November 03, 2005

• Psychological warfare. They may not be physically hurt, but many may actually be traumatised, particularly children.
• Ah, if only all armies on earth were so toughtful and humane... *sigh*
• Yeah, what's not to love about Zionism?
• I just heard about this on NPR's Marketplace yesterday. It was a brief mention during a piece about Gaza Strip businesses in the wake of the Israeli pullout where it served as a backdrop to one of the stories to show the conditions a Gaza shopkeeper had to deal with. Something which I found a little jarring was that the glass-shattering booms were being taken as a matter of course, just another weight on the shoulders of Gazans and that there really wasn't anything they could do about it.
• Jesus. All these little kids with purposely-induced PTSD. That'll fix 'em. I usually can't give much of a damn about Palestinians, but this is just wrong. Sleep deprivation makes people go nuts...so Israel figures it's a good idea to drive even more people homicidally nuts in Palestine than usual?
• Fucking Israel. Stop poking them with your giant technological sticks, FFS!
• I say fuck these zionist war pig scum. Why is the U.S still giving Israel gagazillions of "aid" per year?
• I have a bad feeling about this. I foresee accusations of anti-Semitism in this thread.
• I wonder if a few barrage balloons would solve the problem of the overflights.
• Anti-Sonicism, at least. *adjusts tinfoil beanie*
• That's why I used the name of the state, not the religion of the people. I can be disgusted with Israel's foreign (if that's what it is) policy, without giving two hoots what god they decide to worship. Just because the Jewish people have suffered centuries of abuse doesn't mean I can't disagree with Israeli policy.
• Oh I agree, but there are those who aren't capable of such a nuanced view of reality.
• Then they are not worthy to debate with us the current state of Middle East policy. Let us retire with our hubbley-bubbley pipes and discuss this matter over tea. *clap* *clap*
• I 2nd Kitfisto
• 3rd kitfisto.
• Mr de Soto said he did not accept that the tactic was a legitimate response to Islamic Jihad and Hamas firing rockets into Israeli towns. "Sonic booms are an indiscriminate instrument, the use of which punishes the population collectively. We ask therefore that their use be stopped without delay," the letter said. Perhaps they should fire hundreds of thousands of flowers out of cannons into Gaza.
• No, because that would be collectively rewarding the population, including the touriststerrorists.
• OK, Israel's leadership sucks in my book. That's just plain wrong. Then again, the U.S. has done it to its own people... in 1964 the Air Force set off eight sonic booms a day over Oklahoma City as part of an experiment. It's all over Google but there's not a single page worth posting.
• Perhaps they should fire hundreds of thousands of flowers out of cannons into Gaza. It's just crazy enough to work. Let's face it the whole "fight-hate-with-hate" hasn't really taken off as a resolution to conflict. *searching for hubba-bubba pipe*
• rolypolyman, these charges against the US Military are agraegious, malapropriate, and nothing more than a "stunt" to detract from the fabulous new Mack Gliston movie, "Zapatrapha" which features native assembly-language programmers speaking their parts in binary.
• egregious.
• Oh, here's a good reference, finally: OKC endured 1,494 sonic booms in 1964
• Perhaps they should fire hundreds of thousands of flowers out of cannons into Gaza or here's an Idea how about getting the fuck out of their county? Oh wait they don't have a county because the Israelis took it from them. Damn the man. They have just a much right to a sovereign nation as the Israelis do. Once they back off recognize Palestine 99.9% of the problems will end. Also, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I really think we over use the word "terrorist". I think the word terrorist should be exempt from use when includes warring nations… A good example of when it should be used is when say group X does it for monetary gain. In that case Bush would be the terrorist.
• Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!
• ...and before I am called an anti-semite check these guys out.
• Hehehehe...always been a fan of Marvin. But on the serious side, the entire situation is reprehensible. Isreal's behavior reminds me of nothing so much as a spoiled child. Can't have what they want, so they're going to make sure whoever does have it can't enjoy it. Except this situation is far more serious, obviously.
• *Israel dammit
• sonic booms aren't that bad.
• illogical.
• As a typically ignorant American, all I can say is that everyone involved is being really uncool. Seriously, though, I wonder how long the Israelis can count on us propping up their state. It's like trying to cultivate a benign tumor within a separate malignancy. Maybe there is no answer.
• pilgrim wrote: sonic booms aren't that bad. I'll be the first to admit that I am distasteful of/easily startled by sudden noise, but when that first dork to rush a cockpit after 9/11 and was subdued, near O'Hare and I was in Carol Stream, IL (is this a run-on sentence yet?), I heard the sonic booms of the pair of military fighters sent to catch the jet. It sounded as though someone was on my roof and rapped as hard as they could on the glass of the window right in front of me, twice, and I'm STILL pissing myself. Sonic booms are not trivial.
• I want f8xmulder to explain to me why this is not terrorism. I want f8xmulder to explain to me why the indiscriminant terrorising of a population is justified. Miscarriages have gone up 40% since this stunt has started. I want f8xmulder, a Christian and an anti-abortionist, to explain to me why condoning this action is not the height of hypocrisy.
• I like and respect fX but I want to know why this isn't an improper attact on innocent people. If they are occpying someplace that is off limits, I can see it. I really don't get this; can someone help me understand why it's OK to destroy a people who have seemed to compromise? And sonic booms will only make enemies. It's not as cute as it was in Panama. Back then, we just had to blare music.
• If you're a christian, it's ok to torture muslims. That's basically what it boils down to. After all, they're all going to hell anyway.
• Which country were those jets made in? /obvious
• Well, I guess I cannot give up. I am a loyal supporter of my country, despite the ham-handed mangling of public policy of late. No, it is NOT OK to torture or otherwise trample on the values that I would proudly die for. I am a proud conservative, NOT a neocon, but nevertheless I am proud to go ahead as I am.
• That's called being ignorant.
• ... Do I seem overly proud? Sorry. But I am! Glad to live here-- it's the eternal challenge.
• chyren, it's so convenient to spit from a distance. It's a bit harder to effect change where you live.
• That's a complete non-sequitur. Speaking of spitting from a distance, hows about carpet bombing innocent muslims from 30,000 feet?
• If you're a christian, it's ok to torture muslims. I see religious history is not your strong suit.
• Ah, the Crusades ring any bells?
• Your preposterous paleo-logic is what will doom the whole possibility of an even uneasy compromise in the mideast? You want to take the part of the innocent Muslims. I respect them too. Why can't the Israelis back off?
• "Why can't the Israelis back off?" Good question. Preposterous paleo-logic? That's the Republicans, isn't it?
• help me, Wolof. I am inarticulate.
• He won't help you, he only likes to make sarcastic comments.
• Any other monotheisms that might be practiced in Israel?
• I will answer my own question: The Israelis can't back off because we can't afford them to. Bottom line; done deal.
• "The Israelis can't back off because we can't afford them to." That is hilarious. I suppose they're protecting the west from the scourge of Islam, yes?
• I want f8xmulder to explain to me why this is not terrorism. I want f8xmulder to explain to me why the indiscriminant terrorising of a population is justified. It's not terrorism because terrorists are non-state actors engaged in violence, usually usuing the techniques of assymmetric warfare, for a political end. This is a state actor engaged in violent actions for a political end (as most wars are). But then again, maybe a more accurate definition of terrorism would be "violence we don't like".
• I don't say that to take a side in this debate - there is blood on both sides, and I feel like Mercutio - but just to point out that terrorism is very much a meaningless word. It either defines actions by non-state actors as substantially different from state actors, perhaps implying that violence by state actors is that much more justified. Or it's a meaningless buzz/scare word, dropped about to score emotional points.
• "It's not terrorism because terrorists are non-state actors engaged in violence, usually usuing the techniques of assymmetric warfare, for a political end." That's sophistry, as you note yourself. Terrorism is, in quaint terms, the use of dishonourable tactics; violence to instill terror in an enemy's populace to weaken morale, and by doing do, break the forces arrayed in otherwise unassailable strength. 'Asymmetric warfare' has *always* been a tactical part of war, since time immemorial, and has probably never been out of use, even by those that didn't need to use it. Terrorism is a modern term to define a particular type of violence that certain 'state actors' consider wrong, "violence we don't like," precisely. But as you are clearly aware (and I spell this out only for some of the audience who continue to wilfully reject reality) 'we', that is, the U.S. and the West have not only supported non-state actors in acts of terrorism against common enemies throughout the Cold War and recent times, but even arguably used terrorism ourselves against states in which we were conducting 'police actions', or even those in which we were not militarily active. It is pitifully easy to find examples of this with cursory effort, especially, it saddens me to say, in recent times. I actually don't quite grok why you are taking a seemingly devil's advocate position, jb with your 12:33pm post, when your 12:35 post is far more accurate and straight to the point. Perhaps for objectivity's sake. I understand you don't want to take sides, but at this point, I believe it is unethical to defend, even academically, the immoral. But then I am very old-fashioned.
• there is blood on both sides, and I feel like Mercutio Best thing I've read all week. Thanks jb! I'm unclear on cynnbad's struggle between Israel's actions and US policy. Israel's being a dick and we give them billions but what's the other angle?
• I am one of the hornswaggled faction who believed and supported a strong Israel in order to bring the Middle East under the Western thumb. In simplistic terms. Why? Not oil, really, but that's just me. Others may differ. I honestly believed in the promise of Israel and the birth and growth of democracy throughout the region. I thought it would be a beautiful metasticizing movement, spreading like a rose. I thought the Western thumb would contain and direct dissention, until the true vision would emerge, and all would be on board. But of course I was wrong, and we are stuck in a tar pit that we will never crawl out of. Who knew that other different people could possibly have their own perspectives? Doesn't everyone get the memo? As one of those early "visionaries," I was at first perplexed; now I am trying to save what's left of my party.
• .... and I should have used "dissent" instead of "dissention," which isn't a word. Although at this point what's the difference.
• Sorry, been away all weekend and missed this lovely thread after I first posted. I suppose I should answer dirigible by asking: why do you assume I support these sonic boom(b)ings? Because I posted a semi-sarcastic comment that expresses my frustration with the whole frakking situation there in Gaza? You assume too much, my friend. I condemn this on the grounds that it not only does nothing to prevent groups like Hamas from striking at Israeli targets, but it is harmful to the general public (as evidenced by the miscarriages, et al), is harmful for public relations, and is as blatantly in your face as Israel can get without going BACK INTO Gaza. It's stupid all around. My comment was supposed to exhibit frustration at the fact that Israel does things like this mostly to thumb its nose at the Palestinians, but also as their own way of "getting back" at the Palestinian leadership, which continues to support attacks against Israel. It's like if someone egged your house, so you go and key their car. It makes you feel good, even if it's totally immoral and does nothing but harm to your own relationship with others around you. So, while I don't condone it, I totally understand it. That probably seems too nuanced a view for some of you, for whom you have only the loudest and most vehement rejection of anything Israel ever does to "defend itself". In my view, this is totally wrong. Also, I commiserate entirely with their frustrations.
• .... And the fact that the Israelis are smarter, quicker, and meaner than the U.S. is a testament to both our sloth and misplaced priorities.
• Oh, foxmulder, shut up. You're interrupting my monologue.
• It's fargin' f8x, not fox! Get it right sinbad!
• The leadership on both sides is sorely lacking. Too bad they have such popular support.
• I wish god would come down and put an end to all of this (my god, of course, not their god)
• Well, he did start it all, the stupid prick.
• Hey can anyone else hear thunder?
• I might just duck under this tall oak tree til the storm passes.
• Here hold this sheet of corrugated metal over you for added protection.
• Thanks. Now I'll just think fondly about witchcraft and sodomy for a few moments.
• I think we can all benefit from that.
• I think it's long past time for a Christian holocaust.
• I note that your solutions to people killing one another involve killing more people, not less.
• He's a contrarian pacifist.
• Oh, there will be, before long. I'm fairly certain we've pissed off enough people over the ages to warrant it sometime in the next century.
• The solution to Jews and Muslims killing each other is to kill Christians? Interesting strategy...
• [Insert Deity of Choice]'ll sort them out. Ancient Crusader motto. *gong*
• Don't dare to mock Charnstrom, or he will unleash his wrath!
• I understand you don't want to take sides, but at this point, I believe it is unethical to defend, even academically, the immoral. Saying something isn't terrorism isn't defending it. The Holocaust - not terrorism. Not defending it. AOL - not terrorism. Not defending it. Basically, I think if we're going to have this word, and it's going to be any use to any one, it ought to have a real definition. Yours, specifically "the use of dishonourable tactics; violence to instill terror in an enemy's populace to weaken morale", might be a good place to start. Some people who study terrorism exclude state actors, because, well, terror tactics have been part of state warfare forever. I was just saying why someone would say it isn't terrorism - because in many working definitions of terrorism, they don't include state actors. I think I would personally differentiate between state and non-state acts of terrorism, because they are carried out so differently, and often for different reasons. Many governments at war have used "violence to instill terror in an enemy's populace to weaken morale" - but they tend to do it through more open methods through their armed forces rather than creating small international cells. Sure this all sounds like sophistry - but when you are trying to study something, sophistry really matters. NB: I do not study terrorism. I study rural social structure in the seventeenth century and think about economic development. on preview - Dreadnought, who does know people who study terrorism, says my definition in the previous comment is crap. A not uncommon defintion, but not one he likes at all. Oh, great. Now's he's lecturing me on it. I wish he would just login and lecture you all instead. :)
• *sends lots of love to jb and Dreadnought*
• I would bow down in deference to jb and dreadnought. Please say whether or not this is a dangerous development; I will gauge my response accoringly.
• I don't know anything - If it isn't about 17th century society or Farscape, I'm talking out of my ass.
• You're all right, jb.
• "I note that your solutions to people killing one another involve killing more people, not less." Saves time. More seriously: jb, your points are well seen, and I agree. I have nothing to add.
• I think if we're going to have this word, and it's going to be any use to any one, it ought to have a real definition. Pah! Defining your terms is for wimps and debating-team nerds. Us tough guys connote rather than denote, thus giving our statements a multiplicity of ever-shifting meanings any of which might be a vague approximation of the "truth" but we don't know which. We have much better poetry on the non-definitialist side, and every night we burn dictionaries in effigy or in the living room. DOWN WITH CLARITY! - that's our motto.
• Pah! Terrorist. motto Pinko.
• By which he means "O though whose ass shines with infinite light", your Popeness.
• ...meanwhile, in other news... Israeli artillery shells killed 18 civilians in a town in northern Gaza on Wednesday, the deadliest strike in the territory in four years