Arafats gift to civilization

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I believe there are indeed some military actions which do not fall under the definition of terror. As I have mentioned before, I believe that Israel is entitled to use all legal force to stop terrorist bombings happening.

Okay, we agree so far…

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Using the Israeli airforce to assassinate suspects in circumstances which guarantee innocent children die, is however not one of them, as some of the pilots themselves seem to be agreeing. Many in the UK believe that the bombing of Dresden also crossed the line.

Here is where we begin to disagree. Is it your opinion that any military action that results in the death of a noncombatant is a terrorist action?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I distinguish between actual influence and asserted influence. They are not the same…
…Unfortunately you appear to still confusing actual influence with asserted influence…

I am not confusing actual influence with asserted influence. That is the topic of our argument. You disagree that my asserted influence is an actual influence.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In the absence of hard evidence your thesis therefore rests on the assertion that all you need to conclusively demonstrate influence is three specific factors. If they were indeed so conclusive, one would imagine that you would be very interested in showing what part those three specific factors played in influencing other terrorist groups. The terrorists who founded Israel are, at first sight, good candidates for analysis.

I did not assert that all I need to demonstrate influence are these three specific factors. Rather, because I find those similarities, I conclude there is an influence. Do you understand the difference? If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find completely different similarities..

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Corroboration by other terrorist groups, if found, would then support your use of the three factors in the case of the girls, because let me reiterate - you have no hard evidence whatsoever of influence by Arafat.

Maybe, but the absence of such a factor in another case doesn’t weaken my argument. As I said, if one were to look for influences in other groups, one might find completely different similarities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If that were a relevant analogy I would be happy to pursue it. Unfortunately it is not because you still need to differentiate between actual influence and asserted influence. In the absence of any hard evidence of actual influence you chose to claim that three specific facors conclusively demonstrated influence.

Again, I’m not claiming that those three specific factors are necessary to demonstrate influence in every case. I’m claiming that because I find them in this case, there is in influence. If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find different similarities.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
This can be tested, if not proved, by looking at how your claimed factors work with other terrorist groups. If they were relevant to other groups then they might have some relevance. You won't do that therefore there can be little confidence that they are of any use in the case you chose to cite.

And here my previous analogy works very well in illustrating a point: Except for the commonalities that all mammals share, the similarities between panthers and leopards are different than the similarities between dolphins and porpoises. Not finding the same similarities between dolphins and porpoises does not in any way makes panthers and leopards less similar.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If the terrorists who founded Israel thought up all their terrorist methods by themselves and weren't influenced by any other terrorists a simple question arises - why couldn't the girls do the same?

One line of thought could lead to the other, but that has more to do with the thinking process than any factual correlation. The question could also stand on its own without reference to any other group.

Could the girls in Morocco have thought up their actions all on their own?

Maybe, but given the similarities between their plans and the actions of Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, it seems unlikely. The Palestinian-Arab terrorists make the news a lot, and we do know these girls were literate.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If the terrorists who founded Israel were however influenced by other terrorists the question arises, who were they? What was their religion?...

How many times do we have to go over this religion thing before you give up this straw-man? The commonality isn’t Islam, it’s the specific teaching by some radical/fundamentalist Islamic clerics of shahid or martyrdom where you can get a fast-track to heaven through suicide-murder.

Some examples using a different religion:

Both the IRA and the American Mafia are both predominantly Catholic and both are/have been perpetuators of extreme violence. This in no way implies any connection or influence between these two groups. Why? Because they do their violence in spite of, not because of, their religion. Religion is not a common motive.

By comparison, the Inquisition was very much a product of Catholic teachings. Even though it took place in many countries over some five hundred years or more, the influence is direct between place to place and time to time. If today someone were burned alive for heresy against the Catholic church, I’d say the perpetuators were very likely to have been influenced by the same people who perpetuated the Inquisition from the 13th century C.E. to the 18th century C.E.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Let me look at the real effects of terrorism. There is absolutely no practical difference between a suicide bomber who kills ten people and a non-suicide terrorist who dies blowing up ten people. In both cases you have one dead bomber and ten dead innocents. The families of the ten killed by the suicide bomber have a dead family member, in exactly the same way as the families whose members were killed by a non-suicide bomber.

From a moral point of view, you could make an argument that there is no difference, and I might even agree with you, but isn’t that beyond the scope of our discussion? I’m not comparing the morality of the girls in Morocco to the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, just their methods.

If by “real effects” you mean “dead people” then using the same logic I could say that the Moroccan girls were influenced by the makers of whiskey. After all, there is no “practical difference” between someone who dies from a terrorist attack and someone who dies from a drunken driving accident.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In fact it can be argued that non-suicide bombers are worse because, if they survive and run away from their atrocities like cowards, they still terrorise other innocent people by their very existence. All terrorist bombers are wrong at all times but the successful suicide bomber is, by definition, not going to kill anyone else. The non-suicide bombers however can, and on many occasions do, bomb and murder innocent people again and again and again.

Okay, so you say the individual non-suicide terrorist is worse, because in the long run he can kill more people. That makes sense in and of itself, but in the case of suicide-terrorists I’d add that the real bad guys are the ones who recruit, indoctrinate, and make bombs for the ones who carry out the attacks, and who are likely to kill even more people in the long run because being removed from the actual violence, they are far less likely to ever be caught. Who then is the greater coward?

But that’s all arguing moral equivalency. Saying one group is better or worse than another goes beyond the scope of our argument, it has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It has everything to do with the fundamentals of your own argument however. In relation to Arafat you claimed that

Yes, by quoting me out of context, you manufacture an excuse to bring up Dier Yasin. I was making a distinction between Kamikazes and suicide bombers. The Kamikazes targeted U.S. Navy warships. While horrifying, I would still deem Kamikaze attacks within the realm of lawful warfare, and in no way similar to what the girls in Morocco planned.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am happy you agree that there are many good Muslims. Many presumably, who are against terrorism and who are happy to live in peace with their neighbours - whoever they are. Therefore we have hard evidence that those specific clerics influenced the girls. What still escapes me however is what that has got to do with Arafat? Is it simply that he is of the same religion as the initial cleric who told the girls what they were planning was illegal and of the vast numbers of Muslims who are against terrorism?

Arafat publicly praises shahids. From looking at his career, I would think his brand of Islam has more in common with the clerics that sent the girls literature on Jihad than with the cleric that told them their plans were illegal.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You have said before that you are look for similarities between terrorist groups that differentiate them from other terrorist groups rather than similarities which are inherent in the definition of a terrorist. That may be a reasonable aim. It would not however demonstrate actual influence. I feel that is a fundamental problem for your thesis.

Yet after more than two months of arguing, you are unable to produce a more likely influence.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Just before we start on this one I would just like to put some things into context.

1/ You ask questions but often won't answer them.

2/ You started you last but one post with an anallegation about me regarding obfuscation. Are you going to defend by your allegation and supply evidence or not? If not, are you going to apologise? perhaps it was just another of your assertions ?

At least start dealing with some of my questions about your own claims.

Or not - it is entirely up to you but I will highlight your continued failure to do so on a thread your started.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Just before we start on this one I would just like to put some things into context.

1/ You ask questions but often won't answer them.

I’ve explained why the question on who influenced the early Israeli militants is irrelevant and how any issue that would arise from that question can be discussed independently of the question. If you feel there are other questions that I’ve overlooked and are important, feel free to list them and I will address them. In general, I try to address important points while avoiding issues that are not central and might threaten to diverge off-topic.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
2/ You started you last but one post with an anallegation about me regarding obfuscation. Are you going to defend by your allegation and supply evidence or not? If not, are you going to apologise? perhaps it was just another of your assertions ?

At least start dealing with some of my questions about your own claims.

Or not - it is entirely up to you but I will highlight your continued failure to do so on a thread your started.

I didn’t follow up on your obfuscation issue because that’s not central to the argument and could easily become a distraction. I do think you are purposefully obfuscating the issues, but to discuss it would only add to the obfuscation.

You want me to supply evidence? Anywhere where I’ve noted your arguments as straw-man arguments is an example. Also wherever you’ve attempted to shift the argument from a direct discussion of who may have influenced the Moroccan terrorists to an argument of moral equivalency. I’m sure given some thought I could come up with other examples, but I don’t think it’s that important. Consider this my evidence supplied. No, I do not plan to apologize. If you want to discuss it further, I will be happy to in another thread or in private messages.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
I’ve explained why the question on who influenced the early Israeli militants is irrelevant and how any issue that would arise from that question can be discussed independently of the question. If you feel there are other questions that I’ve overlooked and are important, feel free to list them and I will address them. In general, I try to address important points while avoiding issues that are not central and might threaten to diverge off-topic

I am happy that you feel happy with the inherent truth of your assertions. You however, failed to support the assertion that forms the title of this thread with any hard evidence.

In the absence of any hard evidence for actual influence you claimed that a subset of commonalities is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of your allegation. Those commonalities do not demonstrate the fact of influence. They demonstrate that there are a subset of commonalities.

The fact that you persistently refuse to answer a simple question of central relevance to the truth of your claims shows that you not open to a full and frank discussion about your own claims.

I didn’t follow up on your obfuscation issue because that’s not central to the argument and could easily become a distraction. I do think you are purposefully obfuscating the issues, but to discuss it would only add to the obfuscation.

Let me just summarise this: -
1/ You made an unsubstantiated claim
2/ You were asked to provide evidence and justify it.
3/ You refused and
4/ Inferred the truth of your claim by its mere statement.

Can I just suggest that this is a characteristic of mediums and psychics through the ages.

You want me to supply evidence? Anywhere where I’ve noted your arguments as straw-man arguments is an example.

Sorry, I thought you just claimed that discussing your claim would only lead to more obfuscation? I have repeatedly pointed out that you repeatedly failed to notice question marks and that when the argument accurately reflects your views then it is not a straw man. It is part of the debate - not obfuscation.

Also wherever you’ve attempted to shift the argument from a direct discussion of who may have influenced the Moroccan terrorists to an argument of moral equivalency.

Please provide evidence. Or not, as you wish.

I’m sure given some thought I could come up with other examples, but I don’t think it’s that important.

So justifying your own claim properly is not important to you. Interesting.

Consider this my evidence supplied.

You have seen fit not to post a single one of my words to justify your claim.

No, I do not plan to apologize.

Noted.

If you want to discuss it further, I will be happy to in another thread or in private messages.

I have invited you to justify your claims, with actual evidence rather than assertion, out in the open where you made them. You won't do that. So be it.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Here is where we begin to disagree. Is it your opinion that any military action that results in the death of a noncombatant is a terrorist action?

No.

I am not confusing actual influence with asserted influence. That is the topic of our argument. You disagree that my asserted influence is an actual influence.

I agree that you have not demonstrated actual influence.

I did not assert that all I need to demonstrate influence are these three specific factors. Rather, because I find those similarities, I conclude there is an influence. Do you understand the difference? If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find completely different similarities..

Once more you are factually incorrect. When I pointed out 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.' you said
' What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion?' In other words you do not need any other evidence other than the three factors. You therefore asserted exactly what I stated you asserted. Do you understand what you said?

Maybe, but the absence of such a factor in another case doesn’t weaken my argument. As I said, if one were to look for influences in other groups, one might find completely different similarities

Can I just refer you back to your claim restated in the last post. You have demonstrated that there are some similarities between the girls and other terrorists. Unfortunately that is not evidence of actual influence. I have demonstrated that there are commonalities between the girls and different terrorists. In exactly the same way that is not evidence of actual influence.

Again, I’m not claiming that those three specific factors are necessary to demonstrate influence in every case. I’m claiming that because I find them in this case, there is in influence. If one were to look for influences between other groups, one might find different similarities.

You choose one subset of commonalities other people can choose other commonalities. All they demonstrate are commonalities, not actual influence.

And here my previous analogy works very well in illustrating a point: Except for the commonalities that all mammals share, the similarities between panthers and leopards are different than the similarities between dolphins and porpoises. Not finding the same similarities between dolphins and porpoises does not in any way makes panthers and leopards less similar.

If you were actually interested in supporting yuor claim of actual influence as opposed to asserted influence I would have thought that you would have been happy to test your ideas, given the lack of hard evidence. I am happy that you are happy in your assertion. You still have not demonstrated actual influence however.

Maybe, but given the similarities between their plans and the actions of Palestinian-Arabic terrorists, it seems unlikely. The Palestinian-Arab terrorists make the news a lot, and we do know these girls were literate.

Israeli terrorism makes the news a lot as well. It seems that you agree you do not know what the actual influences were.

How many times do we have to go over this religion thing before you give up this straw-man? The commonality isn’t Islam, it’s the specific teaching by some radical/fundamentalist Islamic clerics of shahid or martyrdom where you can get a fast-track to heaven through suicide-murder

How many times do I have to point out the question mark. You previously indicated that three factors were all you needed to demonstrate influence. Of those religion was one of them. If religion is not a factor then presumably terrorist of other religions could influence the girls as well?

If by “real effects” you mean “dead people” then using the same logic I could say that the Moroccan girls were influenced by the makers of whiskey. After all, there is no “practical difference” between someone who dies from a terrorist attack and someone who dies from a drunken driving accident.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. You claimed to not answer irrelevant questions. Nevertheless, unlike you, I will. I am talking about people who die from terrorist atrocities not car accidents? What difference does it make to the families if it was the suicide bomber or non-suicide terrorist died during the commisssion of the crime? Is one somehow better than the other?

in the case of suicide-terrorists I’d add that the real bad guys are the ones who recruit, indoctrinate, and make bombs for the ones who carry out the attacks, and who are likely to kill even more people in the long run because being removed from the actual violence, they are far less likely to ever be caught. Who then is the greater coward?

The organisers of suicide bombers are a bad lot indeed. Doesn't that also apply to the people who recruited the terrorists who helped found Israel. They also ran away and incited murder over and over again or, once again, are they a very special case not to be discussed?

But that’s all arguing moral equivalency. Saying one group is better or worse than another goes beyond the scope of our argument, it has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.

Then don't discuss it if you feel it is irrelevant. Why not simply produce some actual evidence of actual influence to support the claim you made about the girls in Morocco?

Yes, by quoting me out of context, you manufacture an excuse to bring up Dier Yasin. I was making a distinction between Kamikazes and suicide bombers. The Kamikazes targeted U.S. Navy warships. While horrifying, I would still deem Kamikaze attacks within the realm of lawful warfare, and in no way similar to what the girls in Morocco planned.

I did not manufacture an excuse. I used your own actual words to show that other groups were already doing what you accussed Arafat of innovating. Once again, you don't seem to like being faced with the logic of your own words and when people do so you resort to silly accusations. If you don't want your own words to be used in debate, why engage in debate.

Arafat publicly praises shahids. From looking at his career, I would think his brand of Islam has more in common with the clerics that sent the girls literature on Jihad than with the cleric that told them their plans were illegal.

Can I just remind you that while I am happy that you are happy with what you think, imagine, allege or conclude, you still need to demonstrate actual influence with actual evidence.

Yet after more than two months of arguing, you are unable to produce a more likely influence.

There is a difference between actual influence and likely influence. You made the claim. To demonstrate actual influence you need actual evidence. Perhaps you agree that you do not actually know who influenced them.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
No.

Okay, so you don’t feel that every military operation that results in noncombatant casualties qualifies as terrorism, but would you say that some do?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
'...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.' you said
' What solid evidence do I need above and beyond common modus operandi, shared cultural influences and religion?' In other words you do not need any other evidence other than the three factors. You therefore asserted exactly what I stated you asserted. Do you understand what you said?

I’m not sure I understand your meaning. Saying that those three factors is enough to demonstrate an influence in this case is not the same as saying that those same three factors are required in every case. Naturally I understand my own words, the question is do you?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Can I just refer you back to your claim restated in the last post. You have demonstrated that there are some similarities between the girls and other terrorists. Unfortunately that is not evidence of actual influence. I have demonstrated that there are commonalities between the girls and different terrorists. In exactly the same way that is not evidence of actual influence.

The commonalities you pointed to are also commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists and so were useless in saying that one group was more likely to have influenced them than the other group. That’s why I pointed out that commonalities that were definitive of terrorism were not useful.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You choose one subset of commonalities other people can choose other commonalities.

You make me want to dredge up some of Cain’s headache photos. What do you mean other people can choose other commonalities? If you can find other commonalities that suggest the Moroccan terrorists may have been influenced by another group, and if these other commonalities are not integral to the definition of terrorism so that they are commonalities with all terrorist groups, then you may have the basis for a solid counter-argument to my thesis. In more than two months, you have not been able to do this.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong All they demonstrate are commonalities, not actual influence.

How else do you demonstrate influence? If I were to say one artist was influenced by another, what I mean is that there are similarities in there work that suggests the second artist drew inspiration from the first. Sure, it’s great if the second artist actually says he was influenced by the first, but if for whatever reason the artist is unavailable for comment, the similarities still stand as evidence of the influence.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you were actually interested in supporting yuor claim of actual influence as opposed to asserted influence I would have thought that you would have been happy to test your ideas, given the lack of hard evidence. I am happy that you are happy in your assertion. You still have not demonstrated actual influence however.

I think that your failure to knock down my thesis for more than two months is a pretty good test. I am more convinced now than I was when I first posted the article that my observation is correct.

I’ve already told you why I think the specific test you mention is illogical and irrelevant, but I’ll be happy to test it in other ways if you can think of a good way to do it.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Israeli terrorism makes the news a lot as well. It seems that you agree you do not know what the actual influences were.

It seems that you’re still beating that straw-man to death. Israel does indeed make the news a lot, but not Israeli shahids who blow themselves up.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
How many times do I have to point out the question mark. You previously indicated that three factors were all you needed to demonstrate influence. Of those religion was one of them. If religion is not a factor then presumably terrorist of other religions could influence the girls as well?

Presumably, but the girls requested and received information on Jihad from Muslim clerics. Clearly, religion was a factor. That in itself does not exclude other terrorist groups from being an influence, but you have been unable to produce one with more commonalities than the Moroccan terrorists share with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists.

How many different ways do I have to explain this? Saying that religion is a factor in this case is not the same as saying religion has to be a factor in every case. Pointing to this commonality of Jihad between the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists and the Moroccan terrorists is not the same as saying that only Islamic terrorists can be looked at. It’s just that so far the non-Islamic terrorists you’ve mention have not had as much in common with the Moroccan terrorists as the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am talking about people who die from terrorist atrocities not car accidents? What difference does it make to the families if it was the suicide bomber or non-suicide terrorist died during the commisssion of the crime? Is one somehow better than the other?

If you only look at the body count, then you’re correct; there is no difference between a suicide bomber and a non-suicide bomber, but if you only look at body count then there is no difference between a terrorist attack and any other method a person might die violently. What difference does it make to the families if it was a terrorist or a drunk driver? Is one somehow better?

As far as our conversation goes, it doesn’t matter. The issue isn’t better or worse, it’s method. One method is the same as was chosen by the Moroccan terrorists, the other is not. No matter how much you beat that dead horse, it’s not going to move.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The organisers of suicide bombers are a bad lot indeed. Doesn't that also apply to the people who recruited the terrorists who helped found Israel. They also ran away and incited murder over and over again or, once again, are they a very special case not to be discussed?

We’ve been discussing Israeli militants for more than two months now, and in all that time you have been unable to show how they are similar to the Moroccan terrorists in any way that the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists are not also similar to the Moroccan terrorists. Let me ask you; what’s so special about them that you insist on bringing them up again and again when you can’t demonstrate their relevance to the discussion?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by MycroftOkay, so you don’t feel that every military operation that results in noncombatant casualties qualifies as terrorism, but would you say that some do?

Yes.

I’m not sure I understand your meaning. Saying that those three factors is enough to demonstrate an influence in this case is not the same as saying that those same three factors are required in every case. Naturally I understand my own words, the question is do you?

You indicated that you needed only the three factors to conclude that the girls were specifically influenced by Arafat. Even though the three factors are not uniquely identified either with the girls or with Arafat. If you are now saying something else, please elaborate.

The commonalities you pointed to are also commonalities with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists and so were useless in saying that one group was more likely to have influenced them than the other group. That’s why I pointed out that commonalities that were definitive of terrorism were not useful.

That is not my point. Let me ask you to clarify your claim. Are you saying that the three commonalities you chose to cite are enough to conclude that Arafat was the actual influence on the girls?

You make me want to dredge up some of Cain’s headache photos. What do you mean other people can choose other commonalities? If you can find other commonalities that suggest the Moroccan terrorists may have been influenced by another group, and if these other commonalities are not integral to the definition of terrorism so that they are commonalities with all terrorist groups, then you may have the basis for a solid counter-argument to my thesis. In more than two months, you have not been able to do this.

In more than two months you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of actual influence. All you have demonstrated are a few commonalities. Let me ask you once more. Are you still claiming that your three commonalities are definitive proof of actual influence by Arafat on the three girls or just that he might have influenced them?

How else do you demonstrate influence? If I were to say one artist was influenced by another, what I mean is that there are similarities in there work that suggests the second artist drew inspiration from the first. Sure, it’s great if the second artist actually says he was influenced by the first, but if for whatever reason the artist is unavailable for comment, the similarities still stand as evidence of the influence.

Here is the core problem with your argument. Not only did the artists say that they weren't influenced by the person you claim influenced them but they actually specifically cited another person entirely.

Does painting in a pointilistic technique represent influence. Both Australian aboriginals and european painters used the same technique without any influence whatsoever. So technique is not definitive. Does contemporanaeity demonstrate actual influence? No. Because the artist could havve been influenced by another person who used the similar techniques or came up with them independently.

The central problem for you is that demonstrating commonalities does not demonstrate actual influence.

I think that your failure to knock down my thesis for more than two months is a pretty good test. I am more convinced now than I was when I first posted the article that my observation is correct

I am happy you are happy with your assertion. If you imagine that your reasoning is sound, good for you. The problem however remains that you have found not one single piece of hard evidence to corroborate your claim. In the absence of said hard evidence you have resorted to commonalities to demonstrate actual influence. I am sorry that you do not see it but there is a real and material difference between actual influence and asserted influence. They might or might not correspond.

I’ve already told you why I think the specific test you mention is illogical and irrelevant, but I’ll be happy to test it in other ways if you can think of a good way to do it.

I am happy that you believe you don't need to test your thesis. You assert that a demonstration of actual influence in the case of the girls can be achieved merely by the use of a small number of commonalities. Unfortunately it still remains after two months merely an assertion.

It seems that you’re still beating that straw-man to death. Israel does indeed make the news a lot, but not Israeli shahids who blow themselves up.

Sorry, still not with you. Did the girls cut off all news of the Tamil Tigers or did they only hear of Palestinian suicide bombers on their news channels?

Presumably, but the girls requested and received information on Jihad from Muslim clerics. Clearly, religion was a factor. That in itself does not exclude other terrorist groups from being an influence, but you have been unable to produce one with more commonalities than the Moroccan terrorists share with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists.

After all this time you still seem to be labouring under the impression that commonalities are proof of actual influence. To conclude actual influence you need hard evidence such as the girls informing us that they were influenced by Arafat. Interestingly,they informed us that it was Osama in Laden who fascinated them. Do you believe that using the same methodologies is proof of influence?

How many different ways do I have to explain this? Saying that religion is a factor in this case is not the same as saying religion has to be a factor in every case. Pointing to this commonality of Jihad between the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists and the Moroccan terrorists is not the same as saying that only Islamic terrorists can be looked at. It’s just that so far the non-Islamic terrorists you’ve mention have not had as much in common with the Moroccan terrorists as the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do.

So the girls could have been influenced by terrorists of another religion.

If you only look at the body count, then you’re correct; there is no difference between a suicide bomber and a non-suicide bomber, but if you only look at body count then there is no difference between a terrorist attack and any other method a person might die violently. What difference does it make to the families if it was a terrorist or a drunk driver? Is one somehow better?

I don't think so but as we are looking at terrorists here, is there a difference, in your opinion, between suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers? If so, what is it?

As far as our conversation goes, it doesn’t matter. The issue isn’t better or worse, it’s method. One method is the same as was chosen by the Moroccan terrorists, the other is not. No matter how much you beat that dead horse, it’s not going to move.

Is the fact that different groups of people choose the same method of murder proof of the actual influence of one specific person on two specific people?

We’ve been discussing Israeli militants for more than two months now, and in all that time you have been unable to show how they are similar to the Moroccan terrorists in any way that the Palestinian-Arabic terrorists are not also similar to the Moroccan terrorists. Let me ask you; what’s so special about them that you insist on bringing them up again and again when you can’t demonstrate their relevance to the discussion?

I have happily demonstrated their particular relevance on many separate occasions.

They were a major terrorist force operating in the same area as Arafat and slightly predating him but otherwise who also murdered many innocent women and children in terrorist attacks and thereby defined most of the culture of terrorism in that area, as well as across the world. Their terrorist activities also did not stop their people voting them into high political office. They seem to well positioned to be a test case.

I have also pointed out a thesis is only as valuable as its predictive abilities and in the absence of actual evidence you concocted a thesis concerning certain aspects of human behaviour namely, the presence of three specific commonalities allows you to definitively conclude the presence of actual influence of one individual on two others.

Unless the three individuals you cited are somehow unrepresentative of the human species then your thesis should be expected to have some applicability beyond those three individuals. Apparently it doesn't, according to you, its author.

We are therefore left with only those three individuals and three commonalities. As your thesis has no predictibility at all then you need hard evidence to support it as its veractity cannot be demonstrated anywhere else. Assertion is not hard evidence and commonalities which are not unique to the individuals involved are not evidence of actual influence.

Many British darts players are from the same culture, of the same religion and use the same methods or types of darts. They may indeed even be from the same city and play in pubs, use the same front foot, use the same hand and drink the same beer. That is not still not enough to demonstrate that one individual influenced another although the many commonalities distinguish them from darts players in general. Now, if one of them said that he was indeed influenced by the other, that would indeed be hard evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

I think you and I are the only ones left reading this thread. Judging by the level of boredom it inspires in me, I can’t say that the lack of interest in others is surprising. However, I’ll pursue it a bit longer.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Yes.

Okay, so we’ve established that by your definition, some military action that results in the death of civilians may be considered terrorist, and others not. Can you tell me what distinguishes the two?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Here is the core problem with your argument. Not only did the artists say that they weren't influenced by the person you claim influenced them but they actually specifically cited another person entirely.

Where did the girls say they were not influenced by Arafat or the Palestinian-Arab terrorists?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Does painting in a pointilistic technique represent influence. Both Australian aboriginals and european painters used the same technique without any influence whatsoever. So technique is not definitive.

And yet if an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own. Even if the artist were to claim these other possibilities, such a claim would be met with skepticism.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Sorry, still not with you. Did the girls cut off all news of the Tamil Tigers or did they only hear of Palestinian suicide bombers on their news channels?

If you wish to present evidence that the Tamil Tigers receive more media attention in Morocco than do the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, go ahead. In the meantime, I will point out that their actions are still more similar to the Palestinian-Arab terrorists than they are to the Tamil Tigers.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I don't think so but as we are looking at terrorists here, is there a difference, in your opinion, between suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers? If so, what is it?

Well, the most obvious difference and the one that’s most relevant to our discussion is that one is a suicide bomber and the other is a non-suicide bomber. To suggest that they are the same is to ignore this definitive distinction.

Are there other distinctions? Sure, there are both tactical and religious distinctions as well. As I can’t imagine their relevance to our discussion, they will have to await another time.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have also pointed out a thesis is only as valuable as its predictive abilities …

Who said my thesis was not predictive? I predict more Islamic suicide-terror. Do you disagree?

There was a lot more to your post that I chose not to respond to. Without exception, these were all issues we have already dealt with in depth and where further repetition can not possibly add anything to the discussion. If you insist on continuing this, can you at least try to come up with something new? Not just new, but relevant?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
I think you and I are the only ones left reading this thread. Judging by the level of boredom it inspires in me, I can’t say that the lack of interest in others is surprising. However, I’ll pursue it a bit longer.

That's very gracious of you.

Okay, so we’ve established that by your definition, some military action that results in the death of civilians may be considered terrorist, and others not. Can you tell me what distinguishes the two?

When it breaks the Geneva Convention for one. Where the law recognises it as illegal and its aim is to terrorise entire populations. Where entire groups of people are collectively punished for the actions of a few, such as is happening daily in Palestine. When it is waged in a way that has a cynical disregard to civilian lives and where other alternatives are available. This includes assassinating suspects in circumstances which guarantee innocent children and peple are killed. Where demonstrably innocent people are terrorised with methods that have no other useful reason for carrying out the action, such as deliberately bulldozing the homes of innocent people. Where the military personnel involved recognise that the actions are illegal. Where international law recognises that the actions are terrorist in nature. Where it seeks to terrorise for the sake of it. Where the purpose is ethnic cleansing.

Where did the girls say they were not influenced by Arafat or the Palestinian-Arab terrorists?

I think this demonstrates, as much as anything, the lack of hard evidence for your claim. You made a specific claim. It is for you to justify it. I would have thought that on a sceptics site you would have recognised that the fact that the girls did not say something is not actual evidence of anything other than they did not say anything and interestingly, you can't even provide hard evidence of that.

And yet if an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own. Even if the artist were to claim these other possibilities, such a claim would be met with skepticism

It demonstrates, does it not, that the same methods can arise completely independently?

If you wish to present evidence that the Tamil Tigers receive more media attention in Morocco than do the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, go ahead. In the meantime, I will point out that their actions are still more similar to the Palestinian-Arab terrorists than they are to the Tamil Tigers.

Still not with you. You claimed that the reason the girls were influenced by one group was because they were on TV. Are you now saying that there is a minimum number of times a terrorist has to be on TV before they are an influence? If you mean they were more similar to Palestinian terrorists are you referring again to religion? I thought I'd disposed of that as a definitive influence a long, long time ago.

Well, the most obvious difference and the one that’s most relevant to our discussion is that one is a suicide bomber and the other is a non-suicide bomber. To suggest that they are the same is to ignore this definitive distinction.

As I was talking about the practical differences in the result of their terrorist work perhaps you have a meaningful difference?

Are there other distinctions? Sure, there are both tactical and religious distinctions as well. As I can’t imagine their relevance to our discussion, they will have to await another time.

Now theres a surprise.

Who said my thesis was not predictive? I predict more Islamic suicide-terror. Do you disagree?

You may be right. However, once again you seem to have difficulty remembering your own words. Let me gently remind you.
'I’m claiming that because I find them in this case, there is in influence.' You italicised 'this'.

I note that you have steadfastly refused to test your so-called predictive thesis to the terrorists who founded Israel but are happy to relate it to other Islamic terrorists. I wonder what the people in North America would have done if they had been treated in the way the Palestinians have been treated? Perhaps the War of Independence tells us something?

You really do need to justify your claims with hard evidence. After two months you have failed to do so. When you do eventually find some please let me know. In the meantime I am happy that you are happy with your assertions. Perhaps you might like to have a bit more information about Israeli suicide bombers?

In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up. They wrote to their comrades in adjacent cells... From http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html

It seems that the terrorists of the Irgun, Hagganah and Stern Gangs were into suicide bombs before Arafat. I wonder how they thought up the idea of murdering others while blowing themselves up but you won't test your thesis against them. Pity. One thing is clear though they can't have got it from Arafat. Perhaps they got it independently and their example has merely been used by others, after all, despite their terrorism they are promoted as heroes on the internet by Israeli interests (you were saying about glorifying terrorists) and maybe the girls have access to the internet as well as the TV you claim they probably watched.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think this demonstrates, as much as anything, the lack of hard evidence for your claim. You made a specific claim. It is for you to justify it. I would have thought that on a sceptics site you would have recognised that the fact that the girls did not say something is not actual evidence of anything other than they did not say anything and interestingly, you can't even provide hard evidence of that.

How does catching you in a falsehood demonstrate any of that? You said the girls claimed Arafat did not influence them, but you did not provide any documentation. I suggest you either do so or withdraw the statement. It is not up to me to prove they did not say it, if you say they said it, it’s up to you to either document it or withdraw the claim.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It demonstrates, does it not, that the same methods can arise completely independently?

Any number of things could happen, but when you hear hoof beats you think of horses not zebras. If an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own without compelling evidence to suggest these less likely explanations might be true.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Still not with you. You claimed that the reason the girls were influenced by one group was because they were on TV. Are you now saying that there is a minimum number of times a terrorist has to be on TV before they are an influence? If you mean they were more similar to Palestinian terrorists are you referring again to religion? I thought I'd disposed of that as a definitive influence a long, long time ago.

This really doesn’t deserve a response. I get tired of repeating myself after you purposefully mangle my words. If you feel that the Tamil Tigers are more similar to the terrorists in Morocco or for any reason are more likely to have been an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, then please make your case. In the meantime, asking me to clarify my statements again and again and building straw-men from thick-headed interpretations of what I say does not constitute an argument.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
As I was talking about the practical differences in the result of their terrorist work perhaps you have a meaningful difference?

Again, this really doesn’t deserve a response. The question has been asked and answered many times. If by practical difference in the result you mean dead people, then there is no practical difference in any method a person might die. Disease, accident, murder, war, if all you look at is the result then it’s all the same. On the other hand, if you look at the methods that people die, then there is an astonishingly wide variety of methods. Including the distinction between suicide terror and non-suicide terror.

If you have some point to make, then make it. If not, then asking the same question over and over again will only get the same answer.

In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up. They wrote to their comrades in adjacent cells... From

Very interesting. However a quick glance at the source shows it’s not a very good comparison.

First, the author states that these men resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up, but very shortly afterwards he states that the plan was to throw the explosives at the guards, implying that their own deaths may not have been a requirement.

Second, they never carried out this plan. Instead they used the explosives to commit suicide without hurting anyone else.

Now if you want to make a case that Feinstein and Barrazani are more likely candidates to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists, I’ll be very interested in hearing why you think that might be true.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I note that you have steadfastly refused to test your so-called predictive thesis to the terrorists who founded Israel but are happy to relate it to other Islamic terrorists.

Answered already. You asked a specific question I deemed irrelevant. If you’re not willing to demonstrate the relevance of your question, why do you keep bringing this up?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I wonder what the people in North America would have done if they had been treated in the way the Palestinians have been treated? Perhaps the War of Independence tells us something?

It won’t tell us who influenced the girls in Morocco. Why do you keep introducing these diversions?

This is the kind of statement that leads me to believe that your goals in participating in this discussion have less to do with your opinion on this topic and more to do with using it as a platform to push your pro-Palestinian-Arab anti-Israeli agenda. How the Palestinian-Arabs or the early American revolutionaries feel about anything has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You really do need to justify your claims with hard evidence. After two months you have failed to do so. When you do eventually find some please let me know. In the meantime I am happy that you are happy with your assertions. Perhaps you might like to have a bit more information about Israeli suicide bombers?

Isn’t this the heart of it? No matter what evidence I provide, you’re going to say it’s not good enough despite the fact that in two and a half months you haven’t been able to refute any of it or provide a more likely influence on the girls.

These girls in Morocco made a plan to make one of themselves into a human bomb and kill civilian shoppers in a store. In doing so, they sought advice from Muslim clerics on Jihad. The most prominent example of this sort of behavior in the world is in the disputed territories in Israel with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, where Shahids are not only common but glorified. It’s ludicrous to think they may have thought of this on their own with so many prominent examples of this behavior available, and it’s extremely unlikely that they drew their inspiration from other groups who’s behavior is only similar in a superficial way.

Is this proof beyond all doubt? No, it’s not. But to that degree of certainty is really only available in mathematics. When the issue is sociological, this proof is as good as it gets without actual statements or interviews with the girls in question, and those are unavailable.

I suggest we end this discussion. You are unconvinced, I stand by my thesis, and we have no new material to cover. Very few debates result in any other conclusion.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
How does catching you in a falsehood demonstrate any of that? You said the girls claimed Arafat did not influence them, but you did not provide any documentation. I suggest you either do so or withdraw the statement. It is not up to me to prove they did not say it, if you say they said it, it’s up to you to either document it or withdraw the claim.

I meant to say is that not only did the girls fail to mention Arafat they specifically cited who did influence them. I apologise for having changed that on the umpteenth time of having to repeat it.

Any number of things could happen, but when you hear hoof beats you think of horses not zebras. If an artist were to use the pointilistic technique and we were reasonably certain he had also heard of and seen the work of Georges Seurat, it would be idiotic to think he had been influenced by Australian aboriginals or to think he had come up with the idea on his own without compelling evidence to suggest these less likely explanations might be true.

Are you saying the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they were definitely influenced by Arafat?

This really doesn’t deserve a response. I get tired of repeating myself after you purposefully mangle my words. If you feel that the Tamil Tigers are more similar to the terrorists in Morocco or for any reason are more likely to have been an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, then please make your case. In the meantime, asking me to clarify my statements again and again and building straw-men from thick-headed interpretations of what I say does not constitute an argument.

Don't respond then. As far as I can tell from your responses you stated

Israel does indeed make the news a lot, but not Israeli shahids who blow themselves up.

as an indication that the girls did not hear of Israeli suicide bombers and therefore were unlikely to be influenced by them. You will no doubt correct me if that was not your intention and you meant something entirely different. Assuming my understanding of your point is correct then, if we are talking about methodology, I assume the Tamil Tigers were also on television therefore the girls may also have been influenced by them as well as the internet and TV promoted methodologies of Osama Bin Laden or Feinstein and Barrazzani.

First, the author states that these men resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up, but very shortly afterwards he states that the plan was to throw the explosives at the guards, implying that their own deaths may not have been a requirement.

There is no criticism on the internet site of their original plan to blow up themselves and other innocent people They duly committed suicide using bombs. Just like the girls they did not achieve their plan. I wonder if you condemn their original plan.

Now if you want to make a case that Feinstein and Barrazani are more likely candidates to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists, I’ll be very interested in hearing why you think that might be true.

If we ignore Osama Bin Laden as the influence then the terrorism of Feinstein and Barrazzani is currently being promoted on an Israeli site. On that site their murder of an innocent person is not condemned and neither is their plan for a suicide bombing. In fact, they are praised as heroes. They could not have been influenced by Arafat so they must either have come up with the plan independently or copied it off someone else. In exaxtly the same way, the girls could have been influenced by what they saw promoted on TV, or on the Internet.

Answered already. You asked a specific question I deemed irrelevant. If you’re not willing to demonstrate the relevance of your question, why do you keep bringing this up?

I have already explained this on many separate occasions. Nevertheless I am happy to do so once again. In the absence of any hard evidence whatsoever and despite the girls stating who fascinated them, you erected a thesis where all you needed to conclude influence was three commonalities. None of those commonalities are unique to the girls or Arafat. Given the proximity of Arafat's activities and the Stern Gang and the Hagannah in time and place and both Israeli and Hamas suicide bombings being lauded on the Internet, they both might have an influence.

Are you saying that the three commonalities you chose to cite are enough to conclude that Arafat was the actual influence on the girls?Do you condemn all terrorism and illegal acts of war?

It won’t tell us who influenced the girls in Morocco. Why do you keep introducing these diversions?

This is a discussion board. Your assertions have implications. That you won't discuss some of them is noted.

This is the kind of statement that leads me to believe that your goals in participating in this discussion have less to do with your opinion on this topic and more to do with using it as a platform to push your pro-Palestinian-Arab anti-Israeli agenda. How the Palestinian-Arabs or the early American revolutionaries feel about anything has nothing to do with the girls in Morocco.

So, the two factors of asking questions on a discussion board and pointing out material facts influences you to conclude the truth of this, your latest false claim?

I have repeatedly condemned Palestinian violence and terrorism and am more than happy to condemn all of it again, right now. Do you condemn all Israeli violence and terror? I have repeatedly stated that all Israelis are entitled to live in peace as are all innocent Palestinians, so, on the basis of those statements, I have leant more towards the Israeli side. I am not anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian in the same way as I am not anti-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I am simply anti-terror and pro-peace. I am pro-hard evidence rather than assertion.

Isn’t this the heart of it? No matter what evidence I provide, you’re going to say it’s not good enough despite the fact that in two and a half months you haven’t been able to refute any of it or provide a more likely influence on the girls.

Another false claim I'm afraid. The heart of the matter for me is that you made the claim that all you needed to conclude actual influence was three factors. Now you may be right and you may be wrong, as I have repeatedly stated. None of the three factors however is unique to either Arafat or the girls and you cannot conclude actual influence of one man on the two girls without hard evidence to support the claim, especially when they specifically stated who it was that fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat.

If we exclude the person who did fascinate them, the terrorists who helped found Israel also contributed enormously to the culture of terror in the Middle East and could also have influenced the girls into imagining that terror, (of whatever sort, none unique to Islam) would achieve their aims.

These girls in Morocco made a plan to make one of themselves into a human bomb and kill civilian shoppers in a store. In doing so, they sought advice from Muslim clerics on Jihad. The most prominent example of this sort of behavior in the world is in the disputed territories in Israel with the Palestinian-Arab terrorists, where Shahids are not only common but glorified. It’s ludicrous to think they may have thought of this on their own with so many prominent examples of this behavior available, and it’s extremely unlikely that they drew their inspiration from other groups who’s behavior is only similar in a superficial way.

The first and main Muslim cleric stated that their plan was illegal. I note that nowhere in that section do you mention that you can conclude the actual influence of one person on the two girls from three non-unique commonalities. It seems we are getting somewhere. Glorifying terrorism is not just the domain of the Palestinians or the Irish or the British or North Americans. The Israeli sites I posted glorifies suicide bombers as well.

Is this proof beyond all doubt? No, it’s not. But to that degree of certainty is really only available in mathematics. When the issue is sociological, this proof is as good as it gets without actual statements or interviews with the girls in question, and those are unavailable.

At last.

Your three, non-unique factors are insufficient to conclude actual influence. You are just convinced in your own mind that they are.

I suggest we end this discussion. You are unconvinced, I stand by my thesis, and we have no new material to cover. Very few debates result in any other conclusion.

As you wish. My point is however, not one of conviction. It is one of fact.

You believe that you can conclude actual influence by one specific person on two specific people on the basis of your three, non-unique factors. So be it.

The fact also remains that a wide range of groups, including some governments from around the world including North America and Europe, contributed to the culture of terrorism in the Middle East. That culture of terrorism could also be said to be their gift to civilisation.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Are you saying the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they were definitely influenced by Arafat?

After more than two and a half months, I can’t imagine my position really needs more clarification.

You keep throwing up less likely candidates for influence on the Moroccan terrorists without making any real case for them. You can find other groups that have one characteristic in common, but you can’t find other groups that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do.

The Tamil Tigers. Yes, their use of suicide-terror is a commonality with the Moroccan terrorists. Are they more similar than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? I don’t think so, but if you do please make a case for it.

Feinstein and Barrazzani: The website you quoted puts to doubt that they really planned a suicide-bombing. It says they planned to throw their explosives at their captors. Further, in the end they merely committed suicide with their explosives. Do you really think they may have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists? If so, do you really think they may have been more of an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? It seems unlikely to me, but if you think so, please make a case for it.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So, the two factors of asking questions on a discussion board and pointing out material facts influences you to conclude the truth of this, your latest false claim?

No. That you continually try to divert the topic does. Such as in the following example:

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have repeatedly condemned Palestinian violence and terrorism and am more than happy to condemn all of it again, right now. Do you condemn all Israeli violence and terror?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The Israeli sites I posted glorifies suicide bombers as well.

How? It seemed like a dry recitation of history to me.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The fact also remains that a wide range of groups, including some governments from around the world including North America and Europe, contributed to the culture of terrorism in the Middle East. That culture of terrorism could also be said to be their gift to civilisation.

Yet among all these suspects, you can’t find one that is more similar to the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists.

 

[Troll]

Jane's had an article discussing the Tamil tigers suicide bombers, I'm still trying to find the same article again and will link when I find it, I posted it at a porn site's discussion bored about 2 months ago.

According to Jane's modern day suicide bombings are attributed to Arafat and his fatah movement. It was also an issue in his taking over the PLO which is from another source.

 

[Troll]

Here we go

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jtsm/jtsm010917_1_n.shtml

"Since the technique was first perfected in the early 1980s, it has been grimly successful, most recently in the wrenching 11 September attacks in New York and Washington. While Sri Lanka and Palestine generate the most suicide bombings, the attacks against the USA dwarf all others in their planning, complexity and success. Individual suicide bombers present military and security officials with difficult detection and prevention problems for improvised explosive devices. Israel has developed a proactive approach with its ‘targeted killings’ programme, but the long-term viability of such an operation remains to be seen."

Now yes there were kamikaze attacks on military targets, and some sent kids with grenades in shoe-shine kits up to military personel. But killing civilians via an explosion that will result in the death of the person wanting to kill them is a fairly new concept and it began with Arafat.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
After more than two and a half months, I can’t imagine my position really needs more clarification

Then all you need to do is answer a simple question. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they definitely were influenced by Arafat?

You keep throwing up less likely candidates for influence on the Moroccan terrorists without making any real case for them. You can find other groups that have one characteristic in common, but you can’t find other groups that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do.

Sorry. Must have missed your hard evidence for actual influence. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or definitely were influenced by Arafat.

The Tamil Tigers. Yes, their use of suicide-terror is a commonality with the Moroccan terrorists. Are they more similar than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? I don’t think so, but if you do please make a case for it.

Are you saying that Arafat definitely influenced the girls or might have influenced the girls?

Feinstein and Barrazzani: The website you quoted puts to doubt that they really planned a suicide-bombing. It says they planned to throw their explosives at their captors. Further, in the end they merely committed suicide with their explosives. Do you really think they may have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists? If so, do you really think they may have been more of an influence than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists? ...

Can I just point out what the Official Irgun site actually claims for the two terrorists. it says 'In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up.' That is quite clear as to their intentions. THe site also says 'they died together as heroes.' As suicide bombers they are being actively promoted as heroes on an Israeli site. I don't rule them out as influences on the girls. Do you? If so you might like to justify your view.

No. That you continually try to divert the topic does. Such as in the following example:

You made a demonstrably false statment about me. I demonstrated that it was false and asked a question to clarify your own views. It seems that discussion about matters relating to the thread you started is now the crime of deliberate diversion. Who would do such a thing? Clearly discussion must be banned from discussion boards and people should not be asked to justify their claims. I cry out for absolution for my crimes from the god of assertion.

How? It seemed like a dry recitation of history to me.

Er it calls suicide bombers and terrorists, heroes. The Oxford Compact English dictionary defines a hero amongst other things as '1 a person noted or admired for courage, outstanding achievements etc.'

Yet among all these suspects, you can’t find one that is more similar to the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists.

Your claim relates to Arafat. Are you claiming that Arafat actuallyinfluenced the girls or might have influenced the girls? The Israeli site is actively promoting suicide bombers on the internet as heroes. It might have been them. You have yet to tell us why it wasn't.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Then all you need to do is answer a simple question. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or that they definitely were influenced by Arafat?

You’re serious, aren’t you? I thought you were being purposefully obtuse, but after two and a half months of arguing, you’re still not clear what you’re arguing against, are you?

If you have the free time to carry this on, you certainly have the time to scroll back and find one of the many times I’ve stated my position and figure it out.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Sorry. Must have missed your hard evidence for actual influence. Are you saying that the girls might have been influenced by Arafat or definitely were influenced by Arafat.

Is this your way of saying you can’t find another group of terrorists that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Are you saying that Arafat definitely influenced the girls or might have influenced the girls?

Is this you’re way of saying you’re not going to try to make a case that the Tamil Tigers are more similar and more likely to have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Can I just point out what the Official Irgun site actually claims for the two terrorists. it says 'In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up.' That is quite clear as to their intentions. THe site also says 'they died together as heroes.' As suicide bombers they are being actively promoted as heroes on an Israeli site. I don't rule them out as influences on the girls. Do you? If so you might like to justify your view.

Yet in the very next paragraph it says:

"It" referred to the two grenades which Feinstein and Barazani planned to hurl at the executioners when they came to escort them to the gallows.

So were they going to blow themselves up with their captors? Or were they going to hurl the grenades at their executioners? These sound like two different things to me. It’s questionable if this was even planned to be a suicide bombing.

You are correct that the site did describe them as heroes, but it boggles the mind to suggest that a couple of 14 year-old prostitutes would have had enough knowledge of history to even be aware of a couple of Jewish Irgun fighters who, at best, failed in their attempt at suicide bombing 56 years ago much less look to them for inspiration over hundreds of successful contemporary Palestinian-Arab suicide-bombers, when it’s doubtful that Feinstein and Barazani even planned a suicide bombing.

You pointed out that Feinstein and Barazani were “glorified” on that one website. I’ll point out that website was published in Hebrew and translated into English. The primary languages of Morocco are Arabic and French. Do you think there are any Arabic or French websites that would “glorify” Jewish Irgun fighters? Do you think that beggars and prostitutes in Morocco have access to the internet? Do you think that someone wanting to be a suicide-bomber would rather draw their inspiration from people who succeeded in this aspiration, or someone who apparently failed, and may never have planned it to begin with?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You made a demonstrably false statment about me. I demonstrated that it was false and asked a question to clarify your own views. It seems that discussion about matters relating to the thread you started is now the crime of deliberate diversion. Who would do such a thing? Clearly discussion must be banned from discussion boards and people should not be asked to justify their claims. I cry out for absolution for my crimes from the god of assertion.

When you bring up irrelevant issues, I wonder what your motives are for doing it. The feelings of patriots from the US war of independence are not relevant to a discussion comparing Moroccan terrorism to Palestinian-Arab terrorism, and condemnation of Palestinian-Arab terrorism is not required to note similarities between them and other terrorist groups. Now, are you demonstrating that my statement was false? Or are you just asserting that my statement was false?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Your claim relates to Arafat. Are you claiming that Arafat actuallyinfluenced the girls or might have influenced the girls? The Israeli site is actively promoting suicide bombers on the internet as heroes. It might have been them. You have yet to tell us why it wasn't.

I have to tell you why it wasn’t? I don’t think so. To go back to my previous analogy, if I note a similarity between panthers and leopards, I don’t have to discuss dolphins to make my point. If you think dolphins are more similar to panthers than leopards are, you make the case for it.

In other words, if you think a couple of 14 year-old Islamic-Arab prostitutes in Morocco were more likely to look to a couple of Jewish Irgun fighters who committed suicide in prison some 56 years ago for inspiration than hundreds of contemporary examples of successful Palestinian-Arab suicide-terrorists, then feel free to make your case. I do not have to try to prove a negative.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by MycroftYou’re serious, aren’t you? I thought you were being purposefully obtuse, but after two and a half months of arguing, you’re still not clear what you’re arguing against, are you?

If you have the free time to carry this on, you certainly have the time to scroll back and find one of the many times I’ve stated my position and figure it out.

I am serious actually. You don't have to answer any questions. Even the simple ones.

Is this your way of saying you can’t find another group of terrorists that have more in common with the Moroccan terrorists than the Palestinian-Arab terrorists do?

THis is my way of asking a question . Note the question mark. I note that you don't do simple questions. You have failed to demonstrate actual influence. When you find actual hard evidence for your claim make sure and let me know.

Is this you’re way of saying you’re not going to try to make a case that the Tamil Tigers are more similar and more likely to have been an influence on the Moroccan terrorists?

Still not answering questions I see. Nothing new there. Unlike you, I do not conclude actual influence in the absence of hard evidence.

So were they going to blow themselves up with their captors? Or were they going to hurl the grenades at their executioners?

Are you saying that we cannot believe the Official Irgun site? Let me repeat what the site actually says. It says.

In the death cell in the central prison in Jerusalem, Feinstein and Barazani resolved to blow themselves and their executioners up.

Unless the Official Irgun site is lying they clearly planned to be suicide bombers and the Israeli site calls them heroes. In other words an official Israeli site is glorifying suicide bombers.

It’s questionable if this was even planned to be a suicide bombing.

It's only questionable if you believe that the Official Irgun site is lying. THey are very specific about what the two terrorists planned. I note that you won't condemn either their terrorism, their planned suicide bombing or the glorification of the terrorists as heroes. What was it you were saying about Palestinians?

You are correct that the site did describe them as heroes, but it boggles the mind to suggest that a couple of 14 year-old prostitutes would have had enough knowledge of history to even be aware of a couple of Jewish Irgun fighters who, at best, failed in their attempt at suicide bombing 56 years ago much less look to them for inspiration over hundreds of successful contemporary Palestinian-Arab suicide-bombers, when it’s doubtful that Feinstein and Barazani even planned a suicide bombing.

The problem for you is that 1/ they need no knowledge of history at all because 2/ the suicide bombing of Israeli terrorists is currently being promoted on the internet for all to see. 3/ According to the official Irgun site the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing. Are you saying the Official Irgun site are liars? I note you won't comdemn their planned suicide bombing. Do you condemn the planned suicide bombing or not?

You pointed out that Feinstein and Barazani were “glorified” on that one website. I’ll point out that website was published in Hebrew and translated into English. The primary languages of Morocco are Arabic and French. Do you think there are any Arabic or French websites that would “glorify” Jewish Irgun fighters?

I have absolutely no idea. Do you? Are you saying that the girls were definaitely not influenced by the terrorists promoted on the Israeli site? Have you enough actual data to draw a conclusion on this as well?

Do you think that beggars and prostitutes in Morocco have access to the internet?

I don't know. Do you? Is it now your argument that they definitely haven't got access to the internet and can't have been influenced by the Israeli site that glorifies a planned suicide bombing?

Do you think that someone wanting to be a suicide-bomber would rather draw their inspiration from people who succeeded in this aspiration, or someone who apparently failed, and may never have planned it to begin with?

I don't know. Do you? You still seem to be sayinng that the Official Irgunsite is lying. Are they?

When you bring up irrelevant issues, I wonder what your motives are for doing it.

My comments have been very relevant to the discussion. It must be hard for you, always on guard for people asking your opinion with simple questions. How dare they do such a thing. A discussion board should never be used for discussion.

The feelings of patriots from the US war of independence are not relevant to a discussion comparing Moroccan terrorism to Palestinian-Arab terrorism, and condemnation of Palestinian-Arab terrorism is not required to note similarities between them and other terrorist groups. Now, are you demonstrating that my statement was false? Or are you just asserting that my statement was false?

Are you serious? Do you not know what my position is after all this time? Unlike you however I am happy to enlighten you as to my position. You made a claim. It is for you to substantiate ite it. I have shown that your views may or may not correspond with the truth but you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to conclude actual influence especially given that there is not one commonality which is unique to the girls or Arafat and the girls actually specified who fascinated them. As you seem to have forgotten. It wasn't Arafat. Israeli terrorists planned suicide bombings before Araffat and they are currently being lauded as heroes on an Israeli site. I note you won't condemn Isreali terrorists. That is what I call bias.

I have to tell you why it wasn’t? I don’t think so. To go back to my previous analogy, if I note a similarity between panthers and leopards, I don’t have to discuss dolphins to make my point. If you think dolphins are more similar to panthers than leopards are, you make the case for it.

You are free to think whatever you like. I have no problem with that. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I am happy that you are happy with your assertion.

YOu don't have to discuss anything on a discussion board. Unfortunately, your three commonalities are insufficient to demonstrate actual influence. I am glad that you are no longer claiming that you can conclude actual influence from three non-unique commonalities, particularly when the girls might have been influenced by the planned suicide bombing of Israeli terrorists as currently lauded on an Israeli site.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong The problem for you is that 1/ they need no knowledge of history at all because 2/ the suicide bombing of Israeli terrorists is currently being promoted on the internet for all to see. 3/ According to the official Irgun site the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing. Are you saying the Official Irgun site are liars? I note you won't comdemn their planned suicide bombing. Do you condemn the planned suicide bombing or not?

One does not need to say anyone is a liar to point out that two statements that contradict each other made by the same person cast doubt on both statements. I'm sure the mistake was unintentional.

I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary.

The girls may have gotten their idea from a fortune cookie, they may have received a psychic message from Uri Geller, or these Arabic/French speaking Muslim beggar/prostitutes may have cruised the internet and gotten their inspiration from a Hebrew/English website talking about the activities of some Jews who committed suicide 60 years ago while being completely ignorant of hundreds of examples of contemporary suicide-bombings by Muslim/Arabs in the disputed territories of Israel.

All of these possibilities are equally likely. Since proving a negative is so very difficult, I cannot disprove the 60 year-old Jewish suicide theory, the Uri Geller theory, the fortune cookie theory, or even disprove that my cat does not change colour when nobody is looking at her. Come to think of it, my cat may have traveled to Morocco and spoken to these girls, giving them their idea. She does sometimes stay out all night, how am I to know where she goes?

However, given the similarities between the plans of these Moroccan twins and the hundreds of examples of suicide-terror produced by the Palestinian-Arabs, I do indeed conclude that it was the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that influenced them and not the Jewish suicides, my cat, Uri Geller or even a fortune cookie. While these other possibilities cannot be disproven, Occam's Razor gives me the certainty to make my statement with confidence.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. I suggest you take a closer look at my cat. She is an avowed Zionist, having never condemned any Israeli action from the founding of the Irgun to the modern day.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by MycroftOne does not need to say anyone is a liar to point out that two statements that contradict each other made by the same person cast doubt on both statements. I'm sure the mistake was unintentional.

I wonder how you can so often be so sure. Are you a spokesman for the Irgun site?

The Official Irgun site states that the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing to kill themselves at the same time as other innocent people. Unfortunately they are lauded as heroes on the Israeli site. Simple facts I'm afraid.

I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary.

I am afraid I have no idea what you mean by moral ambiguity. Is that a euphimism for supporting their planned suicide atrocity?

The girls may have gotten their idea from a fortune cookie, they may have received a psychic message from Uri Geller, or these Arabic/French speaking Muslim beggar/prostitutes may have cruised the internet and gotten their inspiration from a Hebrew/English website talking about the activities of some Jews who committed suicide 60 years ago while being completely ignorant of hundreds of examples of contemporary suicide-bombings by Muslim/Arabs in the disputed territories of Israel.

So you couldn't conclude actual influence. I'm glad that's clear.

However, given the similarities between the plans of these Moroccan twins and the hundreds of examples of suicide-terror produced by the Palestinian-Arabs, I do indeed conclude that it was the Palestinian-Arab terrorists that influenced them and not the Jewish suicides, my cat, Uri Geller or even a fortune cookie. While these other possibilities cannot be disproven, Occam's Razor gives me the certainty to make my statement with confidence.

Certainty, confidence? Still not with you. I thought we agreed that you haven't got any hard evidence. All you have are three non-unique commonalities. If you think they were influenced, that's one thing. You haven't proved it.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. I suggest you take a closer look at my cat. She is an avowed Zionist, having never condemned any Israeli action from the founding of the Irgun to the modern day.

I merely shown that you haven't provided sufficiant evidence to conclude that there was influence. If your weren't being facetious, perhaps your cat is actually interested in discussion?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I wonder how you can so often be so sure. Are you a spokesman for the Irgun site?

The Official Irgun site states that the two terrorists planned a suicide bombing to kill themselves at the same time as other innocent people. Unfortunately they are lauded as heroes on the Israeli site. Simple facts I'm afraid.

Just as it’s a simple fact that in the very next paragraph it’s stated that their plan was to throw the explosives at their captors, which contradicts the statement that they planned to blow up themselves and their captors. One does not throw explosives if ones goal is to blow oneself up with someone else. How many times do we have to go over this? With enough editing, you can make anyone seem to say anything.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I am afraid I have no idea what you mean by moral ambiguity. Is that a euphimism for supporting their planned suicide atrocity?

No. I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary. If in that you read something that seems to support suicide, then that has more to do with your reading skills than anything I say.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
So you couldn't conclude actual influence. I'm glad that's clear.

Sure I can. That you bring up possibilities from woo-woo land doesn’t in any way take away from the similarities I’ve noted.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Certainty, confidence? Still not with you.

If you google Occam’s Razor you might catch on. Essentially it’s the idea that one shouldn’t look at unlikely possibilities when much more simple and likely possibilities are available. Hoof beats usually mean horses, not zebras.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I thought we agreed that you haven't got any hard evidence. All you have are three non-unique commonalities. If you think they were influenced, that's one thing. You haven't proved it. I merely shown that you haven't provided sufficiant evidence to conclude that there was influence. If your weren't being facetious, perhaps your cat is actually interested in discussion?

If we disagree on what hard evidence is and what is required to make a case, we can hardly be said to agree on if I have hard evidence or not. What we do agree on is that you’ve failed to provide a more likely candidate to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists.

I’ll be more than happy to pass on any comments you may have to my cat, but I have to warn you; she is stubborn and will never confess to having influenced the Moroccan terrorists.