10/17/06: A Dark Day in American History

[Johnd]

I'm not excusing them. I'm asking you to see things from their perspective.

I think you have excused them repeatedly right in this thread.

I cannot see the justification of terrorism from any perspective. I can argue right and wrong: their acts of terrorism are clearly wrong, and they need to be stopped. I will not argue their belief system, as I believe they are entitled to believe as they wish, provided it impinges on noone else's rights.

 

[rmongiovi]

1. There is mounting evidence of wmd.
2. After 5 years, how much oil have we sold, and what is our profit? The assertion that we are there because of oil is weak, and patently untrue. We have not profitted one cent from oil sales in Iraq.

If I can spiffball for a second, I would cling to the fact that Saddam was a terrorist, that he brutally terrorized scores of his own people (with the help of his sons and entourage), and that is reason enough for our presence there (Saddam's crimes against humanity).

Mounting evidence of WMDs? Oh really?! Please.

Besides, don't you find it even a little bit hypocritical that we rant about WMDs while sitting on a sea of nuclear weapons? We've even used them. Twice. And don't tell me it was justified. The winner in a battle is always justified. I don't hear you complaining about all the civilians we nuked the same way you complain about the terrorists killing civilians.

And I didn't say that we would profit directly from oil sales in Iraq. I said we're trying to build a middle east that continues to sell us oil which we most definitely do profit from. How much did Exxon make last year? Since our past policy has created a muslim community that is opposed to us, we cannot allow them control of the oil fields. That would give them a way to strike at us that doesn't involve blowing up civilians.

Didn't I already allow that Saddam was a bad man? So are we declaring war on all the bad men in the world now? We seem to have left a number of them out of our invasion plans. As I noted, there seems to be a distinct lack of interest in invading people who don't sit on oil fields. And anyway, who appointed us the world's guardian? Personally, I think that would be a thankless job. I think if we try to kill off all the people who don't like us, we'll find that more and more people don't like us.

Have you seen the Project for the New American Century? http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Check out its Statement of Principles "http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm". Now look at who signed it. If I were a civilization that wanted to stay separate from the American way of life, I'd be quite concerned.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I'm not excusing them. I'm asking you to see things from their perspective.

I think you have excused them repeatedly right in this thread.

No Johnd, you can still find the terrorist's acts inexcusable whilst seeing (seeing ≠agreeing) the matter from their perspective. One doesn't negate the other; they're two entirely separate issues.

Nobody is excusing acts of terrorism here. You must know this.

 

[rmongiovi]

I think you have excused them repeatedly right in this thread.

Well, I suppose I excused them the same way you excuse us.

Tell me. Would you stand up and fight for the Muslim's right to have their women wear burqa and remain essentially second class citizens? That is, after all, their culture and I would argue they have a right to it even if we believe it is wrong. Or do you justify impinging on the Muslim's rights because you judge that they infringe on the womens rights?

Again, I ask you. Place yourself in the Muslim's shoes. Your way of life, the core of your beliefs in how man has been told to live his life according to god's will is being threatened by a country whose technology and military ability is so far beyond you as to be nearly magical. What would you be willing to do to attempt to preserve your society?

What alternatives do you have beside give up, or strike back in any way you can?

You say you can argue right and wrong. And indeed you can. Do you get in many arguments with your girlfriend/wife? Does it matter if you're right? Does you being "right" ever make the argument turn out better? Do you seriously think that the terrorist doesn't think he's right? Do you think that by the almighty power of logic you will prove you are right and the entire Muslim population of the world will say "Yes! By Allah you are right! We must change our way of life to conform with yours!"

I am simply saying this - if you truly put yourself in their place, imagining yourself to have been born in their society and raised at your father's knee with their beliefs - you might begin to understand why they act as they do. Then, perhaps, you will be able to imagine a better way to coexist with them than to simply kill them until they stop killing us.

 

[craigsub]

Well, I suppose I excused them the same way you excuse us.

Tell me. Would you stand up and fight for the Muslim's right to have their women wear burqa and remain essentially second class citizens? That is, after all, their culture and I would argue they have a right to it even if we believe it is wrong. Or do you justify impinging on the Muslim's rights because you judge that they infringe on the womens rights?

Again, I ask you. Place yourself in the Muslim's shoes. Your way of life, the core of your beliefs in how man has been told to live his life according to god's will is being threatened by a country whose technology and military ability is so far beyond you as to be nearly magical. What would you be willing to do to attempt to preserve your society?

What alternatives do you have beside give up, or strike back in any way you can?

You say you can argue right and wrong. And indeed you can. Do you get in many arguments with your girlfriend/wife? Does it matter if you're right? Does you being "right" ever make the argument turn out better? Do you seriously think that the terrorist doesn't think he's right? Do you think that by the almighty power of logic you will prove you are right and the entire Muslim population of the world will say "Yes! By Allah you are right! We must change our way of life to conform with yours!"

I am simply saying this - if you truly put yourself in their place, imagining yourself to have been born in their society and raised at your father's knee with their beliefs - you might begin to understand why they act as they do. Then, perhaps, you will be able to imagine a better way to coexist with them than to simply kill them until they stop killing us.

On which Islam based country are we trying to force our ideals?

 

[Johnd]

Nobody is excusing acts of terrorism here. You must know this.

Really. I thought the following posts did just that:

Remember everyone, the differance between a terrorist and general are whose side YOUR on (post #41)...No, the key difference is tactics and a nation to which you subscribe and that accepts you;

If you lived in Great Britan when the USA was just 13 colonies you would have refered to that guy on the back of the Mass state quarter as a terrorist not a revolutionary. (post #41)...No, Because Americans were not attacking civilians in the Revolutionary War, innocent or otherwise. The analogy is not remotely accurate;

It is all a matter of perspective Johnd. The terrorist's perspective is identical to that of the soldier; they both believe themselves to be fighting for a just cause. (post #43)...Robbie, again, your argument dosen't hold any water. You keep referring to the terrorists' beliefs, and I keep reiterating that I will not argue their ideology, only their tactics;

You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? (post #45)...No, this is just the type of symplistic rationalization to which I refer. I submit if they can only "win" by terrorist tactics, then they have already lost.

I see these excerpts as plain excuses. Maybe it's just me.

 

[rmongiovi]

Really. I thought the following posts did just that:

Remember everyone, the differance between a terrorist and general are whose side YOUR on (post #41)...No, the key difference is tactics and a nation to which you subscribe and that accepts you;

If you lived in Great Britan when the USA was just 13 colonies you would have refered to that guy on the back of the Mass state quarter as a terrorist not a revolutionary. (post #41)...No, Because Americans were not attacking civilians in the Revolutionary War, innocent or otherwise. The analogy is not remotely accurate;

It is all a matter of perspective Johnd. The terrorist's perspective is identical to that of the soldier; they both believe themselves to be fighting for a just cause. (post #43)...Robbie, again, your argument dosen't hold any water. You keep referring to the terrorists' beliefs, and I keep reiterating that I will not argue their ideology, only their tactics;

You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? (post #45)...No, this is just the type of symplistic rationalization to which I refer. I submit if they can only "win" by terrorist tactics, then they have already lost.

I see these excerpts as plain excuses. Maybe it's just me.

You would have called the Americans during the revolutionary war terrorists because they didn't stand out in the open and fight like men. They didn't subscribe to the tenets of civilized warfare like the British soldiers did. The Americans shot from ambush! Barbarians!

Unfortunately, the Americans were outclassed by the British, and had to fight the only way they could. They had to maximize their advantages and use their opponents weaknesses. Because we won, that tactic is considered clever. Had we lost, it would be deplored as the tactic of uncivilized heathens.

So... You submit that if they must resort to terror to fight their war, then they've already lost. Have you explained this to them? I'll bet they will immediately cease hostilities..... Why exactly should it matter to them if their tactics mean they've already lost? They face the destruction of their way of life. With their backs up against the wall, what path do we leave open to them?

To pose a question to you - what recourse do you suggest they take, faced with an America whose stated goal is democracy throughout the world? If you don't like their methods, then propose another with which they could have any chance of success.

Before you argue that they should try diplomacy, consider that The US has never honored a treaty that is inconvenient to it. We made many treaties with the American Indian, but when we found something we wanted on their land we took it. Don't for a minute think that the next administration is going to consider itself restricted by the previous administrations promises if there's some benefit to be gained. We couldn't do that when we had true leaders. Now that we've become a country run by people who win popularity poles I don't think I'd expect anyone to stand in the way of what our masses want. We won't even try to stop global warming because it would hurt big business, how could the guys sitting on the oil ever expect us to honor old promises?

 

[Buckle-meister]

Robbie, again, your argument dosen't hold any water. You keep referring to the terrorists' beliefs...

In my 'terrorist vs. soldier' sentence, I used the word 'believe', not 'belief'. I don't consider that what soldiers fight for is always a just cause, but given that they're fighting, they presumably think that it is, hence the use of the word believe. See? Nothing to do with belief, in the theological sense, at all. Clear as mud.

I see these excerpts as plain excuses.

Excuses? For what?

 

[craigsub]

For the Anti-US, pro-terrorist guys here, a simple question:

What way of life will the Islam world lose if they stop beheading people they capture ? If they stop blowing up innocent children ? If they stop attacking schools, churches, shopping areas, and any other non-combatants ?

 

[rmongiovi]

For the Anti-US, pro-terrorist guys here, a simple question:

Well, I don't consider myself anti-US, although we're not exactly innocent of wrongdoing. Nor do I consider myself pro-terrorist, because certainly they're not innocent of wrongdoing. I like to consider myself a seeker for understanding. I think we have a better chance of achieving our objectives by understanding what motivates our enemy than by simply trying to bludgeon him into submission.

I think I've already answered your question. It is the US's stated belief that the democratic process is the correct way of life for everyone in the world, and we attempt to set up governments similar to that elsewhere in the world. We're trying to do that now in Iraq, if you'll notice. Iran hates us because of that whole Shah business. If you look at our history with an objective eye, there are only a few things we have done around the world without strings attached. We talk loudly about human rights, so I expect we'd be trying to find some way to change the way the Muslim people treat their women. Do you disagree?

Let me toss a question back your way, in an effort to enlighten you about my attitude. Would you happen to consider yourself a Christian? Which parts of his teachings about "love your enemy" are you having trouble with?

 

[rmongiovi]

Oh yeah. Then there's the whole Israel situation. Would it exist if we hadn't propped them up? Let's not argue if it's right or wrong, or get into the whole holocaust issue. The point is that the majority of the people in the region don't want it there, and we're viewed as a major reason it exists.

Suppose China carved out a piece of southern California and set up a country for the American Indian. After all, this entire country used to be theirs, so they deserve a country here the same way the Jews deserve Israel. How would you react to it? How would the people who live in southern California feel about other people living on their land? Would you love the Chinese for being so fair to the American Indian, who arguably were subjected to just as much genocide as the Jews? Suppose further that you didn't have the American military to turn to. What would you do to get your home back?

 

[Johnd]

You would have called the Americans during the revolutionary war terrorists because they didn't stand out in the open and fight like men. They didn't subscribe to the tenants of civilized warfare like the British soldiers did. The Americans shot from ambush! Barbarians!

To pose a question to you - what recourse do you suggest they take, faced with an America whose stated goal is democracy throughout the world? If you don't like their methods, then propose another with which they could have any chance of success.

I won't respond to your entire diatribe, but will respond to two quoted above.

1. I'm sure it was a typo (tenets?). Please don't put words in my mouth. I would not have called American Revolutionaries terrorists, nor barbarians (nor 1/2 men as you seem to infer). You again confuse the issues. The revolutionaries did not murder innocent civilians. You seem incapable of grasping this plain concept. They succeeded not because of acts of terrorism on innocent civilians, but because they reconciled the fact that they could not win the regimental type warfare of the day. They resorted to some guerilla tactics (but only against the British military...no civilians. There is a HUGE difference).

2. I suggest no recourse for the terrorists. I want to aide them in no way. I am a patriot. I will leave suggestions for the terrorists to the armchair liberals.

 

[Johnd]

You say you can argue right and wrong. And indeed you can. Do you get in many arguments with your girlfriend/wife? Does it matter if you're right? Does you being "right" ever make the argument turn out better? Do you seriously think that the terrorist doesn't think he's right? Do you think that by the almighty power of logic you will prove you are right and the entire Muslim population of the world will say "Yes! By Allah you are right! We must change our way of life to conform with yours!"

I am simply saying this - if you truly put yourself in their place, imagining yourself to have been born in their society and raised at your father's knee with their beliefs - you might begin to understand why they act as they do. Then, perhaps, you will be able to imagine a better way to coexist with them than to simply kill them until they stop killing us.

1. Metaphysics. The world would be a better place if more people considered them...and argued them (in a forensics type of way).

2. What makes you think that I am not pondering a way to peacefully coexist with them? My argument stems only from their terrorist tactics, not their belief system or their societal issues (nor their plight).

 

[rmongiovi]

I won't respond to your entire diatribe, but will respond to two quoted above.

1. I'm sure it was a typo (tenets?).

2. I suggest no recourse for the terrorists. I want to aide them in no way. I am a patriot. I will leave suggestions for the terrorists to the armchair liberals.

1. Well, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I can't say it was a typo, but I certainly know the difference between the words. It's been fixed.

2. But that's exactly the point. We MUST come up with a recourse for the terrorists. You cannot seriously believe that we can win this so-called war by killing and killing and killing? "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" The more people we kill the more will come to see us as a threat and the more we'll have to kill. There are 6.5 billion of them and only 300 million of us. That's a war of attrition we cannot win. We absolutely have to give them an out. Not to mention that this war is going to bankrupt us, and I don't want to live in the police state we're becoming in our efforts to detect terrorism.

Not to mention Christianity again, but he grew up in that part of the world, where an eye for an eye has been the way of life for thousands of years. It's an ever escalating battle that you cannot win. The best result is that everyone loses. At some point you have to see the wisdom of turning the other cheek so that understanding has a chance to grow.

 

[Johnd]

1. Well, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I can't say it was a typo, but I certainly know the difference between the words. It's been fixed.

2. But that's exactly the point. We MUST come up with a recourse for the terrorists. You cannot seriously believe that we can win this so-called war by killing and killing and killing? "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" The more people we kill the more will come to see us as a threat and the more we'll have to kill. There are 6.5 billion of them and only 300 million of us. That's a war of attrition we cannot win. We absolutely have to give them an out. Not to mention that this war is going to bankrupt us, and I don't want to live in the police state we're becoming in our efforts to detect terrorism.

Not to mention Christianity again, but he grew up in that part of the world, where an eye for an eye has been the way of life for thousands of years. It's an ever escalating battle that you cannot win. The best result is that everyone loses. At some point you have to see the wisdom of turning the other cheek so that understanding has a chance to grow.

I agree with much of what you say above, except:

We do not deal with terrorists.

Terrorism must be dealt with (exacting retribution, proportional response).

Terrorism will never go away. It has been around for millenia. The World Order must relentlessly send the message that terrorism will be dealt with harshly.

If you have a rational fix for the debacle(s) in the mideast, start a thread. Without being too cynical, it is a haven for fascists, fundamentalists and terrorists...there is no easy answer, nor proximate one that I can think of. And that is unfortunate.

 

[Johnd]

Let me toss a question back your way, in an effort to enlighten you about my attitude. Would you happen to consider yourself a Christian? Which parts of his teachings about "love your enemy" are you having trouble with?

Ezekiel 25:17
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

The Bible teaches us to Love thy neighbor and thy enemy. Vengeance belongs to God. Order and Justice are for the Courts and the Police.

 

[rmongiovi]

If you have a rational fix for the debacle(s) in the mideast, start a thread. Without being too cynical, it is a haven for fascists, fundamentalists and terrorists...there is no easy answer, nor proximate one that I can think of. And that is unfortunate.

Well, had I been asked before we started hostilities, I would have said that the strength of the US is economic, not military. You cannot force someone to love you, but if you make their lives better they may come to find that they need you.

I don't think it's any surprise that the only truly communist countries in the world are the ones we refuse to trade with.

Everyone wants a better life. Everyone wants creature comforts. NO ONE does comfort as well as we do.

Instead of trying to make them like us, we could have shown them how to be more comfortable being who they are. Instead of telling them we think they're wrong about how they choose to live their lives, we could have just sold them the things they say they want and need.

Over a few generations, their kids would have wanted more and more of what we have, and eventually they would have been just like us.

Like everyone else in this world, they resist things being forced on them from outside. All we needed was the patience to let them think they had thought of it for themselves. Instead, we got a bunch of pompous short sighted hawks in power who thought that since we're the last remaining so-called superpower that they should see that resistance is futile and buckled under to our will.

And that's where we are today.

 

[craigsub]

Oh yeah. Then there's the whole Israel situation. Would it exist if we hadn't propped them up? Let's not argue if it's right or wrong, or get into the whole holocaust issue. The point is that the majority of the people in the region don't want it there, and we're viewed as a major reason it exists.

Suppose China carved out a piece of southern California and set up a country for the American Indian. After all, this entire country used to be theirs, so they deserve a country here the same way the Jews deserve Israel. How would you react to it? How would the people who live in southern California feel about other people living on their land? Would you love the Chinese for being so fair to the American Indian, who arguably were subjected to just as much genocide as the Jews? Suppose further that you didn't have the American military to turn to. What would you do to get your home back?

What this self annointed intellectual does not understand is that the American Indian does not need a separate country set up. Visit a reservation sometime, and you will learn a few things.

1. American Indians pay no taxes of any kind.
2. Yet they still qualify for Medicare, Social Security, get free highway systems, and all other benefits of the government.

They have their own sovereign property today. I am in Indian Country every week. And so you don't get all twisted up by my callng them Indians, THEY call themselves Indians. I have yet to meet one who likes the term "Native American". The American Indian also knows how good he has it here. They love the system. Hell, I would love living under their rules.

So, rmongiovi, like most of your points, your "China carving out a piece of California" analogy is just another of your worthless rants. Completely lacking anything remotely resembling the truth.

China, were it to get its hands on a piece of Southern California, would not give it over to anyone, anyway. They would imprison everyone there, and keep it form themselves.

As for the rest of your unbelievably stupid ideas, you really need to seek psychiatric help. You think we are at war with 6.5 billion people ? You, sir, are a nut.

You think we don't trade with the "true communist" countries ? You must consider Cuba to be "truly communist". It isn't. There IS no such thing.

 

[Johnd]

Well, had I been asked before we started hostilities

I do not consider my posts to you hostile. We are arguing ideology. One can disagree with me and "argue" (proffer) why their viewpoint is "better." Only a fool does not change their viewpoint (thinking, not beliefs or values) in the face of sound logic. Cheers.

 

[rmongiovi]

I do not consider my posts to you hostile. We are arguing ideology. One can disagree with me and "argue" (proffer) why their viewpoint is "better." Only a fool does not change their viewpoint (thinking, not beliefs or values) in the face of sound logic. Cheers.

I meant the hostilities in Iraq. Once you start blowing people up it becomes a bit more difficult to convince them you want to help.... I don't consider our disagreement hostile either.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but whatever peanuts we've thrown the American Indian, they live in the freakin' desert. If their reservation was somewhere we wanted, we moved them again. If they hadn't gotten smart and learned to give us gambling, they wouldn't have anything. Compared to what they had before the white man arrived, I don't think they'd trade.

On that same note, a problem that I've had with the people who love me, over my entire life, is that they give me the things they want for me to have. They do for me the things that they want to do for me. What I'm suggesting is that if you really care about someone, you do for them what they want, not what you want. We Americans need to realize that what works for us is not necessarily what everyone else wants. If we were true friends we would help others become the best that they want to be, not the best that we want them to be.