No, those Muslims never punish terrorists. And nobody in the USA ever supported soldiers who massacred children. Well, certainly not members of Congress.
where commies take over, they murder people. By the thousands.
I must’ve missed the mass graves in West Bengal.
How would YOU formulate the 1971 choice facing America about Vietnam? And what do YOU think the more moral choice was?
Three options:
1) Kill Vietnamese and send Americans to die until Vietnam is reunited as an American colony, with half its inhabitants dead
2) Agree a gradual withdrawal (allowing American collaborators who’ll be singled out by a communist regime to flee to the US, etc)
3) Prevaricate between the two options, because you’re aware that 1 would be insane but are worried you’ll look like a pansy if you do 2.
Option 2 is the most moral choice by an enormous margin.
]]>But one significant point is that the US policy was to prosecute soldiers that deliberately killed children, nor is there any acceptance of it as a policy by leaders.
There is no Muslim policy to prosecute terrorists; and quite a few Muslim clerics support terrorism.
John, here’s my comment in response to yours (on my blog)
The murder of thousands follows because communism is, and was, evil — where commies take over, they murder people. By the thousands.
And yes, the evil commie KR had a different dictator than the evil commie NV. Communism, in practice, goes along with strong nationalist leader; such leaders don’t always get along.
How would YOU formulate the 1971 choice facing America about Vietnam? And what do YOU think the more moral choice was?
]]>Tom’s post is cut-and-pasted from his own blog, which I assume explains the weirdness.
]]>Norm also points “to a particular kind of continuity between the attitudes of the killers of the Nazi period and the attitudes of the killers of Beslan and call the latter – in this respect – ‘true and authentic heirs’ of Nazi barbarism.”
Norm was replying to John Band, who rightly is against trivializing the Shoah, yet repeats Kerry’s Big Lie, showing its continuing power:
“Closer parallels to what happened in Beslan last week can be found in El Salvador in 1981, as Nick Barlow points out. Not to mention militias herding 100 children into a building and burning it down, as happened in Honduras in May this year. Come to that, how many children did the Red Army kill in Chechnya again? The US Army in Vietnam and Cambodia?”
and Band’s post is strongly against the idea that
“the murder of 300 innocents equal to the murder of five million”
After the Shoah, the Holocaust, there was a new idea: Never Again. Unfortunately, Band’s citing of the US Army in Vietnam means he’s way, way, way off, John Band seems to actively support the genocide choice.
Band says 5 million; I usually hear these two numbers: 6 million Jews; 10 million murders by Nazis in death camps and massacres. Of the 10 million, some 3 million were Gypsies (really almost nobody cares them ), and another million included thousands of priests and others who objected to Hitler or any Nazi policy. (Jew-haters occasionally note that the 6 million number ignores the other 4 million; I think they have a good point.)
But Band totally confuses morals of intent, and result. The US Army had no policy of killing children, and Lt. Calley of My Lai notoriety was punished for his murders. He doesn’t mention Dresden, where FDR’s allied bombing killed some 100 000, mostly women and children. So yes, total war is totally terrible, with only surrender to evil being worse.
And Kerry’s Lie, that US soldiers were baby killers, as policy, is why he’s unfit. It’s also one of pillars of political correct junk, and the PC Vietnam lie – that peace (and genocide) is better than fighting evil.
In case John Band needs more clarity, here it is. The 1971 choice facing America was this.
a) stay in Vietnam, fight, die, kill, and even kill some innocents.
b) leave SE, let the commies win – and accept Killing Field genocide.
John Band thinks Kerry was right, he thinks Peace AND the murder of some 3 million Asians is morally superior to the USA continuing to fight evil, which includes killing. There’s more about the Moral Superiority War http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093629194#330293
It is THIS weakness of the West, this terrible pro-genocide moral emptiness, which has made the UN impotent and the Human Rights a joke.
Norm doesn’t mention that one of the leaders of Pali terrorism, Arafat, was awarded a Nobel peace prize. I think he should.
]]>Beslan and the Holocaust
If you were to take the time necessary to correct all the misconstruals encountered in the blogosphere, you’d never be able to do anything useful. So you let a lot or even most of them go. By ‘you’ here so far, I’m referring – as you may have guessed – to me. And seeing as it is me, and that this pertains to a topic which I care much about, and so take care about, I do intend to correct the misconstrual lately visited on me by John B at Shot By Both Sides. John writes:
‘Nor does it [the massacre at Beslan] even approach the levels of evilness of the Holocaust, as some (genuinely) respectable commentators seem to be claiming.’
I thank him for the ‘genuinely’, but under the word ‘respectable’ John has a link to this post of mine. Readers may satisfy themselves that I say nothing whatsoever there about Beslan approaching the scale of evil embodied in the destruction of European Jewry. On the basis of the material I quote, I point to a particular kind of continuity between the attitudes of the killers of the Nazi period and the attitudes of the killers of Beslan and call the latter – in this respect – ‘true and authentic heirs’ of Nazi barbarism. The claim John imputes to me is not only offensive; it’s ridiculous. It shouldn’t be imputed to anyone without something rather solid to support it.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/09/beslan_and_the_.html
]]>