originally posted by Mycroft
If I may jump in; I think the demonizing is of those who, by their own declarations, want no peace and only to kill. Perhaps you can tell us just how many Palestinians, or Arabs in general, support that vision, and how many oppose it?
If that were the case then why is the distinction between the innocent Palestinians and others so rarely made. I am afraid that when Mycroft makes a claim it is he who should support them but he is known for not always doing that.
As a rational person, perhaps you could describe both how you conclude that the innocent can be removed from the equation, since you know which they are, without simply calling it quits and allowing the terrorists to win if they hide among innocents? Do you think thatthere is no effort to separate the two in the heat of battle, to the extent that it is possible? Who is it that is doing the deliberate lumping again?
Can I suggest that you look at the Britsh actions in Northern Ireland if you want a lesson in how decent democratic states go about their business when under terrorist attack.
1/ The first and most important tactic of the demonisers is to demonise entire groups of people by calling them terrorist or implying that they are all supporters of terrorists. Hence the attempt to associate Saddam Hussein (a man the USA supported after they knew he was a mass murderer) with Al Quaeda and the attempts to demonise Palestinians as an entire group.
2/ Having demonised them it is a short step to suggest that it is appropriate to assassinate untried suspects without trial and if you killl some children in the process that is just too bad.
3/ Putting them into the unacceptable conditions of detention such as Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib and stopping the Geneva conventions from applying to people who have not even had any allegations levelled against them in a way decent democratic states would recognise is part of the pattern of abuse.
I could go on but the first step in preventing the above is to recognise that there are innocent people and ask would you do the same in the USA or the UK.
Actually they have been advised to leave for weeks (months?) now, and to most observers they appear to have done so. The city is virtually empty, except for the innocents who slipped through and are busy bombing elsewhere. What else do you suggest be done? Oh, of course -- call it quits.
And where exactly did the USA build alternative accommodation for them? New York contained many mafioso. When were the citizens of New York told to leave so that their homes could be destryed chasing the Mafia? You have to have some common sense here. The USA is about to killl a lot of innocent people and is about to create a lot more terrorists and terrorist supporters in Iraq and it has been warned of that by the UN and others.
I think your post says it all regarding your attitude to innocent people. What did the killing of grannies and children in the free fire zones of Vietnam achieve?
I don't speak for Mycroft, but in my debates with him I have no reason to believe he doesn't care, and from the sound of you, I think you are just another apologist for terrorists who would give them what they want and assume that they will then try to kill someone else instead.
QED. Route 1 at its starkest. Demonise those who dare to disagree with you. Your claim is completely false and I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence for it. Because I support the innocent and highlight the way Mycroft operates you have the cheek to call me an apologist for terrorists with absolutely no evidence to support your mendacity on a sceptics site. What utter and complete tripe. I despise your sad little effort to smear those who stand up for the innocent.
