Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Meet Fire With Fire Indeed

Meet Fire With Fire Indeed

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Massive kudos to Birmingham Mail columnist Maureen Messent, whose recent column concerning Somali pirates is right on the money. One paragraph from the column sticks out in particular:

And let’s not pretend these predators are our equals deserving of our respect. Blowing a few of their boats to smithereens, along with their crews, is the sole language they will understand.

Hallelujah, sister! Here's at least one Brit who hasn't drunk from the Tabernacle of Political Correctness Kool aid, one Brit who isn't a slave to wimpy and culturally suicidal European notions of what constitutes human rights, one Brit who gets it.

Let me man the guns; I'll happily blow every single one of these sub-human apes to smithereens and I'll still sleep very comfortably, thank you very much. In fact, I wouldn't even hesitate.

Exactly how do we prove ourselves better than the pirates, the Taliban or any other assorted terrorist scum by respecting their so-called humanity? Why are they deserving of it? If they have absolutely no notion of human rights, leniency or mercy, and no inclination to show any toward us, I don't see why they should receive any in return. What are we Westerners proving with our "enlightened" attitude toward them? That we're stupid, naive and, as aforementioned, culturally suicidal? Absolutely. As Michael Ignatieff points out in his book "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry," the West, with its knee-jerk political correctness, is forsaking its political heritage of individualism; in the process eroding the foundations upon which a universal system of human rights may be built.

This brings to mind a letter to the editor somebody had written to a London newspaper complaining about the treatment one of the captured pirates, a 16-year-old, who was captured by the U.S. and extradited there. The letter writer bemoaned the "young African being brought to America in chains." Which just goes to show that even with that half-black hippie in the White House, anti-Americanism still runs strong (or that some people apparently believe we're still living 200 years in the past). That not even Obama is decrying the fate of this innocent little lamb-to-the-slaughter, ought to provide a clue; but then Obama did vow to stand up to the pirates which is what any sensible person would do.

Believe me, all this talk about respecting human rights and having to show compassion, leniency and mercy to our sworn enemies is just the sort of claptrap worthy of the Left-wingers who spout it, those Westerners who hate their society, their culture and themselves. It is sentiment to be expected of those who identify with the world's rag-tag rabble, the language of solidarity with those who deserve nothing more than a body ridden with bullet holes and a dumping in the nearest garbage incinerator.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “Why are they deserving of [humane treatment]? If they have absolutely no notion of human rights, leniency or mercy, and no inclination to show any toward us, I don’t see why they should receive any in return.”

    And why does that sort of inflammatory comment help any?

    It’s my understanding that there has been a grand total of one instance of a hostage being killed by the Somali pirates. (Although if you can bring up a citation that says otherwise, by all means do.) The same cannot be said for pirates in other waters.

    Strange as it may seem there apparently is a ‘pirate code’ among these men (actually, more often than not, boys). They are solely interested in ransom – and seem to appreciate that mistreating their captives isn’t going to get them their money any faster.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Where do we report a bug? It did not like my URL, so my comments haven’t been appearing. One in this thread and 2-3 in Dan(Miller)’s thread.

    Do I need to write them all over? Shall I just run along and have some more aspirin?

  • Doug Hunter

    Thet’re not scum, they’re dirt poor and desparate to escape their situation. You don’t blow them out of the water because you hate them or thing they’re subhuman, you blow them out of the water because that is the quickest and easiest way to eliminate the behavior.

    Fear is a powerful motivator and shooting few of them as the US did will make them rethink pirating and maybe go back to internet phishing scams, etc.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Fear is a powerful motivator and shooting few of them as the US did will make them rethink pirating and maybe go back to internet phishing scams, etc.

    Doug, kudos on not sharing Mark’s knee-jerk outrage. However, I think you’re being overconfident. Far from chucking piracy in, a lot of the pirate gang leaders are now hinting that because of the West’s aggressive response, they are now going to shoot first and ask where their money is later.

  • STM

    Doc: “they are now going to shoot first and ask where their money is later”.

    In that case, there’s no harm in us shooting first too.

    I do understand all the bleeding-heart talk about solving their political problems first, because it will help solve this problem.

    But why is that up to us?

    They’re a stain and anti-piracy task forces are a VERY good idea and should remain in place, doing exactly what they’ve been doing of late.

    If I hear any more nonsense about human rights in regard to this, I’ll throw up.

  • Cannonshop

    #4 Doc, it’s nice to feel sympathy for blokes in a bad situation…

    But Somalia’s IN that bad situation of its own making, and if they’re ever going to get OUT Of it, they have to do so themselves. If that means blowing up boatloads of the kind of shit-weasels that have CREATED AND CONTINUED the chaos in that country-so be it.

    Sitting on the Wogs because they can’t govern themselves doesn’t solve the underlying problems, nor does showing empathy to criminals and allowing them to continue.

    Dead pirates don’t hijack ships, take hostages, kill crewmen, resell stolen goods, or collect millions on the black market while simultaneously contributing to the spread of violence and horror in their home turfs, nor do Dead Pirates make a lot of money for Arms and Drug traffickers.

    Dead Pirates feed fish, until they’re used up.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I agree with STM. It is an act of aggression, and so you have to deal with it appropriately.

    How different is it from being attacked in an alley by a thug who tries to take your money and life perhaps?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The need to protect oneself and one’s (employer’s) property is entirely understandable. My major objection is to Mark’s cheerleading of the Birmingham Mail op-ed writer’s Neanderthal comments.

    There is, however, another arguably more pragmatic approach, such as that expressed by the CEO of one (French, I think) shipping company who told the press that paying the $2 million ransom that the pirates who’d hijacked his ship were demanding was cheaper and easier than forking out for the insurance claims and lawsuits that would inevitably result if his crew were killed.

    He expressed his reasoning in a more altruistic way than that, but I got what he meant.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    And Roger,

    The most practical advice if you’re confronted in a dark alley by a mugger – unless you’re a kick-boxing champion – is to give him your damn wallet.

    It’s just not worth getting stabbed over.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Maybe so; but if you’re armed, why not let him have it?

    Have you seen those little dinky boats the pirates are operating from? It defies logic they should be able to overtake a liner. The way I see it, it’s the ultimate in stupidity.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    A few light, easily manoeuvrable speedboats full of heavily-armed pirates well-trained in the art of matching speed with a target and then swarming up the side are more than a match for a big, lumbering merchant ship with a small and probably unarmed crew.

    The few vessels that have been able to outrun the pirates actually were cruise liners, most of which are considerably faster than cargo ships.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Doc. Then this goes to show that all such transports which enter international waters ought to be adequately armed – what’s wrong with a cannon or two? – either for warning purposes, and if that doesn’t work, then to blast the shit out of them.

    There’s just too much pussyfooting, IMO, on the part of commercial interests and or their agents not to be able to deal with this constant thread in a decisive manner.
    It really is beyond my understanding, because it is clear and undeniable act of aggression. And to reduce the problem to the matter of insurance costs or any other such consideration only displays lack of moral fiber.

    One or two examples of effective handling of the situation would go a long way to prevent it from every happening again. An object lesson is what’s desperately needed here to put an end to this bullshit.

  • Clavos

    The few vessels that have been able to outrun the pirates actually were cruise liners, most of which are considerably faster than cargo ships.

    The cruise ships are faster than freighters, but still not as fast as the pirate skiffs, which look to be capable of speeds of 30 knots, perhaps more.

    The ships which have evaded the pirates did so by employing evasive maneuvers (zig-zagging, etc.) which made it impossible for the pirate skiffs to lay alongside and board them.

    I agree with Roger that the target vessels should be armed, but not with cannons nor with weapons in the hands of their own crews, therein lies too much potential for disaster.

    Instead, they should be armed with small contingents of combat-ready troops, appropriately armed. Just a handful of well-armed troops on each ship would be sufficient to stop the pirates cold, with far less risk of civilian casualties.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Re: #5 by STM:

    BRAVO, Stan! You’re another guy that avoided the Kool-Aid.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Dr. D: “such as that expressed by the CEO of one (French, I think) shipping company who told the press that paying the $2 million ransom that the pirates who’d hijacked his ship were demanding was cheaper and easier.”

    Hmmmm, the French trying to buy their way out of trouble. Golly gosh, what a shocker!

    Dr. D, the columnist is not a Neanderthal, she’s an elderly woman who’s sick of Britain’s namby-pambiness and who makes a ton of sense (and not just with this column but others she’s written as well).

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Clavos’s solution is more practical than Roger’s, but I would observe that the pirates are still in business despite the escalated force now being used against them.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Mark, the fact remains that Ms Messent – and you – are grossly mischaracterising the situation. Albeit that piracy is a serious crime, the Somali pirates are known for not mistreating their hostages.

    Their conduct is a long way from that of ‘sub-human apes’ with ‘absolutely no notion of human rights, leniency or mercy, and no inclination to show any toward us’.

    Again, if you can point me to an instance (other than the one I cited) of a hostage being killed, I will back down.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, we haven’t implemented yet the kind of measures Clavos talks about – a contingent of well-trained men aboard every ship so as to be able to deal with the situation.

    I’m surprised the insurance companies haven’t gotten around yet to the point of insisting on adapting some such measures. That way I see it, that would be equivalent to the US Marshals aboard every commercial plane to avert the possibility of hijacking.

    I don’t see any problem with exchanging fire for fire, as the title of the article suggests. Are there any moral scruples that we need to abide by?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I still don’t see, Doc, why you’re justifying the situation. It’s an illegal activity violating the principle of international waters, and it has to be dealt with as sternly as possible.

    Inaction or less than adequate action is only bound to encourage it.

  • Clavos

    Clavos’s solution is more practical than Roger’s, but I would observe that the pirates are still in business despite the escalated force now being used against them.

    Not widely enough yet. If they were to experience a few weeks of every ship they attack fighting back, I think they might start looking for new careers.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Otherwise, lawlessness will continue.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Roger, I’m not justifying piracy. Just questioning (a) perceptions and (b) whether the advocated response is a wise one.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I am well aware you don’t. I just don’t view these actions as anything other than acts of aggression and attack – on analogy with attacks on a person.

    It’s not a stately matter, as though in need of diplomacy, but one of maintaining law and order.

    The pirates are outlaws, plain and simple. Even Robin Hood was moved be a redeeming idea and could be justified therefore. Not this bunch.

  • Doug Hunter

    “a lot of the pirate gang leaders are now hinting that because of the West’s aggressive response, they are now going to shoot first and ask where their money is later.”

  • Doug Hunter

    Got cut off there. Anyway, if they shoot first they basically ensure their own demise and won’t get their money. The corporations who are paying these pirates are the ones keeping it going and are taking a shortsighted view of the situation. One $2 million payment will fund the next 100 pirate attacks. Eventually, like all organized crime, it must end and that is usually bloody.

    I think it best to cut off the motivation to commit piracy, they want to collect ransoms not bullets to the head. A change of policy from the former to the latter will at least keep them away from US flagged ships.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Good grief! The world must be entering the “end times.” I (choke, gasp, cough) find myself in substantial agreement with Roger’s position here as amended by Clavos to have several well trained and armed security types on board instead of arming merchant seamen untrained for such duties. In the case of a pirate attack, they should shoot to warn, and if that doesn’t work, then to kill.

    I seem to recall having argued that position before, here and here. I can think of no solution likely to be more effective, at least in the short and mid term.

    I do understand that many if not most of the pirates are teenagers. Teenagers armed and ready to use the weapons now at their disposal are no less dangerous than are adults comparably equipped.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    This is about what I can say regarding this article.

    Exactly whom is impressed by the lenient human rights attitude we show our enemies?

    It is ‘who’ is impressed by…not ‘whom’.

    That leaves the question: Whom edited this article?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Whomever is was will remain anonymous.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Dr. D, does the pirates’ vow to make the U.S. “weep with grief” give you any idea as to their intent from this moment forth? And if it’s because we used “unreasonable” force against them, it’s because they broke international law. Doug Hunter’s excuse for their behavior is that they’re poor and desperate, but if they act like terrorists then we have the right to treat them — and despatch with them — as such.

    Dr. D., how about you tell me how you feel about Mr. Obama — who you surely voted for, or would have voted for, assuming you’re not eligible for U.S. voting rights — vowing to make the pirates pay for their intransigence. Is he not being insensitive? Perhaps he is suffering from a lack of violins and hankerchiefs regarding their situation?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hey wait. I did have something else to say. The US should mind it’s own business and stop interfering with the world!

    Here is an interesting history of the US involvement (and some of it’s sorority buddies) in Somalia. (I know, I know, evil socialists wrote this article! Exactly! That is why they can tell the truth–quite a different story from Hollywood (and the MSM)’s version ala Black Hawk Down.

    There is other stuff I could put here, but, I’m too lazy to do it right now.

    Just say no to war and killing people. It’s really easy. Come on try it! It’s easier that figuring out when to use who or whom.

  • Ruvy

    You don’t get rid of thieves, kidnappers, pirates terrorists and murderers by giving a tinkers dam about THEIR human rights. You get rid of them by killing them, and teaching them that they do not want to be anywhere near you or yours. If you must pay “ransom”, it should be two million pellets of hot lead, not two million units anyone’s of hard-earned money.

    This goes for the Arab terrorists in Israel and Lebanon as it does for these Somali thugs/pirates.

    When bullies discover their prey fighting back and killing them off, they move on to another game.

    Too bad the nancy-boys in charge of policy can’t figure that simple reality out.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Oh for fuck’s sake. I meant fraternity buddies! :-)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Ruvy,

    Fuck that…

    Men should shut the fuck up and let women (the one’s whose feminism didn’t draw them into duplicating mens’ faults in a female version) run things.

    I’ve had it up to here. (hold’s hand 2 ft over her head) with your fucking wars and killing and bullshit. Fuck that! Time to change.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Whomever is was will remain anonymous.

    A sense of humor is a wonderful thing! (Just an appreciative thought.)

  • Clavos

    Just say no to war and killing people…

    Party pooper…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Cindy,

    Men should shut the fuck up and let women (the one’s whose feminism didn’t draw them into duplicating mens’ faults in a female version) run things.

    From what I’ve seen, hatred burning in women burns longer and hotter than any hatred a man feels. Just because men do most of the shooting, doesn’t mean that women don’t do a shit-load of instigating to get that shooting going. So can the feminist bullshit. Women are just as vicious, greedy, cat-dirt mean, cruel and hateful as men are – if not more so. The rabbis may think you’re spiritually higher then we are – but I am no rabbi, and I don’t fall for any of that bullshit.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Ruvy,

    Of course they are. They just don’t wage fucking wars on people. Hello? Show me the historical wars waged by women? (No fair counting Ms. Warhawk Hillary and her macho feminist crew.)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hey, that is pretty good. I think I coined a phrase. “Macho feminism”–says just what I mean. Macho–bad for men equally bad for women.

    It’s not all about a battle Ruvy. And feminism isn’t about what sex you are. It’s about equality and freedom and healthy human beings who aren’t pressed into gender molds and who don’t wreck the whole fucking world. That is a good thing for all humankind. Some men actually get that better than some women.

    The world fucketh up everyone, male and female alike. Do you think I could look at a little male infant and ever see men as the root of all evil? I adore men.

    But the adults (male and female) who don’t get past their conditioning…well, sometimes not so adorable.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Cindy: “It is ‘who’ is impressed by…not ‘whom’. That leaves the question: Whom edited this article?”

    I originally wrote it as “who” myself. In fact, I’ve noticed several punctuation and grammatical errors since this got published, none of my making.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Re: #s 31 and 36.

    I just knew I could depend on Ruvy to set the record straight with a massive dose of “truth hurts” medicine!

    Kudos, Ruvy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You should learn, Mark, to use Ruvy’s help very selectively. It would not be a good sign if you started to depend on Ruvy’s holistic thinking in support every piece you write.

    Sorry, Ruvy, but this is what I think. You do make some valid points now and then; it’s your overall philosophy that sucks.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, your “just say no to war” mantra is silly and simplistic. You can’t “just say no” to something on behalf of someone else. Unilateral peacemaking is suicidal.

    The truth of the situation in Somalia is that whatever the US did or failed to do in the past as a nation in that region is entirely irrelevant. The sailors on these ships are in no way responsible for it, and they have a right to protect themselves and to seek protection from the US or other friendly countries.

    There’s a simple principle you need to learn: the wrongs of one party do not excuse the subsequent wrongs of another party. History does not justify genocide and terrorism and piracy. What matters is behavior in the immediate present.

    But it does seem that the increasingly prevalent response is to put armed and trained security forces on merchant ships in the region. Indian shipping companies are doing it and have already repelled attacks.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Dave,

    I view it as overreaction to some of the excessive comments from the other side, Ruvy’s militaristic stance “against anything that moves” being one example.

    Sorry, Ruvy, but you do have that effect on some people. Shoot me if you will, but that’s what I think.

    Roger

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    Sorry, Ruvy, but you do have that effect on some people. Shoot me if you will, but that’s what I think.

    No one ever asked you to like my philosophy. But why would I want to shoot you – or anybody else on Blogcritics Magazine? What damage have you done me in my life that I should seek to end yours?

    Come on, man, grow up!

    You’re a guy with opinions, and the mere fact that I do not agree with a number of them means that – wait for it, now – I don’t agree with them. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t happily sit and have a beer or a glass of wine, or a cup of coffee with you, and converse like a gentleman. I know this is hard to believe, but my parents did manage to teach me manners.

    How, I’ll never know, but I must have learned something, because for 16 years or so the bride and I have been getting compliments from people on how well mannered our sons are.

    The same thing holds true for Stan Denham, who is pissed off by how I view British officialdom (even though he isn’t one). If he showed up here in Israel, I’d be happy to meet him at the airport, and show him around to the degree I’m able; the same also holds true for Dan MIller, or Clavos, or Mike Manning, or Joanne Huspek, or Dave Nalle or Zedd if any of them were to decide to show up here (just don’t all show up at once).

    Roger, real people put up these comments. I try (and do not always succeed) not to be insulting or contemptuous to fellow commenters – except to return the favor….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy, it was just an expression on my part. Do you really think I believe you’d assault me for disagreeing with you? And I’m certain that were we ever to meet, we’d have a great time.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Well, Roger, I take shooting (and mention thereof) pretty seriously. I did go on patrol with an M1 Carbine this evening. While I didn’t have to shoot anybody (and would be loathe to unless absolutely necessary), if it were necessary, I wouldn’t hesitate.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dave,

    Cindy, your “just say no to war” mantra is silly and simplistic.

    A portrait of Dave from Medieval Europe: your “just say no to truncheoning people, putting them on the rack, and boiling them alive” mantra is silly and simplistic.

    A Dave from early New England: your “just say no to killing witches” mantra is silly and simplistic.”

    Another early American Dave: “…your ‘just say no to slavery’ mantra is silly and simplistic.”

    Bullshit. Things change when people change. You are an anchor dragging along against the sails–preventing progress. Just saying yes to war is insane and it’s been being done for far too long. Time to stop believing people who believe lies.

    Roger,

    I view it as overreaction to some of the excessive comments from the other side…

    You’d be wrong there. It’s no overreaction. It’s exactly what I think. Much of what I think, I have repeated numerous times.

    In fact, my viewpoint about war, is one held by scientists, historians, and other thinkers–many of whom have influenced me. Most of what I say is based on examined ideas–not reactions. You keep making that same mistake. Because (I guess),

    It’s just foreign thinking to you. It only makes sense it would be–and complements my position on culturally embedded moral bias and blindspots.

    Sorry, Ruvy, but you do have that effect on some people.

    Sorry Roger…but Ruvy’s views don’t generally seem qualitatively different from yours to me.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Sorry Roger…but Ruvy’s views don’t generally seem qualitatively different from yours to me.

    There got to be some qualitative difference, Cindy. You and I are not constantly battling like the Lockhorns, even if we do disagree….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Gee, Ruvy,

    I didn’t know that you and I are on the same side of the fence. That’s a fucking news to me. But then again, isn’t great we have this equalizer on this here site – a true peacemaker. So if and when we do ever meet one on one, I’d be certain we shake hands and make up for all the misperceived disagreements we may have had because I must have been dreaming.

    I feel better already.

    Roger

    PS: the beer will be on me

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Cindy

    Cindy, your “just say no to war” mantra is silly and simplistic.

    Not necessarily…. Tell the Arab terrorists to “just say no to war”; tell the Somali pirates to “just say no to piracy”. If you were successful in either case, there would be a great deal more peace in the world; a lot more lives would be spared. Not only that, my son could walk home from his girlfriend’s home in ‘Eli to Ma’ale Levona without worrying about being set upon by a mob (that would include Arab women) that would tear him bone from bone. And I wouldn’t have to sit guard for the village, or feel the need to volunteer for the Israel Police. Heck, maybe, just maybe, my boy wouldn’t have to go into the army later this year, and I wouldn’t have to worry sick about him.

    The problem, dear, is with those who foment violence in the world, not those who attempt to respond to it. Terrorists and pirates foment violence. Warmongers like the little Hitler from Persia, foment violence. And the responses must be strong enough to crush them all.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Cindy, I think you’re very confused. You’re sick of men, but say you adore them. Huh?!

    Women never seem to work out that every them they elevate themselves, talk about how faultless they are, and how all men are rotten to the core, they are acting exactly how they accuse all men of acting: chauvinistic.

    Cindy, I, as a man, extend to you women exactly what you want extended to you — to be viewed as a human being. I accept women as human beings. Which means I see them as having the potential (often realized) of being just as cruel, bigoted, shameless and guilty of crimes against humankind and the planet as men are.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Sorry, I meant to say every time they elevate themselves, not “every them.”

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Roger, I appreciate your views on this thread and you make much sense; I appreciate the back-up too.

    However, I like Rudy a lot because I’m just (or at least nearly as) strident in my views as he is in his; and, often, our views converge. Rudy’s not afraid to tell it like it is — that’s what I appreciate about him. There is a time for “holistic” thought. Thoughts on ways of protecting one’s own people from murderers/terrorists is not one of them.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    “the same also holds true for Dan MIller, or Clavos, or Mike Manning …”

    Actually, it’s Mark Manning, Ruvy, and I do like the Edward inserted in between the first and last name — it was bestowed upon me, so I might as well use it, especially to break up the comical alliteration of my name. But, same here, it would be great to have a face-to-face convo sometime. If I’m ever to travel to Jerusalem, I’ll let you know beforehand.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Ruvy: “The same thing holds true for Stan Denham, who is pissed off by how I view British officialdom (even though he isn’t one).”

    You’re not alone there, Ruvy. Every time I slam Britain over something, I always hear the inevitable from him: “I have friends who will collect the money for your one-way return flight to Boston …” It never seems to occur to him that, as a legal resident here, someone who’s paid his dues (and his taxes), I have every right to criticize aspects of British society or government if I so wish to.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Mark,

    A thousand apologies, Mark. By the way, rude as I may sound to some, my name is Ruvy (with a “v”), not Rudy (there was once a fellow named Rudy Perpich who was governor of Minnesota for a couple of terms – then he went of to Croatia and became Rudi Prpc, advisor to the late dictator, Franjo). And like you, I tell it like it is. Which is why I usually enjoy your articles. In this instance, the idea of “moishe-coddling” rather than “molly-coddling” pirates and terrorist thugs, we agree 100%

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Mark,

    Again, apologies, That was Franjo Tudjman, who fought Milosevic in war (I’m gettin’ old if I can’t remember stuff like this…).

    Funny the lives we lead. Perpich started out as a dentist in Eveleth MN, and wound up as the war consigliere for a Croatian dictator.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jeeez I’m really getting beat up by everyone here. :-) Good! I’ll reply in one post to these accusations and misunderstandings.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Ruvy,

    Sorry, I didn’t mean actually mean there are no qualitative differences at all. I was speaking taxonomically–in a larger sense. Here’s an example of what I mean–a response Roger made in reply to you in your nuclear war thread:

    Grow up. There are more important things to be concerned about than your local and petty squabbles. One way or another, we’ll resolve it for you, with your participation or liking or without.

    He’s coming from the same mindset you are. They’re the same position to me. I see this throughout his thinking.

    The problem, dear, is with those who foment violence in the world, not those who attempt to respond to it.

    I’m having a very hard time telling these two sides apart when I look at it from the outside.

    (I lied. I’ll have to reply to Mark in a separate post.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m sure glad, Ruvy, that once again we’re on the same side of the fence – thanks to our all-seeing conciliator and peacemaker.

    I sure hope you don’t get that impression, because then I’d really take you for a fool. But we both of us know that people will see what they want to see – whether they look at it “taxonomically” or from some other, preferably higher vantage point – like their arseholes.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But that would require, I failed to mention, bending over and raising it up high – a most unnatural position, I daresay, unless you’re into that kind of thing.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Ruvy,

    There got to be some qualitative difference, Cindy. You and I are not constantly battling like the Lockhorns, even if we do disagree….

    Yes, as I see it there is this one particularly big one Ruvy. I wasn’t going to address it but, Roger’s behavior (as exemplified above) calls for it. Hopefully, having said this will solidify the barrier between Roger and I. That would be a positive outcome, for me, at this point. Minimally, it will serve as a reminder to me, should I again be inclined to forget what I see as the underlying problem…and be drawn into a discussion based on his intellect.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I said it before that the relationship is broken. Rational arguments or discussions go only so far when there’s no sympathy. And in the absence of sympathy, it’s no better than pissing in the wind. And that goes for friends as well as enemies.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Cindy,

    Re comment #59: I’m not looking for arguments with you, merely a bit of understanding.

    The two comments seem rather different.

    Both are conclusions, true, but we all come to conclusions of some kind, lest we rattle on and on like yentas forever.

    Do they both seem dismissive? Is that what I’m missing?

    There are 6½ billion of us on the planet, and we all see the world through different lenses, but attempting to see through your lenses here (which is what I’m attempting) is difficult for me. Yes, I did catch that reference in comment #61 – originally, someone else diagnosed (from a distance, of course) the Blessed of Hussein with this disorder.

    Also, on a different topic, did you finally read my article on “Persia Delenda Est!”? I know some topics can be difficult to read. I have to admit that this article disturbed me as I wrote it, and I held off submitting it – until someone whose opinions I respect told me they made absolute sense.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Ruvy,

    I think if were to preface the article then by saying your were somewhat bothered by your own thoughts, you wouldn’t have received so much of a vitriolic response.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #62

    Discussions that are based solely on “the intellect” while the most essential human qualities – such as even a modicum of sympathy – are missing are for the birds.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And BTW, Mark, just to clarify. While the form of words was inappropriate, accusations of being a warmonger are even worse.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #51 – Mark Edward Manning

    Mark,

    I don’t think I said I was sick of men. (I am sick of aggression.) I likewise never said women are perfect or faultless. (I even agreed with Ruvy that women can be mean and nasty.)

    Women can be serial killers, torturers, and child molesters. I don’t think women are ‘better’ than men. Yet despite this there is something different, generally, about the way men and women are conditioned by culture. Here is an example:

    My niece and nephew were both fond of the ‘Sims’ game for awhile. My niece played by making houses and filling them with families that would interact as neighbors and friends. My nephew would built houses and put ‘people’ in them for the purpose of creating natural disasters (like tornadoes) that would wipe them out.

    I could speculate about human evolution and how testosterone made one sex not only more aggressive, but promoted a seizing of power and a propensity to dominate things. Clearly protection is needed by a species and having a strong sex is a good idea. But at some point what might be needed is the same thing that might cause destruction. And nature is truly impartial. It doesn’t care who eats whom or beats whom. It doesn’t care if some people get fat and have heart attacks because it designed people to hoard calories against starvation.

    Cultures historically have generally been dominated by male (could be because of what I speculated about above). So this domination/aggression mindset is still enculturated into males from an early age. Despite this, many men are able to get beyond this mindset–to different degrees. Some men are able to get beyond it. Women historically don’t wage wars, not because they are ‘perfect’ or better than men, but because they a) they don’t have much testosterone and b) they haven’t been enculturated to do so.

    So, I don’t dislike men; and it’s not a matter of ‘blaming’ men. If anything I empathize with men as these unfortunate postures have been foisted on them by their culture. So, I just recognize that culture affects both men and women and it would be better for everyone for men to adopt a more feminine perspective on issues of war. These musings are just how I see it so far.

    Feminism is not about what sex one is. There are men who understand their own liberation is interwoven with female liberation. I see these feminist men, one of whom is Bryan McKay, exemplified by what he wrote at the end of his excellent article Thoughts on Global Feminism and Sexual Inequality:

    “I am reminded of a beautiful quote (of unverifiable attribution) which I came across the other day and has stuck with me: If you have come to help me, please go home. But if you have come because your liberation is somehow bound with mine, then we may work together.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #64

    Ruvy,

    I wasn’t comparing those two statements. Those were two separate responses in a single post. But maybe they’ll work together anyway. Let me try again.

    The problem, dear, is with those who foment violence in the world, not those who attempt to respond to it.

    I said, “I’m having trouble telling these two sides apart.”

    You advocate violence against those whom you see as fomenting it.

    Our ‘enemies’ often see us as the cause of the violence–often with justification.

    Roger’s retort is essentially the same. He sees you as fomenting violence and would retaliate or stop you with violence. He says, ‘One way or another, we’ll resolve it for you, with your participation or liking or without.’

    One man’s defense is the other’s offense is the other’s defense…

    It’s the same mindset. It accepts military intervention as legitimate. It is nationalistic. It’s probably a lot of other things, but that might be a good enough description for now.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    “One way or another, we’ll resolve it for you, with your participation or liking or without.'”

    If she had read some of our exchanges, Ruvy, re the Israeli-Palestinian problem, she would have seen that I’ve been advocating a international solution in terms of creating a demilitarized zone and a neutral party as a buffer in between the conflicting parties. And she had in fact made some comments on that exchange at the time. But she conveniently forgets and wants to remember only what she wants to remember. So let it be.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Ruvy re: #56 and 57:

    Oops! I think I’ve just proven that I was just as prone to mistakes re: your name as you were with mine!

    As you said, a thousand apologies.

  • STM

    MEM: You’re not alone there, Ruvy. Every time I slam Britain over something, I always hear the inevitable from him: “I have friends who will collect the money for your one-way return flight to Boston …”

    You couple of poor possums. Hope I haven’t hurt your feelings boys by taking an opposite point of view.

    Mark, I’m sorry. Forget about Boston … I know I’ve been cruel.

    How about I get my mates do a whip around at the Punch and Judy and then they can call El Al and you can head off to visit Ruvy for a holiday in the survivalist cave. He’s got everything you might need in there for the next 20 years – and it’s all kosher.

    On the Poms: Yep, I do like ‘em … mostly.

    Generally, it’s a good place to live as you know and IMO they’re a great bunch of people.

    Even better from my point of view is that I’m on a big rock in the South Pacific and most of them are 13,000 miles away on a little rock on the edge of the North Sea.

    I’m happy to keep it that way too, but I still think there are waaaaay worse people on this planet than the Poms.

    They gave us our anglo civilisation and our rule of law too (even Ruvy benefits with his political system from that) and for that we should all be eternally grateful.

    It’s also so yesterday to stereotype the British, and they’re so polite, they never complain. Some one here has to stick up for them.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Stan, hyperbole much? I, for my part, am sorry if I hurt your feelings; you should know that I was joking around.

    If you’re happy to keep the British at a distance of 13,000 miles from yourself, it appears you share the same sense of humor about the Poms — though I prefer the term Limeys — as I do. So, what exactly is the problem here?

    If I should ever lose my wife, and may God forbid it, I definitely won’t waste any time going back to Boston … but in the meantime, I contend that I have every right, as a legal immigrant who’s paid his dues, to criticize that which I do not like about this place. It’s better than tight-lipped as the British themselves, as you’ve so shrewdly observed.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Lol. No probs Mark, I’ve only ever been revving you up. I don’t hate you and I don’t hate Yanks :)

    BTW, if you haven’t already discovered the Punch and Judy in Covent Garden, you should grab a few mates and go there one Friday evening with your missus after work. It’s a great joint, plus after 10 pints, some of the best curry joints in London are just around the corner.

    Yer missus is a Pom, I take it.

    Gotta love those English girls, especially in London. They’re good fun and good value I reckon … and they love their fashion.