Another suicide blast, another heroic security guard
The Hamas government claims that today's suicide attack that killed nine innocents and wounded sixty in Tel Aviv is a "legitimate response to Israeli aggression."
One thing you can say for Hamas: they're clear about where they stand.
The linked Jerusalem Post article provides details of the attack, indicating that the bomber was prevented from killing more people by an alert security guard who detained him at the entrance to the restaurant, forcing him to detonate himself outside--rather than inside, where the force of any concussion is always magnified.
The article doesn't mention it, but it's virtually certain that that guard was one of the victims. But he was also a hero; no doubt about that.
And take a look, when you go to the article, at the photo of the suicide bomber. He is said to have been twenty-one years old, but to me he looks almost like a child. But that's no longer any sort of surprise, nor would it be a surprise if he actually were the age he looks, fourteen or fifteen.
(Go here for a previous post of mine about the heroism of Israeli security guards, and who they are.)
posted by neo-neocon @ 11:53 AM
109 comments
109 Comments:
Somebody inform Cynthia McKinney.
The Hamas government claims that today's suicide attack that killed nine innocents and wounded sixty in Tel Aviv is a "legitimate response to Israeli aggression."
It's too bad Israel doesn't go psychobatshitcrazy and nuke the PLO headquarters. Saying it is a "legitimate response to Palestinian attacks on civilians". The only way it seems to stop terrorization, is make the price of terrorism so high that the payment is just not enough. But, if you're not willing to pay the price, terrorism will deduct funds from your account automatically.
One thing you can say for Hamas: they're clear about where they stand.
Hamas's philosophy has a weakness. Because they (hamas) believe in might makes right, Israel is justified in showing them what happens if they don't got the might. There are more forms of might than blowing up children. Israel will not do so to deter Hamas, because of... whatever.
In some nations, attacks don't engender national will and determination and a desire for vengeance. Some? Heck, most Western nations.
Bomb went off in Spain and the Spanish went appeasement... Okay.
It's too bad Israel doesn't go psychobatshitcrazy and nuke the PLO headquarters.
Yeah, right. Like I said, there isn't much Israel can do at this point that they haven't done before.
Hammed said in his farewell video that he carried out the bombing as a gesture for thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli jails. Monday was marked as Prisoners Day in the Palestinian areas
As I said before, if you keep terroists in jail instead of executing them, you're creating problems for your side.
And this has to do with pretexts as well. The pretext is to get Israel to release the prisoners. So do the opposite. Execute them all. Giving them the pretext won't help, so you have get rid of it yourself.
A lot of the reasons terrorism still works and is so effective is because there is no international standard to deal with it. Cromwell, for example, execute all the men of a city he sieged, because the town did not surrender when their walls were breached. This was an accepted rule of war, if your wall is breached you have little chance of a successfull defense given the odds at play, so you should surrender and thus spare casualties on both side. If you don't do so, you will be punished for it, so there were a lot of reasons people back in the olden days didn't do stop things in war. They still did, cause they were stupid, but it wasn't like in today's world.
In today's world there really is no punitive standard for terrorism. If someone kidnapped your child and demanded ransom, the standard is to not negotiate with terroists, because whatever price you pay now, it is nothing compared to the price you would pay if you signed onto the terrorism's debt strategy.
Suicide bombing, is simply an international legal extension of all the other standards we had before in war.
There is no punitive standard, and therefore people have no reason to stop and a lot of money to motivate them to do it.
The people who are doing nothing to stop terrorism is the lawyers, the judges, and the people in favor of putting terroists in jail. Because they are the primary obstacle to an international law solution and adaptation.
Ymar: your comments about Cromwell, I think you are thinking Drogheda where it is said that a large number of people were killed in retaliation. Certainly not the whole city.
The fact is that reprisal killings like that used to be common in Europe. Most recently, the Germans did it a lot in both world wars: round up all the people in a village, or x number of men in a town, and kill them, cf. Lidice, Oradour, etc. etc. etc!
There is no way any Western nation is going to do that today. Just forget it.
The closest we might come is to seriously area bomb someplace. However, again, since World War Two, there has developed tremendous sentiment against bombing civilians and that isn't going to change any time soon.
And that is one of the reasons why there are limits to force.
I'm refering to the time when Cromwell executed all of the men in the city, as I said. Not the whole city.
There is no way any Western nation is going to do that today. Just forget it.
Why would any Western nation do something as stuppiiid as reprisal killings of entire villages? You got to stop insulting the United States military and the entire American people, steve. We are neither dumb enough nor lacking in creativity, to do such things.
Steve equates in his mind, even though he doesn't mention this, of terroists in jail guilty of helping to kill Israelis (or Americans in Iraq) along with the people the Germiies killed in reprisal raids. What kind of pocking idiot, do you take me or even the audience for, steve?
Terroists in jail are not little fluffy kittens the Germans staked in the town, nor the Rape of Nanking women in retaliation for those women helping Americans after the Doolittle Raid. Get serious, here.
"bombing somewhere", that's a waste of time. The Japanese have always believed, correct I might add, in the genkai. The natural limit to any weapon or attack. The more powerful the attack or weapon, the more time it takes to recharge and the fewer times it can occur in simultaneity. Therefore a bazooka has 1 shot, but a machinegun has many.
A nuclear bomb has one use, but conventional bombs have thousands of uses at a time. It was the proof that America had broken the genkai of atomic energy, that finally broke the will of the Japanese. Because to the Japanese, there is one and only one way to break through the limit. That is determination and will. When there is a Will there is a Way.
I don't think steve believes that if there is a will there is a way. I believe, as perhaps others here do, that America has not yet begun to reach our limits, and even if we do we shall shatter them.
Ymar: You may be surprised to know that many of the people the Germans shot were taken from prisoner populations as well, think Ardeatine Caves.
The US is not going to take the prisoners from Gitmo or Abu Ghraib nor are the Israelis going to take the prisoners from wherever they have them and carry out any kind of mass killing, either with theatrical beheadings or otherwise. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.
Nor did Cromwell kill all the men in Drogheda or any other town. And, BTW, you are the one who brought up civilian reprisals, not me. So why are you yelling?
When Germany bombed British cities, the brits ordered the RAF to turn german cities into rubble ... and then make the rubble bounce.
The Israeli government's restraint here is amazing.
By all past war-time conventions, they would be completely justified to start carpet bombing cities that produce suicide bombers.
Why do you think I'm yelling? It's a rhetorical trick, to emphasize important points. Did you really think I lost my composure over your criticism? I've already seen it, it doesn't matter.
It is unfortunate that I have to make steve's arguments for him. Because the underlying argument really is that terroists in jails are civilians, and that this means I brought up civilian reprisals. Unfortunate, but it takes more than that, to overcome my guard against bs.
Kristopher: I am afraid that you and Ymar just don't get it.
Killing a lot of people in reprisal, either by shooting, or bombing, is just not acceptable in the West -- and that includes Israel -- anymore.
Strategic bombing, and area bombing, is also just not acceptable anymore.
I mean, I am no big fan of either policy, but I assure you that my opinion has had nothing to do with the restraint shown by both the governments of the US and Israel. It's a society-wide sentiment: killing a lot of civilians is wrong. Killing prisoners is wrong. I'm not debating the right/wrong of it, I'm just pointing out that that's the way it is.
Therefore these fantasies of massive retaliation and punishment are just that. And that is why there are limits to force.
Brave guards with their wits about them do seem to be in plentiful supply in Israel.
Also, great point about Passover being a religious event celebrating something apparently not religious, freedom.
Not really. If people supported Bush's policies concerning civilian deaths, his approval polls would be above 50%.
Currently, the Jacksonian majority in America very very dissatisfied with Bush. His polls have went down because like 30% of Republicans no longer approve of the job he does, and they don't approve because Bush believes, as you do steve, that such tactics are unacceptable.
American people would love the kind of morale raising tactics Bush just won't use. Bush is not America. And neither is the government America. America is America. And that's a weapon of a different steel.
Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, it isn't the way it is.Because most Americans are not realists. They're Jacksonians, or at least to a certain extent, optimistic.
The American people have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, or I at least I had thought so until steve said what he said at the end, that the people have the power and the will to shatter the limitations of humanity.
The limits can and will be surpassed, because America is the only nation capable of doing so in the history of mankind. Not the last 1,000 years, but the entire history of mankind.
You may believe that is false, steve, but your beliefs are not backed up by anything other than emotional beliefs.
I do believe there are limits, but your limits are imposed by a lack of willpower. If this applied to the rest of America, Bush would have a much higher approval polls.
Nothing seems to stop the dismal litany of bad news coming from the Middle-East: earlier today, as Israel’s new “centrist” (a modern Hebrew euphemism for neo-fascist probably inspired by turn-of-the-century German political parlance) government was sworn in, a Palestinian suicide bomber killed nine people along with himself in Tel Aviv, and the Pentagon was forced to recognize that the month of April will be one of the most deadly for US troops since the start of the war (these guys seem to be uninterested in keeping track of the number of Ayyrabz dying every day- probably for fear of loosing “focus”).
Three years after the conquest of Baghdad, the situation looks rather bleak, as radical Islamic fundamentalism seems stronger than ever with heinous mobs burning churches (not to mention Christians and women) in Cairo, Jakarta and Islamabad, and with potentially explosive Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian tensions now spreading to Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan and the entire Gulf region.
I guess that’s what Neocon Neros such as Mike Ledeen call “creative chaos” whatever that means... “Chaotic cretinism” would be a more fitting appellation for the highly incoherent foreign policy of President Bush and his incompetent Neocon handlers!
Narrow-minded Marxist ideologues be they communists or “neo-conservatives” have always despised the “internal contradictions” of traditional Western rationality (rooted in Europe´s Christian and secular Classical traditions) which they believe to be “old-fashioned” and “formal” (sic). Just like their role model comrade Lenin, these sophisticated thugs prefer the joys “dialectical creativity” even when this means pursuing high policies over the dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of disposable Arab and Muslim peasants… as another Neocon Israeli idol once said: “you simply can’t cook a good omelet without cracking a few eggs”!
But, to use their own vocab of choice, the Neocons themselves are now faced with the “internal contradictions” of their misguided Mideast policy based on a blind belief in accelerated democratization at gunpoint coupled with a systematic scorn of Arab and Islamic public opinion…
Like him or not, Saddam Hussein was a truly modernist, Westernized Arab head of state who protected women’s rights and enforced affirmative action programs in favor of Iraq’s tiny Christian minority. President Reagan and “Old Europe’s” foreign policy establishment both viewed the Iraqi Baath party essentially as a strong secular bulwark against both Persian-Khomeinist fundamentalism and Wahhabi-Afghan terrorism.
The Israelis and Washington’s Neocons thought otherwise: now US marines and Israeli civilians have to deal with the rise of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which their own governments have deliberately brought to power…
Oh, how I wish to god Israel really was neo-fascistic. It would be sooo... Fun to see. Ya, ya, ja, okay, but no, I'm serious.
Saddam Hussein was a truly modernist, Westernized Arab head of state who protected women’s rights and enforced affirmative action programs in favor of Iraq’s tiny Christian minority.
I do not think it can get. better. than. this. Okay, right. fine. Stupendous. But, oh nevermind. Ya, okay. But, that is not quite right. Ya but still that is good, as in funny good.
Roll on floor laughing?
I think I achieved critical mass limit breaking technique, when I found out that the Left was really really really funny. Before, they were aggravating and making me angry. Boom. Now it's just funny. Left, Libertarian, Realist Repub, Paleo conserv, Wass Ever Wuss Uever.
When I said that Troutsky's side was the one supporting dictators, I wasn't kidding. Dr may not be on Trout's side, but still, birds of a feather flock together.
Ahaha. Hamas condones latest suicide bombing. Looking good for Israel (in a justification for retaliation sort of way).
Dan Simmons, the award winning Science Fiction author, has a haunting message on his website that bears directly on this topic. If you have the courage to survive, read it. If not, not.
Who here believes that the areas occupied by Israel in 1967 are rightfully part of Palestine?
Not a one, I would say, not a one.
If Mexico were to invade Texas and Nevada, who here would argue Mexico's right to recover "lost territory"?
Not a one, I would say, not a one.
Who here would see the hypocrisy?
Not a one...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Damn straight, Probligo.
See, we realize
that Texas is a different place than Palestine. It's a thing called "geography," though considering how racist, err, nationalist it is, it doesn't surprise me that you have carefully avoided all knowledge of the subject.
Another dead hero in Israel. Their numbers continue to rise. I suppose the security forces are doing all they can - it is frustrating to see an ally repeatedly attacked like this. I for one have always felt a tit-for-tat approach be tried, but that that won't happen either. We ain't see nothing yet - wait until Iran gets its nukes.
as an english person reading this stuff you have written I am astounded by your belligerence and naivety. I hope to god these are not widespread opinions in the USA because we are in for a lot more death and chaos if it is. Like it or not when large numbers of people feel oppressed to the point they are prepared to blow themselves up then something bad is going on. By bombing towns villages or whatever you will only create more martyrs and enrage more people to strap on explosives. There is a very large supply of poor and marginalised people in the world who are all too willing to believe the west wishes them ill. This kind of militaristic hopefulness will only encourage them. So why not concentrate on things that t=will work. Peace process, international law and a fairer operation of the global economy. Sounds a bit more complicated than just bomb the bastards but its a complicated world.
happy tuesday
david
Yes, Hamas has always made it perfectly clear exactly where it stands.
Now we have to make it clear where we stand.
To date, Hamas, and groups like them, have found that terrorism pays. We have to make it stop paying for them.
I think a good way to begin would be Ymarsakar's suggestion---execute prisoners, so that homicide bombers won't be urged to blow up civilians in order to obtain their release.
Another good idea might be to step up the targeted assassination of terror-kingpins such as Rantisi.
And another one, of course, would be to stop continually caving in, terror-stricken, to the terrorists.
The future is not going to be pretty; at this point, all the choices are ugly. We must, however, face facts, or simply throw in the towel, and admit we're defeated.
By the way, Neo---everybody's showing us pictures of the boy suicide bomber (I think he's a kid, myself---he sure doesn't look like he's in his twenties), along with heart-rending descriptions of his family's grief, what a good boy he was, his hatred of Israeli injustice, ad nauseum.
Maybe you could do something about the heroic security guard who sacrificed his life to save others?
This is a propaganda war, as much as a war of bombs and bullets; all too often, dead terrorists are lionized, almost as if they were celebrities, or rock stars, whereas their victims are always just numbers. A typical newspaper article will read something like this:
"Ten Israelis died today, when a bomb exploded in a pizzeria," or,
"A bombing in Tel Aviv killed three passengers on a downtown bus line", "Four killed in rocket attack on Israeli settlement".
Ten---four---three---always numbers, never names, faces, lives behind them; whereas the terrorists always have their photos shown, their lives described ("He was a good boy! He loved his mother and his puppy dog! He was a good student!") And, of course, endless photos of his (or her) howling, grieving relatives.
The victims were people too, and, unlike their murderers, they were innocent. So howzabout running an article about some of the victims, the next time an attack like this happens?
wow you are lot are real loonies. impressed. Why not put all the palestinians in concentration camps? or crucify them? Go for it boys you know it makes sense. Somebody please tell me this is not a standard view in the USA
and as a last thought have a look at this. I imagine you think the BBC is some commie organisation but......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900796.stm
oh hum i don't imagine there is much point in trying to explain this.
I hope to god these are not widespread opinions in the USA because we are in for a lot more death and chaos if it is.
I am confident that 67% of America has as bloodthirsty feelings as Neo here. And 30% at least, have feelings even more bloodthirsty than Neo. And perhaps 5% or 1% of Americans have more conditional tolerance for violence than me.
So, yes, most people in America are war mongers. It's one reason why the US is a world power.
Like it or not when large numbers of people feel oppressed to the point they are prepared to blow themselves up then something bad is going on.
Americans are so well versed in war, that they actually understand that when people blow themselves up, then they are actively and purposefully creating the oppression that they rail against. As is classical guerrila strategy dictates, the whole point is to make the enemy overreact and create more guerrilas for you to recruit.
England and Old Europe, given their distaste for war, do not understand the precepts. That prevents them from seeing clearly the motivations and strategy of either the Israelis or the Palestinians.
Peace process, international law and a fairer operation of the global economy. Sounds a bit more complicated than just bomb the bastards but its a complicated world.
If England was doing a fairer economy program for their Muslims, maybe you wouldn't have had those suicide bombers home grown. Sounds a bit ineffectual to say that fairer operation of the global economy would help when you yourselves don't practice it. Why should we adopt it with our money? No reason at all.
Talkin, Fox News said the boy was 16, not 21. Just to clear record. He looks like he is not 21, because most likely he isn't and Hamas inflated his age to make him look less a puppet that he really is.
Israel captures and imprisons all thsoe attempted suicide bombers they caught. Doesn't exactly make sense to an AMerica, but Israelis aren't Americans.
I don't really think Americans would tolerate 100s of Moussies in jail, for "attempting" 9/11 but failing. I think they'd be executed eventually.
Prisoners are a great justification and pretext. You saw it in Jill Carrol's release, and so on. There's a scale of brutality. Because they didn't execute Jill Carrol, you moderate your responses concerning female prisoners.
This is the same tactic as increasing punishment for a child that argues back. 5 days, but but but, 50 days, but see I didn't do that, 500 days. Eventually, they'll shut the hell up.
And so will the terroists if you ramp up retaliation and punitive expeditions. Steve will say that it won't happen, but these are the solutions to terror. Your only choice is whether you are willing to solve terror or not, as a valid tactic.
If the Palis didn't kill people nor intended to kill them with suicide, then there is room for a lowered punitive strike against the prisoners. Say, increased sentences. But there is no reason Not to execute the prisoners Hamas wants released. What is Hamas going do? Execute Israelis? Blow up children in pizzerias? Already doing that. What do you have to lose? Nothing. "Diplomacy" is for when you got something to lose and you want to negotiate a settled agreement.
Some people in this world seemed to have flunked their Diplomacy courses and have never realized it.
Why not put all the palestinians in concentration camps?
Dave, Israel has nukes. Why waste their money on concentration camps and the evidence it would produce? You aren't thinking very clearly you know.
Go for it boys you know it makes sense.
Crucifixion isn't very effective, and it also has a bad message for followers of Christ. I'd prefer short stakes, from the Indian sub-continent. Those Indians have got some creative methods of execution, that's for sure. I'm glad they are our ally, woot!
Somebody please tell me this is not a standard view in the USA
Too bad my post was after yours, cause if I was 50 seconds faster, it would have been available for you to read before you wrote your comments.
I imagine you think the BBC is some commie organisation but......
I don't believe many Americans think the BBC is some commie organization. Rather, the BBC is funded by the government and this produces two results. A stifling of views and abuse of power, by government control. And a lack of diverse opinion resulting from a free market competition for funds. It's the propaganda brainwashing the British Island, and the results are obvious for anyone to see.
Wow, dave, amazing refuttal that the BBC is a propaganda apparati with this quote from a bbc link.
A woman among the mourners delivered a message for the Israelis: "We will cut you to pieces, I swear it, just as you have done to us."
Way to go David.
Ymarsarkar
However we do it, and whatever methods we use, it seems obvious to me that we've got to stop making terrorism pay for the terrorists.
As you pointed out, in the case of Hamas (or any terrorist group like them) and Israel (or any country that finds itself in a similar position), they really have nothing to lose by simply executing the prisoners.
(By the way, I think it's a hoot that somebody from England is lecturing the US on how to deal with terrorists).
that was the point! the more of this mayhem is created the more it causes. Every time you encourage death and violence you create a response. Look if someone comes to your house and smacks you in the mouth you will do it back and that is what is going on here....only endlessly
ok i give in. You are loonies very violent and dangerous ones at that
'bye and happy tuesday
david: Have you read my series on pacifism? I recommend it (of course I would; I wrote it). Links are on the right sidebar.
No. I'm not going to do it back, david. I'm going to crack the point of my elbow into his throat, wrap my forearm around behind his throat, and bring my entire weight down on his throat, backwards. Either he dies, or he gets strangled.
I don't believe in limiting force in response to attacks. I don't play around in fights, and I don't think the US or Israel should as well. Playing around is fine if you are training and improving, but this is a fight to the death. I don't play around in fights to the death, and you shouldn't either...
Thanks, but I don't think I'm all that dangerous. Those Special Forces operators, and Marine Sergeant Majors, Those are dangerous.
Talkin, right. It's one of the detriments of living in a Golden Age. Even one marred by Islamic Jihad. We don't remember a time when Absolute Total Retaliation helped prevent the very attacks we were afraid of. You cannot stop nuclear annihilation if you aren't willing or have not used nuclear weapons.
And you can't stop terrorism either, if you aren't willing to use at least part of the terroist repertoire. Video taping executions is only one step removed from what Iraqis are already doing, showing taped confessions of terroists. And it is a HUGE BOOST to Iraqi morale. Think what video tapped executions would do.
Iraqis, are like Prime said about Iran, pretty primitive. But they got a fire we can learn much from. Small little dudes, suffering from malnutrition, but with a big heart and a strong spirit.
The Iraqis will soon approach their genkai, and with our help they will break it. And then, the terroists will have somebody else to worry about in addition to Israel and America and Afghanistan.
That is the ultimate grand strategy, and Iran's nukes strat are already destroying it in Iraq. I don't think we can afford to let that happen.
oh what the hell, i have another twenty minutes before i go to th efootball....sorry soccer.
1. Am not a pacifist but am very suspicious of poeople who take great pleasure in detailed descriptions of violence they wish to inflict. So, interesting articles but i more or less agree with big chunks of it.
2. I am genuinely shocked by much of what i have seen on this blog and others that are linked to it. Most people here assume that The US and Britain are pretty much on the same side and we are interested in achieving global law and order. You are interested in some kind of global conquest and appear to do your level best to live up to all the stereotypes put about by terrorist types.
3. Neo Neo-con it must have been an interesting journey from liberal therapist to being on the same team as someone who advocates video taping executions. 9/11 was despicable but as Britain learned in Ireland, by the way a place where terrorism was widely supported by sections of the US you have to adopt a subtle policy of engagement, smart tactics and at all costs avoid reating martyrs. Sure if you have to fight do so and win, BUT if you can achieve the same end by peaceful means then do that as in the long run it will save you a lot of trouble.
4. I don't know where you lot live but i feel it is very distant from the daily violence of many people caught in this mess and perhaps you should try to see it from the point of people on the ground, on all sides.
5. Finally, if you were a Palestinian, Afghan, Iranian, etc. how would you think and act? It really is worth spending a little time trying to picture this. Have a read of this which is from people more from your political approach.
Love and peace
David
whoops forgot to put th elink
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0404a.asp
come on town! its a football chant
I can't resist shattering arguments like david's. Because it requires more than just normal sensationalism and theatrics in rhetoric. It takes a bit of thought and logical analysis.
David, compared to Americans, you are a pacifist. And Neo wasn't calling you a pacifist, simply pointing you to something she had written in the past which had addressed your current words and arguments.
5. Finally, if you were a Palestinian, Afghan, Iranian, etc. how would you think and act?
I have to ask the readers and audience here, just how credible david's arguments become when david has to be told a simple thing as "Neo is doing this". If david can't understand Neo's perspective or her intentions, then why should we assume david understands the Palis, Iranian, or Iraqi perspectives?
Should we trust our lives and the lives of our blood family members to this person from England, who says what he cannot do?
I ask you not to reject david's arguments out of hand. For there is much merit in what he says. But is it the merit he thinks it is, or is it an alternative wisdom of a different steel?
9/11 was despicable but as Britain learned in Ireland, by the way a place where terrorism was widely supported by sections of the US you have to adopt a subtle policy of engagement, smart tactics and at all costs avoid reating martyrs. Sure if you have to fight do so and win, BUT if you can achieve the same end by peaceful means then do that as in the long run it will save you a lot of trouble.
A subtle strategy of engagement. If it worked in Ireland, perhaps it may work in MidE, eh. But, no, let's look at it a bit closer. America was funding the IRA and America is funding the PLO and their terroist strikes. Why? Because, we've already tried the "peaceful means" advocated by david, and we are still trying it even today.
Our reward? The price of our brethren in the Marine Corps, the Lebanon barracks bombing which claimed more than One Hundred Fatalities as the roof collapsed. Our reward was the death of more than a Dozen sailors in the Cole bombing. Our reward was the siezing of our embassy by Iranian paramilitaries, and the bombing of our foreign embassies in Africa.
David dares to say that we must pay a higher blood price, in addition to the sacrifices we have already paid? Our strategy of peaceful co-option worked in Ireland. Our leverage with the IRA helped them to realize that politics was the right strategy, instead of answering Orangeman death squads with reverse terrorism in order to protect their wives and daughters.
How many more American sons and daughters must we pay to appease the likes of david and his peace at any price mentality?
Shall we betray the Founding Fathers, when they said,
I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.?
Why should we give up eternal enmity towards the everlasting tyranny of America's enemies?
Perhaps it is worth spending a little time to ponder the options here.
Imagine if Saddam's legions came and occupied America with their policy of rape chambers and executions. Would we not be right to resist with the combined might of the American people? And if we have the right to resist against the tyranny of Saddam here in our country, why would we not have the right to resist his tyranny from across the endless seas?
What makes the deaths of Americans in foreign countries anymore less patriotic and rightful than deaths in AMerica, what is it with foreigners telling Americans what we should believe in and who we should fight against?
I say no. No, we will not listen. We will not sacrifice the good people of America for the false philosophy of England or France or for any other foreign country. Whatever sacrifices we choose to make, will be based upon the traditions and honor of the Founding Fathers. It is they who are the strength and pillar of America, and it is they who shall give us the strength to face our enemies to the End Times.
For their sacrifices made everything possible in the Dream of Liberty, and if called upon we shall not render onto that standard the shame of dishonor and cowardice.
By all means, peace is worthwhile, but peace is never as valuable as freedom. Freedom from tyranny, freedom from injustice, freedom from artificial limits, and Yes. Freedom from the fear of terrorism.
America is blessed in our wisdom. For did we not say to the British Motherland, that war could be adverted by giving us the liberty and recognition we had earned with our loyalty to King and Country? Did we not offer an Olive Branch of peace to the British, and had it slapped down into the dirt as meaningless because we were mere Colonists?
We understand, david. More than you--- ever--- will, the price of war and cruelty. Unlike you, we will never wish to repeat the mistake of entering a war that could be avoided.
The Americans that are just as anti-American as any foreigner. They are protected by the might and the heart of America, but let us not be confused as to their worthiness of that protection. It is the duty of the American military to protect civilians, regardless of whose side those civilians are on.
That is only a sample of the Core strength of America, david. There are many more, deep in the depths where no human soul has traversed for decades. Bewary you do not step upon the sleeping giant rattlesnake, for our slumber cannot be disturbed without consequence to the world.
Leave us alone, foreigners of the world, or we will End you as you now exist. Nobody pays attention to America, just like the British didn't pay any attention to our Olive Branch. That is sad and regretful. For they will regret ignoring and treating America as an inferior, a weak nothing full of genetically flawed biologia.
We have not yet begun to war, david. This is only 10% of our maximum achievable strength. If that scares you, maybe your nation should have accepted our Olive Branch.
David, I wouldn't worry too much about Ymarsakar. Does he represent Americans? No, he represents 21-year-old Americans who think that making references to fantasy elves, yearning for a fascist Israel, and making up Sun Tsu quotes constitutes reasoned analysis.
Plus, he imagines fantasy violence in which he uses his mad kung fu skillz to totally take out those bad guys breaking into his house. In other words, he's a military-age kid who has a hard-on for violence but is too chicken shit to actually, I don't know, risk his life to enact the violence he obviously plays out every night while kicking mad terrorist ass in Counterstrike.
Basically, the people who spend their energy yapping on blog comment sites about how tough they are and how they badly they want death and destruction and how many times they have read the wikipedia entry on Sun Tsu are the ones who are crippled by their own impotence and inaction, and channel their embarrassed rage into melodramatic rhetoric - and nothing more.
Shorter Ymar: "Neocons rule! You're a noob!"
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-ymarsakar.html
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-ymarsakar.html
What on earth did that link have to do with the rest of your post?
You really can't learn martial arts until you can imagine the specific moves and understand the entire purpose and not just the reflex learning. Everyone can learn martial arts, but breaking someone's windpipe doesn't take martial arts so much as height (or a jump accuracy ability) and core strength.
It's one reason why people who aren't violent aren't dangerous. Even if they had the skills, they couldn't imagine using them. The dangerous folks are people who will use them on you.
I can assure you that if someone comes into your house and gets into close enough range to slap your in the mouth, you are at the perfect range to hit him with your elbow. There is not enough room to lunge with your thigh and body weight for a open handed strike, really. And you can't crush someone's windpipe if you don't put in at least 150% of your body force, unless you're 300 pounds of muscle then you don't need speed to apply force.
It is people who look at fighting and think it is a bunch of fantasy, that are really vulnerable to getting taken down. This ain't no Tom Cruise Kunfuuish on hollywood, dude.
Never did play CS. I actually got into an argument with a Canadian who did play CS, and we had crazy debates like you wouldn't want to know.
It's a good thing we don't have duels anymore, because I'd probably challenge the person who'd called me a coward. Yes, I am serious. Most people aren't, but most people aren't like me.
Besides, duels are for young pukes.
Wikipedia on Sun Tzu? There is an online novel of sun tzu, but I read his book on ereader format.
You're a Noob is what CS folks use as an insult to people they think are genetically inferior to their Aryan race supremacy. Hrm...
Most people who don't play games, would never use the comment "you're a noob". Only people who play games, and are at a young age, uses the "noob" spelling.
Valhalla? Okay. sure.
Because in that post, he explains that his nickname originated in a MUD. That is, he talks about computer games, and fantasy characters, as if they're relevant to, well, anything except his never having seen a naked lady.
Because in that post, he explains that his nickname originated in a MUD. That is, he talks about computer games, and fantasy characters, as if they're relevant to, well, anything except his never having seen a naked lady.
I see. So you're saying anyone who plays games is a mental infant that should be kept away from important things like voting.
"Finally, if you were a Palestinian, Afghan, Iranian, etc. how would you think and act?"
If I were a Palestinian, I would be working hard every day to find new and more progressive reasons to hate the Jews, and convince the rest of the world to hated Jews with me.
If I was an Afghan, I would be building a family-run canning and shipping company, negotiating deals with suppliers, making the most of the local transportation network, and either killing or planning to kill anyone who threatened the life of myself or any of my employees.
If I was Iranian, I would be making damn sure I prayed properly five times a day, while spying on my neighbors to make sure they did the same, and calling the Hezbollah to inform on anyone who didn't.
If I were a child molester, I would be out sneaking around elementary schools, hunting for children who are curious about the world beyond the fence around the school. I would entice them with promises of entertainment and achievement, and do everything in my power to convince them that there's no reason to do dreary schoolwork, and every reason to join me on a magical adventure.
Sorry, was this exercise supposed to make me feel sympathetic? It's not working.
You're a Noob is what CS folks use as an insult to people they think are genetically inferior to their Aryan race supremacy. Hrm...
Most people who don't play games, would never use the comment "you're a noob".
*cringe* Mommy
If I were a child molester, I would be out sneaking around elementary schools, hunting for children who are curious about the world beyond the fence around the school. I would entice them with promises of entertainment and achievement, and do everything in my power to convince them that there's no reason to do dreary schoolwork, and every reason to join me on a magical adventure.
*cringe*
I think you need to read http://livinginiran.livejournal.com/ and http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
"I think you need to read http://livinginiran.livejournal.com/ and http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/"
I read both. Living In Iran reads like the classic Soviet diaries ("A beautiful cover of snow blankets Siberia, and the workers in the camps are singing with the joys of organized communal labor"), while Baghdad Burning reads like Eva Braun's memoirs probably would have if she had lived to see the reconstruction of Germany.
("The Soviet and American armies are plotting to split our beloved homeland in two. It tears at my heart.")
Both blogs are more notable for what they refuse to mention, than for what they do mention.
It takes a master of games to dislike pro and anti blogs.
right then i had a bad time at the football as you can see here
http://www.teamtalk.com/football/report/0,16379,1818_1165625,00.html
and am annoyed with some of you mad americans.
1. Ymarsakar get some therapy. Travel a bit learn what the world is like not the version you see on a computer screen. Aint no game it is a lot more complicated.
"false philosophy of England" you do realise english soldiers are fighting and dying in this same war, while you are chained to the pc.
2. Anon thanks for making me realise Ymarsakar is a person who will grow out of this and that this is not a widespread US view. But i tell you every terrorist recruiting officer must lap this lunacy up and feed it to their young...hey kids this what the americans plan to do.
3. neoneocon what on earth are you doing playing with these kind of ideas? Are really am fascinated. Do you think it is America against the rest of the world? Are you going to conquer it.
4. Mad person going on about child molesters...you win the crappiest argument tonight competition. th eexercise is not working because you aint no good at thinking. You dont have to agree with them, or sympathise with them to work out that if you act in particular ways they are likely to react in particular ways.
and did you read this?
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0404a.asp
I thought Neo was a therapist? Hath I been cheated, my dear peers of the Realm?
If I was watching Fussball on the tele, then my sir David, you might hath a point about things not being as they are on television.
Is this a version of Brit humour?
It wasn't my decision to send Brits into battle, david. And given the Brits beating on the Shia and letting Sadr run amuck, I can't really say I appreciate the benefits of a Brit force. I'm not one of those in favor of the Bush-Blair alliance. Not all neo-cons are multilateralists. Perhaps you should have been more open to different perspectives, david the hypocrite.
4. Mad person going on about child molesters...you win the crappiest argument tonight competition.
That's too bad, cause I thought I'd won that in david's opinion.
It's too bad david returned to his senses, I had thought to provoke some realization that America isn't the same as the communal blokes on the tele in Briton.
But the Brits are too stubborn. Oh well.
i wasnt watching it on the tv....here we have a thing called reality. i went to the ground and watched by useless team lose.
seriuously man get out and see the world. you might start to like it. Oh hum tis late here
love and peace
david
That's an interesting English philosophy, david. I'm so happy to see it confirmed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Okay, may or may not be past midnight in Britain. But it Will be soon.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/04/fall-of-france-and-multicultural-world.html
Imagine that Chinese troops have invaded the United States with the stated goal of liberating the American people from the grips of the IRS, DEA, BATF, and the many other departments and agencies that violate the principles of freedom set forth by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence.
Did you read what I said? No, you didn't. Okay.
"th eexercise is not working because you aint no good at thinking."
Maybe not, but at least I'm better than you at spelling and punctuating.
David, since 9/11, it's pretty clear to me that the world is pretty much against America.
And I think you live a lot closer to violence than you realize---remember 7/7? And a lot of the hate-spewing mullahs calling for war against the West, and death to America live in London.
And why do you keep telling us to imagine what it's like to be in the rest of the world's shoes, when you refuse to imagine what it's like to be in Neo's, or ours?
Just for practice, you might try and imagine what it's like to be an Israeli, who'se just had a child killed in a homicide bombing. Or an American, who lost loved ones on 9/11. Or any victim of a terrorist attack who has to live with ongoing pain and injuries.
This is a serious situation. It's not going to be solved by scoldings, accusations of "Oh, you bloodthirsty Americans," or feel-goodly advice along the lines of, imagine-if-you-were-a-Palestinian?
P.S. If I were a Palestinian, I like to imagine I wouldn't be the kind who encouraged their child, their own flesh and blood, to go out and blow themselves to shreds, all in order to kill a few Jews; or a kiddie-show host, whose cartoons and funny skits urged Palestinian kids to become martyrs. Or one of those she-things (can't call them moms) who rejoice when their sons blow themselves (and yet more Jews) up.
I like to imagine that I wouldn't be like that. . . but I don't know; the Palestinians have a very sick culture. I find it impossible to empathize with it, or understand it on anything more than a purely intellectual level---but, then, I'm just a brutal, warlike American, incapable of relating to others.
. . . And it also being a well known fact that, here in America, we have no such thing as reality; we actually live in another dimension, and our cities, parks, wildlife, etc., are all created out of foam rubber and pixie dust by a kindly gentleman deity called "Bob", whom we worship in hip-hop dance, and by a convoluted and highly esoteric system of hand gestures.
Neo, do consider a story about the self-sacrificing security guard. He deserves to be remembered.
hmmm well TalkinKamel it was really the elvish kung fu bloke i was arguing had a problem with reality. I, and most English people do not hate America, or are anything other than appalled by 9/11 7/7 or any of the other monstrosities. I was just as appalled years ago by IRA murders, or for that matter the holocaust, Stalin, Mao etc. etc. And i agree with you that we should try to see the world from the point of view of all victims.
Neither am i accusing America of being bloodthirsty.
I am trying to make the simple point that it is unlikely you will solve these connected terrorist problems by military action. As you say it is a very serious situation. And to be honest i just see it getting worse. I live in an area with many muslim people and have done all my life. It might surprise you but most of them were appalled by 9/11. Only a few lunatics welcomed it....but guess who gets the attention. and as a rule people i meet want a peaceful life but see a siutation spiralling out of control.
So when i read "It's too bad Israel doesn't go psychobatshitcrazy and nuke the PLO headquarters" i am truly amazed. The lack of geographical awareness and effects of nuclear weapons is spectacular. Plus it is these kind of views that are circulated as evidence of the evilness of america. And like it or not every time America, Britain or Israel kill muslim civilians it is used to recruit mroe terrorists.
And the depressing thing is that i can't see any of you lot getting anything other than more enthusiastic about military action....which will recruit more terrorists which will lead to more military action.
Just out of curiosity have any of you considered anything other than military solutions?
And Neo i am still curious to here the explanation for the company you keep.
oh hum
happy wednesday
"Just out of curiosity have any of you considered anything other than military solutions?"
David, do us all a favor and read some old posts before generalizing about all Americans.
"And Neo i am still curious to here the explanation for the company you keep."
She has an open comments thread, which allows you to comment too. It's this crazy American Idea that free speech creates meaningful dialogue (amidst the crap). Europe should try it sometime.
Also, I recommend you try a little harder to understand a Palestinian. You seem to think they are a lot like you. They are not. At least they're smart enough to know you don't understand them and they take advantage of that.
look douglas it must be clear from everything i have put here that
1. i dont see americans as all the same or all evil.
2. i am as keen on democracy free speech and all the rest of it - including the rule law national and international as you are
3. i dont get how you and by this i mean Ymarsakar et al think this pro militaristic solution is going to resolve or even stabilise the global situation
3. And frankly it is the otehr people on this thread who are generalising about nations
all palestinians are violent lunatics. well they are not
all europeans/english are just too liberal and cowardly to sort the world out. 103 British dead in Iraq and i am sure more to come there and in Afghanistan
all Israelis are heroes, well they aint. You old enough to remember Sabra and Shatila?
all Americans are materialistic conquest obsessed neo-imperialist buffoons, well they are not.
So yup debate, give me some good reasoons why there is no alternative to this long and sliding out of control war approach.
david
oh and one other thing. you aint the only people who allow you to add comments try any or all of the following.
http://www.pootergeek.com/
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/
http://www.aljazeera.com/ yes that aljazeera, and they let you comment on the stupid stuff that appears
http://fightbackuk.blogspot.com/
and i dont agree with most of this lot but i read it and think about their ideas, and i hope you do the same.
David and Anonymous, if you don't see a military solution as the answer, what sort of action do you see as the answer? Endless, nattering diplomacy, that solves nothing? Give-them-more-foreign-aid? (We know how that works! How much money did Arafat manage to rip off from his own people?) Get the UN to handle it? Heh, heh, heee, (snort), giggle. . . .just sit back, twiddle our thumbs and wait and see what happens? (It won't be anything good, as we should have learned from WWII).
And how many deaths are the Israelis supposed to simply accept, before it's okay for them to declare war upon those who've openly declared war on them? And how much slack are we supposed to cut Ahma-psychopath and the mad, merry mullahs, as they work towards getting the bomb? The sad fact may be that the time is long past for all the easy and good solutions, and the ones we are left with are bad, worst, and worst of all.
Of course, judging by David's comments, he's pretty much repeating the Leftist meme of Israelis = Evil, Palestinians = good. Nothing is ever going to change his mind about this. Admirers of the Palestinians can never change the minds, no matter what atrocities their beloved PLO commits. And they are always unhappy with the rest of us, for not sharing their admiration. Logic and hard, solid facts are no use against this blind idealization.
(And, David, please go back and read my earlier comment about why I don't want to get into the Palestinian mindset that deeply; yes, yes, all Palestinians arent' crazed homicide bombers, but there's no denying that culture is seriously, deeply, hate-filled and dysfunctional--I don't care what you read in Al-Jazeera).
Anonymous---Unless you're actually working with terrorists, and terrorist wannabees, how can you know what causes them fight, and what doesn't? And, if more violence just recruits more terrorists, what was the US doing before 9/11 to bring on that attack? (Probable answer: we supported Israel, and Israel = Evil, whereas Palestinina = Good, and if we only tried to understand the Palestinians, etc., etc., etc., and so it goes.)
Also, your focusing on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict completely ignores the Hindu/Islamic conflict, the Indonesian/Islamic conflict, the Filipino/Islamic conflict---shall I go on? Islam seems to have a hard time getting along with everybody; are we really supposed to believe that this is somehow the fault of Israel, and Israel alone? That if we just "understood the Palestinians" this would somehow make genocide in Dafur, and the Russo/Islamic conflict in Chechnya, etc. vanish?
Gentlemen, the Jihad is going worldwide. One way or another, we have to fight it.
"there's no denying that culture is seriously, deeply, hate-filled and dysfunctional"
TalkinKamel
"And you can't stop terrorism either, if you aren't willing to use at least part of the terroist repertoire. Video taping executions is only one step removed from what Iraqis are already doing, showing taped confessions of terroists. And it is a HUGE BOOST to Iraqi morale. Think what video tapped executions would do"
Ymarsakar
it is the individuals on all sides who are advocating more and more violence who are hate filled and dysfunctional.
And i make one more plea to stop using the reductionist argument that if you criticise any of this then you are some simplistic fool who thinks Israel bad, Palestine good. I make it clear to you, those who encorage young people to blow themselves and others up are despicable. But reading the posts from the likes of Ymarsakar I think he would fit right in with them. I am sure Islamic Jihad would like a few members with his bloodthirsty imagination.
and comments such as "Gentlemen, the Jihad is going worldwide. One way or another, we have to fight it." well i assume we all have to decide whether we are for or against you and then...
...armchair warriors. Is it going to be fought in your town? Are you going to take the risks? or have you got it all mixed up with some video game in which all the civilians who get killed are Islamo-fascist bastards and had it coming to them and you are the hero saving the world......only by the time you have finished there isn't much left worth saving.
...and then your mom calls you down for dinner
and i challenge you to reply to this with an argument, not name calling, stereotyping and all the rest of the low level debate techniques. But just explain how you think you can win? And before you do that look at the post on this blog
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/03/so-why-neo-neocon.html
by Wild Bill
I think th eguy probably knows a bit more than you about the realities of state sponsored violence.
Love and Peace
david
and comments such as "Gentlemen, the Jihad is going worldwide. One way or another, we have to fight it." well i assume we all have to decide whether we are for or against you and then...
...armchair warriors. Is it going to be fought in your town? Are you going to take the risks? or have you got it all mixed up with some video game in which all the civilians who get killed are Islamo-fascist bastards and had it coming to them and you are the hero saving the world......only by the time you have finished there isn't much left worth saving.
...and then your mom calls you down for dinner
and i challenge you to reply to this with an argument, not name calling, stereotyping and all the rest of the low level debate techniques. But just explain how you think you can win? And before you do that look at the post on this blog
Was the hypocrisy intentional, or should we all laugh at you, now?
i really don't mind being laughed at but i still wait for an argument.
and i just looked at your profile...and you make wargames....and i can't stop giggling
and i just looked at your profile...and you make wargames....and i can't stop giggling
That and anthrax. Wanna beat Clinton?
It's not a game, David. And I'm not at all sure we can win at this point, militarily, or otherwise. I think our society may have become too soft, too used to appeasement, too scared to face real evil to do anything other than give in to those who hate us. At this point, I'm not even sure that (G-d forbid) a nuclear strike against one of our cities would be enough to make us actually stand up for ourselves. Too much Marxism, too much soft living and a society with little or no spiritual grounding, or interest in anything other than fun, getting along and waiting for a government handout.
I do think a good thing would be to start making terrorism pay less for the terrorists: cut off their funding, selectively target their leaders, and, yes, take the war to their sponsor states if we have to.
I also think this war is being fought on a non-military level---putting it bluntly, propaganda. Five years after 9/11, and we still can't name the enemy: the MSM keeps up a constant drumbeat against our president, against the war, and constantly portrays terrorists as "Insurgents" or, Heaven help us, "activists", and is more worried about "Islamophobia" than it is about the world wide rise in anti-semetism since 9/11, or the danger to America, and the world, from Saudi oil money, Iranian nukes and Palestinian fanaticism.
Basically my argument is, multiculturalism is going to be the death of us. And, yes, I think we should fight back---not just militarily, but in our culture: education, information, educating ourselves about what Islam is really like---however, I'm afraid this isn't going to happen. There are too many people like you out there, who want to pretend there's no real problem. Or who have the big, morally equivalent "BUT".
And I neither design, nor play, video games.
By the way, what are some of your non-violent suggestions for resolving this? Do you have any, other than "understanding" the Palestinians? I've already pointed out why I don't think that's going to work. And I've given many arguments in my previous posts---I just don't think you're reading them. (Or, if you are, you don't want to accept them).
thats more like it, somebody i disagree with who has brains and can construct an argument. Thanks TalkinKamel.
Ok then in order
1. Re-establish the primacy of International Law. i.e. no more illegal occupations, condem lunatic governments but on a democratic and consensual basis. if you are going toinvade the model of gulf war one is far more effective than that of the mark 2 version. Accept governments that are democratically elected. Venezuala and Palestine.
2. International economic justice. Half the world live on $2 or less and often a lot less. This creates a large group of poor and marginalised who are easy to spark into violent rebellion. The reason why, as you say, that Americans can live a soft live ii sthat much of your work is being done for you by poor people all over the world. Allow these groups of people to become richer and they will be much less likely to feel a need to fight. It is no accident that troubles in Ireland started to ease when the economy started to bloom. Economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare. Especially the drawn out asymmetrical kind we have now.
3. Discourage the concentration of the mass media into the hands of a small group of wealthy people who have their own agenda. The internet is certainly helping here.
4. Discourage the concentration of power into the hands of small elites and encourage democracy and the rule of law.
5. limit the power of an arms industry that has such a clear incentive to support war because it makes such large profits.
6. As far as pratical or safe engage with those who you disagree. trade, democratic relations ate are allpowerful in overcoming emnity. It might be difficult for Americans to realise how long this has taken in Europe. There is still a lot of anti-German feeling in Britain. But then they did bomb our cities and kill many civilians 65 years ago. At some point these things have to be put in the past.
7. If you need to fight do it, but have a clear target of what you are trying to achieve. Do not just set out with a general idea and thus get dragged into a long war.
8. Live in the real world which is comlex and difficult. Avoid simplistic solutions or cowardly 'end time' scenarios that excuse the chaos caused by people as being the fault of God.
That's a quick list. What do you think/
Might work
Anon was probably david, just to be clear, Talkin. Educated guess, could be off the mark though, prepare for systemic crash just in case.
I have come forth from the mountain, and I bear you these words from the artificial AI we call God.
The only people who are advocating more violence are people like david here, who recommend that you respond with a slap, with another slap, which shall be responded with one another slap, and so on and so forth.
There are people who want to extend violence and there are people who want to end it. David, for whatever reasons, wants to extend violence unto forever by limiting the amount of force to be used. He thinks this is like boxing, where both sides should follow the same rules, and duke it out for 10 rounds while both persons get their crap beat out. Sorry, people of the cycle of violence, but I don't play that game. Or if I do, I only play it once. Europe has a problem with war, they like it too much. So they play it over and over again, just like a boxing match. They wanted to humiliate the Germans and have another fight, because without war, their British unity falls down into shambles. They could have kept Winston as their PM, but no, Winston would have stopped future wars like the Islamic Terror in Europe. So the Brits sacked Winston Churchill, because Churchill was too effective at ending war through escalating violence.
Absolutely super idea, people, excellent.
People who don't want to end the cycle of violence by breaking it, are not very good people.
I, and most English people do not hate America
I think I scored a point, do we not agruee?
Plus it is these kind of views that are circulated as evidence of the evilness of america.
That's why I try to live up to the stereotypes. Got to give something for the blokes in Europe to complain about, given that so many Americans are apologetic to their Euro brethrens.
And like it or not every time America, Britain or Israel kill muslim civilians it is used to recruit mroe terrorists.
Every time you hack off an AMerican or Jew's head, you're going to have more true believers like me standing up for liberty and freedom from terror, and advocating any and all means to annihilate the threat. Every time you blow up one of our Marines and Soldiers, I will return the damage a thousand fold unto you. So why don't you guys make the terroists stop, before We End You and the cycle of violence, eh oh?
Becareful in provoking the superpower of humanity unleashed. There is always a consequence to action.
And the depressing thing is that i can't see any of you lot getting anything other than more enthusiastic about military action....
The terroists get more enthusiastic about raping women and killing Amis and Jews, and this means we should not be enthusiastic about slapping these people down in a hole 2 feet under... Okay. That makes sense.
For a Euro Brit.
Just out of curiosity have any of you considered anything other than military solutions?
Has the terroists considered anything other than blowing up American embassies and Marine barracks and Navy ships, like the IRA?
1. i dont see americans as all the same or all evil.
Your link said that the US invading Iraq is like China invading the US. Okay. But why did you think this would appeal to "American" like us just because it was written by an American, unless you thought "Americans" thought alike?
Why should we agree with something written just because it is by an American? Actions speak louder than words.
3. i dont get how you and by this i mean Ymarsakar et al think this pro militaristic solution is going to resolve or even stabilise the global situation
if it makes any sense, Americans like war because we make wars solve problems. You Brits and Euros don't like war because you've always liked war for war's sake, and not to use it to solve problems. War has always created more problems for you than it had ever solved, yet you could not relinquish your addiction upon it until the United States took all your war toys away after WWII and your colonies as well.
War solved our Independence question. War solved slavery for us. War solved American isolationism in WWI. War solved the problem of fascism. War and MAD solved the problem of communism.
Americans use wars, like everything else we do, to Solve Problems. You won't understand and perhaps you and your European friends never will understand. And that's sad.
all Americans are materialistic conquest obsessed neo-imperialist buffoons, well they are not.
We are war mongers by any standard of the day, so don't lose hope on stereotypes yet.
if you criticise any of this then you are some simplistic fool who thinks Israel bad, Palestine good
The matter of why America likes wars and Europe doesn't, is never as simplistic as how guillible Europe compared to America is, concerning Palestinian propaganda.
But reading the posts from the likes of Ymarsakar I think he would fit right in with them.
Yes, I would, because I understand them more than you ever would. Their fanaticism derives from a sort of ruthlessness and true belief in things that are worth dieing and killing for. That is the same for me. One fanatic recognizes another, after all. The Constitution really isn't an intellectual document to me, it's more like a religious talisman. And the Founding Fathers are the prophets. Most Americans are like this, the common religion of America really is the ancestral worship of the Constitution and the founding fathers. One of the reasons why abortion and the Left were so successful decades ago, they used the natural instinct to crush dissent concerning refutation of the FFs, which allowed them to supplant the FF's philosophy with their own socialist breeds of conduct. Separation of Church and State anyone? Pro-Choice anyone? Right.
Be not afraid, david, that I do not understand Palestinians and jihadists. Because I am more like them, and they are more like me, than either one of us are like you. Which given the gulf between the murderous fracked up jihadists and peaceful Americans, that is sad, but oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. "Growing up" in a time after 9/11, has a curious mark on people's personalities. Some more than others.
I am sure Islamic Jihad would like a few members with his bloodthirsty imagination.
I'm sure they would, but I don't play for their team. Neither do I play for yours, either. Besides, I'd probably be executed for talking rank heresy about Islam, because I just don't accept things because other people say it is true.
...and then your mom calls you down for dinner
The Englishman doth insult our honor, my fellow band of brothers! What shall we do with such heathenish conduct, sullying the pure and white fashion of the creed of loyalty and duty?
and i challenge you to reply to this with an argument, not name calling
Well, whose name is "mom" then if you don't want name calling?
That and anthrax. Wanna beat Clinton?
Let's all play a game. Neo mentioned "Why don't you, yes, but". But I recommend "Let's you and He Fight".
Giggling. Fanatics don't giggle, btw david. True believers are always dangerous david. So what do you truely believe in, other than that games make you giggle?
....and th eprize for biggest loony on the blog goes to.......
....need the sound of a drum roll at this point.............
Ymarsakar! For the following amazing quote
"Their fanaticism derives from a sort of ruthlessness and true belief in things that are worth dieing and killing for. That is the same for me. One fanatic recognizes another, after all. The Constitution really isn't an intellectual document to me, it's more like a religious talisman. And the Founding Fathers are the prophets. Most Americans are like this, the common religion of America really is the ancestral worship of the Constitution and the founding fathers"
well done son, i wasn't sure you could make it. I would like you to accept the biggest loony on the blog award from us lily-livered lefties, cheese eating surrender monkeys. Excellent.
Tell me do you train hard to be this bonkers and if you are so keen on death and destruction why don't you join the army and put your body where your mouth is?
1. Re-establish the primacy of International Law. i.e. no more illegal occupations, condem lunatic governments but on a democratic and consensual basis. if you are going toinvade the model of gulf war one is far more effective than that of the mark 2 version. Accept governments that are democratically elected. Venezuala and Palestine.
And if the enemy countries have never respected international law (Palestine, Iran, etc.), what then?
And if the democratically elected governments support violent international action (Palestine, Iran, etc., again), what then?
2. International economic justice. Half the world live on $2 or less and often a lot less. This creates a large group of poor and marginalised who are easy to spark into violent rebellion. The reason why, as you say, that Americans can live a soft live ii sthat much of your work is being done for you by poor people all over the world. Allow these groups of people to become richer and they will be much less likely to feel a need to fight. It is no accident that troubles in Ireland started to ease when the economy started to bloom. Economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare. Especially the drawn out asymmetrical kind we have now.
And if the terrorists already come from well off families, what then?
4. Discourage the concentration of power into the hands of small elites and encourage democracy and the rule of law.
And how does one do that without violating the first amendment, exactly?
6. As far as pratical or safe engage with those who you disagree. trade, democratic relations ate are allpowerful in overcoming emnity. It might be difficult for Americans to realise how long this has taken in Europe. There is still a lot of anti-German feeling in Britain. But then they did bomb our cities and kill many civilians 65 years ago. At some point these things have to be put in the past.
...yes, because Germany continued making terrorist attacks on other European countries for many years after WW2 ended... and if the problem countries have already been getting aid and trade from us and still want us dead, what then?
8. Live in the real world which is comlex and difficult. Avoid simplistic solutions or cowardly 'end time' scenarios that excuse the chaos caused by people as being the fault of God.
Fault of God? Who, exactly, made that argument? I'd like to smack him. And can you say with a straight face that ANY of your suggestions aren't making assumptions that the world is overly simplistic?
Basically my argument is, multiculturalism is going to be the death of us.
Funny you should mention that, cause there is a good article concerning that, that I had posted in this thread even for david's consumption.
I think it was the vienna one.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/04/vienna-and-fall-of-multicultural-world.html
I'm pretty sure a nuclear strike would wake us up. Cause we're like going back to sleep once we figured that it was Sunday. Only duty to go to Church is pulling at our consciousness, if someone put a boombox in, that would settle it.
I still believe, Talkin, that we are only using 10% of our maximum mobilized power. Industriously and psychologically. So it is natural to feel demoralized Talkin, it is after all the goal of the mass media, the Hollywood elitists, some commentators here, and the jihadists themselves. The jihadists believe their mind and their philosophy and their psychology are more powerful than America's. David recognized it himself. I am like the jihadists in one aspect. I don't give up, and I'm just as ruthless. Many Americans share my ruthlessness, both by word of mouth as well as personal friendships and meetings. But as we all know, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. And that, lies all the difference in the world. Something the jihadists have not realized. They still think we're a democracy, just like Russia in the Cold War thought we were a democracy. A Russian General once asked an American general after WWII, how we could govern our system without a monarch to lead the people, a Man of Steel. Both the American and the Russian never realized that our Presidency combines the best traits of monarchy with the best traits of accountability. It's a hybrid, it's not pure. America is a mongrel, big nasty brutish, freaking crazy mongrel.
Franklin Roosevelt was not a person I liked, and easily a person I could hate, but Roosevelt was indeed a Man of Steel.
Hey David, haven't you realized that Justin is the medical examiner, I'm the bad cop, and talkin is the good cop?
Allow these groups of people to become richer and they will be much less likely to feel a need to fight.
So we should imitate the Brits and the French, right?
Economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare.
Like when WWII brought the US out of the depression? Like I said before, war for Euros don't solve problems, for America it does. Difference of opinion.
5. limit the power of an arms industry that has such a clear incentive to support war because it makes such large profits.
you mean the arms industries living off 5% American GDP compared to Medi care, medi aid, foreign aid,and social security?
At some point these things have to be put in the past.
When you got American bases in Germany, then yes, you can put it in the past...
The problem with david's comments, and I recommend you read them and take them at face value, is the same as I listed before. David doesn't believe wars can solve problems or that it will. Which is true, Britain and Europe are incapable of using war to solve problems. But that does not mean this standard applies to the United States. David's lack of cosmopolitan perspective on reality, is a detriment in his foresight analysis conclusions.
"Their fanaticism derives from a sort of ruthlessness and true belief in things that are worth dieing and killing for. That is the same for me. One fanatic recognizes another, after all. The Constitution really isn't an intellectual document to me, it's more like a religious talisman. And the Founding Fathers are the prophets. Most Americans are like this, the common religion of America really is the ancestral worship of the Constitution and the founding fathers"
That's awesome. Do you get +10 political acumen if you carry that talisman, Yam?
Tell me do you train hard to be this bonkers and if you are so keen on death and destruction why don't you join the army and put your body where your mouth is?
So your idea of counter-argument is calling me a coward in addition to calling me loony. As well as calling me a jihadist murderer and rapist. As well as calling me a mass murderer and simpleton. I see. Okay. Whatever. Or Wass ever. You got any more you'd like to unload on the computer screen?
Say, what bout them hobgoblins on the tele?
That's awesome. Do you get +10 political acumen if you carry that talisman, Yam?
You talking about Everquest or Everquest 2, my fellow gamer extraordinare?
Sorry, David, I don't think it will work.
1. International Law---Run by whom? Who will be the judges? Who will be the "Police", to back up its decrees?
And please, do NOT say, "Why the UN of course!" The UN's modus operandi when they enter a country is to rape everything they get their hands on, steal everything they can get their hands on and run away when the shooting starts.
Then they call to the US for help. So, we're still involving ourselves in war---just not wars that are necessarily in our own self-interest.
Once the shooting's over, of course, the UN will condemn the US for its "imperialism." Then it will condemn Israel.
Rwanda, Dafur, the Balkans---what has the UN done in any of those situations, to bring anybody to justice, or to stop conflict?
The UN has just put Iran on their disarmament committee; that should tell you everything you know about the UN.
Besides, I like America being governed by America's laws---just as you, I am sure, prefer being governed by the laws of England. One problem with a body of "International Law" is that there appears to be no way to keep it from sinking into UN style corruption, or appointing tyrants and dictators as its judges and enforcers, or some crazed religious leader who decrees that the world must be run according to Shari'a law, or whatever his personal obessession is. (You really think these guys are going to arrest themselves for their crimes? It's the old question of "Who watches the watchmen?")
2. David Marxism is dead. Hundreds of millions have died, countries have sunk into poverty, countless lives have been blighted, and it hasn't worked, it's never going to work, so quit suggesting Marxism as a solution for anything! And Marxism---redistribution of income---is exactly what you are recommending here.
Sorry, but neither America, nor any other prosperous country, is responsible for the rest of the world's poverty. Nor is it their obligation to bail out countries with failed economies---economies which, often, have failed because the fearless leader, in good Marxist style, has decided to redistribute the wealth (usually to his cronies) or to starve the peasantry into submission; or he's trying to build up a first-world army, with a third-world ecnonomy. Or, the society is riddled with corruption, as in Mexico, or initiative and entreprenuership have been stifled by too much foolish foreign aid, and the locals have become accustomed to handouts, instead of fending for themselves.
I work for myself, as does my husband, our friends, and every other American I know. And we have seen our hard-earned dollars squandered on the likes of Egypt's anti-semetic government, and the Palestinian Authority.
If the Palestinians had actually used all the bazillions of dollars we, and Europe, sent them, they could have wonderful villages, hospitals, universities to rival any in the world. The money was stolen, squandered, piddled away on Arafat's pals, and his worthless wife.
And the Saudis---who, by the way, provided the majority of the 9/ll hijackers, are among the richest people in the world. Bin Ladin is the son of an oil shiek. There is no excuse for poverty in the Middle-East, much of which sits atop rich oil revenues. Again, poverty there is the fault of their own governments, and their dysfunctional society, not America.
3&5 Well, that's what's the Internet's for, dear boy!
I, myself, boycott the MSM as much as possible. Unfortunately, it's something of an uphill climb, trying to get others to do the same. Still, I do what I can.
And support the Internet! Keep it out of the hands of the UN! As for arms dealers---it isn't arms dealers who flew jets into the Twin Towers on 9/11. (See my remarks about the Saudis, above). Again, that's more Marxist agitprop; Wars are all caused by evil capitalist arms dealers! The noble proletariat would never fight unless the Capitalists were forcing them to!
Not even close. . .
(To be continued).
(Talkin' Kamel talking on)
4. What "Social Elites", living in which countries? How are we to "discourage" them? What if they refuse to be "discouraged"? Are we supposed to go to war against them? I thought you didn't want America to do that! As for encouraging rule of law and democracy---aren't we doing that in Iraq?
(And, again, what if others don't want rule of law and/or democracy? What if they're happy with their democratically elected whack-job ruler, who'se working on getting nukes? How are we supposed to discourage them, short of getting nasty?)
6. We have given lots of trade and help to the Saudis. We do support Israel, but we have also sent billions in aid to many Moslem countries, such as Egypt, etc. We aided Afghanistan when it was invaded by Russia. We saved Bosnian Moslems in the chaos that was once Yugoslavia, when Europe, and the UN, stood around with their fingers stuck in their mouths. We saved Palestinians during Black September. Clinton invited that rat Arafat to the White House. Saudi visitors continue to pour into the US, despite 9/11.
How much nicer do we have to be?
And Germany and Japan are now accepted because they're no longer waging Blitzkriegs, or invading China---in short, because they were beaten in war, and are now behaving themselves. I'm all for letting by-gones be by-gones---when they've actually gone by, not while they're still ongoing.
8. Yes, the real world is complicated. Wishful thinking, platitudes about "understanding" and Marxist cliches aren't going to help us. We've tried all that. Doesn't work. And why are you suddenly bringing G-d into this? At what point has anybody here blamed G-d, for anything? I thought we were blaming A. The Terrorists, and B. Western appeasement in the face of aggression.
Are you trying to infer that we're all religious fanatics, who want war because we see it as some sort of harbinger of the end times? If you are, you're very wrong---not only about us, but about even most fundamentalist American Christians (who really don't have such beliefs).
After all---we aren't the ones waiting for the 12th Imam. If you're concerned about religious fanaticism, don't worry about the Christian variety.
Ymarsakar, thanks for telling me about the article---I'll look it up.
While our politicians seem deplorably weak and weasling, I hope you are right about ordinary Americans; certainly your views correspond with what I see of average Americans, day to day!
While I'm sometimes depressed, and tempted by defeatism, I certainly hope that you are right on these issues, and I am dead wrong.
At what point has anybody here blamed G-d, for anything? I thought we were blaming A. The Terrorists, and B. Western appeasement in the face of aggression.
Talkin, david perhaps thought up God and just free formed wrote it because I brought up my religious beliefs. He is infering that I am a religious fanatic, not you ; ) It's funny too, cause Neo just wrote a new post about the failure of Christianity in Euro land.
I have also have had my doubts about the American system. I was as scared as anyone, to face such an indomitable and formidable foe as Islamic suicide bombers. The media kept carping on about "how do we stop people who are willing to die for their beliefs". My answer after years of doubt and hesitation and lack of confidence? There is a truer belief system, and a more stronger and righteous one, right here in America, that is just as worthy if not more so, of people dieing for. Public Schools don't really teach that. And as I've seen given my renewed study of American and World History, that strength has always been there and continues to be there. I've just been too blind to see it, as I was growing up. A lot of Americans are, in fact. But then again, a lot of Americans aren't as well.
My strength is as the strength of 10, when my heart is pure. And when I know my strength is part of a greater strength, relying upon other Americans. To do their jobs, to honor their oaths, to pursue their duties and desires. All Americans felt this sense of community and nationalism after 9/11, but I only felt this after I had intellectualized it by understanding it. And that is why I, part of a minority, can keep and hold this emotion by sustaining it. The American military faces risks and dangers, and they do so willing and eagerly. Why? Because they know that even if they were to die, America the Nation would protect their blood family, their wives and their children, in their place. They know that they are not alone when fighting, that the entire nation is behind them, and that we would have to die in the hundreds of millions for terroists to harm their families with any degree of ease. Iraqis did not have this sense of unity and loyalty and duty. They have to do their jobs as police and as national guardsmen, with the knowledge that at any time the terroists can strike at their families, killing, mutilating, raping, dismembering, or kidnapping. A nation is built upon trust. And America would not be the most powerful nation in the history of the human race, were ordinary Americans distrustful of the honor and the loyalty of each other. We would not deserve such power, if we were as fragmented as Europe and France.
Who really understands Iraqis? The fake liberals in this thread, or the noble men and women of the United States of America?
The core strength of America is beyond anything I can make or unmake, although I perhaps hope I may contribute some small amount of support. It is the existence of people, that if anything, makes me "right". When I see self mobilized Minutemen, self mobilized guardians of military families at funerals for their loved ones lost in war, I cannot help but be confident. To be anything else, would be dishonoring the sacrifices of All Those That Died in the belief that We Would Stand against the enemies of their loved ones if they were to fall in battle and be unable to. And that, I literally, physically, Can Not do. There are some things greater than simple willpower. I do not believe I want to see the day when my will is powerful enough to overwhelm my personal integrity, for that day is the day I lose.
Talkin, the European Union is a dictator's dream come true. Perhaps one reason why not a lot of Brits like being inside the EU.
Yet they would love to see America inside the UN, a powerless child being abused for the entertainment of our enemies.
Your succinct description of the Un's modus operandi, is very accurate and amusing ; )
Sorry, but neither America, nor any other prosperous country, is responsible for the rest of the world's poverty.
Hrm, I was mistaken. I had thought you were a man. Could still be right of course, we do live in the enlightened age of maximum human potential ; ), but usually I don't tend to think of a woman as speaking as you do. Your writing style, not your positions. It's weird, your mind gives you this mental voice as you read, and it is either feminine and masculine, and you can't consciously choose unless you realize you're wrong. Weird sensation. Because if I read a person's writing and I assign a masculine voice, then it sounds totally different than if I reread it and assigned it a feminine voice. The voice tones are totally dissimilar.
If the Palestinians had actually used all the bazillions of dollars we, and Europe, sent them, they could have wonderful villages, hospitals, universities to rival any in the world.
ya if you download google earth and zoom in on the Wall separating israel and Palestine, you'll see like the West side is like green with farms and plots, while the east side is like terrain and tenements. Hrm. As if here civilization is, across the wall, is the barbarian lands.
I'm thinking talkin is an account used by both the wife and husband... 30% chance perhaps.
Okay, after doing some reseach, I'm confident that there is a 90% chance of certainty that Talkin is female and has always been female. That was just for my own personal consistency, of course.
Now that I have played the odds and gamed the system, I can now stop talking about the subject and making a fool of myself. Consider yourself warned.
Feeding frenzy on Ymar is opened up, start your attack runs! Audacity, Audacity, and more Audacity. Come on you sons of bees, attack, do you want to live forever?
Nice guys finish last, especially in the Middle East.
You trying to insult me by saying I'm not nice? I'm a very nice a person, I'd have you know.
Ymarsakar
Heh, thanks for explaining about David's G-d thing! (You don't seem like a religious fanatic to me).
I find your words about America, and her people, inspiring.
I'm a girl camel, and always have been. And my better half doesn't help me post; I do it all on my own.
I was, however, raised by a highly intelligent, literate father (Aside to Neo; Neo, he'd've loved your poetry posts), and an older brother, who was like a second father to me. From them I learned to talk politics, literature, art, movies, science, science fiction, history---essentially, guy stuff. They taught me to reason, question, and appreciate what's really excellent.
On those rare occasions when I find myself in an all female group, and they start chattering about sewing, patterns, knitting and handicrafts, I sweat, turn pale and start edging towards the door (no offense to my female friends, or any female posters here; it's just that I can only take "girly" conversation in small doses).
Glad you enjoyed my wisecracks about the UN. Unfortunately, they're all too close to the truth. . .
Bezuhov
:>)
Yes, it does appear that the reason our "allies" didn't want to come in with us against Saddam is that they were afraid of losing all that lovely oil revenue.
Ever since 9/11, a lot of rocks are being lifted, and the creepy-crawly stuff beneath is being revealed. . .
Ok then here we go
1 . Ymarsakar you are all those things, except a rapist cos I never said that. You need to have a big look at your head.
2. Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (isnt that quantum? Oh hum, well you need to learn some history.
Iran was a democracy until Britain and the US overthrew the government because they were going to nationalise the oil industry in the 1950’s. They put the shah in, who was a right bastard. Under the Shah the rich did what they wanted and the poor got pissed off. It was finally so appalling that a bigger bastard overthrew him and we have the mess we have now.
Palestine is very odd. It was a Britsh mandated territory until the UN! Created Israel in 1948. Jordan was meant to be for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews. It didn’t work and the Arabs immediately attacked the Jews who won and drove all of the Arabs out of Israel into the refugee camps that are still about, Both sides made great claims to be the majority and to have been there for ever. In fact they were both very diverse groups and it appears to be difficult to be certain about numbers before 1948.
Try this zionist site, http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_history.htm but you can guess that the Palestinians might differ
Germany has never used terrorist action after 1945. The western half did its best to be a western democratic state and forget that it had just build an industry to urder jewish (and other) people. The east concentrated on being a nasty little police state with a strange double standard about the death camps.
And as for the rest well, the opposite of international law is international chaos. The UN has its problems but can you see a better option? Apart from the everybody kill each other one….oh or America invade everywhere.
Some of the terrorist leaders are very rich but the bulk of fighters on the ground are very poor. Often from the camps created at the same time as Israel.
I thought the idea of the US Constitution was to aviod the concentration of power, so why has it been allowed to happen? It’s a pretty small group running the US
TalkinKamel, lots of great arguments that i am going to have to think about.
Right that is enough for now…back for more later
Thanks for the entertainment
1 . Ymarsakar you are all those things, except a rapist cos I never said that.
A lot of Islamic jihadists are rapists. To suggest that they'd take me, is somehow suggesting that this means I have high morality... hrm. As much as you fling out the personal attacks, you don't even think them through to the logical end. *shakes head*
I hope everyone realizes how much the damage the "Brits" did to the world. Iran, Palestine. They left the mess to be cleaned up by us, now they don't like how we clean it up. Hrm. Not very grateful, are they.
The UN has its problems but can you see a better option?
Ya, it's called American Imperium and American justice. As someone's "link" here said. America doesn't need to invade everyone to be an Empire, we conquer politicaly culturally with no military force at all. It may even have been your link, david.
Some of the terrorist leaders are very rich but the bulk of fighters on the ground are very poor.
Moussie's family and his suicide bombing compatriots were rich enough to be sent to the US. Maybe you need to get your head out of the sand on this topic, for once.
If you understood 1/5th of the US Constitution, you'd have understood that the point is to divide power so that it balances each other out, which allows concentrations of power never before seen in the history of the human race. Even your human race, david.
The Brits have entertainment personal attacks and character assassination. They deserve the real violence and personal assassination their Muslim slaves will bring onto them. I just worry about all those nuclear weapons in EUrope, we should perhaps disarm the UK and France of nukes now, before they get taken by Islamic Jihad in 10 years.
To be blunt, David, I think just about anything is better than the UN. I believe in countries drawing up their own constitutions, drafting their own laws and obeying the rules of their own countries. If there were to be any sort of international body at all, it should be one made up of ONLY democratic nations (as somebody else here suggested). Letting in everybody is just an invitation for a pack of tyrannical King UBU types to seize control of the entire body, and bully other nations into doing his will.
And I do think allowing each country to rule itself is preferrable to that---or to the organized thuggery of the UN.
(Also, there's still the problem of "Who watches the Watchmen?" When those in charge of international law become lawless themselves, who'se going to arrest them? They'll control the armies, the judges, the international courts. Our only hope would be that some kindly extraterrestrials would take pity on us, and come to our aid---either that, or an armed rebellion, in which we might well be outgunned and outnumbered).
However bad the Shah may have been, the Ayatollah was much worse---and much more dangerous to the world at large (the Iran/Iraq war killed more Moslems than the Israeli wars ever have) And as far as I'm aware, Iraqi oil is still in the hands of Iraq; it hasn't become the property of the US.
Before becoming part of the British empire, the Holy Land was part of the Ottoman empire---and not a very important, or influential part at that. In fact, according to contemporary travelers' accounts, it had been allowed to slide into poverty and disrepair.
The Moslem world, as a whole, sits on a great deal of wealth; trust me, if the Saudis really wanted to end the refugee camps, they could afford to bring the Palestinians into their own land, give them homes and educate them to do the jobs they're now importing Filipinos and Asians to perform. Dubai, Bahrain, the Arab Emirates are also rich---rich enough to aid their poorer Moslem brethren. Instead, they prefer to use them as a weapon against the hated West, and those uppity Jews whose very existence they see as an insuly. They're keeping their people poor, and encouraging them to hate Israel and the West, so they won't go around fomenting any revolutions against them.
I'd like to bring a fact to the readers attention. Namely, if the Brits makes fun of Muslim children and youths as much as david makes fun of me, then you can begin to understand why Muslims are so angry.
Because in the end, the Brits do not know who they provoke. They have not learned now as they did not learn it back in the American Revolution. They did not understand Honor and Duty, and however twisted the Muslims are, honor and duty are things they live and die and kill and mutilitate by. Insulting and making fun of Muslims is not an "entertainment" as david making fun of me is. Because unlike I, the Muslims will kill and eviscerate you.
If david and his Brit compatriots understood to what extent they were sealing their doom, they might not deserve their just rewards, but it seems they do not.
Can you imagine if the heap of abuse david puts upon me is multiplied 50X for Muslim children made fun of by equally childish British children of the ton and lower classes?
Horrendous social conflict. I tell you david, step away from the brink of oblivion, for America shall not pull you from it with the blood of our patriots should you fall over into it. Fair warning.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20169_Islamic_Hate_Speech_at_London_Madrassa#comments
You can make fun of people weaker than you are, and suffer little consequence because of your strength (French cheese eating surrender monkies). But you're not stronger than either me or the Islamic fanatics, david. So becareful what you do.
Germany has never used terrorist action after 1945. The western half did its best to be a western democratic state and forget that it had just build an industry to urder jewish (and other) people. The east concentrated on being a nasty little police state with a strange double standard about the death camps.
Well, I'm afraid you've got me at a bit of a loss. When I wrote that, I thought you were saying the US was like Europe, and the middle east like Germany, based on the fact that Germany ended up being dominated by the allies, and England was the (or rather, a part of the) overlord, as that seemed the way to best approximate reality using your metaphors (in an apples-to-oranges kind of way, as my comment satirically illustrates). Looking at your response, I'm no longer sure that was correct (nor am I sure that you meant the opposite, as I have even more trouble making that metaphor relevant to modern day). So, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to let you explain exactly which metaphor you were using (and, more importantly, how it is at all analogous to our present situation).
Palestine is very odd. It was a Britsh mandated territory until the UN! Created Israel in 1948. Jordan was meant to be for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews. It didn’t work and the Arabs immediately attacked the Jews who won and drove all of the Arabs out of Israel into the refugee camps that are still about, Both sides made great claims to be the majority and to have been there for ever. In fact they were both very diverse groups and it appears to be difficult to be certain about numbers before 1948.
It's amusing how you managed to cite that, and didn't manage to put together that that's exactly what I referred to in my responses to #1 (disregarding my point about Iran pursuing nuclear proliferation despite UN orders). What can following international law do to cause an opponent that has never followed international law to suddenly do so? Perhaps if it was something as simple as a (nonviolent, if emotional) rivalry between two countries, an olive branch and some free trust would be in order.
The point is that, in this case we have a number of nations officially refusing to acknowledge international law, and by doing so seek the completely annihilation of a country that has every right to exist by said international law. How exactly would us changing how we do business now change how they've been doing business long before Iraq, long before Afghanistan, even before the Iranian coup? If terrorism is supposed to be reactionary to western grievances, why then does the very culture that gave birth to the terrorism we see today (and continues to this day) precede those very grievances? What can your messianic brain offer us to stop something that I'd wager has been around a lot longer than that very brain (here I'm wagering on your age, not on how long this has been going on)?
Okay, I think that's enough rambling. You have yet to respond to my #4 and #8, in addition to the previously mentioned two, but you could combine those into replies to TalkinKamel.
As I take out, the metaphor david uses is that if America treated Islam like we did with Germany, we would have the peace of the EU right now. Setting aside the debatable point of whether the EU is peace or slavery, perhaps david is advocating the same treatment applied to Germany, to be applied to Islam. In a kind of artificial and ham handed way.
...yes, because Germany continued making terrorist attacks on other European countries for many years after WW2 ended... and if the problem countries have already been getting aid and trade from us and still want us dead, what then?
To David, Justin was saying that German did not make terroist attacks, which is why we should not treat Palestine and Iran like we treated Germany, however you think we treated Germany.
Although the end point is still curious. Germany was pacified by American occupation forces, that prevented Soviet forces from conquering Western Europe. Why was the occupation of Germany "legal", assuming david thinks it is, and the occupation of Iraq illegal? Hrm.
I thought the idea of the US Constitution was to avoid the concentration of power, so why has it been allowed to happen? It’s a pretty small group running the US.
I wonder what country David is talking about. The last time I looked the legislative, executive & the judicial branches still ran America – all elected or appointed(with advise & consent) by the elected – all in accordance with the constitution.
Iran was a democracy until Britain and the US overthrew the government because they were going to nationalise the oil industry in the 1950’s. They put the shah in, who was a right bastard.
Here’s a piece of history David has wrong. Iran was never a democracy. The closest Iran ever got to a democracy was as a constitutional monarchy throughout the last shah’s rule. Iran was a monarchy before & during WW2 & remained a monarchy until 1979, when the Shah was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. And that Shah, the last Shah, took over the throne from his father during WW2(not the 1950’s) after the Allies found out his father was a Nazi sympathizer.
As far as the US was concerned nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was fine & remains fine. The US didn’t care then & doesn’t care now just who or what entity controls & sells the oil. Oil from nationalized industries costs the same as oil from private industry.
Re-establish the primacy of International Law. i.e. no more illegal occupations, condemn lunatic governments but on a democratic and consensual basis. if you are going to invade the model of gulf war one is far more effective than that of the mark 2 version. Accept governments that are democratically elected. Venezuela and Palestine.
Actually, US foreign policy is to “accept” all governments, as long as they are friendly & don’t try to screw the US. If the Palestinians would quit killing Americans & American allies I’m sure the US would “accept” Palestine. I wonder if David is aware that until the recent election of terrorists to the government the US gave a considerable amount of money to Palestine. Palestine would still be getting that money if Palestine would only stop with the terrorism. Before I comment on “illegal occupations” I’ll wait until David defines legal occupation.
The problem with Venezuela is that Venezuela’s leader is unfriendly & also historically communist Central American leaders always seem to try to force communism into neighboring countries.
I not much of a believer in “international law.” I trust domestic law & believe the US should be a nation of domestic law. We can’t have foreign entities dictating the policies of the US, now can we?
International economic justice. Half the world live on $2 or less and often a lot less. This creates a large group of poor and marginalised who are easy to spark into violent rebellion. The reason why, as you say, that Americans can live a soft live ii sthat much of your work is being done for you by poor people all over the world. Allow these groups of people to become richer and they will be much less likely to feel a need to fight. It is no accident that troubles in Ireland started to ease when the economy started to bloom. Economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare. Especially the drawn out asymmetrical kind we have now.
I’m not sure what David means by “economic justice.” Or … maybe I do. I do agree with David that poverty is not good but unlike David I believe the US has no power to “allow” or disallow any group of people to become richer or poorer, short of giving them money to make them richer – such factors being due I think mainly to the competitive abilities of those groups, whether those groups are able to avoid internal & external strife, the education systems, social customs & a host of other causes that have little to do the permission of the US. Banalities such as “economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare” can’t be rebutted. It’s like stating that plant growth is rarely encouraged by drought.
Discourage the concentration of the mass media into the hands of a small group of wealthy people who have their own agenda. The internet is certainly helping here.
Fine. I don’t like the idea of “mass media” in the hands of a small group, either. But how to “discourage”? Stronger anti-trust laws? Nationalization of all media? David doesn’t give us a clue. In the American form of democracy the “media” is a business like every other kind of business & such parts of the “media” that are privately owned could only be owned by “wealthy people,” it being nonsensical to think media-type businesses would be owned by poor individuals. I suppose we could consider public corporations, which is what most “media” are, as a “concentration” of the middleclass, which is what most investors are. Agenda? I have an agenda & I’m sure David has an agenda. Probably the investors in the Disney Corporation have an agenda. In fact, I think most folks have some sort of agenda, the wealthy being no exception.
Discourage the concentration of power into the hands of small elites and encourage democracy and the rule of law.
Discourage how? Here again, David is bashful as to his method(s) of discouragement. I heartily agree that encouraging democracy & rule of law is always worthwhile.
limit the power of an arms industry that has such a clear incentive to support war because it makes such large profits.
David’s long on suggestions but short on methods. I disagree with David’s unfounded assumption that the US arms industry “supports war,” although I certainly believe the US arms industry does a fine job of producing weapons – for which we can all be grateful, even perhaps David himself.
Suggestions 6, 7 & 8 are mostly generalities: “engage with those who you disagree … at some point these things have to be put in the past … live in the real world.” Meaningful debate would require more specificity.
bit short on time as am back at work. But a couple of things...promise i will write a longer response at some point.
!. you are wrong about Iran
Try Wikipedia, or any half decent history book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
Liek it or not the US has a long history of interfering in the running of other countries. So gas Britain
The problem with Venezuela is that Venezuela’s leader is unfriendly & also historically communist Central American leaders always seem to try to force communism into neighboring countries
So you can choose our leaders but other people can only choose those friendly to you. Oh and he isn't a communist.
Have a think about the following list
US assassination plots to remove heads of state, some legitimate, some not, some brutal, others less so:
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - Jos順igueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Ra?stro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco CaamaDominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
Countries attacked by US since WW2:
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
ElSalvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-present
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998-2002
Yugoslavia 1999
Now maybe all this is justified but it really hasn't helped in establishing international law and order. And maybe this is theonly way to carry on as the UN or whoever will never be as powerful.
But I argue this is a recipe for chaos and misery.
I agree all my "encourage" statements are very vague. But for a start having an electoral system which only elects those who have millions of dollars might help. Th epoint is that you do enourage me my admitting that these kind of things , more law and democracy are needed.
But what better solutions do you offer? eternal warfare to defend american freedom and oil? And what happens when in this jungle other countries become more powerful and start trying to push america about? As i said the opposite of law is chaos.
America can encourage economic justice by altering the terms of trade. i suspect this will happen over time as the US economy, like Europe is based on a great deal of cheap imports the most important of which is oil. I would be surprised to see us maintaining such a clear economic superiority...we shall see.
And your faith in the arms industry is touching. Less guns and bombs would mean less death and destruction. Although i would imagine that in a gun enthusiastic place like America this is not a popular idea.
Obviously I know less than you about American politics partiularly at a grass roots level. But a cursory glance at the leadership shows a lot of very rich white men looking out for each other in running the place......It is the same here. This leads many people to feel the governement is distanced from them and that they have little input.
Meant to be brief. failed
will think more about things said
happy thursday
david
David
1. Eternal warfare? David, I'm not a fortune-teller, not a prophetess. I don't know what the future holds. If America survives this present crisis, she might see a thousand years of peace---or she might be immediately attacked by China. I don't support endless war, and I have no idea whether the next few decades are going to turn out peacefully or not.
What I do see is that America is at war now---and that it has been, ever since 9/11. We were attacked. Now. We either fight back, or we throw in the towel. I don't like it, but there you are.
Again, turning the tables on you---what do you see as the solution to the current conflict? Endless diplomacy, that achieves nothing? Endless appeals to the UN, which will achieve nothing? More and more vague "encouragement" for warlike societies in the hopes that they'll become less warlike? We know how that game always plays out; the local monarchial/mullah---King UBU will promise peace, democracy and the moon on a silver platter, and continue attacking his neighbors, supporting terrorists and being a pain in the ol' yin'-yang to all civilized societies in the world. The UN will condemn Israel. Then it will scold the US for not sending UBU more money, and for being so cruel as to publicize the current UN leader's involvement in the current UN scandal.
2. And, speaking of the UN, there's a catch 22 here; if an international body of law has no power, it can't enforce its dictates. The bad guys will simply laugh at it, and ignore it. If it's too powerful, it can all too easily become a bad guy itself (and there won't be anybody out there who can arrest it for its crimes---unless my hypothetical kindly aliens come, to save us earthlings).
Either way, I don't see that International law is going to be much help.
There's always the third alternative, of course (one the current UN uses); call upon a large, powerful country with a big army to go in and beat up the bad guys for it. In reality, this would work out in making America the world's "cop", carrying out the judgments of the UN---i.e., we'd still be meddling in other's countries ways, but we'd be meddling for the UN, not for ourselves; and we'd probably be involved in more fighting than ever.
This doesn't seem to me like a good solution.
(To be continued)
(Now it's continued!)
3. And, speaking of America's involvement in other countries----why yes, we do get involved in other country's affairs. So does England, as you pointed out. So does Red China. And I suspect we're all pikers in the meddling department, compared to the amount of meddling, fomenting, tinkering, subverting, undermining the Soviet Union did in its heyday. So what? All countries try to influence each other, and work for their own advantage. Yes, we prefer governments that are friendly to us. China prefers governments that are friendly to it. India prefers governments that are friendly to India---and so on. This isn't good. It isn't evil. It's a fact of life.
Yes, the US has interfered in other people's politics, for a variety of reasons---one of which, of course, was to defend itself against the meddling of others, such as the aforementioned Soviet Union. In a world as dangerous as ours, if your neighbor's going to get nukes, germ warfare, etc., you'd like that neighbor to be friendly, or, at least, not hostile.
And, any mistakes the US made, I regret. But regrets aren't going to help us in the current conflict.
I don't recall saying anything about the situation in Venezuela; I think that must have been a comment by Ymarsakar. The whole subject of the cold war, and America's attempts to fight it---while keeping it "cold---are too long to go into here, and would take up too much of Neo's bandwidth. I will say, however, that, given the cruelty and horror of communist regimes, the US was right in opposing them wherever they cropped up. Get hold of a copy of, "The Black Book of Communism."
And, as far as overturning democracies---we let the Ayatollah take over in Iran (which was NOT a good thing for the American people); we let Hamas take over, despite the fact we DON'T think this is good! We let the Afghans vote in Shari'a law, though we didn't think that was a good idea either.
(How am I wrong about Iran, by the way? Did the Ayatollah NOT get into a war with Iraq? Was that just something the press made up?)
4. No offense, David, but if you look at America and just see a bunch of rich white guys running thing, you really need to look harder. I could be snarky, and say that when we yanks look at England, we see a lot of rich, white, crooked, treasonous Marxists such as "Red" Ken Livingstone and Jack Straw running things---when they aren't prancing around in leotards on T.V. shows (thought you Brits didn't need TV!). We also see a lot of mad mullahs in the mosques over there, and calling for war against everybody, and encouraging more jihad attacks, which is, apparently, just peachy-keen-a-reeno with your government, since guys like "Red" Ken are always slobbering over them, in their defense.
But I won't say that! All I will say is that a lot of unrealistic, Bob-worshipping Yanks are disgusted over the way you Brits treated Condaleeza Rice (black, female, from a poor background) when she was over there.
David, I'm afraid we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on a lot of things. I think my view of world is a far more tragic one than yours; I don't think humanity, or human societies, are ever going to perect, or run smoothly. There will always be friction, competition, and, yes, sometimes violence between human groups. The best way to handle that, I believe, is to face it; to resolve differences justly, and not to put too much power into the hands of one person, or one government entity (not even an international one). Trying to create Utopia, or schemes to end war forever, or poverty forever, or some evil forever, isn't going to work, because human beings are their own worst enemies, and are never going to fit into some five-year plan somebody else comes up with for them.
I gather from your comments that you do have a strongly socialist, liberal/progressive mindset; and I know from hard experience I'm probably not going to change your mind---and you aren't going to change mind.
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
(Do read "Black Book of Communism" though; depressing, but fascinating!)
We can’t have foreign entities dictating the policies of the US, now can we?
The age old argument to that is that the US is too powerful and we have too many hands in too many other people's pies for us to govern ourselves by feat, and not the consent of other nations.
David’s long on suggestions but short on methods. I disagree with David’s unfounded assumption that the US arms industry “supports war,” although I certainly believe the US arms industry does a fine job of producing weapons – for which we can all be grateful, even perhaps David himself.
The Apache Helicopter and the F-16 are pretty popular exports.
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
It's too bad the CIA's latest attempt using psycho-kinesis to have Castro stumble on world wide tv and break his tv, didn't work to kill him then.
I think david here needs to be careful about saying that stopping Saddam's invasion of Kuwait did not help international order. Most people realize that having conquerors going around taking other people's lands and women, isn't Order, international or not.
Less guns and bombs would mean less death and destruction.
We don't make Chinese RPGs, Russian Kalashnikovs, French fighter jets, or German bunkers.
When the Soviet Empire dissolved and their arms build up was sold to the world at military surplus prices, where was David here in calling a stop to it?
You can't stop arms from being sold, unless you invade them and wreck their factories as punishment. Stopping arms from being sold just starts more wars. And the arms that are sold, will start even more wars. A chain reaction.
I don't presume to recommend what the international solution would be in the future, but I can tell you what it is right now.
The Status Quo is complex yet straight forward. After the Cold War, the Soviets disintegrated. Russia sold their arms to Africa and the MidE, fueling the international arms trade and wars on the cheap. America was suffering from the shock and the surprise and the victory disease of winning the Cold War, without a nuke fired. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, America acted as if the Soviets were backing Saddam, trying to gain a world wide coalition as if the threat of nuclear annihilation was still on the border. Many people got onto the band wagon, because they wanted to be part of the winning side, and feared Saddam more than they hated the US. The 500,000 troops, was a Cold War formation of tanks and mechanized infantry, of prolonged air strikes and air superiority. America got their first taste of asymmetrical defeat at the close of the 20th century, in Somalia. The Lebanon barracks bombing, the bombing of the Cole, all signified a new Age. That age began on September 11, 2001.
Now, the status quo isn't enough. America cannot act as if the Soviets are still around, trying to prevent nations from falling into their grasp, thereby maintaining the status quo of dictators and murderers in the MidE. And yet, the Soviet apparatus in the cold war did its work well, it fueled a belief that America was weak and that America was evil and to be hated. Islamic Jihad took up where the Soviets left off.
The only reason why any international law even exists, is because of the threat of the American military force. This was created in the Cold War days, the birthplace of the United Nations. Back then, the balance of powers was Soviet vs America. Now we have an imbalance, and people like Russia, France, China, Saudi, Syria, and Iran feel that there is an opportunity either to embarass the US or take power for themselves.
The Cold War was symmetrical, and therefore predictable. Nukes against nukes, army against army, nation against nation. But the conflict engendered on 9/11 is not symmetrical. It is not armies vs armies, it is civilians vs bombs, and suicide bombers vs children, and humvees vs ieds, and ieds vs mortars.
There were no models to predict this conflict's end or beginning, those who thought so like the Generals Zinni and Co, are deluding themselves and us along with them.
I will speak in religions terms that most Americans would understand. Whether you believe we are nearing the End Times or not. I believe that this is a test of America. It is a test to see whether we are worthy of being the world's lone superpower. If we are not, if we fail the test given unto us by God, of whatever denomination you believe in, then we shall forfeit our right to our power and thus lose it in reality soon.
If America loses, we'll still be okay. But the world will have a new top dog, and it won't be AMerica anymore. They will realize in time, too late for them, the difference between an American superpower and the hyperpowers of Russia and China and Iran. If they survive to see it.
grackle
You said it much better than I did---I salutes ya!
I do want to add just one thing: while there are too many poor people in the world, the fact is, it isn't poor Filipinos, South Americans or Haitians flying airplanes into buildings, becoming homicide bombers or attacking schools and taking children hostage.
Michael Yon has a good dispatch on the poor in the UAE
He makes some remarks about how terrorism isn't produced by poverty, that terrorism produces poverty itself.
I'm amazed at yet again the telempathic link between the women of the neo-neocons, neo-cons, or just plain cons in the blogosphere.
Neo has at times written the same subjects that Bookworm hath, or Dr Sanity has or Shrinkwrapped has. Either days apart or minutes.
Now we have Talkin refer to Condi in Brit, and low a behold Bookworm just wrote a post about it as well.
Link
The telepathic powers of women are undoubtedly very useful, I'm sure.
Compare this with Yon's and Totten's descriptions of Happy Sapppy and Grateful Kurds, showing Americans the kindness and respect we would expect if we were royalty, and thus being very uncomfortable with such special status.
Thanks for the links, Ymarsakar---I must get back to work now, but I will read them later (when I can catch my breath!)
My telepathic powers have given me great help in the past! I'm sure Neo, and the other female bloggers would agree! Telepathy is a girl's best friend!
One last comment, David; I do not love the arms industry (where did you get that from?) I don't love it, anymore than I love the porno industry, or the fast food industry.
The latter two industries, however, exist because people want them, and they provide something people want. If people didn't want them, they wouldn't exist.
And it really is a Marxist meme that it's war profiteers who create wars; man has fought wars ever since he learned how to pick up rocks and bash others over the head with him---which happened long before there were any weapons manufacturers. Yes, weapons makers make money, but it's hard to imagine them being successful in a completely pacifist society, just as it's hard to imagine porn being popular in an asexual one.
One last comment, David; I do not love the arms industry (where did you get that from?) I don't love it, anymore than I love the porno industry, or the fast food industry.
You like the porn industry as much as you like the fast food industry?
Everything's good in moderation right?
Of course, Talkin's logic is A to B, A to C. Not A to B, to C.
i promise to do a long response to all the above when i get chance but i am back at work....oh hum
Hi All,
I am as disappointed at seeing Davids views portrayed as English.
I am NOT British or European and my ancestors fought for both those privaleges.
Most English people realise that it is Stoic aggression that wins conflict - making a decision to act and standing by it. Back down at your peril.
What will halt world terroism?
More people like the security guard who undoubtedly gave his life protecting others.
It is noble that someone chose to honor this man with a littany like this.
There were two countries Hitler didn't want to fight. England & the USA.
Dragons both - Wake us at your peril.
Our local regiments history:
http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/sli/index.htm
I don't usually read this blog so forgive me if I don't reply.
Mr H
hmmmm I am not saying the British can't fight. I am saying that Iraq was not teh best venue. I spent soemm of my holidays last summer driving around Normandy. It was a moving experience to see all the graves of the young men who died to free us from Hitler which allows me to shoot my mouth off on here.
But that does not make all wars right. Nor does it mean that we should use it as a first strategy. I also went to the American Cemeteryin Normandy. It certainly makes you think.
Again, I would like to see Neo run something about the security guard, and others like him, who've given their lives to save others.
It's hard to run an article about someone that has been erased by Palestinian propaganda. I know, sad, but true. The AP won't run stories with sources from Israelis, so it's hard to get info about the guards. Complete, unbiased, historical info that is.
Hmmm, sounds kinda like the article about people being made into "unpersons".
To David:
Your points are well taken. Like you I've tried illuminating the "cause and effect" aspects of U.S. foreign policy, but these idiots just don't get it.
What's "funny" is Neo-neocon herself admits she was "radicalised", if you will, by the events of 9/11, but can't even begin to fathom that others on this planet might react the same to the murder of their own.
Idiots.
Well, to defend Neo, she wasn't radicalized. For that, you'd have to use me as an example.
but can't even begin to fathom that others on this planet might react the same to the murder of their own.
Can't speak for many here, but I do know Justin and I can quite adequately see the consequences of propaganda and guerrila insurgency actions on both the Iraqis and Palestinians.
What gets people's goat is how I can advocate extreme measures, in their opinion, when understanding the consequences. Because it is only through understanding the consequences, can you ever realize the full effect of such actions as I advocate and the reason that they are necessary. Those who don't understand the consequences, like anon, do not see the need at all except the need to call those who disagree with him, idiots.
too late I'm sure, but I missed this...
David-"It is no accident that troubles in Ireland started to ease when the economy started to bloom. Economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare.
You've got your cause and effect in a twist. Perhaps the economy in Ireland started to bloom because, among other reasons, the violence decreased... At least your last line is correct.
yeah i think you are probabl right there......related processes maybe?
i willhave a think
Post a Comment
<< Home