End the Cycle of Militant Islam's Aggression

[bemildred]

Very Alice-in-Wonderlandy stuff. Lots of other bizarre stuff on this site. For example:

Appeasing a Mortal Enemy: The U.S.-Israeli Suicide Pact

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4740


Israel's enemies are once again at war with her. Today the enemy is Hezbollah, an Iranian-sponsored terrorist organization whose stated goal is to annihilate Israel. But whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas or the Palestinians wagging war on Israel, you are their accomplice who call these continuous conflicts a “cycle of violence," condemns Israel for its "disproportionate" response, and clamor for a "ceasefire."

All these reactions are interrelated and illustrate why Israel's death-worshipping enemies survive to relentlessly wage war on the only free, Western nation in that region -- the fundamental reason they want to annihilate Israel.

When people talk of a "cycle of violence" between Israelis and their Muslim enemies, ask them what they mean by "violence." This broad word denotes the use of physical force to injure or kill someone else. But there are two distinct forms of violence: the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force. To initiate violence against others, such as rape, assault or murder, is evil. And once a brute initiates violence, his victim has the unequivocal right to fight back, to protect himself by stopping, evading and
perhaps killing his would-be rapist or murderer. Such violence is good; an act of justice.

The same holds true for free nations. Since its establishment, Israel has been attacked by its Muslim neighbors, who have always been the aggressors when "violence" has broken out there. So, the actual cycle involves Muslims initiating force against an essentially free nation, while Israel responds with retaliatory force to stop this aggressive violence.

Capitalism Magazine

[FlavaKreemSnak]

1. Lots of people think that bombing with bigger bombs will solve the problem

It is not just this author, I hear people in rl say this all the time. And it kind of seems like it is the policy, if you look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc. They think the way to stop anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment is just kill more of the people who are suspected. The thing is, I don't think that our leaders really think that. I think it just has to do with their plans for the region, so it doesn't really matter if the people are anti-American because so many of them are going to get bombed anyway, and the ones that are left will be kept in a crackdown like the Pro-American allies have to do with the people there, because if you read from a lot of different places, the leaders are Pro-American but it is almost like it is their job, but the people are not Pro-American at all, which is why I think you don't see Condi etc talking about how they really want to see Jordan become a democracy and have elections like Palestine did.

[bemildred]

2. Yes.

The "get a bigger hammer" theory. It's ignorant, but it's common. You see lots of people, even here, that think nukes are some sort of aqua regia for dissolving any problem, military or political; where simple observation would show that that is not so.

[Igel]

3. But fighting against injustice is also considered just.

The problem is coming up with definitions of "justice" and "injustice" and making sure the entirety of both sides agree with them.

Currently it seems there are a number of competing definitions, so everybody can agree on the wording but not on the content.

Diplomats.

Ptooey.