The Hague

[luke warm]

The difference between Ms. Ali's case and the cases of neighborhoods forbidding sex offenders that hrothgar was using as an argument is that of "who's doing the harming".  What I mean is: in the Dutch case, Ms. Ali is not going around threatening her neighbors, but since she is threatened, they feel in danger, too.  In hrothgar's example, the undesirable person him/herself is doing the threatening.  I think that makes a big difference in my level of sympathy for the neighborhood.

yes, and also when richard said

 

In this case, the rights of the individual are not being restricted because he is a felon; but rather because he poses a potential threat to the community.

i don't think this is completely accurate... the restrictions are in place precisely because he is a felon... the threat he poses to the community is only known to be a threat because he was tried and convicted of that crime... there is no other reason for the restrictions

 

And I feel that the only way that they get to make that decision is by their being the ones to move, not by trying to force her to move.

yes, the neighbors do have choices and wouldn't seem to have a legal right to insist that ms. ali leave... evidently the dutch courts disagree

[the saint]

We're talking about the 21st century, not who killed who 14 centuries ago...

Thats funny, Osama quoted this stuff as reason to bomb the Spanish.

[hrothgar]

We're talking about the 21st century, not who killed who 14 centuries ago...

Thats funny, Osama quoted this stuff as reason to bomb the Spanish.

Its useful to recall the context in which these comments were made:

 

Peter Bleighton stated "No, but the huge upsurge in radical Islamic violence over the last few years was directly caused by the Iraq war."

 

Keylime responded "The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq. It's been ongoing for decades and just not publicized to the incessant degree as the mainstream crap media has done now."

 

Peter stated that this was nonsense

 

Robert than made a post about the Muslim invasion of Spain during the 8th century.

 

Personally, I find Robert's point completely irrelevant. I defy you to find a single extant society that doesn't include a period of militaristic expansion in their past. They don't exist. Any such group would be quickly wiped out by more aggressive neighbors. Yes, the Muslim's attacked Spain, just as the Spanish attacked Morocco. ***** happens.

 

You are, of course, quite right that Bin Laden has some stupid pipe dream about reconquering all the lands once held by Islam. Not too many people believe that he's going to succeed.

 

We have the US crusade to spread liberal democracy/Christianity across the world, the inevitable triump of socialism, and the Moonies attempts to convince people the the Reverand Sun Yun moon is the Second Comming of Jesus. There are lots of grandious messianic ideologies out there.

[pbleighton]

"Robert than made a post about the Muslim invasion of Spain during the 8th century.

 

Personally, I find Robert's point completely irrelevant."

 

As do I. There is a tendency among some in the West (particularly the U.S.) to see Islamic societies as historically more violent and aggressive than non-Islamic societies, and to think of the violent Islamic fundamentalism of the last 30 years (not to mention the fundamentally secular Arab-Israeli conflict) as a natural, inevitable outgrowth of this supposedly violence-prone religion.

 

This ignores a truly staggering amount of history.

 

As to the upsurge in Islamic violence (particularly anti-Western violence) since the Iraq war:

 

The fact of the upsurge is obvious to anyone reading the papers: London, Spain, etc. Not to mention that in Iraq polls show over half the country believes that it is OK to kill the American occupying forces, and many of them act on this belief (yes, Iraq counts).

 

The cause of the upsurge: make people very angry (or even angrier than before) and some of them are violent.

 

One plus one does equal two, even when you would like it to equal three.

 

Peter

[mike777]

As the topic has shifted I hope to move it along then.

 

I assume the stated hypothesis is that there has been an upsurge in worldwide Islamic violence since the invasion of Iraq.

 

1) An upsurge implies measurement in some fashion. I google or ask search and find the word often but I find no data showing an upsurge and if so over what time frame, can anyone provide some decent data proving a measured upsurge and over what mearured period of time for starters. I note some numbers showing an upsurge in Iraq alone does not prove the hypothesis.

2) Lets at least get some good data agreed too before we move on to the causes of the movement in the numbers ok?

[hrothgar]

As the topic has shifted I hope to move it along then.

 

I assume the stated hypothesis is that there has been an upsurge in worldwide Islamic violence since the invasion of Iraq.

 

1) An upsurge implies measurement in some fashion. I google or ask search and find the word often but I find no data showing an upsurge and if so over what time frame, can anyone provide some decent data proving a measured upsurge and over what mearured period of time for starters. I note some numbers showing an upsurge in Iraq alone does not prove the hypothesis.

2) Lets at least get some good data agreed too before we move on to the causes of the movement in the numbers ok?

I certainly agree that having access to good statistics is useful.

 

Historically, the definitive source for this type of data was the US State Department annual report on world terrorism. Unfortunately, the US government decided decided to change the methodology used to compiled the report two years ago. Equally significant, the government does provide any data using the old estimates. It also hasn't applied the new methodology to the old numbers. This has destroyed any ability to create a definitive baseline.

 

With this said and done, the consensus is that that the US attack on Iraq has significantly increased the totla number of "terrorist" attacks. You might find the following article useful

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-nation

[pbleighton]

"...can anyone provide some decent data proving a measured upsurge and over what mearured period of time for starters..."

 

OK...

 

"The new data from 2005 shows that the number of reported terrorism incidents has increased exponentially in the three years since the United States invaded Iraq. There were 11,111 terrorist attacks that caused 14,602 deaths in 2005, compared to 208 terrorist attacks that caused 625 deaths in 2003. This is an increase of over 5,000% in the number of terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of deaths in three years."

 

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Docu...12209-29811.pdf

 

This is based on data compiled by the Bush Administration, though of course they frantically try to spin the numbers.

 

Peter

[the saint]

Simple fact is this. Lots of people all around the world are still caught up holding historical grudges which in the lightest sense end up as trans-national mockery, in the worst sense as terrorism and genocide.

 

Nothing will be solved until everyone stops thinking with their knobs and ends all this macho b***ocks. Stick the women in charge. We need to lower the worldwide testosterone levels.

[mike777]

Ya the article does say because of methodology we cannot conclude if there was an upsurge in violence. It is tough to move on to the causes when you got lousy data. At least the researchers grant there was alot of violence in Iraq before we invaded and in the world just not how much.

 

In any event we can agree there was an upsurge in attacks in 1944 in France when we invaded and an upsurge in violence in 1942 when we also went to war. I guess going to war may cause an upsurge in violence, I am sure not sure who went to war first here but more war does seem to result in more upsurge. I just wonder if we had not gone to war if there would be more violence or less? Funny how no war can cause deaths too.

 

Of course none of this means going to war in Iraq was the correct decision.

But what now? Pull out this weekend?

[mike777]

Simple fact is this. Lots of people all around the world are still caught up holding historical grudges which in the lightest sense end up as trans-national mockery, in the worst sense as terrorism and genocide.

 

Nothing will be solved until everyone stops thinking with their knobs and ends all this macho b***ocks. Stick the women in charge. We need to lower the worldwide testosterone levels.

Funny how in the Usa anyway many more Women graduate from College than Men and many more Women vote in elections than men. Are you suggesting since they vote more than men this is all their fault? The Men can claim to be innocent since they Did Nothing!

[jdonn]

Simple fact is this. Lots of people all around the world are still caught up holding historical grudges which in the lightest sense end up as trans-national mockery, in the worst sense as terrorism and genocide.

 

Nothing will be solved until everyone stops thinking with their knobs and ends all this macho b***ocks. Stick the women in charge. We need to lower the worldwide testosterone levels.

Funny how in the Usa anyway many more Women graduate from College than Men and many more Women vote in elections than men. Are you suggesting since they vote more than men this is all their fault? The Men can claim to be innocent since they Did Nothing!

Funny, every girl I know always says that the man is always to blame for everything.

[pbleighton]

"Ya the article does say because of methodology we cannot conclude if there was an upsurge in violence."

 

That's the Administration spin contained in the article. The numbers are quite clear, and overwhelming. Here is some spin:

 

"When the 2004 data was released, Mr. Brennan stated that “the data you will see today represent a break from previous years, and the numbers can’t be compared to previous years in any meaningful way.”

This year, the Administration is again making the same claim. According to the 2005 NCTC report, “the overall data set cannot be meaningfully compared with previous Government efforts to compile terrorist statistics.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack states: “it’s comparing apples and oranges.”

The Administration appears to apply a different rule, however, when terrorism data shows a decline in terrorist attacks. When the Administration released its first report on terrorism incidents in 2003, it purported to show that terrorism incidents had declined in 2003 compared to prior years. This led Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to claim the data was “clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight” against terror."

 

So numbers using the same methodology are good or bad, according to the Bushies, depending on how they help the Bush Administration case.

 

I have a pretty good grasp of statistics, and know that you have to look at them carefully. On the other hand, an increase of over 5,000% in the number of terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of deaths in three years is just plain huge.

 

So now we have the numbers you requested. What do you think caused the upsurge? Do I read your post correctly that you think it was (primarily) the invasion of Iraq? If not, what?

 

As to what we should do:

 

The longer we are there, the worse things get, and the lower the U.S. sinks in international public opinion. At this point, our moral leadership is almost zero, and it will take decades of decent behavior to rebuild.

 

We will be driven out eventually, by our own public opinion if nothing else.

 

Why wait?

 

See Vietnam. Can anyone make a serious case that we were right to stay so long, that we shouldn't have left in 1968 (not to mention never going in in the first place)?

 

We should get out now, and offer substantial continuing nonmilitary aid, conditional on the behavior of the government. After all, we made a huge mess, and have a moral obligation (not to mention practical motivation) to help Iraq rebuild.

 

This is NOT a good solution. It will not "fix" anything. It is, however, the least bad solution.

 

Do you have a better one?

 

Peter

[mike777]

"This is NOT a good solution. It will not "fix" anything. It is, however, the least bad solution.

 

Do you have a better one?"

 

My best guess is that the Country is fixated on fighting Last year's war and deeply divided. I am hopeful that what decisions need to be made to lead to a "good" conclusion have been made and Iraq is in a deterministic, good phase. I say this if for no other reason than I am a Contrarian. That means at historic lows or pessimism I buy!

 

As we waste our talent and energy fighting this Last War we will be engulfed with a far more serious crises.

[pbleighton]

"That means at historic lows or pessimism I buy!"

 

Like to buy a bridge? I got one that's just right for you, real cheap :)

 

Peter

[Robert]

Hi Everyone

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait and we threw them out(with even some help from assorted Arab nations)

 

Not too much before that attack, Iraq invaded Iran and fought a war for almost a decade. With a great deal more dead than the number of death in the 2005 count.

 

I hope that most people remember that Iraq regularly used poison gas in attacks on the Iranian troops.

 

How we get the blame for Iraq invading two other Arab nations is way past my understanding?

 

Some of the Arabs are violent no matter what we do. Those 5,000% and 2,000%

jumps in attacks/deaths are because they are attacking and killing their own people. Violence is on the upswing because they are 'killing' their own people.

 

They are settling some of their old tribal 'problem areas' and making attacks on 'other' religions. Binding the hands behind their backs before torture and some beheadings seems to also be in fashion.

 

Before we invaded Iraq Saddam was using poison gas and assorted other weapons on his own people.

 

Some people might want to ignore facts that happened in the pre 21st century,

I cannot ignore the Iran/Iraq War or the Gulf War of 1991. This is a dangerous area with some very dangerous people in it. Americans are getting killed, however, the vast percentage of dead are from the locals killing their own people.

 

Religious wars have often taken place. The Balkans spring to mind, but that also happened last century.

 

Who decides what century 'facts' come from? Is this an area where 'unpleasant'

facts are deemed 'unworthy' because they conflict with the 'world view' of some posters?

 

Regards,

Robert

[luke warm]

I assume the stated hypothesis is that there has been an upsurge in worldwide Islamic violence since the invasion of Iraq.

a couple of links were posted showing an upsurge in islamic violence since the invasion of iraq... i agree with everyone that statistics can and often are used to say what someone wants said... i also agree that the way we now measure terrorist attacks differs from the way we did so in the past... i don't agree with the way we used to do it or the way we do it now

 

the definition of terrorism is usually held to be "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

 

taking that definition as a starting point, robert's post makes sense... sadaam used terrorism on his own people, on the kurds, on the people of kuwait and iran... the victims of this terrorism, as defined above, numbered in the millions... yet it wasn't counted... i wonder how the numbers would look if it was

 

is there a word that fits this definition? "Defending oneself and others against the use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property ..."

[helene_t]

I stated that local communities have the right to act in order to protect themselves.

Is this a political or juridical statement?

 

If it's juridical, it may be significant that Dutch law (French tradition) differs from Californian law (British tradition):

 

- The "local community" isn't a legal entity that can have rights. If ms. Ali's house were rented, the owner of the house could in theory throw her out, allthough renters' rights are protected very strongly. As it happens, the house is privately owned (AFAIHU), and the local owners' association has no say in this case. Only individual neigbours can ask the court to force her to move, as it happened in this case. For example, if ms Ali were a convicted rapist she might not be allowed to settle within so-and-so-many meters from the house of one of her victims, and if she managed (due to the mistake of a real estate agent or something) to buy a house contrary to such a court decision, she could be forced to move. But this is the only case (well, you may replace "rape" with some other serious offence) I can think of in which people can be forced to give up an owned house (other than their house being expropriated for the construction of a new highway and such). So I wonder what the judge's reason was to force her to move. The mere fact that she's a terrorist target certainly is not sufficient. Maybe the fact that her address is known by some potential murderers due to a mistake by a policeman: it makes some sense that she has to move to a new address that she can mannage to keep secret.

 

Whatever the motivation for the court's ruling, the minister of justice disagrees with it and will take it to an apeal court. Not sure if this is a political show or a juridical consideration, though.

 

If your statement is political (what Dutch law should say, rather than what it actually says), then I can't say much more than that I simply disagree (see Eliana's comment).

[pbleighton]

"Who decides what century 'facts' come from? Is this an area where 'unpleasant'

facts are deemed 'unworthy' because they conflict with the 'world view' of some posters?"

 

Violence is eternal, in all civilizations. You could have quoted a lot of 'unpleasant' facts from the history of Christian civilizations (some quite recent - see Nazi Germany). You chose not to. Why? Does this conflict with your 'world view'?

 

The issue is that there has been a huge upsurge in terrorist attacks since the invasion of Iraq (see the links provided). Why now? Is it JUST A COINCIDENCE that it happened directly after an event which infuriated the Muslim world? That would be QUITE a coincidence, IMO. The kind of COINCIDENCE imagined by those who find the OBVIOUS conclusion to be in conflict with their 'world view'.

 

Peter

[cherdano]

Whatever the motivation for the court's ruling, the minister of justice disagrees with it and will take it to an apeal court. Not sure if this is a political show or a juridical consideration, though.

I don't think such a clear distinction exists. Such a ruling will almost always require judgement calls, and often these judgement calls will necessarily contain political judgements.

[mike777]

If I recall my history, and as an American we do not very well, it seems the Netherlands was born out of bloody centuries of Religious wars.

 

Even as France under went an anticlerical culture around 1870 to 1910 that persists into today the influx of immigrants into that country may soon have more Muslims going to Mosque than Catholics going to Church. I believe part of that anticlerical culture grew out of the Dreyfus affair or simply the Affair.

 

What was lost at the gates of Vienna may soon be regained.

 

This wonderful debate we have going on now in the USA over our own history and culture of immigration will only make us much stronger as the passions on the many sides of this issue come out in a full rainbow bloom of freedom. I find it simply amazing how we are renewed constantly by the tired, hunger and poor castoffs of other nations which bubble, toil and trouble us and make us better at the end of the struggle.

 

Heck has no one noticed how Americans like Tiger Woods took pity on a poor immigrant girl that no one wanted and married her? How about another immigrant by the name of Pamela Anderson another poor immigrant who came to this country with barely enough clothes to cover her back. Thank goodness for us Caring American men. Heck even Cary Grant was an immigrant that American Women took pity on and helped out of the goodness of the heart.

 

edit:speaking of blowback I knew all this war/blowing up stuff must be our fault, rats....I bet it is the fault of those damn drunken Irish immigrants.

[Gerardo]

How we get the blame for Iraq invading two other Arab nations is way past my understanding?

The fact that the US supported Saddam against the perceived more dangerous Khomeini's Iran, and helped him become powerful enough, may be related to this blaming.

 

Looks like a blowback, much like Osama described above in this thread.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Violence is eternal. Well written. 100% agreement.

 

Nazi Germany? I have been a student of military history for almost 50 years now.

WWII Russo German front is my main area of interest, however, I am fairly well versed on the Western front, Italy and Africa. Please feel free to comment on Nazi Germany and do not feel that I will be upset.

 

It seemed a cheap shot to mention Nazi Germany. I do not suppose that many would be against America helping take down Hitler. I try and avoid straw man ideas.

 

They are also getting pay back for tribal conflicts dating back hundreds(thousands) of years by killing off each other in Iraq.

 

If the invasion caused the increase in violent(directed against their own people)why aren't American losses higher?

 

You mentioned Vietnam. The public seemed to get upset when the losses were some 300-500 per week. Our losses last year were what about 1,000. 20 per week maybe? Our population is much higher now so the losses needed to trigger a

shift may be somewhat higher.

 

You neglected to respond to my mention of the Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait from Iraq. These two invasions cost many more lives than the

'violence' of Iraq against Irag. This area of the world is very violence and the history of the viloence goes back at least to that 732 era that I mentioned.

 

Did we save South Korea in that police action? Would Kuwait prefer to live under the rule of Saddam or their own rule? Straw man idea, but really do you think we

should have deserted the Koreans?

 

For the record. I am not a supporter of Bush. I also feel that the war is being run badly. When you gather say a million plus anti war people on the Mall your solution will occur.

 

At this time, I will not be with you on the mall. My world view does not include deserting allies or nations that we have promised aid to. South Vietnam was promised aid before we left. We cut off their ammo supply, Vietnam fell and we donated the same amount of money $750 million to 'aid' the people of Vietnam.

 

Best regards,

Robert

[pbleighton]

"It seemed a cheap shot to mention Nazi Germany. I do not suppose that many would be against America helping take down Hitler. I try and avoid straw man ideas."

 

You misunderstood me completely. You had listed instances of violence by Muslim countries, I gave one by a Christian country (I could have listed a lot more). My point is that if you look at history, Christian countries are every bit as violence-prone as Muslim countries.

 

"You neglected to respond to my mention of the Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait from Iraq. These two invasions cost many more lives than the

'violence' of Iraq against Irag. This area of the world is very violence and the history of the viloence goes back at least to that 732 era that I mentioned."

 

See above. See European and U.S. history.

 

BTW, the Reagan administration actively supported Iraq in its attack on Iran.

 

"When you gather say a million plus anti war people on the Mall your solution will occur. "

 

Public opinion has changed pretty decisively. While I would love to see large public protests, protests in the voting booth have their effect, too.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Ms. Ali: "I am ...preparing to leave Holland....But the questions for our society remain. The culture of Islam in our country, the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: It is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear."

 

Government adviser Jan Schoonenboom, Ms Ali is: "Islam bashing".

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

We have zero disagreement over violence being widespread over human history.

You stated that the increase in violence in Iraq was a result of the invasion of Iraq.

 

Hundreds of thousands(millions?) died in the Iraq/Iran war so violence appeared to have dropped sharply after the American invasion of Iraq. At least compared to their earlier level of 'violence.' This recent 'violence' has Iraqs killing Iraqs in very small numbers compared to their fairly recent Iraq/Irqan war.

 

Still no reply as to why 'if' the American invasion triggered the 'increase' in violence that the Americans losses have not jumped, however, the killing their own people has risen sharply.

 

What military units/air support did Regan provide Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war? We cut off spare parts shipments. Perhaps you might have noticed that the weapons that we faced in 1991 and Gulf War II were Soviet Bloc weapons. The tank units had tanks starting with T series(T-54, T-72 and some T-80 all Soviet Bloc type tanks) Rifles were AK-47 rather than the American M-14 or M-16 rifles.

 

If you are talking arms sales 'before' the war, America is one of the top suppliers of arms to the world. If getting American weapons leads to additional invasions, dozens of our Allies fail to respond to that theory 'by invading someone' after getting our weapons. South Korea is very well armed with largely American weapons.

 

Hitler had zero amounts of American weapons before attacking Poland.

Japan also did not have access to American weapons prior to Pearl Harbor.

 

Recent American court decision held a pistol manufactoring company 'not'(repeat not) liable because of the use that a person might use the weapon for.

 

We both agree that the voting booth could have a sharp impact on Congress. Bush is leaving because of term limits.

 

Best Regards,

Robert