[Khar]

desertdude desertdude:

Ter·ror·ist : a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Terrorism : systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

Usually I do not come into threads on this topic because I feel I have little to offer, but in this case I really do feel I have to point something out.

The use of language and specifics of it in a discuss to chew away at a point is, in my opinion, a way to foment anger about an issue by avoiding discussing the topic at hand in favour of debating semantics. While at times it is acceptable if a person is unwilling to acknowledge that a specific group or thing can be defined as such, there is not real international binding definition for terrorism.

Hence, using such a definition in any context is going to be hard to use. International criminal law has yet to set down a definition, for example. So are numerous other groups. The trouble identifying it has in part come from IOC demands that members of their group be separated from definitions such as these because they are "fighting foreign occupation," but in each case there is debate over where an increasingly set of shades of gray can be drawn. This quickly degenerates into a series of quibbles over semantics with words which are vaguely defined, and rarely takes the discussion anywhere but into the depths of anxiety, frustration and anger.

So let's not go that way. Sunlight is good for everyone.

Likewise, since Bart made an indirect reference to it, I would sincerely recommend you avoid absolutes. Generally, I am of the belief that if you can use an absolute, it need not be said. BartSimpson picked up on that in another thread and did reflect it back on you with the 1.5 billion Muslim bigotry comment. While that does not settle well with me, it is a prudent reminder, in a way, that if you swing your opinion in such a way which includes a wide array of people, you are going to end up smacking a lot more people in the process, and in debates like this it can and does lead to people believing to bigotry.

The ongoing debate about antisemitism sentiments cannot be ignored because, as Zipperfish said recently, even if it is blown out of proportion, it does exist and can be identified as an ongoing problem. By approaching discussions in the wrong manner you can actively exacerbate that issue indirectly, and it does lead to problems such as the ones being defined in the article at the beginning of this debate, which is also a portion of a larger, long running debate which has been going for decades.

While I rarely urge people to moderate their views without discussing those views, I will urge people to moderate how they present their views and responses to a topic at hand. I feel you are all too ready to leap into that seat, and you aren't alone -- when it begins, people are all too ready to leap down to the same level and respond in the same way. Habits, traditions, it's all the same thing. To be honest, and it may just be me, I feel you are much more willing to push the issue where others, like Bart, have offered you Olive Branches, or defended their opinions from some more flagrant comments of yours without returning similar remarks. All more extreme presentations of views do is force other people to extreme views so a topic becomes polarized. I fear that is what has happened here.

Sure, there are problems elsewhere which can be identified. You are not the only one who I feel has these issues, but since everyone can read this and I kind of picked up on it I felt inclined to answer. I apologize if I have caused you any offense, or anyone else any offense, this is simply my own viewpoint, and I guess my viewpoints tend to be defined by the fact that I am typically quite gunshy with my views (my last post in the Medals forum being a horribly embarrassing gaff I feel sickly sorry for).

In any case, sorry to butt in and sorry for the tangential ramble.

[Curtman]

desertdude desertdude:

I'll tell you what mate and I'm being really honest here I'm am so disconnected from politics I have no idea what left right center liberal democrat republican tory whig ( ?? ) conservative GOP NDP right wing left wing etc etc evern mean ? And I really don't care to find out or look them up.

Oh also I have no idea what the NDP is ?

Conservative, Liberal, and NDP are the three main nation wide political parties here. Until our current Conservative government was elected, Canada never ever would claim to be a 'staunch and unwaivering ally of Israel', as our Conservative leader did. We would speak along with the international community when they condemned things like the Lebanon destruction, or Operation Cast Lead, or the flotilla, or settlement expansion.

[Proculation]

desertdude desertdude:

I'll tell you what mate and I'm being really honest here I'm am so disconnected from politics I have no idea what left right center liberal democrat republican tory whig ( ?? ) conservative GOP NDP right wing left wing etc etc evern mean ? And I really don't care to find out or look them up.

Oh also I have no idea what the NDP is ?

I'm not surprised to see that. Jews = villains and Muslims = heroes ?

[Khar]

$1:

Conservative, Liberal, and NDP are the three main nation wide political parties here. Until our current Conservative government was elected, Canada never ever would claim to be a 'staunch and unwaivering ally of Israel', as our Conservative leader did. We would speak along with the international community when they condemned things like the Lebanon destruction, or Operation Cast Lead, or the flotilla, or settlement expansion.

Political party names and spectrum definitions have never really matched up though. It's why in school they encourage students to remember to use lower case and upper case lettering to differentiate between the two, because Liberal and liberal, or Conservative and conservative, do not actually define the same thing.

Kind of like how a lot of totalitarian regimes like to use the term democratic in their governments, even though the definition at use could be considered questionable. One of those lovely gray areas the English language is so fond of which causes so much misunderstanding.

'Tis why it's better to not pull things from between the lines! Sometimes, even though word use and tone can tell you things about the post, you can't be sure if what is written between the lines is what you believe, if there's anything actually written there at all! Lovely pitfalls of writing and discussing stuff on forums, eh?

I know it's kind of tangential to what Curtman is saying, though, and has more to do with what he wrote before (which was basically the same point I was kind of making, just presented in a nice, concise manner and in a different way). Sorry for confusing the topic.

[EyeBrock]

Curtman Curtman:

desertdude desertdude:

I'll tell you what mate and I'm being really honest here I'm am so disconnected from politics I have no idea what left right center liberal democrat republican tory whig ( ?? ) conservative GOP NDP right wing left wing etc etc evern mean ? And I really don't care to find out or look them up.

Oh also I have no idea what the NDP is ?

Conservative, Liberal, and NDP are the three main nation wide political parties here. Until our current Conservative government was elected, Canada never ever would claim to be a 'staunch and unwaivering ally of Israel', as our Conservative leader did. We would speak along with the international community when they condemned things like the Lebanon destruction, or Operation Cast Lead, or the flotilla, or settlement expansion.

And sit there impotently at Durban One as the Arab nations distributed pamplets about the 'eternal Jew'. Proud moments.

[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

I will urge people to moderate how they present their views and responses to a topic at hand. I feel you are all too ready to leap into that seat, and you aren't alone -- when it begins, people are all too ready to leap down to the same level and respond in the same way. Habits, traditions, it's all the same thing. To be honest, and it may just be me, I feel you are much more willing to push the issue where others, like Bart, have offered you Olive Branches, or defended their opinions from some more flagrant comments of yours without returning similar remarks. All more extreme presentations of views do is force other people to extreme views so a topic becomes polarized. I fear that is what has happened here.

It always does become polarized this way. This is very well said. Thank you very much.

Khar Khar:

In any case, sorry to butt in and sorry for the tangential ramble.

Never apologize for being the voice of reason.

[desertdude]

Proculation Proculation:

desertdude desertdude:

I'll tell you what mate and I'm being really honest here I'm am so disconnected from politics I have no idea what left right center liberal democrat republican tory whig ( ?? ) conservative GOP NDP right wing left wing etc etc evern mean ? And I really don't care to find out or look them up.

Oh also I have no idea what the NDP is ?

I'm not surprised to see that. Jews = villains and Muslims = heroes ?

???? And how did you come to that conclusion bright spark ? Just because I am least intrested in North American internal politics I am jew hater.

That a new level of dumbass even for you

[EyeBrock]

Tut tut DD. Personal attacks = lost point.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And sit there impotently at Durban One as the Arab nations distributed pamplets about the 'eternal Jew'. Proud moments.

I'm afraid this will drag us back to war... But here goes.

Former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sets the Record Straight on Durban 1

$1:

As my name has been quoted in recent editions of the National Post, I would like to set the record straight as to what actually happened at the first Durban anti-racism conference in September 2001.

1. As the Deputy Foreign Minister, I had the responsibility to lead the Israeli preparation up till Durban, and from Jerusalem I led the delegation in Durban. The head of the Israeli delegation on the spot was Ambassador Mordechai Yedid, who also read my speech to the conference.

2. The Israeli government never asked any country, including Canada, not to participate or to leave Durban. Our goal was to avoid the adoption of a most hateful anti-Semitic resolution which had been put on the table mainly at the Preparatory Conference in Teheran from which Israel and Jewish NGOs were excluded from participating.

3. At the final stage of the Durban I conference after the Israeli delegation had left, I requested from the Canadian delegation that they lead and coordinate the work at Durban to combat the dangerous anti-Semitic language in the final resolution. The Canadian delegation, with its fine record on issues of human rights and combating anti-Semitism and xenophobia, made a remarkable contribution in rallying an unprecedented majority — in UN terms — to remove the hate language from the final official resolution.

4. On a personal note, I need to add that even in a heated political debate, there should be a limit to the grotesque methods and accusations one could use against political opponents. Not only during Durban I, but also in the many months of preparation prior to the conference, no one worked harder than MP Irwin Cotler, supported by the Foreign Ministry of Ottawa, to combat anti-Semitism and the Israel bashing, which unfortunately succeeded in hijacking the focus of what should have been a crucial gathering of international commitment to combat all forms of racism. Even to indicate that Irwin Cotler would lend his hand to anti-Semitism is a gross distortion of what happened in Durban.

Rabbi Michael Melchior, former minister and MK, Jerusalem, Israel

[desertdude]

Khar Khar:

desertdude desertdude:

Ter·ror·ist : a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Terrorism : systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

Usually I do not come into threads on this topic because I feel I have little to offer, but in this case I really do feel I have to point something out.

The use of language and specifics of it in a discuss to chew away at a point is, in my opinion, a way to foment anger about an issue by avoiding discussing the topic at hand in favour of debating semantics. While at times it is acceptable if a person is unwilling to acknowledge that a specific group or thing can be defined as such, there is not real international binding definition for terrorism.

Hence, using such a definition in any context is going to be hard to use. International criminal law has yet to set down a definition, for example. So are numerous other groups. The trouble identifying it has in part come from IOC demands that members of their group be separated from definitions such as these because they are "fighting foreign occupation," but in each case there is debate over where an increasingly set of shades of gray can be drawn. This quickly degenerates into a series of quibbles over semantics with words which are vaguely defined, and rarely takes the discussion anywhere but into the depths of anxiety, frustration and anger.

So let's not go that way. Sunlight is good for everyone.

Likewise, since Bart made an indirect reference to it, I would sincerely recommend you avoid absolutes. Generally, I am of the belief that if you can use an absolute, it need not be said. BartSimpson picked up on that in another thread and did reflect it back on you with the 1.5 billion Muslim bigotry comment. While that does not settle well with me, it is a prudent reminder, in a way, that if you swing your opinion in such a way which includes a wide array of people, you are going to end up smacking a lot more people in the process, and in debates like this it can and does lead to people believing to bigotry.

The ongoing debate about antisemitism sentiments cannot be ignored because, as Zipperfish said recently, even if it is blown out of proportion, it does exist and can be identified as an ongoing problem. By approaching discussions in the wrong manner you can actively exacerbate that issue indirectly, and it does lead to problems such as the ones being defined in the article at the beginning of this debate, which is also a portion of a larger, long running debate which has been going for decades.

While I rarely urge people to moderate their views without discussing those views, I will urge people to moderate how they present their views and responses to a topic at hand. I feel you are all too ready to leap into that seat, and you aren't alone -- when it begins, people are all too ready to leap down to the same level and respond in the same way. Habits, traditions, it's all the same thing. To be honest, and it may just be me, I feel you are much more willing to push the issue where others, like Bart, have offered you Olive Branches, or defended their opinions from some more flagrant comments of yours without returning similar remarks. All more extreme presentations of views do is force other people to extreme views so a topic becomes polarized. I fear that is what has happened here.

Sure, there are problems elsewhere which can be identified. You are not the only one who I feel has these issues, but since everyone can read this and I kind of picked up on it I felt inclined to answer. I apologize if I have caused you any offense, or anyone else any offense, this is simply my own viewpoint, and I guess my viewpoints tend to be defined by the fact that I am typically quite gunshy with my views (my last post in the Medals forum being a horribly embarrassing gaff I feel sickly sorry for).

In any case, sorry to butt in and sorry for the tangential ramble.

Excellent post Khar sorry I intially got lost in the flurry of rapid exchanges

[EyeBrock]

How dare you use facts back at me curt.....sob....

Ok, only a bit wimpy then.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

desertdude desertdude:

Oh also I have no idea what the NDP is ?

All you need to know is the party leader is a used car salesman

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

Conservative, Liberal, and NDP are the three main nation wide political parties here. Until our current Conservative government was elected, Canada never ever would claim to be a 'staunch and unwaivering ally of Israel', as our Conservative leader did.

Nah, we just had Liberals saving known terrorists from prison. Actions speak MUCH louder than rhetoric!

[2Cdo]

desertdude desertdude:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

desertdude desertdude:

Well you just don't like hearing as it is, now do you ?

I find your anti-Israel posts 100% predictable. You can't help yourself due to YOUR upbringing.

$1:

Well Israeli citizens really have no choice do they and I'm sure many wouldn't have if they had a choice.

You'd be wrong, especially if the Islamic countries ever tried to repeat the opening days of the Yom Kippur war.

$1:

Well in hind sight that would be incorrect on my part I think its the Israeli govt that are the real terrorists and some members of the IDF who come up with and take part in brilliant operations like cast lead.

Nice backtrack, but I now know how you really think.

Instead of engaing in personal attacks, why don't you try to provide something usefull to the topic at hand.

Using your own words to show your bias is not a personal attack. Again I'll state that your true colours are starting to show. If you don't like me pointing it out, quit pretending to be an unbiased bystander.

[EyeBrock]

Agreed 2Cdo.