Terror alert: Will it affect your attendance?

[Reality]

Ah - I see - even though no other facts or stats were used to back up any of the black and white assertions made here i have to back up mine

Yes.  I had stated "Another thing about present Indian, (past abuses noted!) is a fair amount of them are making major cabbage off the casinos."
Just a generalized statement "a fair amount" that I've gathered just by rapping with some Indians.  No claim of solid facts or stats and thus certainly not "black and white".

Whereas you stated:  

That's incorrect as well...most of the money made off of casinos goes to a small minority of 'tribal' members...and many of those casinos are owned in partnership with non tribal members...

The majority of native americans still live in abject poverty and a high incidence of alcoholism with no help from the government/country that forced them off their own land.

I'll read your references when i can.  Already the one indicates the Indians are doing quite well off the casinos?  But yes, is it being dispersed.

[JoMal]

I had not planned on responding to any of this, but some of these comments are troublesome.

Terrorism should only refer to violent acts strictly intended to create fear and are committed for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and either deliberately target non-combatants or at least the act has no regard for the safety of civilians. Therefore, a terrorist act can be committed by military personnel under the guise of government acquiescence. This is why the My Lai incident from the Viet Nam War is now denounced as an outrage, though at the time it was viewed by many in our government as well as other Americans as simply a military action that should have had no consequence to the perpetrators. The military personnel who reported it actually were the ones vilified by just about everyone at the time and it was not for thirty years before it was seen for what it really was ? a terrorist act brought about by our own soldiers. This really is no different from what the Nazi's did in World War II many times over and it does not justify it one iota. The Serbian butchers during the Bosnian War also were sanctioned by its government, and countless massacres have occurred in Africa by a government against its own people.. Terrorism is the act of terror itself that the incident induces in the survivors (obviously not the dead victims).

However, the reason Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization and Iran is only called a sponsor of terrorism has to do with those identifiable borders Iran has. Without a seat at the UN, anything Al Qaeda does is not sanctioned, whatever that means, since the UN is best described in comparison with the spectators of Rome who attended matches at the Coliseum -  they had nice seats to watch the carnage but no real interest in interfering or stopping what was happening. 

Borders seem to be the issue here in other ways as well. Why were the Arabs, Christians, and Jews at peace in the Middle East for 2000 years, someone asked? Borders. They had none, or at least they were fluid at best, so religious differences were interesting, but not a cause for dissimilarities leading to hostilities. Then the British occupied the area during the war and when the issue of setting up a Jewish state was first contemplated after World War II, suddenly the English perceived the idea that nation-building was in order, the people should be segregated, and Jordan, for instance, became a country with a King to border up against Israel, so everyone understood where they should be. The Nomadic life that had existed for thousands of years was a thing of the past. This land-grab apparently did not suit the living arrangements many Arabs in the region adhered to for generations. Only THEN, did the religious differences become the issue.

[Joe Vancil]

Terrorism should only refer to violent acts strictly intended to create fear and are committed for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and either deliberately target non-combatants or at least the act has no regard for the safety of civilians. Therefore, a terrorist act can be committed by military personnel under the guise of government acquiescence. This is why the My Lai incident from the Viet Nam War is now denounced as an outrage, though at the time it was viewed by many in our government as well as other Americans as simply a military action that should have had no consequence to the perpetrators. The military personnel who reported it actually were the ones vilified by just about everyone at the time and it was not for thirty years before it was seen for what it really was ? a terrorist act brought about by our own soldiers. This really is no different from what the Nazi's did in World War II many times over and it does not justify it one iota. The Serbian butchers during the Bosnian War also were sanctioned by its government, and countless massacres have occurred in Africa by a government against its own people.. Terrorism is the act of terror itself that the incident induces in the survivors (obviously not the dead victims).

Can't agree with this, JoMal.  These are not terrorist actions, but WAR CRIMES.  The moment the military sanctions it, their officers and enlisted men are subject to their own conscience for following the military code of conduct and not complying with orders, and the U.S. government is ultimately responsible for appropriate restitution - including delivering those criminals who were complicit in the action.

This is the only way to hold a despot - regardless of whose despot he is - responsible for the conduct of the forces he commands.

And, of course, this is the reason that I think the U.N. is a joke.  Our "permanent member" veto assures the U.N. cannot appropriately do its job.  (Just as do those of the other permanent members.)

[JoMal]

These are not terrorist actions, but WAR CRIMES.

No, Joe. A terrorist act has nothing to do with whether people under the guise of a military associated with a government "sanctions" the action. The act itself is meant to inflict terror and the semantics of calling it a War Crime instead of terrorism does not change that. I agree that the name matters in bringing charges about, but it does not change that 'terror' is what is intended so the act itself does not differ from any terrorist group intent.

This is how the United Nations tries to control the actions of governments around the world. Presumably, a sanctioned government would fall under the auspices of the laws of the UN and by association the language of that body. Terror groups doing the same thing are just terrorist, period.

[rickortreat]

These are not terrorist actions, but WAR CRIMES.

No, Joe. A terrorist act has nothing to do with whether people under the guise of a military associated with a government "sanctions" the action. The act itself is meant to inflict terror and the semantics of calling it a War Crime instead of terrorism does not change that. I agree that the name matters in bringing charges about, but it does not change that 'terror' is what is intended so the act itself does not differ from any terrorist group intent.

This is how the United Nations tries to control the actions of governments around the world. Presumably, a sanctioned government would fall under the auspices of the laws of the UN and by association the language of that body. Terror groups doing the same thing are just terrorist, period.

Joe is right, This is not a matter of semantics but proper terms under international law.  Countries and their leaders can be held accountable for their actions. They can be punshed hit by sanctions, and face consequences for their actions both in the international community, and also by their own countrymen. 

Terrorists answer to no-one but themselves. They hide in the shadows with no apparent homeland or agency behind them, no one knows who their leaders are, who their true supporters are.They can hurt you, but unless you catch them in the act, you can't hit them back. In a conflict with them you're constantly fighting a defensive battle, since they hide among the general population, you can't pursue them without killing innocents.  Sometimes the local population is held hostage and sometimes they are the terrorists themselves. One moment they will come to you asking for aid, food and water, the next they are shooting your friends. In the case of the Taliban they rule by fear and intimidation, and have no respect for the rule of law, property rights or individual rights. Someone who uses force without a legal government behind them is a thug and a murderer, an outlaw and a criminal against man. They live by the law of might equals right and takes what they want from whoever they want.

A army does none of those things.  An Army wages war against another army with strategic goals a territory to defend, and an allocation of manpower and resources sponsored by a country. They target military sites and attempt to minimize civilian casualties.  In a fair fight, terrorists would be wiped out in an instant.

In who's name do the Taliban fight? Their own. They don't respect their own government or elected officials. They don't respect the general public or protect anything except themselves and their desire for power.

[Joe Vancil]

rickortreat,

Hold on a second about "the Taliban."

The Taliban are essentially a political party.  They were in control of a recognized government - Afghanistan.  We attacked Afghanistan, and ousted the government (as a consequence of their shielding Al-Quaeda).  They've adopted terrorist-style tactics since that time, meaning that, in my eyes, they have a choice to make:

1)  Declare that they are the sovereign government of Afghanistan, and thereby admit that, due to their tactics, they are war criminals
2)  Declare themselves an organization completely independent of the government, and are therefore, by definition, terrorists

Here's the problem:  we seem to be bound by international law to treat them the same way regardless of what we choose.  I think that that's wrong.  I believe for them to have the protection of the Geneva Convention, they have to pick choice 1 above, or, in my opinion, terrorism should become the default form of combat in any engagement, and the Geneva Convention is obsolete.  Let's face it - in terms of combat, a terroristic style is advantageous.

There's problem number 1 for your new world government model, Skander.  Appropriately distinguish between terrorism and armed conflict, and provide an appropriate method for dealing with the former under new international law.

I'm serious about that challenge, by the way, if anyone wants to take it up.  If a world government is ever going to succeed, these are the types of problems it has to effectively police.  Personally, I don't think that anyone has currently come up with a good answer to terroristic-style attacks.

[Reality]

IN California - even though they are supposed to be sovereign - they must share with the counties - http://www.kumeyaay.com/2009/03/temecula-county-to-share-indian-gaming-profit/

Murphy stated that the future of tribal gaming still remains unclear. In his view, gaming has been the first real economic development program to work on the reservation and it has been much more successful than policy makers could have imagined. As a result, congress has attempted to introduce amendments to the IGRA to give greater leverage to states.

http://www.airpi.org/projects/f96gaming.html
"Tribes such as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota in Minnesota and the Mashantucket Pequot in Connecticut represent only a tiny fraction of tribes conducting gaming and enjoying significant profits. The majority of Indian tribes continue to struggle with poverty on reservations."

Well done jem!

Time:  "Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Indians get nothing."
 
http://www.airpi.org/projects/f96gaming.html
"Tribes such as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota in Minnesota and the Mashantucket Pequot in Connecticut represent only a tiny fraction of tribes conducting gaming and enjoying significant profits. The majority of Indian tribes continue to struggle with poverty on reservations."
Not good.

I must have been talking to one of these tribal members:
In California, Christmas came early this year for the 100 members of the Table Mountain Rancheria, who over Thanksgiving picked up bonus checks of $200,000 each as their share of the Table Mountain Casino's profits. That was in addition to the monthly stipend of $15,000 each member receives.

[JoMal]

In other words, all revolutionaries are terrorists until they win.

[Joe Vancil]

No.  Attack against your own GOVERNMENT isn't terrorism.  It's treason.

[westkoast]

No.  Attack against your own GOVERNMENT isn't terrorism.  It's treason.

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

[jemagee]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

[westkoast]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

Right and that what I was getting at.  I also assume that is what JoMal is getting at. 

Just because a person commits a 'war crime' doesn't mean it was not an act meant to terrorize.  The idea that it is not a terrorist act because a government sanctions it seems weird to me.  If Iran launches a nuke at Israel in the future what would that be?  Because it would be meant to destroy and terrorize  Israel.  Both a 'war crime' and a 'terrorist act'

[JoMal]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

Right and that what I was getting at.  I also assume that is what JoMal is getting at. 

Just because a person commits a 'war crime' doesn't mean it was not an act meant to terrorize.  The idea that it is not a terrorist act because a government sanctions it seems weird to me.  If Iran launches a nuke at Israel in the future what would that be?  Because it would be meant to destroy and terrorize  Israel.  Both a 'war crime' and a 'terrorist act'

Thank you, wk. This IS my point exactly. The ACT itself is terrorism - the sanctioning or non-sanctioning of it is politics.

[Joe Vancil]

No.  Attack against your own GOVERNMENT isn't terrorism.  It's treason.

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

[jemagee]

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Why can't it be both is the point people are trying to make...why is there no 'grey' in your world?