Nobel Peace Prize For "Terrorists"?

[jsmith36]

The Nobel Prize in Peace should be awarded to the leader of one or more organizations labeled "terrorist" by the United States Federal Government

Anyone agree or disagree? Why?

[Nono]

Irrelevant. The US calls anybody it doesn't like a "terrorist" (usually pronounced terrist). And Rummie compared Hugo Chavez to Hitler LOL.

Owing to semantic inflation as practised by Boy George and the Bushiviks, the word "terrorist" doesn't mean a damn thing these days.

(Anyway, since they awarded the Peace Price to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, I haven't been able to take the whole thing seriously.)

[jsmith36]

Nono:

That wasn't my question. The United States Federal Government keeps several official lists of what it considers to be "terrorist organizations". For example, for immigration purposes, the State Department keeps a "Terrorist Exclusion List", which can be found here:http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/32678.htm

The question was wheather or not the leader of one of these organizations should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. You did not answer the question; I would appreciate it if you either posted an answer, or left the topic alone. If you don't take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously, you can just choose not to post.

Anyone else have a real answer?

[Nono]

You asked whether anyone "agrees or disagrees" with the following statement: "The Nobel Prize in Peace should be awarded to the leader of one or more organizations labeled 'terrorist' by the United States Federal Government."

So, those who agree -- i.e. yes, this hypothetical/anonymous "terrorist" organization should definitely get it, by all means -- will say yes, and those who disagree won't. What are the chances of you getting a straight answer to that? (As in Yeah, I think it should be, uh, why not?)

Since you invite me to shut up, I take this opportunity to reiterate that it shouldn't matter at all in the Nobel committee's deliberation what the US federal government thinks.

Perhaps you should have phrased your post more clearly.

[jsmith36]

Nono:

There are a finite number of organizations on the "terrorist list". There is no hypothetical/anonymous organization. To limit it, I'll say one of the countries on the Terrorist Exclusion List on the link I posted above. It's not really a difficult question to understand: should the leader of one of these organizations on that list be given the Nobel Peace Prize?

Also, if you read my original post, the second half of my question was "why?" This is just as important as saying 'yes' or 'no'.

As to your point about the Nobel Committee's thoughts on the US Federal Government, that wasn't the point. The point of the post is to analyze who is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, as well as analyze who we consider a "terrorist", and have some debate over the "terrorist list" and the meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Finally, I never told you to "shut up". In fact, I invited you to answer the original question (or refrain from posting). There are 59 organizations on the TEL. Are there any who should receive the Nobel Peace Prize? More importantly, why or why not?

As a side note, the only reason I responded to your first post is because you used emotionally charged language and diminuative nicknames, as well as insulting people and making fun of them. That does not lead to intelligent debate, regardless of whom the attacks are directed at. All I ask is civility in the posting.

[Matt W]

Looking at the list, I couldn't tell you much about whether individuals associated with them should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. My thoughts on the list itself is that I find it disturbing about the number of organisations that are missing. Seriously hypocritcal, in my humble opinion, to have the UDA, Orange Volunteers, LVF, and Red Hand Defenders with absolutely no mention of the IRA, Real IRA, etc....

On reflection, the Communist Party of Nepal deserves a bit of a shout out, as they are doing their bit to transform Nepal to a proper 'democracy'.

[Apeman81]

Been there, done that. Arafat.

[tivodan1116]

okay... I'll bite.

No, I don't think any member of an organization on the Terrorist Exclusion List, or anyone else with any ties to terrorism, should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Terrorism implies that the person favors using terrorist tactics to advance a cause. While terrorist tactics are, contrary to what politicians might tell you, largely effective, they certainly do not advance the cause of peace, which is the type of activity the NPP is given for.

[jsmith36]

Matt W:

This list is not exhaustive of "all" organizations labeled as "terrorist". This one is used for immigration purposes, while there are others used for Homeland Security and Department of Justice purposes. Here is the State Department list (generally considered the "official" list when people talk about the USFG's terrorist list): http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

Note that this list only includes groups that are a threat to the U.S., thus the Maoists in Nepal, for example, aren't included, because they are not considered a threat to the U.S.

Also, Apeman:

Do you think that Arafat should have been given the Nobel Prize (in association with Peres and Rabin)? If not, why? Also, its important to note that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (of which Mr. Arafat was Chairman) is not on either list provided by the State Department, so technically he was not the leader of a "terrorist" organization.

[jsmith36]

Tivodan:

Thanks for having the courage to answer.

My only question would be: The United Nations Peace Keeping Force (which, despite its somewhat ironic name, often includes soldiers) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988, despite the fact that much of the UN Peace Keeping force includes military combat. For example, there was Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia in 1995, and Haiti in 2005 (and dozens of other conflicts), as well as many allegations of rape, prostitution, and other serious crimes.

My point is: isn't an organization like Revolutionary Nuclei, which is working towards a more egalitarian state in Greece, who only has killed one person, and has not committeed any act of violence since 2000 a better candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize than the U.N. Peacekeeping Forces (or at least worthy of being taken off the list)?

[Rainbow]

Nobel Peace Prize in faculty of Terrorism ?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: jsmith36 Tivodan: Thanks for having the courage to answer. My only question would be: The United Nations Peace Keeping Force (which, despite its somewhat ironic name, often includes soldiers) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988, despite the fact that much of the UN Peace Keeping force includes military combat. For example, there was Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia in 1995, and Haiti in 2005 (and dozens of other conflicts), as well as many allegations of rape, prostitution, and other serious crimes. My point is: isn't an organization like Revolutionary Nuclei, which is working towards a more egalitarian state in Greece, who only has killed one person, and has not committeed any act of violence since 2000 a better candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize than the U.N. Peacekeeping Forces (or at least worthy of being taken off the list)?

::sigh:: Point of order, jsmith... Next time you start a thread, START with this post. The reason I answered the way i did is because I suspected (correctly) that your original post was meant to elicit my answer, after which you'd make the post you just made. There is no need to do that here. Make your point in your original post, and if the discussion comes to a broader topic, let it go.

geez...

[jsmith36]

Tivodan:

Actually, I wasn't trying to elicit your answer. I was hoping to elict your answer, and someone else who would post the opposite opinion as you. I would then ask analogus (but opposite) questions to that person. Unfortunately, no one has taken the opposite point of view (yet).

There are good critiques on both sides, and I was hoping to have someone put an answer for both sides, asking questions of each, and having a debate that way. I have found so far in my, admittedly limited, experience on Volconvo that the original poster's question rarely gets answered satisfactorily, or gets off topic. I thought I had found a way to get to the real issues; apparently, I was wrong.

I'm not trying to come here and propogate my point of view... I'm much more interested in thoughtful debate, and if it takes a little Socratic method and a little obfuscation, I guess that's what happens.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Apeman81 Been there, done that. Arafat.

Yea because this is the guy that could have single handedly ended the conflict years ago and chose not to (Camp David Accords). Then wages terrorist attacks on innocent civials. On top that he suppresses his own people with his corrupt regime. Then blames everything on the Jews, because that way he can keep his wallet fat and divert attention from his corruption.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: GHook93 Yea because this is the guy that could have single handedly ended the conflict years ago and chose not to (Camp David Accords). Then wages terrorist attacks on innocent civials. On top that he suppresses his own people with his corrupt regime. Then blames everything on the Jews, because that way he can keep his wallet fat and divert attention from his corruption.

Why did Yasser Arafat get the Nobel Peace Prize? At a ceremony in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 1994 Yasser Arafat, master terrorist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize was awarded jointly to Arafat, Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East." The three were granted the prestigious prize, prematurely as it turned out, for their roles in the historic Oslo Accords signed the previous year and their committment to the Peace Process envisioned by the Accords. After generations of warfare and terrorism, it seemed peace was at hand. The decision to award Arafat the coveted Nobel Prize was based on the belief that he had renounced acts of terror and had become a sincere participant in a true peace process. The Oslo Accords and successor agreements in the Peace Process bound Arafat and his people to recognize Israel's right to exist, to guarantee Israel's safety and security within defensible borders, and to work by a peaceful series of negotiations toward resolution of remaining problems. Nonetheless, Nobel committee member Kaare Kristiansen quit rather than be party to a prize that included Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. But this was all a fiction. Even in 1993 and 1994, with the ink fresh on the peace agreement papers, there was a high rate of terrorism against Israel; seventy-three Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed and more than 100 wounded in 1994, up slightly from 1993. In a preview of the pattern that still persists today, Israeli officials urged the Palestinian Authority to take tougher measures against terrorists and the PA claimed to be doing so even while the terrorism went on and on. During the 1990's it became abundantly clear that Yasser Arafat was less than fully committed to the peace process, which ultimately failed at Camp David and resulted in the bloodshed of the al-Aqsa intifada starting in September 2000. Groups have come forward demanding that the Peace Prize be revoked, based on Arafat's bad faith, but revocation is unlikely.

I think those peace prizes are jokes. Didn't Alfred Nobel invent dynamite?

[quote]Alfred Nobel
Swedish Industrialist

1833-1896

My dynamite will sooner lead to peace than a thousand world
conventions. As soon as men will find that in one instant, whole armies
can be utterly destroyed, they surely will abide by golden peace.

—Alfred Nobel

They gave Jimmy Carter the prize to swipe at Bush:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1011-07.htm

[Osborn F Enready]

What is peace????

When has ANYONE alive known it, true peace?

World peace, or any peace of ALL people at any given time is a joke, that will never occur due to the ills of human nature, and the flaws of the human form.

jsmith said: The Nobel Prize in Peace should be awarded to the leader of one or more organizations labeled "terrorist" by the United States Federal Government Anyone agree or disagree? Why?

I say:
Do you understand that there are many Americans, and other nations citizens and governments that consider the U.S. to be a terrorist "organization".

Do you wear your nationality so heavily that it auto-affects every decision or position you make or take?

The true way to show the value of peace, is to keep constant and forefront the example of war as what it is, hell.(excuse the religious term, but it is most recognizable for this example.)

I could care less about the Nobel Peace Prize, but I can surely see how it is used to stroke egos, feed megalomania, and culture both sides of the creative coin for good and bad.

For every hero of peace you hold up, an equal and opposite villain of war will show up.

Humanity, oh the humanity, when will we truly learn from history instead of simply repeating it?

Perhaps when we can leave nationality, tradition, culture and still hold high the pinnacle of individualism? That is what makes us one, the fact that we ARE one people, united against nature and all of its wrath. We are one people, collectively, and individually. We are all bound by the same laws of physics and nature. Its about time we started acting like it, and dropped the dogma, ghost stories and utopic fallacies.



When will the people tire of what is happening on the stage, and look at the men behind the curtains? :rolleyes:

It really makes the whole human struggle so much easier to understand once you see who is writing the scripts.

[jsmith36]

Osborn:

Thanks for the completely non-responsive and off topic response. This only furthers my previous point to Tivodan that there is an extreme problem of either not understanding a relatively simple question, or (more likely) an inability to stay on topic.

I'm not sure what any of your rants (which might qualify as "ravings") have to do with my question. There is nothing to do with the nature of peace, nationalism, or individualism in this thread. As I said to an earlier poster: this is a question/debate about the Nobel Peace Prize. If you don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize, don't answer. It's that simple.

Please don't post your rants and ravings on a pretty simple thread. This isn't in the philosophy realm, and there was no mention about the "philosophy of peace", or any of the non-sensical ideas about "men behind the curtains".

I will grant that you do make one cogent point, regarding the fact that many consider it to be ironic that while the U.S. has a "terrorist list", many other people and countries consider the U.S. to be a terrorist state.

Anybody have any other thoughts?

[Osborn F Enready]

jsmith said: Osborn: Thanks for the completely non-responsive and off topic response. This only furthers my previous point to Tivodan that there is an extreme problem of either not understanding a relatively simple question, or (more likely) an inability to stay on topic.

I say:
Sorry, I didn't spell it out as simple as you seem to be able to compute.

I have no issue with the Nobel peace prize being awarded to anyone, by anyone, supported or not supported by anyone.

What didn't you understand? Sorry I took up 1.5 valuable minutes of your day with something other than a yes or no sheeple response.

[ise]

La Monde The word "terrorism" was sullied by all occupiers, conquerors, colonialists, to describe national resistances. Some among them, as in the time of the Nazi occupation of Europe, have surely included a terrorist component, that is to say, in principally striking civilians. But it is not right to reduce a national resistance to its terrorist component, however great it may be. And, above all, there is no common measure between a clandestine terrorism and a State terrorism with massive weaponry. Just as there is a disproportion of arms, there is a disproportion of terrors. Must the horror and indignation felt before the civilian victims massacred by a human bomb disappear when the victims are Palestinian and massacred by inhuman bombs?

Terrorist! In thought or in deed?

Nelson Mendela, practically every initial African leader, every WW2 resistance fighter, American patriots, the state of Israel, every freedom fighter....Bolton...anyone who frightens Americans...all Arabs...all gun owning freedom loving Americans...all whites.. all blacks...London police...

Is there any male b...... who should not be on the list. In thought or in deed, remember?

La Monde One is hard pressed to imagine that a nation of fugitives, descended of the people persecuted longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, should be able to transform itself in two generations into a "dominating and self-assured people" and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.

Israel-Palestine: The Cancer

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: jsmith36 The Nobel Prize in Peace should be awarded to the leader of one or more organizations labeled "terrorist" by the United States Federal Government Anyone agree or disagree? Why?

I think the world believes those like themselves are great people even if they are human rights violators, dictators and so forth. Doesn't shock me that a nasty person could get a Nobel prize these days.