Respect for terrorists.... - Page 4

Bloody Sunday was not a terrorist act. It is considered an atrocity. I realize that this does little for the victims because the out come is the same. The thing is that the ill trained and fearful soldiers that committed the act and their leaders are subject to international law. (The same as the Serbs during the war in Kosovo and the United States in Viet Nam at Mi Lai.) I can name several other incidents in Africa that would be considered as atrocities rather than terrorist acts and yes they too will never be brought before the bar of international justice. Does the symantics make me feel better if I am on the side of the victims - hardly. It just means that civilians were targeted which is wrong and is addressable before the court of public opinion and if handled correctly before the World Court.

The unfortunate problem with any of this is that it just fosters more bloodshed. I don't know the ins and outs of the Irish rebellion and I certainly don't even want to try to sort out the right and wrong after a war of several hundred years with fathers teaching sons hate from one generation to another. I will have to state that the IRA targeting civilians on a one to one basis or enmass does not help their side of the argument as far as world opinion is concerned.

I helped in some measure to fight a war in Africa that lasted 25 years. My side went to great trouble not to target civilians as we were fighting on what we considered our territory. The enemy was not quite so willing to follow the rules of war and I lost close civilian friends to assasination and in one case to a group of soldiers opening up on unarmed civilians in a market place. We as a group decided not to respond in kind, but to continue a campaign directed at the military. It took 25 years and the loss of over a million people on both sides to finally win, but we did. Do I now hate the enemy that we defeated because of their atrocities during the war. No. I hate the people that did the actual killing and the leaders that allowed it to happen - not the rest of the people of that country. Thankfully most all of the people of my side feel the same way as I do. It makes for much better relationships on both sides. The only thing that I can say is that civil war is never pretty, but neither side needs to target civilians specifically to win.

Do I respect the terrorist that targets a group of civilians to "make a statement" - a resounding NO! Do I respect a soldier that commits an atrocity - again a resounding NO! So in the case of the Irish rebellion I respect neither side as both sides have targeted the civilians on both sides rather than the military or armed forces. Dispicable behavior on both sides has assured that the rebellion will not be over - even if the fighting ceases - until at least 2 generations have lived togeather in peace.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

The Russians only became your friends after they embraced capitalism, which actually didn't make them much richer than before and created the ruthless Russian Mafia.

Iran is now your friend because you need them and were scared shedless that they would get involved along with some other surrounding states and you'd have a second Korea on your hands.

Friends...please...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Excuse me? Created the Russian Mafia? I don't think so. Strengthened it, maybe. But that is hardly the fault of the US. If Russia were as powerful as they beleived themselves to be the US would be just an Annex of the USSR. I seem to recall one of their leaders at the height of their power saying to the US, "We will bury you." I am not feeling too worried anymore. The USSR was the enemy, and we won the codl war with a minimum of loss of life. However, it is going to take a long time to change how people look at the world in a country that has been Socialist for such a long time. Russia will be strong again, just not for a while. Besides, we are helping them just like we helped all the other countries that we waged war with and defeated. (We're so horrible. )

And as far as Iran getting involved in the war against us. LET THEM. IF they cannot see the way the wind is blowing, let them try to stand in the way. We will find out if they are any more powerful than Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the other countries that we have defeated over the course of time. I hope they don't decide to, but if they do, it's their funeral.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

Exactly! And that's where you're wrong. There is no wrong and right, just the perspective that different groups of people put the same situation in. </strong><hr></blockquote>

No. There is right and wrong. This is not a "we're just as bad as they are situation. We are good and they are evil. Our police don't beat women for showing their shoes under their burkas. We don't force religious laws on people. We don't murder people because they don't agree with us. We don't cut off the arms of people who can't kick a drug habbit. I could go on and on.

There is no "look at is a different way" here. You're an idiot if you think there is.

The better question, Scott, would be: How ****ing stupid are you?

SJOll throws out a "conservative media" theory and I throw a very easy to understand jab right back at her.

I don't know if I could have made that jab any more obvious. Let's use the grey matter God gave us.

[quote]<strong>There is no "look at is a different way" here. You're an idiot if you think there is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's overspeaking.

Our police forces don't beat women for not wearing burqas but they do shoot people that are reaching for their wallets and then get off without investigation. We are not "good" any more than they are "evil". You are not evil because of the actions of Tim McVeigh. Your random citizen of Kabul isn't evil because of the actions of Osama bin Laden.

We have the right here. We were attacked and our actions are justified and proper. The death of those citizens, while tragic, is unavoidable if we wish to really take care of the problem.

The real question that these people (macoracle, SamJoOll, et al.) have avoided is: What the hell does it matter?

This isn't black and white, but it sure as hell isn't as grey as these people try to make it sound.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Our police forces don't beat women for not wearing burqas but they do shoot people that are reaching for their wallets and then get off without investigation...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Really? Where? Cincinnati? No, that can't be right. L.A.? Oops, wrong again. NYC? Are you kidding? There's always an investigation these days. There are even various political axes that get ground some more whenever something like this happens. Maybe the official response isn't always what it should be but you are the one who is "overspeaking" now.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Fact is there no right or wrong moves for the US. No matter where we go or what we do we will be hated by some group for some reason. If we help one country the other will hate us. If we don't help then we will be hated. If we don't help enough we will be hated. If we ignore then then we're cruel if we help too much then we are "imperialist". No matter where we go and what we do we will be hated by someone for some reason.

Its just that simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. End of story. We need people to hate to make ourselves feel better. People see themselves as climbing up on the Chain of Being when they push others down it. Macoracle is no exception. He's just one of us by his own definition.

In Cincinatti, in New York, in Seattle, in Atlanta, in Detroit and on and on and on.

"Investigations", right. That's why cold blooded killers in blue get a few weeks suspension while a vicious criminal armed with an ATM card and family photos gets cold and stiff.

I consider an investigation something that brings more than a day or so of lip service only to be dissolved and swept under the rug when the public's eye is distracted. Maybe that's just a semantic thing.

Our police system is one of the (if not THE) least corrupt in the civilized world, but it is not clean as fallen snow.

Terrorism is one sided. By the definition the US, Britan and just about every country is a "terrorist country" and each government is made up of terrorists.
What do I mean?
Well the UN definition of Terrorism goes something like this: An attack on civilian targets so as to reduce moral.

This is exactly what the fire bombing of Dresden was, this is what the bombing of civilian targets everywhere is. Face it, were a boat load of terrorists pointing fingers at each other. The difference is that we have bigger guns.

Times of war v. Times of peace.

Scott H:

No. There is right and wrong...This is not a "we're just as bad as they are situation. We are good and they are evil

Come on. It all depends on who you are talking to. Regarding who is right/good and who is wrong/evil...just ask an Israeli, a Palestinian, a New Yorker, and Irishman, or whoever...and see how many different responses you get. Yes, I feel most fortunate that I live in California and not Kandahar. But if you honestly think that we are totally blameless in our domestic and foreign dealings, and can do no wrong, as you seem to imply in your black'n'white vision of the world, then you are either naive in the utmost, or in denial, or just don't wanna know. Some of what we have done in the past few hundred years to get where we are, has been downright evil.

Our police don't beat women for showing their shoes under their burkas.

No, but you may get shot to death for getting your wallet out. And since when are women in this country forced to wear burqas? Ok, I know what you are trying to say, but women in Islamic communities here are not, as a rule, required to wear burqas. But police here (like anywhere on Earth) can display some very uneven standards; I know of many people who have been pulled over for "driving while black", or have been gassed and pepper-sprayed for taking part in a peaceful protest.

We don't force religious laws on people.

The U.S. Government made it illegal for many Native Indian people to even speak or teach their languages. From what I recall (will have to check it out), re. some tribes, this was the law until the mid 1970s (!). This would have, by default, put their spiritual and religious practises outside of the law. And there are some in this Administration who support the idea of compulsory school prayer (provided it is from a Judaeo-Christian viewpoint).

We don't murder people because they don't agree with us.

Puhlease. Never heard of the Salem witch trials? Or the distribution of smallpox infested blankets to native Americans? Forgotten Wounded Knee? Or the 10s of thousands of civilians murdered by death squads we sent into Central America? etc etc etc? All these people disagreed with us in some way or other.

We don't cut off the arms of people who can't kick a drug habbit.

No, because we have this wonderful concept of civil rights and certain standards of human decency, although it seems there are a growing number amongst us who regard civil liberties as excess baggage. But big government locks up over 400,000 people annually for ingesting a siubstance that was made illegal with zero medical study.

I could go on and on.

You are not alone

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>We don't murder people because they don't agree with us.

Puhlease. Never heard of the Salem witch trials?</strong><hr></blockquote>Huh?

A lot of ancient history there Samantha Joanne Ollendale. We've come a long way. But it does not matter who you talk to. There are absolutes in this world. Killing 4000 people because you don't like the US's foreign policy is ... what? You take the guess. Right? or Wrong?

I'll do the next one for you. Going to war with the people who aided, planned, funded and trained the terrorist who killed 4000 people is ... right!

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Puhlease. Never heard of the Salem witch trials? Or the distribution of smallpox infested blankets to native Americans?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not the U.S.A.

[quote]<strong>Forgotten Wounded Knee?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Quite a long time ago. Hardly representative of modern U.S.

[quote]<strong>Or the 10s of thousands of civilians murdered by death squads we sent into Central America? etc etc etc? All these people disagreed with us in some way or other.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Define "we sent".

Scott H:
[quote]There are absolutes in this world.<hr></blockquote>

True, but most specially in the minds of the deranged and fanatical. Most people are capable of evaluating the reality of good and evil human intents, ideas, thoughts, words and deeds as a continuous spectrum. It is those who act out their fantasies and illusions of absolutism who are usually the maniacs who do the worst things and start all the trouble.

Groverat asked me to:

[quote]Define "we sent".<hr></blockquote>

My choice of words is inaccurate for sure, thankyou for pulling me up there.
A better way to have described past U.S. actions in Central America would be not 'invasion', as I wrongly implied, but more the covert financing, training, organizing and overall support for the 'death squads" which ended up killing 10s of thousands of civilians there. bin Laden operates in a similar way, ie not directly getting his hands dirty but providing all the facilities for terrorists to do their dirty work.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Scott H:

True, but most specially in the minds of the deranged and fanatical. Most people are capable of evaluating the reality of good and evil human intents, ideas, thoughts, words and deeds as a continuous spectrum. </strong><hr></blockquote>

So? Part of that spectrum includes the values at either end - the places where absolutes are found. I think we can safely say that killing 4000 people on a September morning falls into the evil category. Or perhaps you think it is deranged and fanatical to think so?

I hate to belabor the point, SamJoOll, but wasn't the purpose of the School of the Americas to teach guerilla warfare?

Namely, pro-Democratic insurrections against tyrranical governments?

Not that our boys were nice, but they weren't exactly fighting nice guys either. Slaughter was the rule of the day down there, even if all we did was send wheat down it would have been to feed murderers.

A tragic time, yes, but not influenced in any appreciable way by the U.S.

[quote]So? Part of that spectrum includes the values at either end - the places where absolutes are found. I think we can safely say that killing 4000 people on a September morning falls into the evil category. Or perhaps you think it is deranged and fanatical to think so?<hr></blockquote>

If you took the trouble to read my post, notice that I said "most"...and not "all" where it counted. I am sure you are aware that there is a difference.

[quote]I hate to belabor the point, SamJoOll, but wasn't the purpose of the School of the Americas to teach guerilla warfare? Namely, pro-Democratic insurrections against tyrranical governments?<hr></blockquote>

Depending on what side of the political fence you stand on. Many folk in central America would say "pro-tyrannical insurrections against democratically elected governments".

[quote]Not that our boys were nice, but they weren't exactly fighting nice guys either. Slaughter was the rule of the day down there, even if all we did was send wheat down it would have been to feed murderers.<hr></blockquote>

You got that right; war is never a nice topic, and a shame we start and encourage so many.

[quote]A tragic time, yes, but not influenced in any appreciable way by the U.S.<hr></blockquote>

!!!!!!!

A list of graduates:
<a href="http://www.derechos.org/soa/" target="_blank">http://www.derechos.org/soa/</a>

Some more links:
<a href="http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/soa.htm" target="_blank">http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/soa.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/policy_sa.html" target="_blank">http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/policy_sa.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cdi.org/adm/transcripts/804/" target="_blank">http://www.cdi.org/adm/transcripts/804/</a>
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0524-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0524-02.htm</a>

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

What wars did we *start* in South/Central America??

Last I check what we did was get involved with one side of an already existing conflict.

I never claimed the stuff wasn't bad, but I fail to see how all that stuff is the direct result of U.S. involvement.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a psycho whether or not Frigidaire gave him a free freezer or Ginsu gave him a set of really nice knives.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Scott H:


True, but most specially in the minds of the deranged and fanatical. Most people are capable of evaluating the reality of good and evil human intents, ideas, thoughts, words and deeds as a continuous spectrum. It is those who act out their fantasies and illusions of absolutism who are usually the maniacs who do the worst things and start all the trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Which is why we need to stop bin Laden and people like him.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>What wars did we *start* in South/Central America??

Last I check what we did was get involved with one side of an already existing conflict.

I never claimed the stuff wasn't bad, but I fail to see how all that stuff is the direct result of U.S. involvement.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a psycho whether or not Frigidaire gave him a free freezer or Ginsu gave him a set of really nice knives.</strong><hr></blockquote>


and also last I checked a great many were funded by the Soviet Union. But heck? The US must be to blame for that too somehow.

So, uh, are we saying that we should respect terrorists because we have had blood on our hands too? We are ashamed of our mistakes and sins.

Are we saying that our friends and families deserved to be killed in NYC, DC and PA? Is this karma or justice to us, them? Killing is wrong, we know that.

Are we going to sit on our high horse and pretend we're better than others by pointing this out to everyone? Acting like a goddamn sage by stating the obvious doesn't make someone a better person or others less so.

Is this just about tit for tat? Who started it? Who cares? Does anyone really know any more? Let's be better people by first leaving the juvenile motives and rationales behind.

I just don't understand any of this. On one hand people here are posting comments about our past or others' past. We're lost in semantics about what defines a terrorist. Who really gives a flying **** what you call these idiots, be it Tim McVeigh, the troops at Mai Lai, Mohammed Atta, the Israeli army, whoever. I'll call them "my first born" but it doesn't change anything because the meaning is the same and the act is still terrible.

So, uh, did we deserve this? Is that what people are suggesting? Are we no better? Are you doing anything about it other than posting in inane computer forums, stamping your feet? I don't understand what's the problem here, where the disconnect is.

Here's summary of my position on the whole thing:

Bad thing happened.

Make sure it no happen again.

I like people, try to do good.

Want to be friends in future.

(Tough, I know.)

Nothing makes sense here.

Macoracle is a troll, in the oldest and best sense. Not much rational discourse is coming out here, but he/she enjoys the tussle.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I don't know if that is what other people want to say. What I wanted to say, what I said, when I started this topic was that I respect them for their willingness to die for their cause.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And that's no reason to respect someone. There's a lot of people willing do die for their cause. So you may have to spread your respect rather thin. Why not respect people for their cause rather than their willingness to die for it.

I would imagine that respecting someone for their cause is more difficult for you. In that case youd have to make a judgment about the cause. That is if it is right or wrong. Rather than do that you wimp out and just respect everyone willing to die for their cause.

I have much more respect for people willing to LIVE for their cause using non-violent methods. But when someone perpetrates an act of gross human cruelty on the 9/11 scale, you must react in the only language they comprehend: violence. Getting to bin Laden isn't entirely about bringing him to justice, but to show others with similar plots up their sleeves that we're not going to take it anymore.

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I have much more respect for people willing to LIVE for their cause using non-violent methods. But when someone perpetrates an act of gross human cruelty on the 9/11 scale, you must react in the only language they comprehend: violence. Getting to bin Laden isn't entirely about bringing him to justice, but to show others with similar plots up their sleeves that we're not going to take it anymore.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hear hear!! That is what I have been trying to say all along. Just becuase someone is willing ot die for their cause does not make their willingness to die commendable. For all you know they could be psychopathic. Is that commendable? Hardly. And I also agree, the measure of retribution we are willing to dole out will be equally in proportion to how many terrorists will think twice before trying to stage an attack on the US again. If it means their extinction for the attack, they will not do it. If it means a slap on the wrist, we stand no chance of having peace.