“But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is not murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it”

Is that always the case, Anas?

yes

But that’s been standard for aggressive invading armies throughout history, guys, even if they haven’t necessarily been (formally or informally) associated with a state or nation in the modern sense of the term.

“But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is not murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it”

Is that always the case, Anas?

“The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.”
John_T._Flynn

“How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder…. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is not murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take?”
Adin Ballou – The Non-Resistant, 5 February 1845

“You know what? I don’t want to answer your questions, because frankly, I don’t give a flying rat’s poo anymore.

You have been very active in this thread, and you have repeatedly said that violence is wrong no matter who does it, but when asked two simple questions about it (#142) – you know – to go beyond the superficial and get more substance, you have said that you rather not get out of your moral high horse, and answer them,
as the weather of S. Francisco is too nice for that.

I have been in S. Francisco around this time, and I have to say I would too rather enjoy the weather than to write to an obnoxious little twat like myself.

“Seems like you have all the evidence you need to prove that I am a loser and that I do not have a life.”

I am saying that:

1. If I tell you that because I have little time at my disposal to read all comments, pre-epmt all issues that come up with AQ, etc, and you respond that I do have time because I ask you if you are a student, then this judgment on your part is ludicrous;

2. It is equally absurd for me to come up with something like, “You post 50 billion posts, a lot of them about arguments that no one else has said, but you conjuring up on your own based on ‘silences’ on the part of commentators, so you must have no life and be a loser.” I can’t permit myself to say that, much as you can’t either. It’s a fucking blog, people post as much as they want to when they want to.

“Er.. I am not sure why you keep on giving this sorry arse excuse considering there are only two questions and they were neatly summarised in one single message #129, which you have obviously read, but declined to answer.”

You know what? I don’t want to answer your questions, because frankly, I don’t give a flying rat’s poo anymore. I said what I wanted to, and that’s it. You want to make up arguments that I never said? go ahead. I don’t to read all of your comments, and I haven’t read every single comments of yours, because I’d rather be enjoying the beautiful San Francisco weather with my friends than respond to you!

but it’s no fun when someone is shadowboxing in an uppity and high-minded manner, telling off people that they might have time to post 3-4 comments which probably take around 5 minutes

Er.. I am not sure why you keep on giving this sorry arse excuse considering there are only two questions and they were neatly summarised in one single message #129, which you have obviously read, but declined to answer.

The questions are a) whether violence performed by a state is always terrorism, b) is it always wrong for a state to intervene militarily in missions that involve oppressing governments, and whether that constitutes state terrorism.

But ok, you don’t have time to read these two questions, let alone answer them. Fine.

Really, Ravi. That’s pretty presumptuous for you to make judgment. Would it be fair for me to say, “Ravi posts really long comments on numerous posts and then posts comments duking it out with opinions that he himself read into; he must be a loser to have such time on his hands and no life because he takes PP so damn seriously”? No. It’s not.

Why would it not be fair? Seems like you have all the evidence you need to prove that I am a loser and that I do not have a life. However, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it would be fair to say you are resorting to ad hominem attacks, had you hypothetically brought that up.

“I understand, it is far easier to make superficial assertions and castigate those who don’t see it black/white, then to actually understand the complexities of issues, because that obviously requires a PhD and a lot of time. But you know what? I am glad you still have time for… chit-chat and questions that bear little to this discussion.”

Really, Ravi. That’s pretty presumptuous for you to make judgment. Would it be fair for me to say, “Ravi posts really long comments on numerous posts and then posts comments duking it out with opinions that he himself read into; he must be a loser to have such time on his hands and no life because he takes PP so damn seriously”? No. It’s not.

“You must know what I am talking about, or you would not have said that I am extrapolating. But more than extrapolating, I am just infering from your previous comments that violence is bad no matter who or what justification.”

No. You are creating a strawman’s argument, and I am telling you that no one here implied such a thing. And so I am asking you where you extrapolated such a thing. You are not just “infering;” you are actually ascribing opinions to people where those opinions do not exist.

You might be looking for some all-out boxing match, but it’s no fun when someone is shadowboxing in an uppity and high-minded manner, telling off people that they might have time to post 3-4 comments which probably take around 5 minutes as opposed to reading all 100 plus comments and answering to every single one of your shadow arguments which would take people much, much longer. People post comments when they can or want, and some people have lives (not implying that those who post really long comments don’t have lives). Relax, it is a blog, Ravi, not a debating society.

Chill out, yaar. Seriously.

As for Jai’s points:

Absolutely. (Your caveat in the final sentence was also a wise move on your part).

(I’d like to say I shouldn’t have to add that caveat, it should have been understood, but I knew from previous discussions on PP I have to SPELL OUT EVERYTHING)

Using the same logic, let me flip this around: Do you think that it is the responsibility of members of Muslim communities in the UK and elsewhere to do as much as they possibly can to identify and root out AQ members and sympathisers within their population,

Members, yes; sympathisers, no — although personally I like to verbally challenge anyone who presumes to sympathise with AQ, unless they’re big and scary, just the same as I do with anyone foolish enough to defend Western Imperialist policy. Seriously though, anyone who is hiding the fact that they are aware of terrorist activity going on has pretty much no excuse, under any reasonable system of ethics whether it’s Islamic Shariah, or British law.

and that – if this involves “close-knit” populations and social/family networks – not being able or sufficiently willing to do so it is a failure of the Muslim population concerned as a whole ?

*If* the Muslim population was not sufficiently willing to do so, that would be failing, yes. But, IMHO, to suggest it isn’t willing to do so except in a few isolated deluded cases is a sheer lie and a libel on the whole Muslim community.

Ultimately the point I’m trying to put across is that given the nature and justification of the political system under which we live — supposedly a liberal democracy — we share enough responsibility for the actions undertaken by our elected officials that, morally speaking, we have an obligation to give those actions higher priority than others committed by, for example., terrorist groups operating autonomously. I mean even if you didn’t vote for the current incumbents, you still have numerous opportunities to influence the course that is taken by the goverment, through, e.g., organising protests, forming interest groups, gathering publicity for your cause, etc. So that you still bear a certain level of responsibility for your government’s actions — though of course morally speaking your obligations wouldn’t be the same if you lived under a totalitarian system, or if you were a minor or incapable of making rational decisions (I will refrain from making a sexist joke here). That’s where the collective responsibility comes in.

Now, I accept that the Muslim community as a whole does have a responsibility to correct any misguided notions that some of its members hold re: terrorism — which IMHO it has taken seriously and has fulfilled(similarly I believe British Jews have some responsibility to challenge and condemn the ongoing occupation of Palestine). How many times do Muslims (including pretty much every senior figure) have to give explicit rulings against terrorism, to utterly condemn it with reference to the Islamic scriptures, for certain people to give up this reflexive assumption of there being some widespread reluctance to do so? Christ, is this Harry’s Place or something?
I do however see a certain reluctance on the part of many in the UK+US to directly confront or even acknowledge our own desperate moral failings and there is no contradiction with my “stance” on the responsibility of British Muslims re:the terrorists in their midst. For example, how many posts have there been recently condemming what is happening in Gaza, or drawing attention to the coalition’s tactics in Afghanistan/Iraq on PP, tactics that — and I’m being more generous that is warranted about the motivations behind these tactics — appear to hold a complete & murderous disregard for the lives of civilians who happen to find themselves in the path of this great bloody war juggernaut? It’s the same with the mainstream media.

So I’m just wondering what your own stance and thought processes are in this situation, since we’re discussing notions of collective guilt and responsibility.

Ultimately they’re the same as everyone’s

Bring back preview!

While increasing ‘defence’ spending.”

Excellent.
A double-whammy fiscal stimulus; just what we need.
Pity the government’s at its borrowing limit here – well done Gordon!

While increasing ‘defence’ spending.

Again, your own extrapolation. What on earth are you talking about?

You must know what I am talking about, or you would not have said that I am extrapolating. But more than extrapolating, I am just infering from your previous comments that violence is bad no matter who or what justification.

Sweetie, do you honestly think I have time to sit on PP and answer and/or give my opinions and thoughts on every single aspect or pre-empt other issues that comes up in every single comment

I understand, it is far easier to make superficial assertions and castigate those who don’t see it black/white, then to actually understand the complexities of issues, because that obviously requires a PhD and a lot of time. But you know what? I am glad you still have time for…

Ravi–Out of curiosity, are you a student?

… chit-chat and questions that bear little to this discussion.

“Governments, democratic or not, fund wars by mandatory taxation. “

Isn’t Bush trying to get tax cuts?

Out of curiosity, are you a student?

Yaar, I ask myself this all the time People here go Ph.D length out, and it reminds me of grad school– that you’re expected to respond and/or anticipate this and that issue buried in one of the comments, and then accuse the person of being stupid and/or giving answers that are “not good enough.”

Then I always wonder whether people look at my back-to-back posts and ask, “Does she have a full-time job?”

Some PP’ers seem to be full time commentators…

“You quickly joined the fray on “state terrorism” on this thread, and giving a lecture of how violence is always bad. Yet you continue to refrain from giving your interpretation of what “state terrorism” is while admitting there are many definitions of it. I mean, isn’t it stupid for people to argue here whether the US or UK is a “terrorist state”, if as you admit, it has different meanings? Jai has given his definition in #102 (third paragraph), which I agree. I still do not know in what terms you consider a state as terrorist.

You also refrained to say whether military intervention is always terrorism, or whether the West should just give symbolic lectures or economic sanctions to rogue countries with ruthless dictators who engage, for instance, in ethnic killings, etc. – as any military intervention results in violence and killing.”

Sweetie, do you honestly think I have time to sit on PP and answer and/or give my opinions and thoughts on every single aspect or pre-empt other issues that comes up in every single comment, most of the time 100 comments?

Yes, I joined the “fray” in pointing out state terrorism. No, I was not the first person to initiate that discussion. But yes, I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out state terrorism. What’s your point? Every one here has roundly denounced AQ terrorism.

“When you say you are against violence no matter who does it and why, aren’t you saying we should capitulate to anyone who engages in violence and extremism, and ignore atrocities in parts of the world – so that we don’t dirty our hands?”

Again, your own extrapolation. What on earth are you talking about?

“There is no international consensus on it, as some believe that there is no such thing as state terrorism…

I can see why you think that commentators who do not follow up with their comments (like myself) are either ignoring what you think are contradictions and/or have a “hidden agenda.” “

Sorry, I don’t think it is good enough.

You quickly joined the fray on “state terrorism” on this thread, and giving a lecture of how violence is always bad. Yet you continue to refrain from giving your interpretation of what “state terrorism” is while admitting there are many definitions of it. I mean, isn’t it stupid for people to argue here whether the US or UK is a “terrorist state”, if as you admit, it has different meanings? Jai has given his definition in #102 (third paragraph), which I agree. I still do not know in what terms you consider a state as terrorist.

You also refrained to say whether military intervention is always terrorism, or whether the West should just give symbolic lectures or economic sanctions to rogue countries with ruthless dictators who engage, for instance, in ethnic killings, etc. – as any military intervention results in violence and killing.

When you say you are against violence no matter who does it and why, aren’t you saying we should capitulate to anyone who engages in violence and extremism, and ignore atrocities in parts of the world – so that we don’t dirty our hands?