spanish bombing

The very desire to become a politician should preclude the individual from becoming one.....

Originally posted by Detweiler tony blair is NOT by any strech of the imagination a socialist.

Which might explain the use of the inverted commas !!

take the political compass test - its interesting. im on the bottom left - bottom left.

This was actually a real revelation. I came out with x -4.00 y -2.31

which makes me a left libertarian. I'm neither, which makes me think that there has been quite a lot of weighting to some questions, and thus renders the whole thing a load of bollocks.

Yeah, I came out as a left libertarian too...-4.88, -0.87. There were some shite questions in there - what's your opinion on astrology got to do with your political outlook?

Originally posted by nearly there > Originally posted by Uncle Liam> I fail to see how the Washington Sniper is terrorism, thats the same as saying Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley are all terrorists.> > Israel DOES have one of the best human rights records in the world. In 2002, the Israeli government admitted htat it used "excessive force" in destroying the camp. Palestinians claimed that israel had "massacred" 3000 citiizens. the UN found that 52 palestinians had been killed, over 40 of whom were armed combatants. > > As for Israels human rights record. > > 1- Israel is the only state in the middle east that operates under the rule of law. > 2- Israel has set aside a significant proportion of its medical resources to fighting terrorism. Israeli hospitals treat casualties from both sides. > 3- The Israeli supreme court has repeateldy overuled the army and government and made them operate under the rule of law. It has protected the rights of the Palestinians, non combatants, POW's and others, often at the risk to Israeli civilians. Also, the Israeli supreme court has been the only court to directly address the issue of applying physical pressure (nonlethal torture) to captured terrorists in an effort to secure information to prevent further terrorist attacks. Despite this action could save lives, it has prohibited its use. > > Yes, Israel has made mistakes and overreacted to terrorism and other threats, But compared to human rights in North Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Zimbabwe, China, Pakistan, etc etc. And lets not forget the Palestinian record on human rights, which is FAR worse than israels.

would you say that the people of washington were terrorised for the few weeks that guy was lurking around? i know i sure as hell wouldnt like to go fill my car up with "gas" or go to crusty burger, or whatever constitutes everyday life in washington (im a little ignorant of that, but im sure it doesnt involve getting shot!). thats terrorism.

as for israels human rights record, ill just say this - their prime minister is a war criminal, and any defence of a nations human rights record that relies on comparisons to kim in north korea is a tad fucked up.

i have an equal problem with all the other states you mention.

(note - you brought israel into this thread u.liam!) its funny you should mention israel here - to my mind the perfect example of a state that has "got tough" on terrorism. as a direct result, there is no shortage of suicide bombers. maybe if those billions and billions and billions and billions of israeli state moneys and US tax dollars was speant on giving everyone a decent shot at life in the middle east, israel and the "occupied terroatories", a home not paid for by hamas, and a secular education, then both the western and mid eastern world would be a better place.

Shamelessly ripped from my dissertation: It should be pointed out that, in its most widely accepted contemporary usage of the term, ‘terrorism’ is fundamentally and inherently political. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that terrorist organisations have primarily political goals. These goals include freedom and liberation, for example the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA). Terrorist groups can also take the form of armies or other military structures, such as Armed Revolutionaries of Colombia (FARC), the National Military Organisation, the Popular Liberation Army and the Fifth Battalion of the Liberation Army. Self Defence Movements can also be classed as terrorist groups. Organisations such as the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), the Organisation for the Defence of the Free People and the Jewish Defence Organisation. Terrorist groups can also take the guise of what David Whittaker classed as “Righteous Vengeance,” Organisations such as the Organisation for the Oppressed on Earth, the Justice Commando’s of the Armenian Genocide, and the Palestinian Revenge Organisation. Finally, a number of terrorist organisations deliberately choose names that are deliberately neutral and therefore bereft of al but the most innocuous suggestions or associations. Organisations such as the Shining Path, Front Line, and the Lantern Youth Movement. With such a large number of terrorist organisations, all seeking different goals, it has become increasingly difficult to define the term ‘terrorism’. Walter Lacquer has written:

“Terrorism has been defined in many different ways, and little can be said about it with certainty except that it is the use of violence by a group for political ends, usually directed against a government, but at times also against another ethnic group, class, race, religion, or political movement. Any attempt to be more specific is bound to fail, for the simple reason that there is not one but many different terrorisms”

According to Gerald L. Neuman, International Co-Operation has long been impeded by disagreements over whether ‘State Terrorism’ should be included, and whether National Liberation Movements should be exempted from otherwise accepted norms.  Treaties have attempted to finesse these difficulties by focusing on particular forms of violence typically employed by terrorists.  Rosalyn Higgins concludes:

“Terrorism is a term without legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities whether of states or of individuals widely disapproved of and in which either methods used are unlawful, or the states protected, or both… The term is at once a shorthand to allude to a variety of problems with some common elements, and a method of indicting community condemnation for the conduct concerned.”

Christopher Hitchens would support this view, denouncing the term as “brainless propaganda,” he writes: 

"It (the label “terrorist”) disguises reality and impoverishes language and makes a banality out of the discussion of war and revolution and politics. It’s the perfect instrument for the cheapening of public opinion and the intimidation of dissent.”

In Hitchens view, the interjection of the term inevitably deadens critical discourse:

“Stalin was a terrorist. Mao was a terrorist, Europeans are soft on terrorism, and Latin’s are riddled with it. Whisk, Whisk… and there goes history, there goes proportion, there goes inquiry. All is Terror. The best that can be said for this method is that is emphasises on thought. You simply unveil it like a Medusa’s head and turn all discussion into stone.”

However, more recently, the Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism supplemented its list of prohibited acts with the residual category of any:

“Act to cause death or civilian or to any other person not taking active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such acts, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.”

That particular definitions emphasis on the status of the target also appears in the definition employed in the United States of America governments annual reports on terrorism: “Pre-Meditated, politically motivated violence against non combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents.” A simpler definition can be found in the US army manuals published in 1984., where it states: “terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature… through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear” According to Adrian Guelke, one thing common in definitions of terrorism in the connotation of harm. The theme of violence is present in most, as is the theme of coercion.
When discussing terrorism, it is important to differentiate between terrorism and criminality. Like terrorists, criminals use violence as a mean to attaining a specific end. However, while the violent act itself may be similar, kidnapping, shooting, arson can all be used as examples, the purpose is clearly not. According to Whittaker, the criminal acts purely for selfish reasons, be it as a way to obtain money or material goods, or to kill or injure a specific victim, he is primarily acting for selfish personal motivations, usually material gain. Conversely, the terrorist does not act to have to have consequences, or create psychological repercussions beyond the act itself. The fundamental aim of the terrorist’s violence is ultimately to change the system- something which the ordinary criminal is not concerned with. Taking into consideration the overuse of the term ‘terrorism,’ and the often vague and broad definitions of it, it is essential to have a clear, working definition of terrorism. By clearly identifying terrorism from other forms of crime, and terrorists from other forms of criminals, it can be said that terrorism is: • Ineluctably political in aims and motives; • Violent, or equally, threatens violence; • Designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target and; • Conducted by an organisation with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure. Therefore, terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. Terrorism is also the use of violence for political ends, in a situation where the essential democratic liberties- the rule of law and the freedom of speech, association, and representation are in operation.

Its a shame i cant copy and paste footnotes

oh my corazon, as a wise man once said

uncle liam, i think the likes of the washington sniper terrorised people , and got something out of that that was in no way political. i accept your line that: "Terrorism has been defined in many different ways, and little can be said about it with certainty except that it is the use of violence by a group for political ends, usually directed against a government, but at times also against another ethnic group, class, race, religion, or political movement. Any attempt to be more specific is bound to fail, for the simple reason that there is not one but many different terrorisms", nice to see its a bit more in depth than "the reason people join terrorist groups is

1- Hatred 2- The desire to achieve, be it power, money, ego... 3- Propaganda and Brainwashing."

but all that (the very definition of terrorism as having explicit constitutional vs anti state aims etc) is a major aside to the real issue of how do we deal with it here and stop another madrid (ill leave out that i consider us occupation of iraq etc to be terrorism on a grand scale).

as i said, the only way to kill off all "terrorist" (as you define it) groups, is to starve them of recruits. to do this you have to realise the issues behind pople joining up - the circumstances that breed such grand hatred - and the reasons people are so easily brainwashed by propaganda.

if you will liam, how do you see an end to terrorist organisations being brought about? you have failed to discuss any of the real issues here, or back up anything you say about israel (which you brought into this debate for no reason - as i said it perfectly illustrates that a reactionary hawkish attitude to terrorists just makes things worse for everyone)

the political compass isnt scientific or anyhing. id say the "do you believe in astrology" is code for "do you believe in religious bullshit "

Economic Left/Right: -9.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.59

Good to see you, Comrade Leon.

-4.88 -4.15

Somewhere over by Nelson Mandeal and the DalaI Lama.

Did i ever say that Terrorism/terrorist groups would ever stop? No, of course they wont. Why? because we will never live in a perfect world.

How to end Palestinian Terrorism? Grant them a Palestinian State. Which, as i said, has been offered time and time again in the last fifty plus years. Each time it has been rejected in place of more and more terorrism. The only theoretical solution is the complete destruction of Israel. Then what about the Israel vigilante groups? Where will they fit into the equation? Not to mention the Israeli people.

The war on terrorism is not a war of offence, but a war of defence. Although they will never admit it, the war on terrorism in unwinnable. Battles in the war can be won, but a complete victory (namely, the complete eradication of all terrorist groups) is impossible.

And as far as starving groups of members goes. Take a look back at the history of Palestinian (I am relectant to use the term 'arabic' even though many are pro-palestine terrorists are arabic) terrorism. From the mid 1960's, it has been continuously rewarded with Observer status at the UN, visits to downing street, papal audiences etc etc.

As the events of the last two and a half years have shown, the greatest danger facing the world today is from religiously inspired terrorist organisations. Perhaps if it is shown that terrorism will NOT be rewarded, by force if necesarry, then maybe the world might be a safer place.

This is such a complicated threat... I just hope my English doesn't betray me.

And what I want is to give an opinion from Spain, as you're talking about my country. The thing is sooo difficult...

First, the goverment wasn't doing fine. That's a fact. They just "pushed" us into a war 90% of the country didn't want. I was there, at most of the demonstrations. Then, elections time started approaching. All polls in the country said Rajoy was going to win, but then... the bombing. And just don't make me think about that, cos it's being a bloody hard time in here (as I live in Madrid and know quite a few people affected). I think that everybody, and not only the goverment (as some of you say) thought of ETA first as the ones to blame. Why? I'll give you a couple of reasons: first, because an ETA terrorist attack was being "waited", in the last few weeks the police intercepted quite a few cars containing ETA bombs leading to Madrid; and second because of the Catalonian "incident" (which is: it was found that one of the leader's in Catalonia's goverment had had ilegal conversations with ETA, telling them Catalonia would support them if they didn't attack them... which they didn't, as they appeared in Euskadi's -Basque- television to say). Many people thought ETA was "punishing" Madrid as we didn't talked to them...

Anyway, I think the goverment again acted sooo bad. At 1pm of the very thursday, Acebes (Interior Minister) said on the TV that ETA was 100% to blame. He just shouldn't have done that, because he wasn't sure, and you just CAN'T do that. Things started so bad that this whole was meant to happen. Soon evidences started to appear, ETA could not be to blame, this could be Al-Qaeda. This complicated things much more, as both "sides" had a political impact: if ETA was to blame, that'd benefit the PP (right party), if it was Al-Qaeda, it'd benefit the PSOE (socialists). It was so horrible, because all they were doing in the end was kind of playing with the attack, with the victims...

So, what do I think? I think that the elections should've been cancelled, and that all the major parties should've joined in a goverment just to solve this, which of course they didn't. And I'm not saying I'm not happy now that we've got rid of Mr.Moustache and his friends, but I just don't like this situation at all. I just hope that at least they get us out of the war...

You're right Laura about the elections going ahead, I was astounded that they proceeded with indecent haste, especially after pointing the finger at ETA without facts to support that. I think that they hoped it was ETA rather than the more sinister Al Qaida threat, and it suited the politicians to say it was ETA at the time. Typical politicians, applying bullshit to suit themselves when there are people lying dead and families grieving.

All our thoughts are with you and your fellow people Laura, it will get better in time. Peace.

We will discuss our disgust forever.

we will go on killing each other with the force that is given to us at birth yet which to take away would remove our liberty and our freedom which we all so desperatly seek as a human race.

Its a mad world

Originally posted by Philip Collins So the socialists aren't going to be liars too? All politicians are liars - it goes with the territory, particularly the kind of career politicians we get in the UK now. And i also seem to remember similar sentiments about getting rid of a right wing government and choosing 'socialists' over here back in 1997...and what do we have?

*Tony Blair is a liberal, not a socialist. The Labour is no longer a real socialist party, they're really distant from the other European socialist parties and from what they used to be and many opposers inside the party know that. Anyway, as I've already written on another thread, the fact a governemnt is left-wing doesn't automatically mean they'll do the right things. It depends from the persons. They can make wrong decisions too. In fact, the old Labour was to blame as well, for the serious crisis of the 70s in England which paved the way to that bitch Margaret Thatcher. The difference is with left-wing parties you can hope they'll make more decisions in favour of the people, but this doesn't mean they'll do it. It's just that with the right-wing is more unlikely, as they exist only to defend privileges of the higher class, especially when you think about the social issues. Maybe the socialists will lie too, we'll see. But we have already seen the right-wing lied. And even if every politician is a liar, better a left liar than a right liar. Don't ever think politicians are all the same, they are, about many things. But there are still some differences, and not recognizing them cause the sort of indifference which usually favours extreme parties. The Fascists arrived to power because people were tired of democracy as they thought all the democratic parties, left or right wing, were the same. Of course they did no better. In 2001 the extreme left wing voters didn't vote the Italian centre-left coalition because they thought they were the same as Berlusconi. Now that bastard is at the government and we're all seeing the differences. The previous centre-left government wasn't that excellent, but they wouldn't have ever made laws like the "call contracts" which make people work (and be paid) only whenever they're called, or the several laws in favour of rich people not paying taxes, or against the judges fighting the Mafia.

By the way I think going on with elections was the right thing. Stopping them could have caused even more tension as would have sparked suspicions from the opposition, and stopping elections after bombs would give too many ideas to the terrorists. Democracy must go on.

Also a joint government wouldn't be a good idea. The country needs to take one direction or the other, not stagnating in an eternal compromise which wouldn't work and would paralyze the most important choices.

Yeah, I do realise that good ol' Tone isn't a socialist hence writing it as 'socialist'... I don't see that a left wing liar is better than a right wing one and as for making decisions in favour of the people - well it may not be socialist but this present government is more left wing than Maggie Thatcher's one yet seems to be making more unpopular policies than she ever dreamt of - at least when she took us to war there was an obvious majority (and motive) for it. And as Laura says the politicians of both sides in Spain try to use the situation to their own advantage...left and right they're as bad as each other and the real tragedy is that it's probably not going to be the last time we see something like this...

Originally posted by Uncle Liam Did i ever say that Terrorism/terrorist groups would ever stop? No, of course they wont. Why? because we will never live in a perfect world. How to end Palestinian Terrorism? Grant them a Palestinian State. Which, as i said, has been offered time and time again in the last fifty plus years. Each time it has been rejected in place of more and more terorrism. The only theoretical solution is the complete destruction of Israel. Then what about the Israel vigilante groups? Where will they fit into the equation? Not to mention the Israeli people. The war on terrorism is not a war of offence, but a war of defence. Although they will never admit it, the war on terrorism in unwinnable. Battles in the war can be won, but a complete victory (namely, the complete eradication of all terrorist groups) is impossible. And as far as starving groups of members goes. Take a look back at the history of Palestinian (I am relectant to use the term 'arabic' even though many are pro-palestine terrorists are arabic) terrorism. From the mid 1960's, it has been continuously rewarded with Observer status at the UN, visits to downing street, papal audiences etc etc. As the events of the last two and a half years have shown, the greatest danger facing the world today is from religiously inspired terrorist organisations. Perhaps if it is shown that terrorism will NOT be rewarded, by force if necesarry, then maybe the world might be a safer place.

i never said youd say that terrorism would stop. noone (apart maybe from neo cons and trots) think that. i also said conceeding to terrorists is not a way forward. starving them of recruits my having progressive social policy in affected areas rich in potential recruits would be a way to go - particularlly in israel. youre right in saying "As the events of the last two and a half years have shown, the greatest danger facing the world today is from religiously inspired terrorist organisations" but include me sharon and mr bush alongside mr bin laden there.

im a socialist , and think its unfortinuate HOW the election in spain went ahead, and a political orientation "won out" at the expense of terrorism and victims.

I refuse to include Ariel Sharon in the list of people facing the greaest threat to world peace as he is not religiosuly inspired, and is someone who was elected in hthe midlst of the al asqa intifida, and a person who has acted, and i admit sometimes incorrectly, in the interests of Israeli Security.

As for GWB. Yes, he is a fool, but your statement regarding him as a threat to world peace is simply wrong. GWB, like any other head of state, acts in the interest of the US state. Do i believe there were WMD's in Iraq? yes. DO i believe that saddam posed a threat? Yes. But even if i am proved wrong, which for once i hope i am, why was saddam so suspicious of UN inspections? surely if he had nothing to hide?

Anyway, Clockwork Conor, it is now time for you to answet the questions:

1- What "progressive social policy" do you believe will contribute towards the eradication of international terorrism?

2- Why do you hate the state of Israel?

Originally posted by Uncle Liam I refuse to include Ariel Sharon in the list of people facing the greaest threat to world peace as he is not religiosuly inspired, and is someone who was elected in hthe midlst of the al asqa intifida, and a person who has acted, and i admit sometimes incorrectly, in the interests of Israeli Security. As for GWB. Yes, he is a fool, but your statement regarding him as a threat to world peace is simply wrong. GWB, like any other head of state, acts in the interest of the US state. Do i believe there were WMD's in Iraq? yes. DO i believe that saddam posed a threat? Yes. But even if i am proved wrong, which for once i hope i am, why was saddam so suspicious of UN inspections? surely if he had nothing to hide?Anyway, Clockwork Conor, it is now time for you to answet the questions:1- What "progressive social policy" do you believe will contribute towards the eradication of international terorrism?2- Why do you hate the state of Israel?

i dont think anything will eradicate international terrorism, just if a portion of those billions that ( for instance the state of israel) spends on arms and "war on terror" went into providing full housing ( not paid for by hamas, which you seem to think is a desireable state of affairs for the palestinians ) education not coloured by bullshit religious dogma, etc (im not going to outline progressive taxation and social policy to a student of such) - then there may be less terrorist recruits.

to be super simple , ill outline the opposite - the get tough on terror approach, you give the army power to gunship who they want, build a fuckoff wall, act with vengance every time theres an attack , and you still get your kids blown up.

security and intellegance along with this kind of approach seems to be the best to me.

ive already outlined the state of israels human wrongs. man im not going to dig up another amnesty url.

not supporting the state of israel doesnt equal a fucking hamas loving terrorist supporting opinion.

reactionary approaches dont work.

also - no state is representative of its people. thats another thread - ive just outlined for the 10th time how i think we should deal with awful awful awful events in madrid

an eye for an eye ..........