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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2168)	7/25/2005 10:50:45 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541300

"there should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime." I don't see this as a classic example of trying to lay the blame elsewhere. I saw it as a distinction. "Suicide bombings are the Muslim weapon of choice not only in London and Israel but in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey." When she says the above, she seems to forget about (for instance) the Tigers, who are not Muslim, and who use suicide bombing. If we are fair, we would say that for small groups who have little political power, all terrorist activities are going to be attractive- since these groups feel (rightly or wrongly- mostly rightly) that they can have no effect within a political process. You can say that for some Muslim groups suicide bombings are a weapon of choice- and you can also say that for many terrorist groups, it's a weapon of choice. But to use the broad word "Muslim"- bothers me. Ironically her own style of using broad language like "Muslim weapon of choice" helps to condemn her own brother to: "more Muslim men in the West like my brother are pushed onto the stage of suspicion. " I'm not sure if she realizes that. It's an internal inconsistency in her position (imo). She doesn't buy the "excuse" that "George Bush [or Tony Blair or take your pick of Western leaders] made me do it." "I never bought the explanation that U.S. foreign policy had "brought on" the Sept. 11 attacks, and I certainly don't buy the idea that the Iraq war is behind the attacks in London." I continue to wish that people would understand that "reasons" are not a synonym for excuses. I see it everywhere, and I see it again here. It's sloppy thinking (imo). Since terrorists take action for a reason, there are reasons that terrorists chose to attack the US, and reasons they chose to attack the UK. Since (most) foreign terrorists are not particularly interested in our national politics, these reasons had everything to do with US foreign policy. Yet Mona tries to completely finesse that point by simply saying she doesn't "buy" it. I don't find that an argument. I find that a throw away opinion, supported by nothing. And who thinks Muslims can react only violently? 99.9+ percent of Muslims in the West are reacting non-violently. What more need be said on that? Seems to me Mona makes a large leap there. Further, when she wants us to acknowledge that the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue" she runs in to the problem that most ME countries are not sectarian- so politics and religion are tangled up there much more completely than even in the US. I imagine Mona wishes this were not so, but pretending it isn't a Muslim issue in some degree (and imo to a rather large degree) is denying reality on the ground. I could point to some other things, but that's enough for now.