Only the dead can afford not to have an open mind.
PS- Am I right in thinking you're in Stokey? I'm at the other end of Green Lanes in Turnpike Lane, who knows one day I might be able to tell you to your face how much I enjoy your posts.
I doubt that Irgun invented even the modern brand of terrorism. What about the anarchist bombings in the early part of the last century?
What is interesting about Irgun, however, is that its activities ? while not widely advertised - are not denied or condemned by Israelis. People have to face up to their own history.
In some people?s eyes, however, the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians can be justified by a larger cause. For many who ostensibly condemn terrorism, the real argument is about the underlying cause. ?These actions are not terrorism if they are done for my cause ? for ?freedom?.? This, in my view, is the way to disaster.
Only the dead can afford not to have an open mind.
PS- Am I right in thinking you're in Stokey? I'm at the other end of Green Lanes in Turnpike Lane, who knows one day I might be able to tell you to your face how much I enjoy your posts.
Harald, are you jealous? If so let me state for the record that I cannot get enough of your posts, they are viagra of the mind, OK? Anyway while i do not always agree with Hassan, I like his style and humour. Now I must go and explain to the wife about my latent tendancies....
Only the dead can afford not to have an open mind.
PS- Am I right in thinking you're in Stokey? I'm at the other end of Green Lanes in Turnpike Lane, who knows one day I might be able to tell you to your face how much I enjoy your posts.
Dude.
I am in Stokie. You used to have a Gary Fisher full bouncer, am I right?
I've just finished watching a very interesting documentary that suggests that the roots of all modern terrorism began in Israel.
The Irgun Tsvai Leumi often called ?Irgun? for short (although locals would call it ?Etzel?) and the Lohamei Herut Israel of Abraham ?Yair? Stern, more commonly called the Sten gang, were involved in several acts of terrorism. The bombing of the Britsh government offices in the King David Hotel, was one of those acts. It was not, however, the beginning of modern terrorism. The 19th century is rife with examples of bombs thrown into crowded theatres, and other public places.
As for that particlar event, the Irgun claimed it had telephoned to warn the British so all could leave the King David Hotel, and that they had also informed the French consulate which confirmed it. The British claimed they were not forewarned.
Quote:
The " success " of this act, not only pushed the British out of Isreal,?
That is complete rubbish, the Zionist terrorists were amteurs and their popular support was marginal at best. The mainstream Zionist organisations (like Ben-Gurion's Mapai and its armed wing, the Haganah), which were elected to lead their national institutions (like the Histadrut, Keren Kayemet, etc.), were often cooperating with the British, notably capturing Irgun members and handing them over to the authorities; that episode was called the ?Hunting Season? or simply the ?Saison?..
The British stayed much longer than in Palestine (and in some cases still remain) in many places where they had to sustain a much more organised and more effective violent oppostion than these amateurish outfits. So the claim that the Mahtarot drove the Brits out of Eretz-Israel is ridiculous, but finds many favourable ears, as do many other self-contratulating myths.
The British left the country as a result of a political, not a military process.
Quote:
?but laid the foundations for similar actions from the Palestinians.
If that were the case, The PA would have handed over Hamas members to Israel following the example of Ben Gurion's men handing over Irgun members to the British.
As in some other countries, the pre-Israeli terror groups became normal politcal parties after independence.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinney
What is interesting about Irgun, however, is that its activities ? while not widely advertised - are not denied or condemned by Israelis. People have to face up to their own history.
Nonsense.
It was not only condemned at the time, but actively opposed by the mainstream political organisations of what was to become Israel.
Quote:
Originally posted by Segovius
Actually Israel also invented hijacking.
In December 1954 a Syrian civilian airliner was captured by Israeli military aircraft?
One of the older (perhaps the oldest) actual skyjacking was in 1931, in Peru, by a rebel group, so it cannot be an Israeli invention.
Also, the oppostion of the 1954 capture of the Syrian plane by a leading Israeli politician of the time, Moshe Sharett, indicates it was quite controversial. Not to mention it did not become a habit.
That a lone, yet nonetheless reprehensible, act of hijacking by Israel is used to paint Israel not as just a regular plane hijacker but as the ?inventor? of the deed, says more about the painter himself, than it does about what he paints.
Israel did and still does a lot of unethical, questionable things (notably the targetted assasinations of suspected terrorists), but ?Mother Of All Modern Terrorism? it is not.
The Boston Tea Party massacre , perpetrated by The Sons of Liberty terrorist group, where millions of innocent tea leaves met their maker is truly the first instance of mass terrorism.
The modern day Arafat, John Adams, wrote: "There is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the patriots that I greatly admire."
It was not only condemned at the time, but actively opposed by the mainstream political organisations of what was to become Israel.
Oh yes, and that is why Menahem Begin was never, ever viewed as an Israeli hero and was not elected Prime Minister of Israel.
In any case, my point is that what is and is not terrorism is often a flexible assessment depending of a person's view of the cause. I think that we must acknowledge that many people feel this way. It is this flexible view of terrorism, however, with which I take great issue.
It was not only condemned at the time, but actively opposed by the mainstream political organisations of what was to become Israel.
Oh yes, and that is why Menahem Begin was never, ever viewed as an Israeli hero and was not elected Prime Minister of Israel.
In the 1940s and 50s Begin was in the fringes of Israeli politics, and certainly not seen as a hero by most at the time. He was elected premier some thirty years later, after he reinvented himself as a normal politican and about completely different issues, and by a very different generation.
Quote:
In any case, my point is that what is and is not terrorism is often a flexible assessment depending of a person's view of the cause. I think that we must acknowledge that many people feel this way. It is this flexible view of terrorism, however, with which I take great issue.
In the case of Begin, he was decried by many (and not only Brits, and not only his political opponents), and at the relevant time, as a terrorist.
In the 1940s and 50s Begin was in the fringes of Israeli politics, and certainly not seen as a hero by most at the time. He was elected premier some thirty years later, after he reinvented himself as a normal politican and about completely different issues, and by a very different generation.
In the case of Begin, he was decried by many (and not only Brits, and not only his political opponents), and at the relevant time, as a terrorist.
Fair enough, but I see some careful wording here by you. What is the ?relevant time?? Were Israeli?s not aware of Begin?s past when they elected him? Did Begin renounce his past actions before being elected? Do Israelis today view the actions of Irgun as terrorism?
In any case, I do not see you as countering (or necessarily even disagreeing with) my main point about the flexible viewpoint that many persons have of terrorism. This is a viewpoint that works against the many Israelis who are victims of such acts today.
Fair enough, but I see some careful wording here by you. What is the ?relevant time?? Were Israeli?s not aware of Begin?s past when they elected him? Did Begin renounce his past actions before being elected? Do Israelis today view the actions of Irgun as terrorism?
Begin has turned himself into a regular politician, one reasonably respectful of the democratic rules. At the time when he was elected, his more chequered episodes were not electoral issues, as these were considered bygone times of the bygone Englishmen.
While not quite of the same politcal affiliation as Begin, I did at the time of his tenure see as positive his opposition of torture, his being among the very first heads of government taking in Vietnamese boat-people, along with his turning-back on his political record and accept a withdrawal from Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt.
Needless to say, I was very much opposed to many of his other policies.
Quote:
In any case, I do not see you as countering (or necessarily even disagreeing with) my main point about the flexible viewpoint that many persons have of terrorism. This is a viewpoint that works against the many Israelis who are victims of such acts today.
One of the few remaining main figures of the 1940s Zionist terrorism, Itshaq Shamir, had no qualms acknowledging it on international television during an interview a few years ago (Tim Sebastian's HardTalk on the B.B.C., if I recall correctly), most Israelis are no less realistic about it. So, the ?flexible? or selective perception of terrorism as such, is hardly a general rule.
I don't think there's anything that could be ?working? against victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones, because some people might be ?flexible? with the term.
Very late in the day I know, but i should have given the name of the docomentary that I was watching. It was one of a four part series entitled :
" The Age of Terror " Produced by John Blair ( not not related to Tony ) for 3BM Television UK...
Blair states that the bombing of the King David Hotel forced the British to leave..and made the claim that Israel unwittingly sowed the seeds of modern terrorism. ( with the Begin's group providing the template ).
Mind you, I saw the final part last night, & Blair argued that the best thing we can do to stop terrorism is to negotiate terrorists demands & to look past their methods to see them as freedom fighters...
While this was being said, images of Palestinian youths throwing rocks & flash back images to the Omargh ( The Real~IRA ) : bombing with people walking around picking up body parts...was superimposed..
Comments
Originally posted by Alex London
But Hassan I thought he was the undisputed inventor of modern terrorism?
Not any more he's not.
I am nothing if not inconsistent.
PS- Am I right in thinking you're in Stokey? I'm at the other end of Green Lanes in Turnpike Lane, who knows one day I might be able to tell you to your face how much I enjoy your posts.
What is interesting about Irgun, however, is that its activities ? while not widely advertised - are not denied or condemned by Israelis. People have to face up to their own history.
In some people?s eyes, however, the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians can be justified by a larger cause. For many who ostensibly condemn terrorism, the real argument is about the underlying cause. ?These actions are not terrorism if they are done for my cause ? for ?freedom?.? This, in my view, is the way to disaster.
Originally posted by Alex London
Only the dead can afford not to have an open mind.
PS- Am I right in thinking you're in Stokey? I'm at the other end of Green Lanes in Turnpike Lane, who knows one day I might be able to tell you to your face how much I enjoy your posts.
Wow! Hassan's ... wow. Who knew?
Originally posted by Alex London
Only the dead can afford not to have an open mind.
PS- Am I right in thinking you're in Stokey? I'm at the other end of Green Lanes in Turnpike Lane, who knows one day I might be able to tell you to your face how much I enjoy your posts.
Dude.
I am in Stokie. You used to have a Gary Fisher full bouncer, am I right?
Originally posted by Harald
Wow! Hassan's ... wow. Who knew?
I know your email address.
I know your place of work.
I know your full, unadulterated real-life type name.
I know what 'hypothetical' means.
I know all about you, Harald.
Originally posted by Harald
Your joke is racist. Beyond the pale.
Until that point you had Scott doing his usual "Israel can do no wrong" shtick and ad-homs (that went unpunished for some reason).
You managed to out-twat Scott ...
People are uptight! there is nothing wrong with Racial humor... jeesh, I hate political correctness!
Originally posted by Aquafire
I've just finished watching a very interesting documentary that suggests that the roots of all modern terrorism began in Israel.
The Irgun Tsvai Leumi often called ?Irgun? for short (although locals would call it ?Etzel?) and the Lohamei Herut Israel of Abraham ?Yair? Stern, more commonly called the Sten gang, were involved in several acts of terrorism. The bombing of the Britsh government offices in the King David Hotel, was one of those acts. It was not, however, the beginning of modern terrorism. The 19th century is rife with examples of bombs thrown into crowded theatres, and other public places.
As for that particlar event, the Irgun claimed it had telephoned to warn the British so all could leave the King David Hotel, and that they had also informed the French consulate which confirmed it. The British claimed they were not forewarned.
The " success " of this act, not only pushed the British out of Isreal,?
That is complete rubbish, the Zionist terrorists were amteurs and their popular support was marginal at best. The mainstream Zionist organisations (like Ben-Gurion's Mapai and its armed wing, the Haganah), which were elected to lead their national institutions (like the Histadrut, Keren Kayemet, etc.), were often cooperating with the British, notably capturing Irgun members and handing them over to the authorities; that episode was called the ?Hunting Season? or simply the ?Saison?..
The British stayed much longer than in Palestine (and in some cases still remain) in many places where they had to sustain a much more organised and more effective violent oppostion than these amateurish outfits. So the claim that the Mahtarot drove the Brits out of Eretz-Israel is ridiculous, but finds many favourable ears, as do many other self-contratulating myths.
The British left the country as a result of a political, not a military process.
?but laid the foundations for similar actions from the Palestinians.
If that were the case, The PA would have handed over Hamas members to Israel following the example of Ben Gurion's men handing over Irgun members to the British.
As in some other countries, the pre-Israeli terror groups became normal politcal parties after independence.
Originally posted by Chinney
What is interesting about Irgun, however, is that its activities ? while not widely advertised - are not denied or condemned by Israelis. People have to face up to their own history.
Nonsense.
It was not only condemned at the time, but actively opposed by the mainstream political organisations of what was to become Israel.
Originally posted by Segovius
Actually Israel also invented hijacking.
In December 1954 a Syrian civilian airliner was captured by Israeli military aircraft?
One of the older (perhaps the oldest) actual skyjacking was in 1931, in Peru, by a rebel group, so it cannot be an Israeli invention.
Also, the oppostion of the 1954 capture of the Syrian plane by a leading Israeli politician of the time, Moshe Sharett, indicates it was quite controversial. Not to mention it did not become a habit.
That a lone, yet nonetheless reprehensible, act of hijacking by Israel is used to paint Israel not as just a regular plane hijacker but as the ?inventor? of the deed, says more about the painter himself, than it does about what he paints.
Israel did and still does a lot of unethical, questionable things (notably the targetted assasinations of suspected terrorists), but ?Mother Of All Modern Terrorism? it is not.
The modern day Arafat, John Adams, wrote: "There is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the patriots that I greatly admire."
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Nonsense.
It was not only condemned at the time, but actively opposed by the mainstream political organisations of what was to become Israel.
Oh yes, and that is why Menahem Begin was never, ever viewed as an Israeli hero and was not elected Prime Minister of Israel.
In any case, my point is that what is and is not terrorism is often a flexible assessment depending of a person's view of the cause. I think that we must acknowledge that many people feel this way. It is this flexible view of terrorism, however, with which I take great issue.
Originally posted by segovius
err, isn't Arafat the modern day Arafat ?
DOH!
How about: "The Arafat equivalent, John Adams,.."... hmm, doesn't have the right sound to it.
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Nonsense.
It was not only condemned at the time, but actively opposed by the mainstream political organisations of what was to become Israel.
Oh yes, and that is why Menahem Begin was never, ever viewed as an Israeli hero and was not elected Prime Minister of Israel.
In the 1940s and 50s Begin was in the fringes of Israeli politics, and certainly not seen as a hero by most at the time. He was elected premier some thirty years later, after he reinvented himself as a normal politican and about completely different issues, and by a very different generation.
In any case, my point is that what is and is not terrorism is often a flexible assessment depending of a person's view of the cause. I think that we must acknowledge that many people feel this way. It is this flexible view of terrorism, however, with which I take great issue.
In the case of Begin, he was decried by many (and not only Brits, and not only his political opponents), and at the relevant time, as a terrorist.
So, what you're describing is hardly the rule.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
In the 1940s and 50s Begin was in the fringes of Israeli politics, and certainly not seen as a hero by most at the time. He was elected premier some thirty years later, after he reinvented himself as a normal politican and about completely different issues, and by a very different generation.
In the case of Begin, he was decried by many (and not only Brits, and not only his political opponents), and at the relevant time, as a terrorist.
Fair enough, but I see some careful wording here by you. What is the ?relevant time?? Were Israeli?s not aware of Begin?s past when they elected him? Did Begin renounce his past actions before being elected? Do Israelis today view the actions of Irgun as terrorism?
In any case, I do not see you as countering (or necessarily even disagreeing with) my main point about the flexible viewpoint that many persons have of terrorism. This is a viewpoint that works against the many Israelis who are victims of such acts today.
Originally posted by Chinney
Fair enough, but I see some careful wording here by you. What is the ?relevant time?? Were Israeli?s not aware of Begin?s past when they elected him? Did Begin renounce his past actions before being elected? Do Israelis today view the actions of Irgun as terrorism?
Begin has turned himself into a regular politician, one reasonably respectful of the democratic rules. At the time when he was elected, his more chequered episodes were not electoral issues, as these were considered bygone times of the bygone Englishmen.
While not quite of the same politcal affiliation as Begin, I did at the time of his tenure see as positive his opposition of torture, his being among the very first heads of government taking in Vietnamese boat-people, along with his turning-back on his political record and accept a withdrawal from Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt.
Needless to say, I was very much opposed to many of his other policies.
In any case, I do not see you as countering (or necessarily even disagreeing with) my main point about the flexible viewpoint that many persons have of terrorism. This is a viewpoint that works against the many Israelis who are victims of such acts today.
One of the few remaining main figures of the 1940s Zionist terrorism, Itshaq Shamir, had no qualms acknowledging it on international television during an interview a few years ago (Tim Sebastian's HardTalk on the B.B.C., if I recall correctly), most Israelis are no less realistic about it. So, the ?flexible? or selective perception of terrorism as such, is hardly a general rule.
I don't think there's anything that could be ?working? against victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones, because some people might be ?flexible? with the term.
" The Age of Terror " Produced by John Blair ( not not related to Tony ) for 3BM Television UK...
Blair states that the bombing of the King David Hotel forced the British to leave..and made the claim that Israel unwittingly sowed the seeds of modern terrorism. ( with the Begin's group providing the template ).
Mind you, I saw the final part last night, & Blair argued that the best thing we can do to stop terrorism is to negotiate terrorists demands & to look past their methods to see them as freedom fighters...
While this was being said, images of Palestinian youths throwing rocks & flash back images to the Omargh ( The Real~IRA ) : bombing with people walking around picking up body parts...was superimposed..
I felt my stomach churn....
Something akin to giving a condemmed prisoner a knock up meal before executing him..Utterly absurd..& Kafka-esque.