[Xugumad]

Originally posted by MaggieL
When innocents are killed as a result of defending against an attack, the culpability belongs to the original attacker.

Keep telling yourself that.

1. The US is keeping the feudal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia in power for political reasons. (Iran is another good example in the Spindle of Atrocity)

2. That dictatorship has oppressed and murdered dozens, if not hundreds of opponents of its authoritarian regime.

3. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, opposed to the current regime, and its cruel actions, all sponsored by the US.

4. The victims in the WTC and Pentagon were "killed as a result of defending against an attack" by the US on the Saudi people.

All of the above are logically consistent with your line of argument. They are also wrong. How can you be so naive?

Simple-inded conclusions like yours are the reason Saddam wrapped his high-value targets with human shields of innocent civilians, and then pumped the resulting casualties for propaganda value.

I assume those human targets are the fault Saddam is still there? Why, exactly, has he not been removed in the past decade since he proved to be such a trouble-maker in the middle east? Why is the US listening to the UN and letting him off the hook with some weapons inspections when he should be removed for being such a collossal villain? Where is the consistency and logic in such a foreign policy approach?

Ah. I see.

Rewarding a terrorist by advancing his agenda because he's willing to commit violence for its publicity value is completely wrongheaded, and invites further violence from any nutball who has a cause but lack a concience.

And to happily murder hundreds of innocent Third World civilians because remote bombings are so much cleaner and less problematic, domestic-policy wise, than an actual invasion, is of course not wrongheaded at all.

CNN doesn't give a damn about dead foreign children, felled by smart bombs. CNN does give a damn about crying American mothers, weeping at the loss of the soldiers who would have fallen in an invasion. Wake up.

And to sit there and accuse those who won't fall for such a ploy of "criminally narrowmindedness" abets the terrorist's crimes.

You didn't read my post properly, that quotation applied to willful ignorance. I still condemned terrorist actions, considering them to be wrong, and I didn't say that dealing with the issue is wrong. It didn't stop you from implying meaning where there was none.

After all, how could we talk about this issue without painting everyone to the left of Ashcroft as (dangerous traitorous commie) peaceniks who are betraying the American people and support terrorism? The David Horowitz school of character assassination seems to be taking students this year.

"Abets the terrorist's crimes", indeed.

(And that a supporter of ESR's political views could possibly consider someone else to be "simple-minded" is rather fascinating..)

X.