Upscale Mall Becomes War Zone in Kenya Terror Attack

[bleeding heart]

I dont have any sympathy for them at all.... I simply explained why this attack happened, becaused it really seemed to me like nobody knew.

It seems like you would rather the objective facts around this event NOT be part of the discussion, but I dont understand the point of that. Should we all just post "terrorists suck dude!", and move on to another thread?

Whenever a certain group of Western allies are scrutinized--using, oh, say, the lunatic Left practice of applying similar standards to ourselves that we routinely apply to others--the predictable response is that the person "hates the West" (especially the US), or that he or she "supports the dictator/terrorist/mass killer" or what have you.

This is almost literally a daily occurrence here on WS, even with our relatively small group.

(To a more or less larger degree, criticism of France's imperial monstrosities are given a bit more leeway...an interesting topic in and of itself, I should think.)

This is all old hat. We see it with Islamist fanatics now; we saw it with totalitarian Communists back in the day.

And probably with the Barbarians at the gates in ancient Rome.

I believe the knee-jerk defensiveness comes from more than a single impulse; some folks are fully aware that the criticisms are 100% correct....so they desperately desire everyone to stop pointing them out, of "losing the plot" as it were.

These people are Commissars in any meaningful sense of the term.

Others, no doubt, are so deeply indoctrinated into the religion of the Benevolent West that their anger is more honest....if no less monumentally stupid.

[Argus]

Pointing out ways in which western policy sometimes causes problems and unintended consequences really has nothing to do with "hating the west". You would have to be a simpleton to come to that conclusion.

You're quoting Scahill ,who has been a far left activist his entire life, and never saw a brown man that he didn't feel was downtrodden by the white man in one form or another. The term 'bigotry of low expectations' could have his name alongside it. Everything is the white man's fault, everywhere.

Somalia was a broken state of competing warlords long before the US tried to help it, and then largely gave up. The intervention did virtually nothing one way or another, and was long years later before the influence of Al Quaeda began radicalizing it. And as I wrote earlier, Kenya's intervention was largely due to cross-border attacks from Somalia, not a CIA plot.

[DogOnPorch]

What's even more interesting is that some feel they are above the petty squabbles of this planet and feel sitting on a fence would keep them safe from the horrors of war.

[Argus]

Whenever a certain group of Western allies are scrutinized--using, oh, say, the lunatic Left practice of applying similar standards to ourselves that we routinely apply to other

Of course, that's not what's ever done. The bleeding left NEVER apply the same standards. Western countries can virtually never do anything right, and intentions don't matter. Meanwhile 'brown' countries, can never do anything wrong, because, after all, they're brown. Even while thumping their chests about their lack of bigotry such people refuse to accept that third world countries or people ARE equal in any way shape of form. Thus whenever anything goes around they cast around for a western country to shift the blame onto.

You don't blame children, after all, you blame the parents, or society, and 'brown people' aren't adults.

Somalian terrorists attack a shopping mall? Hmm, hey, didn't the US send troops into Somalia decades back to try and keep people from starving? IT'S THEIR FAULT!

Edited September 28, 2013 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

What's even more interesting is that some feel they are above the petty squabbles of this planet and feel sitting on a fence would keep them safe from the horrors of war.

This is true. As if sitting on the fence and doing nothing is somehow more ethical.

[dre]

You're quoting Scahill ,who has been a far left activist his entire life, and never saw a brown man that he didn't feel was downtrodden by the white man in one form or another. The term 'bigotry of low expectations' could have his name alongside it. Everything is the white man's fault, everywhere.

Somalia was a broken state of competing warlords long before the US tried to help it, and then largely gave up. The intervention did virtually nothing one way or another, and was long years later before the influence of Al Quaeda began radicalizing it. And as I wrote earlier, Kenya's intervention was largely due to cross-border attacks from Somalia, not a CIA plot.

Im not quoting anyone. And I simply stated a fact, that these particular terrorists have been fighting US backed terrorists for control of Somalia, and that this attack was a response to Kenya intervening in a civil war in another country.

I did make any moral judgement on this group what-so-ever and if I DID, it would not be pretty.

Basically your position is that in order to "not hate the west" you need carefully avoid discussing any historical facts that might paint "the west" in a less than favorable light.

And I would ask again... what is the point of that? Would you rather we all just checked in, and said "terrorists suck dude!". Why would we NOT talk about the various factors involved in different events?

[Argus]

The problem of course is that immigrants to Canada dont have a poor record, they have an excellent one. They account for the majority of jobs created since 1990, and second generations work harder than Canadians in general, pay more taxes, are more likely to own a home, and less likely to collect government benefits.

I look forward with bated breath to your providing statistics to back up those claims.

But to start off we have this, which says recent immigrants, ie, from 1990, pay about half as much in taxes as Canadians.

http://global-economics.ca/tax_burden_immigrants.htm]

Then we have this one on 2nd generation immigrants. It indicates that the pattern of educational achievement and thus income continues on into the second generation. That is, as I've already posted, it depends on where they came from. For example, 60% of Chinese will get a university degree or certificate vs 17% of southeast asians and only 6% of Filipinos (our largest immigrant source country.

http://global-economics.ca/immigration_2nd_generation.htm

[Argus]

Im not quoting anyone. And I simply stated a fact, that these particular terrorists have been fighting US backed terrorists for control of Somalia, and that this attack was a response to Kenya intervening in a civil war in another country.

That you are stating it as a fact basically says that's your belief, and it's mistaken. The US has been helping to fund the African Union intervention in the basket case that is Somalia because the AU does't have much money. And as I've already stated, Kenya's intervention is largely the result of cross border attacks on its northern resorts by Somalian terrorists and kidnappers.

[bleeding heart]

Of course, that's not what's ever done. The bleeding left NEVER apply the same standards. Western countries can virtually never do anything right, and intentions don't matter. Meanwhile 'brown' countries, can never do anything wrong, because, after all, they're brown. Even while thumping their chests about their lack of bigotry such people refuse to accept that third world countries or people ARE equal in any way shape of form. Thus whenever anything goes around they cast around for a western country to shift the blame onto.

You don't blame children, after all, you blame the parents, or society, and 'brown people' aren't adults.

Somalian terrorists attack a shopping mall? Hmm, hey, didn't the US send troops into Somalia decades back to try and keep people from starving? IT'S THEIR FAULT!

Your caricature is noted, and rejected.

I have had numerous discussions with posters here who simply refuse to concede the (uncontroversially true, and demonstrable) fact that powerful Western nations have routinely supported terrorism, of both the state and sub-national variety--and do so intentionally and materially. And many other enormous crimes against humanity as well.

And on a much larger and more devastating scale than such also-rans as, say, Iran's proxy relationship with Hezbollah. Who are amateurs, comparatively.

More to the point: neither Dre, nor I--in fact, a vanishingly few "leftists", deny the agency of terrorists or dictators or other killers' responsibility for their behavior.

That's why you never cite any of these alleged sins in your grandiose assertions....because you can't. Because you have nothing to cite.

That's because it's all impression to you...because you think it better to focus on crimes of others, rather than ourselves.

Dre and I plainly and explicitly disagree.

Rather, we are more concerned with what our leaders, our countries, and our allies do than what others do...and we're more concerned about our PART in international terror and violence; that's not denying anyone else's responsibility--it's only concentrating on our own.

You know, in defense and support of bedrock democratic principles of accountability...not to mention the same sort of basic morality that everyone teaches their children.

And this is what bothers you, for...well, one of the two reasons I've posited in the previous post, perhaps.

[Argus]

I have had numerous discussions with posters here who simply refuse to concede the (uncontroversially true, and demonstrable) fact that powerful Western nations have routinely supported terrorism, of both the state and sub-national variety--and do so intentionally and materially. And many other enormous crimes against humanity as well.

And on a much larger and more devastating scale than such also-rans as, say, Iran's proxy relationship with Hezbollah. Who are amateurs, comparatively.

That's because you broaden the term 'terrorist' as well as the term 'support' and allow for nothing in terms of intent. You also use cold war era support of dictators as a way to deflect critisism of modern terorist groups and supporters and will take one decades old example to show 'equality' with the tens of thousands of terrorist incident of the past decade.

Or if not to deflect it, to change the topic to an indictment of the West because you'd MUCH rather talk about that.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Argus

[bleeding heart]

That's because you broaden the term 'terrorist' as well as the term 'support' and allow for nothing in terms of intent.

I use the same definition of "terrorist" as does everyone else.

As for "support"...since you erroneously determine I am talking about "one decades old example" (said example which occurred two years before 9/11...ancient history...why can't we all move on, eh Argus?) then you are aware of a couple of points. I know you're aware of them because of the links I provided for you...including declassified official US documents.

So you are aware that the "support" you place in scare quotes is active support by any definition of the term. Explicit support. Stated support...followed by material support.

And so you're also aware of said material support...which is again, outright, necessary to the violence, and part of the public record which you pretend, for reasons of your own, to not comprehend.

Also, you're aware of the diplomatic support, the conscious attempt (very successful) that the 25-year terror of mass murder, rapes, tortures and so on continued.

Since you're aware of all this, and it's part of the official record, you're pretence here is a bit embarrassing.

But it's far from the only case--as you well know. Further, as I said, there are plenty of other crimes that don't, or don't clearly, fall under the rubric of "terrorist" so specifically....but they're still crimes.

You also use cold war era support of dictators as a way to deflect critisism of modern terorist groups and supporters

I'm not deflecting; I'm adding to the conversations by explaining our part in it...while you wish to declare that H2O is Hydrogen, full stop.

and will take one decades old example to show 'equality' with the tens of thousands of terrorist incident of the past decade.

But I'm not making the argument that one side is guilty and one is not. I reject such a view outright.

That's your view...that we should remain focused on what others do, and pretend (hilariously) that our part is ancient history...

....even as you try to deny or downplay THAT "old" stuff as well!

Or if not to deflect it, to change the topic to an indictment of the West because you'd MUCH rather talk about that.

That is exactly what you have been doing the other way--in multiple discussions I've had with you--as I pointed out. So your I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I attempts fall rather flat.

At any rate, as I already said (and for which you have offered no rebuttal...because it's a truism), the moral and practical stance is to be more concerned with the wrongdoing of us and our allies.

The Statist cowardly view is, predictably and logically, the precise opposite.

[eyeball]

Pointing out ways in which western policy sometimes causes problems and unintended consequences really has nothing to do with "hating the west". You would have to be a simpleton to come to that conclusion.

A willing simpleton - fully aware and proud of their self-imposed stupidity.

[Moonlight Graham]

Utter nonsense. Just those who hate the west is always trying to find an excuse to blame them.

After all, you can't blame Somalians, they're brown people, so clearly it's not their fault!

I wouldn't say it's the US's fault, but their actions have had an influence on how the country has developed.

[Argus]

So you are aware that the "support" you place in scare quotes is active support by any definition of the term. Explicit support. Stated support...followed by material support.

I don't disagree that the US and other western nations have allied themselves, to one degree or another, with some pretty despicable regimes in the past. But there was a degree of geopolitics about most of it, and in most cases the alternative to the evil regime in power was another evil regime whose only difference was being anti western.

The US supported the regime in Cambodia. The alternative took over. They were called the Khmer Rouge. You might have heard of the era of peace and flowers which then ensued. The British supported the Rhodesian government. Thankfully, that kindly statesman Robert Mugabe took control. What a vast improvement that's been!

Sometimes the choice in the world, particularly in the past, but also sometimes now, is supporting the scumbag who would be your friend in an important part of the world so the scumbag who would be your enemy didn't take control.

Let's look at a current case. The US currently supports the regime in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know, all of the opposition which has any degree of support or power thinks that regime is horrifyingly liberal. So if the US stops, the alternative would hardly be said to be an improvement in human rights terms. Instead you'd get a new regime which is much more harshly Islamist and would likely use its money to support similar regimes as well as terror attacks against western interests.

Given that, it is clearly in the interest of western powers (and not neccessarily agaisnt the interest of the vast majority of locals) to support the regime in power. I'm not saying all such situations were as clear cut as the above or that the decisions were all the right ones. You are obsessed with Indonesia and I agree that the wrong decision was taken in that case. But there are a lot of nasty things going on the world, though thankfully somewhat less than in the past. For example, a recent report came out about the massacre of over twenty thousand people in India in the aftermath of the separation of states. It was done, in large measure, by Indian soldiers, or at their instigation, according to the report which was covered up. Mass rape and mass murder. Should we have cut ties with India because of it, stopped our efforts to support them against various attempts by the Communists to take over? I think the decision made then was the right one.

But in the context in which people condemn terrorist attacks like the one in Kenya, your harping on western guilt over previous instances appears to be nothing more than an effort to distract attention from the condemnation, or to impute a moral equivilence to the effect the terrorists are no worse, morally speaking, than we are. And that's just plain stupid, and will earn you no respect except from the fringes. For even at its worst, the west generally tries to do what it think is best, and massacring people just for the joy of massacring them can't be said to bear any relation to that.

[Argus]

I wouldn't say it's the US's fault, but their actions have had an influence on how the country has developed.

My actions have had influence or affect on those around me. That happens. I told a friend about a position in an organization. She hated her then job, and went to work for this new organiztion. Now she blames me because it didn't work out. Sorry, not my fault. I told her about it. It was up to her to find out if the job suited, the transportation, etc. etc.

The US tried to intervene to prevent mass starvation. Then, after things fell completely into the toilet the African Union voted to intervene, but had no money, so the US supported them. You know what Somalia was like. It was a toilet. The addition of Islamist nutbars hasn't made it any worse.

[eyeball]

So by your own examples diddling always makes things worse. I just don't get it.

Oh but wait a minute, I see the wealth/power gap is still widening around the planet and many of my friends and family's economic fortunes are circling the drain here at home...ah, now I get it...

[bleeding heart]

I don't disagree that the US and other western nations have allied themselves, to one degree or another, with some pretty despicable regimes in the past. But there was a degree of geopolitics about most of it, and in most cases the alternative to the evil regime in power was another evil regime whose only difference was being anti western.

The US supported the regime in Cambodia. The alternative took over. They were called the Khmer Rouge. You might have heard of the era of peace and flowers which then ensued. The British supported the Rhodesian government. Thankfully, that kindly statesman Robert Mugabe took control. What a vast improvement that's been!

Sometimes the choice in the world, particularly in the past, but also sometimes now, is supporting the scumbag who would be your friend in an important part of the world so the scumbag who would be your enemy didn't take control.

Let's look at a current case. The US currently supports the regime in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know, all of the opposition which has any degree of support or power thinks that regime is horrifyingly liberal. So if the US stops, the alternative would hardly be said to be an improvement in human rights terms. Instead you'd get a new regime which is much more harshly Islamist and would likely use its money to support similar regimes as well as terror attacks against western interests.

Given that, it is clearly in the interest of western powers (and not neccessarily agaisnt the interest of the vast majority of locals) to support the regime in power. I'm not saying all such situations were as clear cut as the above or that the decisions were all the right ones. You are obsessed with Indonesia and I agree that the wrong decision was taken in that case. But there are a lot of nasty things going on the world, though thankfully somewhat less than in the past. For example, a recent report came out about the massacre of over twenty thousand people in India in the aftermath of the separation of states. It was done, in large measure, by Indian soldiers, or at their instigation, according to the report which was covered up. Mass rape and mass murder. Should we have cut ties with India because of it, stopped our efforts to support them against various attempts by the Communists to take over? I think the decision made then was the right one.

But in the context in which people condemn terrorist attacks like the one in Kenya, your harping on western guilt over previous instances appears to be nothing more than an effort to distract attention from the condemnation, or to impute a moral equivilence to the effect the terrorists are no worse, morally speaking, than we are. And that's just plain stupid, and will earn you no respect except from the fringes. For even at its worst, the west generally tries to do what it think is best, and massacring people just for the joy of massacring them can't be said to bear any relation to that.

I concede that you make some realistic points here, but also some very bad ones.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that the democracies should never be allied with dictators. It would be nice, but I don't see quite how we could go about it. There are cases where you simply work with what's there. Ideally, the influence of the liberal societies should be beneficial in and of itself...and in some ways, this is arguably the case. For example, the Iranian youth (that is, most of the country) has large swaths that are strongly admirous of the freedoms they see in Western society, and pretty obviously want a piece of that. This is true even of those who hate Western, and probably especially American, foreign policy.

So this influence could, in the long run, be highly beneficial, whatever retrograde notions are held by the current rulers and their more extremist compadres. Time will tell.

However, I'm quite willing to be more cautious with the blanket generalizations (bad Western meddling, etc); but it's difficult to do so when you're arguing against exactly the same type of generalizations coming from the opposite direction.

And that's my problem with the Cold War defense in argument...or rather, I have a two-pronged problem with it.

First of all, every case is unique, and must be looked at in isolation. Because reasons shift and change across each one, no matter what the stated justifications, which remain dubiously generalized and foolishly consistent.

I'll give you exact examples. The Indian situation you describe, at least to my limited knowledge, makes me inclined to agree with you. The brutality of Indian authorities is bad, but in that case, genuine fears over actual totalitarian Communist incursion might well justify our continued help.

Not that the brutality was justified, and of course you make no such claim. But, and I don't mean this callously, thi9ngs were what they were, and the United States was dealing with the cards as dealt.

But this does not automatically extrapolate to every case, not by a long shot.

The Indonesian example that has me so exercised is a case in point. The East Timorese victims were not enemies...of anyone. And they were no Communists. In fact, they had floated their Constitutional ideas towards the West, looking for advice and encouragement, because they were modeling it on Western ideals.

The US and its allies were not concerned with this;and they were certainly not concerned with a Communist East Timor.

They were throwing a bone to Indonesia; because Indonesia was a staunchly anti-communist regime (verging on fascist, actually); plus, the possibility for Western moneyed interests re natural resources, were profound, both in Indonesia and in its proposed colonies and, let's face it, proposed slave states.

And it's not, as some like to say, that Indonesia's behavior was tolerated. The support was absolute.

That by definition is culpability, based on justifications that range from dubious (fear of Communism) to openly mercenary (investment opportunities in fascist-run regions). It's not even a grey area, as some others are (which is why I bring it up so often).

I don't much buy the "ancient history" matter, either; if we found a co-conspirator in the 2001 hijacking mass murders, we'd prosecute...or, per Obama's favoured style, assassinate.

And yet the international crime--monumentally bigger, actually--that ended just two years earlier....well, apparently everyone should just get over it.

After all, 9/11 saw the murder of three thousand Americans.

East Timor was a mere 100 000...maybe twice that. And scarcely an American among them.

We know the list of names involved, up to and including respected luminaries: Kissinger and Wolfowitz, say; or the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who boasted in his memoirs about making the UN ineffective in doing anything about the violence.

But to say that Kissinger or Wolfowitz are culpable in the mass murder (which by the standards we lay out for others, they obviously are) is considered lunacy. And Moynihan is a cherished figure among the Ambassadorship hagiographists, his crimes never called out in "respectable" circles.

Why? Well, I suppose because there are no specific Iranian leaders who share any responsibility for the bad behavior of Hezbollah?

Also, none of the institutional structures and ideologies have been dismantled. The Cold War made the US what it is today, internationally.

So Negroponte was given an important overseers-type job in the Iraq War...Negroponte who was so involved with the right-wing death squads of Latin America.

And that's another matter with dubious justification. The whole history of US/Latin American relations, culminating in the terrors of the Reagan era, was about crushing the LEFT--and independence movements generally, which are rationally inclined to oppose US hegemony...actual "communism" was surprisingly often not at issue at all. So again, it's about matters of geopolitical control...and, of course, financial interests. We call that "gangsterism" until a (or rather, the proper) President or Prime Minister gets involved.

In short, yes, these are complex matters; but I disagree that intent is benevolent, nor even justified..

And since we're talking about matters like mass murder, overthrowing democracies, and terrorism...the onus is on the defenders to explain exactly how each case is motivated by benign motives and genuine, reasonable concerns about totalitarian Communism.

I daresay they'd have a terrible time at it, not that I feel sorry for them.

Edited September 29, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

So by your own examples diddling always makes things worse. I just don't get it.

I said nothing of the sort. In some cases it makes things worse eventually, perhaps decades later while in some cases it makes things a lot better. By way of example, if it weren't for western "diddling" what would life be like right now in Seoul, or Taiwan?

I remember also, this was a dozen or so years back and didn't get a lot of play, but left an impression on me, where Greece and Turkey were on the edge of war over some stupid island both claimed. They both had a pile of warships circling the thing waiting to challenge whoever dared land there. Well the Americans landed there. The impending naval war was postponed, and never happened.

Sometimes diddling works.

[Argus]

However, I'm quite willing to be more cautious with the blanket generalizations (bad Western meddling, etc); but it's difficult to do so when you're arguing against exactly the same type of generalizations coming from the opposite direction.

Is there a single terrorist group you know of with good intentions? You acknowledge the complexity of international 'diddling' to quote another poster, and the inherent difficulties in knowing what's going on on the ground ten thousand miles away. I don't say this always works out, and I have no idea what motivated the US in Indonesia other than, as you suggest, a degree of "we want these guys on our side, look how big it is" combined with "lots of money to be made there", and combined also with something which you haven't mentioned.

I think there's a certain jaundiced view of the value of life among third world people. A hundred thousand die here, a hundred thousand die there. Big yawn. They aren't westerners in the kinds of modern cities we recognize. They don't speak English, they mostly aren't Christian anyway. It's all very far away and what the hell, they're always dying in large numbers anyway.

I'm sure the ordinary man-in-the-street in the US would have been horrified to see, first hand, what was going on in Indonesia, but they never did. Look at it this way. Reports of police brutality generally don't draw much attention. But when there's video, when people can actually see it first hand, suddenly all those institutional assurances that really, it never happened, and we should just believe the reports of the nice young men, go out the window. People need to see it, not merely hear about it (from people whose words are denied by other people). Otherwise, well, it's all far away.

But even so, support for 'regimes', for whatever national or international goals are seen as being worth tainting ourselves, is not, to my mind, in the same category as an organization which sits down around and plans and plots an attack on a supermarket or school or church.

You know, in the latest James Bond movie M admits she basically betrayed her own agent to the Chinese, but on the other hand, she got six back, so coldly, looking at the wider, picture, she did well. You can argue about the morality of doing something like that, but at least it is generally done for the broader good. Nothing about what terrorists do is in the broader good nor intended to be. They serve their own vision of what God wants of them, and often for venal, self-serving reasons.

[dre]

Nothing about what terrorists do is in the broader good nor intended to be. They serve their own vision of what God wants of them, and often for venal, self-serving reasons.

This is a pretty simplistic view. Guerilla groups that sometimes use these tactics actually have similar geo-political goals as those fought for in other conflicts. Whether these goals serve the "broader good" or not is subjective. Most of them are nationalist or separatist movements, some of them are fighting oppression or persecution.

For example the FSA in Syria has not only targetted civilians, they set about beheading Christians, and non-sunnis, and uploaded the videos to the web for all to see... but some consider them freedom fighters. Czecknian rebels blowing up civilians in Russia think they have the right to self determination. The Irgun that bombed the King David hotel killing 100 people were fighting for a jewish homeland. Members of the KLA that started attacking Serbian police wanted their own state as well.

These are all garden variety geo-political causes... nothing exotic or special.

What REALLY makes these groups unique, and what almost all of them have in common, is that their opponents are vastly superior in strength, and much better funded. Terrorism is a low-tech poor mans way of fighting... Its ugly but its cheap. Most of these groups would absolutely LOVE to be in a position where they could meet their opponents on the battlefield, or launch a fleet of fancy new fighter jets with guided munitions, but their only real options are to fight dirty or not fight at all.

And this is why nation states hate it so much... its not because civilians are killed... 1000 years of terrorism would not kill anywhere near as many civilians as national armies have in the last 100 years. Its because these kind of guerilla tactics tend to be a bit of an equalizer and that poses a threat even to countries like the US and Russia with massive standing armies and huge stockpiles of WMDs.

They serve their own vision of what God wants of them, and often for venal, self-serving reasons.

Religion plays a part but its a secondary role. Religion is used by the proponents of these causes in an attempt to create a sort of populist appeal. But theres almost always some other underlying cause such as nationalism, separatism, or the pursuit of political power and self determination for some group. This is true even of some conflicts that might SEEM to be religious in nature such as Shia VS Sunny, Catholid VS Protestant, etc.

Now this is where people started jumping up and down and screeching at the top of their lungs about me "taking the side of terrorists", and "hating the west". But I never have and never will lend my support to people that kill other innocent people for any reason at all, regardless of whether they belong to a guerilla group or a national army.

Is there a single terrorist group you know of with good intentions?

Again thats subjective... Hamas and the PLO want the right to self determination for palestinians. The FSA is fighting against what they feel is oppression and political domination by an alawite minorty. The KLA wanted their own state, as did the Irgun in British Palestine. I think that they ALL believe they have "good intentions", and history will come down on the side of some and against others.

Like I said... the line between guerilla "rebel" movements, various separatist movements, and movements seeking control of some chunk of land is a very fine one.

Edited September 30, 2013 by dre

[bleeding heart]

You know, in the latest James Bond movie M admits she basically betrayed her own agent to the Chinese, but on the other hand, she got six back, so coldly, looking at the wider, picture, she did well. You can argue about the morality of doing something like that, but at least it is generally done for the broader good. Nothing about what terrorists do is in the broader good nor intended to be. They serve their own vision of what God wants of them, and often for venal, self-serving reasons.

But this was part of what I was questioning.

In every single case, exactly how the policy was implemented or followed "generally for the broader good" needs to be explained and discussed. Otherwise, it's boilerplate, conveying zero information.

As I said, the idea that we can use "Cold War" or "War on Terror," or any other imposed ideological framework to generalize is of limited utility in understanding specific cases.

It's one thing to say that the US and its allies had to make some muddied moral and legal decisions in its fight against Soviet expansionism.

Quite another matter to say that this justification applies prima facie to each and every case....and that we can use it as a template to understand (and, oh, just coincidentally, to defend and justify) every monstrosity of which we've been a part.

Rather, the Defenders of the Faith have the onus placed on them: exactly, precisely, how was East Timor, Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador...every single contentious matter about foreign policy violence...how was each one justified from concerns that most people could deem reasonable? How was the cost/benefit analysis navigated...if at all?

And how many sycophants can dance on the information-free pronouncements of powerful men?

Edited October 6, 2013 by bleeding heart