To Chris, Cyrus and anyone else

that supports homicide bombings, I am curious:


1. What are your views on the September 11th attacks? Do you feel there was any justification for the attacks?


2. What about the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl? Was that action justified?

Where did either of them say that they supported homicide bombings?


Just curious.


Matt

I don't think that Chris and Cyrus (or anyone else who has posted here) support homicide bombings. They have pointed out that the bombings don't occur in a vacuum, that there is a history behind current events that explains, but does not justify, the bombings. People have a reason for doing things. If those reasons are ignored, then the cycle of violence will continue and probably spiral out of control (if it hasn't already). To just say that the other side is evil, that they are wrong and we are right, that we are good and they are evil, leads to stalemate and war. This is exactly the attitude of Messers Arafat and Sharon and the reason why, IMO, they should depart from the scene. Neither has shown the courage or statemanship necessary to stop the burying of Palestinian and Jewish children.


The deliberate killing of civilians is never justified. The September 11 attacks and the murder of Mr. Pearl sicken and disgust me. The Palestinian homicide bombers sicken and disgust me.


It seems clear to me that there would be no Palestinian homicide bombers if the Jews had treated the Palestinians with any degree of respect since the fouding of Zionism. To ignore this history is to be condemned to repeat it. I have no doubt that Zionism's founders would be ashmamed of the history of Zionism, and the founders of Palestinian nationalism should be ashamed of the course it has taken as well.

Many interesting points Andy.


There is one point I would like to make which seems to escape many on this forum. It is that REGARDLESS of who is right or wrong historically, and to whatever degree each may share blame, that homicide bombings of innocents are 100% wrong, no matter WHY they originated or who was originally at fault. The world simply cannot tolerate the existence and perpetuation of a philosophy that says those who are dissatisfied may attack innocents instead of attacking those they perceive as the guilty or responsible parties.


As loony as McVeigh was, he had zero business attacking a federal building where common federal workers were the most likely to be killed. He was not attacking the individuals he had his gripes with/about; he was merely attacking a symbol of them (and killing very real innocents in the process). So whether it is the Palestinians, al Qaeda, the IRA, or any other terrorist group or individual, the philosophy that attacking innocents in order to prove a point or to draw attention to an issue is so wrong and dangerous it must be considered intolerable in the eyes of the rest of the world (if civilization is to survive as weapons of destruction continually increase in power).


In other words, the world must stamp out terrorism, regardless of any "justification" terrorists caim. If oppressed peoples believe they have a just cause that requires violence, then let the violence be directed primarily at the responsible parties, not at the innocent uninvolved members of society. Terrorism must be stopped ASAP in all forms and by all groups before it gains even more widespread acceptance as a philosophy. It is this which Alger and Cyrus seem to fail to realize, because although they condemn terrorism, they keep pointing to what they see as the underlying causes of Palestinian terrorism. I agree there are many underlying causes and that some of these could be addressed, but I state emphatically that the world cannot allow the widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy and actions because that will eventually doom the human race (as weapons of greater and greater destructive powers are inevitably developed as decades pass).

Matt,


Thats not a quote, thats from multiple postings (mainly from Chris Alger) justifying/ rationalizing the homicide bombings, and even blaming Israel and (more specifically) Sharon for them.


IMO, there is no justification for such acts. To try to justify or rationalize such actions is insane. To place the blame for them on anyone but the terrorists themselves and the people/organizations which support them is equally insane.

....realizes that the recent actions (say last twop years for sure) of the Palestinians have been more evil than the actions of the Israelis. However what he may not realize is the extent to which the philosophy and actions of terrorism (even when under the most extenuating circumstances) poses a threat to the entire world. The philosophy of targeting innocents rather than those who (arguably) should really be targeted is not only bankrupt morally speaking but is extremely ominous in implication. For instance what if McVeigh had had a truckload of the newest generation of plastic explosives (like that found in Richard Reid's sneakers) instead of merely a truckload of conventional explosives. The damage would have been far greater, or he might have secreted it at several targets at once perhaps. What if he had had a briefcase nuke. Well those scenarios are coming inevitably so and we can only hope that terrorists and like-minded loonies will be few in the future. We must do everything possible right now to discredit the philosophy that it is OK to attack primarily innocents as a manner of expressing grievances. Kids are being raised to believe that this is not oply OK, but that it is even the path to Paradise. The rest of the world (the sane world) must show that this is totally intolerable and must do so with convincing force. I am close to believing that NATO should systematically crush all terrorist groups worldwide, in rapid sequence. Of course getting the Europeans to go along with something like that (ACTIVELY, at least) is highly unlikely.

'As loony as McVeigh was, he had zero business attacking a federal building where common federal workers were the most likely to be killed.'


you realize many people, such as dr. frederick whitehearse (sp?) former head of fbi crime lab, and general benton parton former head of US weapons developement, both vehemently publicly stated that there was NO WAY a fertilizer truck bomb was responsible for the OKC building damage.


the implications of this are subject to opinion, but the fact itself is unassailable.


brad


p.s. now why i say this is because without an understanding of the facts, all you get is a form of spin about the what is going on with terrorism.

interesting, but it doesn't change my point by one iota. What if he had had a briefcase nuke--too many loonies today (both organized loonies and individuals) think it is OK to take out their frustrations on innocent folk or to try make a point by doing so. Given a trend towards the greater acceptance and practice of this sort of thing, combined with ever more powerful weapons, the implications are truly horrifying.

well thats like saying if oswald had a suitcase nuke he could have taken out congress as well.


brad