It’s not what I am claiming, see my reply to Jack.
Apology accepted. But I can guarantee that we have agreed on this board more than just in this instance. Enjoy.
You left something out of the second part of that, it should start of something like.
…and other terrorists may possibly…
Would you like to fill in the rest?
Huh?
Sorry, this isn’t clear, what are you suggesting?
Unintended consequences, my Aunt Fanny.
This is what the man said, and all the man said: “I want to thank the Australian people who supported our cause when they demonstrated against the policies of George Bush. Say thank you to all of them.”
What cause would that be? Islam? Al Queda? Iraq? Anti-Americanism? What? I don’t know what he’s talking about and if any of you can tell me, please feel free to do so. But I don’t think you can, because he didn’t say enough.
But whatever “cause” he thinks Australian protesters supported, how does one leap from “We do not support the war in Iraq” to “We support the mass murder of civilians in Bali”? It’s not just a stretch or a leap, it’s the connection of two ideas that have nothing in common.
Arguing about whether the “consequences” were intended or not is pointless, because it is simply ridiculous to say that the intentional homicidal acts of these men could in any way be a “consequence” of protesting the war. Not in the real world, anyway, no matter what these terrorists might say.
John Hinckley claimed that Jodie Foster motivated him to try to kill Ronald Reagan. Do you guys therefore blame Ms. Foster for the attempted assassination? Was that the “unintended consequence” of her living her life in public? No. The assassination attempt was not a “consequence” of her actions or even existence; it was a consequence of him being a whacko. He says she motivated the action, but who the hell cares what he says? Just because he says it doesn’t make it so.
There is simply no way the mass murder of 202 people can be considered the “consequence” of peaceful anti-war protest in another country. The effect just does not flow from the alleged cause. The one simply is not enough to give rise to the other – no matter what the terrorists might say. Though as to that, you’re awfully quick, DECEMBER, to accept this terrorist at his word and without question. I wonder if you’d be so willing to do so if his words were less supportive of the ideological ax you’re so constantly seeking to grind.
I’m suggesting that their are two sides to the coin.
The first example had both sidesof it, the second only had one.
there are
I’m still in disagreement with you, Dave. Terrorists claiming to be encouraged by protesters doesn’t carry much weight with me. Just as Susan Smith claiming to be guided by God doesn’t carry much weight.
To me it seems to be a matter of “if it’s not one thing, it’s another.” Terrorists will be pissed at us for whatever reason they’re pissed at us. And they’ll use any percieved schism in our unity to their advantage.
A terrorist thanking protestors for encouragement is nothing but empty taunting. These terrorists would most probably still have pulled this shit, protesters or no.
WD your friends are in fact, claiming it, and continue to do so when a statement is made such as “the protestors are encouraging the terrorists”. You (and they) are making assumptions about these people’s motivations. Your evidence is this one terrorist (of the three under arrest, according to the link) made a statement ‘thanking’ protestors.
And, according to the link, the bombing, which occured last October (ie before the Iraq invasion), was planned as far back as last August.
How much anti-BUsh protesting in Austrailia was going on last August??? and was it televised to Bali? and did the terrorist have access to television, cable news etc at the time? (ie how did he know?) what language(s) did he speak (ie even if there was coverage about any potential protests, were they in a language that the suspect spoke?) hmm??
OTOH, let’s go back and charge David Berkowitz’s neighbor’s dog. I’m sure it was supporting David, even if it didn’t know it.
WEIRDDAVE –
Who cares what these people say were the reasons for their actions? Are their delusions or pitiful excuses somehow worthy of respect? Do those who such people would choose to blame therefore have some responsibility to live their lives differently, just so that they will not be named as the irrational “cause” for a criminal act? Since when did blaming someone else for your own intentional act suddenly become something we value, as opposed to displore and disregard?
Then the terrorists need to collectively put down the crack pipe, because you just can’t get “Go bomb a hotel!” out of an anti-war protest a thousand miles away. If they are in fact “encouraged” by actions so wholly removed from the criminal plots they participate in, how on earth is that the fault of anyone but themselves?
If “some people” see peaceful protest as something it very clearly is not – a call to violence, against civilians no less – I fail to see how that could possibly be laid at the feet of the protesters.
We are responsible for our own actions, and we are responsible for what we say and for what may reasonably be drawn from what we say. We are not responsible for anything else.
I’m not pro-life, but if I were, and if I protested for that cause – peacefully – and then some yahoo shot a doctor and thanked me for it, I would not be to blame for that. And I sure as hell wouldn’t sit down and be silent because of it.
Rock on, Jodi.
I protested the war. Fuck you. I would protest it again. Moron.
Damn I’m eloquent tonite.
Uh huh. You have already stated your opinion, which I am sure many people agree with. But repeating the same cliche in every december thread makes you sound like a broken record. Some might even consider it spamming.
I just want to make sure I got this straight.
When Osama bin Laden blows up a fair chunk of New York, and blames it one American foreign policy in the Mid East, anyone who thinks maybe we should change our foreign policy is “blaming the victims” and “letting the terrorists win.”
When Sawad blows up a chunk of Bali, and thanks anti-war protestors for their support, anti-war protestors should take a long look at their actions and their “unintended consequences.”
Does that more or less sum it all up?
Better be careful folks.
While december and his ilk currently mouth platitudes about believing in your First Amendment rights, most of their criticisms shade pretty close to the sort of thing you would hear in a trial of someone charged with treason for giving “aid and comfort to the enemy.”
It’s also interesting that all these conservatives who constantly trumpet their hatred for terrorism are so quick to believe the self-serving, ex post facto rationalization of a terrorist when it suits their peacenik-bashing agenda.
And, on preview, what Miller said.
The hell you can’t, in fact, that’s what terrorists are trying to do.
The goal of a terrorist group is to make the actions of a government that they are not powerful enough to take on directly change it’s policy by making the cost of that policy too high for the population of the country in question to bear, forcing the civilian population to make the government change it’s policy. The more people protest, the closer it seems that they are to that goal, thus the more they are encouraged to keep the pressure on. This is simple, basic, International relations 101 stuff, guys and gals.
I happen to think that the basic principles upon which this country was founded are far more important than any policy, foreign or domestic, that any given administration wants to persue, which is why I have pointedly NOT advocated any curtailment of First Ammendment rights anywhere. However, if support for the war in Iraq is, say, 70% today and al-Quada bombs a UN building and then notices that support for the war two weeks later is only 60%, you’d have to be a fool or an idiot to think that they wouldn’t be encouraged to bomb more places by this, thinking that they could further erode support for the war by doing so.
Which by decembrist logic means that we should all be meekly toadying up to whatever asshole happens to seize the presidential reigns of power. Fortunately, I could care fuck-all what december, or some mad bomber thinks, because I am the master of my fate, and the captain of my soul.
[sup]*[/sup] Such as the poet William Ernest Henley, who died in 1902, thus releasing his works from copyright in ~1972.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda attacked American embassies, overseas military targets, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center in an attempt to destroy what they see as an evil American culture.
[sarcasm] You know, I think december has a point. By living our lives the way we have and clinging to an evil, secular government, we’re only encouraging more terrorist attacks. We really should think about how our wicked, hedonistic lifestyles will affect the few crazy nuts who already hate our country, and what kind of horrible consequences might result. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go home and take away my girlfriend’s car keys. [/sarcasm]
Really, at the end of the day, I’m not sure what DECEMBER and Co. (not to tar the rest of you, etc.) expect people to do. If they don’t speak up, they are open to charges of complicity in policies they do not support and in fact think are deeply wrong. If they do speak up, suddenly their law-abiding, peaceful actions somehow give rise to acts of terror. Is there some Option C I’m overlooking?
So let me present the other side with such a Hobson’s choice: You can either vocally support the war, in which case you are endorsing the civilian deaths that flow from it, or you can sit down and be silent, in which case you are tacitly admitting the justice of the criticism of your country.
Not a fair choice, you say? We don’t care so much about fair in this particular thread.
Bottom line, anyone in this country should feel as free as humanly possible to peacefully protest for any cause he or she wishes. The only exception would be protest with the express purpose of inciting violence. What another person does in response is in no way a reflection on the protesters.
If we feel intimidated to express our opinions, what is the point of all this freedom we have anyway? If we wanted absolute security, we’d opt for a totalitarian police state.