The IRA, after a hundred years of strife, has announced it’s laying down arms and wants to work toward its goals using non-violent means (as Kathleen has noted over on her website.)
So let’s say we flash forward ten years, and Al Qeada is still strong, in business, and a major terrorist force. Iraq is still a fragmented mess. And suddenly Al Qeada announces that it wants to lay down arms and work toward a peaceful unification of Iraq and the Muslim world.
Do we accept that? Do we start working with them?
PAD
• 
Rationally, sure, you’d go for it. Couldn’t hurt, and the potential gains are certainly worth it.
Realistically, not a chance in hëll. Emotions in too many quarters run too high to even consider it, to say nothing of the pundits. I’m certain Ann Coulter (Her Cerebral Phosphorescence) among others would have many interesting things to say on the subject, none of which would be at all productive.
I’d love to see Al Qeada genuinely want peace and be willing to work toward it. But at the monet, I honestly don’t think enough people with influence on our side truly want peace to make it possible.
The first thing I thought when I read about this was, I wonder if the stakes are getting too high and they are not willing to use the methods that Al Qeada employs? The impact of the violence they have used lessens when others use planes to hit targets. Either way, I applaud any group who is willing to lay down arms and talk. We will also sit at the table with terrorists as soon as they indicate willingness. Hopefully it will be sooner, rather than later.
The analogy doesn’t hold. A unified Ireland ceases to be a threat, A muslim world unified under the equivilant of Osama or Mao becomes the greatest threat since W.W.II
As to the question of “can you stomach working with former terrorists?” I have to ask if you can afford not to if it means a stop to the bloodshed.
Even though I believe these tactics reprehensible, America, Israel, & South Africa have all been accused of terrorism.
All we can hope for the future is that sane and rational people will finally be able control the forces of their own governments.
Then it wouldn’t be Al Qaeda anymore. The IRA had specific reasonable goals (although their methods were barbaric) and they could be compromised with. Al Qaeda seeks the conversion or subjugation of all non-Muslims, and a worldwide caliphate headed by Arabs (they look down upon Muslims of other races). That’s a fundamental part of their world view, and they are not going to stop until they achieve it. Negotiating with such an organization would be pointless.
The IRAs’ greatest source of revenue was from Irish-Americans. This source has dried up since 9/11, no doubt, in some small part to Mr. Blair probably telling Mr. Bush that if the United States wanted Britians’ support, the United States government would need to take an active roll in curbing and elimanating this financial subsidy to terrorism.
In order for Al Qaeda to sue for peace, two things would need to occur; Bin Ladens’ money would need to be dried up or otherwise gone, and a greater threat than themselves would have to come on to the world scene.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Hasn’t the IRA basically forgone violence already and this is a press release restating the obvious?
One huge, honking, disgustingly offensive, repugnant detail leaps out at me:
The IRA largely avoided civilian casualties, preferring to target political and military figures — to the point of phoning in warnings before bombs would go off. Al Qaeda, alternately, seems to prefer killing innocents by the thousands.
To compare the two, to place them on the same level, is to compare a guy who robs convenience stores with a Jeffrey Dahmer. With a kid caught with an M-80 around the end of June with Timothy McVeigh. To a guy jacking deer (that’s “hunting out of season,” “hunting without a license,” or violating some other hunting laws to you flatlanders) with the guy in the clock tower. To say they differ only in degree is obscene.
J.
Heya Jay,
There’s a problem with that distinction in my mind. It casts the United States in the same light as Al Qaeda. The States certainly weren’t phoning in when and where they were bombing and clearing out civilians from the fire zone. Even the conservative websites that offer body count numbers put the innocent Iraqi dead in the tens of thousands. The liberal ones come in at over one hundred thousand.
And I’m betting not one of them got a warning.
A rabbi friend of mine once told me about the Jewish tradition of not counting humans. Count livestock. Count sheep. Count bushels of grain. But never count humans. One life is an infinite loss, he would say. You cannot count higher than infinity. And to try only diminishes the worth of the first.
So in that vein, there is no difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda. Split that hair and you are splitting infinity.
It’s an interesting hypothetical, but it took the IRA many, many decades to come to this point. I don’t think an al Qaeda conversion is going to come in our lifetimes, particularly as we continue perpetuating a society not as tolerant of Islam and “brown people” as we are of warring Christian sects among white people.
I’d love to see Al Qeada genuinely want peace and be willing to work toward it. But at the monet, I honestly don’t think enough people with influence on our side truly want peace to make it possible.
I know I won’t persuade most of you, but this type of thinking is both wrong and counterproductive. What did we do to cause the attacks in the first place? The attacks were happening at least with Clinton, and I would argue even earlier. I don’t care whether it is a Republican or Democrat in control, America as a people have been for peace, and I would argue that every President (including currently) has wanted peace. To suggest otherwise is strictly a matter of demonizing someone you don’t like.
To answer PAD’s broad question, you only have to go back to the 1980’s with Ronald Reagan. While the situations are obviously different, his slogan still applies: “Trust but verify.” Whether it was G W Bush or a President 3 terms from now, I am certain that if any terroist group did what the IRA has done, they would talk to them. PAD’s question, do we work with them, all depends on wha they actually do, not what they say.
I accept that many of you disagree with Bush. That is your choice. But let’s look beyond the white house for a moment. This country, as imperfect as it obviously is, has provided more freedom and done it consistently for a longer amount of time than any other country in history. Yes, slavery, etc., demonstrates America was not (and still is not) perfect. But name for me one other country that holds a candle to the freedom we have had in the USA. And because of that, the people in this country DO overwhelmingly want peace for us and for others. Again, we are not perfect. I understand the arguments that this current war, for example, will make things worse rather than bring peace. But that is worlds apart from us as a people (and through us, the leaders we elect) not truly pursuing peace.
Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.
Iowa Jim
Name you a country that holds a candle to the freedom you’ve had in the USA? How about three: Canada, the UK, Australia. More? New Zealand, France, post-Soviet Estonia? Post-WWII Germany (obviously only West Germany until recently). I’m sure there others… maybe post-imperialism India?
And all of these have had those freedoms without bullying the rest of the world to the extent the US has. Not that they’re perfect nations by any stretch… but I think they’ve probably done far less harm than the US overall while having comparable freedoms.
Yeah, and Al Qaeda might be as bad as Bush if they had access to the resources and spin machine that Bush does. Insidious, self-righteous, and self-deluded evil is always more dangerous than obvious, “let’s blow up civilians for the primetime news” evil.
Okay, who had 11 on the post number where the USA was bashed and Bush declared worse than Al Qaeda?
Anyway, to address PAD’s question- Honestly, it depends on the collective memory of both the American people and the news outlets. After all, we as a nation were willing to deal with Arafat and the PLO for years despite numerous terrorist attacks that targeted military, political and civilian targets alike.
Much as I hate to say it… I guess we’ll have to see.
I think the Irish Republican Army (or at least most of them, except for splinter groups like the “Real IRA”) has been in a very long cease-fire recently, which led Erik to say that they’d renounced violence already. And they’d been waiting and seeing if the Protestant Irish and their British friends were going to live up to most of their promises before declaring the cease-fire permanent and starting to destroy their weapon caches.
I’d want Al Qaeda to do a long cease-fire before accepting that they’re willing to be non-violent and trusting them very far at all. But I’d be willing to stop hunting Osama if they’re willing to promise to stop helping al-Zarqawi and other insurgents in Iraq (and we see progress on that score). That’d be a place to start.
Do the IRA really deserve credit? As mentioned before above one of the reasons they have made this announcement now is that their primary source of funding (from irish americans) dried up after sept 11th. Having seen first hand the terror i guess they found it more difficult to justify funding a band of foreign criminals to go around blowing up, shooting and kneecaping their way around the streets of northern ireland.
The other more immediate reasons is that the people that they claimed to speak for told them enough, the bank raid and the MacCarthy murder in the bar were enough to get the wives, sisters and mothers to say no more.
Thats not to say that the IRA finally decided to get into the modern world and accept debate and democracy better than the bullet and the bomb is a bad thing, just saying don’t idolise them.
Al-quaeda is a different beast being set up for a global jihad (and to take over saudi for its oil revenues) and so it is difficult to see what they would feel they would gain out of talking.
I’m from (and i live in )Spain so as first thing, excuse me for my poor english. I’ll do my best.
There’s really a hard decision, do you trust the ones that have been killing people for decades, or do you not?
I think there are two points where we can never be sure:
1.could you think that they have already given ALL their arms?
2.do every one in IRA accept this resolution?
I’ll answer myself:
1.That’s clear that, even if they really lay down their arms today, the political thinkings of this people are not going to change.So, if they don’t get at last what they’re looking for, it seems reasonable they will be back to their original means.
2.I expect, but i don’t thik so. In that case…wich are the possibilities about the creation of a new terrorist force based in some present people of IRA? Maybe in a couple of months we have IREO (don’t look meaning to this)or some other thing like that.
After this…
I wish the best for english and irish people. I hope they will find the rigth solution. I expect the politics see what i can’t see and trust what i cant’t trust.
Because after all…how i wish ETA and Al Qaeda say this one day.
Greetings from spain.
Hi. I am too from spain.
Perhaps we can accept that.
But, will those who have lost family or friends in a terrorist action, accept that the people who killed them go unpunished?
I do not know.
I wish it could be possible, but I have not lost friends this way…
As a Brit let me try and give the view from over the pond. First, the IRA caused enormous numbers of civilian casualties. Second, they tried to kill the entire British government – like them or loathe them they were still elected, no one has ever voted for the IRA. Third, their aims are only “reasonable” if your an Irish Republican. The majority of people in Northern Ireland consider themselves British, not Irish.
The “but” is though the IRA were not and have never been fascist which is more than I can say for Al Qeada. There can be no middle ground for dealing with fascism, Al Qeada seeks both the destruction of the United States and her allies and a global Islamic state whether the rest of the world wants it or not. There can be no appeasement. Too many times the West, and particularly the US and her close allies like the UK, have supported and maintained brutal regiemes because it is a convenient solution. This time I don’t think there can be any accomodation for what is no more than a fascist death-cult.
Posted by Kevin Hall: This time I don’t think there can be any accomodation for what is no more than a fascist death-cult.
***
As Stephen Colbert would say…
I dunno… We’ve put up with the Texas judicial system for a while now… What’s one more?
J/K
This is a situation without any real good solution. If they want peace, thousands of innocents go unavenged. They continue to war, and thousand smore die.
Add to that that Al Qaeda very obviously doesn’t want peace to begin with, and it seems a moot point.
And to those complaining over the comparison of Bush and Al Qaeda, if it ever came down to a fistfight between Bush and Osama, I’d genuinely have trouble rooting for either one. One’s responsible for thousands of deaths across the globe and the fermentation of worldwide hatred. And the other’s Osama.
Yeah, you’re right, Mike. That’s why we carpet-bombed Tikrit a couple of months ago. And why Fallujah was flattened without several weeks’ warning and urging for civilians to evacuate. Why that medic last week, after being shot by a sniper, wounded his assailant and instead of treating his injuries, shot him seven more times and left his head on a pike. And why we have destroyed literally dozens of mosques the terrorists have used as hidey-holes and nests to launch their ambushes from.
Whoops, my mistake. Tikrit’s still standing. Civilian casualties in Fallujah were relatively low. The medic in question DID treat the wounded terrorist sniper. And we have extremely restricted rules on attacking structures as mosques, schools, and hospitals, no matter how many terrorists are inside, shooting out at our forces.
You know, if Bush was really as evil and all-seeing as you seem to think he is, why the hëll hasn’t your ášš been hauled off to Guantanamo by now? Why is Teddy Kennedy still free to drink himself into oblivion? Why hasn’t the ACLU all been rounded up and shot? Why are the CBS satellites still working? Why is the United Nations Building still a building, and not the United Nations Smoking Crater?
J.
Except for the Shiites of Iran, and now Iraq, isn’t the Muslim world pretty much unified now? Aren’t we allied with almost every Muslim nation, now including Libya? Aren’t we already giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Palestine, and isn’t Egypt practically a member of NATO? Didn’t the CIA train al-Qaida?
Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.
Straw man, Jim. Nobody here has said (or, IMO, even implied) otherwise.
In terms of America truly wanting peace, I agree that the group of neocons running the country wants peace — but a very specific peace. The PNAC documents are very clear and very dámņìņg — they see US domination as the key to a peaceful world. They’d like us to be the one and only superpower in the world, with enough influence that everybody will work with us, or at least not try to oppose us.
Now, I agree that such an approach might bring about peace … for a while. However, I for one don’t believe it would last. I also think the aftermath, when the superpower topples, would be much worse than the current state of affairs. Lastly, I don’t believe the US has the moral superiority to be justified in saying “hey, we’ll bring peace, just let us run the world for a while.” No single country has that.
And as for knowing you won’t convince most of us … well, no, not when your first phrase after that is “this type of thinking is wrong.”
TWL
The obvious answer is “yes,” assuming that their goal is really and sincerely to unify the area under some sort of peaceful umbrella.
Unfortunately, I think it’s just an interesting hypothetical exercise. With all the strife in the area, both historical and political, from without and within, I just don’t see it happening.
Along similar lines, I wonder sometimes what Iraq will look like in ten years. Heck, I wonder sometimes what the USA will look like in ten years. In 1995 I certainly didn’t expect we’d be where we are today.
dj
st. paul, mn
Wow!Tim that was very well put
As far as the topic at hand,I think if Al Queda elements were to come forward with the peace proposal we most at least consider it.It may not work,ultimately it might fail but if there is a way to peacefully resolve conflicts without the death and destruction of thousands we must consider it.
Unfortunately with the influence of Neoconservatives and blind media zealots like Coulter and limbaugh this would never happen unless it was somehow in thier(the neocons) best interests,whatever that may be
“Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.”
I think we understand that. What we don’t understand is this bizarre, almost perverse conservative compulsion to turn EVERY question about world politics into a referendum on Bush and then start howling that Bush is constantly being attacked. The only mention of Bush until you brought him up was a passing observation that indicated he might have had a hand in getting the IRA to publicly declare the end of its terrorist activities, which is hardly an attack. And frankly, since you’re the first one to bring up “evil” and “Bush” in the same posting, to me that suggests that you have one serious guilty conscience rattling around in your head.
“You know, if Bush was really as evil and all-seeing as you seem to think he is, why the hëll hasn’t your ášš been hauled off to Guantanamo by now? Why is Teddy Kennedy still free to drink himself into oblivion? Why hasn’t the ACLU all been rounded up and shot? Why are the CBS satellites still working? Why is the United Nations Building still a building, and not the United Nations Smoking Crater?”
Patience, patience. These things happen incrementally, not all at once. You can’t just toss aside ALL civil liberties and human rights in one shot. First you have to pass things like the Patriot Act. Then you have to say that the Geneva convention is “quaint” and “doesn’t apply.” Then you have to let opponents know that resistence will be met with below-the-belt retaliation (like, say, outing a CIA operative). Then you nominate a Supreme Court justice who appears to be opposed to limitations on presidential power. That kind of thing. You have to work your way up to the really big stuff.
Man, with all these conservatives linking “evil” and “Bush” together, we liberals don’t have to do a thing except sit back and laugh.
PAD
I would argue that every President (including currently) has wanted peace. To suggest otherwise is strictly a matter of demonizing someone you don’t like.
I would argue that suggesting otherwise is a sign I read the newspapers. Bush has said he wanted peace. Cheney said military action in the Middle East should be a last resort. Many of the words are good. Actions speak louder, and the actions have NOT been peaceful.
the people in this country DO overwhelmingly want peace for us and for others.
Yes we do. But we’re not really represented in the government these days.
Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.
Is this finally a tacit admission that President Bush IS evil?
Actually, Al Qaeda has put forth their peace proposal. It calls for the removal of all Western influence from Muslim lands, and the end of persecution of Muslims worldwide.
Of course, the devil is in the details:
1) Once a land is Muslim, it is Muslim for all time. That means a good chunk of Spain has to be given back to them, for starters. And kiss Israel goodbye. And since Jews are “Westerners,” they’re pretty much gone from the Middle East entirely.
2) “Persecuting Muslims” is defined as preventing them from establishing the Caliphate, the Muslim world-state. Which means that the non-Muslim world will be constantly redefined to mean a smaller and smaller space, and eventually none at all.
Al Qaeda’s peace offering was, in essence, “leave us alone and we’ll give you a little more time before we conquer you.” Great starting position, that.
J.
PAD writes; “Do we accept that? Do we start working with them?”
And I say; Yes. Yes we do.
If it stops more killing on both sides?
Of course we do.
If Osama called tomorrow and said he wanted to sue for peace, we’d be hypocrits to not consider it. Granted, our terms would be unconditional surrender, and we’d undoubted call for the trials of the terrorist leaders, but the rank and file? Agree to disarm, and never take up arms agains the US again, and they’re free to go about their lives.
Someone feel free to correct, me, but isn’t what I’ve decribed pretty much what we did with Nazi Germany at the conclusion of WWII?
why the hëll hasn’t your ášš been hauled off to Guantanamo by now?
You tell me. I think he deserves to be.
isn’t the Muslim world pretty much unified now?
Not really.
If anything, I think it’s more likely for the Muslim world to be unified against us than for most of the Muslim world to be unified with us while a couple of rogues run about.
I’m sure many Muslim leaders were happy that Saddam was ousted, but at the same time, pìššëd because it’s created a bigger mess with more terrorists that threaten everybody (as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and the UK can attest).
Al Qaeda’s peace offering was, in essence, “leave us alone and we’ll give you a little more time before we conquer you.” Great starting position, that.
Obviously that’s a sarcastic ‘great starting position’ in your opinion, but it is a valid one for Muslims.
From the way I understand things, bin Laden got his start because he wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia. Conveniently, our government trained him to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia is bin Laden’s homeland, and, although he is in exile, it’s not unreasonable for him to see the US as a foreign invader.
I know, I know, that’s traitorous thinking – everybody wants the US to come in, guns blazing, right?
But this does go back to the unified aspect – for many Muslims, religious pride is more important than national pride. Thus, they’re willing to fight on what would otherwise be considered foreign soil if they perceive an attack on Islam.
And when Western powers have been mucking about in the Middle East for over a century, perhaps Arab Muslims have a point.
Sure, but that scenario seems only slightly more likely than the Axis powers declaring that they were sorry, willing to give back all the land they’d conquered, and, hey, the Jew folks ain’t that bad after all.
It’s possible that if we keep on eliminating the leaders that eventually the organization will evolve into something very different, which seems to be more or less what happened to the IRA (and I have to disagree very much with the poster who said the IRA did not target civilians, btw. Even if one is sympathetic to the purported gaols, there is nothing admirable in the IRA).
Indeed, rightly or wrongly, the IRA wanted an independant Republican Ireland. Al Qaedia simply want their version of the Muslim faith to be the dominant one around the world.
Patience, patience. These things happen incrementally, not all at once. You can’t just toss aside ALL civil liberties and human rights in one shot. First you have to pass things like the Patriot Act. Then you have to say that the Geneva convention is “quaint” and “doesn’t apply.” Then you have to let opponents know that resistence will be met with below-the-belt retaliation (like, say, outing a CIA operative). Then you nominate a Supreme Court justice who appears to be opposed to limitations on presidential power. That kind of thing. You have to work your way up to the really big stuff.
There’s also labeling people “enemy combatants” so as to deny people a fair trial Jose Padilla), rounding up people who protest (Republican convention), having the FBI collect thousands of pages of survalliance on groups that oppose the president, random & useless searches of transit riders
I also forgot to make another point abuot Ireland (getting back to PAD’s orginally question…) was that the troubles over there go back at least 400 years to Oliver Cromwell’s time. Cromwell pursued a murderous campaign against the Irish as did his successors, not least including doing nothing during the terrible potato famines leaving the Irish to starve. Fast forward a few hundred years and the pattern is repeating itself in the Middle East, not least the fact that we’ve tried to dominate that part of the world since the time of the Crusades, pre-dating even Ireland. The point is though, none of us want several hundred years struggle with Al Qeada because neither side can deliver a knock-out blow. Personally though I think a fascist cause will rot from the inside, as all causes written in terms of absolutes always do. Al Qeada has given us no alternative other than putting up the most fierce resistance to their campaign of hate and death – I really don’t think they have it in them to renounce violence and negotiate with purely legitimate means.
Jim: “Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.”
Tim: “Straw man, Jim. Nobody here has said (or, IMO, even implied) otherwise.”
Now, Tim, we reference back to Finley’s post:
“Yeah, and Al Qaeda might be as bad as Bush if they had access to the resources and spin machine that Bush does. Insidious, self-righteous, and self-deluded evil is always more dangerous than obvious, ‘let’s blow up civilians for the primetime news’ evil.”
Finley did indeed state (pretty clearly, it seems to me) that Dubya is more evil than the entire al-Qaeda organization.
Jonathon,
Actually, it wasn’t Findley, it was then previous poster and anyway, he posted AFTER Iowa Jim. Of course, one could argue that IJ did his post knowing that someone would snap at the bait and prove him right…you don’t have to be here long to learn that it’s not hard to get knees jerking on both sides…
“Now, Tim, we reference back to Finley’s post:
“Yeah, and Al Qaeda might be as bad as Bush if they had access to the resources and spin machine that Bush does. Insidious, self-righteous, and self-deluded evil is always more dangerous than obvious, ‘let’s blow up civilians for the primetime news’ evil.”
“Finley did indeed state (pretty clearly, it seems to me) that Dubya is more evil than the entire al-Qaeda organization.”
Number one, that doesn’t change the fact that Iowa Jim was still the first person to link “Bush” and “evil” at a point where no one else was, making it a straw man argument at the time that he said it.
Number two, I’m pleased it seems so clear to you what Finely said and didn’t say. Curiously, it seems clear to me that Finley, in fact, said no such thing. Joey Connick made the post you’re referring to.
Suddenly things seeming less clear?
PAD
There’s no way for this set of assumptions to happen. If al-Qaeda is functional in 10 years then they will still have the manpower, firepower and finances to keep up what they are doing. The only reason you lay down weapons for peace is if you can better accomplish goals through politics and/or trade. However, al-Qaeda has nothing to trade, and there’s no country out there who will publically negotiate with al-Qaeda on their political ends. Right now their political goals are to remove governments from power in favor of stricter Islamic control.
May I say how much I love the fact that several people are going after my claim on Iowa Jim’s straw man, and not one has made any substantive response to the rest of my post? Gotta love the web sometimes…
[And yes, for the record, when I responded to Jim I’d only read as far as his post, not the rest, and thus hadn’t seen Joey Connick’s entry.]
TWL
Ah, “The Irish Problem”. Here are a few things to keep in mind:
1) Most Americans get their impression of the IRA from the songs they hear at the local Real Authentic Irish Pub(tm), and fail to realize that the Provisional IRA of today (not to mention the Real IRA, the Official IRA, and the Fûçk-Ÿøû-Wë’re-the-IRA) are NOT the same organization that fought for Irish independance ninety years ago, and tend to thus over-romanticize them.
2) Even during the worst of the “Troubles” of the ’70s and ’80s, the per capita homicide rate–including terrorist attacks and sectarian violence–in Northern Ireland was no higher than the homicide rate in the US. Often lower.
3) By the 1990’s, most of the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, on BOTH sides, had essentially become gangs of common street thugs wrapping themselves in religious, ethnic and political rhetoric.
As for the al-Qa`ida question, well, in the past 36 years, the PIRA is blamed for about 1700 deaths, about 500 of which were civilians. Republican paramilitaries overall are blamed for about 2000 deaths, about 740 of which were civilians. Al-Qa`ida has a LOT more to answer for. This doesn’t meen negotiations are impossible, but the situations are very different. For my money, the IRA and the UVF are more comperable to the Bloods and the Crips than to al-Qa`ida.
I think much of this rests on how you define “evil”. If you are just looking at total civilian bodycount, there is no question that the US government is worse than al-Qa`ida. But if you look at MOTIVATION, al-Qa`ida is FAR worse. If bin-Ladin had access to our level of military force, he would have nuked Israel by now.
I, for one, think that unintentional civilian deaths resulting from a directed military campaign–even a botched and arguably illegal one–are not as MORALLY reprehensible as deliberate, malicious killings of civilians that serve no larger military purpose. That doesn’t make them remotely OK, but it is the difference betweem negligent homicide (or possibly “depraved indifference”) and murder with malice aforethought.
The US has killed, or contributed to the deaths of, a staggering number of Iraqis, but we didn’t do it out of hatred. They are just as dead, but there is a fine moral difference.
Oh, here is the source for the Irelans statistics:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html
Something about Al Qaeda.
A spanish international analist said last friday that Al qaeda isn’t really a terrorist group but an revolution movement, if we look for their tactics an their objectives.
He said that they’re reliyng to an action-reaction strategy that allows them to maximize their recruitment.
Doesn’t make you think if we’re acting our best?
Greetings from spain.
Jack,
I would like to know why you think that it Bin Ladden had the resources of America that he would nuke Israel? This is considered Muslem holy land with a Muslem holy city in it. Destroying it would be an act against God/Allah/Jehovah/Howard.
Just in case anyone was wondering, Howard is from an old joke on Gods name in the Lords Prayer:
“Our Father, who art in Heaven, Howard be thy name.”
I don’t know why people are so quick to believe the rhetoric of those who claim to do evil “in the name of God” (or Allah, or Howard, or Hendrix) whenit is obvious even to a marsupial that what they do is, by any literate study of the basic beiefs of their religion, AGAINST the will of God. You’d have to be crazy to think that anyone in the IRA is a devout Catholic and it is equally obvious that the leadership of Al Qaida doesn’t believe their own words–you don’t see the top guys going for that sweet 72 virgins deal now do you?
My point is, it would not stun me if Bin Laden got a nuke and did something as totally unexpected as bomb Mecca itself, in the hope that it would make every Muslim worldwide rise up in pure homicidal rage. No matter what evidence there was, there is no way that most would not believe that the Israelis did it. (Hëll, even some supposedly educated folks think they were involved with 9/11!).
What would stop him? A belief in Allah? I am dubious. I think that Bin Laden may be pinning his hopes on a heaven right here on Earth. The religious ferver of his followers is just the morter to build those heavenly gates.
PAD, I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics.
But that’s just me.
“PAD, I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics. But that’s just me.”
See, whereas I wish it was less about petty fans showing up and being snotty, but that’s just me…
Oh, wait. It’s not.
PAD
I wish this site was less about your petty political ideas and more about comics
I wouldn’t consider global terrorism to be petty politics.
Here are some sites about comics, free of politics:
http://www.newsarama.com/
http://www.comicon.com/
Craig, you ARE aware that the US pulled out all our troops from Saudi Arabia a little while ago? At the request of the Saudi government?
And when you describe that starting point as “a valid one for Muslims,” aren’t you engaging in racism? Are you saying that certain things are reasonable and acceptable when put forth by one group, but not normally others? That unreasonableness and irrationality are cultural traits?
And yeah, the West has been “mucking around” in the Middle East for over a century. More like about 10 centuries, if you go back as far as the Crusades (and a lot of them do). Even longer, if you consider the Jews “Westerners” (and a lot of them do).
I will agree with you on one point: you say that the irrational beliefs of the Muslims are understandable. They’re a product of centuries of toxic culture. Where you and I differ is that you take it further and consider it acceptable when they wish to impose their irrationality on us. I don’t.
And before you go and call me names for calling their culture “toxic,” go and look up how women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims are treated. More importantly, look at their formal legal status — if you’re not a Muslim man, you’re pretty much camel-crap legally.
And they want that to become the law of the land for the whole world. No, thanks. We fought several wars over people who considered themselves the “master race” and wanted to impose that belief on Americans (the Civil War, World War II), and I think we, as a nation, are willing to do it again.
J.
And they want that to become the law of the land for the whole world.
No, actually, MOST don’t. Some do, just as some folks (çøûghçøûghTømBûgfûçkÐëláÿ) have stated publicly that their role in government is to establish a Christian, biblical worldview. Most, however, see it as their personal faith and no more.
How many Muslims do you actually know, Jay?
No, thanks. We fought several wars over people who considered themselves the “master race” and wanted to impose that belief on Americans (the Civil War, World War II), and I think we, as a nation, are willing to do it again.
Ooh, I get to be the first one to yell “Godwin” in a crowded thread. Cool.
TWL