> From: Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Van: KNEEM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Verzonden: Monday, September 24, 2001 3:21 PM
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: Re: Benjamin Netanyahu on Bush's Speech
>
> > > > And Israel, the Middle East's only democracy and its purest
> > > > manifestation of Western progress and freedom, must be wiped off
> > > > the face of the earth.
> > >
> > > Does Netanyahu know that "Western freedom" includes freedom to
freely
> > > cross the borders of the land where you live, and includes the
> > > freedom to publicly protest when you disagree with those who rule
> > > your land, without being shot at?
> >
> > That freedom to protest does not in any case in any western country
> > allow violent protests.
> >
> > So you are saying that anyone should have the _right_ to strap a bomb
> > to themselves and go blow up crowded pizza parlor?
>
> No, I said that "Western freedom" includes the freedom to go out into
the
> streets and publicly state your opinions (as an individual or as a
group),
> without being shot at. You know, demonstrations and all that.
But that is not what happens in Israel. These 'protestors' throw rocks
at bystanders, or fire weapons at bystanders. Then Israel disperses
them, rightfully, with weapons.
The intent of these protestors is harm someone, from somebody on the
street (man/woman/CHILD) to the military/police forces. These are not
peaceful protests.
> > > Whether an act is an act of terrorism is not only defined by the
> > > nature of the action, but also by who was attacked.
> >
> > There is a difference. The Israeli actions are defensive measures,
> > taken to prevent those groups from further acts of terrorism.
>
> Let's say that Syria fears an Israeli missile attack, and launches a
> preemptive strike in which it destroys Israeli missile launchers. Syria
will
> call it "defensive measures", but Israel will not see it that way, even
> though they call their own preemptive strikes "defensive measures".
Nope. This is an act of war by one state on another state. It has
nothing to do with terrorism.
> > > > These regimes, like all terrorist states, must be given a
> > > > forthright demand: Stop terrorism, permanently, or you will face
> > > > the wrath of the free world - through harsh and sustained
> > > > politicial, economic and military sanctions.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, economic sanctions. A method Western governments love, but
> > > also a method that usually only hurts the population of a country,
> > > not its leaders.
> >
> > Good. And when those people see their leaders living it up while
they
> > are starving, they should revolt against those leaders--And if they
> > don't that is their problem.
>
> This may come as a surprise to you, but people who are starving are not
in
> the habit of revolting -- they are more concerned with getting
something to
> eat, and basically staying alive for another day.
It's happened before, and will happen again.
> Besides, if you are starving, you are not even physically fit to fight
> against your leaders.
Can any government stop ten million people from revolting?
> I find it disgusting that you seem to believe it is OK to punish
innocent
> civilians for the crimes of their leaders.
No, it is not right to punish the innocent. It is a fulcrum, which is
used to lever against the enemy.
The fact of the matter is, in states like Iraq, the people LOVE Saddam
Hussien. People who oppose SH have their body parts sent to their
relatives. He even commits acts of genocide on his own citizens. And
they love him for it.
It is the same in Afganistan.
People who support other people who commit acts of crime are as guilty as
those who commit the crime. That is how law enforcement agencies, and
the criminal code treat it. Why are states any different?
I am not saying that all the people of Afganistan are guilty or support
the Taliban, But here is the point: If the U.S. has proof that O.B.L.
perpetrated these crimes and Gives Afganistan this ultimatum: Hand Him
over or no food will enter your country, and The Taliban does not (this
has already happened btw) and the people support the Taliban, then the
people have choosen to starve. They are at fault for their own actions
(or inactions, not revolting against the Taliban).
