Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2211)	1/14/2003 3:22:02 PM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

It appears that Zonder argues in part that suicide bombers are an outgrowth of the loss of life caused by Israeli's to one's family. If this were acceptable behavior, why don't you see Israeli's strap bombs and enter PA territories. Remember both sides in this conflict are strong adherents of the 'eye for an eye' philosophy. You also don't see Indians doing this to Muslims in there midst. Or Philipino Christians doing this to their Muslim neighbors. Everywhere you look, you only see one side resorting to inhumane violence against their neighbors. So whether you are looking at Chechnia, a Pastun tribal land, Nigeria, Kashmir, or Israel/West Bank, the consistent face of human behavior shares an Islamic thread. This belies the arguement that it is not Islamic radicalism but a 'loss of loved one'. Excuses may work when your in grammar school, but I've got my education and I know who the enemy is! bill@bsdontcutit.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2211)	1/15/2003 1:49:22 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Oh?? I take it you have lived amongst Islamic Militants? I had the misfortune of knowing a few, yes. Very briefly, needless to say, as I ran in the other direction as quickly (and discreetly) as humanly possible. My point was that I have a first-hand experience of the people we are talking about here. We were talking about "understanding the mentality" of Islamic militants, and I am probably at a pretty good position to do, since my perceptions are based not on western media but on years living among them, as well as among the much larger community of "normal" Muslims. But targeting civilians and taking glory in their deaths is plainly out of step with civilized protocols. I completely agree. It is not humane and nor is it "civilized". Ghandi was able to achieve the independence of a far larger nation without having to call for suicide bombings, or even the use of violence. Considering just how rare it is for a true visionary like Gandhi to prowl this earth, I would settle with more mediocre people analysing the situation and coming up with more conventional solutions. Thus, non-violent resistance would likely have achieved for the Palestinians long ago, what decades of terrorism and struggle have not. This is an interesting view. What effective and non-violent resistance do you feel they could have carried out? I submit to you, and everyone else, that the Palestinians would likely have either a state, or considerable autonomy RIGHT NOW, were it not for Arafat and his pursuit of violence. I agree with you that Palestinians would rather have a state right now, and that is why I have more than once pointed out that the best way to combat terrorism would be to cut off support from the average Palestinian by presenting him with hope for a peaceful & prosperous future. By the way, I am not sure if Arafat is the real culprit here...