Zapatero

[CityK]

However the absurdity of holding the U.S. foreign policy responsible for terrorism comes from the fact that "terrorism" is a crime. Even if one believes that U.S. foreign policy is "criminal" in nature, or even "terrorism", one crime or one act of terror does not justify another.

That actually raises an interesting point. If one nation, group, or person believes that a criminal or terrorisit act has been commited against them, then at what point does it legitimize their right to right to self defense? And by self defense I include proactive measures. Three examples:

- recent and forthcoming assasinations of Hamas leaders by Isreali. Collateral damage? Definetly.

- US invsaion of iraq. Collateral damage? Definitely.

- Al-Qaeda attacks on US. Collateral damage? Definitely.

 

[flagreen]

However the absurdity of holding the U.S. foreign policy responsible for terrorism comes from the fact that "terrorism" is a crime. Even if one believes that U.S. foreign policy is "criminal" in nature, or even "terrorism", one crime or one act of terror does not justify another.

That actually raises an interesting point. If one nation, group, or person believes that a criminal or terrorisit act has been commited against them, then at what point does it legitimize their right to right to self defense? And by self defense I include proactive measures. Three examples:

- recent and forthcoming assasinations of Hamas leaders by Isreali. Collateral damage? Definetly.

- US invsaion of iraq. Collateral damage? Definitely.

- Al-Qaeda attacks on US. Collateral damage? Definitely.

"Groups" and "Persons" have no recognized right to conduct foreign policy seperate from that of their government. Therefore it is not possible for them to act in any way on behalf of their nation legitimately.

What Al-Qaeda attacks could possibly result in collateral damage when their intent is to do as much damage to everything and everyone as they can?

 

[CityK]

"Groups" and "Persons" have no recognized right to conduct foreign policy seperate from that of their government. Therefore it is not possible for them to act in any way on behalf of their nation legitimately.

But in many cases, governance is sheerly lacking. The weekend events in Afganistan clearly show that that the situation there is little better then a collection of distinct tribal groups within the confines of a broader geographical boundry. Palastine - is there effective leadership, let alone an actual nation? To what nation does Al-Qaeda belong? Clearly it is an entity, and clearly it is bent upon carrying out an agenda on certain nation states.

What Al-Qaeda attacks could possibly result in collateral damage when their intent is to do as much damage to everything and everyone as they can?

It don't know if their intent is for "everything and everyone". In the case of the WTC, I suspect that they viewed it as nothing less then a legitimate target in their prescribed war. Their indifference to the civillian life could have stemmed form illusions of being able to forever cripple/decapitate the US all in one fell swoop.

 

[flagreen]

"Groups" and "Persons" have no recognized right to conduct foreign policy seperate from that of their government. Therefore it is not possible for them to act in any way on behalf of their nation legitimately.

But in many cases, governance is sheerly lacking. The weekend events in Afganistan clearly show that that the situation there is little better then a collection of distinct tribal groups within the confines of a broader geographical boundry. Palastine - is there effective leadership, let alone an actual nation? To what nation does Al-Qaeda belong? Clearly it is an entity, and clearly it is bent upon carrying out an agenda on certain nation states.

I know of no nation or region of the world where governance is lacking. "Effective" governence may be lacking in certain areas but not legal governance itself. Even the high seas are governed by maritime and international law. Therefore I attempted to answer your question as to what "legitimized" self-defense as being that which was in accordance with the laws of a given nation, or within the law as proscribed by the international community and not through the eyes of any non-governmental entity or private individual. The line as to what is legitimate must be drawn somewhere if the word is to have any real meaning at all.

The Palestinian Authority is the only internationally recognized governing authority of the Palestinian people - weak and ineffectual though it may be.

Al-Qaeda, which has no national affiliation or legal standing within the world community (save that of a criminal orginization) has no "legitimate" right of self-defense.

What Al-Qaeda attacks could possibly result in collateral damage when their intent is to do as much damage to everything and everyone as they can?

It don't know if their intent is for "everything and everyone". In the case of the WTC, I suspect that they viewed it as nothing less then a legitimate target in their prescribed war. Their indifference to the civillian life could have stemmed form illusions of being able to forever cripple/decapitate the US all in one fell swoop.

Obviously Al-Qaeda felt the WTC attack was justified or they would not have commited it. But this does not make the attack either justified or an act of legitimate self-defense. The KKK felt threatened by blacks in the old south but that did not justify their having hanged blacks nor was their doing so a legitimate act of self-defense.

 

[CityK]

I know of no nation or region of the world where governance is lacking. "Effective" governence may be lacking in certain areas but not legal governance itself.

Actually I was thinking of governance in terms of being a legal and representative entity. Perhaps one could look at Tibet and say that there is effective governence over the region, but whether it is the legitimate gov't. is another question. I also dismiss that there is anything legal about the legitamacy to regional "warlords" whether they be in Somolia or Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda, which has no national affiliation or legal standing within the world community (save that of a criminal orginization) has no "legitimate" right of self-defense.

I understand what your saying (and your use of the quotations). I included non governmental entity and individuals in my earlier question because, well they probably deserve the same recognition. For example, let me make use of your wording in a fashion to prove the point: Collectively, the Jewish persons persecuted by Nazi Germany (whether they be Poles, Germans, Austrians, Russians etc) had no legal standing within the world community (save that of an organized religion), but can you say did not have a legitimate right to self defense? Taking another perspective, do the Kurds within Iraq have the right to self defense? Does this right extend into fighting alongside ethnic Kurds in Turkey? In these instances, trying to restrict discussions of legitimacy within a geographical border is meaningless, if not impossible.

Obviously Al-Qaeda felt the...attack was justified or they would not have commited it. But this does not make the attack ... justified

I suspect this is not what you had wished to convey. If it was, I have to ask to ask the obvious: if Al-Qaeda felt so justified in carrying out such a heinous act, how can we dismiss it simply under the umbrella of an "act of terrorism". How can we look at something like the WTC attack and so lightly pass off the notion that the consequences of our own prior actions have not but in some way played a part, or further to dismiss that notion as absurbed. If we don't recognize that the hostility inflicted and depicted against us runs much deeper then that of the activities of criminal persons or groups, how are we to learn from the tragedy that unfolded. How? It runs beyond terrorism.

 

[CityK]

OT - I find it absolutely bizarre that in several of my recent posts, even after previewing, I have still managed to find a way to repeat multiple words in the same sentence. Apparently I'm developing a clear case of the keyboard stutters.

 

[flagreen]

Obviously Al-Qaeda felt the...attack was justified or they would not have commited it. But this does not make the attack ... justified

I suspect this is not what you had wished to convey. If it was, I have to ask to ask the obvious: if Al-Qaeda felt so justified in carrying out such a heinous act, how can we dismiss it simply under the umbrella of an "act of terrorism". How can we look at something like the WTC attack and so lightly pass off the notion that the consequences of our own prior actions have not but in some way played a part, or further to dismiss that notion as absurbed. If we don't recognize that the hostility inflicted and depicted against us runs much deeper then that of the activities of criminal persons or groups, how are we to learn from the tragedy that unfolded. How? It runs beyond terrorism.

In your argument above you seem to assume that Al-Qaeda's hostility is justified - even if their attack on the WTC was not. Was Al-Qaeda's hositility towards the U.S. prior to 9-11 justified then in your mind? If so why?

The WTC attack was a consequence of what past action by the U.S.?