MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?
JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
Update, 7/19/05 10:59 am: Here are two interesting articles that relate not only to what is excerpted above, but to the comment thread of this post.
Understanding Terrorism? Ridiculous
Terrorists and the smell of fear
8 comments:
A few points, Progressive Pete.
1. Iraq and Afghanistan are much more "progressive" today than they were on September 11, 2001. Or don't you agree?
2. No one ever claimed a link between Saddam and 9/11, but there's plenty of evidence about a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and the support of global terror. See my previous post on Zarqawi.
3. I take it you now support military action against Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? And if not, what was the rationale for your statement about their potential weapons?
4. Your "turn the other cheek" comment was as stupid as it was disingenuous. I doubt Christ would have us just keep allowing people to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up trains or subways or busses, etc, and do nothing about it.
Progressive Pete, if you truly believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are *not* more "progressive" today than they were in 2001, you negate any sense of humanity in my eyes. What were Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament?
Edward, you're smarter than the argument presented. Please try again.
1. This blog isn't democratic. It's *mine*. I'm a benevolent dictator, and tolerate your disagreement only because you're civil and show attempts at logical thought. Your second to last sentence, though, pushes the limits.
2. "[S]hy, off-handed quote references" *are* my thing, actually :-)
3. Gulags and death camps, huh? Who are you, Durbin-lite?
4. Saying I have "no reason, ability or talent for using history" is pretty elitist, don't you think, Mr. History Professor? Or do you think? I don't need to be a history professor to know history or to use it. If I draw different lessons from it than you do, I credit that to different viewpoints, not different levels of intelligence. But then again, I'm not a member of the intelligentsia, am I? Of course not, no conservative could be, right?
5. I do read the news, and I do pay attention. I just think about it critically instead of thinking whatever CNN or Daily Kos or Atrios or Democratic Underground tell me, Pete. By the way, do *you* think Judith Miller is in jail to protect Karl Rove? Hehe.
They haven't attacked the Swiss either. Then again, the Swiss haven't done too much for world security. And the French have already arrested people planning attacks on the Eiffel Tower.
What is your point, Edward? That they'd go away if we did nothing? This fight is on, and I see no appeasement strategy working. Appeasement never has.
Progressive Pete: so what's your point? That these people are justified in flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up trains and buses and subways, and beheading innocent civilians?
*That* is the point. There is no *justification* for what they do, your apologetics notwithstanding.
No, thank you. I'll not put any more thought into trying to understand your view. It makes no sense, and I'll just have to accept that.
And your snarkiness is *not* welcome.
Wow, defensive. Who says I hate you? I do disagree with your views, though, there's no doubt about that. But I can do so from a position of calm and rational explanation, not rudeness.
Civility, Progressive Pete. It's a wonderful trait to have. Those who demonstrate it here are welcome, even when they disagree. Those who do not are *not* welcome.
To answer your questions:
1. I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I don't agree with your ideology, though. It's never in the history of the planet been shown to create a viable society.
2. Students who cheat are dealt with according to our school policy, which includes my filling out of a Breach of Academic Integrity report and forwarding it (and the student) to the vice principal. That student will also fail the assignment and get their citizenship grade lowered.
3. Students are free to disagree with me. In fact, the majority of my students who read and comment on this site are my lefties! And they do so with civility, which is how I respond to them.
4. When my friends and I disagree on something, we disagree. Big deal. We don't all have to think alike to be friends. Diversity, and all that.
5. Snarkiness refers to the way you present yourself, not the views you present. I feel no compulsion to defend my views to you--this is my site, and I express my views as I see fit. When I choose to respond to you, it's to allow other readers to see the other (correct!) side of the debate so they can make their own decisions about who is right and who is wrong. When I opt not to respond to you, it's usually because I think your facts or your presentation are *so* lacking that their presence here is enough to buttress what I have already said, or at least they discredit you to the point where I need say nothing.
We can still have that coffee, but I'll have either tea or hot chocolate.
Calling me a jackass crosses the line of civility. Please do not do it again on my blog.
I didn't claim we hadn't "done anything" to Mustlims before 9/11. I said we weren't bombing them. As for things we've "done" do Muslims, what a specious argument. We rescued Muslims in Gulf War I, and belatedly rescued more Muslims in Bosnia. Those are fairly recent by historical standards.
I saw a Muslim burn an American flag on tv. Am I now justified to go blow up some "Muslim building" somewhere? That argument holds no water, and couldn't even in a rainstorm.
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, recently had to point out to a (not-so-bright) reporter that "the Muslims" are ticked at Australia in part because of their support for the independence of East Timor. The Bali attack was widely viewed as being against Australians--when exactly did that occur, in relation to the Iraq War?
Edward, you and Progressive Pete may not be terrorist sympathizers in that you agree with their tactics. But the fact that you try to excuse, explain, and justify their activities certainly allows for such a belief in those of us who do not.
Post a Comment