Thugs is the word.
I understand your anger and believe me, it is shared by many Iranians (in exile).
Anyone who has an encyclopedia at home can have a look at the history of Persia/Iran and understand the bitterness of the dispora: immense wealth, huge culture of ethnic and religious diversity (yes!), remarkable scientific contributions, literature, architecture... To make it short: a real civilization of knowledge. No doubt about it: what we are witnessing here is not IRAN. Question is, is this Islam? Where are the muslim clerics condemning what is done in the name of their religion? Or is this actually a proper interpretation of the Sharia?

Technically speaking, this is a closed system. Like in any other form of fundamentalist totalitarianism, it is enlaving (inside) and threatening (outside). Trouble is, there is a correlation between the two. In this regard time is working against open systems, i.e.: being weak on the threat means consolidating the slavery within the closed system.
NV

I would agree with that; but what about the thugs who've murdered people by the offensive war against Iraq?

What about the Baathist thugs who murdered even more people in Iraq and how you want them to continue to do so?

How about just agreeing that killing people for what they do in private is evil and just leaving Iraq out of the discussion for once? Does EVERYTHING have to be about Bush and Saddam? The Iranian regime is vicious and sooner or later, will crumble. Or be swept away violently.

- Adam

It is horrible in both cases: Abu Ghraib and the Iranian thugs.

Margo, it is not quite the same issue. NV

Gloriosky! People executed at Abu Ghraib for being Gay? I missed that shocker completely. I gotta start listening to NPR.

I don't know if the issue in this case is Abu Ghraib or what US military are doing in Irak, as someone already said not everything is about Bush and Saddam. This is just another outrageous proof that there still are men out there who seem to believe they are the "universal standard of the perfect human being", they hold the universal truth and anyone who is different is treated like a criminal. These thugs can't seem to realise that people are entitled to make their own choices whether it comes to their religion, sexuality or any other matter. It makes me sad and angry to find out that 2 young lifes ended like this because of....(there is no good enough reason to put an end to a human life).

Homophobia is not limited to Iran, Nathalie. Will the Americans now invade Iran, too? And what is the penalty for homosexuality in 'liberated" Iraq?

Margo, again, this is not about homosexuality only. Yesterday it was about an alleged extra-marital relationship, today it is about homosexual young men, and tomorrow it will be something else. This is a totalitarian fundamentalistic state. That was my point. I share your worries about some developments in Iraq. However, Iraq is no longer a dictatorship where minorities are persecuted. Iraq no longer threatens its neighbors. So here is the deal: either you want to make the best out of the worst situation: i.e help Iraq to find the path to democracy and the rule of law, which is the only exit strategy I see by the way. Or you don�t ...and in that case you can go on cheering the death of US soldiers, insulting government officials and seeing zionist conspiracies everywhere...aber ohne mich.
NV

Everything you say about Iran can be applied to Iraq. In southern Iraq the fundamentalists have already taken over. The Prime Minister of Iraq has visited Khomeini's grave and praised the Ayatollah. Islamic law is in the new Iraqi constitution. So much for "democratic" Iraq. Iraq is Little Iran.

Iraq does threaten its neighbors: it is a base from which Syria, Iran, and Arabia could be invaded by U.S. troops. Obviously you do not consider this threatening. The people who live there may differ.

I am not sure what you mean by "zionist conspiracies." Or "cheering" deaths. Perhaps you are hearing voices in your head.

Everything I said about Iran cannot be applied to Iraq. You are correct about one issue : developments re: islamic law.
But there is no nuclear threat from Iraq and minority rights are respected.
Strategically speaking Syria is not more threatened by Iraq than let us say, by NATO-member Turkey, namely absolutely not.
Iraq has no territorial claim. And the last thing politicians want in Iraq is another war.
NV

Tom, this is horrendous! Have you been able to discern the identities of the miscreants in this case? Was it Hans Herman Hoppe and Lew Rockwell? Or was it Justin Raimondo and Jeremy Sapienza?

Wringing my hands,

JR

Tom, would your desire for revenge extend to those U.S. personnel who, it appears, may have murdered prisoners in Abu Ghraib? See Greg Mitchell's "Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why" posted at: http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590

There was never a nuclear threat from Iraq, Nathalie. The Bush administration tried to pull that one, and now they regret it. (Just ask Karl Rove and "Scooter"! Yes, we read about that in my country.) Also, I am glad to hear that the last thing politicians want is another war: but perhaps that is no longer in their control.

Turkey has threatened to invade Iraq if Kurdistan becomes independent. America threatens Syria, and Iran. The war could spread quite easily. Surely that is a danger. Yet you don't seem to believe it.

Speaking of the Kurds: I don't believe minorities living under the Kurds are very "respected." Turkmen and Arabs are having big problems. Christians in Iraq are terrorized. But I guess this just goes with "liberation."

I quite agree with Tom about the horrible fate of Iranian gay people. I am saying that the same fate awaits them in Iraq. "Liberation" made no difference: it may have made their situation far worse.

Yes, I am right about Islamic law in Iraq. You brush this off as nothing. But if you are a person of gay orientation in Iraq it means everything. This is cruel.

Margo, you misunderstood my point. I meant that there is a nuclear threat from Iran (and not from Iraq). And do we need to dwell long on the minority issues in Iran? As to Nato-member Turkey attacking Iraq...res ipsa loquitur.
I agree on the issue of homosexuals being at risk in muslim countries in general. And I certainly do not "brush it off" as if it were normal. I follow you on this 100%
NV

Let's not dwell on minority issues in Iraq. It's too embarrassing for those who supported the war. Who cares if a few Christians and Turkmen are murdered in cold blood: it's all about "liberation," right? Let us instead agree that homosexualistes are in danger in Iraq as well as Iran. A nuclear threat from Iran? Let's ask citizens of Hiroshima and Nagsaki who was first to make that threat real.

Well, in an attempt to address the original issue, I want to take this opportunity to agree with Tom that what was done to these two men was horrible, despite the fact that I disagree with homosexuality and consider it a sin. As a libertarian who is also a Christian, I want to be free to condemn sinful behaviour without resorting to violence on others to prove how "awful" they are. In this way, I hope that I can demonstrate the point to Tom that although there are a great many things that we disagree about, I am able to do so without the end goal of stoning him to death. Tom has been very vocal that people associated with LRC are not of this position, and while I don't represent LRC in any significant way, I assure him that it is not the case. What happened to those men is terrible, and I hope it is a rarity in Iran, rather than a regular occurence.

David, Kool-Aid, Margo, and JR:

Are you done baiting Tom yet? Or is the goal now to expand beyond posts relating to HHH or LRC and just openly try to provoke on posts that have little to do with Iraq, Hoppe, or anything else you construe as relevant?

I am afraid I have to admit not understanding a great deal of what I read here, but in my country things are quite different and so perhaps I may be excused.

For example, I do not know what is meant by "HHH" or "LRC" and I cannot be clear on what Brian Radinsky considers an effort to provoke. Aren't we supposed to write out thoughts and reactions to what is posted? I thought I was having an interesting discussion with Nathalie I. Vogel. Or is this a case of bossy males telling us what we cannot talk about?

Relax, Margo, you can talk about anything you like. Brian, take a deep breath. (Remember to pull your nose out of Tom's ass before you do.)

JR

Margo, I apologize if what I said has offended you in any way. Honestly, I'm sorry to have included your name in my comment. Upon closer reading I can see that you weren't trying to continue what is fast becoming a feud that takes place on this blog.

I still stand by what I said (and Mr Riggenbach's invective demonstrates some of it), but I'm sorry to have been so rash in directing that statement to you. My goal wasn't to discourage healthy discussion, it was merely to encourage much more civility than sometimes takes place here. Stooping to the level of those who make childish attacks was by far not my intention.

I'll admit the initial question may have been baiting, but the point I'm curious about is: what do we believe is justified to do about it?

I believe that double-proportionality is justified (see Kinsella, JLS, Proportionality and Punishment). If someone steals $10 from you, you're entitled to $20 back ($10 for punishment, $10 for restitution). The restitution is obvious: no-one can argue against you being owed what's yours. The retribution/punishment is more difficult, but it goes down to estoppel: if you do that to another human being, you can't object to the same being done to you.

In the case of murder, it's kind of hard to get double-proportionality. If there were a machine that could transfer the life from these thugs to their victim, we'd be justified in using it. However, we don't have such a machine, so execuation substitutes; but you can only execute someone once, so presumeably some kind of physical punishment prior to execution would be appropriate (if the victims' family wanted such).

What I'm after is what people here think we're justified in doing to track down and punish crooks like this? Some people apparently think that declaring war on an entire country is justified by such. I'd argue that we're entitled to pursue these individuals so-long as we don't aggress against any non-aggressors. That is, we aren't entitled to assault or murder anyone else in the pursuit of these criminals; nor are we entitled to steal in order to pursue them. That kind of rules out everything except for privately funded efforts.

--Dave H.

PS: Btw, Tom, great work in The Libertarian Forum (recently put online via donation from Block):
http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_01-02.pdf
http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1976/1976_11.pdf
http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_03.pdf

I can understand the righteous indignation Tom, but your response sounds a little extremist/fundamentalist itself. I think it's a little hypocritical to be so offended at a murder but then turn around and be willing to hand out death to "every person who ordered, was involved in, or sanctioned the murder" without a second thought. Does that include all Muslims who believe that this is the punishment God wanted these two young men to have? Is it now a crime worthy of death to be a devout Iranian muslim? So they murder two men because they believe that is what God wills and then you want to murder them for believing that. A perfectly vicious cycle. They want to stamp out homosexuality by execution and you want to stamp out Islamic fundamentalism the same way. This world is full of enough hate and killing as it is. I don't think more murder is going to solve the problem.

Killing islamic fundamentalists sounds like a pretty good solution to the problem of islamic fundamentalism. What's your proposed solution, methadone? Milk and cookies? Sharing our feelings?

These people are nuts and they cannot peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world. We either convert to their way of life, or kill enough of them that they knock it off.

We can debate all day whether we are compelled to go around the world in search of monsters to slay. Perhaps we should not, in every instance. There's no catch-all rule. But monsters do exist, and they can only be stopped with force.

The fanatical nutcase response of saddam is exactly the kind of response I was disagreeing with in my above post. The sentiment of the appropriately-named "saddam" would have us nuke the Middle East off the face of the Earth. This may be the desired solution of the far right in American politics, but it's hardly something any libertarian worthy of the name can condone.

Such a fanatical position ignores the fact that the US has done a lot to exacerbate problems in the Middle East, thus riling up anti-US sentiment. I find it difficult to believe that they would care so much about "Jihad" against the US if we weren't occupying various countries in the Middle East, and actively sending billions of dollars to Israel.

Herr Heinrich:

It is time to come to terms with your anti-semitism.

What in the world does aiding a fellow western first world democracy have to do with islamic fundamentalists executing gay people in iran?

Do you think if we cut our ties with Israel, that the muslim world would suddenly become peaceful and democratic, and that gay people could live in Iran as peacefully as they live in, well, Israel? Which is the only middle eastern country, by the way, where muslims and arabs have full freedom of speech, the right to vote in free and fair elections, and the right to hold political office? (Iraq is only part of the way there....)

Yes, it is possible to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. But that's not usually the case, since most of the criticism, like Herr Heinrich's, is totally irrational -- gays murdered in Iran? Blame the Jews! (I mean, blame Israel)

I haven't suggested nuking the middle east. I am pointing out that the people who committed these murders are incorrigible, and only their death will stop their behavior. For you to draw some kind of moral equivalency between tyrants and terrorists, and actions to eradicate tyrants and terrorists, suggests that your moral compass is busted.

saddam,

It is quite laughable of you to accuse me of racism, after saying "We either convert to their way of life, or kill enough of them that they knock it off." Sounds pretty much like: declare war on all of the Muslim world to me. You then engage in the disingenuous tactic of trying to alter what you were talking about. You were clearly talking about Islamic fundamentalists being unable to peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world, and going far beyond of the specific executions Tom Palmer posted about.

And I wasn't suggesting that the US sending billions of aid to Israel (out of US taxpayer dollars) caused the Muslims to execute gays. I was referring to the Jihad against the US, which is largely fueled by US intervention in the Middle East. If anything, US intervention in the Middle East has been good for Islamic fundamentalism, entrenching fanatical leaders and giving them more power. Just as 9/11 was "great" for G.W. Bush, so too is US military intervention "great" for terrorists and fundamentalists.

Your identity of Israel with "the Jews" is a nice trick that you can use to accuse anyone who criticizes Israel of "anti-semitism". Anyone who dares mention that Israeli airplanes sunk the clearly-identifiable USS Liberty is accused of "hating Jews". To be critical of Israel does not constitute hatred of Jews, anymore than to be critical of the United States implies hatred of Americans.

Of course, your absurd claim that I'm anti-Semitic is nonsense, since I very much like the work of many Jewish people, particularly in economics (Mises, Rothbard, Block, etc).

Ahhhh, the USS Liberty... a sure sign of an anti-semitic crank.

Yes, bad things happen in wartime. Israel was fighting a desperate war for its survival and in the heat of battle, a US ship that was in the warzone got hit. You forget the major causes belli of that war was the arabs blockading the gulf of aqaba.

plenty of americans have been hit by friendly fire from american forces, too. how about those canadians we bombed in afghanistan? how about that iranian jetliner we shot down in the gulf?

it sucks. get over it. if forty years from now, someone is still bitching about the canadians we bombed in afghanistan, i'd have to conclude they're irrational anti-americans.

You state the liberty was clearly identifiable. Not in the heat of battle. Or do you think Israel deliberately set out to sink an american ship while it was fighting for its survival? You know, some kind of jewish conspiracy to betray a friend, you know how those jews are.... right?

This is just a rhetorical question to identify you as the anti-semitic crank you are, Herr Heinrich. It is not an invitation for you to hijack this thread with your kooky anti semitic conspiracies.

And no, I am not in favor of killing all muslims. Just the radical fundamentalist muslims who cannot co exist with the rest of the world. Dr. Palmer's example of these poor kids being murdered is just a microcosm of that problem. Dr. Palmer suggested force is the only way to prevent this from happening again, because the mullahs will not yield to anything else. You got a better idea?

Anyway, the muslim fundamentalists have come and someday they will go into the ash heap of history, just like all tyrannies. And Israel, the birthplace and natural and historical home of the jewish people, will survive them, and thrive, just as it did in the wake of the Heinrich ilk's best try at genocide. And there's not a damn thing Heinrich, or Hoppe, or Rockwell, or any of these anti-semites can do about it.

"Herr" Heinrich? Really, "saddam," that's a cheap way to talk.

So you want to kill *all* Islamic fundamentalists. How many millions? Let us say there are 10 million of them, to take a modest estimate. Will you do this personally? Or will the U.S. government nuke them?

"Saddam" says that unless we support massive murder of Muslims, we are "anti-semites." This seems very strange to me. We must support a new holocaust -- in the name of fighting "anti-semitism"?

no. the anti-semitism is evident from blaming israel for things like islamic fundamentalism, harping on a friendly fire incident from forty years ago, etc. It has nothing to do with one's beliefs about what to do with islamic fundamentalism, unless that belief is, blame the jews.

i don't believe it is necessary to kill 10 million people, though clearly it is necessary to kill enough muslim fundamentalists such that they cannot organize their terrorism against the rest of the world, or control nations such as iran.

again, i have yet to see any non-violent solution to dealing with islamic fundamentalism.

saddam,

Unlike some who so easily dismiss murder (yourself), I don't. War isn't a justification to commit murder. I don't care how "long ago" something was, that doesn't exempt it from criticism, especially if the inviduals responsible are still alive. It is difficult to argue "mistaken identity" when they were flying an American Flag on the ship, and when Israeli airplanes were circling around the ship for hours. http://www.ussliberty.org/ :

"ââ?¬Å?At about 1515 hours, two helicopters approached the Liberty and circled around the ship at a distance of about 100 yards. The Star of David insignia was clearly visible. One of the helicopters was numbered 04 or D4, the other 08 or DB. The helicopters departed, returned, and departed again.ââ?¬Â

and

"At the time of the attack, the U.S.S Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. It was broad daylight and the weather conditions were excellent. Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily
visible from the air. At 1450 hours local time on June 8, 1967, two Israeli aircraft circled the U.S.S. Liberty three times, with the evident purpose of identifying the vessel. Accordingly there is every reason to believe that the U.S.S Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military
recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life." from http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/Report/Report.pdf

You have engaged in the disingenuous tactic of trying to equate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews. This is ridiculous BS. All I'm saying is that the specific individuals responsible (provided a trial) should be punished. This is also a criticism of the State of Israel, but it doesn't in any way imply anti-Semitism. It is only in your paranoid mind that such is the case.

Your insinuation that myself, Rockwell, and Hoppe are anti-Semitic is entirely ridiculous. What kind of "anti-Semite" (Hoppe, Rockwell) befriends Murray Rothbard? Was Rothbard also an "anti-Semite"? You're obviously a moron.

As for killing fundamental Muslims, just being fundamentalist isn't a crime. For those who do murder, kill them; but military intervention isn't justified, nor is stealing.

"it sucks. get over it. if forty years from now, someone is still bitching about the canadians we bombed in afghanistan, i'd have to conclude they're irrational anti-americans."

A shallow and hateful statement if ever there was one.

"Killing islamic fundamentalists sounds like a pretty good solution to the problem of islamic fundamentalism. What's your proposed solution, methadone? Milk and cookies? Sharing our feelings?"

This quote from saddam's earlier post sounds like what terrorist leaders must use to recruit suicide bombers. "Do you think the Americans are just going to go away? Do you think they will stop bombing our neighborhoods, invading our countries, killing our wives and desecrating our holy lands out of the kindness of their hearts? The only solution is to kill them (as Tom Palmer says) "without mercy" until they stop. Here, strap this to your chest and run into the U.S. embassy."

I guess libertarianism has it's share of violent fanatics too. Not only should we advocate killing all muslims "fanatics", but anyone who doesn't agree with us is an "anti-semite" or some other kind of racist bigot. How can we think to adopt the tactics of tyranny and terrorism (even if it is supposedly to fight against them) without becoming tyrants and terrorists ourselves.

You favor massive murder of people because of their religion. What else is there to discuss? Your belief is clear. Sickeningly clear.

You hide behind Israel. No one in Israel wants to massively kill Muslims as you do: except crazy extremists, and they are not listened to.

Many Muslims resent U.S. support of Israel in spite of many violations of human rights. This aids terrorism. Anti-semitism has nothing to do with it.

what about the iranian jetliner shot down by the USS Vincennes? why aren't you bitching and whining about that? Are you going to be bitching and whining about it in 2026?

Blah blah blah... you want to criticize some policy of Israel, go ahead. I can think of some I don't like. You want to criticize Israel for sinking a ship in the middle of a war zone, forty years after the fact -- and this is your reaction to the problem of iranian mullahs killing innocent people in iran -- i'd say you have an unhealthy fixation with blaming israel.

and you hold israel to an obsessive standard not employed against other countries because it is the jewish state. and for no other reason.

Hey, did you hear how poland started WW2 by attacking a german radio station?

No, Margo, I favor killing people who want to kill others because of their religion. Like the iranian executioners in this case.

Do you have reading comprehension problems or do you just like putting words in other peoples' mouths?

An "unhealthy fixation" is wanting to kill several millions of people because of their religion -- in your case, "saddam," you wish to kill Muslims. In Hitler's case, it was the Jews. Yours is just another version of Hitlerism: massive murder in the name of your crazy beliefs. What is strange is that you do this and also defend Israel. Perhaps you are too young to appreciate or understand irony.

Margo"Let's ask citizens of Hiroshima and Nagsaki who was first to make that threat real."
Perhaps you are too old to remember history classes. It is indeed the people responsible of massacres such as the ones of Nanjing who are responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. NV

I've never said that I wanted to kill people because of their religion.

Perhaps as a student of Goebbels, you understand that repeating a lie enough times, you can make it the truth.

Or maybe its just that our definitions of "muslims fundamentalists" are different. I use the term the normal way it is used, to refer to people who, motivated by islam, commit or enable terrorism, including state terrorism. Maybe you think I mean "devout muslim," but then you are mistaken.

Fact is, if every time we talked about mullahs in iran committing some atrocity, Herr Heinrich would pop up and blame Norway's whaling policies and something the vikings did a thousand years ago, reasonable people could conclude he doesn't like norwegians.

A unique justification for the killing of hundreds of thousands, Nathalie. One I have not heard before. This means that the Chinese have the right to wipe out Tokyo. If the North Koreans want to do it for them, then fine. And don't forget the Poles. They should probably destroy Berlin in revenge for the actions of Germans during World War II. Israel should reduce all of Germany to ashes: they have the nuclear bombs to do it. Then Nathalie Vogel will be happy.

"These people are nuts and they cannot peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world. We either convert to their way of life, or kill enough of them that they knock it off."

How many is "enough," saddam? Give us a number.

Not justifying, but explaining here. Hiroshima did not happen out of the blue. There is a context. That was my point. And Margo, it takes little to make me happy today, so plase save my day, stop bashing Israel. NV

Everything has context. Nothing happens out of the blue. Not even meteorites. Massive murder always has a context. This turns into a rationalization when it comes in the context of a discussion about whether large numbers of "fundamentalists" should be killed.

Your plea to "save my day" is best directed at "saddam." He invokes Israel and calls for mass murder in the same breath.

Margo,

I don't know how many need to die. In Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the numbers were quite high. But it was necessary. If you think WW2 was optional, then there's really not much point carrying a dialogue with you.

But why don't you tell me how you would solve the problem of the mullahs in iran killing innocent gay people for being gay. Or terrorists blowing up the tube in London. (The iranian gay youth and the british are not big supporters of israel, so you have to think of something else.)

Also, Margo, if the iranian executioners were atheists, would you be OK with killing them? If there was a big problem with atheist terrorists blowing stuff up, would you be OK with using force against them?

There was no need to wipe out two Japanese cities. Japan was ready to surrender. Roosevelt wanted "unconditional" surrender. Japan wanted to keep their emperor. As they did in the end anyway. A horrible waste of human life.

There are many problems. Not all have solutions. What you seek is a final solution. We all know where that leads.

Israel has nothing to do with it. Your belief that you can hide behind Israel and advance your idea of mass murder is obscene and an insult. You don't know how many people you want to kill. All you know is that you want to kill a great many. I can only shake my head and wonder.

Margo, you brought up Israel first, I did not address the subject, except by saying that you ought to stop bashing Israel.
I answered your perfidious anti-american remark re: Hiroshima, saying that Hiroshima had to be put back into context.
That is all.
NV

Margo

History does not agree with your assessment of japan's willingness to surrender but that's beside the point. Many Japanese died well before the atom bombs were dropped, and you appear to accept those deaths as necessary.

I didn't bring up Israel. Herr Heinrich did.

Yes, I want to kill a great many islamic fundamentalists, as per my definition of that term above. I want to kill them before they kill more innocent people, like the gay kids in Iran, the people in Sharm el Sheikh, London, the World Trade Center, Luxor, Bali, and yes, Israel, many of whom were muslim and all of whom were innocent.

If you believe force is unnecessary to stop the threat of terrorism and topple regimes such as iran's, please tell us how you would more peacefully accomplish these objectives.

Of course WW2 was optional, but that depends on your definition of optional. How far back are we going to go? Did the allies have to use their WWI victory to set the stage for WW2? Was it optional for us to vilify Germany and blame them entirely for WWI? Was it necessary to Nuke Japan TWICE in order to end WW2? Nothing is mandatory. There are always options. Saddam, you seem to have such a childish view of world events. Everything is so black and white. I personally would be slow to pronounce the deaths of millions as "necessary" whether that be past, present or future.

Heinrich brought up Israel first. He believes U.S. support for Israel contributes to the problem of terrorism. "Saddam" disagreed, and hid behind Israel to advance his crazy idea that someone must kill a great many "fundamentalists." I disagreed with "saddam" and wrote that hiding behind Israel to call for massive murder is obscene. I'm sure you agree that no one in Israel wants this.

My English is not good enough: "perfidious"? I will have to go look it up. It doesn't sound good whatever it means. I will repeat my view: there is no context that justifies Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a criminal act. If saying this is the new definition of "anti-American" then so be it.

So now not only is he known as Saddam but his other alias "history". That's very convenient because now he can say things like, "history doesn't agree with you." Doesn't that just sound so smart? As if "history" were some objective science like physics where the facts are plain and their correct interpretation is clearly evident.

WW2 was black and white. The axis were bad. The allies were good. And it wasn't an optional war once it started.

I agree that WW1 was idiotic and so was much of what led to WW2, but that's beside the point. On Sept. 1, 1939, there was a war, and there were sides to take, just and evil.

Anyway, Aaron, please tell me what is your non-violent, peaceful resolution to the issue of islamic terrorism.

I must have asked this a thousand times on this thread. Nobody can answer. You can bash israel, you can bash america, you can re-argue WW2, you can put words in my mouth and accuse me of all kinds of craziness I have never endorsed....

but you cannot even credibly provide a non violent, non forceful solution to tyranny and terrorism.

"History does not agree with your assessment of japan's willingness to surrender. . . ."

History does not "agree" or "disagree" with anything. Individuals *interpret* history. Some of them just skim it to find ways to "justify" their loathsome and destestable calls for mass murder.

Others, too cowardly to put their own names on their loathsome and detestable "ideas," sign their moronic comments "saddam."

JR

JR,

You find the concept of killing terrorists and using force to topple terrorist regimes "loathsome and detestable."

Please share with us your non-violent, peaceful solution to the problem of terrorism and terrorist regimes.

Thanks
Saddam (who doesn't need to be personally harrassed)

All of you responding to saddam realize he's just a troll, right? I mean, what a stupid argument to have with someone that believes his superior intellect qualifies him to pronounce death on people he's never met. Ignore him, it's the best thing to do with a childish intellect. He's not worth your time.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about WW2 being black and white and about it not being optional, even though I know "history" (saddam) will probably disagree with me. The whole problem with your argument about no one being able to give a solution to Islamic fundamentalism is that you assume that the necessity of such a "solution" is self-evident and that it's our responsibility to provide it. How about we let the Iranians come up with their own solutions, and the Iraqis and anyone else who find themselves in a bind. You cannot possibly think that you can wipe out tyranny, or "terrorism" from off the face of the earth. They existed long before you decided you could eradicate them and they will exist long after you are gone. The U.S. military is not the savior of the world and when we try to make it so we only spawn resentment, more terrorism, more murder and we set the stage for further tyranny. Playing superhero and world savior may seem like a noble thing to some, but it is delusional and to the extent that this mentality succeeds in instigating violence, it is dangerous.

Yes, it is so obvious that non-violent means can stop terrorism and tyranny, it is best to ignore questions about such a tactic. And claim that someone who wants to use force against terrorism is endorsing genocide. Just repeate the lie often enough. Oh, and it's israel's fault. Whatever it is.

You all should go back to lew rockwell, where every outrageous act in the name of islam is israel's fault, and any attempt to address the problem of terrorism is morally equivalent to terrorism.

Not to sound too trite, but it isn't likely that the rest of you are going to make much of an impression on "Saddam." Either you have a concept of sin or you do not. Some people are willing to defend the incineration of Japanese infants, or the annihilation of Baghdad or Palestinian apartment blocks, as a means to an end. Some of us are not. Civilization is not the result of some cosmic utilitarian calculation. It is the the fruit of love and decency.

Aaron,

Earlier in the thread, I addressed your concerns. Yes, we should probably not endeavor to go about the world eradicating evil. that would be foolish, and i am not a supporter of the war on iraq, which seems to be based on such wilsonian notions.

however, terrorism is a real problem, and so is iran. clearly something has to be done about that. something violent and bloody. not because i like blood and violence, but because there isn't any other solution. meanwhile we get the tube bombings, the WTC, sharm el sheikh.....

this thread began with dr. palmer's desire to do something to prevent this latest outrage from repeating itself. I think we should realize that in the case of iran, and islamic terrorism more generally, the problems do come looking for us when we don't go over there and try to solve them proactively.

What brilliant analysis and intelligent commentary Saddam! If you want to stop terrorism at least come to terms with what it is. Islamic terrorism is a backlash against certain things. In order to be a backlash, there must be some original, perceived violation to lash back at. If you find out what that is and then remove it, you have the solution to terrorism. This is well known by anyone who really understands the terrorist threat, or who has a sound understanding of the history and nature of guerilla movements. Sure there will still be those with a terrorist agenda, but without the ammo given to them by U.S. (and other nation's) foreign policy, they would be unable to recruit the lemmings necessary to threaten anyone.

Aaron,

Osama Bin Laden, in justifying his terrorism, referred to the "tragedy of Andalusia." He is upset about the loss of Spain in 1492. Are you suggesting we hand over Spain to islamic fundamentaliist rule (which, by the way, is not exactly how the moors had it, but that's another quibble)?

In response to the London bombings, one of the crazy islamic clerics said he wanted to see the flag of islam on 10 downing street. Should we give them that, too?

You are advocating appeasment, appeasment of crazy demands. It didn't work with the suedetnland and it isn't going to work with Spain or England (or Israel, for that matter).

I agree with you that the things you mentioned are problems, but I sharply disagree with your solutions. Why be selecive? What about the gross human rights violations going on in China, Myanmar, Vietnam, or any number of African countries? A "proactive" approach as you mentioned is just imperialism disguised and it would have the opposite effect from what you intend (just as is occurring in Iraq right now.) People do not want to be occupied or invaded regardless of how pure their invaders motives appear to be. Doing so would increase terrorist attacks and worsen the problem, not solve it.

when the burmese regime slams jetliners into our office buildings, we'll have to think about it.

the WTC terrorists, by the way, just like the london terrorists, were educated and middle class. They were motivated by ideology and religious fanaticism -- not poverty or lack of education. their actions are not some sort of rational, if extreme, reaction within our system of logic. you cannot reason with them or attempt to satisfy them in the hopes they won't bug you. that's just naive.

i don't know anything about the iranian executioners in this case, but it is hard to believe there is anything the west can do to convince them to stop killing innocent kids for being gay.

"I don't know anything about the iranian executioners in this case, but it is hard to believe there is anything the west can do to convince them to stop killing innocent kids for being gay."

Exactly

....which is why, given Iran's active subversion of other nations and their support for global terrorism, we should work to topple its regime, even if the humanitarian impulse to interve is insufficient (and I'm not saying it is, but that's another debate altogether).

Islamic fundamentalists are people who believe in following the Koran literally.

Some Islamic fundamentalists are involved in terrorist attacks on civilians.

Some of the terrorist attacks on civilians are "suicide attacks."

Didn't anyone read the story about the Yemeni cleric who convinced a who bunch of terrorists that they were wrong--and they changed their ways? He used the Koran. He, and they, were all Islamic fundamentalists.

Now, I am pretty sure that Islamic fundamentalists do believe that men convicted of having sex with one another are supposed to be executed. That is, the Koran calls for that punishment for that crime.

Check Sistani's website. Maybe he gives his line on executing gay people.

Anyone read Sistani's line on the Palestian issue? According to Sistani, Palestians have a right to return to every bit of their private property that they evacuated as refugees. I guess Islamic law just doesn't have room for the spoils of war (for nonMuslims) or else some notion that there is plenty of Muslim land, let them live there.

Israel, and U.S. support of Israel, will always be a sore point with Islamic fundamentalists.

If the U.S. stopped supporting Israel, Islamic fundamentalists would not stop favoring the persecution of gay people. What they would do, is have less reason to care about the U.S.

We have plenty of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. Most of them don't advocate suicide terrorist attacks on civilians. Most of them don't advocate executing men who have sex with one another (though the Bible does order that punishment.)

Some, oddly enough, do advocate terror bombings on civilians. Not suicide bombings, but rather using missles and planes. Say, for example, Muslims. You know, on the ground that some claiming to be devout Muslims have committed suicide terrorist attacks on civilians, so terror bombing attacks against cities that are mostly Muslim are justified.

While I don't believe that most people in Charleston are fundamentalist Christians, there are plenty. I would hate to have my city bombed to get at the fundamentalist Christians. You know, for all their errors, they aren't all bad people.

"JR,

"You find the concept of killing terrorists and using force to topple terrorist regimes 'loathsome and detestable.'

"Please share with us your non-violent, peaceful solution to the problem of terrorism and terrorist regimes.

"Thanks
"Saddam (who doesn't need to be personally harrassed)"

Dear Moron:

There is no "solution" to the problem of terrorism. Grow up and get a life.

JR

jews returning to israel is not "spoils of war." and the arabs aren't interested in recovering lost property. why didn't the palestinians get the west bank when jordan had it? why didn't they get gaza when egypt had it?

If you want to talk about spoils of war, let's have a conversation with the cherokee, sioux, aztecs....

mr. woolsey, i also gave a very different definition of islamic fundamentalists than you are giving. I have no problem with moslems, no matter how devout. The word fundamentalists refers to those who wage holy war.

Oh, you crazy Americans ...