Back to the Discussion...

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Jason, forget the overthrowing part for a second, and consider the bombing that is quoted in that New York Times article.
You yourself provided to this thread the following definition of "terrorism":
"Another definintion is sometimes referred to as the Academic Concensus Definition of terrorism. It was put forth by international terrorist expert Alex P. Schmid in 1988 after consultation with various academic experts in terrorism. This definition is more likely to be used in academic circles.
{
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.
}
This seems like a perfect fit for the actions of the C.I.A. in Iran during the rule of the Shah. It also fits pretty well with the other definition you provided (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
{
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
}
In fact, it seems like it would be "international terrorism" since it involved citizens and the territory of more than one country. Furthermore, with that definition above, I think there is a good argument that by today's definition, the C.I.A. of the 1950's was a "terrorist group".
Omar had a great point. Perhaps in the future things that are not internationally accepted as terrorism, will in fact be defined as terrorism. The only problem is that a whole people may be wiped out by then.
For this reason, it is very necessary to ALWAYS be reconsidering such definitions. Of course politics will play a role, ON BOTH SIDES. But that's why it is up the the international community.
It is very necessary that the world community still come together and make sure such definitions are appropriate and complete.

[Jason Menard]

I am not making any claims on anything. The situation where you quoted me we were commenting on terrorism, and I made mention to some laws I was aware of.
Since then the conversation has veered towards other acts such as assassination and overthrowing a government, which are not terrorism.
If I may quote you ro provide the proper frame of reference:

Overthrowing a democratic government of a country by another country and imposing a dictator was wrong then and is wrong now.
Of course it does not justify terrorism, but we are no longer talking about terrorism. At least me and Thomas weren't in our last couple posts. The discussion has changed into something completely different.

Now you referred to these people responsible for aiding in the overthrow of the government as criminals under international law:

Would you say (with this information that I have provided) it is "criminal" (against international law) for Country A's secret service to bring the king of Country X back...

Now to your knowledge, do you know if those "criminals" that were responsible for such actions were ever brought to justice (either in the case in Iran or El Salvador)?
...
Do you agree that it is extremely unfortunate that the most powerful countries in the world do not have to answer to international laws?

I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this characterization, but I am wondering under what basis in fact the label of "criminal" is being applied in this situation. Specifically, which international laws are we talking about? This is of course important so that we possibly better frame the debate.
While Thomas may agree with you, he is no more a lawyer than I am.
Regarding your quote a definition that I came up with, concerning the part you chose to quote, I had this to say:

I don't know, maybe the caveat is that when the unlawful combatants are state actors and action is taken against a target of legitimate military vale when no state of hostilities exist, it is not terrorism.

So I have already admitted just such a flaw I see in that particular definition.
So my question remains, which international laws would label these hypothetical individuals as criminal?
[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Assassination of a political figure whether by bomb or by bullet is assassination, not terrorism. The academic definition covers this.

[Jason Menard]

Omar had a great point. Perhaps in the future things that are not internationally accepted as terrorism, will in fact be defined as terrorism.

So if I am country X, and I have recon aircraft that occasionally stray into what country Y sees as their borders (most other nations do not btw), and one day my recce plane gets shot down by Y's military, you are saying that if I scream long enough that it's terrorism, and I get enough of my buddies to agree that it's terrorism and they scream loud enough too, and if I am persistent enough it will eventually come to be regarded as terrorism?
While one may say that such a scenario is ridiculous, it is no less ridiculous then changing the accepted definition to suit any other particular agenda for political reasons. Both are equally ridiculous.

[Thomas Paul]

A couple of things...
Again the incident in Iran occurred 50 years. The president who ordered it is dead. The head of the CIA at the time is dead. Who exactly do you want to try for the crimes?
Next, the article says that "Iranians working for the CIA..." It does not say that the CIA ordered them to do what they did nor that the CIA was aware of what they were doing. It also doesn't say that anyone was actually injured by the bombing. We have quite a ways to go before we get to "the CIA committed terrorist acts."
Finally, although I strongly condemn the CIA for their actions 50 years ago, I am not aware of any international laws that existed at the time that made their actions criminal.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
A couple of things...
Again the incident in Iran occurred 50 years. The president who ordered it is dead. The head of the CIA at the time is dead. Who exactly do you want to try for the crimes?

No one should be tried, but refusing to accept responsibility and at least apologize makes it very hard for anyone looking at this situation to see why America would not do this again.

[QOUTE]Next, the article says that "Iranians working for the CIA..." It does not say that the CIA ordered them to do what they did nor that the CIA was aware of what they were doing. It also doesn't say that anyone was actually injured by the bombing. We have quite a ways to go before we get to "the CIA committed terrorist acts."
So if a group of people that were "working for" Group X were to carry out some terrorist action then you would say that Group X is not responsible for terrorism. Think about this on a broader scale. We are not very far away to get to "the CIA committed terrorist acts." In fact, we are very close.
What do you think "working for" means?

Finally, although I strongly condemn the CIA for their actions 50 years ago, I am not aware of any international laws that existed at the time that made their actions criminal.

But you specifically said that those actions were criminal and illegal. Are you taking back those statements, the statements that I have shown below:
{
As, for example, Iran? Or El Salvador where a democratically elected government was overthrown because they were a threat to an American corporation? Yes, they would both be excellent examples of illegal, criminal behavior by a secret government organization.
} -Thomas Paul
They are no longer "excellent examples of illegal, criminal behavior by a secrect government organization"? Please explain what has changed between when that statement was made and right now, because we all know that the history and the facts have not changed?

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

So if I am country X, and I have recon aircraft that occasionally stray into what country Y sees as their borders (most other nations do not btw), and one day my recce plane gets shot down by Y's military, you are saying that if I scream long enough that it's terrorism, and I get enough of my buddies to agree that it's terrorism and they scream loud enough too, and if I am persistent enough it will eventually come to be regarded as terrorism?

No, of course not. You are correct to say that it is ridiculous to claim that the simple situation that you have provided is not terrorism, and no matter how long Country Y screams, the International Community will not accept it as terrorism. Country Y has the right to make its claim, and if the international community rejects its claim, Country Y can be pissed off all it wants.

While one may say that such a scenario is ridiculous, it is no less ridiculous then changing the accepted definition to suit any other particular agenda for political reasons. Both are equally ridiculous.

No, I agree that your scenario is very ridiculous but it is NOT in the least way ridiculous to reconsider the meaning of words like "terrorism" to be appropriate and complete in an ever-changing world. When there is a significant number of countries demanding that a law or accepted definition is re-evaluated, then the only ridiculous thing would be to ignore their call because it does not fit the particular agenda or political reasons of some of the groups to re-evaluate that law or definition. I am not only talking about the international level either.

[Jason Menard]

Btw it's country X, not Y complaining, but that's okay.
So now let's say that armed forces of Y shoot down a war plane belonging to armed forces of X, because they believe it has hostile intent, that is flying over a small town in X heading towards Y, crashing into the town, killing several X civillians. X again jumps up and down screaming about this terrorist action committed on it by Y. X's buddies similarly start crying about this act by Y and denounce it as terrorism. Despite the fact that Y clearly attacked a hostile aircraft, X and friends do their best to convince everyone that it is terrorism.
According to what you seem to be implying, if X and company cry long enough, the world will adapt the definition of terrorism to fit X's agenda, as ridiculous as I admit this seems.
Btw, still hoping for a response on the reference to the international laws which would label the people as criminals who you referred to earlier (as criminals).

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Btw, still hoping for a response on the reference to the international laws which would label the people as criminals who you referred to earlier (as criminals).

It's very difficult to find references to international laws that are 50 years old. However, the UN did have rules about national sovreignty that the CIA violated.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Btw it's country X, not Y complaining, but that's okay.
So now let's say that armed forces of Y shoot down a war plane belonging to armed forces of X, because they believe it has hostile intent, that is flying over a small town in X heading towards Y, crashing into the town, killing several X civillians. X again jumps up and down screaming about this terrorist action committed on it by Y. X's buddies similarly start crying about this act by Y and denounce it as terrorism. Despite the fact that Y clearly attacked a hostile aircraft, X and friends do their best to convince everyone that it is terrorism.
According to what you seem to be implying, if X and company cry long enough, the world will adapt the definition of terrorism to fit X's agenda, as ridiculous as I admit this seems.

No, again I am afraid you are mistaken. If X and company cry long enough, the world will not adapt the definition of terrorism to fit X's agenda. But, if X's company is, let's say for instance some 100 countries, and the only company against such a measure are, say less than 5 countries, then perhaps you are ignoring some of the facts of the situation, and the definition does need to be re-evaluated.
I could apply your same argument against democracy. Say Country X is a democratic country. Say Person A admits he is a racist and hates all people of Race R. Say Person A wants to run for president of Country X. Well, if A keeps yapping long enough, and gets enough buddies, and then has most of Country X voting for him, then he should become president. Then you have a President in Country X that is a racist and hates everyone of that Race R. This is obviously not good, so there is no reason for democracy.
Sounds ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the claim that if a majority of the international community agrees that a law or definition needs to be re-evaluated and may be out-dated, they should not be able to re-evaluate that claim.
[QOUTE]Btw, still hoping for a response on the reference to the international laws which would label the people as criminals who you referred to earlier (as criminals).
Jason, go back and read this discussion. Was I the first one to label those people as criminals?
I believe I asked Thomas if such actions are criminal. Then his answer was that they were "excellent examples of illegal and criminal behavior".
Now you will agree that criminals carry out criminal activity, or do you need an international law saying this, Jason?
So only then, did I start referring to them as criminals. In fact, Thomas was the first one to bring up the specific situation(s) that my hypothetical situation referred to. Even in my hypothetical situation, I did not claim that those actions were criminal, but I did ask Thomas if those actions would be considered criminal and against international law.
From when he said that "yes, those actions are 'illegal and criminal'" did I start referring to the people responsible as criminals, only when I was posting directly to Thomas because the conversation was between me and Thomas, and we both SEEMED to have the understanding that those were criminal and illegal acts.
It seems you either doubt that such actions are criminal or you are trying to be annoying, but either way, perhaps you should ask the person that said that those actions were "excellent examples of illegal and criminal behavior". Or maybe you agree with Thomas that they were "excellent examples of illegal and criminal behavior" and you need some kind of international definition saying anyone who is responsible for "illegal and criminal behavior" is a "criminal". Or you are just trying to be annoying (did I mention that? )

[Thomas Paul]

Anthony, suppose I hire you to clean my gutters and while doing so you decide my neighbor is an idiot so you shoot him. Am I responsible for the murder? Can it be said that I hired you to kill my neighbor? It may be that the CIA hired these guys to do some undercover stuff but the guys got carried away. Just because they worked for the CIA doesn't mean that everything they did was with the CIA's blessing.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
They are no longer "excellent examples of illegal, criminal behavior by a secrect government organization"? Please explain what has changed between when that statement was made and right now, because we all know that the history and the facts have not changed?

Just to clarify, I think they were criminal acts but I'm not sure if there actually was an international code that they violated. Perhaps I should hedge my bets and say that they were certainly immoral acts although they may not have been in direct violation of any law that existed at the time.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

It's very difficult to find references to international laws that are 50 years old. However, the UN did have rules about national sovreignty that the CIA violated.

I could only imagine the sarcastic response Jason would give me if that was my response to his question.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Just to clarify, I think they were criminal acts but I'm not sure if there actually was an international code that they violated. Perhaps I should hedge my bets and say that they were certainly immoral acts although they may not have been in direct violation of any law that existed at the time.

Ok Thomas. I think I have said all I need to say, and it's not like I can make you make the US apologize . Perhaps you don't even think the US should apologize, and that too is fine.
I will admit that before this discussion, I would have never expected you to say that you would condemn such actions, so I guess that was wrong of me.
Anyway, I have a feeling that this particular issue is the closest we have come to agreeing and probably the closest we will ever come to agreeing in the future , so I will leave it at that, unless there is anything else you would like to mention.

[Jason Menard]

No, again I am afraid you are mistaken. If X and company cry long enough, the world will not adapt the definition of terrorism to fit X's agenda.

Good, i think we too may have reached an understanding. The world should not label an act that is not terrorism as such just to appease X, regardless how X may see the situation.
In the example I gave, the military of Y attacked a hostile target of X that intended to attack Y. In destroying the target from X, collateral civillian damage was caused. The positioning of the target from X was such that Y should have known there was a good chance for civillian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action. But I am glad we both seem to agree this obviously isn't terrorism, and that in fact to label it as such would be ridiculous.
And at that we can end this discussion.
Btw my aim in seeking a reference from international law was to point out that it is meaningless to throw labels about such as "criminal" when you can't even decide which law it is that someone broke, despite the fact you are referring to "international law". I do not know if there were international laws covering such circumstances back then, it wouldn't surprise me if there were. But I don't know, and in the absence of such knowledge I agree with Thomas that it is more responsible to use the term immoral.
Thank you and good day.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Good, i think we too may have reached an understanding. The world should not label an act that is not terrorism as such just to appease X, regardless how X may see the situation.

I completely agree that regardless of how X sees the situation, it is not terrorism. It maybe a number of other things, but it is not terrorism, despite what X may believe.

In the example I gave, the military of Y attacked a hostile target of X that intended to attack Y. In destroying the target from X, collateral civillian damage was caused. The positioning of the target from X was such that Y should have known there was a good chance for civillian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action. But I am glad we both seem to agree this obviously isn't terrorism, and that in fact to label it as such would be ridiculous.
And at that we can end this discussion.

Yes, I think we can see that this is not terrorism. In the hypothetical situation though, it must be noted that we know what happened. I am not sure what real life situation you are referring to, if any, but if it really happened how you described it, then yes, terrorism would not be the appropriate term.

Btw my aim in seeking a reference from international law was to point out that it is meaningless to throw labels about such as "criminal" when you can't even decide which law it is that someone broke, despite the fact you are referring to "international law". I do not know if there were international laws covering such circumstances back then, it wouldn't surprise me if there were. But I don't know, and in the absence of such knowledge I agree with Thomas that it is more responsible to use the term immoral.

Like Thomas said, I probably would have a very hard time finding laws from 50 years ago that said the secret service of one country was not allowed to overthrow the democratic government of another country for its own interest, but perhaps common sense would be helpful in such a situation. But I will agree that it was immoral.

Thank you and good day.

You are welcome, and you have a good day too.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
I am not sure what real life situation you are referring to, if any, but if it really happened how you described it, then yes, terrorism would not be the appropriate term.

In the example I gave, the military of Y attacked a hostile target of X that intended to attack Y. In destroying the target from X, collateral civilian damage was caused. The positioning of the target from X was such that Y should have known there was a good chance for civilian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action.

X = Palestinian's
Y = Israelis
"target from X" = Hamas leader

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

X = Palestinian's
Y = Israelis
"target from X" = Hamas leader

Well, I see no way how those two are related. Your hypothetical situation is nothing like the real situation.
It was my understanding that target of X was attacking innocents in Y, and Y was defending itself. I was not aware that target from X was simply sleeping in his home with his wife and kids. I am not sure if this is terrorism, but X has the right to claim it is terrorism. This is in no way ridiculous. This is an excellent example of where the meaning of terrorism definitely needs to be re-evaluated.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action. But I am glad we both seem to agree this obviously isn't terrorism, and that in fact to label it as such would be ridiculous.

You said Y was defending themselves. In the real life example, Y was not defending itself, rather it was executing one person, and murdering many people. It is untrue that by killing "target from X" that attacks against Y will stop, because the brutal actions of Y alone are to blame for those attacks. Therefore, Y was not defending itself, and your hypothetical situation differs from the real life one. Y would be much better defending itself by repecting the basic human rights of X.
So though we agree on your hypothetical situation, we do not agree on the specific situation, because your hypothetical situation is a ways away from the real life situation.

[Dave Vick]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:

Y would be much better defending itself by repecting the basic human rights of X.

Oh, right, because X is such a stand up guy right?

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Dave Vick:

Oh, right, because X is such a stand up guy right?

Dave, perhaps you should read the posts.
Here is what Jason said:

X = Palestinian's
Y = Israelis
"target from X" = Hamas leader

I hope you agree that X, being the Palestinians, are entitled to basic human rights.

[Jason Menard]

It is exactly the same situation. Target from X had perpetrated in the past hostile actions against Y and was planning and coordinating new attacks against Y, therefore Y was defending themselves against attack from target from X.
I will re-write my quote, changing the variable names to the actual references:

the Israeli military attacked a Hamas leader that intended to attack Israel. In destroying the Hamas leader, collateral civilian damage was caused. The positioning of the Hamas leader was such that Israel should have known there was a good chance for civilian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the Hamas leader's position and Israel's action.

My example was carefully worded and maps one-to-one with what happened. By viewing it dispassionately we were able to see this as clearly not terrorism, put a face on it and biases emerge amidst a rush to justify our positions.

It is untrue that by killing "target from X" that attacks against Y will stop

Killing that target will not stop all attacks of course, but it has very likely stopped or delayed some. In addition, serious damage was done to their command and control structure.

because the brutal actions of Y alone are to blame for those attacks.

This is simply providing justification for terrorism. This is as much as stating that it is okay, for example, for a gunman to walk into houses to target and murder women and children in their homes because a party feels they are oppressed. It is okay, to murder children in a pizza parlor because they are oppressed. It is this kind of thinking that is responsible for perpetuating terrorism over there.
But we don't need to continue and get this conversation going again. You have given me what I was looking for and I am grateful.
[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Anthony Goshaunee]

It is nothing like the hypothetical situation for the reasons I stated. The very fundamental idea that Y was "defending itself" does not exist in the real life situation. In fact, Y was "defending itself" no more than X was "defending itself".

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

But we don't need to continue and get this conversation going again. You have given me what I was looking for and I am grateful.

You are absolutely right. We will not agree because your hypothetical situation does not reflect the real life situation. In fact, it reflects it EXACTLY the same as if:
X = Israelis
Y = militant Palestinian groups
"target from X" = Israeli soldiers on a bus

I guess all we can agree on is the hypothetical situation.

[Dave Vick]

Anthony
You're right, the Palestinians are entitled to the basic human rights. I should have clarified my post a little bit more but saying that I was refering to the 'weapon from X', not X as a whole. Becasue, I'm sure that for the most part they want peace as much as anyone else. It is not all of them that are commiting the bombings and other things.

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Dave Vick:
Anthony
You're right, the Palestinians are entitled to the basic human rights. I should have clarified my post a little bit more but saying that I was refering to the 'weapon from X', not X as a whole. Becasue, I'm sure that for the most part they want peace as much as anyone else. It is not all of them that are commiting the bombings and other things.

No foul. I assumed that is what you meant.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Dave Vick:
I'm sure that for the most part they want peace as much as anyone else.

Well.... Peace at what cost and under what conditions? While polls can definitely be misleading, reports like this definitely make you wonder. I brought up the results of that poll to a pair of Palestinian academics I had the opportunity to speak with, seeking their comment. I have to say their replies didn't do much to put my mind at ease or give me much hope for the future.
What I'm afraid of is that things are too radicalized over there now and people don't necessarily want peace, they want victory.
[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Dan Chisholm]

Here's an interesting hypothetical. Let's assume the existence of two groups: A and B. Both groups believe with equal certainty that they deserve possession of an area of land. Let's assume that citizens of both groups are equally committed to defending their control of the land and equally committed to preventing the other from gaining control. Let's assume that citizens of both groups are equally willing to die to achieve their goal. At some point, individual citizens of group A begin to strap bombs to their bodies and die for the purpose of destroying individual citizens of the opposing group. Assume the process continues despite every effort of group B. Should we assume that over time the bombing process remains an act carried out by individuals or can we assume that some form of escalation occurs? For example, if group A obtains weapons of mass destruction then is it possible that group A might use such a weapon even if it means the destruction of group A itself? If group B felt so completely devastated as a result of the attack is it possible that group B would respond with similar weaponry on its own soil rather than allow the land to fall into the hands of group A? Is it possible to convince an entire population that it should martyr itself rather than allow an opponent to take control of the land? Is it possible that the leaders of one group or the other would make such a decision without the support of the people?
Let's assume there are two types of leaders within each group: those that are zealous and those that are pragmatic. Assume that you are a member of population group A or population group B and you have a family that you care about. Which type of leaders should you select?

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What I'm afraid of is that things are too radicalized over there now and people don't necessarily want peace, they want victory.
[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

No Jason, they don't want victory. They want a just peace.
If people are under oppression, you can not expect them to not fight that oppression. The main thing here is a "just peace" where the oppressed are no longer treated as less important. Things are very radicalized, but they are radicalized on the Israeli side as well, if not more.

[Jamie Robertson]

Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
If people are under oppression, you can not expect them to not fight that oppression...

I think the point is that there are more effective means of fighting oppression than strapping bombs to your chest and killing innocent people. Maybe when this happens, you can have just peace.
STOP THE INSANITY!!
The time will come when logic will prevail.

[Axel Janssen]

oh no I won't read all that above.
To all arabs:
The department of my little sister just sold 10 redesigned Mercedes A-Class to some people in Saudi Arabia.
They need it as golf-caddy-cars. The changes to the models trippled the cost of the car. No problema.
They drive happily with their fancy Mercedes A Class caddy-cars some 300 kilometers away from some rotten down refugee camps of their "palestinean brothers".
If you would put as much energy in thinking about the moralic, politic, social and economic situation inside the arabic world as you put in discussing about "imperialism of the west", we would have a better world.
Do israelic richs use Mercedes A Class as caddy cars. I don't think so.
Anti-americanism, anti-israelim and pro-palestina-rhetorics are a tool for the arabic world to create some artificial unity where there is no unity.
Axel

[Anthony Goshaunee]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

To all arabs:
...
If you would put as much energy in thinking about the moralic, politic, social and economic situation inside the arabic world as you put in discussing about "imperialism of the west", we would have a better world.
Do israelic richs use Mercedes A Class as caddy cars. I don't think so.
Anti-americanism, anti-israelim and pro-palestina-rhetorics are a tool for the arabic world to create some artificial unity where there is no unity.
Axel

Dear Sherriff,
I would really appreciate it if I did not have to bring such posts to the attention of those who are suppose to be monitoring this forum.
I am not even Arab but this comment is definitely not "friendly" and even borders racist. Consider if I said, "To all Jews". Pretty much anything that followed that would definitely be taken off this site followed by the much abused phrase "anti-semite" (which really doesn't make much sense, given that both Jews and Arabs are semites). I could probably count on one hand the number of seconds before such a comment would come up.
I would really appreciate if the monitors would do their job fairly.

[Dave Vick]

Anthony
In all fairness you responded to the post less than an hour after it was posted. The moderators do not sit in front of their computers and read each new post as it comes in. We are all volunteers and to do otherwise would be tremendous time consuming task.
Secondly, I think what Axel is trying to say is that many people are trying to make it out that it the west and the Israelis that are keeping down the Palestinians and it is only becaue of them that they are in the position they are in. While it might be truue that the US and Israel are allies it is also true that many of their actions have been criticized by us. On the other hand their doesn't seem to be anyone else in the arab world doing much but talking either.
I dont see anything wrong in what Axel said, if the facts are true then, it is just his opinion that he using those facts to back up. He didn't insult or slander anyone, and it certainly didn't seem racist at all.

[Jim Yingst]

Just got here myself. Sorry I wasn't hovering at the monitor 24/7 just for you, Anthony. :roll:
Actually I agree that Axel's post is asking for trouble. But from my last post in this thread:
Just a heads-up to everyone - I'm getting tired of trying to weed out the unfriendly posts from the "good" ones in these threads. The more I do it on a case-by-case basis, the more people expect it, and get upset if things aren't handled the way they want.
I think it's about time to simply close this thread off. You guys are about as close to any sort of agreement as you're ever going to get.