Arafats gift to civilization

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Unfortunately, as the author of the original claim it is for you - not me - to show that your claim is true. The fact that you consider it to be true does not make it true.

Arafat promotes fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder. I am willing to concede that there are others who also promote fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder, but they contribute to, not diminish Arafat’s contribution.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
While this may indeed be one of several areas where we differ, unfortunately you still do not characterise my opinions accurately. It is not defence against terrorism that I am against - it is some of the methods being used which I have an issue with. I believe that targetting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and collective punishments such as bulldozing the houses of innocent people are, de facto, acts of terror against innocent people as is the use of innocent people as human shields, whoever does it.

Lest you misunderstand me again, let me reiterate. All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror, as are all innocent Palestinians and for that matter everyone else around the world.

There is no such thing as a war where civilians are not killed. While we may wish it otherwise, this is a simple truth that cannot be denied. In this conflict, one side has consistently left the door open to peace, while the other side has consistently escalated the violence to sabotage every peace agreement. The Oslo peace agreement, for example, led to an increase of Palestinian-Arab terror, not a decrease.

While I understand your objection to some of these methods, I point out that they are a direct result of the Palestinian-Authority failing to live up to their own responsibilities and policing terror on their own.

 

[Baker]

Agreed that there are many ways in which people have been and are being encouraged to be suicide bombers. That is a great offence to human decency. Did the girls read these and act on them? Perhaps you have further material which confirms that point?

Unless they never want to school in Palestinian or never watched Palestinian Television then no you are saying that if I don't have a photo of the girls studying Palestinian text books or watching television that I have no claim despite the over whelming odds that they more then likely did.

The main problem with this and Mycroft's claim is that, at the moment, there is no evidence that Arafat had anything to do with the actions of the two girls. The link Mycroft provided explicitedly states that it was another terrorist who was suposedly a subject of fascination for the girls. While not ruling out the possibility that Mycroft's claim might actually be true, if it had validity perhaps Arafat might have been mentioned somewhere in his link? As he isn't we are left to speculate on which, of the many possible role models discussed above, was the one that influenced them. Assuming we don't believe what the article actually says that is.

The links I posted above is the main point Mycroft was trying to make influencing and encouraging is just as bad Arafat personally strapping the bombs on the girls.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Arafat promotes fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder. I am willing to concede that there are others who also promote fundamentalist Arabic suicide-murder, but they contribute to, not diminish Arafat’s contribution.

If we are to take your assertion at face value (which, with the lack of any corroboration in the article you cited, is difficult to do) then one logical implication appears to be that some modern terrorists around the world have taken their lead from some founding Prime Ministers of Israel.

There is no such thing as a war where civilians are not killed. While we may wish it otherwise, this is a simple truth that cannot be denied. In this conflict, one side has consistently left the door open to peace, while the other side has consistently escalated the violence to sabotage every peace agreement. The Oslo peace agreement, for example, led to an increase of Palestinian-Arab terror, not a decrease.

While I understand your objection to some of these methods, I point out that they are a direct result of the Palestinian-Authority failing to live up to their own responsibilities and policing terror on their own.

In war, not everything is acceptable. Sharon is directly responsible for his own actions, as is Arafat. If we condemn terrorism, as we all should, then surely we should condemn all terrorism, without differentiation, whoever has practised or whoever does practise it.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker[/}
Unless they never want to school in Palestinian or never watched Palestinian Television then no you are saying that if I don't have a photo of the girls studying Palestinian text books or watching television that I have no claim despite the over whelming odds that they more then likely did.

I for instance do not see French TV and would not understand most of it if I did, although France is very much closer to the UK than Morocco is to Palestine.

You may be right or you may be wrong. In order to take a claim from assertion to reality however some corroboration is necessary. It is nice to believe that what we feel is correct is in fact correct. Nice, but not always true, whatever the odds are. On that basis a lot more innocent people would be put to death on the USA's death row.

The links I posted above is the main point Mycroft was trying to make influencing and encouraging is just as bad Arafat personally strapping the bombs on the girls.

I agree that not only is all terrorism wrong but encouraging terrorism is wrong. On the matter of the specific claim made by Mycroft however, unless I am wrong, you have agreed that there is nothing concrete connecting the actions of the two girls to Arafat in the material either you or Mycroft posted. If you are trying to claim that the girls actually saw this material and were influenced by it then, as mentioned above, a few more details are necessary. Is it likewise possible for anyone to be influenced by the actions of the founders of Israel or the IRA?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If we are to take your assertion at face value (which, with the lack of any corroboration in the article you cited, is difficult to do) then one logical implication appears to be that some modern terrorists around the world have taken their lead from some founding Prime Ministers of Israel.

Did the founding Prime Ministers of Israel strap explosives to themselves? Did they consult with Muslim clerics?

One of the twins planned to blow herself up in the wines and spirits section of the supermarket, press reports have said.

Did the Prime Ministers of Israel have anything against alcohol?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In war, not everything is acceptable. Sharon is directly responsible for his own actions, as is Arafat. If we condemn terrorism, as we all should, then surely we should condemn all terrorism, without differentiation, whoever has practised or whoever does practise it.

When Sharon encourages children to strap explosives on themselves and commit murder-suicide, I will equate him with Arafat. Until that happens, I will condemn Arafat and applaud Sharon's efforts to fight his terror.

 

[a_unique_person]

When Sharon encourages children to strap explosives on themselves and commit murder-suicide, I will equate him with Arafat. Until that happens, I will condemn Arafat and applaud Sharon's efforts to fight his terror.

Yes, he is a good man, he only encourages armed men to attack helpless civilians.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originallly posted by Mycroft
Did the founding Prime Ministers of Israel strap explosives to themselves? Did they consult with Muslim clerics?

No, I am quite sure they didn't. The problem with your argument however is that, despite not providing any solid evidence of the claim that forms the basis for this thread, you still claim the girls were influenced by Arafat. Now, you may be right and you may be wrong but on the basis of your own logic, which I doubt, it is just as likely that terrorists all around the world have also been influenced by some of the actions of some of the founders of Israel.

Did the Prime Ministers of Israel have anything against alcohol?

I don't know. Why not ask Sharon? Why did some of the founders of Israel murder innocent people in terrorist attacks?

When Sharon encourages children to strap explosives on themselves and commit murder-suicide, I will equate him with Arafat. Until that happens, I will condemn Arafat and applaud Sharon's efforts to fight his terror.

I condemn everyone who attacks children or uses children to kill other people. Hamas and Hezbollah are primary culprits, of that there is no doubt. Unfortunately Ariel Sharon is targeting suspects in a manner that is intentionally careless of the lives of children. That is an act of terrorism against the innocent people of Palestine. When it becomes generally acceptable on US soil you might let me know.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

No, I am quite sure they didn't. The problem with your argument however is that, despite not providing any solid evidence of the claim that forms the basis for this thread, you still claim the girls were influenced by Arafat.

What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion? I don’t see how looking through books or newsprint to find a quote from some other writer who has made the same connection that I have will change anything.

The simple truth is that Arabic/Muslim culture has embraced this idea that suicide murder has become not only acceptable, but good. Something worthy of admiration and honor. This has spread far beyond the Israeli/Arab conflict so that 14 year old girls thousands of miles away now contemplate blowing themselves up so that their empty lives can be given meaning similar to other “martyrs” who are glorified.

Now, did Arafat personally call these girls and say, “We don’t have enough random death in Morocco, can you please die for us?”

Of course not, and neither did I claim that he did.

What I do claim is that Arafat has had a hugely successful career as a terrorist. As such he is a primary contributor to this culture that encourages pride when people die while murdering innocents. Through terror, he has made himself the leader of millions, he has created a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions, and personal power to rival that of heads of state.

Did Arafat invent terrorism? No, but he has advanced it tremendously. The first systematic recruitment and training of suicide bombers came from this conflict, as did the first airline hijackings.

Is Arafat the only successful terrorist? No, there are plenty. I single Arafat out because he has achieved fame and power far in excess of other terrorists. The contributions of other terrorists in advancing this culture of death should not be discounted, but neither do they take away from Arafats contribution.

Might others have had a more direct influence on the girls? Of course. Most certainly the Muslim clerics that gave them literature on jihad.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Unfortunately Ariel Sharon is targeting suspects in a manner that is intentionally careless of the lives of children

Except that the Israelis show more concern for the well being of the Palestinian-Arabic children than the Palestinian-Arabs do. When children are encouraged to join protests and throw rocks, when schools are closed so that children will be available to participate in uprisings, when suicide-bomber trading cards are printed and sold, and bomb-making factories are placed near schools…it adds up to a rather ugly picture that suggests the Palestinian-Arabic leadership understands the propaganda value of dead child statistics.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion? I don’t see how looking through books or newsprint to find a quote from some other writer who has made the same connection that I have will change anything.

Then it seems clear that you are not interested in the actual truth of the matter. A truth which is stated in the article you linked to and which you have ignored.
On that basis of your own logic then the death row in the USA would have even more falsely convicted people.

The simple truth is that Arabic/Muslim culture has embraced this idea that suicide murder has become not only acceptable, but good. Something worthy of admiration and honor. This has spread far beyond the Israeli/Arab conflict so that 14 year old girls thousands of miles away now contemplate blowing themselves up so that their empty lives can be given meaning similar to other “martyrs” who are glorified.

And in what way did the culture of the founders of Israel allow them to murder innocent people through terrorist bombings. Is that different?

Of course not, and neither did I claim that he did.

It's easy to knock down a straw man isn't it? Not very helpful but easy.

What I do claim is that Arafat has had a hugely successful career as a terrorist. As such he is a primary contributor to this culture that encourages pride when people die while murdering innocents. Through terror, he has made himself the leader of millions, he has created a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions, and personal power to rival that of heads of state.

Unfortunately you started a thread which made a specific claim. In support of that claim you linked to a site which not only mentioned nothing in support of you claim but specifically countermanded it.

Ariel Sharon is currently engaged in de facto terrorising the innocent people of Palestine. I think it's time all terrorism stopped immediately and all terrorists and all those who supported and facilitated terrorism in Israel or elsewhere such as Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law.

Is Arafat the only successful terrorist? No, there are plenty. I single Arafat out because he has achieved fame and power far in excess of other terrorists. The contributions of other terrorists in advancing this culture of death should not be discounted, but neither do they take away from Arafats contribution.

I don't think he achieved as much power as some of the founders of Israel who also engaged in terrorism.

Might others have had a more direct influence on the girls? Of course. Most certainly the Muslim clerics that gave them literature on jihad.

I agree and possibly another, just as likely influence, might have been the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel?

Except that the Israelis show more concern for the well being of the Palestinian-Arabic children than the Palestinian-Arabs do. When children are encouraged to join protests and throw rocks, when schools are closed so that children will be available to participate in uprisings, when suicide-bomber trading cards are printed and sold, and bomb-making factories are placed near schools…it adds up to a rather ugly picture that suggests the Palestinian-Arabic leadership understands the propaganda value of dead child statistics.

You seem to have a propensity for allocating entire peoples a single viewpoint. Does that mean you agree that Ariel Sharon is targetting suspects (not people tried under the law) in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children and that he is bulldozing the homes of innocent people?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Then it seems clear that you are not interested in the actual truth of the matter. A truth which is stated in the article you linked to and which you have ignored.

Let me get this straight: You deny Arafat’s contribution to modern terrorism and claim that would-be Muslim suicide-bombers are just as likely to have been influenced by Jewish extremists from 60 years ago as they are to have been influenced by contemporary Muslim suicide-bombers even though their methods are identical to the contemporary Muslim terrorists…and you say I’m not interested in truth?

I’ll tell you what, show me some Jewish suicide-bombers. Show me some Jews, Zionist or otherwise, who have strapped explosives onto their bodies and purposefully targeted civilians.

Are there any? I don’t know, maybe.

Show me that the number of Jewish suicide-bombers in all the world in the last 100 years to equal just 1% of the number of Muslim suicide-bombers, and I will ignore the differences in religion, the separation of time, and concede the point to you. If you can do that, I will agree that these girls may have been influenced by Jewish terrorists and I will drop the subject.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
On that basis of your own logic then the death row in the USA would have even more falsely convicted people.

You’re going to have to explain this in more detail. It makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
And in what way did the culture of the founders of Israel allow them to murder innocent people through terrorist bombings. Is that different?

I don’t remember ever endorsing terror of any kind. The closest I may have come is saying that if Arafat had given up terrorism, I might find him an acceptable representative of the Palestinian-Arab people. That’s not to say that I find his terrorism acceptable, just that if overlooking it advanced the peace process, then it’s more important to advance peace.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It's easy to knock down a straw man isn't it? Not very helpful but easy. Unfortunately you started a thread which made a specific claim. In support of that claim you linked to a site which not only mentioned nothing in support of you claim but specifically countermanded it.

Maybe you need to clarify this “specific claim” I’ve made. Your understanding seems different from mine.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Ariel Sharon is currently engaged in de facto terrorising the innocent people of Palestine...

Not all violence is terrorism.

If you want to expand the discussion to say that all violence is bad or that all violence is morally equivalent then that’s another discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think it's time all terrorism stopped immediately and all terrorists and all those who supported and facilitated terrorism in Israel or elsewhere such as Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law.

If you mention Sabra and Shatila, don’t forget Damour.

If you believe that the person who ordered the massacres at Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law, I think I agree with you, but if I remember my history correctly (I should look it up, but I’m too lazy) I think the reason he wasn’t is because shortly afterward he was elected head of state in Lebanon.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't think he achieved as much power as some of the founders of Israel who also engaged in terrorism. I agree and possibly another, just as likely influence, might have been the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel?

You’ve stated this again and again, and my response is still to look at the differences in methods and culture. That the girls in Morocco were influenced my Muslim concepts if Jihad and martyrdom is a commonality with the Palestinian-Arab militants. That the girls in Morocco contemplated wearing explosives is another commonality. There are no such commonalities with the Israeli militants from 60 years ago.

If you want to say that the Israeli militants from 60 years ago were also wrong, then I might agree with that, but that’s a different topic.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You seem to have a propensity for allocating entire peoples a single viewpoint.

Whenever you speak of groups of people it is necessary to use generalities. When you speak of cultural values it is understood (or should be) that not every member of that cultural group will share all of those values. I agree that it is important to make that distinction. The recent poll that shows that 59% of the Palestinian-Arabs support continued violence against Israel even if they gained complete control of all the the West Bank and Gaza does imply that the other 41% don’t. Recognizing this, however, doesn’t make that 59% any less disturbing.

I mention that as an example. If you want to discuss that statistic, please do it in the other thread.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Does that mean you agree that Ariel Sharon is targetting suspects (not people tried under the law) in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children and that he is bulldozing the homes of innocent people?

I think I’ve made my position on these questions clear. I will go over them one more time for you:

Characterizing terrorists as “suspects” and suggesting that they are entitled to due process is confusing a military action with a police action. The police authority that would be responsible for arresting terrorists and granting them due process is the Palestinian-Authority, which employs terrorists as policemen and has refused to take action against terrorists. By default, that leaves Israeli military action as the only way to combat terrorism directly. In summary, it’s the fault of the Palestinian-Authority that terrorists don’t get due process.

Yes, innocent people do die in war. This is sad, but I’m not aware of any nation in any period of history that has been able to fight a war without civilian casualties. If you know of a way that this can be done, I’m sure that your advice is needed among world military leaders as urban warfare becomes more and more common. The Geneva Convention places the responsibility for civilian casualties with those who place military targets, which includes combatants, among civilian populations. By that standard, I hold the Palestinian-Arabic militants responsible for Palestinian-Arabic civilian casualties and deem it a war crime.

I have no personal objection to bulldozing the homes of terrorists. Any criticisms I might have on that policy would be limited to its effectiveness and application, not on the policy itself.

If you wish to debate any of those three topics, I will be more than happy to do so; however I ask that you take it to another thread. In the interest of moving on with the discussion, if you simply re-state these questions without adding anything new or giving any reason why my opinions should be different, I will simply respond that I have already answered them.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Let me get this straight: You deny Arafat’s contribution to modern terrorism and claim that would-be Muslim suicide-bombers are just as likely to have been influenced by Jewish extremists from 60 years ago as they are to have been influenced by contemporary Muslim suicide-bombers even though their methods are identical to the contemporary Muslim terrorists…and you say I’m not interested in truth?

I am afraid that once again you do not have it straight. I have never denied that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism. I have however challenged your simple and unsupported claim that forms the title of this thread.

You asserted that the girls would have been influenced by Arafat's 50 year terrorist history yet you apparently fail to see how the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel a mere 10 years or so earlier could have influenced them. The girls you used to support the title of your thread actually told us who fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat.

I’ll tell you what, show me some Jewish suicide-bombers. Show me some Jews, Zionist or otherwise, who have strapped explosives onto their bodies and purposefully targeted civilians.

Are there any? I don’t know, maybe.

It seems that you are in fact happy to pursue a number of issues on this thread and to ask questions about them.
I don't know either. I do know that some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorism and that terror assisted in securing the formation of their state.

Show me that the number of Jewish suicide-bombers in all the world in the last 100 years to equal just 1% of the number of Muslim suicide-bombers, and I will ignore the differences in religion, the separation of time, and concede the point to you. If you can do that, I will agree that these girls may have been influenced by Jewish terrorists and I will drop the subject.

You seem to still be labouring under the idea that people have to be of the same religious group to engage in suicide terrorism. I have already shown that particular notion to be false - see discussion about the Tamils. In the same way other forms of terrorism do not require the perpetrators to be the same religion. I would just point out Northern Ireland where religious differences did not stop similar methods being used.

You’re going to have to explain this in more detail. It makes no sense to me.

Happy to do so. I trust that you won't complain later on when I do so. You stated

What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion?

Let me take your requirments in turn. I have already demonstrated that terrorists do not have to be of the same religion to participate in terror. What the shared cultural influences are between Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVeigh and Menachim Begin? Shared cultural influences are therefore not necessary to engage in similar acts of terror. Finally, can I ask how many groups including the founders of Israel used bombs to kill innocent people indiscriminately? That include many different terrorist groups around the world and therefore is an invalid criterium.

For a case to be proven in your eyes therefore, all you need is common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion. If that was all that the courts in the USA needed to find a person guilty then there would be even more innocent people on death row and being put to death in the USA's killing cells. I am afraid the criteria you use establish nothing more than prejudice and are useless in establishing the truth of anything.

I don’t remember ever endorsing terror of any kind. The closest I may have come is saying that if Arafat had given up terrorism, I might find him an acceptable representative of the Palestinian-Arab people. That’s not to say that I find his terrorism acceptable, just that if overlooking it advanced the peace process, then it’s more important to advance peace.

I didn't say that you did. You do however seem to have difficulty accepting that the founders of Israel used terror in their fight to establish their country ad in clarifying how that was different to any other terrorist groups on whom the WOT is now being waged apparently.

Maybe you need to clarify this “specific claim” I’ve made. Your understanding seems different from mine.

The title is 'Arafats (sic) gift to civilization' and as justification you cited the article discussing the actions of the two girls.

Not all violence is terrorism.

If you want to expand the discussion to say that all violence is bad or that all violence is morally equivalent then that’s another discussion.

I have never said that all violence is terrorism. In fact, as you well know, I have indicated that Israel is entitled to use all force allowed by law to prevent terrorist acts. I have also been very specific in describing some of the terrorist acts Sharon is currently engaged in. Targeting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and bulldozing the houses of innocent people are deliberate acts of terror against innocent Palestinians.

If you mention Sabra and Shatila, don’t forget Damour.

If you believe that the person who ordered the massacres at Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law, I think I agree with you, but if I remember my history correctly (I should look it up, but I’m too lazy) I think the reason he wasn’t is because shortly afterward he was elected head of state in Lebanon.

I am more than happy to mention all atrocities. Let me remind you what I actually did say. I said

..all those who supported and facilitated terrorism in Israel or elsewhere such as Sabra and Shatila should be tried under the law.

I am happy to confirm that the word 'all' means 'all' . I don't differentiate. If my memory also serves me right one of the generals involved in providing the terrorists with access to the camps has been elected Prime Minister of Israel.

You’ve stated this again and again, and my response is still to look at the differences in methods and culture. That the girls in Morocco were influenced my Muslim concepts if Jihad and martyrdom is a commonality with the Palestinian-Arab militants. That the girls in Morocco contemplated wearing explosives is another commonality. There are no such commonalities with the Israeli militants from 60 years ago.

If you want to say that the Israeli militants from 60 years ago were also wrong, then I might agree with that, but that’s a different topic.

I have shown that the criteria you use are arbitrary and do not satisfactorily categorise terrorist influences. You have repeatedly failed to provide any concrete evidence for the claim that forms the title of this thread. In fact it is specifically contradicted in the material you supplied to support the claim. On the basis of your own logic it is therefore open to anyone who wants to suggest that the terrorists who helped found Israel might just as easily have been the influences for the girls. That suggestion would also contradict the evidence provided by you, is around the time span of influence you quoted and those terrorists were also happy to use bombs to kill innocent people to achieve their own aims and therefore has as much commonality and merit as your own claim.

Whenever you speak of groups of people it is necessary to use generalities. When you speak of cultural values it is understood (or should be) that not every member of that cultural group will share all of those values. I agree that it is important to make that distinction. The recent poll that shows that 59% of the Palestinian-Arabs support continued violence against Israel even if they gained complete control of all the the West Bank and Gaza does imply that the other 41% don’t. Recognizing this, however, doesn’t make that 59% any less disturbing.

I mention that as an example. If you want to discuss that statistic, please do it in the other thread.

Can I just suggest again that if you see fit to raise questions and introduce material into a thread then others will see fit to reply in that thread. Israelis are entitled to live in peace and free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians. You failed to post a link to the poll so we don't know what other pertinent questions were asked? For example did anyone ask how many Israelis support the terrorist actioons of Sharon or how many wanted to build a ghetto in Palestine? Perhaps the answers to those questions might also be disturbing?

Characterizing terrorists as “suspects” and suggesting that they are entitled to due process is confusing a military action with a police action. The police authority that would be responsible for arresting terrorists and granting them due process is the Palestinian-Authority, which employs terrorists as policemen and has refused to take action against terrorists. By default, that leaves Israeli military action as the only way to combat terrorism directly. In summary, it’s the fault of the Palestinian-Authority that terrorists don’t get due process.

For some reason you seem to believe that just because a prime minister says a person is a terrorist that automatically makes him or her a terrorist. The law simply doesn't work like that in civilised countries. If Blair or Bush tried that in the USA or the UK they would be booted out of office very quickly. They are also subject to the law and human rights. The law that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. The word of Ariel Sharon never has been, is not and never will be proof of guilt. It seems that he is currently under investigation on other fraud charges. That is rightly allowing him to put his case for the defence. I contrast that with his sentences of death without appeal on innocent children. The world can spot hypocrital governments when it sees them and both Arafat and Sharon are hypocrites.

Yes, innocent people do die in war. This is sad, but I’m not aware of any nation in any period of history that has been able to fight a war without civilian casualties. If you know of a way that this can be done, I’m sure that your advice is needed among world military leaders as urban warfare becomes more and more common. The Geneva Convention places the responsibility for civilian casualties with those who place military targets, which includes combatants, among civilian populations. By that standard, I hold the Palestinian-Arabic militants responsible for Palestinian-Arabic civilian casualties and deem it a war crime.

I wonder if this war is against the Palestinian Authority, terrorists, innocent Palestinians or people Sharon decides he wants assassinated because he doesn't want the bother of having to go to the law to find someone guilty.

I have no personal objection to bulldozing the homes of terrorists. Any criticisms I might have on that policy would be limited to its effectiveness and application, not on the policy itself

Are you saying that the US govermnet should now go out and bulldoze the family homes of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber? That is the logic of your own words.

If you saying that all the homes bulldozed in Palestine belong to terrorists and no homes of innocent people have been bulldozed then that would indeed be a novel suggestion.

I do not agree that your home can be bulldozed and your baby sister blown up by a missile attack just because the Ariel Sharon equivalent in the USA suspects a Timothy McVeight might be living in your area.

If you wish to debate any of those three topics, I will be more than happy to do so; however I ask that you take it to another thread. In the interest of moving on with the discussion, if you simply re-state these questions without adding anything new or giving any reason why my opinions should be different, I will simply respond that I have already answered them

If you do not wish to discuss certain matters perhaps you might not raise them. You are naturally entitled to raise whatever issues you like in a thread, but on a sceptics site when you make a claim you might be asked to provide evidence to support them. Perhaps you have now located some?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am afraid that once again you do not have it straight. I have never denied that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism. I have however challenged your simple and unsupported claim that forms the title of this thread.

Yet common sense would suggest that you would have to disagree that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism to object to the title of this thread.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You asserted that the girls would have been influenced by Arafat's 50 year terrorist history yet you apparently fail to see how the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel a mere 10 years or so earlier could have influenced them. The girls you used to support the title of your thread actually told us who fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat.

That’s because the only commonalities between these girls and these other militants from 60 years ago is that both were violent. Clearly the activities of these girls have more in common with the suicide-murderers of the West Bank.

To make an analogy, if I were to say that Elvis was heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, you wouldn’t expect me to show more than similarities in musical style and performance to support this assertion. If you were to claim that Elvis was very likely equally influenced by Hayden, that wouldn’t make any sense. Clearly they were both involved in music, but that’s where the similarity ends. You might be able to make an argument that Hayden had some influence on Elvis, but he clearly had much more in common with Chuck Berry.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't know either. I do know that some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorism and that terror assisted in securing the formation of their state.

Okay. Once again the only similarity you can show is violence. If you can also show similarities in methods, culture, and targets, then we have a discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You seem to still be labouring under the idea that people have to be of the same religious group to engage in suicide terrorism. I have already shown that particular notion to be false - see discussion about the Tamils

Not at all. People of all religions engage in violence. However if a fundamentalist Christian bombed an abortion clinic, one would correctly assume that his primary influences were other fundamentalist Christians who also bombed abortion clinics, and not Muslim nationalists in the Middle East.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Happy to do so. I trust that you won't complain later on when I do so. You stated

Let me take your requirments in turn. I have already demonstrated that terrorists do not have to be of the same religion to participate in terror. What the shared cultural influences are between Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVeigh and Menachim Begin? Shared cultural influences are therefore not necessary to engage in similar acts of terror. Finally, can I ask how many groups including the founders of Israel used bombs to kill innocent people indiscriminately? That include many different terrorist groups around the world and therefore is an invalid criterium.

Can you show me where Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh or Menachim Begin used suicide-terror?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
For a case to be proven in your eyes therefore, all you need is common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion. If that was all that the courts in the USA needed to find a person guilty then there would be even more innocent people on death row and being put to death in the USA's killing cells. I am afraid the criteria you use establish nothing more than prejudice and are useless in establishing the truth of anything.

Now you’re confusing apples with kiwis. While common modus operandi can be used as evidence in a court of law to prove guilt, I was using it to demonstrate influences.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I didn't say that you did. You do however seem to have difficulty accepting that the founders of Israel used terror in their fight to establish their country ad in clarifying how that was different to any other terrorist groups on whom the WOT is now being waged apparently.

I do? I haven’t commented on it except to say their influence was likely less than Arafat’s in inspiring the Moroccan girls actions. How they may or may not be different from terrorists on whom the WOT is now being waged is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have never said that all violence is terrorism. In fact, as you well know, I have indicated that Israel is entitled to use all force allowed by law to prevent terrorist acts. I have also been very specific in describing some of the terrorist acts Sharon is currently engaged in. Targeting suspects in such a way that innocent children are guaranteed to be killed and bulldozing the houses of innocent people are deliberate acts of terror against innocent Palestinians.

Well, you and I disagree with that. That civilians get killed is not proof that civilians are targeted.

If a Palestinian-Arab terrorist were to blow himself up in the midst of a group of Israeli soldiers and a civilian happened to get killed, I would not say that he was targeting civilians. In that circumstance, he targeted soldiers. While I still don’t support his cause, I would say that his action is in a different category than the suicide-bomber who set himself off in a café.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am happy to confirm that the word 'all' means 'all' . I don't differentiate. If my memory also serves me right one of the generals involved in providing the terrorists with access to the camps has been elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The man who failed to anticipate Sabra and Shatila is head of state in Israel, the man who ordered it done is head of state in Lebanon, and the man who ordered Damour is head of state (sort of) of the Palestine Authority. Of these three, only one has been investigated and censured for their actions.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have shown that the criteria you use are arbitrary and do not satisfactorily categorise terrorist influences. You have repeatedly failed to provide any concrete evidence for the claim that forms the title of this thread.

Sure I have. I have demonstrated common methods and cultural influences. You simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In fact it is specifically contradicted in the material you supplied to support the claim. On the basis of your own logic it is therefore open to anyone who wants to suggest that the terrorists who helped found Israel might just as easily have been the influences for the girls. That suggestion would also contradict the evidence provided by you, is around the time span of influence you quoted and those terrorists were also happy to use bombs to kill innocent people to achieve their own aims and therefore has as much commonality and merit as your own claim.

Except that there are fewer commonalities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
…You failed to post a link to the poll so we don't know what other pertinent questions were asked? For example did anyone ask how many Israelis support the terrorist actioons of Sharon or how many wanted to build a ghetto in Palestine? Perhaps the answers to those questions might also be disturbing?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066799672944

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
For some reason you seem to believe that just because a prime minister says a person is a terrorist that automatically makes him or her a terrorist. The law simply doesn't work like that in civilised countries. If Blair or Bush tried that in the USA or the UK they would be booted out of office very quickly. They are also subject to the law and human rights. The law that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. The word of Ariel Sharon never has been, is not and never will be proof of guilt…

This seems to be a re-hash of the due process issue. I believe that enemy combatants do not have the right of due process, you believe they do. Further, I point out that the authority that would be able to grant these people due process is the Palestinian Authority who has refused to take this responsibility. Do you have anything new to add?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
…Are you saying that the US govermnet should now go out and bulldoze the family homes of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber? That is the logic of your own words.

You keep trying to maneuver me into stating a position on bulldozing homes. I will point out that I do not need to express an opinion on this in order to support my position that Arafat has contributed to the culture of terrorism that has influenced the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you do not wish to discuss certain matters perhaps you might not raise them. You are naturally entitled to raise whatever issues you like in a thread, but on a sceptics site when you make a claim you might be asked to provide evidence to support them. Perhaps you have now located some?

I don’t have a problem debating any aspect of the Israeli/Arabic conflict with you. I do think that you’re being a little dishonest in how you go about it. For weeks now you’ve been pretending that your disagreement with me is about my choice of title for this thread, yet in the actual discussion you keep bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with it.

If you truly believe that Israeli militants from 60 years ago are likely to have had as much influence on the girls in Morocco as modern day terrorists in the West Bank led by Arafat, then support that. Show me how commonalities in method, targets, culture and religion should be overlooked in favor of the one commonality of violence.

Or, if all this is really just a pretext for you to talk about how you believe that defensive military action is the moral equivalent of terrorism, that you’re against bulldozings, checkpoints, security fences and anything else that might slow terrorists down, then be honest about it and we will talk about that.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Yet common sense would suggest that you would have to disagree that Arafat has contributed to modern terrorism to object to the title of this thread.

Then you will have to quote where I said that he hadn't. I notice that once again you haven't produced any evidence for your assertions. Assertions that contradict the actual printed facts.

That’s because the only commonalities between these girls and these other militants from 60 years ago is that both were violent. Clearly the activities of these girls have more in common with the suicide-murderers of the West Bank

The most important commonality surely is that they both used bombs for the furtherance of their causes. The taking of innocent life is a commonality. The North African experience is a commonality. The disregard of decent behaviour is a commonality. The use of terror is a commonality.

To make an analogy, if I were to say that Elvis was heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, you wouldn’t expect me to show more than similarities in musical style and performance to support this assertion. If you were to claim that Elvis was very likely equally influenced by Hayden, that wouldn’t make any sense. Clearly they were both involved in music, but that’s where the similarity ends. You might be able to make an argument that Hayden had some influence on Elvis, but he clearly had much more in common with Chuck Berry.

The founders of Israel were terrorists of the modern era and used bombs to kill innocent people and to terrorise entire groups of people. On the basis of your analogy the girls are just as likely to have been influenced by the terrorist acts of Begin and Sharon as Arafat.

Not at all. People of all religions engage in violence. However if a fundamentalist Christian bombed an abortion clinic, one would correctly assume that his primary influences were other fundamentalist Christians who also bombed abortion clinics, and not Muslim nationalists in the Middle East.

Terrorists are terrorists. The idea that one terrorists ensures he is copying coreligious terrorists is not a requirement for the reasons I have already given. The IRA trained in Libya. For your argument to hold any water presumably there must be a group of Libyan Catholic terrorists somewhere. I look forwards to seeing your evidence for their existance.

Okay. Once again the only similarity you can show is violence. If you can also show similarities in methods, culture, and targets, then we have a discussion.

It appears that you have not looked at the material I have posted because you keep repeating things I have shown are not necessary. However let me ask you again what cultural similarities are there between the IRA and Menachim Begin? What religious similarities are there between Menachim Begin and the IRA? They used the same methods, didn't they? Why are the terrorist acts of the founders of Israel and the IRA different? If your thesis is correct, where are the Catholic terrorists in Libya?

Can you show me where Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh or Menachim Begin used suicide-terror

All those people were terrorists. Despite all the differences in their cultural and religious backgrounds they all used similar terrorst methods. The Tamil terrorists and Hamas and also from different religious, cultural backgrounds yet used the same methods and targets. Ipso facto your thesis cannot be completely accurate.

Now you’re confusing apples with kiwis. While common modus operandi can be used as evidence in a court of law to prove guilt, I was using it to demonstrate influences.

I do believe you were trying to use it to prove the correctness of your thesis. If applied to other areas the horrific consequences I noted would occur.

I do? I haven’t commented on it except to say their influence was likely less than Arafat’s in inspiring the Moroccan girls actions. How they may or may not be different from terrorists on whom the WOT is now being waged is beyond the scope of this discussion.

It seems that you fail to see how, on the basis of your own logic it is just as likely that the girls were influenced by the terrorist acts of the founders of Isreal.

Well, you and I disagree with that. That civilians get killed is not proof that civilians are targeted.

We certainly do and I find it very sad that you fail to distinguish between people Sharon says are guilty and people who are guilty of a crime. They are not now, never have been and never will be, the same thing. You also fail to distinguish apparently between choosing to assassinate people and choosing to assassinate people in a way that guarantees innocent children are murdered.

If a Palestinian-Arab terrorist were to blow himself up in the midst of a group of Israeli soldiers and a civilian happened to get killed, I would not say that he was targeting civilians. In that circumstance, he targeted soldiers. While I still don’t support his cause, I would say that his action is in a different category than the suicide-bomber who set himself off in a café.

If anyone carries out a terrorist act where innocent people can be killed then they are guilty of a terrorist act against civilians.

The man who failed to anticipate Sabra and Shatila is head of state in Israel, the man who ordered it done is head of state in Lebanon, and the man who ordered Damour is head of state (sort of) of the Palestine Authority. Of these three, only one has been investigated and censured for their actions

You really don't seem to read my posts. Once again you resort to the 'Sharon is stupid argument' against the evidence that not only was he warned about the possibility of atrocity before it happened, the army he was in charge of helped facilitate it happening by lighting up the sky and he was told it was happening yet did nothing to prevent it. I want all these characters charges and tried for what they did. All of them.

Sure I have. I have demonstrated common methods and cultural influences. You simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Not only have I acknowledged them, I have shown that they cannot be definitively relevant because, if you were correct, there would be Catholic terrorists in Libya. On the basis of your own argument, how were Catholic terrorists from Northern Ireland influenced by Muslim terrorists in Northern Africa. Perhaps the word 'Northern' is the commonality you seek?

Except that there are fewer commonalities.

Use of bombs. Attempt to achieve aims by force. Menachim Begin surely was prepared to die in what he did, unless he was a coward. Idealism. Stupidity. Murderous intent. Mislead by fanatics. They lived half a continent away. (Is that one of your commonalities?)

With reference to the poll. As I thought, none of the relevant material was addressed.

This seems to be a re-hash of the due process issue. I believe that enemy combatants do not have the right of due process, you believe they do. Further, I point out that the authority that would be able to grant these people due process is the Palestinian Authority who has refused to take this responsibility. Do you have anything new to add?

I can see that once Ariel Sharon has declared that someone is guilty, in your eyes that is sufficient for them to be guilty. That is very sad and if it was done on the streets of the USA would result in riots. In civilised countries there is something called the presumption of innocence. That you do not appear to belive in it for Palestinians is sad and frightening.

You keep trying to maneuver me into stating a position on bulldozing homes. I will point out that I do not need to express an opinion on this in order to support my position that Arafat has contributed to the culture of terrorism that has influenced the girls in Morocco.

I am not trying to do anything other than use the logic of your own words to show how it would not be accepted in civilised countries around the world as well as the USA. That you do not wish to debate the logic of your own words is up to you.

I don’t have a problem debating any aspect of the Israeli/Arabic conflict with you. I do think that you’re being a little dishonest in how you go about it. For weeks now you’ve been pretending that your disagreement with me is about my choice of title for this thread, yet in the actual discussion you keep bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with it.

Ah the old dishonesty trick. And I am pretending as well for good measure. If you want to start threads and link to an article that does nothing but contradict your assertions then go ahead. You ask questions and bring up mattrers that you won't debate. Did it occur to you that might be a tad, how can I put this delicately, dishonest?

If you truly believe that Israeli militants from 60 years ago are likely to have had as much influence on the girls in Morocco as modern day terrorists in the West Bank led by Arafat, then support that. Show me how commonalities in method, targets, culture and religion should be overlooked in favor of the one commonality of violence.

I have repeatedly shown you why the so-called commonalites you suggested cannot be entirely relevent. See also my comments on the Catholic terrorists in Libya suggested by your own logic. You yourself brought up Arafat's 50 year history yet have difficulty accepting that something around 60 years can be relevant. Perhaps you have a logical reason why you draw a dividing line at 50 years rather than 60 years? You are also once again being disingenuous in describing my arguments. I have repeatedly used the logic of your own position to suggest that other influences might be more appropriate on the basis of your own arguments. You ignored the influences actually stated in the article you supplied as justification for your claim. That being the case, isn't anyone else also entitled to ignore the influences cited in the article and wouldn't that be just as silly. Methods, bombs. Targets, innocent people. Culture, North African. Religion, Ah yes Catholics aren't primarily influenced by Protestants or Muslims but they can use the same methods as Israelis and Libyans!

Or, if all this is really just a pretext for you to talk about how you believe that defensive military action is the moral equivalent of terrorism, that you’re against bulldozings, checkpoints, security fences and anything else that might slow terrorists down, then be honest about it and we will talk about that.

Once again you mischacterise what I have been specifically and clearly saying throughout this thread but that seems to be an unfortunate characteristic of yours. Either you want to talk about the logic of the title of your own thread or you don't. Either you want to raise questions and have them answered or you don't. Either you want a debate around the matters you raise or you don't. Which is it? Be honest.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The most important commonality surely is that they both used bombs for the furtherance of their causes. The taking of innocent life is a commonality. The North African experience is a commonality. The disregard of decent behaviour is a commonality. The use of terror is a commonality.

Your list of commonalities does not distinguish these girls from Arafat. If you could think of commonalities that these girls share with the founders of Israel but not Arafat, then you would have an argument.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The IRA trained in Libya. For your argument to hold any water presumably there must be a group of Libyan Catholic terrorists somewhere. I look forwards to seeing your evidence for their existance.

You’re the one establishing a link between the IRA and Libya. If Libya trained IRA members, then the influence is direct and does not need further support. I’m not claiming that these girls were trained by Arafat or any other Palestinian-Arab group, only that the actions of Arafat and such groups have created the culture where these girls have chosen to emulate suicide-terrorists.

The IRA also trained narco-terrorists in Colombia. While I might assume that Colombian narco-terrorists are also Catholic, I would not place as much importance on that because there is no interpretation of Catholicism (that I know of) that is used to justify terrorism in the same way that radical Islam does with its teachings on Jihad.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Your list of commonalities does not distinguish these girls from Arafat. If you could think of commonalities that these girls share with the founders of Israel but not Arafat, then you would have an argument.

I have never argued that they were not commonalities with many other terrorist groups, simply that there many commonalities between the girls and the terrorists who founded Israel. I do not share your thesis that you have to be a member of the same religion to carry out the same terrorist acts for the many reasons I have already given.

I still await you providing any hard evidence that the girls were actually influenced by Arafat as opposed to the man they actually stated they were fascinated by, namely Osama Bin Laden. It seems you don't have any.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

You’re the one establishing a link between the IRA and Libya. If Libya trained IRA members, then the influence is direct and does not need further support. I’m not claiming that these girls were trained by Arafat or any other Palestinian-Arab group, only that the actions of Arafat and such groups have created the culture where these girls have chosen to emulate suicide-terrorists.

In that case can I ask who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel? Did they independently come up with the idea that murdering innocent people with bombs is a justified way of getting their own way?

The IRA also trained narco-terrorists in Colombia. While I might assume that Colombian narco-terrorists are also Catholic, I would not place as much importance on that because there is no interpretation of Catholicism (that I know of) that is used to justify terrorism in the same way that radical Islam does with its teachings on Jihad.

It seems that you are relying on extremists views of Islam. The Old Testamant of the Bible is part of the belief structure for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For the record there are many violent messages in the bible which called for the murder of children and women. So-called fundamentalist Christians have carried out terrorist killings at abortion clinics. One such terrorist was happy to go to his death for his actions if necessary. Islam is therefore not unique in having extremists justifying murder on the basis of its teachings.

Let me say that I am happy that you have a certain opinion about Arafat. That is your perogative. Unfortunately, in relation to the girls, the material you suppplied did not even mention the word Arafat. Your arguments therefore amount to guilt by association.

It is also difficult to see why the terrorist acts of Arafat can influence potential terrorists but the terrorist acts of the founders of Israel cannot. Were the terrorists who founded Israel fundamentally different from other terrorists and were they not prepared to die for their cause during the commission of their crimes, if necessary?

All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have never argued that they were not commonalities with many other terrorist groups, simply that there many commonalities between the girls and the terrorists who founded Israel. I do not share your thesis that you have to be a member of the same religion to carry out the same terrorist acts for the many reasons I have already given.

You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants. This is my refutation of your claim that the early Israeli militants could have been equal influences on these girls.

It was never my thesis that terrorists have to share the same religion to be terrorists. However, that the girls in Morocco sought information from Muslim fundamentalists groups and received information on Jihad is significant because a fundamentalist Muslim interpretation of Jihad is also an important factor in Palestinian-Arabic terrorism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong You are of course entitled to your opinion. In that case can I ask who influenced the terrorists who founded Israel? Did they independently come up with the idea that murdering innocent people with bombs is a justified way of getting their own way?

That’s an excellent question with many assumptions that deserve examination. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It seems that you are relying on extremists views of Islam. The Old Testamant of the Bible is part of the belief structure for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For the record there are many violent messages in the bible which called for the murder of children and women. So-called fundamentalist Christians have carried out terrorist killings at abortion clinics. One such terrorist was happy to go to his death for his actions if necessary. Islam is therefore not unique in having extremists justifying murder on the basis of its teachings.

Yes, I am relying on an extremist view of Islam. In a discussion where an extremist view of Islam is an important motivating factor in terrorism, that is appropriate. It is also appropriate to point out that there are interpretations of Islam that repudiate terrorists and their actions. I agree that other religions are also used to justify violence, and that this is also a problem.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Let me say that I am happy that you have a certain opinion about Arafat. That is your perogative. Unfortunately, in relation to the girls, the material you suppplied did not even mention the word Arafat. Your arguments therefore amount to guilt by association.

Not at all. Since the girls in Morocco did not associate with Arafat, there is no guilt by association. I am looking at Arafat’s contributions to fundamentalist Islamic-Arab culture.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong It is also difficult to see why the terrorist acts of Arafat can influence potential terrorists but the terrorist acts of the founders of Israel cannot.

I never claimed that Israeli militants could not influence other people, I only reject your claim that they were an influence equal to Arafat on the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong Were the terrorists who founded Israel fundamentally different from other terrorists and were they not prepared to die for their cause during the commission of their crimes, if necessary?

That’s a great question and well worth exploring. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement. Perhaps we should start a new thread where these other issues you keep bringing up can be discussed?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians.

On this we agree.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants. This is my refutation of your claim that the early Israeli militants could have been equal influences on these girls.

Unfortunately you have yet to show that there is a single commmonality that has not been used by other terrorists around the world today and through the ages. The idea that terrorist tactics, such as bombs to force others to give you what you want, is IMHO by far the most important commonality and one that has been used by many hundreds of different groups in recent times.

Bush is engaged in the 'War on Terror' not the War on Terrorists who use Suicide Methods'. As such, he recognises that terror is the critical common thread. All terrorists should be condemned, whether or not they are government leaders and irrespective of when they carried out their atrocities, be it 50 or 60 years ago.

The heart of this dicussion is that, in the absence of hard evidence, you have decided to use the 'commonality' argument as sufficient proof of your claim.

Using your argument of commonality however, Mathama Ghandi could not have been the prime influence on subsequent peaceful protests around the world because not everyone who used his methods was from his cultural or religious background even if they used the same methods. Doesn't really wash, does it?

It was never my thesis that terrorists have to share the same religion to be terrorists. However, that the girls in Morocco sought information from Muslim fundamentalists groups and received information on Jihad is significant because a fundamentalist Muslim interpretation of Jihad is also an important factor in Palestinian-Arabic terrorism.

It seems we agree that religion is not a unique commonality. The girls may have sought information from Muslim fundamentalist groups but not from Arafat apparently.

That’s an excellent question with many assumptions that deserve examination. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement.

That some of the founders of Israel engaged in terrorist atrocities to get their own way is simply historical fact, it is also I feel, very much at the heart of this discussion. You have made a claim based on commonalities about the actions of the girls and on terrorist leader. In the absence of hard evidence for your case I have shown that on precisely the basis you used, others could argue that the girls were also influenced by other terrorist leaders from the same land. You keep backing away from the logic of your own argument in this particular area.

Yes, I am relying on an extremist view of Islam. In a discussion where an extremist view of Islam is an important motivating factor in terrorism, that is appropriate. It is also appropriate to point out that there are interpretations of Islam that repudiate terrorists and their actions. I agree that other religions are also used to justify violence, and that this is also a problem.

Then we agree there is no definitive commonality here either.

Not at all. Since the girls in Morocco did not associate with Arafat, there is no guilt by association. I am looking at Arafat’s contributions to fundamentalist Islamic-Arab culture.

You associated the actions of the girls with Arafat, not me and not the girls. It is therefore for you to show the validity of that association.

I never claimed that Israeli militants could not influence other people, I only reject your claim that they were an influence equal to Arafat on the girls in Morocco.

I have already indicated that my alternatives might be valid influences or they might not. My thesis merely is that, on the basis of your own logic, others could equally validly argue that the terrorists who founded Israel are also possible influences on the girls.

That’s a great question and well worth exploring. It is, however, beyond the scope of our disagreement. Perhaps we should start a new thread where these other issues you keep bringing up can be discussed?

Feel free. My concern is that, having taken issue with the core claim on this thread with a logically equivalent alternative, you consider that to be outside the scope of the discussion.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The idea that terrorist tactics, such as bombs to force others to give you what you want, is IMHO by far the most important commonality and one that has been used by many hundreds of different groups in recent times.

These commonalities are most important in what way? In proving that terrorism is bad?

If you want to say that terrorism is bad, then yes, it’s important to look at how terrorism is bad. While I agree that terrorism is bad, that wasn’t a part of my thesis, and it’s not necessary to show how terrorism is bad to demonstrate a link between Arafat and the girls in Morocco. Recognizing that terrorism is bad does not take away from my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture of terrorism that led the Moroccan girls to their actions.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Using your argument of commonality however, Mathama Ghandi could not have been the prime influence on subsequent peaceful protests around the world because not everyone who used his methods was from his cultural or religious background even if they used the same methods. Doesn't really wash, does it?

Not at all. The absence of a commonality in one case does not negate it’s importance in another case. I will cheerfully concede, for example, that Palestinian-Arab terrorists may have been an influence on Tamil-tiger terrorists, even though only a tiny percentage of the Tamil-Tigers are Muslim. I will also concede that IRA terrorists were an influence on Colombian narco-terrorists even though their political goals are very different.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
My concern is that, having taken issue with the core claim on this thread with a logically equivalent alternative, you consider that to be outside the scope of the discussion.

Except that your alternative is not logically equivalent. You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants.

You take issue with my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco to plan suicide-terror. What I consider to be outside the scope of the discussion is anything that does not directly address that assertion. That’s why I won’t discuss how early Israeli terrorists were different from other terrorists because the issue is how they are different (or the same) from the girls in Morocco.

I think that your continued participation in this thread has nothing to do with your disagreement with my assertion (as I have answered many times over every point of disagreement) but has more to do with your desire to vilify the Israelis and make them seem to be the equivalent of the Palestinian-Arab terrorists. If that’s your goal, I think you should be honest about it, and confine your discussions on that to the other threads where those issues are discussed. If you want to continue to bash my assertion that Arafat has played a role in shaping the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco, at least come up with something new.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
These commonalities are most important in what way? In proving that terrorism is bad?

I simply pointed out the most important commonality between terrorists. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines terrorist as 'a person who uses violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.' Violent and intimidating methods are therefore the defining characteristics. Terrorists can also work for governments, as well as non-governmental groups.

If you want to say that terrorism is bad, then yes, it’s important to look at how terrorism is bad. While I agree that terrorism is bad, that wasn’t a part of my thesis, and it’s not necessary to show how terrorism is bad to demonstrate a link between Arafat and the girls in Morocco. Recognizing that terrorism is bad does not take away from my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture of terrorism that led the Moroccan girls to their actions.

If you assert that Arafat contributed to a culture of terrorism I would not disagree with you. As to whether he actually influenced the Morrocan terrorists to their actions is a different matter and you may also be right and you may be wrong. It is presumably as accurate however to say that other terrorists from the same area, who also contributed to the culture of terrorism, could as equally have influenced the girls - given that the girls made no reference to Arafat whatsoever and other terrorists from the area could be said to have been more successful.

Except that your alternative is not logically equivalent. You cannot show any commonality with early Israeli militants that are not also commonalities with Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, yet I can show commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that are not commonalities with the early Israeli militants.

With respect, as you have already conceded that terrorists can be influenced by terrorists from different cultural backgrounds, ring fencing one particular group of successful terrorists does not seem to be entirely logical. I would have thought they would be candidates for being the most influential terorists simply because they could be said to have achieved many of their aims.

You take issue with my assertion that Arafat contributed to the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco to plan suicide-terror. What I consider to be outside the scope of the discussion is anything that does not directly address that assertion. That’s why I won’t discuss how early Israeli terrorists were different from other terrorists because the issue is how they are different (or the same) from the girls in Morocco.

I take issue specifically with the fact that you have provided no hard evidence for your assertion. I have repeatedly said that you may be right and you may be wrong but the evidence you provided made no reference whatsoever to Arafat.

To illustrate the logic of your case, I chose to highlight another group of terrorists who operated in the same area of the world and suggested that, by ignoring the girls' statements about who fascinated them, as you have, it would be as logical to suggest the other terrorists were a major influence.

I think that your continued participation in this thread has nothing to do with your disagreement with my assertion (as I have answered many times over every point of disagreement) but has more to do with your desire to vilify the Israelis and make them seem to be the equivalent of the Palestinian-Arab terrorists. If that’s your goal, I think you should be honest about it, and confine your discussions on that to the other threads where those issues are discussed. If you want to continue to bash my assertion that Arafat has played a role in shaping the culture that influenced the girls in Morocco, at least come up with something new.

Then you would be wrong again. You continue to misrepresent my views because not only have I repeatedly pointed out that Israelis are entitled to live free from terror as are all innocent Palestinians but I have never implied or stated that every Israeli is equivalent to Palestinian-Arab terrorists. If a Palestinian commits a terrorist act then he is a terrorist. So is a citizen of any other country in the world, including the UK and Israel, now or in the past.

I have also merely responded to the points you have made. If you wish to present some real evidence, feel free. Until then, given the logic of your own case, there are other valid alternatives. That you choose not to discuss one of them is naturally your perogative.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I simply pointed out the most important commonality between terrorists. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines terrorist as 'a person who uses violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.' Violent and intimidating methods are therefore the defining characteristics. Terrorists can also work for governments, as well as non-governmental groups.

So obviously one needs to look at factors other than those that define terrorism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong If you assert that Arafat contributed to a culture of terrorism I would not disagree with you.

That is my assertion. If you do not disagree, why do you continue to argue?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong As to whether he actually influenced the Morrocan terrorists to their actions is a different matter and you may also be right and you may be wrong. It is presumably as accurate however to say that other terrorists from the same area, who also contributed to the culture of terrorism, could as equally have influenced the girls - given that the girls made no reference to Arafat whatsoever and other terrorists from the area could be said to have been more successful.

At last we have something new. Now you say they might have been influenced by the Jewish militants because they were more successful.

It makes sense that someone looking for a role model would do well to pick someone who has been successful, but that alone is not evidence. Many people make decisions that do not lead to success. Do you have evidence to support this hypothesis?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong With respect, as you have already conceded that terrorists can be influenced by terrorists from different cultural backgrounds, ring fencing one particular group of successful terrorists does not seem to be entirely logical.

Conceding that terrorists can be influenced by terrorists from different cultural backgrounds is not evidence that a specific group of terrorists were influenced by another group of terrorists. If you can find evidence, that would make an interesting discussion.