PDA

View Full Version : Moral Stupidity



Leader
29 Oct 03,, 01:59
Moral Stupidity

I had just finished an interview at a public television station, and a staff member was kindly presenting me with a tape of the program, when I saw on a monitor a CNN report that Hamas had declared total war on Israel.

I laughed and said, "And how will that be different from what they've already been doing? Once you've spent a few years blowing up babies and schoolchildren and old people, how can you make your war more total than that?"

To my astonishment, she clucked her tongue and said, "It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the two sides."

I couldn't believe she actually meant that. "Israel hasn't been targeting helpless civilians," I said.

To which she contemptuously replied, "They just use the regular army to achieve the same result."

Then she picked up a phone and made a call, rudely turning her back on me. I was, apparently, no longer worthy of serious attention.

Her rudeness, of course, was entirely understandable -- the politically correct are above the rules of ordinary civility, once they have identified you as an unbeliever in their religion.

But I still can't help but be appalled when I find people as morally stupid as this person was.

There have been civilian deaths among Palestinians, caused by Israelis. But Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent civilian casualties among the Palestinians, while still defending themselves against the terrorist groups that slaughter their people.

Take the case of Jenin. The original reports from Palestinian sources were that Israeli troops had gone into this West Bank town and slaughtered thousands.

And indeed, the devastation in the city was extensive -- lots of buildings destroyed.

But contrary to the lies that were told at first, it was discovered that fewer than a hundred Palestinians had died -- most of them the fighters that the Israeli troops were combatting.

There were civilians killed in the fighting -- as always happens in urban warfare. But more Israeli soldiers died than Palestinian civilians. And anybody who knows anything about urban combat knows that Israel could have wiped out the terrorist fighters without suffering a single casualty -- as long as they didn't care how many civilians they killed.

But they did care, and sacrificed the lives of their soldiers by making them fight street by street and house by house, instead of carpet bombing the area where their enemies were holed up.

This is morally the opposite of the terrorists, who turn their "soldiers" into human bombs and send them to deliberately attack Jews who are not harming anybody -- helpless infants, harmless old people, children on their way to school, teenagers socializing.

And to find that an American who thinks herself very smart is unable (or, as is more likely, unwilling) to recognize the vast moral gulf that separates Israel from its enemies is horrifying to me.

But then, that's the country we live in, where moral judgments are based entirely on group membership rather than the actions being judged.

For instance, Republicans who treated women as sex objects were vilified and hounded out of office. But when Bill Clinton behaved far worse than any of those Republicans -- not just making unwelcome sexual advances, but then viciously slandering the women who dared to report his behavior -- the very people who had once found such actions morally monstrous now found them completely normal. ("Everybody lies about sex.")

This has gone on for a long time. When Democrats played nasty pranks on Richard Nixon -- making a campaign train pull out of the station while he was still speaking, for instance, or putting out fake documents that were supposedly from the Republican Party -- well, those were funny. But when Republicans played morally identical tricks, they were suddenly "dirty" and the perpetrators went to jail.

Or take the Florida recounts in 2000. We still hear charges of how the Republicans "stole" the election, even though there has not been a credible case made for any stolen votes in the original count. (All the charges have been about "systemic" unfairness.)

But Democrats were openly playing precisely the same games that the Daley machine had always played in the notoriously filthy politics of Chicago -- selective recounts, "helping" non-English speakers make the right choices inside the voting booth, and making calls to elderly voters to make them think they might have cast their vote for the wrong party, so they would raise a furor about a completely non-existent pattern of errors.

In other words, it is a matter of public record that the only people trying to steal an election in Florida were the Democrats -- and yet people who consider themselves honest and intelligent still fail to make the moral distinction between what the Democrats were openly doing and what Republicans were only charged with having done.

Likewise, when it came to the courts, it was the Florida Supreme Court that tore the law to shreds in the effort to allow the Democrats to steal the election. But when the conservative Supreme Court voted to stop the Florida court from stealing the election, that is what we keep hearing about as "the court deciding the election."

If the Left had not been hellbent on tearing down the laws in order to get the outcome they wanted, the case would never have gone to the Supreme Court.

And yet what do we constantly hear in all public forums except conservative talk radio and a handful of publications like this one? What do we hear on Leno and Letterman? And when Democrats talk to the press and grumble about the "stolen" election of 2000, how many of the press hold their feet to the fire and demand to know exactly who they think was stealing what?

It doesn't happen.

Because we live in a world where we choose up sides first, and make moral decisions afterward, based almost entirely on what will serve the interest of our team.

It makes me ashamed of the Democratic Party that this seems to be the only moral process available to the party's leadership. I used to call myself a "Moynihan Democrat."

But now that he's dead, I'm reduced to calling myself a "Tony Blair Democrat."

That's because I cannot find a single leader in the Democratic Party who is capable of acting on the basis of what is right, rather than what will make our side win.

A Democratic Party that had any honor at all would not be filibustering judicial appointments, making a mockery of the President's constitutional authority to appoint federal judges with the approval of a simple majority of the Senate.

But "honor," like "patriotism," is a word that the Democratic Party mocks except when they wrap themselves in it to make themselves immune to attack.

I've seen the high dudgeon of Democratic leaders saying, "How dare he say that I'm not patriotic!" Even though that very Democrat has been heard to complain that "patriotism" is an outmoded and dangerous idea.

Likewise, Democrat leaders can't speak of honor without embarrassment -- except when they want to accuse Republicans of accusing them of being dishonorable.

So now these same people of the American Left have decided that the Palestinians are "our team" and therefore even their worst atrocities are to be declared as being "no worse than" what the Israelis do in their own defense.

The same moral geniuses who could find nothing wrong in Bill Clinton's endless lying, in Hillary Clinton's criminal manipulation of the futures market, in Al Gore's cynical attempt to subvert a free election by changing the rules after the fact -- they now stand in judgment of Israel and declare them "no better than" terrorists.

Fortunately for America, most rank-and-file Democrats do not suffer from the abysmal moral stupidity of the current Democratic leadership.

Most Democrats know that there is a vast difference between nations that use military action to protect their citizens and "nations" that deliberately murder innocent civilians within the borders of their enemy.

The fact is that since the Palestinian civilian population overwhelmingly supports the terrorists, the Israelis could make a strong case for indiscriminate retaliation. After all, this terrorism could not continue if the Palestinian people did not encourage it.

But the Israelis continue to show astonishing patience and restraint -- because they still have a moral compass and try to follow it.

If the behavior of the Palestinians as a people and of the Israelis as a people were taken to be the standard by which we judge the goodness of their religion, then we would have to conclude that Judaism is a religion of great nobility and self-control, and Islam a religion of ...

Well, I won't say it, because then that quote would be taken out of context and used against me. Besides, it isn't true. There are just as many good Muslims as there are good Jews, and both religions have teachings that would lead to honor and decency and self-restraint, if followed.

The real problem is that Israel's people are free to hear many sides of the issues and make up their own minds, and so their government is constantly restrained by the fact that their people will be outraged if they behave badly.

While the Palestinian people are constantly lied to, are never given a chance to make up their own minds about anything, and if any Palestinian leader dares to disagree, he's in line for assassination.

If the new prime minister of Palestine actually took effective action against the terrorists, he would be murdered at once.

And that is the problem with the "road map" to peace. What good is a map, if it points you to a destination where one of the travelers is determined never to go?

Israel has proven time and again that they are willing to compromise and make concessions. Palestine has proven, time and again, that they have no intention of keeping any of their promises, ever. The Palestinian leadership treats negotiations as a means of getting the Israelis to give in without the Palestinians having to change their own actions in any way.

So for anyone in America to deplore Israel's actions as "damaging to the peace process" requires such blindness to history, such contempt for fundamental fairness, that I can only answer with a much-abused phrase once used by the Left to bypass the presumption of innocense in legal proceedings:

Let's not blame the victim.

Meanwhile, Israel seems to be taking the only course that is left to them. They are building a Berlin Wall around the West Bank, as they have already done around Gaza. When it is complete, they will simply withdraw behind that line -- as will any sensible Israelis living in settlements on the wrong side of it -- and leave the Palestinians to govern themselves.

The idea will be to patrol that wall and keep any Palestinian from crossing it. That will go a long way toward eliminating terrorism in Israel, since it's that long, permeable border that has allowed the suicide bombers to get in.

Of course, it will also mean a permanent end to Palestinian participation in the Israeli economy. And since it was jobs in Israel that kept the West Bank economically alive, you will hear an amazing amount of whining about how cruel the Israelis are to "starve" the Palestinians.

But Israel has no moral obligation to provide jobs for people who harbor the terrorists who murder Israelis.

All that the Palestinians had to do to keep their jobs in Israel -- or even to bring Israeli investment to the West Bank -- was to reject terrorism, denounce those who plan it, and cease honoring those who carry it out.

How effective will that West Bank Wall be?

Hamas will, of course, bring in missiles and mortars to fire across the wall. But that is a military attack, and Israel has a right to reply with devastating military force.

And if Palestine starts building up an army to cross that wall, Israel will be perfectly justified in making preemptive military strikes to destroy such an army. There are ample precedents in history.

Let the Palestinians live under the rule of the terrorists they have cheered and supported all these years. They will quickly discover (as many have discovered already) that no nation is as unhappy as the nation ruled by terrorism. The Iraqis already knew that; let the Palestinians learn it now.

They will pray for the return of Israeli occupation, because under that occupation they were the freest of the Arab peoples.

Being the freest Arab nation, of course, isn't saying that much. But when you compare it with being ruled by the little Saddams of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Fatah, it won't look bad at all.

Meanwhile, of course, there will be a loud contingent of morally stupid Americans who will blame Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian people.

But as far as I'm concerned, those who find moral equivalence there are simply confessing that they not only know nothing of either ethics or history, but that they are determined not to learn.

And voters will be perfectly justified in removing all such persons from positions of public trust, for there is no reason why taxpayers should support those who are determined to remain historically ignorant and morally blind.

Copyright © 2003 by Orson Scott Card.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-06-16-1.html

bigross86
29 Oct 03,, 19:31
Right on!!!

Leader
10 Nov 03,, 05:45
This is to good just to get 1 reply.

Ziska
13 Nov 03,, 03:36
I still don't see why it's any of America's business.

That article talked about removing people from office who support palestinians, or who were critical of Sharon's government.

What about removing people who spend billions of US taxpayers money on supporting Israel? What has Israel ever done for the US, except for destroying the US Liberty?

And it's not like Sharon is universally popular in Israel. Many Israelis think that the way palestinians are treated is despicable.

It's funny, to hear the sharpest criticism of Israel and Zionism, you don't go to Neo-nazis, you go to Israelis themselves. I've seen pictures of orthodox jews burning the Israeli flag, yet no-one ever called them morally banckrupt or anti-semetic.

No government is above criticism, or is it?

Praxus
13 Nov 03,, 22:46
It's our buisness because enemies of Israel are enemies of the United States and keeping the state of Israel alive allows to have access to the Middle East even if every other country refuses.


No government is above criticism, or is it?.

Israelis are alowed to protest their Government can you say the same for the Palestinians?

Can they openly protest against the PLO???

Thought not.

Ironduke
13 Nov 03,, 22:58
I disagree, I don't think being an enemy of Israel makes one by default an enemy of the United States.

What's in US interests should always come before Israel's.

Praxus
13 Nov 03,, 23:18
Name a single country that is an enemy of Israel and not one of the US?

Not including pretend allies like Saudia Arabia.

Ironduke
13 Nov 03,, 23:59
Originally posted by Praxus
Name a single country that is an enemy of Israel and not one of the US?

Not including pretend allies like Saudia Arabia.
Perhaps you could list Israel's enemies first.

Praxus
14 Nov 03,, 00:18
Syria, PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Hezzbolah, etc...

If you consider anyone of these as not being an enemy of the US you would be delusional.

Leader
14 Nov 03,, 00:25
Originally posted by Ziska
I still don't see why it's any of America's business.

Because we are the preeminent power in the war and everything effects us.


That article talked about removing people from office who support palestinians, or who were critical of Sharon's government.

What about removing people who spend billions of US taxpayerís money on supporting Israel? What has Israel ever done for the US, except for destroying the US Liberty?

Israel is an ally that needs our help to fight off the terrorists that are trying to destroy them (and us). Israel has stood by us when we need an ally that is more then I can say for countries like France. Israel is not destroying US liberties.


And it's not like Sharon is universally popular in Israel. Many Israelis think that the way palestinians are treated is despicable.

Depends how you define "many." 13% of the people in America thought that we were being "despicable" to the Taliban.


It's funny, to hear the sharpest criticism of Israel and Zionism, you don't go to Neo-nazis, you go to Israelis themselves. I've seen pictures of orthodox jews burning the Israeli flag, yet no-one ever called them morally banckrupt or anti-semetic.

I fail to say how one can get more critical then "kill all the Jews!"


No government is above criticism, or is it?

Criticism is fine. Blind hatred is not.

Praxus
14 Nov 03,, 00:44
Israel is not destroying US liberties.

He was refering to when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.

Ironduke
14 Nov 03,, 00:57
Originally posted by Praxus
Syria, PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Hezzbolah, etc...

If you consider anyone of these as not being an enemy of the US you would be delusional.
What has the PLO done to the US?

Ray
14 Nov 03,, 02:53
Praxus,

The way you are making it sound is that the Israel is 52nd State of the USA. If so, declare it so. However, I don't think the Israelis will be amused. I think Israelis can defend themselves quite well by themselves.

Ziska
14 Nov 03,, 03:15
Originally posted by Leader
Israel has stood by us when we need an ally that is more then I can say for countries like France.

lol. Name one instance when Israel has helped the US.

I mean, Australia sent troops to help with Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf Wars. I can't recall Israel serving in any war that wasn't in it's own backyard.

I still think that if the US stopped blindly supporting Israel they would attract a lot less attention from terrorists.

Terrorists ARE a big problem. Why make it worse for your country? Why bother helping Israel? You don't get resources, you don't get goodwill...

bigross86
14 Nov 03,, 12:51
For one reason, because Israel is the foremost expert in the world on modern terrorism, especially the religous based terrorism. Second, many US weapons systems have Israeli radios and other hardware. Third, without Israel, you no longer have a powerbase in the Middle East that will be safe. Iraq isn't safe, as we see from day-to-day news. Turkey isn't too feasible in many instances and Egypt is too unstable. Besides, Israel provides a crapload of real-time intel to the Allied forces. I guarantee you that Israel knows a bit more about what's going on in their part of the world than analysts in the CIA or NRO.

Praxus
14 Nov 03,, 13:33
I still think that if the US stopped blindly supporting Israel they would attract a lot less attention from terrorists.

Terrorists ARE a big problem. Why make it worse for your country? Why bother helping Israel? You don't get resources, you don't get goodwill...

All stoping funding them would do is make us look like cowards to the Islamic World. All it will do is increase attacks in both Israel and against the United States.

So what you would want us to do is cut funding off for Israel, not support Israel at all. Then maybe we should create a new fascist dictatorship next to Israel with Yassar Arafat in charge.


The way you are making it sound is that the Israel is 52nd State of the USA. If so, declare it so. However, I don't think the Israelis will be amused. I think Israelis can defend themselves quite well by themselves.

I don't think they would care if they were the 51st state of the United States, as long as they still have their own Government(not that making it a state with a Governer and two houses of legislature would change it much).

But anyways, Israel being able to defend itself well using weapons they developed with American money is in the interest of the United States.

Ironduke
14 Nov 03,, 13:46
The current situation with Israel is not in our interest, nor is it in theirs. They need to create a Palestinian state and cast it off from themselves, ASAP.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 00:29
Originally posted by ironman420
What has the PLO done to the US?

They have provided moral and financial support to terrorists. They provide a safe haven for Hamas, which was the leading killer of Americans before Sept. 11.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 00:52
Originally posted by Ziska
lol. Name one instance when Israel has helped the US.

They blow up that nuclear reactor in Iraq. We might not have known it at the time, but that helped us out a lot.


I mean, Australia sent troops to help with Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf Wars. I can't recall Israel serving in any war that wasn't in it's own backyard.

Two things.
1. There would be outrage if Israeli troops were part of some of our wars like say Iraq.

2. Israel has significantly more security issues then countries like Australia or England. Therefore they need to keep their soldiers closer to home.


I still think that if the US stopped blindly supporting Israel they would attract a lot less attention from terrorists.

I think not. The Islamists aren't after us for supporting Israel. They hate our values (western values.) I don't see Australia giving all kinds of aid to Israel, but the terrorist still attacked you. If you read Bin Leadenís list of demands, is the first one that we stop supporting Israel or that we should leave the middle East? No. The first demand is that America must convert to Islam. Are the terrorist pissed that we support Israel? Sure. But in their eyes that palls in comparison to our other "crimes."


Terrorists ARE a big problem. Why make it worse for your country? Why bother helping Israel? You don't get resources, you don't get goodwill...

First we do get good will. Second, it's the right thing to do. You'll notice that we're big on that moralistic stuff in America.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 00:56
Originally posted by ironman420
The current situation with Israel is not in our interest, nor is it in theirs. They need to create a Palestinian state and cast it off from themselves, ASAP.

That's what they are doing. They're building a wall. Then they can say, "This is our country! Your country is over there!"

Ironduke
15 Nov 03,, 07:01
Originally posted by Leader
They have provided moral and financial support to terrorists. They provide a safe haven for Hamas, which was the leading killer of Americans before Sept. 11.
The PLO and Hamas are enemies. One is secular, the other is Islamist.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 23:56
Originally posted by ironman420
The PLO and Hamas are enemies. One is secular, the other is Islamist.

As we have seen in Iraq "enemies" can find common cause.

Ironduke
16 Nov 03,, 00:10
Originally posted by Leader
As we have seen in Iraq "enemies" can find common cause.
Because their might be a possibility to find common cause does not mean one is the other, or one helps the other.

Leader
16 Nov 03,, 00:19
Originally posted by ironman420
Because their might be a possibility to find common cause does not mean one is the other, or one helps the other.

That might be true at the top levels but at the bottom they spend more time hating the Israelis then worrying about each other, and if that means some bureaucrat in the PLO slips a little money to a Hamas man to buy a bomb belt. I doubt that many in Hamas or the PLO would have a problem with that.

bigross86
16 Nov 03,, 14:25
Once again, the age-old adage of my enemy's enemy is my friend

Ziska
17 Nov 03,, 00:49
Ok, backtrack 50 years.

How many Islamic countries hated the US? Hell, how many Islamic countries hated anyone particularly?

Praxus
17 Nov 03,, 01:07
50 years ago is only 7 years after the first Arab Israeli war.

Leader
18 Nov 03,, 01:23
Originally posted by bigross86
Once again, the age-old adage of my enemy's enemy is my friend

Amazing how many people just don't get this.

Ray
18 Nov 03,, 04:09
Originally posted by Leader



First we do get good will. Second, it's the right thing to do. You'll notice that we're big on that moralistic stuff in America.

The US did not expect the violence in Iraq. First, it was Saddam, then Baathists, then foreign terrorists, and so on and so. The list grows.

Therefore, the terrorists increase. And let us not delude ourselves. We have uncorked the bottle and the genie is out!

ZFBoxcar
18 Nov 03,, 04:13
terrorists in Iraq is better than terrorists on US soil. Nothing to brag about mind you, but it could be worse.

Leader
19 Nov 03,, 02:10
Originally posted by Ray
The US did not expect the violence in Iraq.

Yeah, we didn't think there was going to be any violence. That's why we sent tanks and soldiers with machine guns. :roll

Officer of Engineers
19 Nov 03,, 02:25
Originally posted by bigross86
Once again, the age-old adage of my enemy's enemy is my friend

Stalin, Chiang Kei Shek, Noreiga, the Mujahadeen (aka Al Qeida), China - the list goes on and on and on ...

Officer of Engineers
19 Nov 03,, 02:37
Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
terrorists in Iraq is better than terrorists on US soil. Nothing to brag about mind you, but it could be worse.

It also could be alot better and that's the point the General was making. It should be alot better. The age old addage - hope for the best, prepare for the worst. This is a case of expecting the best, ignoring the worst.

Officer of Engineers
19 Nov 03,, 04:02
Originally posted by Ziska
Ok, backtrack 50 years.

How many Islamic countries hated the US? Hell, how many Islamic countries hated anyone particularly?

Not the US, they hated Great Britain and France. It was the beginning of the lost of Empires. And in the Middle East, everyone held a special contempt for the Turks because of the former Ottoman Empire.

Iran (Persia) was not on anyone's favourite list either.

Don't know about hate but Central Asia feared Stalin's wrath.

smilingassassin
13 Dec 03,, 23:20
Isreal is part of America's buisness because they helped create the country and suplied them with the weapons and money they needed to survive the onslaught of wars derected against them by their nabours who only use the plight of the Palastinians as an excuse to hate them. The real reason is that the isreali's have managed to creat a stable economy and a good standard of living (even despite suicide bombings) in a regoin that has little to offer. Despite some critisism of some of their political decisions that woulkd make other allies seeth the Isreali's have always remained close freinds of the Americans.
For years America has always been against the use of terrorism as a means to get what one wishes and have steadfastly supported isreal on this issue, which is why sept. 11th happened in the first place. They don't like the fact that a country as prosperous as the U.S. supports another civilized nation. Yes the enemy's of Isreal are to a lesser extent enemy's of the U.S., Hamas, Islamic Jihad, jerimiah Islamia and Al quida, you name the terrorist group and you can bet the farm that they have dealings with every other known terrorist group. Osama's claim that he didn't know about or have anything to do with sept 11th is laughable, he trained they guys that planned and carried out the attack, and there are claims that terrorist camps in iraq also acted as a training ground for some of these guys. Saddam also funded palistinian family's that lost loved ones in the intafada, that in itself premotes more attacks and saddam was america's biggest enemy.
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and to a lesser extent Lebanon and North Korea are all linked at the hip. Despite this Lebanon is under the control of Syria, Pakistan is actively trying to stomp out islamic fundamentalism and Saudi Arabia is too allthough more from the pressure applied by the U.S. transforming Iraq into a democracy and as such opening up a new oil market. North korea actively sells weapons to anyone they can and if they don't watch it they will get caught tring to sell nukes and thats when the $heyat will hit the fan.
Iran is very close to political change as their are alot of smart kids there who see the mulla's as cranky old men with backwards thinking and Sryia is feeling the pressure of the U.S and now Isreal as well. Yemen and Sudan had better shape up too because without the other terrorist supporters to back them up or give them an opertunity to fight their cause they will be left to rot, not being able to offer anything usefull to the civilized world.
Terrorism is dieing, actions in Iraq are prooving this. Despite the oposition of France and Germany (Nations that make a living off opposing the U.S. or anti-Americanism) and continued attacks against the U.S. and its allies in Iraq they are not leaving untill iraq is on its feet and can deal with the problem themselves, and now terrorist cells in Turkey simpathetic to those in Iraq and Palistine are sticking their own foot up their @ss's by poking turkey with a stick forcing them to move towards the americans position on middle east policy.

Trooth
14 Dec 03,, 16:25
Often terrorists groups work together. As a non-islamic example look at the IRA in South America.

But often they do work against each other - look at Bin Laden trying to kill Saddam, for example.

After all for the big players like the US, their foreign policy have them mixed up with all the players in one form or another and often changing positions (ie. Iraq and Saddam).

This is one reason why i am nervous of the "enemy of an enemy" thought line. It is sometimes true, sometimes not, and therefore not something you can base policy on.

Bill
17 Dec 03,, 03:01
"Israel has stood by us when we need an ally that is more then I can say for countries like France."

Oh yeah?

Example?

Praxus
17 Dec 03,, 03:11
They do give us a lot of intelligence. But there was that one incident where they attacked a ship.

I have no idea why they would do that on purpose. We would find out what they were doing, not that what they were doing was immoral.

Israel should attack Syria and destroy them. That would be very helpful.

Tha tway we can build a nice new BIG pipeline right to the Mediteranian:-D

smilingassassin
17 Dec 03,, 22:33
The U.S. had to hold them back in the first gulf war, they didn't want the islamic country's in the co-alition, namely Turkey and Syria to take back their support for attacking Saddam then, and after the scuds started hitting Isreal it got even more difficult hence why the U.S. put emphasis on attacking mobile scud launchers.
They have given more support than France thats for damn sure. France would rather debate till the cows come home while the enemy prepares.....no wonder they have that "never won a war" steriotype. Its amazing the backtracking thats going on in europe now that Saddam has been caught.

Trooth
17 Dec 03,, 23:51
Originally posted by Praxus
Israel should attack Syria and destroy them. That would be very helpful.

Helpful to who? I suppose the budget of the US Homeland Security departemnt would get even larger.


Tha tway we can build a nice new BIG pipeline right to the Mediteranian:-D

It would match the new one that is going through Afghanistan i suppose.

Praxus
18 Dec 03,, 00:50
Helpful to who? I suppose the budget of the US Homeland Security departemnt would get even larger.

Destroying a terrorist sponsering nation and killing thousands if not tens of thousands of terrorist would somehow create a larger terrorist threat requiring a larger Homeland Security :roll


It would match the new one that is going through Afghanistan i suppose.

You do relise it would have to go through Iran to get to Iraq:dontcare

Trooth
18 Dec 03,, 01:10
Originally posted by Praxus
Destroying a terrorist sponsering nation and killing thousands if not tens of thousands of terrorist would somehow create a larger terrorist threat requiring a larger Homeland Security :roll

Yes, but there are lots of other people that would see this as a reason to become terrorists? Atta was an Egyptian-Saudi, therefore destroying Syria would not have stopped him and one has to imagine would only encourage people like him.



Originally posted by Praxus
You do relise it would have to go through Iran to get to Iraq:dontcare

I was thinking of the one from Afghanistan, through Pakistan to the Arabian sea. That one doesn't require more military action. Iran, as you know, would require the US to remove its sanctions, one way or the other.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 01:56
Originally posted by M21Sniper
"Israel has stood by us when we need an ally that is more then I can say for countries like France."

Oh yeah?

Example?

So Israel has stood by us in the war on terrorism? The US doesn't need Israeli troops in Iraq. We need international support. Israel provided that. France didn't.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 02:01
Originally posted by Trooth
Helpful to who?

Everyone. One less fascist dictatorship makes the world safer.


It would match the new one that is going through Afghanistan i suppose.

Why don't Euros get that the War on Terrorism is about TERRORISM and not oil?

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 02:08
Originally posted by Leader
[B]Everyone. One less fascist dictatorship makes the world safer.

As i posted above :-

Yes, but there are lots of other people that would see this as a reason to become terrorists? Atta was an Egyptian-Saudi, therefore destroying Syria would not have stopped him and one has to imagine would only encourage people like him.




Originally posted by Leader
Why don't Euros get that the War on Terrorism is about TERRORISM and not oil?

I didn't bring up oil i merely responsed. Best to ask that question of the "euro" Praxus, who did bring it up.

As i have responded in another thread my "Euro" nation knows all too well about terrorism. Terrorism that US politicians did nothing to stop and the US nation helped to fund.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 02:12
Originally posted by Trooth
Yes, but there are lots of other people that would see this as a reason to become terrorists? Atta was an Egyptian-Saudi, therefore destroying Syria would not have stopped him and one has to imagine would only encourage people like him.

I know this theory fits your political ideology, but it's simply not the correct. Your theory is an exercise in defeatism. You can never defeat terrorists if you don't kill them, and if you kill them you believe that will inspire more people to become terrorists. The fact is that since we started killing terrorists there has been no terrorist attacks in the United States. You don't defeat your enemy by hiding and hoping that he will go away. You seek him out and defeat him. When others see how utterly defeated you enemy is they won't be so eager to meet the same fate.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 02:16
Originally posted by Trooth
As i have responded in another thread my "Euro" nation knows all too well about terrorism. Terrorism that US politicians did nothing to stop and the US nation helped to fund.

Why don't you explain? I'm very interested in this wave on terrorism that the US supported. Did they fly any plans in to buildings, and if this is about Ireland, there was terrorism on both sides.

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 02:25
How many terrorist attacks happened in the US in the 225 years of pre-war on Terror in the US? I am assuming we only count international terrorism (i.e. WTC1 in 1993) and not things like Oklahoma.

During the war on terror there have been none in two years. Unless you count the anthrax scare. Or the shoe bomber (who wasn't syrian). I know the shoe bomber was unsuccessful but it was an attempt (something you have asserted hasn't happened).

But you are forgetting human will. People are prepared to die for what they believe in, we have seen that all too readily. I do not believe you can "fight terrorism" in purely a military context. Sure you can kill lots of bad people. Of that there is no doubt. But there are always others ready to step up. In many cases the seeming futility of it encourages others to join up. Especially when the cause is deemed to be religious and there can be salvation because of their actions. We have seent hat itme and again all around the world in all sorts of contexts. In most wars "God" has blessed both sides.

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 02:29
Originally posted by Leader
Why don't you explain? I'm very interested in this wave on terrorism that the US supported. Did they fly any plans in to buildings, and if this is about Ireland, there was terrorism on both sides.

I am not saying there was not terrorism on both sides. Indeed there was.

However the children that died in the shopping centre in Warrington died at the hands of bombs paid for by fundraisers in the US. Bombs made by the cohorts of pervious bomb makers that were invited to the white house. Fund raising groups that were supported by US senators.

The hands that murdered have been warmly shaken by the US president.

Whose superior culture allowed that to happen? Why did it take "planes flying into cities" to outlaw those groups in the US?

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 02:36
Originally posted by Trooth
During the war on terror there have been none in two years. Unless you count the anthrax scare. Or the shoe bomber (who wasn't syrian). I know the shoe bomber was unsuccessful but it was an attempt (something you have asserted hasn't happened).

I stand by my statement. "The fact is that since we started killing terrorists there has been no terrorist attacks in the United States."


But you are forgetting human will. People are prepared to die for what they believe in, we have seen that all too readily. I do not believe you can "fight terrorism" in purely a military context. Sure you can kill lots of bad people. Of that there is no doubt. But there are always others ready to step up. In many cases the seeming futility of it encourages others to join up. Especially when the cause is deemed to be religious and there can be salvation because of their actions. We have seent hat itme and again all around the world in all sorts of contexts. In most wars "God" has blessed both sides.

Very few people are willing to die for a hopeless cause. There are less terrorist today then there were 2 years ago. That makes everyone safer.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 02:39
Originally posted by Trooth
I am not saying there was not terrorism on both sides. Indeed there was.

However the children that died in the shopping centre in Warrington died at the hands of bombs paid for by fundraisers in the US. Bombs made by the cohorts of pervious bomb makers that were invited to the white house. Fund raising groups that were supported by US senators.

The hands that murdered have been warmly shaken by the US president.

Whose superior culture allowed that to happen? Why did it take "planes flying into cities" to outlaw those groups in the US?

And you PM's never shook hands with the unionist forces?

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 02:39
Originally posted by Leader
Very few people are willing to die for a hopeless cause. There are less terrorist today then there were 2 years ago. That makes everyone safer.

Hopelessness has nothing to do with people's motives. There are countless tales throughout history of people sacrificing themselves against insurmountable odds because of what they believe in. Just look at the passion and words used in the discussion about the second amendment of the US constitution.

This is a passion i admire. But it is also a passion that is difficult to fight with military action alone.

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 02:42
As far as i can remember not with the people convicted of the terror, no. And i am struggling to remember it at the political level as well.

But even if tehy had, that would make my culture as bad as yours? I thought mine was worse?

smilingassassin
20 Dec 03,, 03:14
"Hopelessness has nothing to do with people's motives. There are countless tales throughout history of people sacrificing themselves against insurmountable odds because of what they believe in. Just look at the passion and words used in the discussion about the second amendment of the US constitution.

This is a passion i admire. But it is also a passion that is difficult to fight with military action alone."

Passion only goes so far, to the point of realizm. If terrorists attack despite the fact that all the things they fight for are long ago solved then its hatred and stupidity that drives them. Obviously some are now getting the message seeing as Libya is now willing to remove its WMD program from the reach of terrorist's. They have made the decision that not only do they want to dis-assoiciate themselves from terrorism but want to get rid of any weapon that terrorists would be very willing to use. They have taken the civilized route that guys like Saddam simply didn't get because he had too much to hide.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 03:15
Originally posted by Trooth
Hopelessness has nothing to do with people's motives. There are countless tales throughout history of people sacrificing themselves against insurmountable odds because of what they believe in. Just look at the passion and words used in the discussion about the second amendment of the US constitution.

This is a passion i admire. But it is also a passion that is difficult to fight with military action alone.

The United States isn't just killing terrorist. We are liberating countries from dipodic dictatorships. Are you going to contend the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to become terrorists today then two years ago? Today they have hope of a better freer future. That was a gift from the United States. If we choose to sit on our hands and do nothing, they'd still be oppressed people looking to take out their rage on someone. And they'd still have leaders that pointed them toward America.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 03:19
Originally posted by Trooth
As far as i can remember not with the people convicted of the terror, no. And i am struggling to remember it at the political level as well.

But even if tehy had, that would make my culture as bad as yours? I thought mine was worse?

I will to concede that on the point of how our cultures dealt with Irish terrorism that we are on similar ground. As to the rest of the aspects of the respective cultures my opinion is unchanged.

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 03:46
I think it is far too early to say how Afghanistan will work out. Whilst i really hope it turns into a lovely happy democracy, there is evidence that the war lords are rousing and it remains to be seen how such a disparate peoples in such remote areas will respect central leadership. Karzai might be established as far as the west is concerned but not nearly as strongly with his own people. And as for the actual democratic process, well i think the people have a long way to go before understanding and accepting it.

Iraq, i think, is on surer footing as a country. Ironically because at least Saddam used to hold rigged elections, but elections none the less. This means that aspect of democratic life is understood by the people. Some sort of correlation between the ballot paper and the leader. The problem is that Iraq was a more sophistacted place than Afghanistan, the people are now expecting more, and flitting between greater extremes.

They certainly have better prospects than under the Taliban or Saddam, no doubt, but i do not know that they fully realise and can exploit them as nations yet.

I am concerned they will descend into an internal power fued.