Moral Equivalence or the Jihadi Swarm
There is a difference between people who lob un-aimable rockets loaded with 50,000 ball bearings in the general direction of civilians irrespective of military objectives, and people who inadvertently kill civilians who happen to live next to where the rockets were launched. The Israelis were not commiting acts of terror, they were using military force to protect themselves. Hezbollah, on the other hand, was trying to kill civilians on both sides! The more civilian deaths, especially Lebonese deaths, the better for Hezbollah.
We have often heard that the US is using terror tactics in Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, Harry Belefonte has been applauded (by Hugo Chavez) for saying that President Bush is the greatest terrorist on Earth. Many leftist politicians have claims that the US and Israel have been engaged in acts of terror, or have called the Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters", or have suggested that one man’s terrorism is another man’s justice.
Nonsense. Flying planes loaded with innocent people into buildings loaded with other innocent people is neither justice, nor fighting for freedom. It’s just terror. It is war against civilians for the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. It is a war to provoke more war, not to end war.
In my humble opinion the Islamic Fascists are not trying to make a point, or retalliate for past injustice. They are not trying to get the west to change its foreign policies. They are trying to set the world aflame. They want to see an ever expanding conflict. They want total war. They want this because they believe that Allah wants them to build a new Islamic regime out of the ashes.
That’s why they teach the children in Saudi Arabia and Iran to hate Americans and the West. That’s why they have slogans on their buildings like "Motherhood is sweet, martyrdom is sweeter". That’s why they are trying, desperately, to gain nuclear weapons. They want to build a fanatic army of Jihadists who are willing to fight to the death. They want that army to swarm over Europe, over Asia, and to engulf the whole world
Or so it seems to me.
You have swallowed the Westen mainstream media’s Koolaid, falling for their traps hook line and sinker.
Bravo, smart man!
Read some history and non-main stream media. Maybe you’ll start understanding the position of the people of the Middle East and become less tolerant about Israel’a and the US’s position.
But then, you are the great one who knows everything! I bow to Thee!
Comment by human i tarian — August 22, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
How can someone so smart be also so ignorant? Amazing.
(editorial comments like this don’t actually add to the conversation; they are more a bid for applause than an attempt to reason or debate. The reason I post these blogs is so that I can learn. I crave reasoned disagreement. — UB)
Comment by Object Guy — September 12, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
So, you disagree with him, and yet your response it to tell him to read more, and use sarcasm and derision to try to prove your point?
Look, I disagreed with him about gas prices, but did so in a reasoned discussion. Your words make liberals look just as the “main stream” (two words?) media make you look. Knee Jerk reactions, based on emotion and not based on rational thought, is what cost your side the last two presidential elections.
I for example disagree with him that the “leftist politicians” call the Iraqi insurgents “freedom fighters”. One can be a liberal and still see a terrorist is a terrorist. However, I can ask him for a reference, and suggest that Hugo Chavez does not represent the “American Liberal”.
Try to promote a debate, and you might change minds. Toss comments like the ones above, and you will have Jeb Bush in office for two terms starting in 2008, and only yourselves to blame. (For what it is worth, Jeb will likely do a better job than his brother, but you will still have 8 more years of one party rule.)
Comment by Aaron — September 19, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Uncle Bob’s Object Oriented Principles for American foreign policy:
1) The “blame it on Others” Responsibility Principle
2) The Open For War / Closed For Peace Principle
3) The Cheney Substitution Principle
4) The Religious Segregation Principle
5) The Dependency on foreign oil Principle.
Comment by Winston Smith — September 21, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
1) The “blame it on Others” Responsibility Principle
- A universal principle that exists accross party lines, state lines, and country lines. Who was the last public figure that took all the blame on themselves before the media pressured them to do so (Bush on Katrina? Clinton on Monica? Reagan on Iran Contra? Nixon on Watergate? Warren G. Harding on Teapot Dome?)
2) The Open For War / Closed For Peace Principle
- We were not at war until someone attacked us. Would you have not gone to war when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Would you keep from fighting Germany because after all Japan attacked us and not Germany? Sometimes, war is the answer. People criticised Bush Sr for not finishing the job. Now people criticise Bush Jr. for doing what his dad did not. When people make the choice to approve or disapprove of a decision based solely on party lines, it weakens the country.
3) The Cheney Substitution Principle
- Drives me to anger as well. Cheney and the people around him have made sure to profit from the situation. He reminds me of Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Uses his connections to profit from war, depression, etc., and will not turn down a chance to ruin an enemy (see Plame).
4) The Religious Segregation Principle
- You mean the one where he says fascists should be held responsible for their actions? Catholic Fascists in Germany led to WWII. That does not mean segregate the catholics, just the fascists. Are you saying he is wrong that hildren are not being taught IN THEIR SCHOOLS to hate Isreal, America, and England?
5) The Dependency on foreign oil Principle.
- Again, a universal law that was true under every president since oil was discovered. The fact that Cheney and Bush are friends of the people making the biggest profits in this environment is a shame. However, that would have been true even with domestic oil. How about we aim for less dependency on oil, period. But to hold “Uncle Bob” accountable for a historical artifact that was true BEFORE HE WAS BORN, without suggesting what can be done about it, seems to be an attack just for the sake of attacking.
Comment by Aaron — September 25, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Aaron,
Do you still think Cheney had anything to do with the outing of Plame?
Comment by Administrator — September 27, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
What is there to debate with Bob? He believes everything that the mainstream media tells him, even when they are later proved wrong. For example, he is probably one of only two people on earth (the other being George Bush) who believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
You can debate only with people who can think, not with people who already “know” everything. Bob only deserves ridicule. He is so far gone beyond redemption (meaning the ability to think logically) that it is futile to try.
Comment by human i tarian — October 3, 2006 @ 5:48 am
As a matter of fact, we know that Saddam had some, because we’ve found a cache of several hundred chemical weapons.
The rest of Saddam’s chemical weapons? Who knows where they went. Does anybody honestly believe that he was a good boy and destroyed them?
Comment by Administrator — October 3, 2006 @ 6:07 am
Administrator asks:
“Do you still think Cheney had anything to do with the outing of Plame?”
Yes, I do. I am sure he was not attempting to commit treason, but he was looking for a way to get back at an enemy. His notes led to the path that occurred, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Similar to how Nixon likely knew nothing about the Watergate break-in, but spent alot of time working on his enemies list.
Humanitarian says:
“What is there to debate with Bob? He believes everything that the mainstream media tells him, even when they are later proved wrong. For example, he is probably one of only two people on earth (the other being George Bush) who believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”
Oh, how to debate against that kind of logic. If he believes everything the mainstream media tells him, then he does not believe there were WMDs. If he believes there were WMDs, then he does not believe everything the mainstream media tells him.
Did you believe that SH was capable, likely, and previously proven to use WMDs? At what point would you have approved use of force in Iraq?
I would love to remove the Castros and Saddams of the world, but it is not our place to do so. The people in that country have got to want it bad enough. The faked yellowcake docs helped convince folks to ignore our previous “no first strike” historical stance, and that is a shame. However, based on the info given to the Congress, I would have voted to attack, because we were already dealing with an enemy in Saddam (see the no fly zones) that was being more of a hassle than Cuba and Libya and all those other countries combined. Making mistakes is part of being human. Now we have to clean it up. Or would you suggest leaving Iraq now to it’s own civil war.
Comment by Aaron — October 4, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
I would suggest leaving Iraq now, at this very moment. And later US should pay reparations to a properly elected Iraqi government (not the current Iraqi govt. that merely kisses the butt of the US). Say, reparations of $100 billion a year for the next 50 years with the amounts being adjusted for inflation are next in order.
Plus, a trial of the US leaders, civilian and military by an independent tribunal that has no westerners or Israelis on the panel. Hopefully, before the trial of George Bush, the top Pentagon leadership, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and others, they should be “renditioned” to certain countries for intensive interrogation! Now, that would be poetic justice!
Comment by human i tarian — October 5, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
My point about Bob following the main stream media’s specious reasoning hook, line and sinker is that he takes what he likes and ignores the rest. More importantly, he refuses to think for himself, just being convinced in his belief and refusing to hear what others are saying.
Adminstrator, as for your comment that you would have voted for an aggressive war on Iraq based on the information available to you, consider the fact that in spite of the blather in the mainstream US media, the vast majority of peoples in the world (UK, Canada and Turkey included) felt that a war against Iraq was unwarranted. And they had the same information that you guys had!
Why, then, the difference in the opinions between the US poulace and the rest of the world? Two possible reasons, neither of which is flattering to the US public. First, there was so much misinformatio spread by the US government with the tacit complicity of the corporate owned media that the people bought into the lies. As the Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels said, “Repeat something often enough and people will start believing it.” The second reason is that the low quality of primary education (upto High School) in the US encourages people to believe everything that they see and hear on TV. Therefore, if somebody on TV says, Saddam Hussein is worse than Hitler, it must be true.
In fact, US population have become like sheep, unthinkingly willing to be led wherever the leaders tell then to go, refusing to question their eaders’s statements and assumptions that these statements are based on. Nothing else can explain why, given the same set of facts, most of the world reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the gullible US public.
No one exemplifies the gullibility of the US public more than Uncle Bob, somebody who feels he is a leader in the software field feels that he is right about Iraq because the government told him so.
Comment by human i tarian — October 5, 2006 @ 3:48 pm