Another response to Terrorism: "Good" vs. "Evil":
>> I find the rest of your site to be deeply sadding and hateful for me I don't know why the hey I ever went to your sight. <<
I don't why you did either.
>> As a nice gentle American, I was disgusted by your ugly bile against the US, Israeli Jews, President W Bush (yes, I'm calling him "president" without the punctuation marks, get used to it.), September 11th, and the war on terrorism. <<
My only "bile" is against the US's mistakes and hypocrisy...Israelis (not Jews) who occupy foreign territory..."President" Bush, who's proving to be as incompetent at managing the economy as he is at the war on terrorism...and the phony "war," which has created more terrorism than it ended, especially in Iraq. (Why would I have any bile against Sept. 11, which was a tragedy?)
>> First of all, with the 2nd annerversary of September 11th Attacks coming up, it sickens me to my stomach of how people such as yourself are convinced that Americans diserved the deadly terrorist attacks. <<
I don't believe I ever said that. You probably misunderstood my position. Unless you're one of those who equates criticism of this admistration's policies with criticism of the US, which sickens me just as it would've sickened the Founding Fathers.
>> At the same time you argue that our war with the terrorist is "evil" and it cannot be justified. <<
I don't believe I ever said that either. I may have said it's a stupid mistake. It's not justified because terrorism is an abstract idea, not a concrete enemy. You can't win a war on "terrorism" any more than you can win a war on crime or drugs or poverty.
Killing people for no reason is arguably evil. It was evil when Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did it, and it was evil when we did it in the Indian wars, World War II (Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima), and the Vietnam War. A "war" against terrorism isn't necessarily evil, but a war that does nothing but kill innocents is.
>> It would be nice if anything could be settled without guns and bombs. <<
Afghanistan and Iraq both could've been settled without guns and bombs. If we had negotiated with the Taliban, for instance, we could have had Osama bin Laden in jail now. Instead, Bush let him run free while he invented another enemy to fight.
Bush wanted to settle without war?!
>> I'm sure that Preisent Bush and his cabnet felt the same. <<
Actually, Bush and Co. have been planning to invade Iraq since before 9/11. They spurned every chance to continue the inspections for the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. They fabricated a case against Saddam because they wanted a military victory and oil supplies at any cost.
>> Sadly, the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Huesien cannot grasp the concept of peace. <<
Iraq hadn't gone to war with anyone since it invaded Kuwait in 1991. Meanwhile, the US had bombed Iraq continuously since the Gulf War. Who understands peace better: the ones doing the killing or the ones being killed?
>> They and other Muslim fanatics would hate and attack us senselessly <<
Iraq has never attacked us, senselessly or otherwise. Get your head out of the sand, son. Have you swallowed the "President's" lies about Saddam's being connected to 9/11? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
>> would like to have the United States nuked of the face of the Earth, much like they would with the innocent nation of Israel. <<
Spare me the racist propaganda. Repeat: Iraq hadn't attacked anyone since 1991. Meanwhile, the US has attacked or bombed Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and of course Afghanistan and Iraq.
>> Whatever alleged wrong the US has done onto the Middle East is no escuse to the 3,000 lives that were lost under Bin Laden's murderous actions. <<
Never said it was. If you mistook an explanation for an excuse, that's your problem.
>> There IS NO escuse in the world for the cruel murders of millions of human beings who were someone's dad, or mom, or sibling, child, friend, ect. <<
Tell it to the 500,000 Iraqi children we've killed over the last decade. Read about it at Why Don't "They" Like Us?: Iraq if you're ignorant of the facts.
>> Same thing with Israel and her problems with Islamic-Arab neigbhors. Maybe the Israelis are being rough with the Palestinians, but they have no. <<
No what? No choice? Israelis have several choices besides occupying territory, destroying homes, assassinating terrorists (and six or seven nearby women and children, usually), etc.
>> Sure, you shed a tear when a Palenstinian kid is shot or Israeli copters shoot missles into Ramalla, Yet your columns are plum numb silent about the killing of innocent Jews and some Americans at the hands of Palestinian terrorist. <<
I don't shed tears for anybody. There are already enough apologists for Israel in the world. Besides, more Palestinians have died than Israelis in the recent intifada by a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1. The greatest death toll deserves the greatest sympathy.
Palestinian bombs kill some, Israeli attacks kill more
>> Many Israeli men, women and children are dead from Arab kids with suicide bombs. <<
Many more Palestinians are dead from Israeli attacks.
>> And the Muslims want to destory Israel and the Jews. <<
No, some Palestinians do. Not all Palestinians and not all Muslims.
>> How could you say that Native Americans can symathize with the Palestinians when the Palestinians are very violent hateful people? <<
I quoted Native Americans themselves saying they sympathized with the Palestinians. Weren't their remarks clear to you?
You're engaging in worthless stereotyping again. The Palestinians are "hateful" and "violent" only because a foreign occupier took over their land, forced them into refugee camps, and refuses to give them basic democratic rights. That's exactly why the Indians fought against the US government.
>> What about your ideal of peace when you sympathize with violent people?? <<
I sympathize with oppressed people, not violent people.
>> I find it ironic how you quote Jesus about "Turning the other Cheek" and peace when you coldly critizize the "agrresion" of the US and Israel with the terrorists. <<
I don't see the irony. I've criticized violence and aggression wherever they occur: in the Bible, in the media, in US foreign policy, and in terrorist attacks (if there's a difference). See Winning Through Nonviolence for more.
We killed more innocent people in Afghanistan than Osama bin Laden killed in NYC. We killed many more innocent Iraqis than Saddam killed innocent Americans, since Saddam hasn't lifted a finger against us. Eventually, George W. Bush will "kill" (i.e., consign to death) more American soldiers than terrorists killed New Yorkers on 9/11. And that may be the ultimate irony.
>> Maybe more likely the anti-terroristisms would have never happened if Bin Laden, Saddam, and other Islamic fanatics should have taken heed to those Biblical words. :-( <<
Maybe the terrorism wouldn't have happened if Ronald Reagan and his ilk had heeded the Bible's words. That is, if they hadn't supported the terrorists explicitly or implicitly.
Yes, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Reagan hadn't funded Muslim fundamentalists against the secular Soviet regime in Afghanistan. Maybe the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened if Reagan hadn't supported Saddam in his war against Iran. See CIAgent Bin Laden and the Taliban Freedom Fighters for details.
. . .
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.