Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:02:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > 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.
>
> That's just silly. I have no problem calling it terrorism.
Fair enough.
> Any tactic designed primarily to inspire fear (or "shock and awe?") is a
> terrorist tactic. I still stand behind the notion that terrorism sometimes
> makes good sense. My verbiage was intended to directly mirror your own with
> the sides changed. What you're saying is exactly like me saying that you
> can't even bring yourself to call it "agression."
Yeah, because I *do* make a distinction between the deadly force perpetrated by
both sides. The Israelis desire to root out and kill *terrorists*-- the fact
that these cowardly scumbags hide in and among the civilian population and use
them as human shields is not Israel's fault. Like the American invasion of
Iraq, the IDF takes great measures to avoid civilian casualties. Contrast that
with Palestinian terrorists who *target* and butcher civilian Israeli women and
children. I actually find that kind of moral equivalence offensive.
> > > 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.
>
> Aren't _we_ part of the international community? Are we just doing what's
> best for _us_ in Iraq right now, or are we trying to liberate the downtrodden?
Well, I actually think that it is a case of killing 2 birds with 1 stone. The
removal of Saddam makes the world a safer place for the United States. The
removal of Saddam makes the world a better place for Iraq. But I don't doubt
that if it weren't in our national interest, we wouldn't be doing it. I mean,
if we were *really* serious about ending world terrorism, why haven't we moved
in and cleaned up Hamas et al? *That* is the hypocrisy I find in Bush's war on
terrorism.
> If we're simply doing what's best for us and that's OK, then why would you
> possibly argue with Richard over his oil/reconstruction contract concerns?
> That would just be another example of people (the President and VP) doing
> what's best for _them_. If you think we are not simply doing what's best for
> _us_ then why would everyone else? Do you suppose we ride the only white
> horse?
Is it out of the question that maybe we do? To RM and the Left, it is a
categorical "yes". It is assumed that of course Bush is up to something-- *all*
politicians are . Why is that necessarily so? Why try so hard to find the
smoking guy *before* the gun is even fired? My theory is that the Left hate
the fact that Bush won, that Bush is a Christian, and that they see American
values are swinging to the right. The Left is all for tolerance as long as you
tolerate what *they* tolerate-- anything else is met with the kind of vile
intolerance I see for the *person* of George Bush. It's as evident as them not
even being able to give him any form of respect. RM and other Lefties can't
even resist the disrespecting Bush's name. I can sense the hatred from every
"shrub". It's bigotry plain and simple.
> > 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.
>
> Wait a second there. Undisputed? You're just asserting that. What if I
> dispute it? Or did you mean undisputed by the people who agree with you?
No please, dispute it if you wish. When or where has appeasing terrorists ever
worked out?
> It
> is really quite clear to me (though this is certainly disputed) that the
> Palestinians are resorting to small scale terrorist aggression because it is
> the only tactic that they have available.
What about peace!!!??? They have *never* tried that, because there are
extremist groups among Palestinians for which peace with Israel is not an
option-- only the destruction of the State of Israel.
> If they were given their due, I expect that most of the hostilities would cease.
You expect wrong. All the Palestinians need to do is follow the example of
Anwar Sadat. And even then we see his fate.
> This become less and less
> true over time as the violence becomes more and more entrenched as a way of
> life.
You are absolutely correct! The population of Israel is growing more and more
militant in its sentiment with the Palestinians-- look who they are choosing to
lead them-- hardliners who won't put up with terrorism. The Palestinian
terrorists are crushing the sympathetic Israeli Left!
> > 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?
>
> I think that the US was less directly responsible for the WTC attack than
> Israel is for the Palestinian unrest. It's not like those groups want the
> Israelis dead for unreasoned hatred's sake.
Say again???? That's EXACTLY why they want Israelis dead!!!
> It's because the Israelis have been nasty to them.
Chris, this is a critical error in your thinking, and the sooner you realize
this the better: For Palestinian terrorists, it is Israel's mere *existence*
that drives them to violence. They won't stop until Israel is no longer. I am
not saying the all Palestinians feel this way, but it is the mindset of the
terrorists. They will take every concession and *continue* their Jihad. Jihad
isn't negotiated away.
> And anyway, what do you figure they would do if we made
> our donations to them contingent on pursuing the peace process?
To possibly use nukes as a last resort to defend themselves? *That* wouldn't
be good...
> > > > 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.
>
> 1) Sure, it's sick.
> 2) Why would that scare me?
> 3) Why has he done it?
> 4) How much has he done it and was it preemptive, or just providing welfare?
Look, the scary part is that he sympathizes with people who are willing to go
to extremes to reach their goals. Wounding America wounds Israel, so why
wouldn't he assist terrorists?
>
> > > 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".
>
> It seems from your writing that this may be so. It _seems_ like you think
> terrorism is anything you can point a finger at that "bad" people do that
> seems naughty. I think that terrorism describes those activities which are
> designed to induce fear.
>
> Oddly, the dictionaries I can find agree, but mostly also point to the purpose
> of the incitement of fear as being to coerce governments or societies.
>
> So my impressions above, aside...what do you think that terrorism is?
I would define terrorism as the immoral use of violence against civilians for
ideological or political motives.
> > > > 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.
>
> I don't think that would wipe out our history. It would be a set back, or
> maybe an opportunity, but it wouldn't strike at who we are. We can make
> anywhere the capital. Our federal government could be distributed across the
> nation and the internet. Our entire legislature could be permanently aloft.
> Our freedom and way of life are not tied up in DC. Our "states" are supposed
> to be able to function completely without the federal government. Times would
> be chaotic, but it wouldn't end us.
Depends what you mean by "us". The obliteration of Washington D.C. and all of
our leaders would instantly create 50 "countries" of some sort.
>
> > > 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.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that if the world hadn't been against our action,
> they would have been for it. Well...yeah.
I was considering the morality of the invasion. The relative morality hinged
on self-interest.
> > 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!
>
> Sure! Of course their objections are commercial in nature. But given that
> this is so tranparent, why is it so opaque that we might be acting on the same
> basis?
We could be, but why is our moral motivation rejected out of hand?
> > 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.
>
> And if these oil and infrastructure companies -- the ones that all _happen_ to
> get the contracts, are the ones that the Bushes and Cheneys _happen_ to be
> heavily invested in...that still won't be evidence of shady dealing, or will
> it?
Not necessarily.
> I fear when talking to people who sound like you do, that I'm talking to
> someone who belives that our president is without fault. Do you think it is
> possible that Bush and company might abuse their positions of power to
> increase their personal fortunes (like every other president has done...I'm
> not singling him out)?
Ahh, I think you have reached the *real* issue. I do believe Bush is a sincere
and honest man. I believe his intentions *are* pure. Now, is that because I
am a partisan? Has Bush given any indication that he is not to be trusted?
What do people say about the man who actually know him, who knew him *before*
he became president? What is his character as the man he is today? Is it so
incontheivable that a president might actually respect his position of power
and wield it as honestly as he is able?
Further, could all of the hatred and contempt for Bush be mere partisanship?
Is he being vilified *as a person* by the Left because he doesn't believe as
they do? Would a Democrat of equal character leading the US into war meet with
such opposition as we have witnessed for Bush? What has Bush actually *done*
to deserve such animosity? Seriously, could an "idiot" or a "moron" *really*
be able to ascend to the most powerful position the world has ever known? I
believe it's religious intolerance and political bigotry, plain and simple.
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
|
|
|
|
