London mayor defends the use of Palestinian suicide bombers

[Behind the Aegis]

Less than two weeks since the London terror attacks, the city's Mayor Ken Livingstone has sparked controversy by defending the use of suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and charging that Israel had indiscriminately slaughtered Palestinians in acts that "border on crimes against humanity."

"Given that the Palestinians don't have jet planes, don't have tanks, they only have their bodies to use as weapons," Livingstone told Sky News in an interview.

"In an unfair balance, that's what people use," said Livingstone, who has often been strongly critical of Israel in the past.

--snip--

At the time, Livingstone was uncompromising in his condemnation of the terror acts.

Continues here.

What an idiot! He is nothing more than an apologist for criminal behavior.

[MercutioATC]

1. I agree with the logic of the statement.

It's certainly not an excuse, but he's right. Terrorists can't hope to confront us by matching military strengths, so they do what they can.

I'm not condoning their methods, but it IS important to understand them.

[Kraklen]

2. He's right.

Give Palestinians jets and tanks if you want to play fair.

I'm sure you'd be supporting it if you were under occupation.

[Larkspur]

3. He's right and as a descendent of Irish immigrants who were oppressed by

the British, Livingstone had the courage to say the truth about why oppressed people will use terror to strike back against state sponsored terrorism.

We need more Livingstones and less Ariel Sharon's, George Bushes, and Karl Roves.

[geek tragedy]

4. By that reasoning, the London attacks were justified as well.

In Ken's world:

Suicide bombings against civilians in response to illegal occupation in London: Barbaric terrorism

Suicide bombings against civilians in response to illegal occupation in Tel Aviv: Heroic resistance and martyrdom.

Red Ken: Back to being a hypocritical wanker.

[bullimiami]

13. At what point did he say they were justified and with what reasoning.

It is ALL WRONG! Thats what he says. US, Israeli, Palestinian, Iraqi, Cruise Missile, Suicide Bomber.

ALL WRONG!

Not justified but understand you bomb them with planes and they will fight back with what they have. You treat them like humans, as equals and they will start to treat you as the same.

[geek tragedy]

19. Why didn't he say that when London was attacked?

Here's how Ken deals with the subject of Israel/Palestine:

Scenario A: Israelis kill Palestinian civilians

Ken explodes with outrage against Israel

Scenario B: Palestinians kill Israeli civilians:

Ken explodes with outrage against Israel, says that Israel has brought this upon itself, and includes boilerplate throwaway line that "of course" he opposes all violence, including Israeli mass terrorism and slaughter . . .

It's quite clear that he's less outraged by certain acts of terrorism and violence than others. His outrage is a direct function of the targets of the violence.

[anotherdrew]

55. isreal HAS brought this on itself, get behind the green-line, war over.

[geek tragedy]

66. London has brought this on itself--get our of Iraq, war over.

See how that works?

[anotherdrew]

81. sounds like a good plan

[Igel]

67. Get behind the green line,

and exterminate Hamas, who's said that the war is not over even if Israel gets behind the green line.

I don't know what JI has said on the matter.

[anotherdrew]

83. well....

hamas can be ended then, surely they would have much less popular support for continuing such attacks.

BTW - would someone comment on the claims I've seen that Hamas was originally organized by mossad to create a counter force against the PLO? Just wondering about that, maybe it's total BS, I don't know...

[Behind the Aegis]

85. it is BS

Hamas started out as a peaceful welfare organization. It was recognized by Israel soon after arriving from Egypt. The Israeli government supported them (I think this is where the myth was born), but at some point, I believe 3 years after establishment, it changed tactics. The reason Israel supported them originally is because they were a "counter" to the PLO and chose to work "with" Israel.

[anotherdrew]

87. I think I have hamas/hezboulha (sp wrong) confusion happening again

I guess I'd better go do some research, thanks for the info

[Colorado Blue]

107. You really think so? There were wars and terror BEFORE

Israel went beyond the Green Line. Attacks on helpless Jewish people in this region began in earnest shortly after WWI, long before Israel was a state.

I don't the long range goal is simply the Green Line - which, incidentally, leaves big chunks of Israel's population and its capitol city, including the most sacred sites in Judaism - hanging in the breeze. Have you seen any Palestinian maps which have "Israel" on them? At all? In any configuration? No.

Moreover, the "Green Line" was never a negotiated, internationally recognized border but merely a cease fire line. It does not take into consideration rational security needs or the status of Jerusalem, to name but two extremely important factors.

[sabbat hunter]

116. what if

what if israel gets behind the green line and the terrorism agaisnt it continues. then what?


david

[Peace Patriot]

75. "His outrage is a direct function of the targets of the violence."--geek

tragedy.

No, I think his outrage is a direct function of the ARMAMENTS that each possesses. One armed to the teeth. The other armed with homemade bombs, rifles and rocks. An unfair fight, by definition. (--kind of like Bush I smashing Iraq's airforce into dust and the UN disarming the country, and Bush II then bombing the shit out of Iraq and invading it, slaughtering over 100,000 people. Nice rules.)

You say his opposition to violence is a toss-off. That's not really fair. I don't think he wants anybody killed. He's talking about the inequity.

I think the title of this post--that he defends suicide bombings--is very misleading.

[Zhade]

28. He never says the act is justified, certainly not in the OP story.

He explains logically why bombers use themselves, and rightfully slams the Israeli government and Likud, but I don't see one place in the linked piece wherein he says "suicide bombing is A-Okay!".

Some are reading things into his comments that just aren't there. I wouldn't advise arguing with people who create things out of thin air just to condemn someone they apparently don't care for. It's impossible to debate someone who essentially makes shit up to "win".

[Lucille]

Please! "defend" is Haaretz' word

I think anyone who reads that article can see the difference between what Livingstone said and Haaretz' characterization of what he said. Livingstone recognized the reasoning behind terrorism in an asymmetrical war. He did not endorse the actions of terrorists. You can acknowledge something without approving of it or defending it. In fact the article says, "At the time, Livingstone was uncompromising in his condemnation of the terror acts."

Livingstone recognized the brutality of the Likud party as well as the brutality of Palestinian terrorists. He also compared the means of each side in waging war, noting that both used whatever resources that were at their disposal--one the high tech implements of modern war, the other low tech terrorism. That can't make Likud sympathizers, who want to claim the moral high ground, very happy.

[Zhade]

40. Stop making sense. Read the actual article? Never!

Shouldn't the headline be enough to indict someone, even when the article makes clear the headline is misleading?

[geek tragedy]

42. Livingstone is asymmetrical in his criticism of violence and terrorism.

He expresses outrage when Palestinians or Londoners are killed, but when it's Israeli women and children being murdered tries his best to explain it by saying the Israelis brought it on themselves, that the Palestinians have no choice, with a throw-away line that "of course" he condemns all violence.

[anotherdrew]

57. glad to know your keeping score on 'condemnation watch'

Lord knows, terrorists care what livingston thinks, if he just condems loudly enough...

[anotherdrew]

65. How have you condemned Israeli's sniping unarmed women and children?

I don't see it in your posts here, so I declare you in violation of your own equal-condemnation policy. You seem to think that any one who questions Sharon's tactics hates Israel. I want it to live in peace and would gladly fight to defend it if arab nations again attacked it, but the palestinian situation is different.

[geek tragedy]

69. War criminals like that should be punished to the max.

Again, my objection is that if you're going to place one side's violence in context, you should do it for both sides. Israeli violence towards the Palestinians does not arise out of a vacuum or a black hole in the soul of Israelis.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[obxhead]

5. well with that rationalization

it's ok for the "insurgents" in Iraq too. I'm so glad these people are looking out for us. Why can't we just put 'em on a rocket and fire it directly into the sun.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Sometimes, Ken...

I wish you would just STFU. He's talent in humiliating his opponents is exceeded only by his talent for putting his foot in his mouth.

[Beaver Tail]

7. He did not defend it. Be careful how you word that

He explained why they do it and he is absoutely correct

snip
Livingstone has made clear he condemns all killing, including suicide bombing. But is also a long-standing critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8642326/

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I didn't write the article.

I posted according to LBN guidelines.

"...the city's Mayor Ken Livingstone has sparked controversy by defending the use of suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..."

[Beaver Tail]

22. Point Taken BUT

BUT you did say

What an idiot! He is nothing more than an apologist for criminal behavior

Need I point you to the 20000 Lebanese and Palestine civilians who died when Israel invaded Lebanon in the 80's?

[Behind the Aegis]

29. ?

What does "Need I point you to the 20000 Lebanese and Palestine civilians who died when Israel invaded Lebanon in the 80's?" have to do with HIS apologetic attitude?

[Beaver Tail]

31. His attitude is not apologetic

It is Explanatory

[geek tragedy]

46. Then why does he always try to explain Palestinian violence but never

Israeli violence? And why does he criticize Israeli violence and violence against Londoners so much more strongly than he criticizes violence against people eating pizza in Israel?

[Beaver Tail]

50. Probably because

Everyone else is explaining and condoning Israeli violence in the MSM but no one is standing up and defending the Palestinians in Western Society

[Zhade]

52. That's a point worth remembering.

NT!

[Colorado Blue]

108. That is hardly the case. Look around you. Even Bush is

calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state, as is Ariel Sharon, and the Palestinians have received more money from benefactors than just about any comparable population on this planet. It wasn't Clinton or Ehud Barak or the State of Israel which turned down the establishment of a Palestinian state several years ago, nor was it the Israelis who turned it down and started a war in 1948.

As far as the assymetry of weapons is concerned, wait awhile. As long as people condone suicide bombers or other sorts of violence in preference to negotiations, it's only a matter of time before rockets, missiles and WMD's enter the picture. Why? Because the world hasn't spoken loudly against the concept of violence but is doing its absolute damndest to justify even the most horrible examples of it: human sacrifice to destroy innocent human life.

Let this place and time but the beginning of a movement to condemn violence like this, and to endorse TALKING. That's all the Israelis have ever wanted: to sit down and talk to their neighbors, one on one, instead of dealing with with boycotts, wars, terror, economic punishment, isolation and demonization - with the end goal the destruction of the state and all her people. Try listening to what is really being said out there, with what has been said and done for almost 60 years, and for decades before that.

[rocktivity]

25. DING DING DING! Behind The Aegis, you're our grand prize winner!

"...the city's Mayor Ken Livingstone has sparked controversy by defending the use of suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..."

He didn't defend it, he just tried to explain it. You're free to agree or disagree.


rocknation

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Barrier

The Security Barrier being built is a good thing because it helps reduce and has reduced terrorist attacks within Israel.

Am I "defending" or "explaining" the Barrier?

[Beaver Tail]

30. By using the words "GOOD BECAUSE" you are defending

To simply say "The Security Barrier helps reduce and has reduced terrorist attacks within Israel" would to be to explain it.

Edit Here

"Good Because" is subjective. To simply state what i had posted is mesurable so objective and therfore explaning and not defending

[Jim Sagle]

114. The Peace Fence...making the world a better place, one link at a time.

[Zhade]

32. Has there been evidence it has actually worked?

I'd consider further theft of Palestinian land facilitated by the wall not to be very conducive to creating peace. If it were my land being taken, or my village being sealed away from the outside world by a wall all around me, I know I'D be pretty pissed.

Not to drag this out and get it moved to I/P, but that comment seems a little too assured to fit the "facts on the ground". Are there impartial studies that show the wall has actually directly decreased terrorism?

If you've got 'em, I'll read 'em!

[Beaver Tail]

34. I agree

I'd consider further theft of Palestinian land facilitated by the wall not to be very conducive to creating peace You have no argument from me here. I am just trying to explain the logic behind the statement. I am not defending it.

[Zhade]

36. Agreed, but the reply was to BTA, so I know you weren't defending it.

NT!

[Beaver Tail]

39. LoL.. Kewl Stuff - Sorry for the misunderstanding

[Zhade]

41. No worries!

[bullimiami]

8. what an idiot? do you read or just respond to the headline.

in haaretz by the way.

forget the fishwrap and lets see the actual quotes from livingstone used in the article

1) Israel had indiscriminately slaughtered Palestinians in acts that "border on crimes against humanity."

True

2) "Given that the Palestinians don't have jet planes, don't have tanks, they only have their bodies to use as weapons,"

as weapons....what? taken out of context but by itself it is true. they fight with what they have.

3) "In an unfair balance, that's what people use,"

Exactly. This is the nature of Asymetric War.

4) Livingstone said that Israel has "done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity the way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades."

Undisputed.

5) "I think it is the Israelis who are leading the stubborn line," said Livingstone. "The Likud and Hamas members are two sides of the same coin. They need each other in order to attract support."
"Each side emphasizes the extremism of the other in order to attract sympathy," Livingstone said.

I agree again.

6) "I believe it is forbidden to take human life," Livingstone said. "I will welcome and meet with senior members of the Israeli government if they come here because they serve their country's government even though I believe they have done terrible things bordering on crimes against humanity."

Maybe this statement is what makes him an idiot?





Read, think, post.

[geek tragedy]

11. To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don't think that "undisputed"

means what you think it means.

In any event, he certainly didn't take that tone when it was London voters being attacked.

[bullimiami]

17. I know exactly what undisputed means

"done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity the way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades."

tell me this isnt true and Ill know you for a morAn.

Both sides have done it and it doesnt make it right for either. They can keep killing or not. Its a choice.

[geek tragedy]

I guess you'll have to call me (and many, many other Democrats) morans

then.

"Indiscriminate slaughter" is not an accurate description of how Israel handles the Palestinians.

Compare Israel's rules of handling the Palestinians with Syria's "Hama rules" if you want to see what true indiscriminate slaughter means.

Israel's occupation of Palestine is unnecessarily brutal and immoral. But excessive rhetoric does not serve the cause of truth.

[Debs]

73. Yes it is

"Indiscriminate slaughter" is not an accurate description of how Israel handles the Palestinians. <<

Of course it is. They shot a missile into an apartment building to get ONE guy they accused of being a terrorist. They killed 17 including 9 children. On what planet is that NOT indiscriminate slaughter? They shot another missile at a blind parapalegic cleric, killing him and seven people who just happened to be leaving the Mosque at the same time. Again indiscriminate by definition. I mean why couldnt a blind, parapalegic just be arrested if he has done something illegal. According to Amira Haas,(Israeli journalist) when accepting the Anna Lind award Israeli snipers were instructed to target and kill children. (you will have to google this as I archived it and didnt include a link) alestinian and Israeli human rights and health organizations commented that the number of injuries in the upper parts of the body was proof that the order was to kill. They also claimed that the army was tartgetting children...An interview I held with an Israeli sharpshooter confirmed these claims. Again if this doesnt meet a good definition of indiscriminate slaughter the term has no useful meaning. Both sides are involved in unconcionable actions against each other. Excusing Israeli attrocities while screaming loudly about Palestinian attrocities just isnt morally consistant.

[Colorado Blue]

109. I have to agree with Geek Tragedy on this. You're off base,

and any examination of historical fact will prove that true. What Livingston is claiming is propaganda, pure and simple, and it's in line with other incredibly stupid and bigoted things he's said in the past.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. I read it.

And, he is still an idiot. He defends the use of terrorism because it's "all they have to use."

Haaretz is a legitimate newspaper. It is not a 'fish-wrap.' But, perhaps because it is an Israeli paper, it has no merit?

Read, think, analyze, post

[K-W]

23. He did not defend it,

why are you claiming something that isnt true?

[Zhade]

35. He did not defend it. You are simply incorrect.

All he does - in THIS piece, anyway - is explain why they do it.

That's not defending it. You're reading into his words things that aren't there, and you are wrong in doing so.

[geek tragedy]

44. He attempts to rationalize and explain violence against Israelis and

offers only very weak criticism ("of course I condemn all violence") while he denounces and condemns violence against Palestinians and Londoners in the strongest possible terms.

There's a significant outrage gap in his language.

[Zhade]

47. Your argument is contradictory.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but...

In post #4, you say

By that reasoning, the London attacks were justified as well.

In post #19, you say

Why didn't he say that when London was attacked?

Now you say "he denounces and condemns violence against Palestinians and Londoners in the strongest possible terms."

Which is it, geek? Does Livingstone speak out against violence against Londoners, or does he not? Pick an argument and stick with it.

[geek tragedy]

48. You misapprehended my point.

My point was that he did NOT use the same reasoning in dealing with Palestinian terrorism inside Israel as he did in dealing with terrorism in London. I was saying that if he HAD used the same reasoning, his rhetoric would have been much different.

[Zhade]

51. "misapprehended" is a word I'll have to remember, I really dig it.

Appreciation for diction aside, perhaps the decades of systematic oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli government, which goes as far as rewriting history (e.g. related to tens of thousands of Palestinians being forced from their land and homes), weighs more heavily on Livingstone's mind than the loosely-organized tactic of suicide bombings. Perhaps the fact that innocent Palestinians are killed in greater numbers than innocent Israelis pushes him to condemn the Israeli government with more conviction. Perhaps he does this because he sees systemic killing by the Likudnik government on the one hand and random killing by a small number of bombers on the other, and the occupying government's oppression is far more pronounced than the bombings.

I don't know the guy. I can't say. I can say there may be more anger toward the Israeli government, because of course if the IDF didn't snipe innocent Palestinian kids and allow the continued theft of Palestinian land by settlers there might be less bombing. No way to know at this point.

That also brings up a touchy point: technically, IDF and adult-age settlers in Palestinian territories that fire at or threaten with harm Palestinians on the Palestinians' own land are considered fair game - it's self-defense. I personally have no qualms with Palestinians attacking these groups when their land is being stolen from them.

I do not condone killing any children, anywhere, ever, be it by suicide bombing or an IDF sniper's bullet. Likewise, I despise the killing of innocents (but I don't see the IDF or illegal adult-age settlers who choose to appropriate land not their own to be innocents).

At any rate, the headline remains misleading, because even if as you say Livingstone is harder on the Israeli government than bombers, he STILL didn't DEFEND the tactic, just explained why it's used according to his view.

His view may be tilted toward the plight of the Palestinian people, but that does not mean his words as quoted in the article defend suicide bombing. A clear reading shows me that he merely explains, but does not condone.

[geek tragedy]

63. As bad as Israel has been, no one can touch the UK when the subject

is colonialist abuses in the Mideast.

[Beaver Tail]

70. This is correct

Imperialistic powers have almost always been oppressive to their colonies.

[Zhade]

76. Now that we can agree on!

NT!

[Zhade]

33. Good post. Solid, fair, reasoned.

Nicely done.

[K-W]

9. He didnt defend, rationalize or apologize for anything.

He accurately stated that Palestinian's resort to suicide bombing because they cannot challenge Isreal in more conventional combat.

[heidler1]

45. The concept that our "shock and awe" is somehow civilized and suicide

bombers are brutal will not hold. The saudis who took part in 9/11 attributed their hate of the US to the one sided support of Israel and sympathy for those who had already resorted to suicide bombing. Bush and others have tried desperately to sell the view that they are terrorists whereas our war efforts are somehow for the good of humanity. This lie has dangerous consequences for any nation that claims that it can skate free of retaliation. The only way you can deal with this conflict of purpose is to seal the borders in total isolation. Republican greed wants free trade, but is unwilling to realistically deal with our security thats threatened by their thinking that they can implement one sided shock and awe.

[Debs]

74. Demonizing the weapons of the weak

While glorifying the weapons of the strong always seems to be in style. There are no excuses for attrocities by either side. It is only natural to aknowledge that people will only take so many attacks on their dignity before they snap and do something unconcionable. See the lyrics of the Song If I Had a Rocket Launcher Bruce Cockburn.

[Maeve]

10. Looks like the article is a hit piece

In reaction to the opinion he expressed about the West fueling Islamic radicalism http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The headline doesn't accurately reflect the quote and the writer makes sure Livingstone looks hypocritical.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Not a "hit" piece

It is a legitimate article from a legitimate newspaper. It is posted in accordance with LBN rules!

[K-W]

18. It is in fact a hit piece.

Hit pieces do appear in legitimate newspapers.

It takes quotes and mischarecterizes them in the standard manner, by confusing explenation and defense.

[bullimiami]

24. Legitimate article in a legitimate newspaper...

Doesnt mean it is fair or unbiased.

I support the US and Israel. I do not support the way either is being run right now. I am disgusted.

[Zhade]

43. The headline conflicts with the article.

It's misleading and inflammatory.

The headline itself is a mini-hit piece.

[silvermachine]

53. Most certainly is a hit piece

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Click on the above link to get a more reasonable article.

[Maeve]

56. "Hit piece" has nothing to do with LBN rules

It has to do with the intent of the writer/newpaper/source.

IMO, the story was written with a specific agenda and intent--to discredit Livingstone by distorting his meaning and put his words in the worst light possible, with the other story giving one reason for such an agenda.

[silvermachine]

60. Nicely stated...

...my thoughts exactly.

[BornLeft]

12. History determines who the terrorists are

If Israel had not succeeded in being recognized as a nation, the freedom fighters would have been classified as terrorists. ironic isn't it.

[Zhade]

49. Then there were the terrorists like the Stern Gang.

Ironically, I've known some people who consider those terrorists to be heroes.

Funny world, this.

[tocqueville]

16. the problem is that most attacks are on civilians

Terrorism use that method, because attacking military targets is mostly not efficient (unless it has to do with unprotected police stations like in Iraq).

On the other end they motivate it by the fact that the occupying forces don't really care about collateral damage during their operations, which is mostly true.

In the end the repression against the insurgent becomes so atrocious that they win the sympathy of other, despite the methods.

And in these countries, due to the climate, geography and population concentrated in towns, classical "countryside" guerilla warfare is more difficult, if not impossible.

But when you see on TV a young Palestinian stoned to death by Jewish settlers (because they had to leave a settlement) - the guy wasn't even tauting them - and the Israeli soldier "protecting him" just moving at the right moment, so you can hear the thump of the stone hitting his face... I understand that some people go ballistic...

I bet that CNN doesn't show those pictures over there....

[demobrit]

20. "London mayor defends the use of Palestinian suicide bombers"

Ken Livingston is regarded in most circles as a maverick left wing Labour Mayor of London , he has only in recent months been welcomed back into the Labour Party after having spent his first term as London Mayor as an Independant .
He certainly isn`t in the same Political camp as Tony Blair but as the London Mayor wields quite alot of influence politicaly in London and incidentaly he is very popular with Londoners . it
made sense to Tony Blair to welcome Ken back into the Labour fold.

[Zhade]

26. Uh, where does he DEFEND their use?

Haaretz has spun a misleading headline (at least this isn't from the Richard Perle-linked Jerusalem Post - that would have Livingstone strapping on a bomb himself). After reading the entire piece, I can only conclude that Livingstone is explaining logically why suicide bombers use themselves as weapons.

I fail to see where he defends the act.

[Emillereid]

37. See the Battle of Algiers -- there's an enlightening bit of

dialogue that explains it all. After one of the 'resistance fighters' or 'terrorists' had been caught the French press asked him how he could encourage and condone such diabolical acts as purse bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, etc, to which he answered: "We will tade our car bombs and purse bombs for your airplanes and tanks."

The weaker side fights with whatever they have -- remember our own revolutionary fighters.

Personally I'm sure that bombs dropping out of the sky, cruise missiles, depleted uranisum, napalm, M-16s, etc are all terrifying ways to die -- just asked the 100,000 plus Iraqis! Talk about criminal behavior.

[Englander]

38. Moving in 3.........2.........1

"Locking in 3............2.........1."


Also,this exact same article appears on Israpundit.

Must be a coincidence.

[sintax]

58. Does violence beget violence?

Let us say a man is in your neighborhood shooting up folks in the area and he approaches your house with your children inside. What would you do?

If you terminate this mans existence you in fact end the violence.

Violence does not always beget violence.

Israel is above criticism in the West it seems and those who staunchly defend the Israeli State in light of their continued violence against the Palestinians, which come in multiple forms, might wish to consider walking in the shoes of an uncle who has seen his nephew blown to bits by an F-15 and consider the madness of this sight and how it could affect ones psyche.

Suffer the children.

End the occupation(s)

[The Stranger]

61. Absolutely Wrong .

If you terminate this mans existence you in fact end the violence.

Ignoring for the moment the reason for "shooting up folks in the area," this man whose "existence" you think you ended has family, friends, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters -- much like you do.

And they may decide to respond just as you did.

So ou haven't ended the violence at all, except in the most disingenuous and myopic sense. On the contrary, you have actually contributed to a cycle of violence and furthered the violence.

[sintax]

68. What would you do?

It does seem appealing to consider a pacifist approach to impending or occurring atrocity but i think you would consider otherwise in the brute reality of such everyday non-stop humiliation and murder.

Easy for us behind the keyboard and well fed.

This "Mad Gunman" may not have the support of his family who may be just as fearful of his psychotic, homicidal behavior.

Be it MAN (Patriarch) or NATION-STATE (Patriarch)

[The Stranger]

77. Difficult questions to which I do not pretend to have easy answers.

But I do not think that violence (in itself) can ever truly put an end to violence.

[Beaver Tail]

62. Premise does not quite fit but your point is taken

If it came down between my family and the man shooting up the neighborhood the man is going to be either incapacitated or dead but your scenario is a one to many and not many to many relationship which is the case with Israel and Palestine.

[sintax]

71. Wanted to personalize it

though that is impossible as we sit safely in our chairs knowing we shall have bread later.

[noonwitch]

59. I really can see both sides of the Palestinean/Israeli conflict

I do think both sides have legitimate complaints against the other. Unfortunately, very few leading nations maintain neutrality, and take one side or the other.

The Israeli's are the descendants of people who survived the Holocaust. They built a nation out of a desert, but displaced the palestineans to do so. The Palestineans are treated like second class citizens in the land of their birth. Those innocent of involvement in terrorism are treated as if they are guilty of it because they share the same race and religion as the terrorists.

The Israeli's are wrong to tear down houses of people who are related to terrorists. The Palestineans are wrong to target civilians in their resistance to Israeli occupation. Both sides' allies are so convinced that for religious reasons, they must take one side regardless of the bad things that side is doing.

The US needs to cut off all aid (except humanitarian aid, when needed) to both sides until they stop killing each other. As long as we are selling the Israelis the bullets and the bulldozers, we are feeding war in the area.

[bunny planet]

64. seems like you have a misleading title on your OP

[ananda]

72. geez, in that case..

.. by the s a m e logic, he should be defending the suicide bombers in London.

??!!

Sue

[sled]

78. One man's "terrorist"...

is another man's "freedom fighter"...the definition of "is"...

************************************

"The Irgun"

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html

SEE: The Bombing of the King David Hotel

After the weapons had been distributed, the first unit - the group of "porters" - commanded by Yosef Avni, set out. Their assignment was to reach the hotel by bus and to wait at the side entrance so as to assist in unloading the explosives from the van when it arrived. All six "porters" were disguised as Arabs so as to avoid arousing suspicion. The strike force left next in a van loaded with seven milk-churns, each containing 50 kilograms of explosives and special detonators.

************************************

"Lehi" (aka the Stern Gang)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang

Lehi (Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel") was a radical self-described terrorist group that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state.

British authorities termed the group the Stern Gang, a label that persists in historical accounts.

[UncleSepp]

79. His statement was explaining a tactic, not a strategy

Policy determines the goal. Strategy identifies the targets to be struck in order to achieve the goal. Tactics determine how to strike the target, and with what resources.

The policy governing the actions of the various groups sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers has determined that an independent Palestinian state is the goal. One of the tactics used by those groups has been to strike identified targets by the use of cheap, hand-carried explosives. That tactic is not necessarily immoral, and is not necessarily terror: if used against an infrastructure target with key military importance such as a bridge, a radio tower, or a power substation, it would remain a strike of last resort but would not in and of itself constitute terrorism or a crime against humanity.

Terrorism in general is the strategy of waging war on civilians, based on the idea that the government of those civilians will eventually choose to ensure the safety of its citizens by conceding to the policy goals of the opposing force. Conventional warfare in general wages war on the military forces of a government, and on the infrastructure which supports those military forces, with the idea of denying that government its ability to wage war. There are admittedly gray areas and apparent contradictions in such a simple model. Sometimes, a government can use a strategy of terror against a nongovernmental force: a state can use attacks against its own civilians to achieve its policy goals, such as the reduction of public dissent through the threat of torture and execution. Sometimes, a state pursuing conventional warfare will mimic terrorism in its actions: a state might engage in naval blockades, not to stop the flow of arms into an enemy state, but in order to decrease the quality of life and through that reduce civilian support for the enemy state.

Interestingly enough, the strategy of terrorism seems designed for democracies or for weak states. If the affected civilians of a state do not have the power to change the policy of a state through democracy or through force, then putting pressure on the civilians is useless. Conventional warfare, on the other hand, seems designed for fighting strong states in which the people, in the absence of organized government, do not have the power to resist incursions of military force. Further, both strategies rely on the idea that most civilians will prioritize personal safety and comfort over governmental policy issues. Neither will work when the civilian population would rather die than live with the policies of the opposing force. In that case, any war fought through any means has no possible resolution until one idea wins and the grounds for war is gone. Even the complete elimination of all the people who hold the opposing idea will not ensure the end of the war, as ideas can and will rise again until defeated by better ideas.

[sled]

82. Thanks...

For the well reasoned info...

[pelsar]

80. one of the most ignorent threads....

that I've read in a while....so much misinformation:

from israelis "target children" to the wall not stopping suicide bombers, .....to suicide bombers being "the only means".....

first of all, suicide bombers are not the "poor mans" tank.....the individual suicide bombers for the most part are weak minded individuals, or people who are being taken advantage of who go and kill civilians....In iraq they kill most iraqis...in israel they have caused their own people to live in misery as walls are built, checkpoints made as a response and missles are shot at their leaders. In other western countries they simply kill the infidel...a good general term for any group that doesnt agree with "them."

its a tactic that does not advance anything but bring more misery and death to people for no other purpose than bringing "honor to islam"...it celebrates death.

for those that 'excuse it"...those cheerleaders are similar to the "useful idiotes" during the cold war......you understand little of the actual workings behind it....more so..as london and madrid has now witnessed, once out of the bag, it spreads and will continue to spread as it has become a way to "payback" for evils commited.

understanding the suicide bomber is similar to understanding the someone in a cult.....they are people who need help...and those that run the cult should be put away......

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

110. Thank you. Amen.

[Coastie for Truth]

84. To my liberal, progressive friends----- Here is where I stand

THIS WAS WRITTEN BY PERETZ WITH REFERENCE TO THE ANGLICAN "DISINVESTMENT" -- AND THE AUT "BOYCOTT"---
I THINK IT IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE.


They were silly, but they were at least prisoners of ideals. Fascist sympathizers feared the dread evil of communism, and communist sympathizers feared the dread evil of fascism. And communism purported to build a just society, a new relationship of man and man, though it turned out in many ways to be worse than fascism, more murderous, more delusional, more long-lasting. In any event, both of these armed doctrines tried hard to delude their followers with the lure of high ideals, some rooted in one or another version of the Christian ethic. But what vision of a good society do the ideologists of Palestine proffer to their boosters all over the world? Really nothing, except another miserable state like the others in the Arab Middle East. The new fellow-travelers lack even the feeble extenuations of the old ones.

Indeed, anyone who envisions a future Palestinian polity must wrestle with the grim and ongoing realities of a stagnant class structure, unproductive economic habits, an uncurious and increasingly reactionary culture, deeply cruel relationships between the sexes and toward gays, no notion of an independent judiciary, and a primitive religious mentality that gains prestige in society even as it emphasizes the promise of sexual rewards in paradise for martyrs--a crude myth that has served successfully as an incentive for suicide bombings not only in Israel but also in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. And no real challenge to any of these backward actualities has arisen in all of the turmoil the movement has sown.

Which takes us back to the church deleriants for Palestine. What kindles the fire in their hearts for Palestine? There is little or nothing in Palestinian society that would fill a progressive with enthusiasm. And these churches do not generally exult in the promise of yet one more nation-state. In fact, these churches are against the nation-state, especially the U.S. nation-state. (In Nottingham last week, the Anglicans demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.) And, even if you take to the harshest reading of Israeli behavior in their ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, dozens and dozens of other peoples in the world, some of whom have a much sounder claim to be a real nation than those for whom the official Anglicans and Presbyterians shed so many tears, suffer infinitely more deprivation and indignity than they do. But tears are not shed for those people at Canterbury Cathedral in England or, for that matter, at Christ Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose rectors have for years been virtual street agitators against Israel. So I come to an unavoidable conclusion. The obsession here is not positive, for one side, but rather negative, against the other side. The clerics and the lay leaders on this indefensible crusade are so fixated on Palestine because their obsession, which can be buttressed by various Christian sources and traditions, is really with the Jews. A close look at this morbid passion makes one realize that its roots include an ancient hostility for the House of Israel, an ugly survival of a hoary intolerance into some of the allegedly enlightened precincts of modern Christendom.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050711&s=peretz071105
The New Republic Online <http://www.tnr.com/ >
ANGLICANS AND ISRAEL: Bad English
by Martin Peretz Post date: 06.30.05
Issue date: 07.11.05

[bemildred]

88. Religion, suicide terrorism link disputed in book

"Islamic fundamentalism is not the primary driver of suicide terrorism," Pape said. "Nearly all suicide terrorist attacks are committed for a secular strategic goal -- to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

"Yes, it's true we're killing terrorists day by day, but the real measure of suicide terrorism is simply the number of attacks," said Pape. "The problem with suicide terrorism is that it's not supply limited, it's demand-driven."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[sled]

89. Don't you...

be muckin' up this here discussion, with some of them dang facts, now...

[bemildred]

90. Completely irrelevant, I know.

[pelsar]

91. papes database....

is rather limited, out of date and ignores much information.....

"I have compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315"

its now 2005 and the numbers are far far greater.....he didnt include attempted but caught in the list....

more so he is ignoring the call to "suicide bombers":

"Hundreds of Iranian men and women, even children, declared their willingness to carry out suicide attacks in Iraq and Israel following Friday prayers in Tehran.
The "volunteers" signed their names and gave their telephone numbers to an obscure group calling itself the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the World Islamic Movement"

shall we check in to saudi arabias immans?....what they say about suicide bombers.

the point is that parts of islam in connection with islamic theocratic nation states has now integrated the suicide bomber as part of the religous/state ethos (were talking about islam here as defined by saudi arabia/iran and parts of pakistan)

yes those facts sure get in the way of some political correctness that trys very hard to cry that islam has no part of it.....islam may not have started it, but they've taken it to new heights far beyond others.

btw any other countries sign up potential suicide bombers?

[bemildred]

92. Don't forget this one too:

Religion, suicide terrorism link disputed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[bemildred]

93. This one is interesting too:

This alarmingly normal profile is why the National Science Foundation gave anthropologist Scott Atran, a research director at the National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, emergency funding to study groups that sponsor suicide attacks. He just spent three weeks in Gaza and the West Bank, where he spoke to counterterrorism strategists, fugitive Hamas leaders, would-be suicide bombers and families of "martyrs."

"None of the supporters of suicide terrorism I interviewed, especially at al-Najah University, were poor, uneducated, socially estranged or psychologically deranged," says Prof. Atran. "They are idealistic and compassionate, and think they can change the world. That makes the whole thing more frightening than if they were just crazies off the street." In a study of al Qaeda recruits, forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman of the University of Pennsylvania finds a similar pattern: Many attended college and are economically better off than most Palestinians or European Muslims, and they are often "the elite of their countries," he says.

But suicide terrorists are not rational in the way science understands the term. They do not weigh risks and benefits or winning and losing strategies. For the suicide bomber, says Prof. Atran, " 'sacred values' and fervor trump rational interest." For instance, when he asked young Hamas supporters whether a martyr is "more deserving" if he kills 10 of the enemy or 100, all responded that it would not matter if the martyr killed no one but himself. He also asked, if your father were dying and your mother asked you to delay your suicide operation, would you? All answered that "duty to God" cannot be delayed for even a minute.

http://discardedlies.com/entries/2004/10/peer_groups.ph...

[pelsar]

94. that right...

"sacred values' and fervor trump rational interest"

a lot of these kids arent "religious' in the sense of a religious christian...if you read about them, they may be secular in their everyday life, but they still identify themselves as muslim as islamic. (islam is all encompasing in everyday life)

as far as the education goes....thats been known for a very long time, that many are educated (especially those in the israeli/palestenain conflict-iraq may is probably different-but i'm just guessing here).

islam is being used, it may not be the sole reason but its part of the value system that is used to produce them....its foolish to ignore it as much as its foolish to ignore the occupation. both play their parts.

suicide bombersit does have a horrendous affect on the society that actually produces them, since as we have seen all become suspect in their aftermath. To excuse them, "understand them" is to aid in a dealth cult.


btw anybody serious research besides Pappe exclude islam as a factor?

[bemildred]

95. I didn't see any point in repeating arguments already made (and ignored).

Hence I merely linked the threads again.

It's fairly ridiculous to assert Islam is not a factor in the ME, that is not what I think or what Mr. Pape asserts. I have already provided two counterexamples of suicide terrorism in which the perps are not Muslim, which is more than enough in logic to show that Islam is not a unique factor or an instrumental cause.

Calling Islam a "death cult" does on the other hand smack of religious bigotry. It is perfectly clear that these actions are political in nature, and that whatever role religion plays, it is a secondary one. Dying for the cause and going to heaven is not an Islamic invention.

But even supposing that one posits that the ME is no longer Muslim, say Christian instead, and that therefore suicide cars/belts would no longer be used, there remains every reason to think that terrorist methods short of that would still be employed to resist, and there is no reason to think the carnage would be much less on that account.

I don't see why - other than to make propaganda points - it makes much difference whether the perp blows himself up along with his victims or does the deed by remote from a safe distance - from an F16 for example - in practical terms any way. In emotional terms of course, it sends people gibbering because it infringes their sense of personal security. But that's what terrorism is all about.

[pelsar]

96. it does make a difference.....

a sucide bomber vs an F16 pilot..both are killing , but theres a major difference in the societies that produce each of them.

to produce the suicide bomber a "dealth cult is required"....(today though not exclusive to islam, it is a subset....). That dealth cult has repucussions through out the societies both the producer as well as the victim.

for the society that produces them, life becomes cheap, and that will reflect internally as well as killing and death become the norm with the society...civil rights, homosexuals etc are "out of the door...for a prime example one can look at the palestenian societies internal judicial system...or lack there of. Iran also is a bit short when it comes to civil rights (though just cheerleades in the suicide production line....)

Defending against such people requries that the who society that is produceing them also suffer, as they are hidden within, difficult to find. In fact the collective punishment that the suicide bomber does rebounds to be "collective punishment on his/her own society

the F16 pilot, on the other hand, is not internally affecting his society. Just because he blows up a house, it does not affect the internal civil rights of his society. He also wears a uniform lives in specific areas, therefore finding him is relativly "simple". Though he will not doubt kill innocents they are not the primary target (or so he believes) hence he is not intentionally doing a collective punishment thing.

in short the suicide bomber destrorys its own society...something the palestenians have known for quite some time but are loath to talk about..out of fear, out of insulting the "honor" for those who have died

[bemildred]

97. Ah, of course, that's so obvious now that you explain it.

The Palestinians are destroying their own society, because of a death cult, and they've known that for a long time, but they don't want to talk about it because it would insult the honor of dead people.

[pelsar]

100. it is to many of us...

who follow the internal workings of that society and who have to bear the direct consequesnces of it....

and those brave palesetenians who have talked against it...were very quickly told to shut up....ashwari for one....

[bemildred]

105. An Interview with Abu Bakar Ba’asyir:

Some interesting cross-correlations here:

For instance, when he asked young Hamas supporters whether a martyr is "more deserving" if he kills 10 of the enemy or 100, all responded that it would not matter if the martyr killed no one but himself.

Q. Do you think God favors or cares more for the martyr who manages to kill 100 enemies or one enemy?

A. The value and reward is the same.

He also asked, if your father were dying and your mother asked you to delay your suicide operation, would you? All answered that "duty to God" cannot be delayed for even a minute.

Q. So is the idea to postpone is not allowed in any circumstances, even in order to visit sick parents?

A. No, no. If we are in jihad, the jihad must come first. Unless jihad is in fardh kifayah . If jihad is in fardh ’ain , jihad must be number one. There is no obligation to ask permission from one’s parents. But even if jihad is still in the fardh kifayah state, such as jihad to spy on infidel countries, Muslims don’t require their parent’s permission.

Jamestown.org

[sled]

98. 1980 through 2003 - 315

Not to defend "suicide bombers", but why "1980"? If it's completely arbitrary, it's one thing, but if it's to make a possibly fallacious point, then it's a different animal, indeed. If one were to select "1940", as a not so arbitrary date, a whole different picture arises...& the defintion of "is", changes completely...the difference being 25 years of history, versus 65 years, & that doesn't include the Viet Cong, who also used "suicide bombers"...sounds like it basically, goes with the territory...you get in a war, & somebody gets bombed, by any means available...mess with the bull, you get the horn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

"By the end of World War II, the Japanese naval air service had sacrificed 2,525 kamikaze pilots and the army air force had given 1,387. According to an official Japanese announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195, and according to a Japanese tally, suicide attacks accounted for up to 80 percent of US losses in the final phase of the war in the Pacific. However, according to a U.S. Air Force webpage:

Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception and attrition, and massive antiaircraft barrages, a distressing 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank."

[pelsar]

99. civilian vs military...

theres actually a difference when a sucide bomber goes after a military target. perhaps then the "it replaces the tank" reasoning may have some merit...but since in our day the suicide bomber is killing civilians in what can be described as a "war crime" since they purpose is to kill those not involved i.e. collective punishment its a different type of suicide bombing.

[sled]

101. Agreed...

In principle, but considering our kids in Iraq, & the crap that's been done there, I hate to see that distinction drawn. A slippery slope, if you know what I mean...what a mess...

[pelsar]

102. i dont like it either...

since if a suicide bomber kills me, whether i'm in uniform or not...i'm still dead. Or when 19yr old soldiers are killed...they're still kids

but it one is going to play the definition game, well then there is a distinction: civilian suicide bombers who target civilian men, women and children are simply the skum of the earth, if they cant be convicted of war crimes then their handlers when caught alive should be.....and though, why they are doing it may be important to prevent them in the future....they're should be no acceptance of what they do...not even a hint of it.

if the mayor of london whats to explain why they did it...fine....but let him make it very clear, that such barbarous behavior has no place in a modern society and that such people, including those that inspired them, those that supported them, those that now revere them, have no place in london....

[bemildred]

103. 1980 is approximately the origin of "suicide bombing" in the modern form.

The invention of the bomb belt in Lebanon and of course the suicide car bomb. The Lebanon invasion had many consequences that continue, and are mostly ignored because they are politically inconvenient.

They Can Run And They Can Hide: Suicide Bombers Are Here To Stay

(Robert Fisk from 2001.)

Not long before the Second World War, Stanley Baldwin, who was Britain's Prime Minister, warned that "the bomber will always get through". Today, we can argue that the suicide bomber will always get through. Maybe not all of them. We may never know how many other hijackers failed to board domestic flights in the United States on Tuesday morning, but enough to produce carnage on an awesome, incomprehensive scale. Yet still we have not begun to address this phenomenon. The suicide bomber is here to stay. It is an exclusive weapon that belongs to "them" not us, and no military power appears able to deal with this phenomenon. Partly because of the suicide bomber, the Israelis fled Lebanon. Specifically because of a suicide bomber, the Americans fled Lebanon 17 years earlier. I still remember Vice-President George Bush, now George Bush Senior, visibly moved amid the ruins of the US Marine base in Beirut, where 241 American servicemen had just been slaughtered. "We are not going to let a bunch of insidious terrorist cowards, shake the foreign policy of the United States," he told us. "Foreign policy is not going to be dictated or changed by terror." A few months later, the Marines upped sticks and ran away from Lebanon, "redeployed" to their ships offshore.

Not long ago, I was chatting to an Indian soldier, a veteran of Delhi's involvement in the Sri Lanka war now serving with the UN in southern Lebanon. How did the Tamil suicide bombers compare those of the Lebanese Hizbollah I asked him? The soldier raised his eyebrows. "The Hizbollah has nothing on those guys," he said. "Just think, they all carry a suicide capsule. I told my soldiers to drive at 100 miles an hour on the roads of Sri Lanka in case one of them hurled himself into the jeep. " The Hizbollah may take their inspiration from the martyrdom of the prophet Hussain, and the Palestinian suicide bombers may take theirs from the Hizbollah.

But there is no military answer to this. As long as "our" side will risk but not give its lives (cost-free war, after all, was partly an American invention) the suicide bomber is the other side's nuclear weapon. That desperate, pitiful phone call from the passenger on her way to her doom in the Boeing 767crash on the Pentagon told her husband that the hijackers held knives and box-cutters. Knives and box-cutters; that's all you need now to inflict a crashing physical defeat on a superpower. That and a plane with a heavy fuel load.

But the suicide bomber does not conform to a set of identical characteristics. Many of the callow Palestinian youths blowing themselves to bits, with, more often than not, the most innocent of Israelis, have little or no formal education. They have poor knowledge of the Koran but a powerful sense of fury, despair and self-righteousness to propel them. The Hizbollah suicide bombers were more deeply versed in the Koran, older, often with years of imprisonment to steel them in the hours before their immolation.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/fisk...

[Colorado Blue]

112. I think that might be changing. We're starting to hear more

and more about "The Caliphate", etc.

[barb162]

115. I think you're right.

There was an article in the Wash Post about Pape and other scholars about Papes' findings. Pape's ideas and analysis are good, but don't answer everything. I suspect there is a strong religious angle to the current terrorism. Personally I'd love to see a really good shrink look at the "would be/ volunteer" suicide bombers active today, from the young kids to the adults. It seems to me there aren't too many older (40+) people doing suicide bombing. Have you noticed that? It seems 60 year olds don't walk into a village square with bomb belts, it's always younger people. Maybe I am wrong on this, but it always seems to be younger, impressionable types, either educated or not, up to the mid 30s. In any case, here's from some people who study terrorism critiquing Pape's book:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
"A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints In the Sand"



"...In terms of al Qaeda, he's dead wrong," says Marc Sageman, author of the authoritative "Understanding Terror Networks."

Sageman faults Pape for putting al Qaeda in the same basket as such secular organizations as Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers and Palestinian groups in Lebanon. "He may be right about the other two," which are a "more traditional form of insurgency," says Sageman, but "he misunderstands al Qaeda. . . . This is not about occupation; it's about establishing an Islamic state in a core Arab region."

Sageman also notes that the lead hijacker on 9/11, Mohamed Atta, was Egyptian -- and "to my knowledge, I don't think we are occupying Egypt."

snip


Still, Bergen notes that Pape's ideas do not fit all cases. The Basques' fight against Spain, the Irish Republican Army's battle with Britain and, most notably, the Afghans' revolt against their Soviet occupiers never spawned suicide terrorists, though all involved perceived occupation. Also, says Bergen, martyrdom and the "powerful mythology around Islamic terrorism . . . can't be ignored."

There was also mention made of women bombers somewhere or other and I will find it if need be, but that their motives perhaps were affected by such factors as physical violation, such as rape, and they could be having a hard time returning or being accepted in their own societies.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

106. Ken is an idiot

The colonists didn't really use asymmetrical tactics against the British, except ambush every so often. Washington tried to as much as possible to train the colonial troops on the model of the British professional soldier.

In any case why bring up tactics or anything else from 225 years ago as a justification for anything today ? They did surgery without anesthetic in those days, had press gangs, slavery, etc., too.

[Colorado Blue]

111. Ken IS an idiot, and in context with other things he has said,

comparing a journalist to a concentration camp guard for example, I'm not exactly surprised but I am dismayed.

[Colorado Blue]

113. I would like to ask a question. Maybe Mayor Livingston

can answer it:

What, instead of all this violence, warfare, threats about total destruction, terrorism and suicide/homicide bombing of civilian targets, is wrong with TALKING?

Hello? There is no point at which sitting down and working things out isn't more appropriate than this insane behavior?

Unfortunately, since the Oslo Accords were supposed to pave the road to peace, the violence and death toll has escalated along with the anger and the hatred. This makes absolutely no damn sense.