Mr. bin Laden propositions Europe:

[T]o deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders, to establish a permanent committee to build awareness among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources.

I offer a truce to them [Europe] with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including [participating] in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.

This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. And the announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land, and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.

Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its [war's] sons, and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it. Stop shedding our blood to save your own, and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands.

Let's see, all Muslims are given extra-legal license to conduct their "affairs" in a vague theater described only as "our land", and truce renewal is contingent on the "establishment of a new government" -- in each participating country? -- that suits Mr. bin Laden. This is the strong hand Mr. bin Laden feels the elections in Spain have dealt him. In the Muslim world this is known as dhimmitude, which closely translates as protection racket.

Jack, the President of France, took a moment from colonial duties in Algiers to remark on Mr. bin Laden's offer:

There is no negotiation possible with terrorists.

In my eyes what is fundamental to the success of peace is negotiation. Peace is not imposed. It is negotiated.

Pas de commentaire.

(Hat Tip: ¡No Pasaran!)

bin Laden knows that the European voters will submit.

Notion of terrorism in this conflict(israelo-palestinian) is ambigous. In opposition to 9/11 and spain. But when there is suicidal bombing in israel, you have to think it was there country 55 years ago. take the example of the american revolution, a revolution or a terrorist minority against the autority ( 1/3 of americans was for the revolution, 1/3 against and the rest neutral).

by the way if i follow your logic americans revolutionnaries were terrorist, France always support terrorists :)

Why is blowing up a train in Spain terrorist? If detonating a bomb in a pizza joint filled with teenagers is not terrorism, why is killing commuters? Spain sent soldiers to Iraq, Iraqis sent soldiers to Spain. I don't get your distinction. This is the new warfare, and to call any of it terrorism is to pre-judge who is right and who is wrong.

So surrender already.

Another fantasy post from Adam Smith-qua-David Ricardo-qua-Adam Ricardo, someone with no settled idea of who he is. Pave's own Mr. Nobody.

I marvel at his posts, that he should pack so much error into so little effort. Let's walk through his elliptical post, point by elliptical point.

Notion of terrorism in this conflict(israelo-palestinian) is ambigous.

What ambiguous notion of terrorism? Mr.Nobody mystifies himself by not bothering to define what he talks about. Here is a working definition of terrorism based on Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

Terrorism is organized violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets to achieve extralegal political objectives.

There, let's hope that helps Mr. Nobody discern the wholly unambiguous difference between a Hamas suicide bombing of a family Seder and the IDF shutting down Pali bomb shops in Jenin.

...you have to think it [scil., suicide bombing] was there country [i.e., Israel] 55 years ago.

Mr. Nobody's defective syntax puts this beyond any clear reading, but 55 years ago appears to be a reference to the 1949 Arab-Israeli armistice. Just what the connection is, Mr. Nobody doesn't say. The first Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel occurred in Afula on April 6, 1994. Although individual Israeli citizens have murdered Palestinians (e.g., Baruch Goldstein, a mass murderer), there has never been an Israeli suicide bomber nor any Israeli program that recruits, trains, outfits, and pensions off its citizens as suicide bombers.

take the example of the american revolution, a revolution or a terrorist minority against the autority

With no defined ideas of what he is talking about, the rest of Mr. Nobody's post is a procession of one stupid non-fact after another. The American Revolution was premised on the legal grievances enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

That Mr. Nobody cannot make the distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" in this case is hardly surprising since, as we've seen, he doesn't define his terms, which is to say he's happy as Larry to not know what he is talking about.

1/3 of americans was for the revolution, 1/3 against and the rest neutral

The above neatly stratified Colonial opinion is a convenient fiction Mr. Nobody dishonestly pulls, if not out of thin air, then out of his own pranking fundament, which appears to be the seat of his intellect. The American Revolution was a cause whose support grew and won the day, which is not a little astonishing given the several battlefield and logistical setbacks it suffered. Mr. Nobody's tidy static thirds are not history. They are the ideational equivalent of a thumb-suck.

by the way if i follow your logic...

It goes without saying that, no, Mr. Nobody does not follow my logic.

...americans revolutionnaries were terrorist, France always support terrorists :)

Mr. Nobody is happy to think his twaddle constitutes an argument. That said, I don't have much complaint with his closing presentment.

DGB

"Terrorism is organized violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets to achieve extralegal political objectives."

so the assassinate(extralegal political objectives) of Sheikh Yasin(noncombatant target) was terrorism?

YASSIN WAS THE PALESTINIAN equivalent of a command and control center. Command and control for the many suicide bombers.
Since Yassin was dispatched I haven't seen many headlines about suicide attacks in Jerusalem. Have there been any new ones?

M. Max,

I can see you can cut and paste, but can you read?

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was not a noncombatant nor was he dispatched by extralegal means.

Being elderly, blind, and a wheelchair-bound paraplegigic did not make Mr. Yassin a noncombatant, unless of course you allow a special noncombatant dispensation for generals issuing orders from the club car. That certainly changes the complexion of war.

Mr. Yassin was neither an elected nor appointed official of any government or state. He was a terrorist who ran a terrorism organization (designated, in its entirety, as such by Israel, the USA, and the EU) and who hid behind his age and disabilities.

What is it that you understand to be extralegal about Mr. Yassin's assassination?

The IDF was not freelancing when it killed Mr. Yassin, a terrorist. The IDF took its orders from the duly elected civilian government of Israel, who in turn, charged with the protection of its citizens and its borders, assessed Mr. Yassin, a known terrorist, as a mortal threat to the state.

We are keen to know exactly what laws protect the persons of internationally recognized terrorists.

Mr. Yassin was a stateless, self-appointed terrorist leader, sworn to the destruction of a recognized state and its peoples. He had a history of prosecuting said intent by generalship and incitement and financing. And he declare himself and his minions to be in an open state of war against the state of Israel. Now, again, while Mr. Yassin plotted to blow up a few more Jews here a few more there, just what legal protections was he enjoying?

Very curious to read your informed and exhaustive reply.

DGB

if i take your defenition of terrorist, so american soldier were terrorist in Irak? or Israel soldier when they kill civilian?.

sure your argument is legality! but who makes the legality, is it yours? the american legality or the israelian legality? mmmm

as for my stats, trust me :)

fact: Damian have no sense of humour

Sharon government feeds from violence and death. Peace is not his business, and he's not interested in. This is terrorism.

For terrorism, I prefer this definition:
"Breeding sheep by terror"

M. Adam Smith-qua-David Ricardo-qua-Adam Ricardo,

You are obviously here expecting me to give you the formal education that the French state, or wherever you hail from, has failed to provide you.

Read my posts carefully. I've no confidence you will figure things out, but at least there will be the satisfaction of your having made an honest effort, as opposed to a little skim in your rush to post.

As for my sense of humor, alas, you are near-right. I'm wholly humorless in the ascertaining of the facts.

Now go do your homework.

DGB

For terrorism, I prefer this definition:
"Breeding sheep by terror"

No, Max. Go back and read your earlier post.

You challenged the assassination of Mr. Yassin in the context of my definition of terrorism, specifically by characterizing Mr. Yassin as a noncombatant and the means of his dispatch as extralegal.

I answered these specific challenges and, in turn, asked for the specific basis in law for your position. You respond by simply abandoning your original argument.

If you want to change the subject, go here and howl.

If you can't rebut then concede, but don't waste my time pretending you have something of interest to say.

DGB

"Sharon government feeds from violence and death"

But not Arafat's? Maybe you can answer why killing Spanish commuters is terrorism, but killing children in a pizza shop is not. Why is Sept 11th terrorism?

Why is it that Europeans insist that sovereignty is all but inviolable, regardless of human rights atrocities commited, hence their adamant opposition to the war in Iraq, but that non-sovereign groups like Hamas and Al Quaeda have a right to wage war?

You are not against either war or terrorism, you have just chosen to be on the side of Islam.

Damian's title 22 definition isn't the one I'm familiar with - I noticed the term "subnational" missing, so I looked it up

(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term ''terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and

(3) the term ''terrorist group'' means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

Legitimate militaries cannot commit terrorism; by definition they're incapable, no matter what they do. They commit acts of war and war crimes. I think the extent to which you recognize the difference is the extent to which you respect the rule of law.

There once was a terrorist named Yassin
Whose wheelchair
Ended up in the crosshair
Now the French and Democrats are pissed
Because there is on less fuck on Kerry’s list

Can someone explain me why the killing of Yassin, and Rantissi don't get any support ,except from the US (but US doesn't dare to tell it loudly )?

These two guys declare for years that they are ennemies of Israel, want the destruction of Israel, organize suicide bombings in Israel, and wh should "advice" Israel to don't get rid of them ?

I really prefer that Israel kill the leaders one by one rather than enter the palestinian towns with tanks.
The war is opened betwen Hamas and Israel. I don't see why Israel should be limited in his action to save his citizens, as far as Hamas fighters ONLY are targetted and not the population.

There's place to hurt Hamas Fighters: To Launch a rocket during the Funeral of one of their leaders .They are thousands of them, gathered.

Will they dare ?

Marc,
Is that really you? A post that makes perfect sense? Wow.

Doug,

The definition I gave was "based on Title 22 of the US Code". I purposely left out the "subnational" description -- and changed a good deal else -- because it precludes the notions of a terrorist state and state-sponsored terrorism. Saddam's Iraq (pensioned Pali suicide bombers, et al.), Khatami's Iran (bankrolls Hezbollah, et al.), and Kim Jong-il's North Korea (you name it, good bet DPRK does it), to name but three, were/are all fully sovereign states that openly prosecute and promote terrorism in act, in facilitation, by incitement, by financing.

I didn't want to give these bums a pass.

In any discussion it is a first order of importance to have agreed working definitions of the terms in play. It is obvious from their posts that our French correspondents employ notions of terrorism of such whimsical plasticity -- sometimes this, sometimes that, sometimes everything at once, depending on the necessities of the point they press -- as to be meaningless outside the privacy of their brain pans.

Regards,
DGB

I agree with your sentiments, but I think that your exclusion of "subnational" might not only be misguided, but unneccessary. Hezbollah and Pali bombers are subnationals, and therefore terrorists. Their national supporters/enablers don't get a pass; as I'm sure you know, under Bush doctrine they share status with the terrorists themselves. It's ok to be excluded from the definition when they're explicitly included in the crosshairs, and it denies a certain amount of that whimsical plasticity to keep the definition in play precise.

When France, sent secret agents to sink the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, in New Zealand, was this terrorism? If the French gov disavowed their agents acting in the interest of France, then the French secret service would be terrorists.

After sensational press and in the face of overwhelming evidence French Defence Minister at the time Monsieur Hernu finally admitted that the operation was ordered by the French Secret Service, so instead the incident was down graded to merely war crime.

Papertiger

That was during the time when the pull of the radical left in France wasn't as strong as it is today. Back then, they could rebuff the efforts of wacko lefties like Greenpeace. Today, an operation like that will not happen. The hard left is in power in France. Anti-Americanism is the de-facto policy of the French gov't.

So what is France doing in Afghanistan?

Insuring the opium supply?

I'd say they are probably doing their best to try to make sure Omar and bin Laden (the late bin Laden IMHO) do not fall into the hands of American justice, where they might have their human rights violated and get dead.

No, they're after Omar and bin Laden too. Remember, they have to learn how to train clerics now.