Which is a nice slogan, but as there haven't been any innocents executed, but there have been a lot of the guilty set free, perhaps it bears reexamination?
Those numbers have been discredited a long time ago. See the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.
More importantly, this is beside the point. In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?
Leaving aside the fact that we're not `carpet bombing' anyone, but in fact putting men a whole lot braver than you and I on the ground, in harm's way, to designate targets so that civilian deaths are kept to a minimum, what exactly are you objecting to? That our pilots don't kill themselves? That we (rightly) consider attacks designed to maximize civilian casualties cowardly? What's your beef?
There are plenty of studies which suggest that capital punishment does indeed provide a deterrent. It also keeps the most violent offenders off the streets permanently -- remember that the average `life' sentence results in release in a little over 20 years.
But monkeydo has gotten it right. If you can't show me a single example of an innocent being executed, we have to conclude that the safeguards in place are, in fact, working very well.
I'm not sure I understand. You think we were attacked on September 11 because we spend too little money on foreign aid? Really?
And if so does that mean that you think that the reason we spend taxpayer dollars on foreign aid is in order to bribe the likes of Bin Laden into not attacking us?
Anyway, with regard to the military, you're way off base. We spend about 2.9% of our GDP on military aid, as opposed to over 30% (more than ten times as much) during world war II. With this little money, our military is stretched a little thin even dealing with a two-bit opponent like Afghanistan while keeping up our other commitments. And you think we spend too much on defense?
And how do you define "the right" people? -- those who we are at war with certainly seems a good place to start, no?
Did you see in the news the 100th innocent death row inmate getting released? -- aren't the key words in that sentence `getting released'? Doesn't that suggest that the system does, in fact, have safeguards to prevent the innocent from being executed? Can you point me to anyone who was innocent who was, in fact, executed?
Understand, I'm not making light of the time taken from the life of someone who waits on death row before being found innocent, but that's certainly the same for an innocent sentenced to life in prison, so that's not a death penalty issue at all.
Keep in mind our government is using this information to KILL PEOPLE.
Probably, but that's not the problem here. The question is a.) whether the government is using this information to kill the right people, and b.) whether it is doing so in accordance with law and the rights of those being eavesdropped on.
Sorry, this is just plain incorrect. Check out http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp (hardly a "left-wing media outlet")
Except that, again, Mr. Bin Laden did not mention this as a justification for his attack on the WTC and the Pentagon until well after the war in Afghanistan had started.
But let's grant that Mr. Bin Laden's main complaint is about Israel, just for the sake of argument. What would this change? Do we make policy decisions out of a desire to appease madmen like Bin Laden, or based on what we believe is the right thing to do? Because you are suggesting the former, but the vast majority of Americans support the latter.
In any event, as far as "blaming the victim" goes, it's not a matter of making 9/11 "acceptable." Nothing makes it "acceptable." But there's a difference between trying to understand what drives terrorism and empty propaganda like "they hate our freedom."
But again, I'm not saying `they hate our freedom', they are. You may say that this is only a symptom, but they are saying it. And as even you admit, `understanding' terrorism does not make it acceptable. If someone is attacking us, we will defend ourselves. Then, if you want, we can discuss their `reasons' -- but see below.
even a cursory glance at the US' record WRT the Islamic world screams that the phrase "innocent victim" does not apply to the US.
Oh really? Hmm, let's look at the use of US troops in the 90's: Kuwait? US went to war to defend Muslim nations (Kuwait, Arabia, Turkey) which asked for our help. Bosnia? US intervened to defend Muslims from genocide. Kosovo? Ditto (whether rightly or not belongs in some other thread). The US pays billions of dollars in subsidies to a wide array of Islamic nations every year -- and that's not counting the oil money.
You say it's just a symptom. Bin Laden, in the tapes, says that we must be destroyed because of what we are. As he's the one who actually orchestrated the attacks, I think I'll take his word on it.
This becomes especially clear when we see that there is a global movement which is trying to impose a very repressive and anti-liberty form of Sharia law in nations all over the world, from Nigeria to Uzbekistan, from the Philippines to Turkey. I don't say this movement speaks for all Muslims, of course, but it is a real thing, and it must be countered. As several news outlets have reported, there are even branches of this movement such as Jamat-al-Fuqra which are violently active here in the United States, and are calling for forced imposition of Sharia law here.
Re:China goes to the moon, go for it china!
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 0
I don't think it does anyone any good to continue gratifying your lies about Tianenmen with a response. Anyone who saw the video of that day knows that what you claim is true is not. Anyone who read even the official Chinese government description of that day knows that you are making claims in defense of the Communist Party which even the Party itself does not make.
What the Chinese government says is ``yes we attacked unarmed demonstrators at Tianenment (and unarmed Tibetans, and unarmed practitioners of Falun Gong), and we believe that attacking them was right and necessary''. You know that that argument won't fly in this forum, so you come here with a story which is even more outlandish. I don't think anyone here believes you, and I am not going to argue against what everyone can see are lies.
As for the Hong Kong businessman threatened with the death penalty (he was finally sentenced to two years in prison after international protests) for the `crime' of bringing a suitcase of bibles into China, you can read all about it
here or
here.
But I'd like to speak to your larger point. You continue to speak of the Chinese people as if they must be kept in chains for their own good. They must be forbidden to leave the country, they must not be allowed to vote for their leaders, they must accept every form of persecution because for some undefined reason, democracy `wouldn't work' for them.
Now, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I don't see why you feel you have a right to have your opinion forced on the Chinese by a brutal regime. If the Chinese people consider the same things important as you do, they will vote that way. If they do not, then what possible right do you have to force such things upon them against their will?
And yes, let's look at India (the world's largest democracy). Here we have a nation which in fifty years has developed a thriving tech economy, a stable democratic government, and improvements in standard of living undreamed of in more repressive nations such as China. And they have done all this while under near constant attack accross their borders from neighboring nations -- including China. Freedom and democracy worked for India. So what was your point in bringing that nation into the discussion?
and that the US backs the Israeli government against the Palestinians.
Except that Bin Laden never mentioned this before September 11, and only stuck with it when it became clear that it had traction with left wing media outlets here and in Europe.
This reminds me of a great Tom Tomorrow cartoon printed not long after 9/11--one newscaster is saying to the other, "And now Susan will give us a detailed look at radical Islam, including their beliefs and historical reasons why they might be driven to such despicable acts." And the bubbly blonde responds, "They hate our freedom." What a bunch of dogmatic BS.
OK, please enlighten me. Just what combination of `beliefs and historical acts' would make September 11 acceptable?
Mr. Tomorrow (and I saw that strip at the time) is making the mistake of believing that Mr. Bin Laden's motives are what intellectuals here say that they are, and not what Mr. Bin Laden himself says that they are. His argument boils down to saying `Uncle Sam was wearing a short skirt and do-me heels, and why was he out so late anyway, if he didn't want it.' -- please stop blaming the victim.
Except that yes, they do say that. If I have been reading different newspapers than you, it is because I make a point of checking out what the Arabic media is actually saying. See MEMRI for translations (a number of other groups have verified these translations, not least the New York Times), or see the english-language versions of various Arab papers (though several of them are much less extremist in english than in arabic).
Don't forget the Bin Laden tapes, either. Someone who is still complaining about the `tragedy of Andalusia (spain, 1492)' is not mad because of current US policy. Someone who considers the nature of US society to be evil is not making a policy judgement.
in our haste to get in a war with afghanistan, we pretty much skipped ultimatums and diplomacy with the taliban. we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution, because bush wanted war. as for freedom to criticize the government
Let's turn that around a little: ``in our haste to get in a war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution'' -- doesn't make much sense, does it? It is not our responsibility to `negotiate' with nations which are attacking us. It is our responsibility to destroy the infrastructure which makes attacks like September 11 possible.
I firmly believe those who criticize me for criticizing the government are within their right. I don't want them to make my speech sound criminal when it is constitutional, however.
Then we're agreed, except that I don't see anywhere where someone suggested that what you said was `criminal' at all.
Many people, myself included, believe that recent terrorist attacks are as a direct result of the USA overseas policy -- which is interesting, but is a point of view which you can only stick to if you carefully ignore what the people attacking us are actually saying. They don't say that they don't like our foreign policy. They don't say that we should be isolationist (as you suggest). They say that what we are and what we stand for must be destroyed, and they say that any degree of brutality against our civilians is acceptable to achieve that goal.
I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem. -- but isn't this just giving in to blackmail, by saying that we should decide on foreign policy not based on what's right but based on what will appease those who might otherwise attack us?
OK, how's this piece from the New Yorker
for a start? Anyone who has any doubt that the word `evil' applies to Saddam Husseing should read this article.
I don't think anyone is `waiting for an excuse' at all. We have very good reasons to go into Iraq, we've said what they are, and we've said that we're going in, and staying in until Mr. Hussein is out.
What we are waiting for is planning, preparation, and restocking of supplies of ammunition and other goods depleted during the campaign in Afghanistan.
And so it's clear, what is your objection to Cheney going on `Meet the Press'? He's telling the American people what Bush thinks should be done, and judging by the current administration's approval ratings, the American people agree. If he were not on the air, you would be objecting to the lack of information coming from Washington...
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. So, in fact, in your view, it's not remotely possible that in fact the people who planned and executed September 11 didn't just cease to exist the morning after? It's not remotely possible that many of them are still out there planning further attacks?
No, if we are defending ourselves, it must be for `approval ratings', it couldn't possibly be because we are still under attack...
And by the way, as for `the freedom to say what we want about them and criticize the government ': of course you have that freedom. And Clue4All also has freedom of speech, and the right to disagree with you and to say so. Why do you think freedom of speech means the right to not be disagreed with or criticized?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a nice slogan, but as there haven't been any innocents executed, but there have been a lot of the guilty set free, perhaps it bears reexamination?
Those numbers have been discredited a long time ago. See the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.
More importantly, this is beside the point. In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?
Now what's your point here? That I should not want my tax dollars to go to dismantling the infrastructure that made September 11 possible?
Leaving aside the fact that we're not `carpet bombing' anyone, but in fact putting men a whole lot braver than you and I on the ground, in harm's way, to designate targets so that civilian deaths are kept to a minimum, what exactly are you objecting to? That our pilots don't kill themselves? That we (rightly) consider attacks designed to maximize civilian casualties cowardly? What's your beef?
There are plenty of studies which suggest that capital punishment does indeed provide a deterrent. It also keeps the most violent offenders off the streets permanently -- remember that the average `life' sentence results in release in a little over 20 years.
But monkeydo has gotten it right. If you can't show me a single example of an innocent being executed, we have to conclude that the safeguards in place are, in fact, working very well.
I'm not sure I understand. You think we were attacked on September 11 because we spend too little money on foreign aid? Really?
And if so does that mean that you think that the reason we spend taxpayer dollars on foreign aid is in order to bribe the likes of Bin Laden into not attacking us?
Anyway, with regard to the military, you're way off base. We spend about 2.9% of our GDP on military aid, as opposed to over 30% (more than ten times as much) during world war II. With this little money, our military is stretched a little thin even dealing with a two-bit opponent like Afghanistan while keeping up our other commitments. And you think we spend too much on defense?
And how do you define "the right" people? -- those who we are at war with certainly seems a good place to start, no?
Did you see in the news the 100th innocent death row inmate getting released? -- aren't the key words in that sentence `getting released'? Doesn't that suggest that the system does, in fact, have safeguards to prevent the innocent from being executed? Can you point me to anyone who was innocent who was, in fact, executed?
Understand, I'm not making light of the time taken from the life of someone who waits on death row before being found innocent, but that's certainly the same for an innocent sentenced to life in prison, so that's not a death penalty issue at all.
Keep in mind our government is using this information to KILL PEOPLE.
Probably, but that's not the problem here. The question is a.) whether the government is using this information to kill the right people, and b.) whether it is doing so in accordance with law and the rights of those being eavesdropped on.
OK. So what's wrong with that?
Sorry, this is just plain incorrect. Check out http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp (hardly a "left-wing media outlet")
Except that, again, Mr. Bin Laden did not mention this as a justification for his attack on the WTC and the Pentagon until well after the war in Afghanistan had started.
But let's grant that Mr. Bin Laden's main complaint is about Israel, just for the sake of argument. What would this change? Do we make policy decisions out of a desire to appease madmen like Bin Laden, or based on what we believe is the right thing to do? Because you are suggesting the former, but the vast majority of Americans support the latter.
In any event, as far as "blaming the victim" goes, it's not a matter of making 9/11 "acceptable." Nothing makes it "acceptable." But there's a difference between trying to understand what drives terrorism and empty propaganda like "they hate our freedom."
But again, I'm not saying `they hate our freedom', they are. You may say that this is only a symptom, but they are saying it. And as even you admit, `understanding' terrorism does not make it acceptable. If someone is attacking us, we will defend ourselves. Then, if you want, we can discuss their `reasons' -- but see below.
even a cursory glance at the US' record WRT the Islamic world screams that the phrase "innocent victim" does not apply to the US.
Oh really? Hmm, let's look at the use of US troops in the 90's: Kuwait? US went to war to defend Muslim nations (Kuwait, Arabia, Turkey) which asked for our help. Bosnia? US intervened to defend Muslims from genocide. Kosovo? Ditto (whether rightly or not belongs in some other thread). The US pays billions of dollars in subsidies to a wide array of Islamic nations every year -- and that's not counting the oil money.
Just which part of this is anti-Muslim?
You say it's just a symptom. Bin Laden, in the tapes, says that we must be destroyed because of what we are. As he's the one who actually orchestrated the attacks, I think I'll take his word on it.
This becomes especially clear when we see that there is a global movement which is trying to impose a very repressive and anti-liberty form of Sharia law in nations all over the world, from Nigeria to Uzbekistan, from the Philippines to Turkey. I don't say this movement speaks for all Muslims, of course, but it is a real thing, and it must be countered. As several news outlets have reported, there are even branches of this movement such as Jamat-al-Fuqra which are violently active here in the United States, and are calling for forced imposition of Sharia law here.
I don't think it does anyone any good to continue gratifying your lies about Tianenmen with a response. Anyone who saw the video of that day knows that what you claim is true is not. Anyone who read even the official Chinese government description of that day knows that you are making claims in defense of the Communist Party which even the Party itself does not make.
What the Chinese government says is ``yes we attacked unarmed demonstrators at Tianenment (and unarmed Tibetans, and unarmed practitioners of Falun Gong), and we believe that attacking them was right and necessary''. You know that that argument won't fly in this forum, so you come here with a story which is even more outlandish. I don't think anyone here believes you, and I am not going to argue against what everyone can see are lies.
As for the Hong Kong businessman threatened with the death penalty (he was finally sentenced to two years in prison after international protests) for the `crime' of bringing a suitcase of bibles into China, you can read all about it here or here.
But I'd like to speak to your larger point. You continue to speak of the Chinese people as if they must be kept in chains for their own good. They must be forbidden to leave the country, they must not be allowed to vote for their leaders, they must accept every form of persecution because for some undefined reason, democracy `wouldn't work' for them.
Now, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I don't see why you feel you have a right to have your opinion forced on the Chinese by a brutal regime. If the Chinese people consider the same things important as you do, they will vote that way. If they do not, then what possible right do you have to force such things upon them against their will?
And yes, let's look at India (the world's largest democracy). Here we have a nation which in fifty years has developed a thriving tech economy, a stable democratic government, and improvements in standard of living undreamed of in more repressive nations such as China. And they have done all this while under near constant attack accross their borders from neighboring nations -- including China. Freedom and democracy worked for India. So what was your point in bringing that nation into the discussion?
and that the US backs the Israeli government against the Palestinians.
Except that Bin Laden never mentioned this before September 11, and only stuck with it when it became clear that it had traction with left wing media outlets here and in Europe.
This reminds me of a great Tom Tomorrow cartoon printed not long after 9/11--one newscaster is saying to the other, "And now Susan will give us a detailed look at radical Islam, including their beliefs and historical reasons why they might be driven to such despicable acts." And the bubbly blonde responds, "They hate our freedom." What a bunch of dogmatic BS.
OK, please enlighten me. Just what combination of `beliefs and historical acts' would make September 11 acceptable?
Mr. Tomorrow (and I saw that strip at the time) is making the mistake of believing that Mr. Bin Laden's motives are what intellectuals here say that they are, and not what Mr. Bin Laden himself says that they are. His argument boils down to saying `Uncle Sam was wearing a short skirt and do-me heels, and why was he out so late anyway, if he didn't want it.' -- please stop blaming the victim.
Except that yes, they do say that. If I have been reading different newspapers than you, it is because I make a point of checking out what the Arabic media is actually saying. See MEMRI for translations (a number of other groups have verified these translations, not least the New York Times), or see the english-language versions of various Arab papers (though several of them are much less extremist in english than in arabic).
Don't forget the Bin Laden tapes, either. Someone who is still complaining about the `tragedy of Andalusia (spain, 1492)' is not mad because of current US policy. Someone who considers the nature of US society to be evil is not making a policy judgement.
in our haste to get in a war with afghanistan, we pretty much skipped ultimatums and diplomacy with the taliban. we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution, because bush wanted war. as for freedom to criticize the government
Let's turn that around a little: ``in our haste to get in a war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution'' -- doesn't make much sense, does it? It is not our responsibility to `negotiate' with nations which are attacking us. It is our responsibility to destroy the infrastructure which makes attacks like September 11 possible.
I firmly believe those who criticize me for criticizing the government are within their right. I don't want them to make my speech sound criminal when it is constitutional, however.
Then we're agreed, except that I don't see anywhere where someone suggested that what you said was `criminal' at all.
Hmm. Last time I checked, there's no oil in Afghanistan.
Anyway, which part of `totalitarian regimes nationalizing oil drilling projects which were paid for by private companies' qualifies as `capitalism'?
OK. Why?
Many people, myself included, believe that recent terrorist attacks are as a direct result of the USA overseas policy -- which is interesting, but is a point of view which you can only stick to if you carefully ignore what the people attacking us are actually saying. They don't say that they don't like our foreign policy. They don't say that we should be isolationist (as you suggest). They say that what we are and what we stand for must be destroyed, and they say that any degree of brutality against our civilians is acceptable to achieve that goal.
I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem. -- but isn't this just giving in to blackmail, by saying that we should decide on foreign policy not based on what's right but based on what will appease those who might otherwise attack us?Sure, you could say it, but you would be lying, or repeating lies told by others.
OK, how's this piece from the New Yorker for a start? Anyone who has any doubt that the word `evil' applies to Saddam Husseing should read this article.
And that shure helped him in the 1992 election. Oh, wait.
I don't think anyone is `waiting for an excuse' at all. We have very good reasons to go into Iraq, we've said what they are, and we've said that we're going in, and staying in until Mr. Hussein is out.
What we are waiting for is planning, preparation, and restocking of supplies of ammunition and other goods depleted during the campaign in Afghanistan.
And so it's clear, what is your objection to Cheney going on `Meet the Press'? He's telling the American people what Bush thinks should be done, and judging by the current administration's approval ratings, the American people agree. If he were not on the air, you would be objecting to the lack of information coming from Washington...
I see. Did the people who died at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 die for the same reason?
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. So, in fact, in your view, it's not remotely possible that in fact the people who planned and executed September 11 didn't just cease to exist the morning after? It's not remotely possible that many of them are still out there planning further attacks?
No, if we are defending ourselves, it must be for `approval ratings', it couldn't possibly be because we are still under attack...
And by the way, as for `the freedom to say what we want about them and criticize the government ': of course you have that freedom. And Clue4All also has freedom of speech, and the right to disagree with you and to say so. Why do you think freedom of speech means the right to not be disagreed with or criticized?
Well put.