1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador

[xoxoxoBruce]

Posted by axlrosen;
If his act really WAS on behalf of all Jews - if every Jewish person in the world signed a letter saying that they authorize the ambassador to protest on their behalf - then you'd have a point. The idea that people believe that every Jew in the world authorized this guy to act on their behalf is crazy. He says he was acting on our behalf, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't mean that the world thinks it's true.


True or not, there will always be some that will believe it especially considering the mans credentials.
The anti-semites will believe it's true and use it to convince others to join their cause.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by axlrosen


I agree. People would think that this ambassador was a little nuts. Do you think that people would look down on all Scots because of it?

Some would and the ones that already do, would have reinforcement.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
One interesting point is the subjectivity of terrorism. The recipient calls it "terrorism," and the sender calls it "heroism." Outside observers usually take a lot of gray-area stances on it. This is pretty much universally true.

The American colonists' Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism from the perspective of the British at that time. But to the Americans, it was heroic. Now history takes the latter view... is that because they really were in the right, or because in the end, the Americans won, so they got to write the history books on it? If Palenstine were to somehow overthrow Isreal, would the suicide bombers be universally regarded as "heroes" in two hundred years?

I am only bringing this up as a discussion on perspective... I think suicide bombing is a horrible, unspeakable practice.

Good point. Right on the money, I think.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Serk
Not justifying one side or the other, just consider, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... It's all a matter of means and perspective...

Was Shock and Awe not a form of terrorism? Yes, is was more isolated to military targets, but that is primarily because we have the technology to do so, not because of some moral highground we stand on...

Could not someone living in WWII Germany call the bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism? Or a citizen of Tokyo, wouldn't they consider the firebombing of their city the work of a terrorist?

It's all a matter of means and perspective...

Can't agree with blurring the distinction between military acts of war by an established country and terrorism by people representing a group or cause. I'm not saying one or the other is more or less acceptable but for clarity in dialog it's best to maintain that distinction.

[OnyxCougar]

When we are on the receiving end of the terror, though, we tend to despise and hate terrorists. But although they do not deserve our compassion or respect, they at least deserve to be heard.

So, to draw a parallel, if a teacher has been asking for a raise for, lets say, 10 years, and hasn't gotten one, hasn't been heard, then it's ok for that teacher to whip out an uzi and slaughter her students?

"Bet they'll listen now, won't they?"

[paranoid]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


So, to draw a parallel, if a teacher has been asking for a raise for, lets say, 10 years, and hasn't gotten one, hasn't been heard, then it's ok for that teacher to whip out an uzi and slaughter her students?

"Bet they'll listen now, won't they?"

Before anyone else tries to draw another parallel or perpendicular, let me repeat once again in very clear terms one of my main points:

An act of terror is usually the last resort. It shows that a) the person is really desperate b) this matter is very important to him c) he wants to be heard very much d) did I say that the person is desperate?

So if you want to draw a parallel correctly, we would need to add that the teacher is starving, his kids are starving, there are no charities there to help him, he is not allowed to move to another place, the kids are stupid, ugly and FAT (because they have enough food). See that? Now I am not saying it would be ok for him to mow down his class with an uzi, that's for him to decide, but what I AM saying is that when he does that, we should not just blame him, the media, computer games, etc. Instead (or in addition to) we should think for a second what forced him to do that (no raise, although it was necessary) and how can we respond to this problem (give a raise to teachers who need it).

P.S. Just to be sure - terrorism is the last resort. People with minor concerns would not kill others to be heard (unless they are nuts, which is not relevant to this discussion, or unless we are in a Tarantino film). Only those people, who have something to say that they believe is terribly important, would commit terrorist acts. Obviously, it makes sense to actually listen to their concerns, because that just might be important. You see now? You have any more flawed parallels?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
So, to draw a parallel, if a teacher has been asking for a raise for, lets say, 10 years, and hasn't gotten one, hasn't been heard, then it's ok for that teacher to whip out an uzi and slaughter her students?

"Bet they'll listen now, won't they?"

That teacher should be put behind bars forever. But if more and more teachers start doing it, the school system needs to be fixed. Individual actions aren't excusable, but underlying causes need to be addressed. People willing to kill themselves can't be scared into submission.

[OnyxCougar]

It's not flawed.

let's call our teacher abdul. (horribly stereotypical.)

abdul has been talking and talking and talking and trying to effect change in his life and circumstances for 10 years. HE feels pretty desperate. Enough to kill innocent people to get the point across that something needs to be done to improve the situation for his bretheren in his country. Abdul is not being heard, so he devises a way to BE heard.

So he goes to the local market, straps a bomb to himself and kills 35 people, and himself in the process.

Now lets change the name from Abdul to Mr. Teacher and subsitute market for school.



It's a completely valid comparison. What abdul or Mr. Teacher feels is desperate is completely and totally unrelated to what you, me, my mama, President Bush or Saddam fucking Hussein considers desperate.

there is NO justification for killing innocent people so you can "be heard". there is no respecting it, no understanding, no compassion, no tolerance of this behavior. it is WRONG. in ANY sense, in ANY "situation" or "parallel", you put forth. it is WRONG.

[Happy Monkey]

It is not a valid comparison. A comparison to your teacher example is Columbine, where a couple of disturbed kids committed a massacre. But, hysterical media reports notwithstanding, it was not a pattern.

If, in the years since Columbine, the number of suicide attacks on schools by children in the US had increased to the level of suicide attacks in Israel, we would be idiots to say "Children these days are evil." instead of trying to rectify the problem in the system.

[OnyxCougar]

So, one teacher "making a statement" and 10 teachers "making a statement" is different?

Because 350 kids died as opposed to "only 35"?

So one abdul is a nut and 10 abduls are a "terrorist cell"?

Why is one doing it wrong but 10 doing it ok?

[Undertoad]

paranoid, if you read the words of the Palestinian suicide bombers, they are not words of desperate people. They are words of hope and glory and resolve to win.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Why is one doing it wrong but 10 doing it ok?

You'll have to answer that straw man yourself. I never said it was OK. I said that the underlying causes have to be dealt with. Something is causing terrorism to blossom in that part of the world, and it isn't something you can shoot a missile at.

[OnyxCougar]

I agree with you. There are MANY things wrong in MANY parts of the world. But that does not, in ANY way JUSTIFY terrorist attacks.

terrorism is the last resort. People with minor concerns would not kill others to be heard

Only those people, who have something to say that they believe is terribly important, would commit terrorist acts. Obviously, it makes sense to actually listen to their concerns, because that just might be important.

Let's talk about the snipers. They did it, for whatever reason, but damn, it sure was important to them, wasn't it? Let's imagine they did it because they believed that the sun is really blue. Now the majority of people think that's pretty crazy. But lets say that all of the people who think the sun is blue start blowing shit up. We should start listening to them now? Why? Because they killed innocent people? That is JUST the kind of bullshit that got us into this position in the first place.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists." should be the only rule of thumb.

I don't know how to get out of the messes we're in. There are lots of things that suck in many parts of the world. But taking the "we should listen to these desperate people" is not going to make them go away, and it only encourages any group with an agenda to kill people.

[paranoid]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

Let's talk about the snipers... We should start listening to them now?... That is JUST the kind of bullshit that got us into this position in the first place.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists." should be the only rule of thumb.

I don't know how to get out of the messes we're in. There are lots of things that suck in many parts of the world. But taking the "we should listen to these desperate people" is not going to make them go away, and it only encourages any group with an agenda to kill people.

Let's not talk about the snipers. They were not terrorists and as such are no more relevant to this thread than Jack the Ripper. BUt yes, if they had anything to say, we should take it a little bit more seriously than otherwise. If we find out that it makes no sense, we can ignore it, but before we should pay some attention. And please, don't give such ridiculous examples as blue Sun. What Palestinians are demanding is quite reasonable - they ask Israeli occupants to get the fuck out of there. We might disagree with Palestinians or we may hate their suicide bombers, but in the very least, we should admit that they have a point.

You may not negotiate with terrorists, that's not relevant here. What you must do is to LISTEN to them. And after you listen to them, you need to take ACTION to REMEDY the situation. And this IS going to make desperate people go away by turning them into NOT DESPERATE people.

I think it's pretty simply, really. Of course, if you want to continue ignoring my arguments and attack the strawman with your arguments about snipers and blue Sun, feel free to do it.

[Undertoad]

They aren't desperate.