January 28, 200620 yr What does it mean when a "terrorist" organization wins the majority of seats in a parliament by a fair and open democratic process? And where is Thomas Merton so I can have something intelligent to read on this topic?
January 28, 200620 yr Depends who" is calling "who" a terorist.....innit IRA/UDA etc....now in Gov...in Northern Ireland.Mau Mau (Kenyattas mob) in Kenya,Mr Sharon and friends (all sides) were in the good old Stern gang/Irgun in British Occupied Palestine (King David Hotel)...Ho che Minhs boys (V.N)....Mao in China................all legit Governments....you might not LIKE them but..... Taking things a bit closer to home Edward II called William Wallace a rebel as did Louis (14th) when the mob went for his head and even more recently and relevant good old King George got miffed when those dasterdly "yanks"wanted freedom from Gods own country...and chucked all those tea bags into the water in Boston (cheers)....how dare they...damm terroists...what?
January 28, 200620 yr I suppose they have to separate the military faction if they want to play politics. Bit like the IRA and Mr. Adams.
January 29, 200620 yr Author Good, reasonable replies all around. Let me rephrase a bit. What does it mean when a free and open election (I'm assuming that this is what elected Hammas) elects the representatives of a terrorist organisation (I'm assuming that this is what Hammas is...I am personally not intersted in debating this point but just accepting it for the purposes of this discussion.) Presumably this means that a majority of the people in that society feel that a terrorist organisation can best represent them. Does this mean that democracy has broken down? Does this mean that the gov't is not legitimate? Does this mean that the society is not legitimate? Does this tend to give legitimacy to past acts of violence commited by the organisation? Does it mean that future acts of violence perfomed by this group under the auspices of "government" are given more legitimacy? Does this mean that other nations can smuggly declare war or create sanctions on this gov't because of their past actions? If a tribunal for wold justice should be convened could the resources of this gov't be confiscated to be used to repay damages caused in previous actions? Does it mean that this group of people are not capable of self government and their right to have a democratic form of government should be withheld?
January 29, 200620 yr No coment... come on, Boon Mee, you surely must have a new opinion on the subject Good, reasonable replies all around. Let me rephrase a bit. What does it mean when a free and open election (I'm assuming that this is what elected Hammas) elects the representatives of a terrorist organisation (I'm assuming that this is what Hammas is...I am personally not intersted in debating this point but just accepting it for the purposes of this discussion.) Presumably this means that a majority of the people in that society feel that a terrorist organisation can best represent them. Does this mean that democracy has broken down? Does this mean that the gov't is not legitimate? Does this mean that the society is not legitimate? Does this tend to give legitimacy to past acts of violence commited by the organisation? Does it mean that future acts of violence perfomed by this group under the auspices of "government" are given more legitimacy? Does this mean that other nations can smuggly declare war or create sanctions on this gov't because of their past actions? If a tribunal for wold justice should be convened could the resources of this gov't be confiscated to be used to repay damages caused in previous actions?Does it mean that this group of people are not capable of self government and their right to have a democratic form of government should be withheld? Ok I will bite I think the early Islamist government of Iran in the early 80s was a "terrorist" government. They sponsored and commanded a few attacks on Europe. Did it stop them from governing and running their country ? no. Did it stop them from conducting their international affairs with "non-terrorist" governments ? no. So the answer is No. They are as capable of running a country as any other "organization". You might not agree with the way they run their country, but that's another isse. As for Hamas, I think it's different, because the PA is not a country. Despite promises by Bush boy to have a Palestinian state in 2005 (he was speaking out of his ass as usual), there is still no country. This is a more difficult situation for them because they are not independant and depend entirely on "external" resources. They are basically a government in a jail. Not sure how this will develop. Hopefully, the will decide to renounce to their destruction of Israel and choose peace instead, like Sharon did in his last momemts of clarity.
January 30, 200620 yr Ok I will bite I think it's different, because the PA is not a country. Despite promises by Bush boy to have a Palestinian state in 2005 (he was speaking out of his ass as usual), there is still no country. This is a more difficult situation for them because they are not independant and depend entirely on "external" resources. They are basically a government in a jail. Not sure how this will develop. Hopefully, the will decide to renounce to their destruction of Israel and choose peace instead, like Sharon did in his last momemts of clarity. And then the Olympic Countries & Abbreviations There are only 192 countries in the world, yet the International Olympic Committee recognizes more than 200 nations. How did that happen? It's rather simple, really. The IOC recognizes as nations certain independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas. For example, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are all United States territories, but they're considered nations by the IOC. Each has its own National Olympic Committee and is allowed to compete just as if it were a sovereign nation. On the other hand, there are currently three countries that don't have NOCs and therefore can't participate in the Olympics: Kiribati, Marshall Islands, and the Vatican City. In addition to the U. S. territories, the IOC recognizes Aruba (Netherlands), Bermuda (United Kingdom), British Virgin Islands (United Kingdom), Cayman Islands (United Kingdom), Cook Islands (New Zealand), Hong Kong (China), Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands), and Palestine. That makes a total of 201 nations recognized by the IOC. Each has a unique three-letter abbreviation used during the Olympic games. The lists below show the nations organized alphabetically by abbreviation and then organized alphabetically by name of the nation. Territories recognized by the ICO are indicated by an asterisk (*). Alphabetically by Name Country Code Afghanistan AFG Albania ALB Algeria ALG American Samoa* ASA Andorra AND Angola ANG Antigua and Barbuda ANT Argentina ARG Armenia ARM Aruba* ARU Australia AUS Austria AUT Azerbaijan AZE Bahrain BRN Bangladesh BAN Barbados BAR Belarus BLR Belgium BEL Belize BIZ Benin BEN Bermuda* BER Bhutan BHU Bolivia BOL Bosnia and Herzegovina BIH Botswana BOT Brazil BRA British Virgin Islands* IVB Brunei BRU Bulgaria BUL Burkina Faso BUR Burundi BDI Cambodia CAM Cameroon CMR Canada CAN Cape Verde CPV Cayman Islands* CAY Central African Republic CAF Chad CHA Chile CHI China CHN Colombia COL Comoros COM Congo, Democratic Republic of the COD Congo, Republic of the CGO Cook Islands* COK Costa Rica CRC Cote d'Ivoire CIV Croatia CRO Cuba CUB Cyprus CYP Czech Republic CZE Denmark DEN Djibouti DJI Dominica DMA Dominican Republic DOM Ecuador ECU Egypt EGY El Salvador ESA Equatorial Guinea GEQ Eritrea ERI Estonia EST Ethiopia ETH Federated States of Micronesia FSM Fiji FIJ Finland FIN France FRA Gabon GAB Georgia GEO Germany GER Ghana GHA Greece GRE Grenada GRN Guam* GUM Guatemala GUA Guinea GUI Guinea-Bissau GBS Guyana GUY Haiti HAI Honduras HON Hong Kong* HKG Hungary HUN Iceland ISL India IND Indonesia INA International Olympic Athlete (East Timor) IOA Iran IRI Iraq IRQ Ireland IRL Israel ISR Italy ITA Jamaica JAM Japan JPN Jordan JOR Kazakhstan KAZ Kenya KEN Korea, North (PDR of Korea) PRK Korea, South KOR Kuwait KUW Kyrgyzstan KGZ Laos LAO Latvia LAT Lebanon LIB Lesotho LES Liberia LBR Libya LBA Liechtenstein LIE Lithuania LTU Luxembourg LUX Macedonia MKD Madagascar MAD Malawi MAW Malaysia MAS Maldives MDV Mali MLI Malta MLT Mauritania MTN Mauritius MRI Mexico MEX Moldova MDA Monaco MON Mongolia MGL Morocco MAR Mozambique MOZ Myanmar (Burma) MYA Namibia NAM Nauru NRU Nepal NEP Netherlands NED Netherlands Antilles* AHO New Zealand NZL Nicaragua NCA Niger NIG Nigeria NGR Norway NOR Oman OMA Pakistan PAK Palau PLW Palestine* PLE Panama PAN Papua New Guinea PNG Paraguay PAR Peru PER Philippines PHI Poland POL Portugal POR Puerto Rico* PUR Qatar QAT Romania ROM Russia RUS Rwanda RWA Saint Kitts and Nevis SKN Saint Lucia LCA Saint Vincent and the Grenadines VIN Samoa SAM San Marino SMR Sao Tome and Principe STP Saudi Arabia KSA Senegal SEN Seychelles SEY Sierra Leone SLE Singapore SIN Slovakia SVK Slovenia SLO Solomon Islands SOL Somalia SOM South Africa RSA Spain ESP Sri Lanka SRI Sudan SUD Suriname SUR Swaziland SWZ Sweden SWE Switzerland SUI Syria SYR Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) TRE Tajikistan TJK Tanzania TAN Thailand THA The Bahamas BAH The Gambia GAM Togo TOG Tonga TGA Trinidad and Tobago TRI Tunisia TUN Turkey TUR Turkmenistan TKM Uganda UGA Ukraine UKR United Arab Emirates UAE United Kingdom (Great Britain) GBR United States USA Uruguay URU Uzbekistan UZB Vanuatu VAN Venezuela VEN Vietnam VIE Virgin Islands* ISV Yemen YEM Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) YUG Zambia ZAM Zimbabwe ZIM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At least one Organization has recognised them, but do not recognise England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only as United Kingdom (Great Britain). Then again that is sport for you. Me tink “ The people of Palestine voted” and good luck to them.
January 30, 200620 yr Maybe it's a good thing since most will have heard various govt represtentatives stating they will not sit down and talk to terrorists. If the new Hammas govt want to sit and talk now that they have some recognisable status it will be interesting to hear and see what other parties do. Maybe it's a time to see who if anyone actually wants peace.
January 30, 200620 yr What does it mean when a "terrorist" organization wins the majority of seats in a parliament by a fair and open democratic process? And where is Thomas Merton so I can have something intelligent to read on this topic? Cynically .... It means that a lot of Palestinians are gonna get whacked by their own people because they tried to do the right thing and make Hamas behave in a civilized manner within the guidelines of acceptable political behavior. Realistically .... IMHO, it is the best thing to happen to the Palestinians because it forces them to have a two party system to survive and prosper within this generation. If Hamas starts greasing all the Fatah political opponents then they won't ever have a prayer of being accepted.
January 31, 200620 yr The result was more a protest against Fatah and its endemic corruption and cronyism than a vote for Hamas. Hamas is not just a militia, it also runs many social programs as well, for example schools and healthcare and is perceived as honest. Hamas was as shocked as everyone else at the victory. They really do not want to be the ruling party, as seen by their immediate attempt at a coalition government with Fatah, which Fatah refused to do. Hamas are far more comfortable as the opposition. It is probably a good thing that Hamas did get elected as Fatah just did not have the ability to fulfill the first caveat of negotiations with Israel. ie stop the attacks. I think Hamas does have the power to enforce this if they choose to. If they ever renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, then they are the only effective organisation that Israel can negotiate with. Fatah has lost the support of the people due to it's incompetent leadership. As for terrorist organisations being fairly elected, in the 90's the islamic party FIS was legally elected in Algeria. The then ruling party refused to accept the result and FIS went underground and commenced terrorist activities. This shows the danger of not following through with the democratic principle.
January 31, 200620 yr I think it sucks from a democratic point of view. From a powerplay point of view, it might, in the best case scenario, prove useful for the peace process just like Sir Burr says. In some ways I should think the hawks in Israel are happy, as it makes it easier for them to drive their thesis that Palestinians are evil by definition.
January 31, 200620 yr It could also be an interesting situation for the future since the Hamas, most likely forming a gouverment, will as most partys 'like' to be in power and start getting used to it. They will not wanna loose it...and must eventually start doing what the people want. And the militant factions might, with a little bit of luck, be alienised or break out into another small group that clearly hasn't got the majoritys support. (Something that has been used by the Hamas, in that they represent 'everybodys' feelings in the conflict.) Now they have to take responsibility for their people or face the consequenses.
Create an account or sign in to comment