To Chris, Cyrus and anyone else

"It is this which Alger and Cyrus seem to fail to realize, because although they condemn terrorism ... 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)."


The only difference between you and I is that I'm opposed to all terrorism, and you downplay or apologize for state terrorism by the U.S. and it's clients, which is deadlier and more intractable. The notion that my approach creates more danger of "widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy" is therefore untenable.

"The only difference between you and I is that I'm opposed to all terrorism"


Well, you sure wouldn't know it from reading your posts!


I look forward to reading many future posts from you condemning the homicide bombings which are bound to occur rather than blaming Israel for them.

First of all I don't believe that the US and its clients engage routinely in anything I would term "terrorism"--at least not in recent years--whereas it's obvious that clearly identifiable terrorist groups (such as Hamas) do.


Secondly, I think that the Palestinians are (and have been for quite some time) engaging in pure terrorism whereas Israel is not.

'First of all I don't believe that the US and its clients engage routinely in anything I would term "terrorism"--at least not in recent years-'


well, youre just wrong on that. just last year or the year before the US had to close down its 'School of the Americas' in fort benning, georgia i think, because everybody found out they were training state sponsored terrorism there. (a la central american 'right wing' death squads)


i think they moved it to the phillipines or something.


brad

no, its just that the ADL considers any form of criticism of israel to be anti-semitism and racism.


according to them youre a hate criminal and theyre trying to get enforcing legislation passed in the US.


brad

M: "homicide bombings of innocents are 100% wrong"


Andy Fox: "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."


We have no disagreement here.


M: "Terrorism must be stopped ASAP in all forms and by all groups"


We agree again. Where we probably do not agree is the way to do this. The problem with dropping bombs is that you may kill one terrorist but create a dozen more.


"the widespread acceptance of terroristic philosophy and actions because that will eventually doom the human race"


Again, we agree. The increased lethality of modern weapons means more and ore people die. In the 20th century, 44 people out of every 1,000 people died as the result of war; in the 19th century, the figure was 16 out of 1,0000, and in the 18th, 9. (In the 15th, it was 2.)


Our disagreement, I think, is that I do not think terrorism can be stopped without understanding its underlying causes and its history. For example, suppose I told you that on the night of March 9, 1945, the United States bombed Tokyo, selecting an area as the primary target that was more than 84% residential, dropping 2,000 tons of bombs on an area containing over one million civilians, killing one hundred thousand of them. Wouldn't the context within which that action occurred, and the history of the war, including, for example, Pearl Harbor and the Japanese bombing of China be relevant in considering it's morality? One might still conclude that the bombing of Tokyo was immoral, but to judge the event out of context is to be shortsighted.