I love Arabs

So I noticed on my blog stats today that someone out of Sacramento, of all places, was searching for the term "bridget johnson hates arabs." Of course, they weren't going to find anything online substantiating that I hate Arabs, because I don't hate Arabs. I like Arabs, as a matter of fact. I love Arab culture, the language, and even teach Arabic to my bird Nahoul. I'm really looking forward to going to Dubai, where I shall pay homage at the world's largest shopping mall.

I don't like al-Qaida, Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah, and any other groups who suicide bomb and conduct other such unsavory activities. Is any more clarification than that really needed?

Comments

[Senthil]

"Is any more clarification than that really needed?"

No, not really... but (yes, there's always a 'but' for me, and I'm a pain in the ass like that and I apologise for it) would you conceed, at all, that it's not as clear cut to lump Hamas and Hezbollah in with al-Qaida and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade on the basis that Hamas and Hezbollah do go some way to building homes and communities for the Palestinians and the Lebanese respectively and do attempt to represent those people in more ways than their military wings achieve.

I'm not trying to justify sucide bombings or beheadings, nor do I support terrorism as a viable political method, but if peace is to be achieved, it is not necessarily going to happen without Hamas and Hezbollah.
For example, former Prime Minister Blair could never have completed the peace process in Northern Ireland without engaging with Sinn Fein, the political branch of the IRA who were responsible for their fair share of atrocities (as were we against the Irish, lest we forget Bloody Sunday).

Although we often brand it Islamic terrorism, is it not a facet of human behaviour that from Sri Lanka, to Iraq, to Israel and Palestine, to Ireland, and even to America during their fight for independence, people tend to embrace terrorism - a violent and an often misdirected, misguided and counter-productive response to a lack of basic human rights?

[Reaps]

I think we've forgotten the basic tenets of why the IRA were doing what they were doing compared to what Hamas and co are doing, along with the motivations for just why Hamas and Hez are being all 'nicey nice' community building (which in turn raises the question just where is all the money coming from)

I'd like to be more eloquent, but I've just woken up and really, the gist of it should be right there

[Senthil]

The tenets of why the IRA were doing what they were doing? Do you want to try explaining those tenets to the families of the 29 victims of the Omagh bombing and the difference in barbarism between their terrorism and that of Hamas or Hezbollah, or to any of the other victims of the IRA?

Of course Hamas states as an objective the destruction of Israel, but any realist will see that this is not even feasible. It's rhetorical statements, designed to manifest an enemy (Israel) and to create an emotional link to sway the people to fight for a state.
But, the signs of Hamas and Hezbollah participating in elections, even coming under criticism from al-Qaeda for doing so, shows at least a mild softening in their stance and that they are coming around to achieving realistic objectives such as a viable state for the Palestinians. The 'nicey nice' community building is about providing representation for people who do not have a state to support them. Yes, in the upper echelons of the leadership of such groups it is an effective method to win supporters, but this is not something that runs throughout every last member of the organisation.

And if we're talking about the religious fundamentalism of these groups, well, the IRA engaged in sectarian killings of protestants showing their own fundamentalism.
Also, we can always raise the question where the money and arms for the IRA was coming from.

Reaps, I'm not sure any amount of eloquence will help differentiate one set of murderers from another set of murderers.

[Reaps]

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your last post. That I'm the cold-hearted bastard for pointing out that IRA and Hezbollah are NOT the same (and I suppose from a liberal perspective they're all just the same misunderstood misguided individuals), or that I'm a cold-hearted bastard for finding little difference between the two?

The similarities should be obvious; violent methods for political gain. I can only hope you don't seriously believe that Hamas, Hezbollah et al are genuinely concerned about 'building community'. You're right insofar as they appear to have a great superannuation plan for the families of suicide bomber recruits *thumbs up*

As far as the basic tenents go, you appear to have pointed that out yourself. IRA wanted a 'free' /'united' Ireland. Hamas and co want to destroy the state of Israel. Now of course we're aware that they couldn't possibly achieve this (right? right?), but the fact that they WASTE so much money GIVEN to them by the international community on KILLING ISRAELIES (and, damn right, each other) highlights just how completely off their face they are. I suppose this is the point where I should ask you to explain to the 'families of dead jewish families' how the whole 'destroy Israel' mantra of the groups that killed their loved ones isn't actually what these groups are trying to achieve

Annoying, isn't it? Because it has no relevance on what you were trying to say. I would hope you won't try to blend in the 'victim family' emotional hyperbole in your arguments again

Because I would have expected you to understand what is surely an obvious distinction between the two. Also worth distinguishing is the electoral success of Hamas/Hezbollah versus the distinct lack of for Sinn Fein. The people of the Palestinian Territory have spoken, and they have spoken overwhelmingly in favour of.. 'that'. Argumentatively they don't have much to choose from, from what I can tell, but going from a corrupt thuggish party to a corrupt murderous thuggish party doesn't strike me as a 'softening of the stance' as a whole. I suppose Hamas had enough eloquence to persuade people to vote for their murderers instead of Fatah's murderers..

It seems we agree on a lot of things on this issue, but this conversation appears to be going all out to draw delineations between each other. Quite bizarre.

[Senthil]

I don't recall using the words cold hearted bastard, or even trying to convey such a notion. Please stop over-reacting. Oh, and don't call me a liberal again. I know you like to see the world in black and white, but it comes down to being liberal in some places conservative in others, just like pretty much everyone.

I feel you were trying to make too fine a distinction between the results of one terrorist group and another, and wanted to point out, that targeting civilians IS extremism. There are not more or less extreme versions of targeting civilians; the capacity of individuals to plan and execute such an act is the same.

And if you read what I said, I felt that the stated objective of Israel's destruction was merely rhetorical. The actual goal which is a state for the Palestinian people is why they resort to terrorism, not as a good idea, but as the only way they can see to fight for it. It must leave a terrible tunnel vision to exist without a state, without security or a sense of hope, as it must for Israel to exist in such hostile surroundings. Options for action become restricted and often violent and tinged with emotion in such cases.
And I disagree with you on the point of community building. From what I have read, Hamas at least have provided more than financial compensation for families of suicide bombers. They have worked on providing employment and homes for Palestinians. But the difference as I said, is that while in the upper levels of the organisation it is likely that the goal of such provision is to gain support for the fight, that this is not something that will pervade the organisation.
As an entity it is seen as one, but the reality is that there are many people within the the group and supporting of it, some of whom believe that Hamas is providing for the people and is more than just a terrorist organisation.

The people of the Palestinian territory did speak in their election, but you have to listen carefully to see that given that years of Fatah corruption and ineffectiveness, they went the other way and voted for Hamas. Maybe some voted for terrorism against Israel, something seen by many Palestinians as the only way to fight, but I hardly think it's fair to say that every last Hamas supporter has nothing in their mind but the destruction of Israel.
I would ascribe it more to human behaviour in elections where it's a reactionary change the next dominant party in the face of the current party being perceived as corrupt and unable to make any progress. It's voting for change without a complete view on what that change will entail. After Hamas won the elections, there were members that stated that it was time to get rid of the objective of Israel's destruction and engage in dialogue. The leadership decided otherwise and now they suffer the consequences of it. But there have been ceasefires declared by Hamas before, and it is entirely possible that their stance can be softened and brought into a position of negotiation.

Coming back to the first post, that I wrote (to Bridget) I was asking if it was possible to make a deliniation between Hamas/Hezbollah and groups such as al-Qaeda/al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade.

[Senthil]

Oh an addendum, the IRA wanted a free and united Ireland, which even now looks unlikely as there is significant opposition within Northern Ireland for that to happen.
More likely is a devolution to a state of its own.
But it does show a degree of unrealism in their objective, which I think does reflect the unrealism of Hamas' objective to destroy Israel.

[Reaps]

"I don't recall using the words cold hearted bastard"

Neither do I. "If you read what I said", you'd see I was asking you to clarify just WHY you'd ask me to 'explain to the families of IRA victims' the distinction between Hamas and the IRA.

"or even trying to convey such a notion."

Oh really? Once again, what were you trying to imply?

"Please stop over-reacting."

lol.

"Oh, and don't call me a liberal again."

Tough. That being said, I didn't call you a liberal 'if you read what I said', and if you are then I would've considered you less deranged than most, which is quite refreshing. Unfortunately thus far with this post I'm reading..

"I know you like to see the world in black and white, but it comes down to being liberal in some places conservative in others, just like pretty much everyone."

Fascinating. You tell me not to 'overreact', and that I'm making assumptions on your behalf... and then you go and do the excact same thing! Super duper! Two thumbs up for you, sonny! Although interesting to note just how a cold a reaction the mere THOUGHT of someone considering you a liberal triggered, which certainly says something about what 'liberal' conjures up in the minds of people these days..

Don't like personal attacks? Then cut out the hyperbolic rhetorical. If you didn't think that the FIRST THING you said to me on this post wasn't going to get a reaction, then wakey wakey. I'll be quite happy to drop the issue and get back to the point of the discussion if you can be bothered to do the same.

Anyway.

At no point did I try to distinguish that one group was less murderous than the other. Merely pointing out what their underlying motives are. And as this conversation goes further along, you seem to be doing excactly the same thing, so I'm failing to see where you managed to disagree with me on this.

Hamas, Fatah, the IRA etc etc All used similar methods to attain their goals. But as is obvious by now these goals are incredibly different. I''ll totally disagree with you on the point that the destruction of Israel is merely 'rhetorical' because they only want a 'free Palestinian State'. If we were to make a distinction between who is 'more murderous' than the other, we need only note that Hamas make 'extensive' (understatement) use of suicide bombers to attack their targets, the overwhelming majority of these targets having no military or financial value. This to me shows a far higher 'commitment' to doing whatever it takes to achieve this 'merely rhetorical' goal of theirs.

And perhaps the fact that you've pointed out that the IRA didn't seek the destruction of Britain but actually DID seek only to have a 'unified Ireland', and that they failed to achieve even THAT, makes the distinctions between Ireland and Israel even more clear. In fact, I don't even think it matters whether they 'really mean it' or not, as their actions are speaking far louder than their words. Looking at the psychology of these people, it's incredibly hard to make sense of any of it as it really doesn't make any sense in the first place. The destruction of Israel must be achieved even if it means, apparently, the destruction of themselves. Look at all the money pouring into that territory. Look at where it all goes. Look at what it's spent on. Look at the palestinian television service, a great example of unyielding indoctrination on a scale incomparable to anything seen in the Western world. The list goes on.

Also having to disagree on the 'community building' these groups do. Perhaps if it really is the case that so many at the bottom do only believe Hamas is doing it out of the kindness of their heart, that it'd be very interesting to hear what these people have to say about Israel, and even what their job that they've been assigned entails. Let's face it, Hamas (or any group with authority in the territory) use the money given to them to groom the rest of the populace into not only believing what they believe (assuming they don't already), but to give them the means and the motivation to follow through on those beliefs. The goals that the upper levels set will ultimately trickle down into the mind and body of the layman they're indoctrinating.

As stated in my previous post, "Argumentatively they don't have much to choose from, from what I can tell, but going from a corrupt thuggish party to a corrupt murderous thuggish party doesn't strike me as a 'softening of the stance' as a whole. I suppose Hamas had enough eloquence to persuade people to vote for their murderers instead of Fatah's murderers.." So I needn't go over that again. Fatah have declared ceasefires, the PLO have declared ceasefires, but it should be worth noting why those ceasefires were declared, and just who went on to break said ceasefires.

It's a good thing you pointed out your original post, because.. this makes this whole discussion even more absurd. This comes across as it being alright to delineate between AQ and Hamas, but not between Hamas and the IRA? I'll assume you don't really mean that, and that I've just misinterpreted it.

I'll even apologise for what I wrote above. I won't remove it, as it was written only in reaction to things that were written even earlier than that. But hopefully we can find the things we disagree on and simply 'disagree' on them. And also acknowledge that there actually are some things on this issue that we do agree on, even though we somehow seem to come across like we're even disagreeing on those points that we agree on.

[Senthil]

That was a lot to read, I got bored before I got to your arguments.
Anyway, without bothering to read what you said, I just want to summarise what I'm saying; the deliniations to my mind are as follows. Methods and motivations. From my mind the methods are the same for IRA, AQ, Hamas. But on motivations I would place Hamas closer to the IRA that AQ. Which is probably the point that many would disagree with me. Well I can only go from what I've learned. Oh well.

[Reaps]

Right then. I'll be sure to limit myself to only large 562 word posts instead of large 972 word posts, if it prevents you from practicing the time-honored learning tradition of making statements and then sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la not listening'

Hamas is to AQ what Chevrolet is to GM. The IRA.. they're like.. friggin' Subaru or something. Methods and motivation place them closer to AQ tan IRA, albet Hamas has a 'military wing' and a 'political wing' to front the group's actions, similar to the IRA, where AQ appears (especially these days) to be this transient overarching entity that doesn't seem to do much itself except through the various factions it loosely unites under a broad Islamic(or even just plain anti-West) banner, of which Hamas appears to be the one of the most prominent.

[Senthil]

Coming from the guy who said something like, "That's a lot of writing. You could have said it's all the US's fault," that means less that nothing.

[Reaps]

As does your post :) Considering I actually bothered to read yours before commenting

Although nice to know that 'less than nothing' in your world means remembering posts I wrote weeks ago.

Anyhoo, our favourite Ron Paul supporter is back, so I'll declare a ceasefire.