Our favorite Kiwi Kommenter has his own site, and he had the following post up, which I believe demonstrates the fallacy of liberal thinking:
On American racism
Let us try a thought experiment.
Imagine that Hamas has a legitimite gripe with an Israeli general – say, someone they claim is responsible for killing civilians in Gaza – and wish to kill him. On hearing that he is visiting the US, they arrange a bombing. This bombing – which may or may not kill the general – kills 49 American civilians. Images of mangled corpses of women and children fill TV screens.
The response would be obvious. Regardless of whether you supported the right of Palestinians to struggle against Israel or not, such a bombing would be universally condemned. It would be taken as a sign that Hamas was beyond the pale, and needed to be exterminated. Even if it was the other way round, with Israel attempting to assassinate a Hamas leader, it would be universally condemned. No-one has the right to blow up scores of American civilians as part of an assassination attempt, right?
The US just murdered 49 Yemeni civilians – including women and children – trying to kill a Al Qaeda leader.
Now, I was thinking – “would they ever send cruise missiles into NZ?” Would places like Aotearoa, Australia, or Canada ever find 50 civilians murdered in an explosion as the US attempted to kill its enemies?
The answer is, of course, no. For some reason, predominately white, English speaking people would never have to fear the same violence the US feels entirely justified in visiting on Arab countries. I wonder why…?
We targeted the al Qaeda leader because he was a high-value target, whose death helps us in the war against Islamic fascism; we didn’t target him because he is a rather swarthy Caucasian. We don’t use force against any “predominately white, English speaking people” because, at least right now, there aren’t any “predominately white, English speaking people” trying to harm us. And the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is not a white man.
It needs to be noted that we did apply similar lethal force, with the assistance of our white friends from New Zealand, against another almost exclusively white country in World War II, killing plenty of civilians, both those who worked in Germany’s armamant and infrastructure industries as well as innocent bystanders, children, elderly people, you name it. It was war, and it was done because we had to defeat a country which was certainly trying to kill Americans. Yeah, 49 Yemeni civilians died, most of them probably innocent of doing anything against the United States, but that’s war, and when the terrorist leadership tries to hide amongst the innocent population, it is his presence which endangers their lives.
It should also be noted that our greatest ally in the war against Islamic fascism is Israel, a land of predominantly Caucasian, though often swarthy, people, a Semitic ethnic group just as the Arabs are a Semitic ethnic group. It isn’t about race, it isn’t about skin color, but about whether a particular group is trying to harm the United States and Western culture in general.
I’d also point out that Americans have spilled their own blood to defend Asian people from other Asians, in Korea and Vietnam, not because of race, but due to politics, due to a Communist aggression. We have spilled our blood to help liberate darker-skinned Caucasians in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have defended Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina against attempted genocide by nominally Orthodox Christians.
War is very ugly, but sometimes war is necessary, sometimes war is less of an evil than the alternative, surrender to an oppressive group.
The problem with your thinking is this – you’re viewing the “war on terror” as a conventional war, with two well-defined armies trying to annihilate each other. This is hardly the case. al-Qaeda isn’t an army as much as an ideology, and we can’t treat it like we treated the Germans in WWII.
Let’s take this attack and look at it closely. From the Yemeni POV, American cruise missiles just destroyed a village and killed 49 innocent people. Now Yemen’s got a couple of million people in it, and most of them probably aren’t too fond of us to begin with. If anyone in that area was tinkering with the idea of “going terrorist,” this probably pushed them over the edge. I’d be willing to bet that our attack just added at least another 10 or so to the ranks of the radical Muslim terrorists (whether aQ-affiliated or not), a turn of events which makes us far less safe. Whether or not we took out the aQ leader, this strike must be considered a tactical failure for that reason. So not only did we kill 49 innocent people, we did so in a way that doesn’t help us win.
In this “war,” killing civilians isn’t undesirable collateral damage the way it was in conventional wars. On top of that, it’s actively counterproductive. In most wars, keeping an eye on process is a luxury often not afforded the combatants. In this struggle we absolutely have to keep an eye on process and the perception of the Muslim world, because it doesn’t do us any good to kill a couple of terrorists if 20 more take their place.
Our primary objective – the only way we can guarantee that the ranks of the terrorists won’t continue to grow – is to make ourselves look better than the terrorists to the average Muslim-world man on the street. Killing 49 civilians doesn’t accomplish that task.
Jeff, if we are to accept your reasoning as both valid and controlling, then we can never fight back against those who try to harm us, as long as they can make it back to a place where they are surrounded by innocent civilians; you would give them eternal safe-havens.
This is a Western ethno-centric response: you are suggesting that we somehow look better than the terrorists, to their own people, if we do not respond, if we leave them alone.
But to the populations from which the terrorists come, their attacks make them look like heroes, and a non-response by us doesn’t make us look strong or gain us respect, but makes us look weak and unworthy of respect. Perhaps you have forgotten the images of the Palestinians celebrating in the streets of East Jerusalem on September 11th¹:
______________________
¹ – There was an internet rumor that the images were faked by CNN; that rumor has been thoroughly debunked, and the images were genuine.
While I believe Jeff has a good point, as usual Phoeny’s typical “progressive” invocation of “racism” is way off the mark. (Boy, was I clairvoyant here, or what?) When the “Caucasian” countries such as Canada, Australia and NZ begin harboring Muslim radical terrorists and substantially lessen diplomatic relations with the US from what they are now, Phoeny might have a point.
Funny how those Kosovo Muslims were so indiscriminately killed by US/NATO forces over a decade ago, eh? Oh, that’s right — we actually defended and protected them. (Now waiting to see if Phoeny says “that’s only b/c they are European Muslims and hence of a lighter hue …”)
“When the “Caucasian” countries such as Canada, Australia and NZ begin harboring Muslim radical terrorists and substantially lessen diplomatic relations with the US from what they are now, Phoeny might have a point.”
But then again, maybe not. My bet, they wouldn’t press their luck.
We targeted the al Qaeda leader because he was a high-value target
You murdered 49 innocent people in a country that was not at war with you.
Asymetrical Warfare’s a bitch, ain’t it.
And you failed to pick up on my first point. The US harbours foreigners in opposition, sometimes in violent opposition to foreign governments.
If Iran murdered 49 Americans attempting to kill someone iminical to their government, what would America’s reaction be? If the UK murdered 49 innocent Americans attemping to kill a NORAID organiser, what would America’s reaction be?
Do Iran or the UK have the right to murder innocent Americans in seeking to destroy their enemies on American soil?
If not, why should America have the right to murder innocent Yemenis in seeking to destroy their enemies on Yemen soil?
A positive answer for that last question, in my opinion, boils down to racism. Feel free to answer both questions consistently.
Asymetrical Warfare’s a bitch, ain’t it.
I do believe you have more airplanes and more skyscrapers, Yorkshire. Feel free to keep crowing about asymetrical warfare…
Idiot.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Asymetrical Warfare’s a bitch, ain’t it.
I do believe you have more airplanes and more skyscrapers, Yorkshire. Feel free to keep crowing about asymetrical warfare…
Idiot.
It was so nice of you to bring your “joy and happiness” to the Christmas Season. It spreads so welllll.
Just remember if you don’t agree with Pooter’s left-wing brain-dead historically revisionist thinking, you’re the idiot, not Pooter.
And, to take my above statement out of context and out of any semblence of order (like Pooter does ever so frequently), I guess I just said “Just remember Pooter’s dead, idiot.”
John Hitchcock:
Just remember if you don’t agree with Pooter’s left-wing brain-dead historically revisionist thinking, you’re the idiot, not Pooter.
It’s nice to have the class mielenvikainen on board. (not directed at JH)
Well, I see the usual crapweasel is at it again, trying to blame Americans, or Dana, or York. Anyone but the miserable failure actually responsible for the attack.
Oh, It’s somewhat understandable, I suppose, the loony left has so much invested in Barack Obama they just can’t acknowledge their monumental disappointment in the False Prophet from Chicago. Time after time, Teh One just hasn’t been able to measure up to expectations. Phooy’s idiot rant is an example of the psychological dysfunction of misplaced condemnation: unable to bring himself to condemn Obama, Phooy falls back on tried and true, if inappropriate, targets.
Phooy wrote, “You murdered 49 innocent people in a country that was not at war with you.”
Then he asked, “…why should America have the right to murder innocent Yemenis in seeking to destroy their enemies on Yemen soil?”
Phooy then offers “racism” in answer to his own question.
Phooy does all this, and a little bit more, without ever taking notice, apparently, that Islamic reports cite Barack Obama as the culprit responsible for the attack.
Islami Davet, on 12/19/09 reported, “US Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says.
Upon the orders of Obama, the military warplanes on Thursday blanketed two camps in the North of the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, claiming there were “an imminent attack against a US asset was being planned,” ABC News quoted anonymous administration officials as saying on Friday.
The US air raids were then followed by a Yemeni ground forces attack.
The operation led to the death of around 120 people of whom many were civilians, including children, the report quoted Yemeni opposition as saying.
Obama also contacted Yemen’s President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, after the blitz in order to “congratulate” him on his efforts against ‘al-Qaeda,’ the US news outlet quoted White House officials as telling reporters earlier.”
Phooy et al may still be in Bush bashing or America bashing mode, but the jihadis have moved on to name Barack Obama as the chief architect of murder and mayhem in Yemen. Wake up Phooy, you’re stuck in yesterday’s narrative. Obama is the Left’s whipping boy now.
The Neanderthal in a time of Cro-Magnons wrote:
Please, can you name for us just which “foreigners in opposition, sometimes in violent opposition to foreign governments,” in violant opposition to foreign government to the point of having launched terrorist attacks against them, reside in the United States? Who would these people be, Phoe? Given that we have extradition treaties with many nations, why haven’t such people been arrested and returned to such countries?
Who, I wonder, in the US, gas blown up buildings in Iran, set off bombs in North Korea, firebombed sites in Moscow or attacked British military sites in Ulster?
Of course, if the Yemenis who surrounded and protected Qasim al Rim had instead turned him over for justice, then there would have been no civilian casualties.
This is the propaganda line the Islamists like to use: their fighters hide amongst civilian populations, and then bewail the deaths of the innocent civilians when responsible countries go after the fighters. They make “human shields” of their neighborhoods, and then tell us how bad it is that their human shields were hurt. It would be laughable were there not so many of our friends on the left who swallow that claptrap.
Dana:
This is the propaganda line the Islamists like to use: their fighters hide amongst civilian populations, and then bewail the deaths of the innocent civilians when responsible countries go after the fighters.
When Palestinians were firing rockets at Israel from Gaza, and Israel would fight back, the Palestinians would set up on schools or other high civilian population center, so if Israel would fire back, civilian causulties were assured. Then the Palestinians cried foul. I feel for the civilians, but their leaders put them in the position. I haven’t heard one Palestinian say we volunteered to be targets. All they want to do is raise families and live in peace, but their leaders have such deep hatred for Israel, they care not who dies.
Visit Israel sometime and see what a free people can do with a desert.
Beach Front on the Med:
The building in front on the left has bullet pock marks from the 48 war.
It was no different in World War II; somehow, Allied bombing fell, almost unfailingly, on schools, hospitals and churches according to Josef Goebbels, but seemed to miss anything related to Germany’s war effort. The only difference was that there were very few people fooled by Herr Goebbels’ propaganda.
And I have to ask: if, instead of a cruise missile strike, the Navy had been able to send in a SEAL team and put a bullet in Qasim al Rim’s head, harming no one else, would the man down under be complaining that we had violated Yemeni sovereignty and simply executed the target, rather than capturing him and bringing him to a fair trial?
Dana Pico:
And I have to ask: if, instead of a cruise missile strike, the Navy had been able to send in a SEAL team and put a bullet in Qasim al Rim’s head, harming no one else, would the man down under be complaining that we had violated Yemeni sovereignty and simply executed the target, rather than capturing him and bringing him to a fair trial?
Don’t forget their Miranda Rights.
Please, can you name for us just which “foreigners in opposition, sometimes in violent opposition to foreign governments,” in violant opposition to foreign government to the point of having launched terrorist attacks against them, reside in the United States?
Try Luis Posada Carriles, to name but one.
Now, you have been evading the question, Dana. Are other countries justified in murdering 49 Americans to kill their enemies on American soil? Try answering the question instead of evading it, Dana.
And I have to ask: if, instead of a cruise missile strike, the Navy had been able to send in a SEAL team and put a bullet in Qasim al Rim’s head,
But they didn’t, Dana. Instead they used an air raid, murderuing 49 civilians, Dana.
Now, you have been evading the question, Dana. Are other countries justified in murdering 49 Americans to kill their enemies on American soil? Try answering the question instead of evading it, Dana.
This is the propaganda line the Islamists like to use: their fighters hide amongst civilian populations, and then bewail the deaths of the innocent civilians when responsible countries go after the fighters.
Are other countries justified in murdering 49 Americans to kill their enemies “hiding” in American cities, Dana?
It was no different in World War II;
WWII was an actual war, in which Germany declared war on America, Dana. Yemen has not declared war on the US, Dana, nor has the US declared war on Yemen.
Now, you have been evading the question, Dana. Are other countries justified in murdering 49 Americans to kill their enemies on American soil? Try answering the question instead of evading it, Dana.
Are other countries justified in murdering 49 Americans to kill their enemies on American soil?
The answer is “it depends.” If we are harboring members of an organization that has declared war on a country and has already launched a [successful] attack which has killed upwards of 3,000 people the justification would be there. The cold reality is that most countries would neither have the means to do it or the courage.
I’m sure, Phoeny, you use this precise line of reasoning when you defend Israel against its terrorist enemies, right?
Yemen has not declared war on the US, Dana, nor has the US declared war on Yemen.
But al Qaeda has on us, and it can be argued we have on them (based on congressional approval of military action … though I’d certainly wish we’d go back to the old fashioned way of a starightforward declaration so we don’t get boondoggles like Iraq and Vietnam …).
How is it Pooter gets to change the subject of every article and then accuse people of not talking on Pooter’s new subject? Pooter made the claim of racism, that much is very crystal clear. But Pooter has redirected so he doesn’t have to face his evil and false claim. I’ve seen this tactic of his over and over again. When the subject matter of the debate doesn’t suit him, he changes the subject matter and then cries foul when people don’t stick to his chosen redirect. Why do so many people allow Pooter to obfuscate and dominate like that?
In that he and Perry are very much alike. And the answer is simple: The charge of racism is ridiculous. It is, as I noted elsewhere, a tried and true tactic by the moonbat Left because it is the modern-day Scarlet Letter. Fortunately, it has been so overused of late (see campaign 2008) that it is losing its sting. And deservedly so.
The Phoenician seems to think that every other nation has the same rights as the United States:
That would be an act of war, Phoe, and, in case you hadn’t noticed, we are at war. We did not hesitate to bomb German positions outside of Germany in World War II, nor Japanese positions in the Philippines or other countries during World War II. If some other country wishes to commit an act of war against us, then they can do so; the consequences aren’t likely to be good for them.
We are at war, and that means we can and will do things to fight that war that we would not do otherwise. I know that this offends your sensibilities, but the United States has rights which are not limited by the same things which limit other nations, and the United States has duties to which pipsqueak nations like New Zealand have neither the capacity to accept nor the will to acknowledge. Let me be plain here: we are superior to all other nations, and can do as we wish. You should be glad of this, too, in that you are not subject to what could have been your Japanese masters.
The Phoenician suggested:
Mr Posada is under indictment in the United States, and his trial is scheduled to begin in February. Try again.
I guess it was racism that made those passengers jump on the Nigerian/Al-Q operative on the Delta/NW flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as he tried to blow up the plane. Yeah, that was racism through and through. I guess our resident NZ antagonist is upset it didn’t work so 300 innocents weren’t killed by a freedom fighter.
“Are other countries justified in murdering 49 Americans to kill their enemies on American soil?”
That would be an act of war, Phoe,
So you are stating that Obama declared war on Yemen, in direct violation of the US Constitution and UN Charter? Just as Clinton declared war on the Sudan, and Bush declared war on Pakistan?
Still ignoring the racism charge ….
BTW, it is NOT a violation of the US Constitution for the president to order a military strike.
BTW, it is NOT a violation of the US Constitution for the president to order a military strike.
Dana’s words, Hube – “act of war”. If it’s an act of war for another country to bomb America and murder civilians, it’s an act of war for the US to do the same. Dana’s words.
Now, go read Article 1 Section 8 on the powers of Congress, Hube.
Still ignoring the racism charge ….
I’m well aware of the Constitution, Phoeny … probably better than you. However, you conveniently ignored the fact that Dana also claimed we are currently IN a state of war.