Raving Conservative

Google

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Who Didn’t See This Coming?

Predictably, Hezbollah has engaged in a violent effort to force a coup in Lebanon. Their desire for power has caused them to foment riots. People have been killed. Property has been destroyed. All in an effort to force new elections during a time when Hezbollah believes it could gain power so they can enforce their version of Muslim rule on that country.

As much as I love to be an “I told you so” I did not bother to write about this imminent occurrence after the war with Israel because it was, and remains my opinion that a blind monkey could have seen this coming. No matter what a terrorist group does to try to “legitimize” itself it will always be a violent, oppressive, and evil movement at heart. All who try to deal with these people rationally or compassionately are doomed fools who will be stabbed in the back at the earliest opportunity by these same fiends who lie when they say they want peace and “negotiations.”

Naturally, liberals and the U.N. will continue to believe that these fiends can be dealt with as if they were human beings and not devils in human guise. In time, these fools will regret their stupidity.

22 Comments:

  • It's a sad thing but true that the only way to safely deal with some people is to kill them. Terrorists are part of that group, and you are correct in saying that the UN etc. will look back and see the mistakes, but they will probably do little about them.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 8:24 AM  

  • The question is how long it's going to take and how many people are going to die before the "kindler & gentler people" are going to wake up to the fact that some people are evil & cannot be reasoned with.

    By Blogger Tom, at 2:50 PM  

  • [This is from Dan at paynehollow. I'm having trouble posting, so I'll use "anonymous"]

    If, Tom, you are talking about "People" in the individual sense being sometimes evil and unreasonable, you may have a case.

    If you are talking about "people," as in the Iraqi people or Muslim people, then that is a horrible and simply wrong statement to make.

    IF, we're talking about individuals being dangerous and unreasonable, we deal with individuals on the individual level, as a matter of police work.

    IF you're translating that to justify invading a nation - invading a people, that's where we go wrong. That's where we went wrong in Iraq.

    Iraqi people are entirely capable of being reasoned with.

    Just as a clarifying point.

    As a further clarification, even when we're dealing with "evil" and unreasonable people, it is possible to stop them without resorting to deadly violence. Just Peacemaking theory says that we all (except the most insane of us, and that's fairly rare) have our own best interests at heart. Even if we care nothing at all about peacemaking and don't mind killing in cold blood, when we see that our own interests are at stake, we can be made to comply.

    We can have much more success making Hezbollah comply by forcing their own self interests peacefully than we will by attacking a nation. We can negotiate. Don't confuse negotiating with rolling over and don't confuse diplomacy with appeasement. They're different issues altogether.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:01 PM  

  • Dan T,
    Considering that this post is about terrorists, it can easily be concluded that Tom's comments were about the subject at hand: terrorists.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:57 AM  

  • Well, then, as I went on to say, "terrorists" can be forced into dialog. It has been shown before, with the contra terrorists in Nicaragua, for instance.

    People can be made to reason, despite themselves, given the proper motivation. There are no monsters in the world. Only people.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:51 AM  

  • The Contras were for freedom, the Islamic terrorists of today aren't. There's sort of a difference. And I'm afraid there are people who need to be taken out. Like Osama for instance. You can't reason with people like that.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 1:53 PM  

  • The contras were terrorists. They went to villages and killed innocent people. They kidnapped men and boys who were never heard from again. They raped women. They were trying to overthrow a democratically elected president.

    The contras were terrorists.

    Just because they were nominally opposed to communism does not make them NOT terrorists. Don't speak nonsense.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:21 PM  

  • I don't believe I said they weren't. Only that they had different goals, and unlike Islamoterrorists, could be reasoned with.

    And don't give me that elected stuff. We both know that "election" was like the Chinese ones. The ones where they tell you who to vote for and you do it or get shot. Then the country says to the UN, yeah, we had elections.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 4:03 PM  

  • "We both know that "election" was like the Chinese ones."

    I don't know that at all. Nor do my friends in Nicaragua where Ortega is very popular (see his current re-election).

    Was that first election flawed after decades of the wholly corrupt Somoza regime (oft-sponsored by the US)? Sure. But it was a legimate election. And Ortega was a very popular president. A flawed one, to be sure, but popular with the people. And the contras were terrorists (many from the former Somoza regime) who sought to overthrow that duly elected gov't.

    The contra terrorists were for power. Just as the Islamic terrorists are for power and service to their God.

    Anyone can be reasoned with. Not always easily, but again, EVERYONE has their own interests at heart. It's just a matter of finding those interests and discovering a way to influence those interests.

    Saying that some people can't be reasoned with is a way of saying that some groups of people are monsters - less than human. We do that in order to justify killing them and those around them. It's a lie.

    In the case of Muslim terrorists where people are tempted to say, "They can't be reasoned with because they've been taught that to kill westerners is to get a free ticket to paradise - how can one reason with religious zealotry?!"

    One answer for this situation is you respond with religious reasoning. In this case, the more Muslims who are saying, "No, what you are doing is wrong and not pleasing to Allah," the less power and fewer numbers the extremists have.

    But if Muslims are increasingly suspicious of US actions and outright hostile towards us, they are less likely to say that. This is one reason why our invasion of Iraq is so wrong - we're giving strength to the lie that we are the Great Satan and making it easier for a few Muslims to listen to the terrorists rather than listen to their own teachings.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:51 AM  

  • Dan T,

    Simple question: Hamas and Hezbollah - kill or negotiate?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:06 AM  

  • Simple answer: Negotiate.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:19 AM  

  • Simple clarification: Negotiate does not equal "appease."

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:16 PM  

  • Dan T

    I think even you agree that there comes a “point” when, with some, you must use force. I think the argument is, “where is that point?” Of course it differs depending on the situation, and resorting to force doesn’t necessarily mean the suspension of negotiations.

    With many of today’s situations you have those who want to use preemptive force, when there’s a serious threat, before the loss of life. Then you have those that would wait until our side is attacked and has suffered loss of life. And you have those that would never support using force. (Of course there are many variations in-between).

    Personally, I’d prefer a leader that’s willing to protect us before we suffer loss of life.

    By Blogger blamin, at 6:25 AM  

  • Dan T,

    You have just provenmy point. You have just said that you wish to negotiate with terrorist organizations. First of all, this is a direct violation of decades old U.S. policy that states flatly "The Unite States will not negotiate with terrorists." This policy was pt in place because the leaders of the day all understood that negotiating with terrorists made them commit more acts of terror because they would come to believe we are weak. Second, there is no negotiation possible when dealing with an organization whose stated mission is the utter destruction of The U.S. and Israel for the purposes of setting up a Muslim theocracy in these nations. ANy negotions will be frutiless as the long-standing isreali/palestinian conflict has been proving for decades now. Negotiations with terrorirstare always one-sided: You give the terrorists something in exchange for peace, and in return they continue to commit acts of terror while making a new set of expanded demands.

    Of course, the U.N. and liberals can't seem to grasp this now proven truth. Remeber what they say about those who donn't learn from the past . . .

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:32 AM  

  • I'd suggest, Daniel, that you have a corrupted notion of what the word "negotiate" means.

    Police negotiate with hostage takers on ocassion, right? The point is to get what you want without giving up lives or laws. That's what negotiaters do. That's what diplomacy is about.

    If we designate groups with which we disagree - groups who do bad things - as terrorists and then, therefore refuse to work with them, then they're out there making their own calls.

    The point is to direct their actions, stop the deadly actions, instead of ignoring them.

    We could not negotiate with hostage takers, for example. We could choose to just bomb the building they're in and kill 'em all, along with any innocent hostages or bystanders.

    But that would be wrong.

    It seems to me that you see negotiation as a sign of weakness. I see blind violence as a sign of weakness and negotiation as a sign of intelligence.

    Blamin...I'll try to answer your points later.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:50 AM  

  • Dan T,

    "Police negotiate with hostage takers on ocassion, right?"

    Right and wrong. The job of our police "negotiators" is not to negotiate anything, becasue that violates polie procedures. It is to build rapport with the offender and get him to surrender without a fight, or get him to drop his guard long enough to apprehend him before he can react. In the most sever circumstances, it is to get him to drop his guard only long enough for a sniper to take him out. This is not negotiating. The parralel in international terms would be to build rapport withthe enemy so that they drop their guard long enough to be surprised when we kill or capture their leadership and dismantle their organization.

    "If we designate groups with which we disagree - groups who do bad things - as terrorists and then, therefore refuse to work with them, then they're out there making their own calls."

    You are making untrue generalizations. Terrorist is a term reserved exclusively for individuals and organizations that seek to achieve their ends through acts of violence outside of war between nations and political assasination. If we were simply branding everyone we don'tagree with as terrorists then almost all of Europe, rusia, parts of Africa, every communist nation, and parts of SOuth America would be declared terrorists. This is not happening because it is ridiculous, but is the result of your false generalization of who we consider to be terrorists.

    "The point is to direct their actions, stop the deadly actions, instead of ignoring them."

    Exactly. And since negotiations have been proven to be a failure 100% of the time, thanks to those who have been fools enough to try negotiating, the best way to achieve this end is to kill the terrorists. There is no other way that has any record of success.

    "We could not negotiate with hostage takers, for example. We could choose to just bomb the building they're in and kill 'em all, along with any innocent hostages or bystanders."

    I have already pointed out how we do NOT negotiate withhostage takers. We work to get them to surrender, if not we either capture themby force or kill them with targeted munitions (one bullet from a sniper). To claim that anything else occurs as a mater of standard procedure is a lie.

    "It seems to me that you see negotiation as a sign of weakness. I see blind violence as a sign of weakness and negotiation as a sign of intelligence."

    And you are wrong here on all counts. I see negotians wit nations and withthose whom we peacefully disagree to be a sign of maturity. I see negotiation with terrorists as a sign of stupidity. I do not see blind violence as a sign of weakness, I see as proof of evil. I also see violence directed at terrorists as informed and far from blind.

    Your simplistic view of the way things work, your blind idealism leads you astray. If you bothered to observe the world and analyze it from a neutral stance you would reach the ame conclusions I have reached because you would be forced to confront the truth, what works, and what fails, and make your decisions accordingly.Do try to remember that I personally abhor violence of any kind. I just understand the world well enough to know that sometimes there is no other way. Unfortunately, terrorists have made that sometimes become all to frequent for even my own limited level of comfort. I want them gone so we can have peace, and you should too. Negotiations does not get rid of them. It never got rid of Fatah, it has not eliminated Hamas, it has not shut Hezbollah. The nations who have tried are fools, but they have proven the American stance to be the one that works.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:52 PM  

  • "It is to build rapport with the offender and get him to surrender without a fight, or get him to drop his guard long enough to apprehend him before he can react."

    There you go. A definition of diplomacy and negotiation. Not the only definition, but partial, at least.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:59 AM  

  • Dan T,

    Once again you are incorrect. Diplomacy yes, in regards to getting individual criminals to surrender to the law and be punished, but evan that fails with lethal results for both innocents and the perpetrators. This model has never worked when dealing with terrorists. Do you honestly expect Al Queada, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Red Brigades, and and others to turn themselves in to Western authorities for crimina prosecution? Are you really that deluded?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:36 PM  

  • I don't think you understand the higher ideals of diplomacy. It is entirely possible to get the opponent - even terrorists - to comply with one's wishes if the correct pressure is applied.

    It worked with the contra terrorists. It worked in S Africa where those in charge were not inclined to cooperate, but could be made to see why they had to.

    I'm not saying it's necessarily easy. I'm saying it's doable, and always a preferable first, second, third, tenth step to war. Especially a war in which there is not an obvious target to fight.

    As soon as one starts dropping bombs on one house in a neighborhood in hopes of getting the bad guys - in a neighborhood filled with folk who AREN'T the bad guys, you are losing the war.

    See Iraq.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 6:37 AM  

  • Dan T,

    "It is entirely possible to get the opponent - even terrorists - to comply with one's wishes if the correct pressure is applied"

    And history shows that the correct pressure for terrorists is lethal force. All other "pressure" has failed 100% of the time. You may not like it, you may wish it were not true, but it is the sad fact that we must live with.

    "It worked with the contra terrorists. It worked in S Africa where those in charge were not inclined to cooperate, but could be made to see why they had to."

    BIG difference. In those 2 cases we were dealing with groups who were sympathetic to America. There was no way to getthem to give up thier cause, and we had no need to. We encouraged and supported it the way Iran encourages and supports Hezbollah. We were wrong to do it then, and Iran is wrong to do it now. In this case we are dealing wiiht organizations who primary mission is to kill us for religious reasons. There is no reasoning withthem because they are not seeking a reasonable goal.

    "I'm saying it's doable"

    An I, and history am saying that you are delusional.

    "As soon as one starts dropping bombs on one house in a neighborhood in hopes of getting the bad guys - in a neighborhood filled with folk who AREN'T the bad guys, you are losing the war."

    You mean the way we lost to Germany and Japan in WWII? Oh wait . . we won that war. It is not a military loss we may be facing in Iraq, it is a political one that exactly like the one liberals (Democrats) forced on us in Vietnam. By exercizing restraint we are being more humane, but we are also aloowing terorists to have safe havens, and we are not motivating the localpopulation to deal withthe terrorists personally. If any building or location that had a terrorist in it was bombed the terrorists would very quickly run out of places to hide because teh people would start shooting them on sight. Remember, Iraqis have guns, and not just any guns, fully automatic guns. With the proper motivation they could easily get rid of the insurgents themselves. I am not advocating the killing of innocents, I am simply pointing out how you are wrong, and again, history supports my position while contradicting yours.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:03 AM  

  • "And history shows that the correct pressure for terrorists is lethal force. All other "pressure" has failed 100% of the time."

    Daniel, this is just factually and historically wrong.

    I provided a perfectly good example in the Contras. I don't see what difference in the world it makes that they were terrorists who "were sympathetic to America" - you stated that the only force terrorists respond to was lethal. I provided an example to show you were wrong.

    Just saying, "It's different cause I LIKED those terrorists," doesn't change the fact that we stopped those terrorists without resorting to killing them. Facts are facts. Your statement is factually wrong.

    Delusion is as delusion does.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:50 AM  

  • "I don't see what difference in the world it makes that they were terrorists who "were sympathetic to America"

    Because you spoke of U.. negotiatyions. If you recall, the Contras issue was solved locally by lethal force. The government they targeted had no ability to negotiate with them in any effective way.

    "Just saying, "It's different cause I LIKED those terrorists," doesn't change the fact that we stopped those terrorists without resorting to killing them."

    I never said any such thing. Again, I stated, and let me simplifythis for you: America was able to negotiate with them because they were sympathetic to America. Their target, however, was not able to.

    you really do need to pay attention to what you read and hear better than yo do. it seems like you get fixated on your point to the point inability to comprehend opposing argumments. It is a trend I have observed in you these past 2 years.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares