Dr Art, you say, "Might makes right. If the terrorists win, then their moral views of the war prevail. If enough people like Beethoven's ninth so that it continues to sell, then it is a good work. It is all about politics - the power decides." Of course, that's correct, but how much misery and suffering could be avoided if compromise was sought to begin with? (And how many bad re-recordings of hackneyed old tosh.)
The IRA was pro-active regardless of the fact that they knew they could not achieve their goals by violence alone. The purpose of the violence was to stimulate the British government to accept that re-unification was a valid political goal. The trouble began in 1969 as a response to the heavy handed policing carried out by the RUC and the Army against those who sought to protest (relatively) peacefully, and to protect against persecution of the Catholic minority by the Protestant majority. The Bloody Sunday murders were the start of it.
It is often the intransigence of authority that begins the cycle, and only the compassion of an understanding authority can end it. That's what the US has still to learn.
There are numerous examples of where the superpowers of the day have had to negotiate settlement after terrorist activity. Terrorist activity ends when a negotiated settlement is reached. How long will it take for the same lessons to be learned in Palestine and Iraq?
Compromise is not weakness. It shows maturity.
Your characterisation of the terrorist psyche is laughable, akin to the Die Hard school of psychoanalysis. Sure, there are brutes who enjoy inflicting pain, who associate themselves with any cause that allows them to practice their otherwise unacceptable behaviour. That applies to both sides of any conflict.
But there are also those who are driven to action by the circumstances under which they find themselves. A suicide bomber isn't a sadist, he (or she) is a fundamentalist who believes that heaven awaits. Terrorist organisations are filled with ordinary men and women who are deluded enough to think that violence is ever a reasonable means to an end. It is the same delusion that illuminates the minds of their oppressors.
You say, "The ordinary Arab or Islamist is against terrorism (particularly true of the Iraqi people) and the violent acts of the terrorists, and would never commit terrorist acts - yet they too have experienced the cycle of violence which you erroneously assert is the cause of terrorist violence. If the cycle of violence was the cause of terrorism then the majority would be terrorists instead of just a small minority."
There is no such thing as an "Islamist". The correct term is Muslim. But again, you miss the point spectacularly. Ever been in a crowd where a volunteer is asked for? You're just on the point of volunteering when someone else steps forward. If they hadn't stepped forward you would have. It's the same with terrorists. The communities that suffer the oppression will always produce a steady trickle of extremists who are prepared to do the unthinkable.
Like I said before, the alternative is genocide. You appear to advocate this when you say, "I am all for killing women and children if they provide support or cover for the terrorists among them." The logical conclusion of that attitude is to "nuke 'em back to the stone age."
I'm not alone in finding that attitude appalling, but it may explain why the US finds it necessary to bomb wedding parties and hospitals. Are you really saying that there is no higher ground? That there is nothing beyond violence as a solution to these problems?
You say, "This realization of futility is the defeat of terrorism. It is beginning to spread through-out the mideast. The terrorists are already defeated but they just haven't yet realized it. It is a futile endeavor."
Hmm. You say this in the face of the recent bombings in London, and after many months of mayhem in Iraq. Where is your evidence that the terrorists are feeling sad? I imagine Osama is quite happy with the way things are progressing.
I find your patronising attitude towards the citizens of Britain quite offensive. There is no great clamour here for individuals to be armed, even after recent events. Quite the opposite. We look over the pond and see the horrors that plague the US and quite sensibly wish to avoid a similar fate.
Tony Martin shot an unarmed intruder in cold blood without warning and tried to kill another. Martin's life was not under threat, and he acted with unnecessary violence. He had a history of violence himself. The tabloid press here may have trumpeted his cause, but he was dealt with correctly and fairly.
The situation in the US is different, because it seems that anyone can shoot anyone with the least provocation. If the perpetrator is black a weighty prison sentence awaits, if the perpetrator is rich and white perhaps a book deal and mini series will be the result. But seriously, in a culture where weapons are commonplace it makes sense to have laws that take account of that fact. In Britain we do not yet assume that every bad guy is armed.
I'd like to know where you get your crime statistics from? You do know that statistics in the UK are gathered separately for England and Wales, and Scotland? What crimes are you referring to? My government may be pulling the wool over my eyes here!
Taxes are gathered for the benefit of society as a whole. They pay for all sorts of things, not just for welfare. What is your alternative to some form of welfare? What happens to the disabled, the stupid, the lazy or the unfortunate? Can you guarantee that each of them will have a job? Are you content for them to litter the streets?
The USA debt hasn't been balanced in living memory. Or am I looking at the wrong web pages? You can get anything you want in life if you don't have to pay for it. I suppose that's one of the benefits of being the biggest economy in the world. Who's gonna come knocking at your door?
"Your idea of robbing from those who don't ned it and giving to those who do need it is communism."
Oh, please! First of all, every nation that taxes its citizens does so to redistribute wealth. Some of that goes to the needy. It makes sense to have some kind of safety net. But I await your description of the alternative strategy with interest.
Secondly, you really need to do some deeper thinking about communism before you try to sum it up so crudely.
