Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > One rule for A, another rule for B

One rule for A, another rule for B
Thread Tools
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 09:44 AM
 
Why is it that if someone orders one of his Nation's helicopter gunships to go and shoot a few people he doesn't like (with acceptable levels of 'collateral damage', ie dead innocent bystanders), then it is 'Justice', but if someone else (possibly related to the victims of the first person) takes a kalashnikov and shoots a few of the friends and/or relatives and/or countrymen of the first person then that new person is a 'Terrorist'.

I fail to see what difference it makes if any of the people in the above scenario are, or represent, powerful people in a given Nation.

I thought that Intenational law was supposed to stop people from practising their petty intolerances across international borders, but it seems that the international community will not accept one guy (eg Saddam) doing it, but will cheerfully accept another (eg Sharon).

(Note that it could be argued that no-one accepts the actions of Sharon, but IMHO issuing a sharply worded press release is not quite in the same league as unleashing the Gulf War)
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 09:52 AM
 
Were the Kuwaitis sending terrorists to Iraq with the sole purpose of destroying their country?
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 10:27 AM
 
Ah, perception. It is a powerful thing, is it not? Here's the example that I think ALL Americans shoud remember: To the British, WE were the terrorists. Where's the line? It is in the collective consciousness.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
Scott_H
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 11:04 AM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>Ah, perception. It is a powerful thing, is it not? Here's the example that I think ALL Americans shoud remember: To the British, WE were the terrorists. Where's the line? It is in the collective consciousness.</STRONG>
You do realize that we sent them a little thing called a "Declaration of Independence". It listed our grievances and set out in no uncertain terms that we meant to start our own country. It was signed by men who did not hide behind masks.

Boston tea party....well yea but no one got hurt in that.
     
christ  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 11:21 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Were the Kuwaitis sending terrorists to Iraq with the sole purpose of destroying their country?</STRONG>

Would it have legitimised Saddam's response if they had?

Even if these notional 'terrorists' (I note that you don't call them 'freedom fighters') were not 'state sponsored' but only patriots with a grievance (real or imagined)?
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
christ  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 11:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

You do realize that we sent them a little thing called a "Declaration of Independence". It listed our grievances and set out in no uncertain terms that we meant to start our own country. It was signed by men who did not hide behind masks.

Boston tea party....well yea but no one got hurt in that.</STRONG>
So it doesn't matter what you do as long as you can publish a high-minded piece of paper before you do it? Timothy McVeigh obviously missed a trick - he should have sent his 'Declaration of Grievance' in before hand.

Somehow I don't think that would have helped.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 11:27 AM
 
Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

You do realize that we sent them a little thing called a "Declaration of Independence". It listed our grievances and set out in no uncertain terms that we meant to start our own country. It was signed by men who did not hide behind masks.

Boston tea party....well yea but no one got hurt in that.</STRONG>
Like I said- perception. We also had that nasty way of doing the ole hit and run raid from the woods- fighting in "the line" was a utilized tactic, supplemented by guerilla warfare- a very "not nice" way of doing gentleman's warfare.
Also- Hey- you and I would have recognized the DoI, you saying that the Crown did? Not until they were forced. The DoI also did not appear until the whole shebang was well underway. I am fairly sure that Artemis Ward was not considered by Howe to be any more than a rebel commander (with a small "c"). In fact, I think "rebel" was the common term, was it not?
Once again, perception. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Palestinians consider themselves to be freedom fighters as well- driving the invading force from their land, reclaiming their homeland from the oppressive invaders, fighting for the right to live freely in their own land... sounds very "legit" when it is put that way, doesn't it? In your logic, Scott, all the Palestinians have to do is hook themselves up with a really well written document and all will be hunky dory, problem solved...

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
yoyo52
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Reading, PA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 11:46 AM
 
I guess it doesn't make much difference whether individuals or states do it. But if that's the case, then the US must be one of the biggest terrorist states in the world, at least in the 20th century.
And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
<STRONG>Would it have legitimised Saddam's response if they had?</STRONG>
It would have legitimized taking direct action against the terrorists.
Even if these notional 'terrorists' (I note that you don't call them 'freedom fighters') were not 'state sponsored' but only patriots with a grievance (real or imagined)?
Hamas' goal is to destroy Israel, period. They don't accept the existence of the nation. They are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for Israel's destruction.

The revloutionary Americans did not want to destroy Britain. They wanted to be separate and independent; but independence is not what Hamas (or even Fatah) wants, they want Israel destroyed.
     
gwrjr33
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: about a mile west of Nook Farm...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 01:24 PM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>
Like I said- perception. We also had that nasty way of doing the ole hit and run raid from the woods- fighting in "the line" was a utilized tactic, supplemented by guerilla warfare- a very "not nice" way of doing gentleman's warfare.</STRONG>
Their targets were always military in nature. Guerilla warfare is simply a tactic (as you said). IMO opinion this doesn't necessarily divide the terrorist from the freedom fighter. The key issue seems to me has to do with the targets chosen. McVeigh chose a civilian target. It was defenseless. Hamas does the same thing. Suicide bombs in public places also have a tactical nature but they are ALWAYS terrorist acts. As to what Israel is doing I think we need to know if they are simply lashing out or are they trying to take out key personnel from Hamas and the PLO.
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 03:04 PM
 
I think we start blurring the lines when we bring Israel and Palestine into it. Does Hamas make any distinction between civilian and military? They do not seem to. Lately- or perhaps it is not lately but has just crossed my mind- Paletinians seem to not make the distinction between the citizen and the state- much in the same way Bin Laden simply thinks of Americans as an extension of the state. Indeed, the Israelis do not make the distinction themselves- everyone serves in the military- every Israeli- and if you believe the author of By Way of Deception, every Jew is an instrument of the state. Combine that with the "weapons of theocracy", the idea that every action is for the glory of God and His chosen, and you got one dangerous situation- as if we did not know that.
I do not think the same mentality exists in America.
Yes, I do indeed think that there are differences between our revolt and, say, the Protestant/ Catholic wingdings happening in Ireland, but again, I think it boils down to perception. A couple of years back, I read a book (and one day, I'll remember the title... "Rebels and Redcoats"?) which examined the Revolution from the British standpoint. Very interesting. I understand there are a couple of others which examine this viewpoint as well. We went from profit to pest to an insurrection to an outright threat to the security of the British Empire.
BTW- an EXCELLENT book what delves deeply into the personalities that were instrumental in the Revolution is "Patriots" by A.J Languth. One of my favorites. Recommended.
Bottom line- and I hate to keep sharpening the point, is that it boils down to perception. When we are dealing with such complex emotions such as natonalism and states of freedom, what one guy is calling revolution another is going to call terrorism. I do not like it, but I understand it, I think. Again, never having had a direct experience... worst thing to invade Massachusetts is the Kennedys and, you know, there's just NO fighting them... they'll drown ya...

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 04:34 PM
 
maxelson:

I think perception is important - I'm sure the Palenstinians perceive Israel as the terrorists. But it's OK to look at the facts and make a judgment yourself, right?

Interesting book suggestions, BTW.
     
gwrjr33
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: about a mile west of Nook Farm...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 05:12 PM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>I think we start blurring the lines when we bring Israel and Palestine into it. Does Hamas make any distinction between civilian and military? They do not seem to. Lately- or perhaps it is not lately but has just crossed my mind- Paletinians seem to not make the distinction between the citizen and the state- much in the same way Bin Laden simply thinks of Americans as an extension of the state. </STRONG>
Well, just because they don't make the distinction doesn't mean we can't. It's useful to consider their state of mind. I understand how important perception is but that still doesn't eliminate the difference in the nature of the act when one attacks a military target or a schoolbus. In both cases the ultimate goal might be the same but the acts are different. Thinking of an individual as an extension of the state is a way of turning a person into an abstraction thus making permissable a broader range of action.

(edit: spelling)

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: gwrjr33 ]
     
Scott_H
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2001, 10:17 PM
 
Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

Like I said- perception. We also had that nasty way of doing the ole hit and run raid from the woods- fighting in "the line" was a utilized tactic, supplemented by guerilla warfare- a very "not nice" way of doing gentleman's warfare.</STRONG>
You know what....I hate to say it .... you're being dumb.

If you can see the difference between a group of statesmen standing up in public and declaring independence and stating clearly why they are doing it and a bunch of men in masks that use terror as a means to an end then I can't help you.
     
christ  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 05:17 AM
 
Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

You know what....I hate to say it .... you're being dumb.

If you can see the difference between a group of statesmen standing up in public and declaring independence and stating clearly why they are doing it and a bunch of men in masks that use terror as a means to an end then I can't help you.</STRONG>
What is interesting about the Israel situation is that prior to 1948, the Isralis were the 'terrorists' (sorry, 'freedom fighters'), 'campaigning' for their own State, in much the same way as the Palestinians are now.

I wonder why you feel it necessary to stoop to calling max 'dumb', when he self-evidently isn't. This appears to be a root of the problem, i.e. the inability to understand that different perceptions of the same thing can lead to confusion.

My understanding is that the Palestinians, first and foremost, want the right to self-determination and statehood, which is why they spent many years wandering around the globe blowing up all sorts of stuff.

It is not their sole avowed intent to destroy Israel (except in as far as that it advances their claim to statehood - they have a bit of a problem at the moment in that the Western powers gave the bit of land that they want (Palestine) to the Israelis, and it would obviously be easier to claim it if they weren't there).

This yearning for independence appears to be very similar to that evinced by the colonials who were a tad upset by George III. What makes a colonial town elder in the (pre-) US a statesman, but an acknowledged leader of a stateless Nation (Arafat) not a statesman?

It very much appears that 'statesmen' are guys that _you_ agree with, and people that you don't agree with are 'men in masks' (which, by the way, most current Palestinians patently obviously aren't!)

Note at this point that I am neither pro- nor anti- either Israel or Palestine, I am just interested in the apparent difference in reporting, sympathy and perception of two seemingly similar events, depending on who is currently defined to be 'friend' or 'enemy'
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 08:31 AM
 
Thanks christ... ummm... self evidently?
Now you all have GOT to know that I do not excuse, in any way shape or form, the usage of a school bus as a target. Let's just not even suggest or imply that I think that is OK.
What I am saying is that I do not think, in the consciousness of this particular kind of fighter, there is much of a distinction. One of my former students, a Palestinian (who's father was a high ranking Hamas official- in the political wing- I have no recollection of the title of that organization- was until he was assassinated). This kid, now 17, is a very reasonable and likeable kid. He has been interviewed on CNN with a mixed group of like aged individuals. Some of these kids were Israelis, some Palestinians, some Americans of Israeli or Palestinian decent. Anyway, this kid reminded me that there is such a huge difference in the way these people think. We do not have anything in us as Americans which compares. Some call it fanaticism, they call it devotion. We have to remember that both sides feel that they are fighting for their very existence. Yeah, we had the same, but we are so far away from it.
Again, I am not saying that I condone what either side is up to. I think it is absurd. Out of control. It will end up in all out war. And it will never be over until there is nobody left to remember what they are fighting about.
gwrjr33, yes, I do make the distinction. Of course I do. It is in my consciousness, as it is in the collective consciousness of this country to abhor that kind of violence. We make the distinction. I just do not think they do. Let's take the perception from our end. Is it fair or right that we express different levels of outrage when the Israelis put their "active defense" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) into action as when the Palestinians use a bomb on a soldiers outpost, killing those inside and all of the passersby? I see very litle difference between the two. I see neither act as "permissable" or acceptable on an equal plane. In my mind, the Israelis are no better than the Palestinians. The whole ironic point was brought home by christ (also ironic, no? hee- hee)- these two entities are fighting for precisely the same thing.
When I compare this particular conflict to our own 250 years back, I encompass the overall intent of the action. It is the same. More or less.
Brussel, obviously it is ok to just look at it and make a desicion yourself. I have stated my opinion above and, yah, I do see a difference between "legit" military conflict and terrorism. I do.
Scott- see above. I do not think, however, that you are getting my point.

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
christ  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 09:45 AM
 
This school bus thing segues neatly into another moral dilemma (as represented on Star Trek fairly regularly)

If blowing up a schoolbus full of 30 innocent schoolkids could stop a war in which 6 million people (variously soldiers and others) would be killed, which is more heinous - to (directly) kill the kids, or to (indirectly) kill the 6 million?

My guess is that this is how the terrorist/freedom fighter see the issue, and they call the school kids 'acceptable collateral damage'.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
maxelson
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2001, 09:56 AM
 
Of course, we are dealing with a lot more than just the one scool bus- as if that were not enough.
It also begs the question- what would you do?
Someone has invaded your homeland- "legitimately" or not. What do you do?

I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,