Just a quick spell-check note, as it is relevant to your post:

The word should be "complicit", not "complicate".

MG

Re: your request to use the complete post. It isn't selective quotation, because nothing else in that comment bears on the issue of the last line.

Nor does anything else in that comment, or this post, excuse it.

Yes, the U.N. is a terrorist sponsoring organization. Should the Americans have simply refused them entry into Iraq? You could make an argument, even though the Americans have been pretty good at limiting the U.N.'s role so far (to which I say, as I look around at the U.N.'s efforts elsewhere: "good!").

Should the U.N. be defeated, destroyed as an organization even, replaced? I think there's a good case. It does far more harm than good, and in the present environment it is not just corrupt but actively dangerous.

Should that destruction include car bombs? No. Not unless you think McVeigh was right to truck bomb a building belonging to a political entity that he believed threatened his freedom.

Feel no sympathy? Fine. The penalty for stupidity is death? Fine, so it is. Had you stopped there, no foul. You hate the U.N.? Push to expel them. Push to de-fund them. Push to de-legitimize them. But not to kill them in terrorist attacks.

What you said wasn't just the cynical beat cop who ignores a gangland shooting, or an analytical judgement that the U.N. stupidity has consequences. What you said was, in effect: "they should have killed more people in their terrorist attack." It was unmistakeable, and clear as a bell, and not excuseable or modifiable by anythign else you said.

By asking for a bigger bomb, you're not just attacking the U.N. You're legitimizing, to some extent, the methods of al-Awda.

This blog is about the War ON Terror. Not the War of Terror.

Joe, you don't deserve this crap.

Trent, you're an embarrassment.

Joe,

From the current revision:

Was that over the top? Yes, it was. I apologize for that. It was morally wrong to suggest the U.N. deserved to be truck bombed. What I was trying to say was if the local U.N. people wanted to get a Darwin award that much. The bomb should have been bigger to get the ones working for the award. I was unaware at the time the bombing was most likely an inside job and not one by terrorists.

Andrew,

I love you too.

>It isn't selective quotation, because nothing
>else in that comment bears on the issue of the
>last line.
>
>Nor does anything else in that comment, or this >post, excuse it.

Bull. Context is everything. Removing it says more about you than it does me.

We are not going to have a meeting of the minds on this. You don't have the bloody minded sense humor or bloody minded worldview that I do.

I will concede the point I was morally wrong to say/imply/tout/whatever that the U.N. deserved to be truck bombed.

I also think you are fixated and over reacting to "the methods of al-Awda," which I take to mean arguments Arab moral equivalency from the context.

Such arguments hold no water with me. We were the ones attacked, we would not be in Iraq but for that. For Americans to be safe in their homes, the 'world of al-Awada' is going to die. It is as simple as that.

Don't tug on Superman's cape. You won't like the results.

The appropriate response to acts of terrorism is horror and fury. Discussions of the relative merits of any organizations (or states) to which the victims belong do not belong in the same conversation.

Period.

There will be plenty of opportunities to condemn the UN in the future, just as there have been in the past. Doing so as your primary response to terrorism is reprehensible (obviously, as the volume of reprehension demonstrates).

It's about blame and responsibilty. The people to blame are the terrorists. Not the UN. Trying to blame the UN for atrocities around the world is to misplace the blame. Should they have stepped in and stopped them? Of course. But that doesn't make them as bad as the people who committed the acts.

What you're doing here is just as bad as the the blame America first policy so many people have. The blame belongs to the terrorists not the UN. There is a distintion between what the UN does to aid the terrorists and what the terrorists do. It is in the intentions. Terrorists intend to kill people. The UN, through inaction or incompetence, may kill some people but their intention is not to kill. Their intention is to help people.

I am no fan of the UN but to put them on the same level as Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc... is just wrong. And you know it.

I will concede the point I was morally wrong to say/imply/tout/whatever that the U.N. deserved to be truck bombed.

The organization doesn't exist apart from the people. The organization wasn't truck-bombed; people were murdered.

Chris,

Bureaucracy 101 -- People are policy.

From the NY TIMES article:

"The official said all of the guards at the compound were agents of the Iraqi secret services, to whom they reported on United Nations activities before the war. The United Nations continued to employ them after the war was over, the official said.

The official said that when investigators began questioning the guards, two of them asserted that they were entitled to "diplomatic immunity" and refused to cooperate. Diplomats working in foreign countries are often entitled to immunity from prosecution by local authorities, but the official said the two guards could make no such claim.

Investigators are continuing to question the guards, the official said.

"We believe the U.N.'s security was seriously compromised," the official said, adding that "we have serious concerns about the placement of the vehicle" and the timing of the attack. The bomb exploded directly under the third-floor office of the United Nations coordinator for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, while he was meeting with a prominent American human rights advocate, Arthur C. Helton. Both men were killed, along with several top aides to Mr. Vieira de Mello.

In New York, a United Nations official reacted skeptically to the assertions. "All of us are trying to get to the bottom of this," said Fred Eckhard, spokesman for the secretary general, Kofi Annan. "In fact, the secretary general is sending his security coordinator to Baghdad this evening to investigate the bombing. But the task is not made easier by the conspiracy theories circulating. We'll have to separate as best we can fact from speculation."

No one connected to the United Nations office in Baghdad, which was demolished in the bombing, could be reached for comment. The United Nations had a large presence in Iraq before the war, running the oil-for-food program and housing teams of weapons inspectors."

Darwin award or inside job, you decide.

I want to know which aides of de Mello were not at this meeting.

Trent, most of don't reach for a Sawzall when we're far out on a limb.

First, it's only a straw man if it doesn't cut to the heart of what you're saying over and over and over again - that it's a 'bummer' they were blown up, but they deserved it.

Let me tell you where we're different, you and me - I don't think anyone 'deserves it'. Deos this mean that we should play patty-cake with the bad guys? I don't think so, and I don't think the 150,000 of my fellow Americans over there think so. But no honorable soldier could condone tactics like this, as no honorable political movement can survive if it employs them.

Second, you're pro-military? Make me laugh some more. You're pro-violence and pro-mindless hatred for your enemies - who apparently include your fellow Amercians who don't snap to attention fast enough when you present your patriotic 'flair'.

My son is going to be a soldier in part to become an honorable man. You demean him and all the other brave sons and daughters who serve with this nonsense.

My friends are soldiers, and retired soldiers, and while most of them have done very real and lethal violence, they did so honorably. You insult them and the memories of their dead colleagues when you ally yourself with terorists and claim that it suits our national cause.

In case you can't tell, I'm furious. This blog - as ephemeral and minor an effort as it may be - is supposed to stand for something, and that something is the triumph of civilization over terror.

Now I understand that - in your mind, at least - that we don't need to triumph as a civilization; we just need to kill the bastards any way we can.

Well rock on, Trent, but until you learn the meaning of the term honor, please don't expect me to pay any more attention to your demented views.

A.L.

You know, it's really disheartening to see this sort of intramural fighting on one of my favorite blogs. And it's especially sad because I can see both sides of this issue - sort of.

I can see what Trent was trying to say originally. And I understand his explanation - but it's still over the top to wish for a bigger bomb. Because that would have meant, probably, more innocents get hurt or killed.

And, Trent, if we are to engage the UN, or UN employees because of their support for terrorism, it must be US. We can't subcontract hits to al Qaeda, or whoever, even if those hits are necessary.

And, AL, what in hell is this all about?

>>Second, you're pro-military? Make me laugh some more. You're pro-violence and pro-mindless hatred for your enemies - who apparently include your fellow Amercians who don't snap to attention fast enough when you present your patriotic 'flair'.

I hate to be the one to pull the Rodney King lever here, but having recently gone through something like this on my blog, which resulted in the departure of one of the original three members - to my great sorrow - don't go too far with this.

Trent's original remark was ill-considered, at best - but he has apologized for the worst part of what he said. Joe, I think, went slightly overboard in criticism. You all agree that the UN sucks. It looks like it might be an inside job, according to Tom Holsinger, which renders Trent's original remark largely irrelevant.

I just found this site, I like it, I like commenting here, don't get all freaky and spoil my enjoyment of good political commentary.

Trent,

Not that I can add appreciably to what A.L. just laid down on you, but I would point out that if the conspiracy theories are correct, the de Mello was targeted because he was there to expose corruption and collaboration, then your reaction to his murder ought to be stronger, not weaker, because the UN just got even worse than you already thought it was.

Trent,

"Such arguments hold no water with me. We were the ones attacked, we would not be in Iraq but for that. For Americans to be safe in their homes, the 'world of al-Awada' is going to die. It is as simple as that.

Don't tug on Superman's cape. You won't like the results."

Attacking Iraq for 9/11 is like attacking Korea for Pearl Harbor. Yeah, they're both in the same neighborhood, they kinda look alike but they are not the same people!

The U.N., "Old Europe" and much of the rest of the world tried to impress this upon us before the war but we weren't interested in hearing it.
Guess what? Occupying a country as stategically located and large as Iraq is going to take some doing. It would be preferable to have some help, and I don't mean the Bulgarians or the Poles. Some of our NATO allies that we were so busy offending with our hubris might come in handy about now. Once our country makes a commitment like this, we need to see it through but we need to also acknowledge the fact that we owe our traditional allies an apology for the infintile way we handled the biuld up to this war. Unfortunately, with the neocons, it's never their fault. There is always someone else to blame. Now it's the U.N. that's to blame for the bombing of their headquarters? At what point do we take responsibility for the things we do? We invaded Iraq and removed the sitting government over the objections of the U.N. and our traditional NATO allies. The neocons knew better. They didn't need the U.N. They didn't need "Old Europe", they didn't need the Moderate wing of either party, they assured us that victory would be quick and the repercussions would be positive. The hardcore supporters still cling to that view. For the rest of us however, the facts are painting a very different picture.
Like I said, we as a country will see this through because the consequences of failure are more ominous than the cost of succeeding but it's going to require the ousting of Bush and his neocon handlers...

Nick Foresta

Trent,

As a Nam Veteran I am about to give you one of the highest compliments I know.

Fuckin A.

And thanks for mentioning me in the dispatches. Couldn't be prouder.

You hang with mass murdereres don't be surprised when the pickle is aimed at your barrel.

The conjecture that it may have been an inside job by the UN itself or terrorist it supported only makes the justice of it all the more apparent.

If you want to weep for the innocents that is all to the good. Just keep in mind who killed them or armed, aided and abetted the killers.

As I pointed out in the other thread related to this topic and Trent has also pointed out the UN is one of the major mass murder supporting organizations on the planet. Any one who works for them is morally equivalent to someone working for the Nazis. Or the Soviets if Godwin's law applies.

If we have to take another attack in America let it be aimed at the UN headquarters. And let it be precise.

I have a very simple test of national morality these days that works in 90% of all national and organizational cases. What is the nation's or organization's attitude to the Jews and Israel?

By that criteria the UN is on the side of the enemy (go Trent!). Damn them to hell. The sooner the better. Where ever Qusi and Udi are the UN ought to be as well. They deserve each other.

M. Simon,

The latest list of those confirmed dead that I was able to find:

-- Sergio Vieira de Mello of Brazil, the head of the U.N. mission in Iraq and one of the world's most experienced diplomats.

-- Nadia Younes of Egypt, Vieira de Mello's chief of staff.

-- Renam Al-Farra of Jordan, an employee of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

-- Ranillo Buenaventura of the Philippines, working for the U.N. humanitarian coordination office.

-- Arthur Helton, prominent New York immigration lawyer and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in the U.N. building to see Vieira de Mello at the time of the attack.

-- Rick Hooper, an American working for the Department of Political Affairs. Hooper had previously worked with the United Nations peace coordinator in Gaza.

-- Jean-Selim Kanaan of Egypt, employed in Vieira de Mello's office.

-- Chris Klein-Beckman, a Canadian who served as the program coordinator in Iraq for the U.N. Children's Fund or UNICEF.

-- Alya Souza of Iraq, who worked for the World Bank.

-- Martha Teas of the United States, project manager for the Humanitarian Information Center for Iraq.

-- Fiona Watson of Britain, employed in Vieira de Mello's office on the oil for food program.

I presume that in each of these cases, and of those yet to be confirmed, you have some information as to why their deaths were just? Because if not, sir, you need to shut that moral vacuum the fuck up.

Trent gave a straightforward, unconditional, public apology, admitting an error, something most people find difficult to do and for which I respect him.

I agree with Pete and Buckethead. Let's do the liberal thing and move on.

A.L.

>First, it's only a straw man if it doesn't cut >to the heart of what you're saying over and over
>and over again - that it's a 'bummer' they were >blown up, but they deserved it.
>
>Let me tell you where we're different, you and
>me - I don't think anyone 'deserves it'.

Wrong verb. Try "earned" or "sought out" death. That is what the Darwin award is all about.

As for the rest, I can tell you have very little grounding in military history A.L. This is a quote from George Will bears here:

"War is the ultimate moral solvent."

America started WW2 with a doctrine of precision daylight bombing. We ended it with the night time fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That decent to hell happened because the evil of our enemies dehumanized them in our eyes through their actions.

We started this war with our enemies conducting suicide attacks in the heart of our largest cities.

I have been there for years, A.L., knowing that a terrorist WMD strike was coming. Not how or when it would come, but knowing it was inevitable...and that no one would listen until it did. So I also know I am now where you will be several years from now. That is the nature of our enemy and of this war.

You can talk about honor and "...the triumph of civilization over terror" all you want. We are in a war of survival with a foe that has embraced either his death or ours. Those whom we fight are neither civilized nor honorable. Attempting to treat them as either is suicidal. The fact that they are what they are has consequences neither Joe nor you want to face.

If you don't want to go there now. So be it.

I only have to wait for events. I'm used to that.

Nick,

Yer dreamin. America loves what Bush has done in Iraq. Congress loves the neocons.

There is a landslide coming in 2004 and it will bury the Democrats nationally for twenty years.

If you want the Ds on the stick get behind Lieberman. I'd vote for him over Bush in a heart beat.

If they run any of the other hard core first class losers expect to be buried so deep that you may never see the light of day in your lifetime.

The neocons didn't do you in. It was the Saudis and the rest of the Islamic fascists.

If you make the wrong diagnosis don't expect a cure.

You know of course that we did attack Korea for Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were there.

Did you know that one of our first major ground attacks in response to Dec. 7 was to attack Libya? The Germans were there and they didn't even attack us at Pearl. Strategy doesn't always mean doing the obvious.

Saddam paid for terrorist attacks in Israel. He killed hundreds of his own people a week. If our attack on Iraq was a mistake from the point of view of the war (I don't think so) we still saved tens of thousands from mass graves. Good on us.

You know we have been appeasing the fucks for decades. It is time they appeased us.

It is pretty simple - when we say jump, they say how high. If they don't want to jump we will kick them until they can't jump and then kick them again for being unable to jump. They should pay very close attention because America is in a VERY UGLY MOOD. It is unwise to piss off the Wookie.

I hope I have made myself and America very clear to all concerned.

If you are tired of all this war and fighting and useless effusion of blood there is a simpler way to end it than winning elections (which is a very long shot). Tell whoever opposes America to surrender. Now. Because we will not.

========================================
Now for some Patton quotes to buck up ther troops.

"Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

I might note that the war in VietNam was not lost on the battle field. Giap even admitted that Americans never lost a battle in Vietnam. We lost Vietnam due to guys like Nick who are afraid of their own shadow.

"But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood."

"I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans! Someday I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton.' We want to get the hell over there. The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit!"

"We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket!

War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours! Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"

*Read the whole Patton speech here*

I hate the url code Joe uses - can't you ask what Charles at LGF uses Joe?

*Patton's speech*

The UN and the Palestinian authority both support terrorism and in many ways both are our enemies.

Sure we try to prop up the PA sometimes because we think a greater evil like Hamas might take over if the PA is gone. But we always know that that they are our enemy.

The same with the UN. They can help us out, but we know they are our enemy.

When Hamas kills Palestinian authority forces, wouldn't you say they deserve it?

Saying that they deserved it is not the same thing as endorsing the murderers or the methods.

I am sorry for all the innocent people who died. Including 2 Americans I think. I am even sorry for many of the naive idiots who work for the UN. But I also know that there were many people there who are happy when Americans die and I am happy that they are dead.

The UN aids and abets mass murderers.

Rawanda, Sebrenica, Saddam, Milosovic, etc.

They deserved it. Doubly so if it was done to cover their complicity with crimes against humanity.

But hey I'm a fair guy. If you will say the Nazis did nothing to deserve what they got I will apply the same criteria to the UN. I will then expect that the criteria be applied to Israel and America. Because I would like to see some serious whoop ass with out all the moral recriminations. Carpet bombing, napalm, mini-nukes, leveling not just blocks but towns, the works. Did I mention taking after the UN? For crimes against humanity? Rawanda any one? Oil for palaces any one?

Fair is fair.

Oh yeah. Truck bombs are wrong. We should use that other truck - the B-52. Just remember who started the damn war and who was complicit. We are going after fascists and their sympathisers. Saddam was a fascist and a fascist sympathiser. His sons Ugly and Greasy got theirs. The father is next.

There is but one answer to terrorism and it is best delivered with a Winchester Rifle - Teddy Roosevelt

"War is cruelty. There is no trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over." William Tucumseh Sherman, 1864.

Trent is, sad to say, so correct about events. We are going to take some serious hits before this war is over. We are up against some serious evil bastards and their UN enablers. God help them all. Because, we won't.

A nuke or two in America wouldn't surprise me at all. If Iran gets nukes they have PROMISED to use the first on Israel. I am not in the mood to play patty cake with their kind.

Our enemies have vowed to fight until they win or die. I chose the second option. The UN enablers can go with them.

M. Simon,

Do me a favor then and state, outright, that Sergio Vieira de Mello, Nadia Younes, Renam Al-Farra, Ranillo Buenaventura, Arthur Helton, Rick Hooper, Jean-Selim Kanaan, Chris Klein-Beckman, Alya Souza, Martha Teas and Fiona Watson all deserved to die.

Say it, or deny it. Those people aren't "The UN". They're individuals. They were murdered. Some may have been bad people. Most were probably little better or worse than the rest of us. Some (de Mello among them) probably did the world much more good than wrong and we're all the worse off for it. Say that they deserved to die.

"- Fiona Watson of Britain, employed in Vieira de Mello's office on the oil for food program."

Actually that would be oil for palaces and weapons.

Which would make her one of the mass murdering guilty parties.

"-- Rick Hooper, an American working for the Department of Political Affairs. Hooper had previously worked with the United Nations peace coordinator in Gaza."

Helping Palestinians blow up Israelis? I'll put him down as highly probably guilty.

"-- Sergio Vieira de Mello of Brazil, the head of the U.N. mission in Iraq and one of the world's most experienced diplomats."

I haven't read his resume but if he worked for the UN for 30 years he has to have been involved in some of their dirty deals. I will put him down as a probable.

That is 3 out of 11 from the short descriptions provided. I'm sure if I could look into the full histories of the rest it would be none too flattering.

Did they deserve it? Who can say for sure.

But let me just say if they worked for an organization that supported mass murder their hands can't be clean. I lean towards guilty as charged, sentence applied.

It is the floor sweepers and the maids who have my sympathy. The rest of the UN moral equivocating bastards can go to hell. Odds are they are already on the way.

It truly amazes me that you're satisfied to assume that all of those who died deserved it, without having a clue about who they were or what they had done. But I guess at least you're honest about it.

Plenty of information is available about de Mello. The record of projects he was involved with is certainly mixed, but he's widely praised for helping engineer the end of the East Timor conflict, for which he earned the personal enemy of Osama bin Laden. If you're such a fool as to subscribe to guilt by association, certainly you subscribe to "the enemy of my enemy..."

Crazy. Never thought I'd be trying to argue an American out of supporting terrorism, at least not on this board.

You said it yourself.

They deserved it.

Apparently you can say for sure.

You know where I come from if you are part of a mob action you are responsible for what the mob does even if your hands are clean.

Most of those you mentioned were part of the UN mob. Guilty as charged.

Let those who want to live leave the Nazi Party - scratch that I mean the UN - before it is too late. It looks like quite a few of the dead waited too long. Most unfortunate.

It appears for the rest that hangin with mass murderers is not too good for longevity. Again. Most unfortunate.

I have seen reports that the truck used came from Syria. Syria is the head of the Security Council at this time. It will be interesting to see if this report pans out. If the Syrians did it the UN got what it deserved for putting the Syrian fascists on the Security Council.

Christopher,

The true nature of the UN will come out over time. You can already see the outlines if you are not blinded by Hamas' charitable works. Jeez. Screwed up again. I mean the UN's charitable works.

It is a pretty good cover and attracts a LOT of useful idiots. Providing even more cover.

Well keep up the good work. The UN needs all the help it can get.

You know when mob bosses - hey I really mean the UN, must be something in the keyboard - want to cover up a crime it often means killing underlings. Some of them guilty, some of them not. You can't have people answering questions.

It's nothing personal, just business. As usual.

After a million in Rawanda what are a few dozen in Iraq? Nothing significant. One ten thousandth of Srebrenica.

I look at it this way when I'm not looking at it another way: if you are delivering coffee to the Ober Komando Wermacht offices don't be surprised if some one tries to bomb it.

If you were operating or funding or just keeping the books of the death machine you got what you deserved.

You know I'm sure every one of those killed was a very nice person. Hitler liked children and dogs. Being nice does not absolve one from being complicit in mass murder and terrorism. The only question left is what didn't they want to know and when didn't they want to know it? Word gets around. Not criminal proof mind, but hints. Whispers. Questions to avoid. People you are not allowed to see.

And what if it was an inside job to cover up past crimes? This is a hazard when you work for a criminal organization or even just hang out. Like the dentist at the St. Valentines Day Massacre.

Deserve it? Maybe not. But it is stupid to hang out with criminals. Somebody could get hurt. Add in the war criminal dimension and situations could get really nasty. Evidently they did.

M Simon,

You're of course literally correct about Korea and Japan. We declared war on Japan and their allies after Pearl Harbor. Iraq and Al Qaeda are hardly similar allies.

"You know where I come from if you are part of a mob action you are responsible for what the mob does even if your hands are clean."

Well guess what? The U.N. sits in NYC and is funded mainly by western governments. We need to include ourselves in that "mob" too.

It's a complex world. Sometimes the best option is the lesser of two evils. The U.N. serves a purpose. Sometimes it does it's job poorly but there really isn't any other forum where all the world has a voice and can air grievances without resorting to tanks and bombs. There are times when tanks and bombs are necessary but our power isn't infinite.
We need to prioritize it's use so as not to stretch ourselves beyond our unrivaled capabilities. I would argue that Iraq is tangential to our real goal which is the destruction of Al Qaeda and their minions.

I won't engage your comments about America's love affair with Mr. Bush. We shall see what happens in
'04.

Nick Foresta

M. Simon:

They deserved it.

Later:

Deserve it? Maybe not.

Thank you. Shabbat Shalom.

Trent

"It is a documented fact that the United Nations is a terrorist supporting organization world wide. The U.N. in Iraq was a terrorist supporting organization against the Iraqi people."

It's a choice of words but yes the UN has provided funding and aid to countries and organisations who, in turn, have supported terrorism.

But that definition also applies to the US government's support for groups such as Noraid, a supporter of the IRA who have been using terrorism in Britain and Ireland, the Chechan rebels who are considered terrorists by the Russian government, as well as setting up terrorist groups to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah in Iran (yes money given by the US to Saddam Hussein to fight Iran).

And let's not forget the USA's involvement in overthrowing the elected government of Chile in 1973, or its support of Philippines dictator Marcos or involvement against elected governments in the Domincan Republic and Iran back in the 50s.

And they say Americans are parochial.

Have you heard that phrase about pots and black kettles? How about stones and glass houses?

If supporting terrorist groups means you deserve to be blown up by a car bomb then you've just condemned a large number of your fellow Americans.

"Left-wing loony" is getting his talking points confused, by exaggerating the historical facts he takes all the substance out of his comments.

War is hell. People die. Lots of soldiers, lots of civilians, lots of body bags. Every body bag is tragic. Can war cheering ever be justified?

Was it OK to cheer Luke when he destroyed the Death Star? Even if thousands of Star Trek like families were killed? Of course, but that was just fiction.

There is a real war, on Earth, today. A war between a Human Rights oriented global civilization/ culture, and a myriad of anti-Human Rights cultural groups. When the UN, in 1948, declared that Human Rights were Universal, it was a declaration of (ideological) war against any and every culture where such rights were not respected, where universality was denied.

The world threatening US-USSR Cold War was a series of campaigns in the Human Rights war, and the evil USSR was, eventually, overthrown. But the cold war left the UN as an arguably useful talking shop, but not really an effective peacekeeper, not a peacemaker, and certainly not a human rights enforcer. With the cold war over, the more global human rights war has become hot.

In this war, there will be battles, skirmishes, incidents, with people dying. Is it ever acceptable to cheer such an incident, from either side?

If a group of Hamas bomb makers had blown themselves up in some Palestinian house, destroying the two neighboring houses and killing themselves and some 20 others, would it be OK to cheer such a bomb? I think so, even though the death of innocents is tragic. It’s OK to cheer, some, when your side scores. Maybe not particularly noble, but OK. We call them terrorists, their side calls them freedom fighters, even martyrs. Which they are—both martyrs against the onslaught of Human Rights Imperialism, and terrorists.

Of course by our rules the murdering bombers are wrong. But they are rejecting our rules, our values. That’s what the war is about. Imposing, by actual force when necessary, our Universal Human Rights rules (or some minimum subset) on cultures whose leaders oppose those rules.

[even more on my blog!]

*Liberty Father*

Tom -

At the risk of repeating myself (for about the fifth time), it's like this.

You say:

>War is hell. People die. Lots of soldiers, lots
>of civilians, lots of body bags. Every body bag
>is tragic. Can war cheering ever be justified?

Of course it can; the issue isn't cheering over a battle victory, it's actually pretty simple -

1) While we legitimately have some pretty significant issues with the U.N., we're not at war with them.

2) While "blowing shit up and killing people" remains the core of military skill, we in the West have certain standards about how it's done.

We don't do it by deceit, with drivers in civilian clothes driving cement trucks filled with munitions up to buildings full of people who don't know they are subject to attack.

That's a big part of what we're fighting for.

It's not just a 'their side' vs. 'our side' thing, with any tactics possible, as long as their side gets it.

And, finally

3) Many of us're kinda pissed off about the whole 9/11/01 thing. Among the people who we're pissed of at are the idiotarians who say "It was horrible, but (the West had it coming) (it was a herioc act) (what can we expect when we support Israeli brutality) (whatever)." There's no but that's acceptable to me.

You seem to be joining Mr. Simon in saying "Yes it was a terrorist act, but..." and a lot of us really think that's no different that the moonbats who backhandedly justify 9/11 or bus bombings with the same phaseology.

A lot of us think that we in the West and Israel are morally superior to the dimwitted fools who strap on Semtex belts, and that superiority gives us the justification to do things like kill them and blow their shit up.

But if we aren't...

If you're right, that it's a bloody football match, and we're each just cheering for our team...

...then we probably aren't.

You say:

>Of course by our rules the murdering bombers
>are wrong. But they are rejecting our rules,
>our values. That’s what the war is about.

Can't you stick to that?

A.L.

(edited to eliminate gratuitous namecalling, for which I apologize)