It Doesn't Matter "What Made These People So Angry." What Matters is to Eliminate Them.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News : One Thread

YEAH!!!!!!!!

"WE HAVE TO TRY to understand what made these people so angry."

How many times I have heard this stupid remark – in reference to the recent horror in New York -- I do not know.

I have also had the privilege of hearing the Left’s other favorite line: "The Americans really had this coming to them" and, of course, the all-time Leftist favorite: "But what about Oklahoma?"

Arguing with these people is like arguing with members of the flat-earth society.

"We have to understand what made these people so angry."

Really? For what particular reason? To understand how it is that these terrorists became demonically possessed? Ok, I can see that. But for the sake of minimizing their responsibility so that blame can be attributed to the United States? No, I don’t think so. But that is exactly what the professional anti-American milieu now seeks to do in its war cry for this "understanding."

When a bunch of sociopaths hijack a plane filled with innocent people and drive it into a building populated with thousands of other innocent people, the first thing on any civilized person’s mind is not the desire to empathize with the rage of the perpetrators. It is to recognize evil, and to ascertain whether anyone that was involved in it is still at large. If any guilty parties are still at large, then a person with integrity would preoccupy himself with the hope that they are brought to justice.

Personally, my idea of justice in this case would involve a public torturing session, and then a flogging, preferably followed by a hanging – or something similar to that genre.

"We have to understand what made these people so angry."

The individuals who have shared this particular wisdom with me over the last several days have consistently expressed it with a bizarre whimpering tone. Their disposition always tends to suggest that they are among the last few sensitive people on the planet. They are, you see, feeling the pain of the terrorists, and, of course, of all the people in the world who have been oppressed by capitalism in general – and U.S. imperialism in particular. No one but them seems to have the anointed capacity to feel the pain of subjugated peoples. These anti-American pilgrims are a voice crying out in the wilderness. It’s a very tiring job.

"We have to try to understand what made these people so angry."

Um, no, actually we don’t.

My question: should we also have to try to understand what made Hitler so angry? How about what made Ted Bundy so angry? How about Pol Pot?

Of course we have to try to understand what made evil people evil. That’s because it is our human obligation to recognize evil. But my point is that if a mother and her daughter were brutally raped in their home by an intruder, our primary concern would have to be catching the perpetrator and punishing him – not reveling in what might have caused his pain.

Let’s get something straight: the psychos who just carried out their terrorist attacks in America did so not because of anything that America did, but because of what America is.

The Islamic terrorists hate America because they hate modernity. Motivated by their shame and humiliation of living in their impotent and despotic worlds, they are driven by an all-consuming rage. They cannot reconcile themselves with the fact that their world vision cannot adapt to the world that they actually happen to be occupying. So instead of changing the vision, they have to destroy the world that stands in its way.

The Islamic fanatics have the choice to turn to democracy and freedom as the answer to their problems, just as they can finally permit women to have an education and the right, among other things, to show their faces and paint their fingernails. But no, instead they rationalize that they must turn back to the model of Islam as originally introduced 14 centuries ago.

The kind of people who have absolutely no value for human life, and who believe that they are going to paradise after blowing themselves up with innocent people, are not going to be made "less angry" by something that America starts doing differently. The only thing that America could do to stop making these people "so angry" is to disappear from the face of the earth.

But that’s not going to happen.

So it means that one side has to go.

Let’s get it done.

Amen!

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Answers

And a picture for Barefoot....



-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


I read that at least one of the signs carried by the anti-WTO-turned-anti-retaliation marchers in DC today said, "It won't bring back our loved ones." I would bet any sum you care to name that not one--not one--of those carrying such a sign lost anyone in the attacks. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Period.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

From Lucianne

D.C. Peaceniks display theme. Would 14,000 eyes change their minds?*

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


My thoughts on the matter..

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Carl and OG, there is some of this nonsense going on at OSU, mostly among the professors and TAs (teaching assistants) in the humanities and social sciences. They are the ones organizing the rallies. The profs I know over in the hard sciences and technologies are trying to distance themselves from the protests, as are many of the students under 30! I would say there are probably fewer than 80 people who are actively participating, but from some news reports, it looks like most of the campus is joining the protests! That just isn't true. Main topic on campus right now: how the Bucks managed not to lose to Indiana yesterday.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Par for the course, isn't it, Meemur? I've heard on Fox that about 200,000 demonstrators were expected for the WTO protests. After it turned into a peace rally, only about 2,000 turned up--and that may have been an over-estimate. One report said a peacenik spat on a Freepers anti-peacenik demonstrator.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

as soon as we're thru eliminating all the terrorists, then we'll give peace a chance.

Unless of course the demonstrators want some o' this first?

[thanks for the picture. LOL]

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


As fate would have it, I happened to watch a special on TV last night about terrorism throughout history. They spent a good bit of time on the Irish/English terrorist problems with the IRA. It goes back much further than I had thought. Michael Collins was at their throats way back in 1920, and as we know there is no peaceful settlement yet. Collins is now considered a hero/martyr by many of the Irish.

So, when we get all heated up and say "just eliminate the buggers" I really think we need to study just how that has been accomplished in the past. Hint: the Brits are *still* trying to eliminate the buggers. Are the Irish just a bunch of evil people, supporting terrorism? I think it's sometimes better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. Of course the best approach is to "do the right thing" but we seem to be having a lot of difficulty determining just what that should be. A good friend of mine used to say, "When you get mad, you lose." I have found that to be the case, time after time.

If you get a stong premonition/probability that going in and bombing and "taking control" of Afghanistan, or other places over there, will only fuel the terrorist responses here at home, should we do that? Are we ready for endless biological and chemical retaliation here? If that is what we will harvest now, should we give a darn? Tough decisions...... Oh, there was also a rerun special on Nostradamus. He pegged the Middle East and Muslims as the fuse for the "final" conflict. It was also noted that if we are especially astute at avoiding the traps, we can also possibly avoid that outcome.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


It's a far more complicated question than anyone can answer, Gordon. You know that negotiation doesn't work and, as you say, elimination is impossible. So all you can do is keep them as weak as possible, by constant hounding, which is what the Israelis have been trying to do for decades, and the British too. Both the IRA and the extremist Muslims want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us. What else can we do, but fight as best we can?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

P.S. Osama is going to continue his attacks whether we go in or not. Taking action at least gives us a chance of cutting down the number and ferocity.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Old Git,

The impression I have of the IRA is that they only want to impose their own ideas on their own people. Not the Brits, not us. With regard to the Muslims, I agree with you. They *do* want to impose their ideas/ideals on the rest of the world, same as the Christians do. Imagine, sending Christian missionaries right into Afghanistan the way they did. What the heck is that all about, if it's not an in- your-face attempt to substitute Christian belief for Muslim belief?

As to what we can do about it, well, first we have to admit that we haven't been doing anything of value to solve these problems for thousands of years. And we aren't likely to solve them now using the same "piece of paper" we've been reading from for so long. We need a clean sheet of paper. We need to figure out what is "really" behind all the upset.

I have ideas about all that, but it's so far out in left field that I hesitate to even get started. Well, here's one start. How about finding out if people within our military/industrial comples do in fact have zero-point energy technology ready to go. But don't want to release it due to the economic effects on the present wealthy/elite. If that's the case, and a lot evidence points there (like the UFO issue) then we could just get out of the Middle East, period. If we didn't need their oil we could leave, maybe. I say maybe because there is also evidence we are there for deeper political reasons than just energy needs. But that's one area we could start digging into.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Gordon, the IRA is a Marxist organization and its stated aims are to take over the entire country of Ireland, not just the North. That would mean a Cuba just 12 miles from the British mainland. From that expanded base, they would step up their terrorist attacks on Britain. They hate the British in the same way that Muslims hate non-Muslims. I know--I heard it often enough from my mother's family and from many of the 60,000 Irish extracts who live in Luton, Bedfordshire.

I don't like missionaries of any sort, whether at my door, posting in a forum, or proselytizing in another country, no argument there. And if they know that the law says there are certain penalties for attempting conversion, well, that's their problem.

I haven't the time or the energy to get into alternative strategies, unfortunately, so I have to trust the judgment of those who are going to do whatever is necessary, no matter what I think. Given the circumstances, I don't think there's much choice but to try to contain any damage.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Gordon, if you want to think about conspiracy theories, just follow the money trail. Many US defense contractors will benefit from a war, for example. In "Friday," Robert Heinlein makes multinational companies the force behind the attacks in the war in his fictional novel. Oddly enough, many multinational companies stand to benefit from a large war, as well. Think about Monsanto and their genetically- engineered seeds and the potential consequences of their controlling the market.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Meemur, you're right, follow the money trail. But you may not like where it leads. It's a nasty, selfish, power hungry trail to follow, and the final decisions about war or peace aren't concerned with the average human being and whether they live or die.

Old Git, you know I don't intend to engage in challenges with your own feelings about the IRA. However, since it's been going on for so long, coming up on 100 years now, doesn't it make sense that the IRA *would* hate outside military interference? I'm part Irish and I can tell you that I don't like any government shoving it's own agenda down my throat. If it went on too long I would revolt. Heck, we all did revolt against such outside government interference here just a few 100 years ago. That was a bloody mess. And very predictable.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Old Git, I don't know about the IRA being Marxist, though I have heard that statement before. However, I do know a little bit about Cuba. Castro was educated right here in the USA. He then went back down to Cuba to overthrow Batista, who we were supporting. Organized crime was particularly attached to Battista since he permitted them to run all those gambling casinos and make a fortune. All the while the common folks were treated like garbage.

After Castro overthrew Batista he tried to link up with the US for support. No dice. Again, the "powers that be" which *still* included the Mafia, opposed him. So, needing basic support, he turned to Russian. Was he a Communist? Certainly not at first. Did he align with that philosophy? Yes, to a certain degree, but we could have had him aligned with *us* if we hadn't been involved in trying to continue the corrupt manipulation and practices of the previous regime. Another failure of basic foreign policy on our part? The books are full of such failures. Iraq, Iran, Central and South America, Asia. Ever wonder why?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001



Just one of many sources:

World Socialist Website: Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International This is not a right-wing publication :) It's full of IRA news.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ