posted
We have a common enemy and that enemy is radical Islam. Here is an article on the murders of children commited by Chechens in that school this week.
Now I'm sure someone here is going to call them "freedom fighters" or some other nonsence... They will come up with a defense for the terrorists (or 'seperatists'/'militants' as this article calls them). All I ask is while you write your defense of the murderers, that you have these pictures in a window so you can see what they did.
Btw, as the article mentions, this comes on the heals of a suicide bomb in Moscow and 2 plane crashes. All caused by Chechen Terrorists.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Problem is that the Russians are hypocrites. They view Chechnya as an internal matter and condemn and Israeli actions against Palestinian terrorism. Russia also unites with France and Germany against America taking agressive action against Al-Queda.
Even with weak links all three nations face different groups.
Whether or not you agree with the War in Iraq that doesn't change that it was a war designed to combat terror even if you believe the logic is flawed, e.g the real terrorists are/were in Afgahnistan. As long as Russia condemns this and Israel is prevented from joining in, the Saudis wouldn't allow it and the Iraqi revolt would be immeasurable, there can't and won't be any true alliances between the three. This is very unfortunate as the three nations possess three of the most proficient intelligence agencies in the world, even with the KGB demolished.
Right now terrorists are uniting to bring down all three, all three are refusing to unite and bring down the terrorists.
Imagine if during World War II every nation combatted Germany individually, with no coordination and an excess of friendly fire and that's what you get here, although the friendly fire is of the diplomatic nature. One of the reasons the Axis failed in World War II is that Japan never attacked their ally's enemy, Russia. If the Russians had been attacked on two fronts the Germans may very well have seen Moscow from the inside and before winter.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be my attitude except that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has left me desensitized to snipers taking potshots at babies. So now all I do is sigh, and complain about it to anyone will or won't listen.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I'm sure someone here is going to call them "freedom fighters" or some other nonsence
Unlikely, methinks. Though I've been surprised on this board before. (Did you expect one of us Lib'rals to defend this action? )
quote:Russia also unites with France and Germany against America taking agressive action against Al-Queda.
Really? I was under the impression that they were more or less OK with that. It was our intervention in Iraq that got them all upset. Sorry to nitpick. Incidentally, nfl, I like your analogy with the diplomatic friendly fire -- very accurate, I think.
In any case, I'm curious to what extent this is a war against Islamic fundamentalism and to what extent it's a war against the tactics of terrorism.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, I was referring to Iraq. I understand that people are going to claim that Al-Queda wasn't really there and while I disagree I'm not going to argue the point because its irrelevant to the argument. If there are three nations with a common interest in fighting a common enemy and one nation determines that there is a threat and another nation attempts to block that former nation from attacking that threat there cannot be a true alliance. The equivalent to WWII would be if Russia actively tried to prevent the Allies from launching Operation Torch (North Africa). In reality Russia did not want that invasion, they wanted an invasion of mainland Europe to distract the Nazis, but even though it happened anyways Russia did not attempt to block it and maintained the alliance. Today, Russia has attempted to block that invasion and any semblance to an alliance immediately after 9/11 has disappeared for the most part. Its possible that the flurry of recent attacks will change Russia's mind, but it seems more likely that Russian and American troops will not be fighting together in the near future. Also keep in mind that Russia doesn't even want assistance in Chechnya as they view it as internal matter, take extremely harsh measures, and fear foreign influence. On the other hand, the fact that they believe Al-Queda was involved may make them reconsider seeing as how Al-Queda is an international organization. I think its more likely that they are trying to appeal to America to approve of its upcoming actions than to move their combat of terrorism to an international level.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL: remember. you are saying our enemy is Radical Islam. It is not All Islam, or All Arabic countries.
While your argument is sound, only a united front was able to defeat Nazi Germany, your analogy is not.
You said that Russia's disagreement about Iraq is like having Russia actively try to stop us from invading North Africa.
I say its more like the US trying to stop Russia from invading Finland. That invasion did not do much to help the war effort, killed a lot of non-nazi's and was a drain on the Soviet Union's ability to fight the "real War."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, because while you may disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq, the motives were firmly based. Similarly, the African invasion could have gone disastrously wrong and it really served no purpose except as a "warmup" to the invasions of Italy and France. What if the French put up more resistance in Algeria? What if Rommel hadn't been pushed back at El-Alamein? We would have wasted thousands of men to do what? It freed up no allies and only gave Hitler an excuse to pull his generals and armies back to the continent where they could be of some use against the Allies. Fortunately, Hitler in one his many blunders didn't allow his army to fully retreat and we captured a large portion of it instead. Finland on the other was based only on Stalin's imperial ambitions. That was also before Hitler and Stalin were at war and long before America was involved.
I chose Torch because it was the main invasion that Russia really had a beef with, they wanted an invasion of France or some sort of flanking maneuver in the East immediately. They felt, correctly, that the African landing would do little to hinder Hitler's Eastern offensive.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I don't remember saying that our enemy wasn't radical Islam.
A mistake people make however, is that they seem to assume that since terrorism is an "idea" there are no hard targets and that all we can do is "win the hearts and minds." In reality there are hard targets out there and they are being ignored. In probably most Arab nations there are terrorist training bases that operate with or without the consent of the government of that nation, or in Somalia they just operate because there is no government. Furthermore, Israel has shown how its possible to actually cause significant damage to terrorist groups, by cutting off their heads. Some argue that when you do that you just create a hundred new heads. I would tend to argue that that's a good thing. Multiple heads makes coordination difficult. These heads are also inherently inferior to the ones they replaced. We also can/could have used Iraq as a tool. By this I mean that we wave our big stick at the nations that harbor terrorists and use Iraq as a warning of what's to come. This already worked without our even trying to in Libya, and could quite possibly work again. At the least we could wave that stick 'till November without actually having to engage any nations in combat. Instead we've reverted back to our isolationist stance and another war would be so extremely unpopular that any other nation knows we wouldn't dare act on anything short of them openly declaring war on us. None of this is to say that we should ignore the "hearts and minds," just that we should think about attacking more than the idea.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Libya is a state. For all we know, they are still welcoming terrorists, they just don't have the state flag on their uniforms. Who do you want to bomb, Pix? Radical Islamists look like non-radical ones, and they breed like Gremlins and all we have are water pistols. Who do want to invade, 'cause, you know, there are a whole lot of Muslims out there and this group wasn't even with al Queada, they may have been an al qaeda 527, but this is was a home grown rebellion. Linking them to our problems in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and is like trying to link David Kuresh with the KKK and Timothy McVeigh. We could have gotten of them them if we'd nuked the Mid-west.
It's a nuclear age, the race is over and if we get into a war everywhere there are muslims who don't like the US, there will be a bomb. Pix and nfl, you are trying to fight a war with the wrong weapons and our political institutions are outdated, and you are looking for the answers in the barrel of a gun where decisions can't be made today with causes this diasporatic. How do you kill a cause? Sure, you go after the principals, but everyone else you have to send them to school, not to jail. And it's the everyone else that makes the war tactically tricky.
The war between the west and radical Islam is going to be won with either a nuke or by men and women poorer, simpler, tenderer and tougher, quieter and more self-sacrificing and slower of decision than you or nfl. If it's the nuke, we lose. I don't think this war can be won by hawks or the over patriotic anything, it'll take too much soul searching and diplomatic ingenuity.
posted
Yes, send Osama bin Laden and Ahmed Yassin to school, that'll teach 'em.
I don't like fighting wars, but I see their necessity and much prefer to fight them on my terms. We've already got a slow start against Islamic terrorism and I for one do not want them to be able rally their forces behind some invisible wall only to have the gate unleashed and death and destruction to come pouring out.
I don't want to kill every Muslim with an Osama bin Laden bumper sticker because it would be impractical and unnecessary. But as soon as that person picks up a gun and aims it me I'm going to shoot him first. By this I mean we strike visible, isolated targets, of which there are plenty, at will and selectively take out identified leaders. This will result in reverse terrorism as the members of terrorist groups will fear more for than own lives than for their cause. I don't want to duplicate the Israeli practice of bulldozing houses, more because it turns the otherwise innocent against us than it is wrong. I don't want to bring terror to the average Muslim, just to the average terrorist.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike, some on this board defended the 9/11 terrorists saying that it was all America's fault.
Saying that we are completely responsible for terrorist acts directed against us is, of course, ridiculous. However, America, France, Great Britain, and Russia are all at least partially responsible.
There is nothing wrong with Islamic doctrines per se. The problem is allowing religion, any religion, dictate government policy.
Before European governments were completely secularized, Christians were perfectly able to commit terrible atrocities (inquisitions, crusades, witch hunts, etc). Today, some of the fervent Christian fundamentalists still scare me a little, but fortunately, in a secular democracy, their extremism can be contained.
Too many Muslim countries give their religious figures political power. Part of this is our fault. What does Palestine, Iraq, and Chechnya have in common: They were products of imperial colonization. England, France, United States, and Russia had invaded, colonized, and meddled in these countries for so long that these countries had no stable secularized governments.
When secular political institutions are unstable, the religious leaders step up to fill the power vacuum. These religious leaders are demagogues, and nothing rile up followers like hatred and xenophobia.
I'm not condoning terrorist acts. But let us not forget that we also played a part in setting up environments where religious fundamentalism flourish.
Let us also not forget that Muslims are also victims of terrorism. When the Russians and the Israelis conduct their "countermeasures," a lot of innocent Muslims are killed; when the United Nations set up embargoes on Iraq oil, one million Iraqis, mostly children, died as a result.
quote:What's most striking about this article is the GRAPHIC!!! pictures of dead children
OK, I'll bite. check this out. (Note: graphic pictures provided by Al Jazeera).
quote:We have a common enemy and that enemy is radical Islam.
Maybe, just maybe, there is another reason behind these terrorist attacks.
quote:
Human rights violations continue to go unpunished in Chechnya, rights group Amnesty International says in a report.
The group says Russian security services in the republic are responsible for extrajudicial killings, "disappearances", torture and rape.
***
Despite orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin that raids by soldiers on civilian homes be reduced, the practice is still widespread, the report says.
Such raids often result in Chechens being taken away. Many do not return; they simply "disappear", the report says. Those that do make it home often speak of torture, rape and death threats.
***
Amnesty concludes that the international community - notably the United Nations Commission on Human Rights - has been decidedly muted about the crisis in Chechnya, especially after the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001. Source: BBC News
I'm not saying you are justified in killing children just because your enemies raped your daughter, tortured your son, and violated your political rights. However, I can understand where they are coming from.
edited: to add final paragraph
[ September 04, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at the post just above yours, Tom. He puts the blame for the existance of terrror on America/Western Civilization.
He even provided his own link to Al Jazeera with pictures of the "Anglo-American Agression." (This is Al Jazeera of "There are no tanks in Bagdad" fame.)
And this is a minor example. There was much more of it in the past, shortly after 9-11. Unfortunately this board doesn't go back more than a year so I can't hit people with their own words.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er, Pixie, you do admit that the west has spent the last few hundred years mucking about the Muslim world, often with grusome and violent results, right?
It's not as if terrorists are just playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey, blindly attacking random countries and people.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right Foust, they attack everyone. Even eachother.
France, Spain, US, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, Israel, Germany, Somolia... on and on and on.
And we haven't mucked about there (except to throw vast sums of money at them) in generations. At some point they have to take responsibility themselves and stop blaming the 2nd world war.
(edit: We interviened at the request of Kuwait in the first gulf war. But terror was already going strong by that time. Ask Leon Klinghoffer.)
posted
I'm going to have to side with Pix on that one. And will continue to do so as long as the Radical Islamic groups keep intentionally targeting the defenseless, especially when they knowingly and actively target children.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at the post just above yours, Tom. He puts the blame for the existance of terrror on America/Western Civilization.
I said partially responsible. Partially.
quote:You're right Foust, they attack everyone. Even eachother.
Reread what Foust wrote: It's not as if terrorists are just playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey, blindly attacking random countries and people.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith, I'm not saying Radical Islamic groups should not be blamed. However, I just think when we condemn these groups we should remember that countries like France, United States, Russia, and Great Britain played a part in creating these groups as well.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem, Pix, is that you don't seem to understand that it's perfectly possible to share the blame for the birth of terrorism with somebody without being directly responsible for that terrorism.
Modern Islamic terrorists would almost certainly not have appeared without Western colonialism. That said, Western colonialists didn't blow up the World Trade Center, and neither did those killed by that explosion "deserve it" for belonging to a colonialist power.
No one has said anything of the kind, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone on this board seeking to excuse mass murder -- except, perhaps, when explaining why it would be necessary to subjugate the Arab world in order to save it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope they are blending mayhem, grudge matches, vendettas and internal power struggles. Everyone is a potential target.
Whatever the purposes the individual groups are aiming for, the overall effect is that of a rabid pitbull in a shopping mall. Everyone and anyone could be at imminent danger. And those who are bitten have a good chance of catching their own form of the disease.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What does Palestine, Iraq, and Chechnya have in common: They were products of imperial colonization. England, France, United States, and Russia had invaded, colonized, and meddled in these countries for so long that these countries had no stable secularized governments.
This quote makes me wonder if you have any clue what you are talking about. First, America's problem with terrorism isn't because me meddled with the Muslim world but that we support Israel and have aided other Muslims. Remember, bin Laden formed his group because we "occupied" Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War. Unless you somehow think we incurred his wrath when we aided him against the Soviets. Palestine was a victim of colonial imperialism, but not by Israel and they were by their Arab neighbors, particularly Jordan. Chechnya was not a product of imperial colonization at all. They are a part of Russia, a part that like many former Soviet states has a predominantly Muslim population. Finally, only Iraq is actually a country. Palestine is an area arbitrarily drawn in the sand, and Chenchnya is a province.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Chechnya was not a product of imperial colonization at all. They are a part of Russia, a part that like many former Soviet states has a predominantly Muslim population.
By that logic, if Iraq had successfully invaded Kuwait, then Kuwait would be considered "part of" Iraq.
quote: 1858 - After decades of violent resistance, Chechnya is conquered by Russia following the defeat of Imam Shamil and his fighters, who had aimed to establish an Islamic state.
1944 - Soviet dictator Stalin deports the entire Chechen and Ingush populations to Siberia and Central Asia, citing alleged collaboration with Nazi Germany. Many thousands die in the process.
1991 - Collapse of the Soviet Union. Communist leader Doku Zavgayev overthrown; Dzhokhar Dudayev wins a presidential poll and proclaims Chechnya independent of Russia.
1992 - Chechnya adopts a constitution defining it as an independent, secular state governed by a president and parliament.
1994 December - Russian troops enter Chechnya to quash the independence movement. Up to 100,000 people - many of them civilians - are estimated to have been killed in the 20-month war that followed.
quote:Palestine was a victim of colonial imperialism, but not by Israel and they were by their Arab neighbors, particularly Jordan
I did not mention Israel, you did. I believe the British have a special responsibility for Israel.
quote: The Israeli/Palestine conflict was the creation of the West and specifically was the creatiion of Britain.
Just as Britain must bear responsibility for the conflict between India and Pakistan because of the rapid withdrawl from India and the mess of Partition in 1947, so, by leaving the Israeli/Palestine conflict unresolved, having first created it by the rapid withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, Britain has a direct responsibility.
When Britain took over the mandate for Palestine at the end of the Second World War, Palestine was 93 percent Palestinian, 7 percent Jewish. Britain promised the United Nations to act as a guardian, as a a ward for Palestine, for the Palestinians, and ended up with 75 percent of the Palestinians expelled at the end of the British mandate. Now that leaves us with the most phenomenal moral obligation to finding a just solution to the Palestinian problem.
Palestine and Iraq were both under British control. After the first World War, the Middle East was carved up between France and Great Britain, with the blessings of the United States:
quote: Under strong pressure from the United States, a sort of compromise was evolved whereby Britain and France were given mandates for the administration of these provinces, under international supervision, by the League of Nations. The Arabs claimed this was a veiled colonialism, because there was only an indefinite promise of independence.
Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny.
Indiscriminate air power was used to quell the revolt of the region's tribesmen, methods the British admitted did not win them friends and, as one of them said, implanted undying hatred of the British among the people of the area, and a desire for revenge.
quote: First, America's problem with terrorism isn't because me meddled with the Muslim world but that we support Israel and have aided other Muslims.
Yes, our support of Israel is part of the problem. But so is our "aid" of certain dictators in exchange for regional stability, which is a code word for stable oil prices.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, America's problem with terrorism isn't because me meddled with the Muslim world but that we support Israel and have aided other Muslims.
We did do our share of meddling with the Shah, Sagat, the Saudis, and Saddam. We were more like the charasmatic drug pusher, making the dope available and smiling, than the guy who ties you down and injects you with heroine.
At any rate, it's partly a result than our international economy surpassing our political sensibilities. Political meaning that which deals with the relations of the people in a polis. The market driven by goods grew faster than our knowledge and care of people. And this is the adjustment period, kind of like an earthquake.
posted
Saying that the west isn't doing a very good job of helping the situation is not the same as saying its all the west's fault, contrary to what misguided idiots such as yourself think, pixiest.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you REALLY think the mid east situation would be any better if the west hadn't interfered with the balkinization of the ottaman empire into warring tribal states?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They view Chechnya as an internal matter and condemn and Israeli actions against Palestinian terrorism
Chechnya has been part of Russia for a long time whereas Palestine only existed for two years while the UK and the UN divided up the land....
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you REALLY think the mid east situation would be any better if the west hadn't interfered with the balkinization of the ottaman empire into warring tribal states?
Well, let's take British interference in Palestine for example.
During World War I, the British promised the local Arabs independence for a united Arab country in exchange for Arab support for the British.
Later on, the British made a confilcting promise to the Zionists for the creation of a separate Jewish state in Palestine, in exchange for Jewish support of the war. See Wikipedia.
The British were willing to make conflicting promises because
quote:... the British never intended to give back the Ottoman Arab provinces to the Arabs. With the rise of Arab nationalism after World War II, Britain began to see geopolitical utility in using the creation of a Westernized Jewish state as an effective proxy to combat rising Arab nationalism.
quote:should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there - perhaps more; they would ... form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal." Source: United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine
Promising one piece of land to two groups of people, especially when that land was not yours to give away in the first place, has a tendency to piss people off.
More from the UN site:
quote: While the [first world] war was at its height and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire became clearly imminent, the Entente Powers already were negotiating over rival territorial ambitions....
Great Britain's aims in the war linked with these Arab national aspirations and led to assurances of sovereign independence for the Arab peoples after the defeat of the Axis Powers. [Beren's note: And we wonder why the Iraqis are so suspicious of our liberation force.]
In principle, the [British] Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation.
The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine....
...almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war.
P.S. I have nothing against the Isralie people. The Jewish people were being persecuted all over the world. Naturally they would want their own indepenent state.
But for Great Britain to haphazardly make conflicting promises to serve their self interest is just plain wrong.
edit: Missing quote closer.
[ September 04, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The west completely screwed with power dynamics, including breaking major tribes by national boundaries, putting minority tribes in power over previously powerful majority tribes, all sorts of things that seem guaranteed to screw a region over. I think its safe to say the middle east would be at least a little bit safer, and quite possibly a lot, had the west not gone blithely about its business of exploitation (and exploitation it was in almost all cases).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be honest here. Do you truely think that it would have made a difference if Britain hadn't stuck their nose in?
These tribes were squabbling over what was left of the Ottomans and would have gone to war and would still be fighting today. They are different branches of Islam and would be trying to make each other convert or die just as they are doing today (when not occupied killing Jews, Russians and Americans.)
Third world hell holes don't tend to be places of peace. And British meddling or no, the middle east is a third world hell hole full of dictators and dictator-wannabes who will fight and kill eachother till they have the power or they are dead.
You can say "Nuh-uh! They would have linked hands and sung Kumbaya!" if you like. Since we don't have an Alternate History Viewing Machine we'll never know what would have happened. But try to use a little common sense.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
World of peace? Of course not, but there are degrees of chaos, and the suggestion that disturbing the region orders of magnitude less wouldn't make a noticeable difference in the chaos there is laughable. Take a look at the balkans, which you just compared the region to. The balkans, which while ripped apart were ripped apart to a lesser degree, are in orders of magnitude better shape than the middle east, particularly in acts of hatred against the west.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far I've been accused of being ignorant ("This quote makes me wonder if you have any clue what you are talking about") and naive ("You can say "Nuh-uh! They would have linked hands and sung Kumbaya!" if you like").
Maybe I should stop posting in this thread I guess, since I obviously know nothing about the subject and probably should stick to my favorite DS9 and Gilmore Girl fluff threads.
Just a few things before I leave:
quote:These tribes were squabbling over what was left of the Ottomans and would have gone to war and would still be fighting today.
quote:Since we don't have an Alternate History Viewing Machine we'll never know what would have happened.
These two comments contradict each other. The first quote claims you know what "would have" happened, while the second asserts that we'll never know what would have happened.
But that's a silly quibble. My main concern is your contention that just because we don't know how things would have turned out, Great Britain does not deserve any blame for the mess in Palestine.
This is the way I see it. Let's say I broke into your house at night to rob you. During the burglary, I noticed your house was cluttered with furniture, and I had to move your furniture around so I can get better access to your big screen TV.
While I was outside loading my van, you returned home, blissfully unaware of the burglary in progress.
You walked in without turning on the light. Heck, this was your own house, and you think you can walk through your own home blindfolded. Unlucky for you, you tripped over the ottomon I placed next to the front door and twisted your ankle.
According to your logic, I'm not responsible for your injury. Your house was a mess anyway, and you were bound to trip over your own furniture one of these days.
Edited: spelling, snarkiness, and rephrasing of last paragraph for clarity.
[ September 05, 2004, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Beren has done an excellent job of expositing why your position is silly and untenable, pixiest.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter whether or not the Mddle East would have been better off had the West not interefered. The fact is that many of the specific problems there can be traced directly, if only partially, back to that interference.
Other problems that might have occurred might have been worse. These problems would not be as severe.
You took both quotes out of context. In the former Pix was appealing to common sense, and in the latter Pix was just accepting that common sense isn't fact but that we should still be reasonable.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't matter whether or not the Mddle East would have been better off had the West not interefered. The fact is that many of the specific problems there can be traced directly, if only partially, back to that interference.
Other problems that might have occurred might have been worse. These problems would not be as severe.
That's a concise post, with even a fine and accurate distinction in the last sentence.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL, you're right and I apologize to Pix. I was getting frustrated with her and my misquotes are no better than the Democrats' "Bush declares war on terror unwinnable!" or the Republicans' "Kerry wants to fight a more sensitive war!?"
Trying to quibble over those comments when I should've known what she meant was not constructive.
Pix's position is not contradictory. Pix asserted that none of us know what would've happened without British intervention. But according to Pix, common sense tells us the remnants of the Ottoman empire would've killed each other, and in their spare time, start killing Jews, Russiand, and Americans.
My argument with Pix is that
(a) You cannot escape responsibility for your actions just because you think things would've turned out the same anyway;
(b) Based on the materials I've read (and linked to), my common sense tells me that it would be pretty unlikely that things would've turned out worse in Palestine without British intervention; and
(c) If there were singing to be done, it would've been Puff the Magic Dragon, and not Kumbaya.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The BBC had a great program on last night that summed up the problems in the Arab world very nicely. The basic gist of the story is that most of the Arab world has been isolated from the rest of the planet for 1000 years, only in the past century landing on Earth. They have wasted the incredible wealth of the oil on corruption. They could have become a huge world power with all the trillions of dollars from oil...instead it was wasted. 1000 years ago the Arab world produced more books than the rest of the World. Now only one book is published. In fact, the Arab world is twice as poor as it was in the 70’s. All 22 Arab nations are in danger of becoming failed states. And it all stems from the horrible governments they have.
I’ll try and find a link to that program.
Well it was the "People and Politics: The Arab Crisis". I still can't find a link to a transcript or audio file.. but this should help in the search.
[ September 05, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush pats Vladmir Putin on the back for a job well done.
People don't do this for no reason. They don't kill children for no reason. Sure you can blame them for this. Blame the evil people, I'm sure they had some other way to get their point across, their suffering across.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember Martin Luther King or Ghandi taking a school hostage and slaughtering its occupants.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
So jebus, I guess killing kid then is ok so long is the goal is justified? Or maybe you would think differently if those were your kids.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get it, logic. I am not condoning what they did. It was terrible, it was disgusting. But WHY? WHY did they do it? WHY did they decide their life was so unbearable that they had to target the most innocent part of society just so that someone would listen to them?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is, they felt the attack was justified because of Russia's thorough destruction of their country in their last war for independence. I'm sure some of the attackers lost friends and family in that war. Of course, that still just leaves them on a level with other terrorists.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So jebus, I guess killing kid then is ok so long is the goal is justified? Or maybe you would think differently if those were your kids.
What about the Iraqi children?
quote: An estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions—almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks.
quote: Nearly everything for Iraq's entire infrastructure—electricity, roads, telephones, water treatment—as well as much of the equipment and supplies related to food and medicine has been subject to Security Council review. In practice, this has meant that the United States and Britain subjected hundreds of contracts to elaborate scrutiny, without the involvement of any other country on the council; and after that scrutiny, the United States, only occasionally seconded by Britain, consistently blocked or delayed hundreds of humanitarian contracts.
Source: Harpers see link above.
This is not intended as a criticism of the Bush administration. The sanctions ran under the Clinton administration as well.
I think both parties favor sanctions because sanctions makes it sound like we're punishing Iraq without actually risking any American lives.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
