Comments on: Freedom? Not round here

By: john b

john b — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:53:00 +0000

The Russians will deal with it as the usually do - clumsily, but then thats the way uncle Joe did it and he nearly solved these regional problems in his own way.

...and we have a new favourite genocide advocate.

By: Andrew C

Andrew C — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:05:00 +0000

point 1 and the only point worth knowing or considering. Militant Isalamists are just that, deranged killers driven on by their fanatical following of the sickness to the brain known as organised religon. This is the no 1 enemy of atheists, communists, capitalists and just about anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist. I suggest the original author checks the demands from al-qaeda for a "cease-fire" (not an end to hostilities). yes these people make Pol Pot look like a namby pamby liberal.
The Russians will deal with it as the usually do – clumsily, but then thats the way uncle Joe did it and he nearly solved these regional problems in his own way.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:22:00 +0000

Perhaps you could name a high-profile cold war "Evil Communist" global terrorist leader who told his followers they had a duty to kill non-communists, including women and children, wherever and whenever they could. Perhaps you could identify a series of terrorist outrages perpetrated by this "Evil Communist" terrorist network that murdered tens, hundreds and even thousands of innocent people at a time over the course of a few years. Perhaps you could point to the common knowledge that these terrorists were seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and that such weapons were suddenly far more likely to be available to non-state agents due to the recent collapse of a global superpower and the deliberate establishment of a black market by a high-profile nuclear player (A Q Khan). Because if you could do these things — which, of course, you can’t — you would be able to show that the Evil Communists in question were in serious danger of being capable of a great deal more than "limited murder and mayhem," and "the (many, at the time) people who said there was a significant threat from Evil Communist Traitors Who Would If They Could Kill Every One Of Us" would not now look silly at all. At least, they wouldn’t look anywhere near as silly as those who currently compare al-Qaeda and associates to the threat from cold-war "fifth columnists" as it actually was.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:21:00 +0000

Perhaps you could name a high-profile cold war "Evil Communist" global terrorist leader who told his followers they had a duty to kill non-communists, including women and children, wherever and whenever they could. Perhaps you could identify a series of terrorist outrages perpetrated by this "Evil Communist" terrorist network that murdered tens, hundreds and even thousands of innocent people at a time over the course of a few years. Perhaps you could point to the common knowledge that these terrorists were seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and that such weapons were suddenly far more likely to be available to non-state agents due to the recent collapse of a global superpower and the deliberate establishment of a black market by a high-profile nuclear player (A Q Khan). Because if you could do these things — which, of course, you can’t — you would be able to show that the Evil Communists in question were in serious danger of being capable of a great deal more than "limited murder and mayhem," and the "the (many, at the time) people who said there was a significant threat from Evil Communist Traitors Who Would If They Could Kill Every One Of Us" would not now look silly at all. At least, they wouldn’t look anywhere near as silly as those who currently compare al-Qaeda and associates to the threat from cold-war "fifth columnists" as it actually was.

By: john b

john b — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:37:00 +0000

How about the Communist fifth-columnists I also mentioned? They really did exist, and they really did want to destroy Western civilisation. Some of them, in places such as Germany and Italy, really did let off bombs and kill people. This doesn't alter the fact that people spent the much of the Cold War in fear that domestic saboteurs would destroy everything they held dear, when they were in fact capable of no more than limited murder and mayhem. And the (many, at the time) people who said there was a significant threat from Evil Communist Traitors Who Would If They Could Kill Every One Of Us now look silly. Well, except to Ann Coulter.

So why should we view Islamic terrorists differently?

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:29:00 +0000

This is the merest evasion. It should have been obvious that I wasn't talking about Hamas. If you concede that you're "sure there are several Muslim terrorists who Would If They Could Kill Every Single One Of Us," it is utterly mysterious how you find reference to such people "nonsense," or so "fucking ludicrous" that you can never type the expression without "breaking into laughter."

"Why are you doubled over your keyboard in laughter?"

"It's this expression: 'Muslim terrorists who Would If They Could Kill Every Single One Of Us.' I don't know, it just hits me on the funny bone every time."

"Why? Don't you think that such people exist?"

"Oh, certainly they exist. No doubt about that. And they may well be in the process of acquring the means to kill a very large number of us. But -- I don't know -- there's just something, like, really funny about the idea."

Like I said: strange sense of humour. As for "forgive me for assuming past performance is a guide to the future," this is in general an impeccable principle of reasoning; but it is not the principle you are employing. Since you have already conceded that the "Muslim terrorists who Would If They Could Kill Every Single One Of Us" are perfectly real, any comparison to "Jewish conspiracies" is irrelevant unless you think they are real too, in which case I'm afraid forgiveness is out of the question.

By: john b

john b — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:01:00 +0000

It certainly runs contrary to everything the relevant people say about their intentions.

Depends on the relevant people. Most Islamic terrorist leaders have specific, limited goals (Hamas isn't killing people in the Philippines...) and the co-operation between them is limited. Even OBL, according to other quotes, 'merely' wants to re-establish the Caliphate across the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. That doesn't mean that there are no Muslim terrorists who Would If They Could Kill Every Single One Of Us - I'm sure there are several. Just not enough to worry about day-to-day, unless you work in counterterrorism, in which case you should worry about them a great deal, and preferably arrest them.

The reason I find the "They Would If They Could" mantra funny is because it's the same nonsense that leaders throughout history have spouted to make their subjects paranoid about foreigners, from Jewish conspiracies to rule the world through to Communist fifth-columnists. Forgive me for assuming past performance is a guide to the future.

A final point is that there's a danger that the more we treat Islamic militants as a single, unified operation devoted to the destruction of the west, the more they will become so (similarly, Iraq and Al Qaeda didn't co-operate until it was clear that each was the only ally the other had left...)

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:34:00 +0000

I’m still waiting to hear whether you really think that the notion of "Islamists who would if they could kill every single one of us" is a fiction dreamt up by a hysterical media. If this is what you think, then you must believe that the 9/11 hijackers and the Madrid train bombers (and the Bali nightclub bombers and the Istambul bank/synagogue bombers etc etc), even if they had the capability to do so, would only try to wipe out some proportion of the secular West. What reason do you have for believing this? It certainly runs contrary to everything the relevant people say about their intentions. (Even if it were true, it won’t be much comfort to the proportion who do get wiped out, but let that pass). Bin Laden has said that all the faithful have a duty to kill Jews and Christians, including non-combatants, wherever they are found. If you find the prospect that he means what he says so "fucking ludicrous" that you simply can’t help "breaking into laughter," I can only say that yours is a species of sense of humour quite unlike any I have ever encountered before.

By: john b

john b — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:15:00 +0000

Indeed, it’s a horrible situation. But vicious inter-tribal warfare and settling of scores in Central Asia (most experts on the situation think the kidnappers are Ingush, who famously hate the Ossetians due to Soviet-era politics) is not the same as "Islamists who whould if they could kill every single one of us".

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:54:00 +0000

400 or so parents and their children in North Ossetia are probably laughing with you right now, I mean is so ludicrous, imagine them taking so many children hostage, surely they wouldn’t think of killing them, no ? And if they could kill more, it is nice to think that they’ll take your "advice" and refrain from doing so.