Israel is proud to present: The aggressor-victim

[Pardalis]

It seems that it is being unable (?) to distinguish between understanding something and "apologizing" for something that is the cause of your ignorance.

Well you're understanding wrong, and you're willingly ignoring the real reasons they are using suicide bombings.

The fact that civilians often are the targets of such attacks should clue you in, but I suspect you'll conveniently ignore that little factoid in order to believe in your "valiant freedom fighter" view of the insurgents.

 

[stokes234]

The Blowback thesis (adhered to by some peaceniks and lolbertarians, practically says the US deserved 9/11.)

As for Ward Churchill, he actively said the victims of 9/11 deserved it in his "chickens coming home to roost" essay.

World Can't wait was one of several organisations behind ANSWER, who have opnely supported the Fedayeen, Baathists, Taliban, FARC etc.

By "Leftists" i meant thirdworldtraveler and globalresearch types.

Ah, I took your meaning to encompass a large amount of people with left-wing views, rather than a small minority. Perhaps a better term could be found for them - I consider myself leftist because I believe in government run services and wealth redistribution, but I don't see this as agreeing with radical islamists blowing themselves up in crowded areas.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Ah, I took your meaning to encompass a large amount of people with left-wing views, rather than a small minority. Perhaps a better term could be found for them - I consider myself leftist because I believe in government run services and wealth redistribution, but I don't see this as agreeing with radical islamists blowing themselves up in crowded areas.

I see. Sorry if we got mixed up.

 

[JihadJane]

Well you're understanding wrong, and you're willingly ignoring the real reasons they are using suicide bombings.

The fact that civilians often are the targets of such attacks should clue you in, but I suspect you'll conveniently ignore that little factoid in order to believe in your "valiant freedom fighter" view of the insurgents.

So, are you altering your position that I am "apologizing for" the Taleban to one of not understanding them correctly, then?

As with most, if not all, of your black-and-white beliefs (fantasies) about my beliefs, you are wrong about my beliefs about the Taleban. The Taleban (a loose term of convenience for a disparate collection of fighters) is largely a creation of Pakistan's ISI, established to undermine Indian efforts to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a much-praised participant and supposed ally in the "War Against Terror".

The tactic of suicide bombing rarely manifests in any other context than foreign military occupation.

 

[JihadJane]

I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."– Ward Churchill , Statement to Rocky Mountain News

 

[IDB87]

Pakistan is a much-praised participant and supposed ally in the "War Against Terror".

Weren't a few ISI heads and Generals sidelined because they were considered to be 'too fundamental?' I do recall that at least one member of the ISI, maybe it's chief, was taken off of his post due to a connection with one of the 9/11 hijackers.

The tactic of suicide bombing rarely manifests in any other context than foreign military occupation.

When a mosque is destroyed, or a market bombed, by one of these suicide bombers, is that a direct result of a foreign military occupation? I mean to say, why is it mostly civilian targets, rather than military ones (which seem to be targeted with more conventional IEDs)?

 

[Thunder]

I think my sig. is very appropriate for this thread.

 

[travelgirl]

Travelgirl,

This is nothing new, we know Israel has done this for a long time. Still, I don't mind a discussion being started about it.

Thank you

 

[Skeptic]

To "lefties supporting terrorists" I can add Morris Berman, who made tons of noise with "The Twilight of American Culture" and now with its follow-up, "Dark Ages America".

In the first book the bad guys were the stupid, fat, ugly Americans, and the good guys were -- waaaaaaaaaaait for it -- Mao, Marx, and Castro, and Michael Moore. (Well, you certainly can't blame Mao for promoting obesity.)

Now, however, he knows better: in the second book the bad guys are still, of course, the stupid, fat, ugly Americans, but the good guys are now Al Quaeda, Hamas, Saddam Hussein and Michael Moore (he laments the flourishing, wonderful Iraq the USA "destroyed", for example). It's all "blowback" against "evil American imperialism", "the occupation", etc.

But that's OK, since soon the evil USA will collapse and justice "to the people" -- you know, like in all those wonderful South American dictatorships or Mideast thugocracies -- will rule the world.

He can't wait.

 

[Skeptic]

Of course there are always these guys, for example.

H'm. Seems like it isn't a "tiny minority of extremists" (sorry) but a big, wide, mainstream collection of the left's top celebrities that blame 9/11 -- or Hamas' terrorist attacks, or the attacks of anybody who hates the USA and/or Israel -- on the victims of those attacks.

Of course, like Morris Berman, these are mostly the same folks that blamed every Marxist takeover and destruction of some country on "US imperialism", too, and, after 9/11, are crying over the poor, innocent Saddam, martyr of American thugs.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Jihadjane, how come Ward Churchill infamously called his victims "little eichmanns" in his essay "on the justice of roosting chickens."?

 

[JihadJane]

Weren't a few ISI heads and Generals sidelined because they were considered to be 'too fundamental?' I do recall that at least one member of the ISI, maybe it's chief, was taken off of his post due to a connection with one of the 9/11 hijackers.

What's your point?

When a mosque is destroyed, or a market bombed, by one of these suicide bombers, is that a direct result of a foreign military occupation? I mean to say, why is it mostly civilian targets, rather than military ones (which seem to be targeted with more conventional IEDs)?

Undermining public security delegitimizes the authority of the occupiers.


As this is thread is supposedly about Israel, perhaps you should ask Likud, which emerged from the Herut Party, the political child of the Irgun terrorists, for the reasoning.

 

[Cuddles]

Remain civil and avoid engaging in personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[IDB87]

What's your point?

My point is our 'supposed' ally is cleaning itself up of religious fundamentalism, or at least trying to, so your little quip towards them may not be accurate or relevant.

Undermining public security delegitimizes the authority of the occupiers.

When a suicide bomber walks into a market, do you think he plans to 'undermine public security' or kill his religious rivals?

As this is thread is supposedly about Israel, perhaps you should ask Likud, which emerged from the Herut Party, the political child of the Irgun terrorists, for the reasoning.

The Irgun was a terrorist group. Much like the IRA, Hamas, etc. All terrorists. That does not mean the above mentioned groups cannot spawn parties that do for things for them politically (see: legally) that they could not do militarily. In fact I would say that is the preferred route to take.

 

[Thunder]

But that's OK, since soon the evil USA will collapse and justice "to the people" -- you know, like in all those wonderful South American dictatorships or Mideast thugocracies -- will rule the world.

err....who are you talking to?

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, I took your meaning to encompass a large amount of people with left-wing views, rather than a small minority. Perhaps a better term could be found for them - I consider myself leftist because I believe in government run services and wealth redistribution, but I don't see this as agreeing with radical islamists blowing themselves up in crowded areas.

I also consider myself to be left of center, but the truth is if you go far left you do find a lot of people who apologize for and excuse Jihadist behavior.

 

[Pardalis]

I also consider myself to be left of center, but the truth is if you go far left you do find a lot of people who apologize for and excuse Jihadist behavior.

I agree completely. People who are too far on the Left show signs of true believer syndrome, they are as fervent and unyielding in their beliefs as the religious Right.

 

[Thunder]

People who are too far on the Left show signs of true believer syndrome, they are as fervent and unyielding in their beliefs..

 

[Skeptic]

In this forum we have about 30 more-or-less regular "politics" posters, somewhat slanted numerically towards the left -- say, 20-to-ten.

Well, of those 20, five or six at least -- I shall not name them lest I be banned for violating the membership agreement -- have views about Israel / USA that range from "they are the most evil nations on earth" to "they should be destroyed", and views about Al Queda / Hamas / etc. that range from "well, it's understandable they do it, and it's not terrorism, it's resistance" to "glory to the noble freedom fighters!".

This forum is not a representative sample for numerous reasons, but in my experience their views are hardly atypical of quite a large number of those on the left, unfortunately.

P.S.

Yes, there are neo-nazi holocaust-deniers here as well, but (a) if anything, they should count as members of the "left" as far as the views about the Jews / Israel / Islamic terrorists are, and (b) even if you count them as members of the "right", the others on the "right" on this forum universally shun them, as oppose to those on the left, where wanting the Jews thrown into the sea is seen as an unfortunate quirk, perhaps, but not something serious enough to exclude someone from the company of the "human-rights-protecting progressives".

It's only dead Jews, after all.

 

[JihadJane]

My point is our 'supposed' ally is cleaning itself up of religious fundamentalism, or at least trying to, so your little quip towards them may not be accurate or relevant.

It's not a "little quip" to say that the ISI were instrumental to the rise of the "Taliban" nor that the US (and the UK) have consistently allied themselves with and praised Pakistani regimes despite its support for terrorists. It's the plain, ugly truth.

When a suicide bomber walks into a market, do you think he plans to 'undermine public security' or kill his religious rivals?

I don't know (and nor do you) but it is a tactical act just as much as launching a drone against one's political rivals, their relations, neighbours and passers-by is.

What do you think the drone operators are thinking when they press ENTER?

The Irgun was a terrorist group. Much like the IRA, Hamas, etc. All terrorists. That does not mean the above mentioned groups cannot spawn parties that do for things for them politically (see: legally) that they could not do militarily. In fact I would say that is the preferred route to take.

What do you think Likud terrorist predecessors were thinking as they planted bombs aimed at civilians?


- - - - - -

@ Pardalis:

Are you feeling shy about answering questions again?