. It's the difference between Q'ing China and the USSR. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	As a matter of fact, (none / 0) (#28)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 05:27:44 PM PST

	Yes. Do I believe Israel or the US have no right to retaliate against attacks on their citizens and sovreignity? No. Such actions are part of the duties of government. What I believe is that any nation that comes under attack is ethically bound to verify the identity of their attackers and make sure their retaliation focuses on them, not on civilians. In both cases I believe that neither government has done an adequate job; I simply feel the Israelies are being more honest about it. The US has secret documentation verifying the guilt of bin Ladin with regard to the WTC attack. Why secret? In any US court of law, evidence to be used is to be presented from the beginning. It would have been better for the US to invite the UN or another neutral third party to lead an investigation to avoid the appearance of hasty retribution. Perhaps not politically expedient, but ethical. A troll's true colors.

	no (none / 0) (#23)
	by alprazolam on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 12:14:38 PM PST

	In my mind, that makes this an issue of mutual terrorism. I fail to comprehend how it can be considered terrorism. In neither case was the point to inspire terrorism in the hearts of Israeli or Palestinian citizens (Palestinians are used to missle attacks at this point). An assassination is not terrorism, it is an assassination. A political target, not a civilian target. However They're both wrong. I will agree with this statement. The problem is, neither the Israeli government, nor the opposition Palestinian forces (as opposed to Arafat's "government") has anything to lose by assassinating those it deems dangerous to it's cause. So it will continue.

	What is terrorism? (none / 0) (#29)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 05:53:58 PM PST

	Terrorism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Armed conflict is, by this definition, an act of terrorism. Do what I say, or die. Bombing cities or directing gunship attacks on an arbitrary target is certainly terrifying to the people in those targets. As for the assassination of the Israeli minister, how could it be anything but an act of terrorism when the man was going to step down from his office the day he was killed? It's a very odd political statement. So long as any government or organization sees violence as a viable means of making their statement or enforcing their will, terrorism will continue in the world. Whether terrorism takes the form of military action, assassination or civilian bombing, it will continue until people are convinced that violence only polarizes conflict, it never resolves it. A troll's true colors.

	don't let ari fleischer here you say (none / 0) (#33)
	by alprazolam on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:03:00 PM PST

	Armed conflict is, by this definition, an act of terrorism I have to disagree with this statement. I don't believe police force is necessary terrorism, nor do I believe all military action is terrorism.

	Shades of red (none / 0) (#41)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 06:56:01 PM PST

	Admittedly, I believe this position is an extreme one, but I feel it bears a seed of truth. What keeps people civil? I'd like to say that it's their own inherent morality, but anyone who believes that needs to cut their medication. Simply put, people behave themselves because that behavior is enforced with the threat of violence if necessary. Some people don't need that threat, they've been taught well enough. But I can't think of a single soul who hasn't contemplated doing something...naughty, only to decide the consequences are too high. Violence is not the only consequence of uncivil behavior, but people fall back on it very quickly. Police response to violence is a form of terrorism against those who would do violence without restraint. Military action is a form of terrorism against those who would defy the will of another nation. I believe that there are times when police intervention and military action are justified, but only as a response, and then only in response to those who incited the act. By this rule, Israel stepped past the boundary of civilized behavior by making indiscriminatory retaliation against the Palestinian people. A troll's true colors.

	exactly (none / 0) (#37)
	by philipm on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:16:39 PM PST

	The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that. --Martin Luther King Jr. Its quite obvious that we have to kill those palestenian pig-fuckers. They are deliberately ruining their own educational system to insure that their little tykes grow up as terrorists. What's more, when the western media takes pictures of them holding up Usama flags, they stomp on the cameras. Just like with afghanistan, the only solution is to carpet bomb the whole region with pork and bacon. When they get hungry enough, the eat the bacon and become jewish, and then they exhaust themselves jerking off. The part that upsets me is how can they teach violence to little children? Palestenians are just plain wrong. Now we see why the jews were justified in evicting them from Israel fifty years ago. --philipm

	learn to read please (none / 0) (#52)
	by fat and ugly on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 03:07:44 PM PST

	"According to the information reported by Legolas (it's too late in the evening for me to actually confirm it for myself; I'm not arguing that point anyway) the Palestinians shot a cabinet member who was taking himself out of the picture, and the Israelis retaliated with a gunship attack." Actually, according to the information reported by Legolas, Sharon MERELY blamed Palestinians for the attacks. Now, I may not know a whole lot of information on Sharon, but I doubt he was ever a detective in his lifetime. Lets face facts, who else who the Israeli government WANT to blame for the attacks? I mean, since he was pulling himself out of the picture anyway, what would Palestinians have to gain from his death? Not much. However, what could Israel gain from his assassination? An excuse to kill P.L.O. leader and get away with it. Is it starting to make since now? I hate america

	Reading between the lines. (none / 0) (#53)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:46:14 PM PST

	Please forgive me for not being as precise as you like. Occasionally I make mistakes. However, I believe my statement was accurate enough to validate the discussion that followed. Was the PLO responsible? I don't know. Frankly, neither do you. You weren't there. Do I give the PLO the benefit of the doubt? Yes, just as much as I give Prime Minister Sharon. I've said elsewhere that both sides are at fault in this conflict. I stand by that statement. At this point I find the issue of who did what to whom for how many cookies to be largely irrelevant. A troll's true colors.

	Credentials... (none / 0) (#54)
	by fat and ugly on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 10:42:33 PM PST

	"Do I give the PLO the benefit of the doubt? Yes, just as much as I give Prime Minister Sharon." Why would you give sharon the benefit of the doubt? I mean, Yasser Arafat being a Nobel Peice prize winner (which by the way, isn't that easy to obtain) would make me beleive him over sharon. And lets face it, sharon is not a person who is known for his peaceful and cooperative nature. I hate america

	Clown (none / 0) (#32)
	by joe on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:29:35 AM PST

	Terrorism is an overused word. The attack on the WTC was a terrorist attack. Suicide bombings against civilian targets inside israel are terrorist attacks. However Israels apologists trying to equate Arafat with Bin Laden is the height of hypocrisy. From their warped viewpoints any palestinian violence is "terrorist", while Israeli assassination of palestinian political figures and murdering of children is a democratic country defending itself. Israel is an occupying force, children throwing stones at an occupying army are not terrorists and Israeli soldiers who shoot them or use tanks against them are murderers.

	Whatever... (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 08:20:29 AM PST

	Israel does is always good as it has a 'Get out of jail free' card in the form of western guilt about the holocaust. The arab's haven't...

	*sigh* (none / 0) (#47)
	by Grendel Drago on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 03:49:47 PM PST

	No, it's because of the politically powerful Jewish constituency in this country who feel a burning need to identify themselves with a nation that considers torture a perfectly legitimate method of extracting a confession. Sure, the Arabs there are also acting like a bunch of savages, but America doesn't stand behind them. On the other hand, it's an absolute certainty that Israel would be pushed into the ocean by the surrounding Arab nations if America were to withdraw its support. Ouch, my head hurts.

	Chronology (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 08:53:29 PM PST

	I believe the most important part of these two articles is the chronology, which is BACKWARD in the post (for effect, I guess). Here it is: 1. Israel kills guy with rocket attacks 2. 11 September 2001, WTC terrorist attacks 3. Extremist (note they were condemned by Arafat) Palestinian group kills former Cabinet member Everyone in the US government or otherwise is now looking at events through the WTC attacks.

	True (none / 0) (#51)
	by fat and ugly on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 02:47:21 PM PST

	But U.S. treatment of Israel and the P.L.O. were pretty much the same before September 11, 2001. I mean, that helicopter was probably provided by the U.S. government. I hate america

	LoL (0.10 / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:43:25 PM PST

	Commie Bots? LMAO, coming from a 'MoneyBot', thats pretty funny. But, back to the topic. I`m amazed someone had the guts to compare apples to apples. When Jews act like Nazis and assassinate people and then whine that their own were assassinated as a result, that is outrageous yet so many people insist on the perfidous banter that the Jews somehow are killing for Yahoo or some other space-based fantasia. Again, I`m shocked that anybody had the guts to denote the duplicious activities of the Nazis of New Israel. Sign me: Not a fan of the Nazis of New Israel.

	plata o plomo - a variation (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 12th, 2002 at 01:57:40 PM PST

	There is a saying in South America (attributed to drug cartels): plata o plomo. In other words you can take silver or lead, a bribe or a bullet. It reminds me of american foreign policy: Accept economic domination (change to american economic system) or get military domination (your ass blown up) - remember Yugoslavia? As far as terrorism goes america is #1 - not only does america hold victory in cold war - it wants the spoils: world domination [everything outside of the united states becomes a 'company town']. So for crazy dolts like al Queda zombies their first target on the way to world domination is the competition: america. p.s. War on Terrorism? Like america arming drug dealing Albanian gangsters(KLA) - then after 'victory' over Yugoslavia turning these same terrorists into 'police officers'? Good thing america has morality and god on their side.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.