MSNBC attacks Pat Tillman

[Sean Smith]

What's a war crime, and who defines it?

You are taking this topic seriously, well, off topic, aren't you... moderator.

The topic being... "MSNBC attacks Pat Tillman."

War crimes are defined by law.

 

[flatrock]

Pax,

As I said before, I am not comparing Tillman's actions to either of the hypotheticals. Please stop calling it "an analogy," because that is not what it is. The purpose of the two illustrations was to select two roughly-similar scenarios, one which "everyone knows" was good and one which "everyone knows" was bad -- and compare them to each other to figure out what exactly constitutes the difference between them.

If you want to argue about war being immoral or moral, take it to a different thread. This thread is about Ted Rall's attack on Pat Thillman. In the context of this thread your "analogies" are at best off topic.

You first argued that it was an attack against the war rather than an attack against a person, which was transparrently incorrect considering Rall didn't even mention the right place where Tillman fought and died.

Then you start with your analogies which you say aren't about Tillman, yet you make comments like this.

"But if the war itself is immoral, would Tillman still be a hero?"

You go on about the war being immoral, yet you don't provide any reasons for the war being immoral. You just keep casting this cloud of immorality over the actions of Tillman in the form of a hypothetical discussion.

You later say, "The second is the point I'd like to explore, if we can get the knee-jerk emoting out of the way.", yet you're the one feeding the flames.

I meant, I would like to explore the question of whether a man who volunteers for and dies in an immoral war can legitimately be called a hero.

This applies to your second point because the best defense against libel is truth.

You say your comments aren't about Tillman, yet you keep defending Rall. Not only that, your comments make it sound like you believe Rall's cartoon isn't libelous because it's the truth.

However, you, just like Rall, don't provide any evidence of why your views are the truth. Rall claims to be "America's BS Detector", yet he's always strong on emotion and short on facts. He uses cartoons, because what he has to say doesn't get held to as high of a level of scrutiny that way.

His comments are not based on fact, and are libelous.

You're defense of his comments, and disparaging comments about Tillman by analogy are also libelous.

Your comments like this tell a lot.

As for insulting you, I truly didn't mean to. I was trying to say that the issue itself has a high emotional content, and that it would take a conscious effort to switch gears to cerebral rather than visceral. Please forgive my wording.

You basically say the problem here lies in others. It's the other people who aren't able to use their minds well enough to seperate their emotions from the issues you want to argue. Yet you're defending Rall, who writes based on his emotions rather than on facts.

You're the one who's letting you're anti-war emotions keep you from discussing this on a cerebral level. People keep asking you if the war in Afganistan was unjustified. You ignore the question and step sideways around it.

Face the facts on the issue.

Rall doesn't rely on the facts in his attacks. He designs them for impact, not accuracy.

The war against Afganistan was not immoral. Our continued efforts to go after the remaining people there who provided support for those that attacked the US on 9/11 is not immoral.

The Taliban had horribly repressed the people of Afganistan. Those people are now able to form their own government. Schools have reopened, and the people are getting a chance to more their country forward, rather than being held back by a government that wanted to keep them as a third world nation in order to control them.

I have a hard time seeing where the war was immoral. I also find you're comparison of our soldiers to the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 appalling. The terrorists purposly attacked a civilian target with the intent to kill thousands of people who were not a threat to them. You want a definition of an immoral war, that's a good place to start.

In both Afganistan and Iraq we gave the government a chance to avoid the war. The Taliban refused to hand over the Terrorists. Iraq refused to comply with the UN resolutions.

You can argue that there were immoral acts performed during these wars by our soldiers. There is proof of such acts in Iraq, and those soldiers should be punsihed harshly for their crimes. I don't know if anything similar happened in Afganistan, but I haven't seen any evidence of such actions.

The immoral acts of a few soldiers does not make the war immoral, however it does make those people immoral.

Do us all a favor. Drop the airs of having an intelectual discussion about war in general on a thread about Pat Tillman. Discuss the subject of the thread or take it elsewhere.

 

[pax]

Let me clarify it for those who have no moral compass such as yourself.

Let me clarify for those who aren't reading my posts very carefully, such as yourself: I am mostly asking questions for the purpose of exploring the ethical issues brought up by the cartoon.

I am doing this because I find threads with people exploring the issues in thoughtful posts to be much more helpful than pages full of one-line posts heavy on the smilies and light on thought. Of course, that's may just be me; several people have indicated that they'd rather simply emote about this than think through the underlying ethics. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I'm not built that way and one of the reasons I come online is to find out how other people think and learn from them. I'm a little unhappy that so few people are trying to answer the questions I'm actually asking, but I think that is probably my fault for not being clear enough. Since everyone has decided to hate me anyway, I'm going to keep trying, but I admit to being a little discouraged. How can I learn from folks if no one is willing to walk me through the steps to get to where the rest of you apparently are?

The views that I have actually stated are:

1) The cartoonist's main intent was to attack the war, on both the Iraqi and Afghani fronts. He used Tillman's death to do so. I agree that using a soldier's death to make any political point is ugly.

2) Afghanistan is not the same as Iraq. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan under the Taliban as its principal haven before 9/11. However, Tillman volunteered for the armed services, not for either Iraq OR Afghanistan, so which front he died upon should not be an issue.

3) I would like to explore the question of whether a man who volunteers for and dies in an immoral war can legitimately be called a hero. This is exactly on topic: Tillman died in a war that plenty of people consider ill-advised or immoral, and that was the cartoonist's point. (Please note #2) above: I have already conceded that the war in Afghanistan is not the same as the war in Iraq, and I am not interested in debating the morality or immorality of the war on either front. I am interested in the question of whether, IF Tillman died in an immoral war, he could legitimately be called a hero.)

4) Several people posited that it doesn't matter whether the war itself is immoral; a man who dies well is a hero regardless of the ethics of the war. My response to that was to post a comparison between two roughly-similar fighters, one in an unquestionably 'good' war and one in a 'bad' war, to determine if they were both heroes. Again, for those who missed it: I did not compare Tillman's actions to either of those two hypotheticals. The hypotheticals came into play simply in response to the assertation that the morality or immorality of the war was irrelevant.

5) I stated that the Holocaust was wrong. I don't need to be bludgeoned with the fact of its wrongness; I do need to discuss why it is wrong. This feeds back into the question of whether a man who dies in an immoral war can legitimately be called a hero, which puts it on topic as that very question was the cartoonist's point.

That's the sum total of what I've asserted so far, and why I've asserted it.

I think a lot of people are assuming that my questions are arguments. They are not. They're questions. (Thank you to those who've tried a stab at 'em.)

pax

A bad cause will never be supported by bad means and bad men. -- Thomas Paine

 

[pax]

Sean ~

War crimes are defined by law.

Which law, whose law, when?

And does the fact that something is illegal make it immoral, or would those actions have been immoral regardless of what the law said?

pax

 

[Penforhire]

I would answer similar to Master Blaster, but not so bluntly since it seemed obvious PAX was stirring the pot, not stating any conviction of her own.

The intentional killing of civilians is what defines a whole class of war crimes to me. That happens to encompass the Holocaust but also many other events. One form of guerilla warfare, hiding among civilians, takes advantage of this in an unethical way, hence the allowances to execute-on-the-spot out-of-uniform combatants ("muslim extremists") and to attack those that harbor then (say a mosque).

Civilians have been killed by us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can't argue too much with that. But I doubt we specifically targeted ANY civilians. And not EVERY dead civilian is blood on our hands.

I do not see a lot of moral relativism in the class of warcrimes stated above. The only take-a-deep-breath I can see is: suppose the USA was invaded by a foreign nation. Would you want to be treated as an out-of-uniform combatant for defending your neighborhood? Makes me want to have a uniform in the closet.

 

[Sean Smith]

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

For U.S. service members, they are defined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These in turn are based on our observance of the various Geneva and Hague accords, and other international treaties and so forth. The U.S. generally adheres to very strict interpretations of what are collectively called the laws of warfare, even when the U.S. or its opponent was not a signatory of the treaty in question.

And does the fact that something is illegal make it immoral, or would those actions have been immoral regardless of what the law said?

Well, you asked about war CRIMES. Crimes are a matter of law, not ethics, insofar as laws may or may not be ethical in and of themselves. We could argue about the ethics of warfare all day long, since the whole basis of warfare is suspending the usual rules of ethics (e.g. against mass killing and destruction of property), so what is and isn't a crime becomes vague in the abstract, even if the legal particulars are well-defined.

Your error, in my opinion, is using this cartoon as a springboard for your discussion. You should have just started a new topic to debate the issue. The cartoon is just one guy (the cartoonist) being an offensive and disingenuous ass, and isn't really worthy of being the basis of anything, except the cartoonist getting fired for being an unethical moron.

 

[mercedesrules]

Now that I've seen the cartoon, I do think it's rough, but I still don't agree that invading Afghanistan was justified. First, the 9/11 attacks were a retaliation for past and continuing US aggression in the middle east. Second, attacking a country where some dead criminal hung out is not justified anymore than attacking Tim McVeigh's hometown would have been. It has been agreed that the whole mess was planned before 9/11 and was mostly about oil.

MR

 

[Sean Smith]

First, the 9/11 attacks were a retaliation for past and continuing US aggression in the middle east.

"Boo hoo, everything is America's fault, America made us do it, we are morally justified in mass killings of American civilians, so leave us alone so we can kill you some more and spread an anti-culture of fanaticism, women-as-property, etc."

 

[pax]

Flatrock ~

You first argued that it was an attack against the war rather than an attack against a person,

And then I conceded that it was an attack against the person as well as an attack against the war. I continue to assert that the illegitmacy of the war was the cartoonist's primary point.

which was transparrently incorrect considering Rall didn't even mention the right place where Tillman fought and died.

Read the cartoon again, flatrock. "Tillman ... falsely believed Bush's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan ... 'We're attacking Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda' ... When Tillman got killed by the Afghan resistance..." Sure looks to me as though he mentioned Afghanistan.

The War on Terrorism has had two hot fronts overseas: Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the same war. Tillman volunteered for the War On Terrorism; he didn't choose which front he got sent to and which front he died upon is really irrelevant.

Then you start with your analogies which you say aren't about Tillman, yet you make comments like this. "But if the war itself is immoral, would Tillman still be a hero?"

That's not a comment. It is a question. It is prefaced with the all-imporant word, "IF." And few people have tried to answer it.

You go on about the war being immoral, yet you don't provide any reasons for the war being immoral.

I have asked the question: "IF the war were immoral, would Tillman still be a hero?" That's it. I haven't discussed whether or not the war is immoral (nor will I do so); I have asked, IF it were, would he be a hero? Given that the cartoonist started from the premise that the war is immoral, this is a legitimate and on-topic question.

You say your comments aren't about Tillman, yet you keep defending Rall.

Nope, I haven't defended him. I've tried to understand him, by asking questions which start from his premises, to see if his understanding of the world will hold up under scrutiny. This is more difficult than simply saying, "He's wrong! He's ! I'm so I could just !" but it is worthwhile. We live in a world full of people who think the way Rall does. How can we answer their opinions if we don't even try to understand what they are saying and why they are saying it?

Not only that, your comments make it sound like you believe Rall's cartoon isn't libelous because it's the truth.

By definition, IF it were the truth, it would not be libelous.

He uses cartoons, because what he has to say doesn't get held to as high of a level of scrutiny that way.

Um, yeah. That's kind of MY point, you realize.

You're the one who's letting you're anti-war emotions keep you from discussing this on a cerebral level.

That's funny. Where did you get the idea that I'm anti-war? Certainly not from anything I have said in this thread (nor at any time since we invaded Iraq -- run a search if you doubt it). I have expressed only one view about the war in this thread (that Afghanistan is not Iraq) and have consistently used the word IF to make it clear that I am asking a subjunctive question.

People keep asking you if the war in Afganistan was unjustified. You ignore the question and step sideways around it.

I answered it the moment it came up on the first page. I repeated it above for those who weren't listening the first time.

Let's stipulate that the war is, in fact, moral. There, I said it.

Now let me repeat my question with that out of the way. IF the war were immoral, would Tillman still be a hero?

This is still on topic, as it has been all along, because Rall's cartoon asserted that the war is immoral and that therefore Tillman is not a hero. The question of whether or not the war is immoral has been done to death on other threads. Rall's second assertion, that a soldier who dies in an immoral war is not a hero, has not been discussed elsewhere. As you pointed out, the things that Rall said should be scrutinized. So let's scrutinize it.

pax

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. -- Dudley Field Malone

 

[Penforhire]

mercedesrules, wow is that some flame-bait you posted here or WHAT?

"retaliation for past and continuing US aggression in the middle east." Did you find that line in a Crackerjack box or an Al Qaida memo? Do you mean our agressive defense of Kuwait and our staunch military support of Israel? Or do you mean our agressive MTV-invasion of camels-and-huts middle eastern Muslim life?

Do you really personally believe we deserved the 9/11 attacks as a form of retaliation for our policies? I do not.

And you really see no connection between AQ and Afghanstan's Taliban? Weird how two people can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. I can only hope you and I are never on the same jury together.

 

[Riffraff]

Pax,

I genuinely enjoy your posts and truly respect your command of the english language. So I ask you a question:

Are you familiar with Ted Rall's work?

Have you read his response to the reaction his editorial cartoon has created? I know first hand you have experienced the reaction.

But I am forced to wonder if Rall even gives as much thought as you have to his cartoon. The very line: "Do I get to kill arabs?" is so indefesible it is beyond words. That is Rall's line, yet many will interpret it to be something Tillman did or said. That makes Rall libelous and slanderous.


By the way here is a quote from Rall on the cartoon:

Second, Mr. Tillman served an evil president and an evil cause.

http://www.tedrall.com/rants.html

 

[Ezekiel]

BAH!

1. "…retaliation for past and continuing US aggression in the Middle East."
2. This is how a large percentage of world population perceives things.
3. Only an American uber-patriot nationalist cannot see that.

Does knowing this actually serve to modify what our behavior, as a country, should be? I hope not. Why? Because, while not a strict nationalist, I am an American. (American Indian, actually, creating other issues!)

Nobody speaks for Pat Tillman but "the artist" [undeserving of name] implies something inherently disrespectful: that Tillman completely bought in to whatever may have been fed him and responded without thought. I don't buy it, the man was an Academic All-American. Tillman placed trust in, at the very least, his elected leadership in determining that his service -- or possible death -- would not be used in a cavalier manner. He was not blind to complexity.

The cartoon would have us think that he was. It's drivel. Not even worthy of concern: yet I posted, didn't I? I'm a hypocrite...

Zeke

 

[R.H. Lee]

heh........I tried accessing tedrall's website from work........the internet filter blocked it as "Hate Speech"......pretty well sums it up....heh

 

[flatrock]

Pax,

Let me clarify for those who aren't reading my posts very carefully, such as yourself: I am mostly asking questions for the purpose of exploring the ethical issues brought up by the cartoon.

On a similar line I can ask questions such as the following.

Are you a troll?
Do you have psycological issues?

I could go on, but I'm really not trying to make a personal attack here. I'm trying to point out that when you ask some questions, you infer something based on the context in which they are asked. In this case you are inferring very bad things about Pat Tillman by asking your "questions" on this thread.

I would like to explore the question of whether a man who volunteers for and dies in an immoral war can legitimately be called a hero.

First of all you've provided no reasoning why you feel this is an immoral war. You haven't even defined what you think would make a war immoral. You say that a bunch of other people feel it's an immoral war, yet you don't provide what there reasoning is for it being an immoral war.

For wanting to explore the issue, you sure don't want to explore it in any depth. There's no way people can really discuss this issue with you when you don't really define your stance.

There's also the issue of how you are at best hijacking someone else's thread simply because you didn't like the subject. I thought moderators were supposed to stop people from hijacking threads?

Let's look at your posts a bit more.

This is exactly on topic: Tillman died in a war that plenty of people consider ill-advised or immoral, and that was the cartoonist's point.

Afghanistan is not the same as Iraq. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan under the Taliban as its principal haven before 9/11. However, Tillman volunteered for the armed services, not for either Iraq OR Afghanistan, so which front he died upon should not be an issue.

So when it suits your purpose the war in Afganistan which is easily justifiable is just another front of the same war as Iraq? For you it doesn't mater where Tillman died, because he volunteered for armed services. So basically his crime to supporting his country after it was attacked?

Of course it's still bringing us back to the issue of why you think the war is immoral? Spell it out for us. If you can't explain it and support your reasoning, then you have no business insulting those that have fought for our Country.

I am not interested in debating the morality or immorality of the war on either front. I am interested in the question of whether, IF Tillman died in an immoral war, he could legitimately be called a hero.)

Then your posts are off topic. Your justification for them being on topic is "This is exactly on topic: Tillman died in a war that plenty of people consider ill-advised or immoral". You can't have it both ways.

I agree that using a soldier's death to make any political point is ugly.

Yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are bringing these things up on this thread to use the plublicity of Tillman's death to bring attention to the topic you want to talk about, just like Rall did.

 

[Joe Demko]

Pax,
I'll have a shot at answering your questions.

1.

The cartoonist's main intent was to attack the war, on both the Iraqi and Afghani fronts

Agreed, by using the name of a real, famous soldier, he masterfully angered so many people that the point was, however, lost.

2.

However, Tillman volunteered for the armed services, not for either Iraq OR Afghanistan, so which front he died upon should not be an issue.

That is absolutely and indisputably the case.

3.

I would like to explore the question of whether a man who volunteers for and dies in an immoral war can legitimately be called a hero.

IMO, no. One who knowingly bravely and loyally serves in an evil cause has still served evil and there is nothing heroic about evil. There were brave and loyal Gestapo agents and SS troopers. There were brave and loyal KGB agents and Red Guards. The men who piloted the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were brave and loyal to their cause. We are, in the end, responsible for our actions and the consequences of them. On the individual level, this is mitigated to a certain extent by the fact that leaders are usually quite willing to lie to their soldiers and citizens about the real motivations of a war. In that case, the courage and loyalty are misplaced and the soldier still isn't really a hero. He's a brave and loyal dupe.

4.

Several people posited that it doesn't matter whether the war itself is immoral; a man who dies well is a hero regardless of the ethics of the war.

No. See #3 above.

5.

I stated that the Holocaust was wrong. I don't need to be bludgeoned with the fact of its wrongness; I do need to discuss why it is wrong

Not to be flippant, but it was wrong because the Nazis lost. By their lights, they were doing what was right. The Aztecs practised human sacrifice on a grand scale; but according to their societal beliefs, it wasn't just good, it was necessary. It's a cliche, but the winners really do write history. WRT the Nazis and their crimes against humanity, IIRC Winston Churchill was of the opinion that if we wanted to execute all of the Nazis we should just do so, as the victors in a total war. He thought that it was a real mistake to introduce something as nebulous as "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity." In a practical sense, though, I guess one would be able to say that war crimes exist when a nation signs a treaty regarding uses of certain weapons, treatment of POWs, or the like and then violates that treaty. Why do I think that The Holocaust was wrong? Because I, as an individual, think murder is wrong. I believe that because I was brought up in a society that holds that belief.

 

[spacemanspiff]

wow, lots of traffic in here the last 12 hours.....

pax, i didnt say there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. i was saying that a persons or peoples perspective of right/wrong is different between cultures.

lets go back to the example you used. the germans thought it was the 'right' thing to exterminate the jews and any other people that 'poisoned' their heritage.

(fwiw, the germans viewed their Aryan heritage as a living entity, and the needs of the individual were overshadowed by the needs of the people, or 'entity'. it was up to the people to make sure that entity was in its best possible condition, and that meant that the 'undesirables' had to be purged from it. it began by sterilizing their own mentally sick, physically deformed, as well as those with substance abuse problems. then they started exterminating them and the german people were okay with the idea of killing their own family and countrymen for the sake of their heritage. then it wasnt that much of a jump for them to sterilize and kill those from other racial backgrounds.)

the germans saw no wrong in what they did. some may have felt remorse and some indeed didnt follow the nazis propoganda, but the majority were okay with what went on during WWII.
we see it as wrong and label their atrocities 'war crimes'. and we honor those who answered the call of duty as Heros because they fought to make sure that those events will never happen again.


we saw the attacks on 9/11 as an act of war. and thus we honor those that selflessly volunteered to go into battle and make sure that those responsible for 9/11 wont be able to arrange another attack on anyone.
we call them Heros.

 

[flatrock]

quote:War crimes are defined by law.

Which law, whose law, when?

And does the fact that something is illegal make it immoral, or would those actions have been immoral regardless of what the law said?

I believe at least one place such crimes are defined is in the Hague Convention.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html

 

[mercedesrules]

(Sean Smith) "Boo hoo, everything is America's fault, America made us do it, we are morally justified in mass killings of American civilians, so leave us alone so we can kill you some more and spread an anti-culture of fanaticism, women-as-property, etc."

So, Sean, I guess you're sticking with, "They're evil; we're good, and they hate us because we're free".

As angry as you are right this minute, how close are you to attacking any particular communist, muslim, Democrat or other person with whom you merely disagree?

Me excluded

MR

 

[mercedesrules]

(PenForHire) mercedesrules, wow is that some flame-bait you posted here or WHAT?

What.

"retaliation for past and continuing US aggression in the middle east." Did you find that line in a Crackerjack box or an Al Qaida memo? Do you mean our agressive defense of Kuwait and our staunch military support of Israel?

That's exactly what Bin Laden (assuming, for now, he had something to do with it) said it was for - that, and american occupation of Saudi Arabian holy lands. If terror intends to change behavior, why would he lie about it?

Or do you mean our agressive MTV-invasion of camels-and-huts middle eastern Muslim life?

No. That would be free trade - not government action.

Do you really personally believe we deserved the 9/11 attacks as a form of retaliation for our policies? I do not.

Don't put words in my mouth. I made no mention of "deserved". I don't condone the murdering of innocent parties such as WTC businessmen. But, "blowback" can be expected when a bully provokes a weaker, but populous, entity.

And you really see no connection between AQ and Afghanstan's Taliban? Weird how two people can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions.

I really don't expect that I have seen anything about 9/11 that I could call evidence. Don't you think they cleaned up the sites pretty fast?

I can only hope you and I are never on the same jury together.

I can assure you this will never happen.

 

[Sean Smith]

So, Sean, I guess you're sticking with, "They're evil; we're good, and they hate us because we're free".

Well, for me to "stick with" it, I would have actually had to said something like that in the first place.

But to know that you'd have to actually read my posts, instead of engage in knee-jerk hysterics.

As angry as you are right this minute, how close are you to attacking any particular communist, muslim, Democrat or other person with whom you merely disagree?

I'm sorry, you seem to have confused me with somebody else. Or just plain be confused. Attacking anyone? Are you accusing me of being a violent criminal or something? Very peculiar. I don't think I've attacked anyone in my life, though I've defended myself with physical force once or twice. Maybe I broke some inanimate objects? Heck, as a baby I wasn't even a biter.

-Communists? Good luck finding a real one. Most of them are in China trying to turn a buck. Or in North Korea looking for lunch.
-Muslims? I don't recall making any anti-Muslim posts on this (or any other forum). I have explained to some folks how the Koran doesn't say anything about "kill and eat Christian children," and that sort of thing. Insinuating that I'm anti-Muslim is pretty vile on your part.
-Democrats? Well, I *do* think the Democratic Party is pretty worthless. Along with every other political party I've heard of. I do like how they are least likey to try to take away my booze and porn.

Given your whining on other posts, you seem to be the sort of person who thinks they have been "attacked" when somebody disagrees with them or points out how they think they are foolish. That's a very totalitarian mindset, you know.

 

[mercedesrules]

(SS) Well, for me to "stick with" it, I would have actually had to said something like that in the first place.

But to know that you'd have to actually read my posts, instead of engage in knee-jerk hysterics.

Sorry I wasn't clear and somewhat flip, Sean. What I was contrasting was my best guesses vs. an admitted oversimplification of the party line as often spoken by the Bush administration. Why do you think the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked - and by whom?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As angry as you are right this minute, how close are you to attacking any particular communist, muslim, Democrat or other person with whom you merely disagree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, you seem to have confused me with somebody else. Or just plain be confused. Attacking anyone? Are you accusing me of being a violent criminal or something? Very peculiar. I don't think I've attacked anyone in my life, though I've defended myself with physical force once or twice. Maybe I broke some inanimate objects? Heck, as a baby I wasn't even a biter.

We're having a hard time connecting. I meant to make the point that it must take a lot of provocation to make someone train to fly, board a suicide plane and aim it at a building. How could the motivation be mere disagreement with american lifestyles? Isn't it more likely that the person or his kin were severely wronged by some american(s)? All I meant was for you to consider what extreme wrongs it would take to cause the average person (you, me, etc) to go to these lengths. If the local sheriff or minister came to my house today and suggested I blow myself and some innocents up over civil rights or lifestyles in some foreign place, he would get nowhere.

-Communists? Good luck finding a real one. Most of them are in China trying to turn a buck. Or in North Korea looking for lunch.
-Muslims? I don't recall making any anti-Muslim posts on this (or any other forum). I have explained to some folks how the Koran doesn't say anything about "kill and eat Christian children," and that sort of thing. Insinuating that I'm anti-Muslim is pretty vile on your part.
-Democrats? Well, I *do* think the Democratic Party is pretty worthless. Along with every other political party I've heard of. I do like how they are least likey to try to take away my booze and porn.

Again, this was not personal. I don't know you. I only wanted you to think about the unlikelihood of people committing a suicide attack over capitalism, religion, politics, or other ideal as long as it is not forced upon them.

 

[Penforhire]

mercedes, it is obviously a matter of perspective. What AQ calls agression, and you apparently agree with, is what I call ordinary geopolitical behavior. Why would you agree with AQ on this one?

If the arab nations could stop squabbling for more than a few years at a time we (USA) would have backed them instead of Israel. Furthermore we do not rule the Saudi's, conspiracy theories aside. If we have a presence there it by negotiated treaty. I'd tell AQ to go be pissed at the Saudi government.

 

[mercedesrules]

Penforhire) mercedes, it is obviously a matter of perspective. What AQ calls agression, and you apparently agree with, is what I call ordinary geopolitical behavior. Why would you agree with AQ on this one?

I think there is clear right and wrong to some actions. I am anti-state, so to me most, if not all, state actions are "wrong" because they are coercive. The positioning of troops in foreign lands, whether by "treaty" or otherwise, is aggression - either on that country or her enemies. Name a particular geopolitical behavior and I'll try to tell you my opinion of it.

If the arab nations could stop squabbling for more than a few years at a time we (USA) would have backed them instead of Israel. Furthermore we do not rule the Saudi's, conspiracy theories aside. If we have a presence there it by negotiated treaty. I'd tell AQ to go be pissed at the Saudi government.

It's my understanding that the United States Government (USG) backs the house of Saud over rival factions, ignoring their monarchical governing style. I don't think the USG should "back" anyone. If they let me decide how much of my money I wanted to use for that purpose, I would tell them "zero". Since I am not a party to any treaties, I don't recognize them. Plus the countries in that zone will never stop squabbling; the USG best stay out.

MR

 

[Foreign Devil]

Now that I've seen the cartoon, I do think it's rough, but I still don't agree that invading Afghanistan was justified. First, the 9/11 attacks were a retaliation for past and continuing US aggression in the middle east. Second, attacking a country where some dead criminal hung out is not justified anymore than attacking Tim McVeigh's hometown would have been. It has been agreed that the whole mess was planned before 9/11 and was mostly about oil.

Peace through suicide, right?

Excuse me but attacking a country where a criminal was given safe haven, from which he planned and organized attacks, and which perpetrated horrific abuses on its citizens is 100% justified.

edited for spelling

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Gents,

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but it made me furious. The communist scum at MSNBC published this cartoon attacking Pat Tillman:

This cartoon is a great example of the sneering contempt that the leftists have for the military and military service.

It's no wonder why the Democrats are becoming more and more irrelevent, especially in the South (and elsewhere) where military service is still a respected tradition.

And it's no wonder that the Pentagon doesn't want leftist scum like MSNBC getting their dirty hands on pictures of the flag-draped coffins returning from the war. There's no telling what low minded use the leftist scum in the media would put those pictures to.