Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, Rand, Rand,

I thought you savvier than that. Europe is far more dependent on Arab oil than we are. In addition, many European countries are free the kind of strangle hold Israel has on our congress. President Bush comes out and says, ?Israel, stop this offensive.? 90% of congress comes back to him saying, ?You need to back Israel.? Its no secret, its not a mossad infiltration of our government. But many American Jews border on fanatical whenever anything to do with Israel is brought up. That kind of support turns into people manning the phone banks for campaigning congressmen and the like who in turn do their part. Sure Europe is hamstrung by Arab oil, but we have our own bias as well and to claim otherwise is naive.

Posted by at May 2, 2002 12:04 PM

Buddy, all I can comment on is what I see from where I sit.

I see *no* infiltration of congress, or ANY governing body. For the vast amount of American Jews, they are just that: Americans, then Jewish.

Further, you're ignoring that fact that what's good for Israel *is* infact good for the United States ie: destruction of terrorism/militant Islam.

Look at the history of things! Who landed on your shores in the 40's to liberate you guys from the Nazi's (and knock-up your sisters)?

Israel, I daresay, is under the same type of seige, surrounded on 3 sides by fanatics strapping bombs to their children, and on the other side by the sea. Yet, if we came in like gangbusters and helped them out like we helped you guys, it'd be oh, ugh, hrm...oh, ugh....

Yeah, don't get me started about you Europeans. You guys need to remember that our relationship is a relic of the cold war when you guys were supposed to be the front lines. You're irrelevant for the most part in this conflict, so it makes sense that you're trying this new style of 'nipping at our heels'. Sure, you may be holding our coat while we fight this one, but we don't need your blessing for *jack*.

Posted by DocZen at May 2, 2002 01:38 PM

Obviously you don't read too well. I said it's NOT an infiltration of our government.

"For the vast amount of American Jews, they are just that: Americans, then Jewish."

I never said they weren't American. How would being American first stop them from wanting their country to support Israel? Many Irish Americans seem to support the IRA (a terrorist organization). I do not believe for an instant you know what goes on inside other people?s minds. And of course you have nothing to back up your claim but empty rhetoric. Why don't you look into it rather than spew nonsense like this.

?Look at the history of things! Who landed on your shores in the 40's to liberate you guys from the Nazi's (and knock-up your sisters)??

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Great so America was a large part in defeating the Nazi?s and Japanese. It didn?t do it single-handedly as you seem to think. As you say, ?Look at the history of things!?

You seem to think you understand the Israel issue completely. It is not merely a religious fight over there. There is a history (?Look at the history of things!?) that people are very ill informed about and rather than go read about the history they make assumptions. Why don?t you try that? We do help Israel. We send a staggering amount of military aid to Israel every year. We give them arms by the boatload, even long before the current crisis. Why? Because we like to support the little guys? No. Because there is massive lobby for it. I we did go in like ?gangbusters? they would kick us out. They don?t want or need us there.

"Yeah, don't get me started about you Europeans. You guys need to remember that our relationship is a relic of the cold war when you guys were supposed to be the front lines. You're irrelevant for the most part in this conflict, so it makes sense that you're trying this new style of 'nipping at our heels'. Sure, you may be holding our coat while we fight this one, but we don't need your blessing for *jack*."

First I am not European. Second relationships between sovereign countries should be more than "irrelevant" unless you're planning on taking over the world single-handedly. I think the US is going to need a little help.

Third, what?s good for Israel is not necessarily good for the US. Have you forgotten what happened to the USS Liberty? Hell what was good for Afghanistan used to be good for us, look how that relationship turned out.

Posted by at May 2, 2002 04:12 PM

"I think the US is going to need a little help."

Short on time, so I'll stay within this comment.

I'm really really sorry, but the U.S. will *not* need the type of coalition you seem to think we do...

Other than token nods of approval from our 'moderate' arab 'friends', and maybe some airspace agreements, but that's it.

It's nice to have, but wether you agree or not, there's a fight on for our civilization. We're either going to be like Europe, and cower in the face of terror or we'll step up and fight it.

And we, myfriend, are stepping up to fight it (in case you haven't noticed).

Posted by DocZen at May 2, 2002 05:41 PM

Again please read what I said.

"...unless you're planning on taking over the world single-handedly. I think the US is going to need a little help."

I am saying the US is going to need help in taking over the world. Not in fighting terrorists.

Posted by at May 2, 2002 06:44 PM

I knew that it wasn't worth replying to you, but you just confirmed it.

"US taking over the world"?

Idiotarian...

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 2, 2002 06:51 PM

yes, I've been tired of unpacking boxes, so I've spent several minutes typing posts to this guy trying to find some sort of interlochature (sp?) within this debate.

Ohwell... :D

Posted by DocZen at May 2, 2002 08:51 PM

If the US is so capable of going it alone and if Europe is "cowering" in the face of terrorism, then why do European troops outnumber US ones in Afghanistan?

Posted by Tom Fox at May 3, 2002 08:08 AM

Because we'll gladly take help that's offered. It doesn't mean that we couldn't do it without them--it just saves us time and money.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2002 08:51 AM

and lives........

Posted by Tom Fox at May 3, 2002 09:57 AM

I'm not surprised you can so easily use a silly sarcasitic remark to invalidate what you don't agree with.

"Idiotarian..."

as for this

"yes, I've been tired of unpacking boxes, so I've spent several minutes typing posts to this guy trying to find some sort of interlochature (sp?) within this debate."

Oh of course, I now see how the following

"...(and knock-up your sisters)?"

is integral to your debate. Wow you really got me.

The point is that when it comes to Isreal, the US is just as biased as Europe, but in the opposite direction.

As for the Europeans being chickenshit about terrorism. LOOK AT THE HISTORY. They have been dealing with terrorism FAR FAR longer than we have. The U.K. has been living with it from its inception, or do Irish car bombs not count? France has a history of it with North African terrorism. To think that Europe is afraid of terrorism or doesn't know how to cope with terrorism is ridiculous. They were taking it seriously long before the US. I don't expect a reply other than maybe calling me another name.

Posted by at May 3, 2002 10:16 AM

I never claimed that Europe is afraid of terrorism, or don't know how to cope with it. I don't know who you're arguing with.

And I am indifferent to your expectations.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2002 12:08 PM

?I don't know who you're arguing with.?

I point you to DocZen's enlightened posts above.

"It's nice to have, but wether you agree or not, there's a fight on for our civilization. We're either going to be like Europe, and cower in the face of terror or we'll step up and fight it."

Now do you know?

As for you Rand. You wrote:

?The poor, noble, oh-so-sophisticated, benighted Europeans are scratching their heads. They just can't understand why we think they're anti-Semitic, and biased in favor of the Arabs.?

If you had read my last post you would have seen.

?The point is that when it comes to Israel, the US is just as biased as Europe, but in the opposite direction.?

Posted by at May 3, 2002 12:23 PM

My, you really are confused. The point is not that they're biased--there's nothing wrong with bias per se--it's that they're biased in favor of terrorist regimes.

I'm happy and proud to be biased in favor of a democracy that punishes people who deliberately murder civilians, and who take pains to avoid innocent deaths by sending in (and losing) ground troops. I'm equally proud to be biased against a bloodthirsty autocracy that revels in, encourages and provides material support for murder. One side tries to minimize civilian casualties--the other attempts to maximize them.

We have good reasons for our bias. They have odious ones for theirs. And your label continues to apply.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2002 01:12 PM

They're not biased in favour of terrorist regimes. They're biased in favour people. The solution of punishing civilians for the crimes of a "bloodthirsty autocracy" that they happen to live under is unnaceptable.

If Sharon were serious about fighting terrorism, rather than use it as a pre-text for ethnic cleansing, then he would have gone after the main perpetrators, Hamas.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, November 15, 1998.

Posted by Tom Fox at May 3, 2002 02:14 PM

You make bold accusations without a shred of support and expect people to believe you outright? What a load of righteous hooey. Where?s the support for your claim? Israel certainly isn?t without innocent blood on its hands.

?Who take pains to avoid innocent deaths by sending in (and losing) ground troops.?

Are you kidding? You think firing rockets and dropping bombs into neighborhoods isn?t terrorism? Two days ago the Israelis working under their assassination policy, assassinated a Palestinian with three to four rockets fired from gunships near the Jabalya refugee camp. Homes weren?t damaged? Innocents weren?t killed? A couple months back the Israelis set off a bomb at a payphone to assassinate a Palestinian they were targeting. Do you honestly believe the IDF had no idea others might be hurt? Sounds like a real good plan to minimize civilian casualties to me. Fact is THEY DON?T CARE about civilians either. They want them gone.

Yes, terrorists absolutely target innocents, and yes they must be done away with. But that does not make their killing worse than dropping a bomb on a city block to kill a few targeted non-civilian individuals. You are blind in your thinking if you believe that there isn?t bloodthirsty death dealing to innocents on both sides. Our bias has nothing to do with what?s right, as you seem to think.

I?m afraid if you?ve got a label for me I?m obliged to give you one as well. You?re a buffoon.

Posted by at May 3, 2002 02:26 PM

Nameless one said, "As for the Europeans being chickenshit about terrorism. LOOK AT THE HISTORY. They have been dealing with terrorism FAR FAR longer than we have. The U.K. has been living with it from its inception, or do Irish car bombs not count? France has a history of it with North African terrorism"

France got kicked out of North Africa after running one of the most ineffectual antiterrorist programs ever seen, and deliberately left tens of thousands of Algerian French citizens to be tortured to death by the insurgents (they were the wrong color to be taken to France, it seems). The IRA has seats in the English Parliament, even though its MP's refuse to take the oath to Queen and Country. The threat of terrorism has caused France and England (as well as Spain, Italy and Portugal) to curtail civil rights to an astonishing degree and set up various extrajudicial law enforcement arms to cope with the threat. Said arms have a habit of getting out of control every now and then (witness the SAS in Ireland, the Carabineri all over Italy, and the French antiterrorist forces, bombing the Rainbow Warrior in the name of fighting that well-known terrorist organization Greenpeace...and getting caught). The Italians and French also have a habit of "accidentally" releasing captured terrs because it would be expensive, annoying, and politically hazardous to actually TRY them.
Oh ye who is afraid to speak his name, if you haven't figured it out yet, the Europeans have about as good a track record of "dealing with" terrorism as the average sock puppet does of weightlifting. Whatever they have to teach, we would do well NOT TO LEARN. Having them as an ally would be worth five divisions...to the enemy. The only European nation with anything at all to teach in ways to handle terrorists and guerrellas is the Romans: one enemy per cross, one cross per milestone, all the way from Rome to Pompeii.

Posted by David Paglia at May 3, 2002 02:34 PM

If what you said about the Israelis was true, they wouldn't have sent in troops to do dangerous house-to-house fighting--they would have simply sent in F-16s and leveled Jenin.

I didn't say that no innocent Palestinians were killed. Civilians die in wars--that's a fact of life. But most of the "civilians" killed in this case were in fact helping the fighters (hiding them, planting booby traps in the houses, etc.).

But, anyway, I repeat. One side's goal is to kill as many civilians as it can. Those suicide bombers aren't attacking military installations--they're decimating weddings.

The other side's goal is to prevent the murder of its own people, by preemptively killing those who perpetrate it, while taking pains to minimize the collateral casualties. That you fail to see the distinction is ethical obtuseness of the first order.

And amidst all the talk of Israeli "war crimes," where is the condemnation of the Palestinians for putting bomb factories in the middle of a refugee camp? For using women and children as shields for terrorist warriors? Those are war crimes, too. Where is the criticism for taking one of the holiest sites in Christiandom hostage?

When I hear anything resembling that coming from Europe, I'll take their criticism of Israel seriously. Until then, it just looks like good old-fashioned anti-semitism to me.

OK, you don't like idiotarian? Try on "moral midget" for size.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2002 02:42 PM

I never said they were successful at dealing with terrorism. I said they were dealing and coping with it, as in they live with it. Indeed they have reacted, as you have stated. My point was that the lack of their support of Israel?s current offensive is not based on a fear of more terrorism. You have taken my words out of context. Thank you for including specifics though.

- He who is afraid to speak his name. ;)

Posted by at May 3, 2002 03:08 PM

Thanks I prefer that. ;)

Posted by at May 3, 2002 03:09 PM

Rand you make this too easy,

If what you said about the Israelis was true, they wouldn't have sent in troops to do dangerous house-to-house fighting--they would have simply sent in F-16s and leveled Jenin.

That?s a gross simplification with no logical backing at all. You have no idea what ?they? would and wouldn?t do.

?But, anyway, I repeat. One side's goal is to kill as many civilians as it can. Those suicide bombers aren't attacking military installations--they're decimating weddings.?

The other side's goal is to prevent the murder of its own people, by preemptively killing those who perpetrate it, while taking pains to minimize the collateral casualties. That you fail to see the distinction is ethical obtuseness of the first order.?

Answer me that they do in fact do take pains to avoid casualties, then I will take your point. However firing rockets at cars on the street, and setting bombs in payphones certain doesn?t fit what you wish was true. I see no distinction in their disregard for life. Killing is killing. Both are doing it indiscriminately. I condemn terrorists, and I condemn Israel.

?But most of the "civilians" killed in this case were in fact helping the fighters (hiding them, planting booby traps in the houses, etc.).?

Thin, very thin. Source?

?And amidst all the talk of Israeli "war crimes," where is the condemnation of the Palestinians for putting bomb factories in the middle of a refugee camp? For using women and children as shields for terrorist warriors? Those are war crimes, too. Where is the criticism for taking one of the holiest sites in Christiandom hostage??

You?re even beginning to talk the lie. The Palestinians are not the problem. The terrorists are.
Is Israel at war with the Palestinians? You make my point very neatly.

- moral midget ;)

Posted by at May 3, 2002 03:57 PM

"Answer me that they do in fact do take pains to avoid casualties, then I will take your point."

I already did, when I said, "If what you said about the Israelis was true, they wouldn't have sent in troops to do dangerous house-to-house fighting--they would have simply sent in F-16s and leveled Jenin.".

You simply ignored it, and said, "That?s a gross simplification with no logical backing at all. You have no idea what ?they? would and wouldn?t do."

It has a great deal of logical backing. They knew where the terrorists were. They could have taken them out with no risk to their own troops. They sent the troops in regardless. Why? So they could minimize ancillary casualties. I don't know why you have difficulty understanding this, except that perhaps you have difficulty in understanding logic in general.

"However firing rockets at cars on the street, and setting bombs in payphones certain doesn?t fit what you wish was true."

I'm not aware of any setting bombs in payphones. And rockets are a pretty precise weapon. I can think of much worse and comprehensive ways to take out a specific target.

"I see no distinction in their disregard for life."

Then, as I said the first time, you're an idiot.

"Killing is killing. Both are doing it indiscriminately."

Nonsense. I already described the difference. If you are morally blind, then there's no point in discussing it further.

"Thin, very thin. Source?"

Firsthand reports from Israeli soldiers. Oh, I forgot, they can't be trusted (unlike the Palestinians, whose claims of a massacre and hundreds killed in Jenin are accepted without question).

"You?re even beginning to talk the lie. The Palestinians are not the problem. The terrorists are."

"Is Israel at war with the Palestinians? You make my point very neatly."

All of the terrorists (the West Bank) in that part of the world are Palestinians, as far as I know. Israel is indeed at war with them. But because they hide among the civilian population (which, as I said, is a war crime), sometimes Palestinian civilians are killed in pursuit of that war.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to go back to the previous label.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2002 05:48 PM

Rand wrote: "The point is not that they're biased--there's nothing wrong with bias per se--it's that they're biased in favor of terrorist regimes."

woot!

some anon guy wrote: "Sounds like a real good plan to minimize civilian casualties to me. Fact is THEY DON?T CARE about civilians either. They want them gone."

Friend, if Israel wanted to really put the hurt, now pay attention: REELY put the hurt on the Arabs, don't you think they could?

When I was in the Marines, we trained with some Israelies. They are the hardest of the hard. Many can see 3 countries of people that want to kill them from their rooftops.

Further, Irish terrorism is just as bad, and you have *my* backing read: no pussy-foot waffling. Go get 'em, you have my blessing. You have my vote for supplemental US intel. You have my vote to go in and round them up.

Go get 'em tiger! MAN UP!

Happy now?

BTW, how's that socialism thing going over there in France?

Posted by DocZen at May 3, 2002 06:12 PM

One of the things that Nameless One seems to misunderstand (and this is common among those who seek moral equivalency between Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli soldiers) is that, believe it or not, intent actually DOES matter in levelling charges.

A dead civilian is NOT the same as a dead civilian is NOT the same as a dead person who may or may not be a civilian.

The Laws of Land Warfare do NOT make killing civilians, in and of itself, a crime. If they did, then there'd not be a soldier on earth who might not become liable for war crimes trials (or is that the intent?). Rather, it is DELIBERATE killing, or INDISCRIMINATE killing that is at issue.

Thus, if a guerilla/freedom fighter/terrorist is hiding in a crowd of civilians and shoots at soldiers, he is committing a war-crime. Why? Beyond the fact that he is violating a specific Geneva Convention forbidding the use of civilians as shields, he is basically forcing the soldiers, in responding, to fire upon the civilians. Thus the term "collateral damage." The soldiers are NOT enjoined from shooting back at the guerilla, even though doing so may well produce (almost certainly, in fact) civilian casualties. Now, they may have to fire in the air first, but that may well depend on the circumstances.

What does this have to do w/ the Israelis and the Palestinians? Simple: Firing an anti-tank missile at a car containing (to best information) an enemy commander is NOT a war crime, even if civilians get killed as a result. Targeting that same anti-tank missile at a bus filled with commuters WOULD be a war-crime.

You figure out which side fits which part of that description....

Posted by Dean at May 3, 2002 06:20 PM

I think I differ from Rand in that I'm not so certain that your average palestinian is completely innocent.

The reason you don't have major terrorist operations going on in civilised countries is that eventually, people find out and tip off police.

The 'unibomber', his brother found out and called the FBI, when mcveigh was brought in as a suspect, friends and family came forward to the police and the fed to tell what they knew...voluntarily.

Now, contrast that with the palestinian's. They *at the very least* turn the other way, to let it go on and at the most, incite, and join in on the terror.

They are at least tacitly agreeing with the method of terror as a political tool. When a society is as steeped in immoral and murderous behavior as extreme islam, then family and neighbors are also partially to blame.

Sorda like how following a law, if it is an immoral one, is immoral in itself, even though you're following the law.

Look, these are people who were dancing in the streets and handing out candy on Sept. 11, we're not talking about a handful of extremists here.

P.S. wanna know why we are steadfast with Israel? After Sept. 11 Israel said they would do everything, and have. Further, there was a comment by someone in their parliment, and I'm paraphrasing "We only wish we could do more." Contrast that with the rehtoric coming out of Europe...'We're behind you all the way!' Until the actual sweating starts, then it's 'We were only kidding.'

Posted by DocZen at May 3, 2002 06:22 PM

So Europe has been living with and coping with terrorism for decades, eh? Well, we choose not to. That is the difference between Americans (and Israelis), and Europe, it seems.

Posted by Andrea Harris at May 3, 2002 06:44 PM

Andrea,

That's what is the difference between the US and EUrope. The US is simplistic, Europe is more complex.

Learning to live w/ terrorism (and all that that entails, including the soul-sapping aspect of living every day w/ the possibility that your trip on the Paris Metro might be your last) is somehow more sophisticated than rooting out the terrorists.

BTW, how come, in all that time, nobody's addressed the root causes for anti-French, anti-UK, or anti-Spanish terrorism? And fixed it???

Posted by Dean at May 3, 2002 06:55 PM

"Firsthand reports from Israeli soldiers. Oh, I forgot, they can't be trusted (unlike the Palestinians, whose claims of a massacre and hundreds killed in Jenin are accepted without question)."

Rand are you getting a little peeved? When you say that the majority of the people killed were "helping the terrorists anyway," and don't attribute it to any source, hell yes its thin. I never said we can't trust "firsthand reports from Israeli soldiers." You're the one who said you can't take Palestinians at their word. Bias? Oh I forgot, the Palestinians are terrorists and most likely liars.

"It has a great deal of logical backing. They knew where the terrorists were. They could have taken them out with no risk to their own troops. They sent the troops in regardless. Why? So they could minimize ancillary casualties. I don't know why you have difficulty understanding this, except that perhaps you have difficulty in understanding logic in general."

You pluck the alternative of fighter jets from thin air, and BAM!! You've got rock solid PROOF that the Israelis are trying to minimize "ancillary casualties." Sorry but that logic is frankly crap. Tanks instead of fighter planes is proof of a whole lot of nothing.

"I'm not aware of any setting bombs in payphones."

Look it up. You won't believe me.

"And rockets are a pretty precise weapon. I can think of much worse and comprehensive ways to take out a specific target."

such as? A nuke? Poison gas? A napalm stirke? You know I guess you're right. Frankly, I think this leaves your morals a little exposed. Such an easy acceptance of murder and "ancillary casualties." My my you are a bloodthirsty one.

"All of the terrorists (the West Bank) in that part of the world are Palestinians, as far as I know. Israel is indeed at war with them. "

This is not what you said. And that is not the question. Palestinian is not an interchangable word for terrorist. Answer the question, is the soverign nation of Israel is at war with the Palestinians?

As for YOUR logical skills. You don't seem to use them if you have them. You conviently ignore what you don't agree with and mindlessly repeat your own drivel. What you do have plenty of is empty rhetoric.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to move you up to Blowhard.

-back to Idiotarian. ;)

Posted by at May 3, 2002 07:03 PM

Hey, if the shoe fits....

If you won't except that there are good guys and bad guys in this fight, then you're a lost cause.

Europe, on the whole, is a lost cause....as 'sophisticated' and 'enlightened' as you are.

Dr.zEn(live from the Space Coast)

Posted by DocZen at May 3, 2002 07:12 PM

The Rules of War provide safeguards for civilians against deliberate military action (for instance, they ban the taking of hostages and poisoning water supplies) but like all laws, they assume that the people protected will live up to their end of the bargain. When you have 12-14 year olds as grenadiers and murder bombers, when you have 16 year old girls as terrorists and murder bombers, when NONE of the enemy's forces follow the laws of war as pertaining to treatment of prisoners or civilians, than there is NO REASON in extending the enemy's civilians the normal safeguards: they are, by the definition of the covenants, not 'civilians' but 'irregulars', and as such have only the right to a bare stretch of wall or a short rope. The prohibition on shooting 12-year-olds who come running up to you is voided about the second time one throws a pipe bomb. The prohibition on shooting teenage girls is voided about the second time one blows herself up in a shopping mall. The prohibition, in short, on treating civilians of an enemy nation as combatants falls apart when those civilians take an active part in military operations (see the many many reports of Pal civvies doing everything from scouting for snipers to throwing bombs at Israeli soldiers to smuggling bomb-belts in Red Cross ambulances). Continuing to apply the standard Convention rules is in fact BAD, as it supplies no incentive to stop breaking the laws.
The Palestinians set the rules of this game. They should be grateful that the Israelis are still overcivilized enough to NOT treat them by their own rules.
Speaking of the Convention rules, can ANYONE out there name the last nation to adhere to the Geneva convention in regards to American prisoners of war?

Posted by David Paglia at May 3, 2002 10:49 PM

Post a comment