No, you, Tars Tarkas, and probably others, are missing the point.
It isn’t the fact that you protested against the war that gives moral support to the terrorists. Most people know that the other part was implied, that you are also against terrorism. Why bother saying it?
Because these little jihadists don’t get the implied message. All they see is shitloads of Westerners, rallying in the streets, for the same cause that they support. They see effigies of GW being burned. They see American flags being burned. They see ‘No War for Oil’ and ‘No Wars of Agression’.
But they don’t see ‘P.S. Terrorists suck.’
Like I said, I know it was implied. It is assumed among civilized people that terrorism sucks. The sort of people that commit acts of terrorism don’t fall under my definition of ‘civilized’. Since they see what they are doing as just and right, they figure, “Hey, so do these people!”.
so, Brutus you think that if there weren’t any protests of Bush, then the attacks would stop? that had there not been a protest, the guy quoted in the OP would have said to himself, “ya know, I really hate that Bush guy and those Americans, but hell, I’m probably alone about this, if only, if only there was some sign that others felt the same way I do, then, well, then I’d take action! But wait! there in the distance! a newstory about a protest!!! and they’re chanting things! and waving signs that I can’t read! Oh wow! they like me! they really really like me, let me go now post haste and blow something up”
Well they’re just fucking idiots and that’s the crux of it. Send them over some hooked on phonics listening comprehension books, because we ain’t changing a damn thing for some illiterate cave dwelling sub humans.
Weirddave–please, why do conservatives suddenly care what foreigners think ONLY when it is what the evil foreigners think. Maybe many Iraqis saw the protests and think “Hey, many Americans don’t want me dead, so they can’t all be bad. I bet they just have a jerk in charge like we do. So i WON’T kill Americans.”
Or should we ignore unintended consequences that undermine your position?
I think protestors should be aware of what this terrorist said. I think they should consider the possible unintended consequences of their words and actions.
Sure, Sawad is a criminally inclined asshole. But he’s the criminally inclined asshole who helped build the bomb, so the impact on him is key.
As a quibble, he wasn’t half a world away, since he was thanking the Australian protestors.
As I said in the OP, I’m sure the protestors had no intention of encouraging terrorism. However, they may have inadvertantly done so, anyhow.
It’s a fact that this terrorist said he was encouraged by the protests. I think it’s a reasonable deduction to take him at his word. There are two policy questions, which are tougher.
What should protestors do?
What should the rest of us do?
I’ll leave the protestors to answer #1. But, denial isn’t a satisfactory answer IMHO, nor is ad hominem attacks at those who point out the problem.
My answer to #2 is that we absolutely cannot take away their freedom of speech. They have the right to protest. OTOH we don’t have to respect people whose actions we think encourage terrorist attacks. E.g., media could give them less coverage and/or more critical coverage
Maybe non-PC speech is an analogy. People have the legal right to use non-PC terms, but we don’t have to like it when they do.
WeirdDave that’s not accurate at all. The OP suggests and you apparently agree that protestors voicing their disapproval of the war etc provide encouragement to the terrorists, therefore abetting them.
Bush’s words can be interpreted as an invitation to attack at will, and certainly at least are threatening in tone.
which do you suppose is more likely to stir up a person to attack?
A. Some one saying “I think the war is wrong”
or
B. A leader of the nation inviting attacks, promising retaliation?
Oh, that’s bullshit, wring, and you know it. When a criminal says that she killed her kids because God wanted her to, or he shot the president to impress Jodie Foster or he blew up the Murrow building to fight a government trying to take away his freedoms we shrug and talk about how deluded they are, but when someone says that they were encouraged by anti-war protestors, well, we have to ignore that because it threatens one of your sacred cows? Sorry, that kind of selective thinking is what dosen’t work, Why don’t you try for a minute to be objective instead of continuing to grind your axes to the exclusion of common sense.
My answer was dealing with what you said. The point is that by discussing cause and effect, you’re also inherently discussing blame. And to blame the people who thought Bush’s war was a mistake and tried to stop it for the actions of terrorists is ludicrous, compared with blaming the war itself for having incredibly predictable results.
However, to address your points directly:
I think you are absolutely incorrect in your opinion of how people in the Middle East, including terrorists, interpreted the protests. I think your viewpoint is wrong, and assumes that people “over there” are ignorant savages who can’t understand the concepts of democracy and protest. I think you are well-intentioned in your viewpoint, but completely off base.
**
See, it’s comments like this that drive me crazy. Trained attack conservatives like december and brutus can’t seem to wrap their mind around the fact that, to most Americans, having your party win is not the absolute most important thing in the whole world.
I would absolutely love it if I was 100% wrong, and Iraq became a stable democracy and terrorism disappeared as a result and no more Americans were killed. But because I think I’m not wrong, I do what I can to try to fight a course of action that I think is going to hurt our country for decades to come. And the evidence is not pointing to the success of a stable democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan, or decreased terrorism, or strong allies in fighting terrorism, or much of anything good, really.
The point, Jack, is that to Susan Smith, or John Hinkley or Tim McVeigh, these entities were the reason for their actions. I am not saying that the protestors cause terrorism, far from it. What I am saying is that the existance of the protestors is, from the POV of the terrorists, and encouraging sign. People who want to take to the street to protest the war are free to do so, I just think they should do so realizing how it’s going to be viewed by some people. The John Birch Society is going to see them as cowards, pacifists as heros and some terrorists are going to see the protests as demonstrations of support for their position and perhaps for their actions. That’s it. It’s not a concern that trumps the First Ammendment, not at all, but it’s foolish to pretend that it isn’t there.