Justice

A letter in the London News Review, brought to my attention on the SWF board by MikeofEvil. And the other one, from a blogger.

Meh. It's still a chat moment, and probably one of the more memorable ones. *shrugs*

I'll trust to that, though to be honest, it's not an 'all-good' thing. There are problems over there, though death count is an inaccurate way of looking at it. If they wanted to focus their problems, they should look at things like the Syrian Border, which needs better securing. We need to move more troops in to completely cut off the Syria Terror Pipeline that has sprung out of Western Iraq. Agreed. Indeed. The Brits aren't the type to back down from a knock. When you make a strike against English and American civilians, the public takes it much more personally. Then again, it doesn't seem to be that way with the rest of the world. Weird. I disagree with this, though, intensely. We can't go in and say 'Damn the civilians, full speed ahead!' We aren't C-Bacon's wet dream, nor should we aspire to be. If we are going over there to help them, then we have to keep them alive and safe. So far we've gone well out of our way to do that, and I'm very proud that we've been incredibly successful in minimizing civilian casualties for the most part. Just because people die in war doesn't mean we can't stop caring, and that we can't aspire to try and minimize the harm we inflict to only that which is necessary. We have to take the high ground. That's what type of country we are, and I'd be sad to see that go.

Problem is, I am not sure innocent Iraqi civilians appreciate bombs going off where they buy coffee in the morning, or where their children play. It's not like we asked and polled Iraqis beforehand, "Would you mind if we turned your country into a blackhole for terrorists to try and ensure that they can't come over here for awhile? Thanks" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think that was ever the intent, though. I don't think it's proper reasoning with the focus shifting towards the Iraqi people for us to want terrorists sneaking into the country. We need to start moving to stabilize and move towards where the terrorists are coming in from: Syria. Yes, I'm advocating the eventual invasion of Syria, because it does need to happen as well. And Cheesala: Shut up already.

Indeed. I mean, you've made so so many, and yet this still might have a chance at the top. Oh, and responded yet to my UN thing? Because it's useless to try and substitute a working police force for one that has basically failed in every one of it's missions. You know, just to remind you.

When, uh, reliable proof actually surfaces. Yeah, the Baathists do have a reason there, I suppose. Damn us for trying to bring horrible Democracy to their corrupt Tolitarian Utopia! Wow, because THAT'S a reasonable view. So, essentially, a bunch of crap propagated by Fundamentalists that often lacks truth or substance to it but is repeated so often that they begin to believe it's real? Since most of those claims are pretty much completely warped, untrue, or so minor in the scheme of things that it doesn't make up a logical or even near-understandable idea. Oh yeah, and perhaps you should distinguish between "justifications" and "incentives". Because those are justifications, not incentives. Incentives are somethnig you can gain, those are all reasons why they did it. No, we can all see this is what the Terrorist believes. The problem is most of us are grown up to understand that most of what they say is crap, and you haven't gotten to that stage in your adult development yet. Perceived injustice is more like it, fuelled by hate-filled dogma and hardline religious beliefs. Hardly anything that merits any sort of appologetics. He's Canadian, you ass. And trying to say that a terrorist, someone who actively plots the deaths of uninvolved and innocent civilians for a warped and deluded ideology, has any concept of humanity is childish. You could care less because it is the only thing that helps your argument. Of course, if they'd been touting the worst, you'd instantly be in support of their point of view. And considering the makeup of the Human Rights Committee at time, do they really get to count? And I think that's it. The rest is just whining about how people don't build stuff on 'facts' (Only use '' when C-Bacon is citing them), though of course he's liable to believe any manner of opinion article is an absolute truth and whatever most Muslim Extremists tout as 'wrongs' to them.

Okay, here goes. Let's see if I still have it... Iraq isn't exactly 1st world at the moment, nor is Afganistan. Chechneya, anyone? How about the Phillipines? Terrorism isn't restricted to a class, but I'm sure that's too hard for someone like you to figure out. While I don't mind Africa being top, having Global Warming up there is 1) Not a proven problem and we shouldn't try fixing something we have very little knowledge about 2) Something that can honestly put off because, well, how many people have you seen dead from Global Warming yet? I guess thousands of Iraqis killed in suicide bombings for electing their own government (Allah help us all!) and thousands of other terrorist attacks across the world doesn't constitute as much of a problem as one we know nothing about. They don't need any other incentive than to try to push an extremist message. They are fundamentalists: what more incentive do they need than 'We are doing the work of God'? Is that a reasonable incentive to you? On Fisk: Doyle got most of the good points, but just to repeat: There is justification in that statement. Saying 'Well, we should have expected it and we damn well deserved it' is pretty much justifying an attack on innocent civilians. The second quote does justify civilian deaths: By saying 'well, they're paying the price' is saying "Well, they're getting what they deserved'. When have you ever heard it used in a different context? It's made to imply punishment i.e. that they stole something and now they must pay it back. That's what that phrase means. That's just like saying, 'Well, the Spanish got their just desserts'. Welcome to the English Language. It has subtleties like tone and context, which you can't seem to master. If no act of terrorism is justifiable, then stop putting up posts and articles that try to justify it. Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks you condone this stuff? It's not because 'No one gets you'. It's because we all get you, you just don't get what the fuck you are posting. You can't say "They are killing innocent civilians, they are killing people associated with the new government, which is understandable..." without justifying it in some way. Perhaps the best way to say it, though, is this: Bwuahahahahaha. Pot, kettle. If you did any actual research on Islamic Fundamentalism, you'd realize that it's intensely xenophobic and calls for the death of any non-believers. Whatever other 'incentives' are secondary to the fact that they are all ancilliary to the fact that their doctrine of Islam tells them to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their God. Why are they ticked off at the US being in Saudi Arabia? It's not because we are infringing on their Sovereignty. It's because they are told to kill any people that believe differently than them. Maybe you can explain exactly what these incredibly vague 'other incentives' are. Is it for the money, maybe? Or free healthcare? If you are going to say that they are 'multiple incentives', you'd better be prepared to fucking name a few. This is pure bullshit. Talk to some Palestinians and you'll quickly realize that they aren't very hot on other Arab nations because they receive so little help from them. 'Free Palestine' makes a very interesting rallying call, but the reality is that it's just that and nothing else. The Arab States care more about eliminating Israel than having a real Palestinian state. Otherwise they would have accepted the plan for both Israel and Palestine back in 1948. More like 'Western Support of any government'. It isn't us who puts in place dictatorships, because if you look at any of the governments that have risen out of Arab society recently, you'd realize that they are ALL some form of dictatorship. Why replace an American Dictatorship in Iran for an Iranian Dictatorship? It's not the style of government that they were angry about. It was the fact that we supported a government. Uh, okay. Are you talking about the Arab Wars on Israel? Or the Syrian terrorism in Lebanon that forced Israel and the US to go in there? Or maybe the Persian Gulf War and the attacks in 'No-Fly Zones'? Actually, I think you are just talking about Bullshit. That's probably the most accurate description of that statement. If that was the real reason here, why were they cutting off heads before that? Why were they bombing places before that? Seriously, Abu Ghraib is weak, especially compared to many of the abuses that the Arab World has made. Why not speaking out against those abuses? Once again, to the fundamentalist, it's simply another way of putting out an 'Arab vs. West' view of the world.

Okay, one final time. Give me a little time, though.

Oh, and while I don't see it yet, I'm sure the idea of a UN Peacekeeping force is going to be mentioned, and does anyone have an HONEST example of them doing even a manageable job of not being corrupt or completely inept? Seriously, does anyone not remember the numerous failures in Africa, Bosnia, and other places around the world? The UN isn't going to bring order. It's going to bring collapse and yet another pullout.

Guys, you know if we just all put him on ignore, like everyone else in the world outside of the 'Noam Chomksy Book Club' and 'Commondreams.org', we'd cut down on crap tenfold. Though, sadly, I do miss refuting him dozens of times.

No, Tyler, but resources don't just consist of money. They consist of intelligence, experience, and many other intangibles. That's why it's foolish to say that Iraq is taking up more resources than could be gotten through a globalized war on terror.

I understand that, Kotz, and think it should be a problem we need to look at. But Terrorism should be there, somewhere, and it does disappoint me that it isn't.

And the cockblocking in the UN and it's massive, massive scandals aren't? Think what you might, but it's believable we had an intelligence breakdown with the circumstances. But you are missing the point here: It shouldn't be Bush going to the world and saying 'This is a problem'. Regardless, the world should be saying 'We have a problem we need to discuss'. It shouldn't depend at all on Bush. He's not the one who plans G8, is he? You think Iraq matters, but it doesn't. That might be part of what we are doing, but the World's actions don't need to be dictated purely by us. It shouldn't be the US's War on Terror, it should be the World's War on Terror. Sadly, few others want it to be like that. The problem is that G8 is dedicated to solving global problems that affect us all. It's not a good sign when Terrorism doesn't make a place on the top docket, since we both agree that it's a pressing global problem, don't you think? Edit: And finally, let's get back on topic. We shouldn't be arguing stuff like this in a thread for the Terror victims in London. Truce?

I don't believe that's a definite thing. I mean, they are more fundamental as there are more there, so there will naturally be more clerics and hardcore believers out there. More a matter of percentages than a cultural thing.

Why tell ME we need more global work? When we were bombing Afganistan and actually seemingly going after terrorist targets, why was the help not asked for then, when some countries might have actually figured we were interested in crushing terrorism not ousting a dictator and "spreading freedom" Is it my fault or my policy that drove the allies away initially? TERRORISM is the world's problem, The war in Iraq certainly is not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> God, you are really pathetic. This isn't us asking for help. This is the world discussing a problem that is everyones. You try to relate this to Iraq, but I'm not talking about that. The resources we are spending there are near what a globally-backed war on terror could do. It shouldn't have anything to do with Iraq because we are talking about something that isn't just confined to Iraq, or even the Middle East. It shouldn't come down to the 'US did this'. It should be 'We, as a planet, need to look at this'. That's how we came to Global Warming and Africa on the agenda. Why can't it be the same on Terrorism? Shouldn't be something that EVERYONE should be discussing and trying to act out on, rather than just us and a few of our allies?

But you're missing the point that Terrorism is a world problem, and the fact that it's not in the top two is a bit naive. He's right: It should be #1. We can look aid in Africa, we can look at Global Warming, but how about we look at a more pressing, immediate, and dangerous problem first? He's not saying concentrate on one thing at a time. He's critiquing the world for not putting Terrorism first on the agenda, which I agree with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not missing the point at all. Terrorism can be first on the agenda and there can still be time to look at other problems. That's all I'm saying. The fact that there's a summit to look at Africa and climate change doesn't mean counter-terrorist operations are being neglected somehow. That's just lazy thinking. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ME, yes you are. I respect you, but you are still missing what we are saying here. I'm not disagreeing with you that we have to multitask because, well, it's a big world and there are a lot of problems. But. You are still missing the point that he makes that G8 doesn't have Terrorism on the top points of the agenda, when it really should up there. The statement, and I, are not saying that Terrorism is the only agenda we should see. But it should be #1. It's not lazy thinking, it's prioritizing a more immediate and dangerous threat first because it needs to be discussed. It is a global problem that is just as threatening as both the current topics, and it should be discussed at a global level. Oh shut up. First off, no way on the resources of the entire free world vs. US military forces. Stop talking out of your ass, please. The resources being used in Iraq today are not close to what we could be doing with more global action on the War on Terror. If you could please rationally consider something rather than just kicking a knee-jerk reaction towards 'Dubya', the intelligence quotient of your posts would increase by 10. Secondly, we need more global work right now. Treating it as 'individual problems' which it seems like most countries are content to do is just going to hurt other countries because they won't stop 'someone else's problem'.

But you're missing the point that Terrorism is a world problem, and the fact that it's not in the top two is a bit naive. He's right: It should be #1. We can look aid in Africa, we can look at Global Warming, but how about we look at a more pressing, immediate, and dangerous problem first? He's not saying concentrate on one thing at a time. He's critiquing the world for not putting Terrorism first on the agenda, which I agree with.

I don't think that's a critique on the British Government, but the world community for not putting terrorism at the top of the docket. But that's just how I see it.

?

The only things stupider than that statement are the spelling mistakes. The occupation isn't 'fueling' the insurgency now; The brand-new government is. If we pulled out of Iraq, attacks wouldn't stop, they'd increase tenfold because they wouldn't have to worry as much about US forces being there. This entire thing is no longer about Americans being there, it's about a new government taking hold that the terrorists don't want. We have to stay there. If we don't, that'll just lead to more problems. We need to stay until the Iraqi government has the tools to keep itself reasonably stable for an indefinite amount of time.

Holy Christ, that had to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen debated.

Oh, and for the record, I am Powerplay. I just changed my name. o.0

I'd gladly trade NoCal and two draft picks to be named later for the return of Wildbomb.

You know, it's not the opinions of your followers that makes you a God. It's the opinions of your enemies. If they can honestly prove it, then let him get whats coming. But I have big doubts that it was Karl Rove, as he's become the Emperor Palpatine of politics. His persona of a 'Godlike manipulator' basically turned Kerry's campaign into a trigger-happy 'fire anything you can' mess because they didn't want to waste any opportunity, lest Rove instantly cover it up. I honestly think the entire RNC wants everyone to think it's Karl Rove doing everything just so that people can underestimate the rest of the party. But that would just be my own opinion.

I think the greatest benefit we get from it is a drive to do better and innovate. At least, that's how I took it when we first tried looking into this sort of stuff. We get a 'fairly' unbiased look at our shows, and the rating is a decent way of looking at us. I honestly agree with a few of those points on Mike's analysis, and I think we lose that unbiased perspective when we don't do stuff like this.