Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:08:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
708 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
<snip>
> And most if not all of the Palestinian aggression is in retaliation for
> Israeli terrorism.
Palestinian "aggression"? You can't even bring yourself to call it
"terrorism". I don't really want to go here, though, because I fear it is an
issue of differing perspectives.
> I'm not even saying that you're wrong. I think you're right. But that
> doesn't change the rightness of what I said. They are in a cycle of violence
> together.
Agreed.
> Now let me ask you something. Who do you think should step up and eschew
> violence (assuming that one side must do so in the face of their enemy)...the
> rag-tag band of homeless countryless ignorant hate-mongers, or the well
> organized, well educated, nationally and culturally secure band of hate-mongers?
>
> I think the burden of extraordinary works of peace falls on the Israelis.
> Once they are toeing the line, the international community _must_ take their
> side. That would greatly ease the peace process.
Well, I bet you can guess how much I value the support of the "international
community". The IC will always do what's best *for themselves*, not Israel.
I don't think it can begin with the Israelis and here is why: if the Israelis
refuse to answer terrorist attacks, it merely emboldens the terrorists. This
is an undisputed fact. You simply cannot appease terrorists, because they will
always push for more and threaten more violence if their demands aren't met.
And could we really expect Israel to absorb terrorist attack after terrorist
attack without responding? Would America have stood for no response to 9-11?
The problem is that most Palestinians aren't terrorists, but every group who
claims to represent Palestinian interests *is* (Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad,
PLO, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade). If the Palestinians ever hope to have a state,
they are going to have to eschew these groups and their philosophies. Israel
*wants* a demilitarized, Democratic free state of Palestine as her neighbor;
the aforementioned terrorist groups simply want Israel wiped from the map.
That's a problem.
>
> > Civil liberties have always been curtailed in times of war.
>
> And we look back and nod our collective head in disgust. We all realize that
> Japanese Americans shouldn't have been concentrated. We all realize that the
> draft is immoral. We look back at that nasty things we've done in the past >and
> as soon as our head is facing back into the future, we start down that same
> path. I still don't get it.
This is another debate, but I will say this: yes, I am all for vigilance for
protecting the civil liberties of all *Americans*. Where I believe we need to
make serious changes is WRT protecting our borders and doing a better job of
monitoring foreigners in our land.
> > > > Seriously, does anyone doubt for a second that, had OBL access to a nuke, he
> > > > would denotate it in Washington D.C.? I don't. And that is not a happy
> > > > thought.
> > >
> > > I don't doubt it for a second.
> >
> > And that doesn't scare you?
>
> In the abstract, sure. I'm well within the danger zone of big attacks on
> either NYC of Philly. It could be bad, but I'm not kept up nights about it.
>
> > And the fact that a supporter of terrorism had
> > chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nukes doesn't scare you?
>
> How has he supported terrorism that I should be worried about?
You realize of course that he has been paying the families of homicide bombers
attacking Israel don't you? That is sick. "Hey buddy, you want to make
$25,000? All ya gotta do is brainwash your kid into strapping on a backpack
filled with rat poison-soaked nails and explosives and go find a crowd of
Israeli school children and push the button!"
> Don't just use
> that at a catch phrase because as far as I'm concerned the US uses terrorism
> too and I'm not convinced that it's wholly inappropriate. You do what you can.
I think we have different definitions of the word "terrorism".
> > How
> > closely are you willing to flirt with disaster? What would you give to be
> > able to take back a terrorist nuclear attack?
>
> Not our precious freedom. If we have to give that up to be safe, then we've
> already lost. This nation, absent all that makes it great, is nothing worth
> saving. It's not the land or the people that make this a pretty good place.
> It is our history and our institutions and our way of life.
But don't you see? It is conceivably *very* easy for ONE madman to wipe out
our history. In a totally open and free US society, all it would take would be
one sick individual to detonate a nuke in D.C. Try to imagine the
ramifications if D.C. were incinerated. Think of the chaos. It's practically
unimaginable. And there are probably 1,000,000s out there who would do it in a
heartbeat. That would be an interesting poll question in the Arab world: "If
you had the opportunity, would you sacrifice your life to incinerate the
capital of the US? Yikes.
>
> > > Like I said. We have the option to make this a good thing. I just fear
> > > that we shant.
> >
> > And I am confident we will. What is interesting to me is that one's
> > perception on this issue tends to break along party lines.
>
> I'm curious about the "party" with which you think I am affiliated. I've
> never voted for a Demopublican presidential candidate though I tend to favor
> republicans over democrats in my local elections (but I also seem to favor
> women over men, for whatever reason). It seems to me that those of you who
> identify with one of the parties closely, think that the rest of us must too,
> and if we're not with you we're against you.
Well, I'd venture from having "known" you here that you are a social Liberal
and politically probably a Libertarian.
>
> I'm just worried that our motives are not pure. Is that so odd?
Not that this is an excuse, but whose are? Consider this. If it weren't for
France and Germany (and to some extent Russia), the world would probably have
lined up behind the US on the Iraq invasion. And so it would have been deemed
"just" in the eyes of the UN. But since it *did* meet opposition, it is
considered "unjust", but isn't it plainly obvious that the reason France and
Germany objected was, not on moral grounds, but because of self-interest! Yes,
RM, it *is* about oil, but about *European* oil interests!
But I, like you, am willing to wait and see what happens to the oil. I believe
Bush when he says that the fields belong to the people of Iraq. Now if an
American company were to come in at the invitation of the Iraqis and, say, help
them get the oil to market or something (I don't know), would that prove that
it was indeed about oil for the US? Or if an American construction company
came in on a bid to help rebuild? I don't think so. But a conspiracy theorist
might. There are still a lot of people out there who are convinced that
Wellstone was murdered. Heck, 8% of the population think that Elvis could
still be alive....
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
