chamsa

Usually I am against and get totally offended by foreigners sticking their noses into what are American domestic issues, for I believe that it's not their place but only the place of Americans to discuss them.

But I guess for every rule there is an exception, and perhaps this is such a case.

King County is such a strange place. It is practically a dictatorship within a democracy. Land Rights have been violated, voter corruption is commonplace. Now even the secret ballot has been removed so that Unions can tell their members to bring their signed absentee ballots to the union bosses for them to fill out.

You would think that King County was part of Zimbabwe instead of part of the United States.
 

Hello Tsedek. I found you via your comment/question at Fields' blog.

Re: the comments on this story you've posted....we have crazy people here (US), m'kay?.

To make it as basic as possible: our crazy people have forged alliances with your crazy people and Europe's crazy people and voila!, we have a Lunatic Extremist Diaspora.
 

i have also blogged on this topic.. i think the whole country is disgusted by the act..

across our political spectrum i think no one really supports the stupidity cruelty and grotesque acts that occured..

i think we are all sick and tired of such behaviour..
 

terrorism is about sowing fear in a population.. hate crime is about manifesting your hate..

the technical question is whether this activity was gered to decrease the sense of safety that arab taxi drivers have.. my guess is that it isnt..

we have loonies that have done the same with jewish taxi drivers.. and i think this is at best a lunatic hate crime..

but i dont care - its disgusting in any event..
 

Hmmm... interesting. Do you hate because of race or do you hate because you think you're hitting your enemy. I think there IS a difference. Enemies can be everybody, not connected to race.

I think there is a distinct difference.

Terror is indeed the spreading of fear, but the meaning has long since gone beyond that. If thinking so, then Israel's IDF is a terrorist as well, since it regularly uses the power of intimidation and collective punishment - which are aimed on creating fear.....

Think about that.
 

tsedoshka - i do think about it..

and here we enter a deep dark and murky part of our military's philosophy that i dont know how to steer because ethics is far from an exact science but rather examines the dillema..

so - in real words - are fear tactics that are declared to be deployed for the purposes of curtailing violence against you qualify as terror?
 

Your question.
If those tactics are used solely against those responsible for the violence: no. Then, in my book, this is not terror but self-defense. However... sonic booms and other kinds of collective punishment, I am afraid I have to admit their specification falls under terror...

I've been thinking about this for a long time since I saw you had written it here. I don't want to and simply cannot call 'my' army terrorists. It's so unjust while knowing personally the sweetest kids having been and some still are: IDF'ers.

Still, when I heared that after a terror-attack once that was committed by a terror-group housing in Syria the IAF did a "sonic-booming" over Bassad's villa, I chuckled and liked it (a lot). When I hear they do the same over cities (like Beirut or Gaza-City) I go mad... and think "not in my name".
 

nothing is clear cut is it..
 

Lirun, you're the King of the OneLiners, but could you be just a bit more specific here, please?
 

tsedek whats up mate..

we used to have reasonable discussion and its seems as if lately all discussions have become quite agro..

is it just the medium lending an adversarial air or have you developed a genuine dislike for me..

"king of one-liners" thats not very nice.. unfairly connotes shallowness and a fence-sitting fettish..

i could reply with similar stuff - much longer than a single line and but now what would that achieve?

:)
 

Hey sweetie, no of course not. Don't be silly. If I sounded that way: my excuses. It was not my intention at all. I see you at times respond with just one sentence though that sort of 'kills' the discussion (in Dutch "dooddoeners") exactly like "nothing is clear cut" - while a tiny explanation to the specific subject this (true) generalization is referring to would be appreciated.

(I think the controversial views everywhere about the IDF - while knowing it's made up of boys -and men- that are everyday around us and I think very nice people - leaves me confused and I DO want to 'talk about it' - and then....


you come with this sentence :D :D :D )
 

well i just felt like every time i responded to you - you were lunging but now you've clarified.. i guess what im saying is that the border between a semantic and a real debate on matters of ethics is tough..

it is very rare that you have an ethical dilemma that cant be flipped.. that is the very nature of an ethical dilemma.. and all those people who believe that it all boils down to right and wrong are guilty of over simplifiying it..

keep in mind that hate crimes are not just race related.. they occur against people of various religions.. occupations.. sexual preferences.. idiological beliefs.. whether or not these people pose any clear and present threat or danger..

terror however is a much more systemic mechanism.. and is built on different forms of personal indifference..

i have no worldly authority to determine what is worse.. whether random personal hatred is worse than idiological nationalistic hatred.. and why the victims of one maybe worthy of greater compensation than others.. except that maybe terror is slightly more detectable and therefore potentially preventable given that it generally is cell and netwrok structured and therefore more exposed to security intelligence.. as such the state has a duty to protect you directly from it and its failure should yield compensation - thats the dry approach at least..

hate crime on the other hand given its decentralised and sporradic nature is less predictable and requires more indirect effort for defence through preventative methods - ie education.. equal opportunity systems.. anti-discrimination infrastructure etc that accumulate over generations of ideological investment in a society.. given the qualitative nature of this area i guess its harder to attribute responsibility and maybe therefore there is a distinction..

not sure what it serves though.. not sure that a correct classification offers any real comfort to a parent or child who loses someone they love..

i am still very upset about the event..

people can call it terror or a hate crime.. i just call it plain disgusting..
 

You're right: it's both evenly disgusting. And still, 'for the books' (since media and other propaganda tools seem to take many things out of context to try to prove their points and often succeed with it) I think the nature of the crime should be mentioned accurately.

I know the difference of course between hate crimes and terror and the complicated issues of addressing it.

But there is a twilightzone as well. In Rusland I know at least every month dark-tinted 'foreigners' get murdered by neo-nazi's = hate crimes. Now: the government there isn't doing ONE SINGLE thing to stop this. When governments silently allow this sickening practices to take place, is this terror or hate-crime?

And then there is the issue of our army, as I explained. I CANNOT accept they're called the 'zionazis' or 'terrorist-army' - eventhough I know there are things going on they do to spread fear. I cannot because those soldiers are my fellow-israeli's. On the other hand, those crazy hilltop settlers and they gang in Hebron who are provoking and terrorizing Palestinians I cannot call 'my fellow'Israeli's.

See hon? It's a can of worms opened for me, that I'm having problems explaining for myself.

However, when something like the brutal horrific murder of Kaisir took place it is CLEARLY an act of terror - and I want Israel to be honest in declaring it by the right name.

Hate crimes are just as bad, but they are hate crimes.
 

terror is something that many jurisdictions fail to define to this day..

for the same reason that we are struggling to pinpoint its applicability to a single act..

there are many interesting authorities on this point such as http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-14.htm and League of Nations Doc. C.546.M383.1937.V (1937); see also Walter, C, ‘Defining Terrorism in National and International Law’ p. 11 etc

anyway - as the bearer of a masters degree in international law this is my humble opinion
 

Yes, I know. But there is a discussion going on about this and I cannot blame the ones accusing the ones saying to be fighting 'a war on terror' of double-faceness, to be always wrong It seems very plausible that importance is being given to define what terror is, I think. Measuring this with unknown (and therefore shifting according to preference) parameters is rather obscure. And unfair.

Look what the search 'israel-stabbed-terror' shows on google maybe then you'll understand my point that, no matter how disgusting, why labeling these crimes I think is important. It shows you that those Israeli's stabbed to death by "hate-crime" ARE terror victims and the criminals ARE terrorists. So, one would only expect when this happens the 'other way around' a fair judgment is made as well.

But ehy, that's just me....
 

tsedek - aligning the classification of the act based on the modus operandi is not reasonable..

and calling something terror just so that people feel more comfortable with acknowledging your pain is also unreasonable..

and anchoring a truth in the number of times its confirmed by a google search is not a recognised method of establishing an argument.. otherwise our yardsticks of veracity would be reduced to very low common denominators..

anyway - my point is i think in the absence of more intimate knowledge about the perpetrators - i for one am at a loss to determine in my mind and heart how i perceive the act.. (other than disgusting)

if you feel that you are in a position to push a certain view - which based on the post it appears that you do - then that is your right as a blogger ;)
 

....and calling something terror just so that people feel more comfortable with acknowledging your pain is also unreasonable.

That's not the point, Lirun. It's not about that. At all. Dafka the other way around. People accusing one another of hypocracy and other things when bringing the terror-card into it to 'prove' their point and push their opinion thru your throat are often the ones who don't have any feelings at all. It's for those emotionless people things like this should be labeled correctly, so feelingless people can't take profit out of inaccurateness or slobbiness.

As a lawyer you are obviously aware that justice (the court-system way) - is based upon dry laws that allow for no emotion to change any verdict. This is the same thing. It should be addressed with dry 'labeling' - so the 'system' (nothing to do with feelings) will be fair.
 

ahh - but there is a difference between santising emotion and avoiding opinion.. and dilemmas are affected by both.. and be reasoned through both..

dont look for law for matters this large.. they are far more significant than can ever be captured in succinct phraseology..
 

It's not about law, Lirun - but about propaganda. That sleezy tool that so treacherously creeps into every little hole and spins the truth around until there is nothing left of it anymore. That's why with 'descriptions' of these crimes accuracy is needed. So as to prevent spinning.
 

definitions and law go hand in hand.. i think we tail chasing each other ;)
 

If so, why wasn't this crime named a terror-attack then?