An Essay on Hypocrisy--A former US soldier

[rikzilla]

An Essay on Hypocrisy
By Timothy McVeigh

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") -- mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma."

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

Sincerely

Timothy J. McVeigh



The link (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcaug98.htm)

Ahhh the words of a truly dangerous extremist! Amazing how this rant resembles the rhetoric of AUP, Demon, Shemp, or Malachi isn't it? :hit:

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Hitler was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are facists.

[rikzilla]

...or Mister Manifesto for that matter... :rolleyes: :hit:

[Mr Manifesto]

If you don't know what I'm talking about, just say so. No need to try and impress me with your ability to post smilicons.

[Tony]

Didnt you know Rik, when a democrap is president, war, violence and assaults on civil liberties are ok.

[Marvel Frozen]

Hitler was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are facists.

I was going to say something along the same line. What a craapy topic.

[demon]

"Ahhh the words of a truly dangerous extremist! Amazing how this rant resembles the rhetoric of AUP, Demon, Shemp, or Malachi isn't it?"

hmmm...
Zilla...
"There were guys I knew in the Army that said that it's possible to drink yourself sober....I've never achieved such a feat..."

Get back to us when you`ve sobered up will you?...nothing like an ugly drunk.

[Cain]

Ahhh the words of a truly dangerous extremist! Amazing how this rant resembles the rhetoric of AUP, Demon, Shemp, or Malachi isn't it?

Uh-huh. And you do realize over half the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, right? So much for life, liberty and happiness!

A simple recourse is always taken against those unable to refute central arguments: the smear. Throw a lot of mud and hope some of it sticks. I understand this was a favorite tactic of Adolf Hitler... hmmmmm...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain


Uh-huh. And you do realize over half the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, right? So much for life, liberty and happiness!

A simple recourse is always taken against those unable to refute central arguments: the smear. Throw a lot of mud and hope some of it sticks. I understand this was a favorite tactic of Adolf Hitler... hmmmmm...

Godwin's Law -- The thread is over. Nothing to see here, move along folks

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Godwin's Law -- The thread is over. Nothing to see here, move along folks

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Indeed what about that moritorium I keep hearing about...

Of course I am probably guilty of breaking the law.

[arcticpenguin]

I thought the Dresden fire bombing was done by the British.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I thought the Dresden fire bombing was done by the British.

British and US Air Force firebombed it over three days.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

[hammegk]

Makes perfect sense to multiculturalists/moral relativists I suppose.

As a member of the US military, sounds like Timmy smoked too many joints, popped too many pills, drank way too many beers, etc. Wonder if he was into meth, pcp, the "good" stuff? Or perhaps a brain tumor?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Godwin's Law -- The thread is over. Nothing to see here, move along folks

What is this? Mr. Manifesto clearly has priority: "Hitler was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are facists."

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain


What is this? Mr. Manifesto clearly has priority: "Hitler was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are facists."

It's all about intent.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's all about intent.

Man who take woman camping has one intent.

[Jon_in_london]

btw Rik; what part of Mr. McVeigh's essay do you disagree with?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Man who take woman camping has one intent.

Well obviously not, otherwise why the heck would he take her camping?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's all about intent.

Oh, well in that case you're completely mistaken: I thought it was pretty obvious as sarcasm/irony.

"I understand this was a favorite tactic of Adolf Hitler... hmmmmm..."

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain


Oh, well in that case you're completely mistaken: I thought it was pretty obvious as sarcasm/irony.

"I understand this was a favorite tactic of Adolf Hitler... hmmmmm..."

Sorry, your posts are too ambiguous, next time you should warn us.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Godwin's Law -- The thread is over. Nothing to see here, move along folks

Oops, your brain has let you down again. Actually, the argument was a result of Atheism Web (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html). I mistakenly thought that the example of a converse accident/hasty generalisation was to do with Hitler. In fact, the example was Jim Bakker:

Converse accident / Hasty generalization
This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when you form a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which aren't representative of all possible cases. For example:

"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."

(actually, I was thinking of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, "Hitler was a facist, Hitler was an atheist, therefore all atheists are facists")
(and it may well be that Hitler wasn't even an atheist. D'oh!)

Your argument that I've commited the faux pas of Godwin's Law would have to hinge on the fact that I though atheists were bad (see Jargon Dictionary (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html), and therefore compared them to Hitler. I am an atheist myself.

To conclude: don't grapple with concepts you don't know enough about.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony
Didnt you know Rik, when a democrap is president, war, violence and assaults on civil liberties are ok.

Rick, see what happens when you channel Jedi knight...

you've gone and got Tony all horny...:roll:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
btw Rik; what part of Mr. McVeigh's essay do you disagree with?

So are people actually going to discuss the merits of the essay or are you all just going to trade cheap insults?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


So are people actually going to discuss the merits of the essay or are you all just going to trade cheap insults?

So how's the interview preparation going, you big southern jesse?

That answer your question? ;) :D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


So are people actually going to discuss the merits of the essay or are you all just going to trade cheap insults?

Sorry man, no can do...Godwin's law has been invoked! Such a shame that such a fine topic has been derailed by an off-hand reference to the big H. :D

-z

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sorry man, no can do...Godwin's law has been invoked! Such a shame that such a fine topic has been derailed by an off-hand reference to the big H. :D

-z
The "fine topic" of (attempting) to smear AUP, Demon, Shemp, and Malachi? Yes, that is such a great loss.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BillyTK

The "fine topic" of (attempting) to smear AUP, Demon, Shemp, and Malachi? Yes, that is such a great loss.

He's looking for the slightest excuse to bail because he knows his argument is crap. Don't worry, Rik, I understand. Just try to think before you hit that 'submit' button next time, 'kay?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK

The "fine topic" of (attempting) to smear AUP, Demon, Shemp, and Malachi? Yes, that is such a great loss.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! :roll:

Best laugh I've had all week ...thanks!

No, really...how could I "smear" them by pointing to something that they all completely agree with?? Take for instance Jon_in_london's (who BTW should have been on the list) question:
Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
btw Rik; what part of Mr. McVeigh's essay do you disagree with?


The question implies that he has no problem with anything in Mr. McVeigh's essay. It means that politically, these people are in accord with Mr. McVeigh. I never said that any of them believe his terrorism was justified.

So, tell me how I smear them?? How can someone be smeared by the truth? I only posted the McVeigh essay because it struck me as just the same old, same old, that we hear right here every day from the virulently anti-Americans. The only thing that makes McVeigh exceptional was his terrorism. I posted it to show the unrepentant moral indignation of the "true believer". McVeigh had the TRUTH(tm).... :rolleyes: ...and it seems he has many political soul-mates running around.

-z

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Grammatron
A Man who takes a woman camping has one intent

Well obviously not, otherwise why the heck would he take her camping?

Hitler went camping with a woman once...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oops, your brain has let you down again. Actually, the argument was a result of Atheism Web (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html). I mistakenly thought that the example of a converse accident/hasty generalisation was to do with Hitler. In fact, the example was Jim Bakker:



(actually, I was thinking of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, "Hitler was a facist, Hitler was an atheist, therefore all atheists are facists")
(and it may well be that Hitler wasn't even an atheist. D'oh!)

Your argument that I've commited the faux pas of Godwin's Law would have to hinge on the fact that I though atheists were bad (see Jargon Dictionary (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html), and therefore compared them to Hitler. I am an atheist myself.

To conclude: don't grapple with concepts you don't know enough about.

Thanks for the insult, but if you could scroll up and read, the invocation of the law had nothing to do with you.

To conclude: Read before you respond.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
To conclude: don't grapple with concepts you don't know enough about.

As I see that Grammatron has replied to your somewhat hasty 'defense' of his 'non-attack', allow me to edit my post to just say that your conclusion needs work.

MattJ

[Skeptic]

AUP, Jon_in_London, etc., are missing the point of Rickzilla's post.

First, it is NOT merely that McVeight simply agrees with their view of the USA. McVeight agreed that 2+2=4, too. It is that he is using the SAME ARGUMENTS that come out of the SAME WORLDVIEW as they do: namely, that the USA (and the jews) are bad, evil, and above all hypocritical, so that fighting them and killing them is justified or at least understandable. This is a far more significant agreement than merely agreeing that "the US is wrong sometimes", which just about anybody would agree to.

Second, The point is even more serious than that. It is not merely that a terrorist like McVeight happened to agree with their worldview. It is that IT IS THIS WORLDVIEW THAT MADE MCVEIGHT A TERRORIST, AND THAT THIS ACTION IS MERELY THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF HIS--AND AUP, JON_IN_LONDON, etc.--WORLDVIEW. Rickzilla's point is that the only significant difference between McVeight's and AUP's view of the USA is that McVeight had the balls to actually act, while AUP & co. merely talk.

Riczilla, if I understand him correctly, isn't saying that AUP, etc., are in fact terrorists--of course they are not. He is saying, however, that the only reasons they are not is negative: cowardice, laziness, unwillingness to leave the comforts of living while bashing the USA, and--probably above all--simply not taking their own anti-American rhetoric seriously in the first place. They certainly aren't taking it seriously enough to even walk in a protest against the USA, let alone bomb it.

In my view, perhaps unlike Rickzilla, it is the last reason that is much more important than the others. I do not believe that AUP, Jon_In_London, etc., are not terrorist merely because they are too lazy or cowardly to be terrorists. I don't know if they're lazy or cowards (probably not), and at any rate it isn't THAT that is stopping them from killing Americans despite the fact that their worldview certainly suggests, and supports, such actions.

What really stops them--or, more precisely, what makes it the case that actually harming an American (as opposed to talking in support of others who do) never occurs to them, is that they don't take their own "radical" anti-American beliefs too seriously in the first place. Their anti-Americanism is, simply put, a fad; it is what they pretend to believe because all their "liberal" and "progressive" friends pretend to believe it as well, in the same way they pretend to be "socialists" or "fighters for human rights". Not one of these "anti-Americans" will ever harm an American, any more than any of the "socialists" on this board will ever move to a socialist country.

AUP, Jon_In_London, etc. PRETEND (above all to themselves) that they hate America not because they are would-be terrorists, but because pretending to be "anti-American" is, like, really cool, man--in the same sense that being a fan of the latest rock group is cool. After all, nobody who flew the VK flag from their campus' rooftop during the Vietnam war actually took part in the ethnic clensing and butchery the same VK did during and after the war. They just did it because it was in vogue, like anti-Americanism is now in vogue.

[rikzilla]

Well Skeptic,

I have no idea if they are lazy, cowardly, neither, or both...nor will I speculate. I merely posted McVeigh's screed because it so reminded me of the crap that the "usual suspects" around here spew upon the walls of this forum. Otherwise you are dead on in your characterization of my reasons for this thread.

As usual, you manage to say it more clearly. Thanks.

-z

[Chaos]

Correct me if I´m wrong, Skeptic, but you have just stated that you believe that everyone with anti-American views who takes these seriously and is not a coward automatically becomes a terrorist who bombs, shoots etc. Americans.

I certainly share much, if not all the view you deem "anti-American", that is, I believe that the U.S. government acts against (in decreasing order of importance) the good of its own people, against the U.S. Constitution, against world opinion, and against its own declarations about freedom, democracy etc. I do not believe that the American people, except maybe a small part of them, are involved in this or even think this is right. I do not think that America is the source of all evil. I do not think America should be destroyed.

And, yes, I take these views very seriously. It was not my "liberal" and "progressive" friends who made me become opposed to the U.S. government. It was the actions of the American government themselves. I honestly and sincerely believe that it would be better for America and for the world if the U.S. government stopped that and acted according to the principles of freedom, democracy and equal rights. I am an adult and perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, and I take them very seriously, especially where such serious matters are concerned.

I also do not have to stand being called a coward by someone who has not yet displayed any courage himself. By your standard, a courageous, patriotic American like you should be off, bombing those Palestinians, Baathists and Al-Quaeda to hell, not ranting in the Internet. By my standards, however, (which, I think, are similar to those of most people here) courage is not displayed by killing civilians.

While I believe that, here and there, Mr. McVeigh does indeed have a point in his essay, I do by no means share his conclusion that ultimately, the only way to express ones convictions is inflicting violence on those who do not share these convictions. I have already sufficiently expressed by belief that the arbitrary killing of civilians is not justified in any way.

There are people who believe that the first, last and only solution to any political conflict is violence; these people are called terrorists; you won´t find these in Internet forums. There are other people who are not as narrow-minded, who are called ordinary people - which, you will have notice, are extremely prevalent in this forum. Only a handful of posters in this forum actually support the killing of civilians, and these people all happen to be in your camp of this debate. You keep saying that the governments of the U.S.A. and of Israel have the right to kill civilians whenever they say it is necessary to achieve the goals they say they want to achieve. Neither have you ever acknowlegded even the remote possibility that they might be wrong in thinking that killing civilians aids their goals, nor are you willing to discuss the possibility that they might for some reason be lying about these goals. You have also always refused to consider that anyone who is declared to be the enemy might not have the goals the government of the U.S.A. and Israel attribute to them.
You also insist in answering most arguments with rants. Some people in this forum go to extreme lengths to compose well thought out, rational posts about political topics to sway other with the power of facts and logic arguments. Sadly, you do not seem to want to be associated with such folk.
People who try to engage in a reasonable debate do not deserve to be ranted against. They do not deserve to be called terrorists. They do not deserve to be called cowards. They do not deserve to have their opinions ridiculed as insincere. They do not deserve to have their state of mind questioned. They do deserve a rational, reasonable answer to their argument. However, until now I have waited for that in vain as far as you are concerned.


Note:
In large parts, the last paragraph also applies to some other posters here, which I will not name for now, except if they rant against this.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Sorry, your posts are too ambiguous, next time you should warn us.
He was giving examples of the logical fallacy that rik used. It was obvious sarcasm, and nothing for you to be confused about. Godwin's law doesn't apply here.

[plindboe]

Skeptic,

rik's comparison is as irrational as the many Bush-Hitler comparisons across the net. For instance look at all this site: http://falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html

I'm sure you will agree that those comparisons are nonsense. But on the other hand you completely agree when such a method of arguing supports your own political views. You really should choose another username, since you aren't a skeptic at all.

[PogoPedant]

Chaos, you just joined the list of my heroes.

The rest of you, listen to Chaos.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla




BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! :roll:

Best laugh I've had all week ...thanks!

No, really...how could I "smear" them by pointing to something that they all completely agree with??
The smear comes from the juxtaposition of "Ahhh the words of a truly dangerous extremist!" with "Amazing how this rant resembles the rhetoric of AUP, Demon, Shemp, or Malachi isn't it?"

Take for instance Jon_in_london's (who BTW should have been on the list) question:


The question implies that he has no problem with anything in Mr. McVeigh's essay. It means that politically, these people are in accord with Mr. McVeigh. I never said that any of them believe his terrorism was justified.

So, tell me how I smear them??
A redundant question, as you've already answered this (I've emphasised the significant bits). How did you describe Mr. McVeigh exactly?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by plindboe

He was giving examples of the logical fallacy that rik used. It was obvious sarcasm, and nothing for you to be confused about. Godwin's law doesn't apply here.

It was not obvious because he seemed to include serious and sarcastic in one post thus making it confusing.

[BillyTK]

Skeptic
Let's see if I've summarised your point of view correctly:
The logical conclusion of the anti-American/liberal/progressive/socialist position is terrorism;
Anyone who adopts that position and but chooses debate over terrorism is lazy or a coward;
No-one adopts that position out of anything more genuine than a matter of fashion;
All anti-Americans are also anti-jews;
All those who hold a socialist position should move to a socialist country (jon_in_london, are you reading this? ;) )

Is that correct?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
Chaos, you just joined the list of my heroes.

The rest of you, listen to Chaos.

Chaos is friggin' fantastic!
Good to have you here on this board.

- m.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
AUP, Jon_in_London, etc., are missing the point of Rickzilla's post.

First, it is NOT merely that McVeight simply agrees with their view of the USA. McVeight agreed that 2+2=4, too. It is that he is using the SAME ARGUMENTS that come out of the SAME WORLDVIEW as they do: namely, that the USA (and the jews) are bad, evil, and above all hypocritical, so that fighting them and killing them is justified or at least understandable. This is a far more significant agreement than merely agreeing that "the US is wrong sometimes", which just about anybody would agree to.

Second, The point is even more serious than that. It is not merely that a terrorist like McVeight happened to agree with their worldview. It is that IT IS THIS WORLDVIEW THAT MADE MCVEIGHT A TERRORIST, AND THAT THIS ACTION IS MERELY THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF HIS--AND AUP, JON_IN_LONDON, etc.--WORLDVIEW. Rickzilla's point is that the only significant difference between McVeight's and AUP's view of the USA is that McVeight had the balls to actually act, while AUP & co. merely talk.

Riczilla, if I understand him correctly, isn't saying that AUP, etc., are in fact terrorists--of course they are not. He is saying, however, that the only reasons they are not is negative: cowardice, laziness, unwillingness to leave the comforts of living while bashing the USA, and--probably above all--simply not taking their own anti-American rhetoric seriously in the first place. They certainly aren't taking it seriously enough to even walk in a protest against the USA, let alone bomb it.

In my view, perhaps unlike Rickzilla, it is the last reason that is much more important than the others. I do not believe that AUP, Jon_In_London, etc., are not terrorist merely because they are too lazy or cowardly to be terrorists. I don't know if they're lazy or cowards (probably not), and at any rate it isn't THAT that is stopping them from killing Americans despite the fact that their worldview certainly suggests, and supports, such actions.

What really stops them--or, more precisely, what makes it the case that actually harming an American (as opposed to talking in support of others who do) never occurs to them, is that they don't take their own "radical" anti-American beliefs too seriously in the first place. Their anti-Americanism is, simply put, a fad; it is what they pretend to believe because all their "liberal" and "progressive" friends pretend to believe it as well, in the same way they pretend to be "socialists" or "fighters for human rights". Not one of these "anti-Americans" will ever harm an American, any more than any of the "socialists" on this board will ever move to a socialist country.

AUP, Jon_In_London, etc. PRETEND (above all to themselves) that they hate America not because they are would-be terrorists, but because pretending to be "anti-American" is, like, really cool, man--in the same sense that being a fan of the latest rock group is cool. After all, nobody who flew the VK flag from their campus' rooftop during the Vietnam war actually took part in the ethnic clensing and butchery the same VK did during and after the war. They just did it because it was in vogue, like anti-Americanism is now in vogue.

To comment on this a little.
In other threads I brought up that 3.3-3.5 million people have been massacred in the Congo over the past few years. This hardly gets a word from the international far left.

If you take all the Palistinians killed in the second intifada and multiply by a thousand you still will not equal this number. (I don't deny Palistinians are suffering, however the sheer volume of threads and world attention by some lead me to believe something other than an objective worldview is going on.)

If the far left is to be taken at its word about caring about the oppressed in the third world, then the Congo should be on the top of their list.

Why is it not?

There are a few reasons, but I think Skeptic is perhaps right in saying there is no 'cache' in protesting or posting about brutal third world thugs. It really is not fashionable.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mike B.

[...]

If the far left is to be taken at its word about caring about the oppressed in the third world, then the Congo should be on the top of their list.

Why is it not?

Because in its current form, your claim is vague to the point of spurious? Defining "international far left" would help in investigating the validity of your argument.

FGI, it's on the top of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/)'s list, but I guess the utility of that depends on whether AI is considered a leftist organisation.

There are a few reasons, but I think Skeptic is perhaps right in saying there is no 'cache' in protesting or posting about brutal third world thugs. It really is not fashionable.
And not exactly unique to any position on the political spectrum, perhaps.

Edited to fix tags.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mike B.


To comment on this a little.
In other threads I brought up that 3.3-3.5 million people have been massacred in the Congo over the past few years. This hardly gets a word from the international far left.

If you take all the Palistinians killed in the second intifada and multiply by a thousand you still will not equal this number. (I don't deny Palistinians are suffering, however the sheer volume of threads and world attention by some lead me to believe something other than an objective worldview is going on.)

If the far left is to be taken at its word about caring about the oppressed in the third world, then the Congo should be on the top of their list.

Why is it not?

Well, I suppose you can assume this means that Palestine solidarity activists are evil, anti-semitic people who really don't care about anyone unless it's "fashionable."

Or, you can examine the various forces involved and try to figure out WHY there's a Palestine solidarity movement and not much of a Congo solidarity movement. Let's face it--Skeptic's "they all hate joos, mkay" bit is really pretty stupid. That's a nonexplanation.

Think about the following for a minute:

#1 - How much tax money goes to Israel in terms of direct cash, guaranteed loans, military aid, etc. From the activists' perspective our money is going to the Bad Guy. How much have those thugs in the Congo received from the US?

#2 - The amount of news coverage on Israel/Palestine versus that on the Congo. When there's a suicide bombing, it's front-page news. When the Israels shoot a missile into a marketplace, it's second-page news. When some folks get killed in Africa, it's....not mentioned at all, really. This has to play a role as well...If it's off the radar screen, it's hard to pay attention to.

#3 - People like Skeptic. The reality is, Israel is treated with kid gloves like no other nation/government in the world. Criticism of it brings on immediate claims of anti-semitism and accusations of being "pro-terrorist." This is seen by many as an attempt to shut people up, much like the Vietnam anti-war movement was redbaited as being "pro-communist." People don't like being told what's an acceptable and unacceptable opinion, and many will instinctively rebel against that. The Congo is not treated in this way; you can denounce the Congolese government until hell freezes over, and not even Louis Farrakhan will call you a racist for it.

#4 - Compare with other activist movements. The anti-apartheid movement didn't spend all its time denouncing Sudanese slavery or Congolese massacres either. Does this mean that the movement was simply anti-white, because it singled out an explicitely white government for criticism? Does it mean that apartheid was "sexier" of a target? Are anti-war movements (ANY anti-war movement) and individuals "anti-American" simply because they're not criticizing every injustice in the world while they're denouncing a US war campaign? What about people who work to lift the embargo/travel ban on Cuba? You can make this "well, why aren't they criticizing XXYY" argument about ANY movement, including movements you agree with.

As for myself, I work for Palestine--as opposed to Congo--because it's a personal issue for me. I remember my third-grade Hebrew school teacher telling us that "Arabs are basically Nazis." (Yes, that is an exact quote--that incident was burned into my memory.) I see the hypocrisy of members of the American Jewish community who fight tooth and nail against attempts to make the US a "Christian nation," but refuse to permit discussion of the concept of "secular, democratic state" as it applies to Israel.

What makes people passionate about something? I'd wager it's different for each person. All I know for certain is that, as someone once said, for every complicated question there's an answer that is simple and wrong, much like Skeptic's "they all hate Jews" bit.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos
Correct me if I´m wrong, Skeptic, but you have just stated that you believe that everyone with anti-American views who takes these seriously and is not a coward automatically becomes a terrorist who bombs, shoots etc. Americans.

I certainly share much, if not all the view you deem "anti-American", that is, I believe that the U.S. government acts against (in decreasing order of importance) the good of its own people, against the U.S. Constitution, against world opinion, and against its own declarations about freedom, democracy etc. I do not believe that the American people, except maybe a small part of them, are involved in this or even think this is right. I do not think that America is the source of all evil. I do not think America should be destroyed.

And, yes, I take these views very seriously. It was not my "liberal" and "progressive" friends who made me become opposed to the U.S. government. It was the actions of the American government themselves. I honestly and sincerely believe that it would be better for America and for the world if the U.S. government stopped that and acted according to the principles of freedom, democracy and equal rights. I am an adult and perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, and I take them very seriously, especially where such serious matters are concerned.

I also do not have to stand being called a coward by someone who has not yet displayed any courage himself. By your standard, a courageous, patriotic American like you should be off, bombing those Palestinians, Baathists and Al-Quaeda to hell, not ranting in the Internet. By my standards, however, (which, I think, are similar to those of most people here) courage is not displayed by killing civilians.

While I believe that, here and there, Mr. McVeigh does indeed have a point in his essay, I do by no means share his conclusion that ultimately, the only way to express ones convictions is inflicting violence on those who do not share these convictions. I have already sufficiently expressed by belief that the arbitrary killing of civilians is not justified in any way.

There are people who believe that the first, last and only solution to any political conflict is violence; these people are called terrorists; you won´t find these in Internet forums. There are other people who are not as narrow-minded, who are called ordinary people - which, you will have notice, are extremely prevalent in this forum. Only a handful of posters in this forum actually support the killing of civilians, and these people all happen to be in your camp of this debate. You keep saying that the governments of the U.S.A. and of Israel have the right to kill civilians whenever they say it is necessary to achieve the goals they say they want to achieve. Neither have you ever acknowlegded even the remote possibility that they might be wrong in thinking that killing civilians aids their goals, nor are you willing to discuss the possibility that they might for some reason be lying about these goals. You have also always refused to consider that anyone who is declared to be the enemy might not have the goals the government of the U.S.A. and Israel attribute to them.
You also insist in answering most arguments with rants. Some people in this forum go to extreme lengths to compose well thought out, rational posts about political topics to sway other with the power of facts and logic arguments. Sadly, you do not seem to want to be associated with such folk.
People who try to engage in a reasonable debate do not deserve to be ranted against. They do not deserve to be called terrorists. They do not deserve to be called cowards. They do not deserve to have their opinions ridiculed as insincere. They do not deserve to have their state of mind questioned. They do deserve a rational, reasonable answer to their argument. However, until now I have waited for that in vain as far as you are concerned.


Note:
In large parts, the last paragraph also applies to some other posters here, which I will not name for now, except if they rant against this.

Chaos,

You seem to be a perfectly reasonable person. As such, I'm quite sure that you have little (if anything) in common with the infamous Mr. McVeigh. However, if you look critically at Mr. McVeigh's words you must agree that the rhetoric is much the same as what has been posted here over and over again by those I have referred to as "the usual suspects". Indeed, the only clear difference between Mr. McVeigh and AUP, Shemp, J_I_L, etc is the fact that Mr. McVeigh took himself seriously enough to murder 168 people. If you happen to notice any further differences please let me know. I truly do not see it.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the writings of the people that I singled out? Their anti-American rants are available anytime you care to search through them. I urge you to do so.

Skeptic is a passionate guy. Yes, sometimes he rants...so do I,..so do most people in this forum. You say he "answers most arguments with rants". That is simply untrue.

So,..I don't know much about you Chaos except what you stated:
I believe that the U.S. government acts against (in decreasing order of importance) the good of its own people, against the U.S. Constitution, against world opinion, and against its own declarations about freedom, democracy etc. I do not believe that the American people, except maybe a small part of them, are involved in this or even think this is right. I do not think that America is the source of all evil. I do not think America should be destroyed.

These were correctly stated by yourself to be your personal beliefs...and in this country you are free to believe as you like. You do not confuse your beliefs with facts, and that speaks very well of you. I disagree with you of course, but our perspectives are different and as long as you are not supporting/apologising for the acts of terrorists then I have no problem with what you believe. As Jefferson said; "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

But that's not what we are talking about here Chaos. We're talking about the kind of people who cheered when the twin towers came down. We're talking about AUP who believes that when a bus-load of lower class Jews and guest workers is blown up it is done in the service of a great cause. I mean, come on... J_I_L read McVeigh's screed and found nothing wrong with it. He asked me what part of it I found to be wrong! Well, for me that would be every part with the possible exception of the signature at the bottom, but the glaring part...the part that freezes the blood in my veins is that J_I_L sees nothing wrong with the overall essay. The fact that it was crafted for no other purpose that to justify and excuse McVeigh's act of mass murder!

How can a rational person miss that? How can anyone excuse it? You sir, may be a thoughtful and loyal American. Many such people have misgivings about our government. That is fine, and I support their right to dissent as long as they do not actively support those who would like to see America itself destroyed. But I am not talking about those kinds of people here Chaos. I'm talking about evil. The same kind of evil that motivated Mr. McVeigh. The same kind of evil that prompts some people to look at his words and see nothing wrong with his summary execution of 168 human beings. Those are my "usual suspects".

You are right;
People who try to engage in a reasonable debate do not deserve to be ranted against. They do not deserve to be called terrorists. They do not deserve to be called cowards. They do not deserve to have their opinions ridiculed as insincere. They do not deserve to have their state of mind questioned.

...however this is not about those people. This is about the kind of people that read McVeigh's essay and can find nothing wrong with the idea of a man who murdered 168 men, women, and children using their own political views to justify his act of terrorism. Hell, they AGREE with him. That's the point Chaos, you're a bright guy....I honestly can't see how you missed it.

-z

[Chaos]

Skeptic is a passionate guy. Yes, sometimes he rants...so do I,..so do most people in this forum. You say he "answers most arguments with rants". That is simply untrue.

Okay, let me be more precise. His response to my arguments both on the "Israel vs. Palestinians" matter and on the "Bush Administration vs. World Terrorism" matter consisted only of rants. I admit I found his posts on other, non-politics and non-morality topics rather well balanced, but once we meet in a political discussion, he just can´t make a normal argument.

I am passionate, too. However, I have tried very hard to avoid ranting. I have an opinion which I think is founded on hard facts, and if someone disagrees, I try to convince him/her based on these same facts. And I except others to do the same - this is the point of discussions. Anything else belongs to what we Germans call "Stammtischgeschwätz", or "beer table babble".

We're talking about the kind of people who cheered when the twin towers came down. We're talking about AUP who believes that when a bus-load of lower class Jews and guest workers is blown up it is done in the service of a great cause.

This has nothing to do with that. There are more positions than just "virtuous enemy of terrorism" and "despicable supporter of terrorism" - at least three I can think of: "outsider who does not want to take eithers side´s propaganda for granted", "innocent person who wants nothing to live in peace" and "neutral who sees errors in both sides and thinks neither is entirely right", with these groups overlapping quite a bit.
I belong the first and third of those other groups, as do - as far as I can judge them - AUP, J_I_L and the other "usual suspects". Just because we do not agree with you, it does not mean we are your enemy.

. I mean, come on... J_I_L read McVeigh's screed and found nothing wrong with it. He asked me what part of it I found to be wrong! Well, for me that would be every part with the possible exception of the signature at the bottom, but the glaring part...the part that freezes the blood in my veins is that J_I_L sees nothing wrong with the overall essay.

Imagine someone came to the conclusion that psychics, mediums, spoon benders etc. must be stopped by whatever means available and blows up a convention of these people.
After he is caught, he publishes an essay stating that it is wrong to trick people the way his victims did and that they are harming people. He implies that therefore, he had the right to kill them.
I suppose that Skeptic (or you, for that matter) also happens to think that "psychos should not do that because they are harming people", though he by no means agrees on the violent part of the statement. Would that automatically make Skeptic (or you) a terrorist supporter? And would that automatically means that that terrorist did not have a point in the non-violent part of his statement?

McVeigh´s essay can basically be broken down into five statements:

1. Terrorists intentionally ar/or incidentally kill civilians.
2. The U.S. government opposes this.
3. However, the U.S. government (through its armed forces) also intentionally and/or incidentally kills civilians.
4. Therefore, the U.S. government´s opposition to terrorism is hypocritical.
5. This means terrorism is justified.

I think anyone in this forum will agree with items 1 and 2.
Very few would deny that item 3 is correct, though some would insist it is "accidentally", not "intentionally and/or incidentally".
Most honest debate on the matter will revolve around item 4; some of the "usual suspects", including myself, think it is correct to some (greater or lesser) degree.
I take it that you, Skeptic and those others I meant honestly believe that we "usual suspects" support item 5. This is ************. You are wrong, to put it more politely. Not everyone who disagrees with you agrees with EVERYTHING the terrorists say; no one in this forum does. If they did, they wouldn´t be discussing with you; they would be bombing you.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos


Okay, let me be more precise. His response to my arguments both on the "Israel vs. Palestinians" matter and on the "Bush Administration vs. World Terrorism" matter consisted only of rants. I admit I found his posts on other, non-politics and non-morality topics rather well balanced, but once we meet in a political discussion, he just can´t make a normal argument.

If this is your experience with him then I must defer to your judgement. It should be apparent to you by now that Skeptic is an Israeli, and as such these arguments here are far more than mere academic exercises in rhetoric. Maybe that's why he can't make a "normal" argument...and BTW, what is a "normal" argument??

I am passionate, too. However, I have tried very hard to avoid ranting. I have an opinion which I think is founded on hard facts, and if someone disagrees, I try to convince him/her based on these same facts. And I except others to do the same - this is the point of discussions. Anything else belongs to what we Germans call "Stammtischgeschwätz", or "beer table babble".

I spent 3 years in W. Germany. I was stationed in Frankfurt-Hoechst @ McNair Kaserne. I worked as a communications tech (MOS32D) for V Corps @ the Abrams (IG Farben) building...and for 11th ACR up in Fulda. I almost always experienced the warmth and hospitality of the German people...yet I will always remember a cold night in Frankfurt...trudging drunkenly through the snow with a couple of German friends. A brightly lit and warm Gasthaus beckoned from a nearby building....I instinctively aimed for it, yet my German friends...people who I thought I knew...guys that had been nothing but good to me steered me away and said something like; "Not there..it is run by a Jew."

I tell you this not because I believe you are anti-semitic....but because I came to believe through my experience that this is a common bias in Deutchland. Is it? And if it is, could it be tainting your perception of my friend Mr. Skeptic??


This has nothing to do with that. There are more positions than just "virtuous enemy of terrorism" and "despicable supporter of terrorism"

I never said that there were not. That would be a false dichotomy. All I said is that it is demonstrable that "despicable supporter of terrorism" is a well represented position on this forum. :rolleyes:


- at least three I can think of: "outsider who does not want to take eithers side´s propaganda for granted", "innocent person who wants nothing to live in peace" and "neutral who sees errors in both sides and thinks neither is entirely right", with these groups overlapping quite a bit.

Of course...fence sitters are everywhere, but we're not talking about them. We're talking about people who actually are "despicable supporters of terrorism"...and have written in support of terrorism on this very forum. They justify it by either using the "American Hypocrisy" argument, or re-defining terrorism to suit their views.

I belong the first and third of those other groups, as do - as far as I can judge them - AUP, J_I_L and the other "usual suspects". Just because we do not agree with you, it does not mean we are your enemy.

I'd like to believe that Chaos. However, when I look at "the usual suspects" parroting of McVeigh's demented politics I see none other than the ENEMY personified. Were I to meet any of these people in war on a battlefield I would have no regrets about taking their lives. Nor, I believe, would they have any about taking mine. Nothing personal, but making war on the United States is a very poor idea. Those that face the US Army on a field of battle have a habit of dying in exceptionally large numbers...ask AUP sometime, he'll quote you his facts. Of course, VC and NVA regulars in his mind = innocent civilians. But I suppose his "beliefs" are none of my concern. :rolleyes:


Imagine someone came to the conclusion that psychics, mediums, spoon benders etc. must be stopped by whatever means available and blows up a convention of these people.
After he is caught, he publishes an essay stating that it is wrong to trick people the way his victims did and that they are harming people. He implies that therefore, he had the right to kill them.
I suppose that Skeptic (or you, for that matter) also happens to think that "psychos should not do that because they are harming people", though he by no means agrees on the violent part of the statement. Would that automatically make Skeptic (or you) a terrorist supporter? And would that automatically means that that terrorist did not have a point in the non-violent part of his statement?

When the non-violent part of his politics leads inexorably to the violent part,...or when the non-violent part is used to EXCUSE the violence then I will always disagree. The problem Chaos, iis that AUP, et al argue the excuse. If skeptic or I said we were opposed to the slaughter of psychics...yet saw it as understandable, or said that the psychics had it coming because of their evil acts, then that would correctly be a vocal support of terrorism. (of course psychics don't have it coming,...but they should at least SEE it coming! :) )

McVeigh´s essay can basically be broken down into five statements:

1. Terrorists intentionally ar/or incidentally kill civilians.
2. The U.S. government opposes this.
3. However, the U.S. government (through its armed forces) also intentionally and/or incidentally kills civilians.
4. Therefore, the U.S. government´s opposition to terrorism is hypocritical.
5. This means terrorism is justified.

I think anyone in this forum will agree with items 1 and 2.
Very few would deny that item 3 is correct, though some would insist it is "accidentally", not "intentionally and/or incidentally".
Most honest debate on the matter will revolve around item 4; some of the "usual suspects", including myself, think it is correct to some (greater or lesser) degree.
I take it that you, Skeptic and those others I meant honestly believe that we "usual suspects" support item 5. This is ************. You are wrong, to put it more politely. Not everyone who disagrees with you agrees with EVERYTHING the terrorists say; no one in this forum does. If they did, they wouldn´t be discussing with you; they would be bombing you.

Break it down as you wish, but if you find yourself looking for and finding ANY justification for terrorism (terrorism being the targeted, purposeful murder of ordinary people under ordinary circumstances) then you ARE a "despicable supporter of terrorism" this is MY belief.

-z

[hammegk]

Just the standard everthing-is-relative crap.

Let's negotiate an agreement. If Timmy had only killed 84, perhaps you should agree that was OK? Somehow liberals just don't seem to see why this should be a problem for a conservative.

[Chaos]

I recall that Cleopatra also lives in Israel, or doesn´t she? Yet she never (to my memory) treats others quite like that.
And I did not know he was an Israeli; and I had known, it would not have "tainted" my perception of him. I admit I dislike him by now, but that is because of how he treats me, not where he lives or what faith he has.

Anti-semitism is not that common in Germany, at least not to my knowledge. Public anti-semitism, especially, is very decisively dealt with. If you search the Internet, you might still find information on what happend to a certain Jürgen W. Möllemann (another "W" whose words and actions started a very...lively...debate ;) ), a German politician who published an anti-semitic flyer during last years election campaign. In case you find one of the conspiracy theories that he was murdered - that´s nonsense; he commited suicide after that flyer and the shady ways he used to finance it ruined his political career.
By the way, live live near Frankfurt (Rodgau - perhaps you´ve heard of it) and worked in "the city" (that´s what we from the countryside call Frankfurt) for several year; if you´d like to freshen up your memory or hear what´s going on there, we can talk about it (via PM or E-Mail?) if you like.

What I wanted to make clear with the "psychics" example was that someone can - to a greater or lesser parts - share some convictions of terrorist without thinking that these convictions justify terrorism. And just because a terrorist "ursurps" the convictions of other, non-violent people, that does not mean that these convictions suddenly become wrong, or that these people are terrorists or support terrorism.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos
I recall that Cleopatra also lives in Israel, or doesn´t she? Yet she never (to my memory) treats others quite like that.
And I did not know he was an Israeli; and I had known, it would not have "tainted" my perception of him. I admit I dislike him by now, but that is because of how he treats me, not where he lives or what faith he has.

Anti-semitism is not that common in Germany, at least not to my knowledge. Public anti-semitism, especially, is very decisively dealt with. If you search the Internet, you might still find information on what happend to a certain Jürgen W. Möllemann (another "W" whose words and actions started a very...lively...debate ;) ), a German politician who published an anti-semitic flyer during last years election campaign. In case you find one of the conspiracy theories that he was murdered - that´s nonsense; he commited suicide after that flyer and the shady ways he used to finance it ruined his political career.
By the way, live live near Frankfurt (Rodgau - perhaps you´ve heard of it) and worked in "the city" (that´s what we from the countryside call Frankfurt) for several year; if you´d like to freshen up your memory or hear what´s going on there, we can talk about it (via PM or E-Mail?) if you like.

What I wanted to make clear with the "psychics" example was that someone can - to a greater or lesser parts - share some convictions of terrorist without thinking that these convictions justify terrorism. And just because a terrorist "ursurps" the convictions of other, non-violent people, that does not mean that these convictions suddenly become wrong, or that these people are terrorists or support terrorism.

That would be very nice,...I'll send you my e-mail in PM. :) I doubt you and I would find much to agree on politically, but it's very nice to have polite conversations with people of differing opinions....and besides, I would like to know what's new in FFM. Like I said before, my time there was special...I remember Germany and Germans very fondly.

-z