New leftist cheers on baby-killer

Front Page Magazine ^ | 10-14-03 | Davis Horowitz

[ambrose]

ping

[Support Free Republic]

SHOW YOUR PRIDE! SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[claudiustg]

She would have the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty.

[Kaiwen]

I don't agree with the author of the original article, but I think Horowitz totally misrepresents her. Rather than present an argument, he just attacks the author, and he manages to misquote her as well. Its 'despair trumps hope' not 'despair triumphing over hope'.

The author neither cheers the suicide bomber on, or celebrates her. Contrary to what Horowitz says, she nevers call for us to 'sympathize' with the bomber. I suppose Horowitz believes we shouldn't try to understand the motivation of these people, even if it helps up prevent other atrocities in the future.

Horowitz is a demagogue masquerading as a deep thinker.

[yonif]

thanks for the ping

[ppaul]

I suppose Horowitz believes we shouldn't try to understand the motivation of these people

Oh, c'mon.
Should Horowitz undergo sensitivity training?
Enough already.
These people kill because they are murderous cuttthroats.
They need to be dealt with and annihilated.

[Kaiwen]

Understaning their motives and being sensitive to their motives are two very different things. In her article, the author looked at a phenomenon (suicide bombings), made a hypothesis as to the cause (despair), and came up with a solition (giving them hope.) While I disagree with the author, I don't think that it is 'sensitivity training' to try to get into their heads, if only for the practical reason that that is the best way to stop them.

[ppaul]

While I disagree with the author, I don't think that it is 'sensitivity training' to try to get into their heads, if only for the practical reason that that is the best way to stop them.

Baloney.

[Kaiwen]

You're right. We should just give up trying to understand them, how they think, what they''re motivations are, and just continue to slam our head against the wall until the problem solves itself.

[Kaiwen]

they''re = their

[ppaul]

We should just give up trying to understand them, how they think, what they''re motivations are, and just continue to slam our head against the wall until the problem solves itself.

Wrong.
The problem will not solve itself.
There needs to be resolve to stand unflinchingly in the face of terror - and annihilate it completely.
Somehow, I cannot imagine Winston Churchill saying we need to be more understanding of Herr Hitler and his minions.

[Qwinn]

A couple of you here validate Leftist rants, you know that?

I'm all for waging the War on Terror. I don't think we owe those that would employ Osama's methods a second's thought. But there are people who live there who don't resort to those methods - and it's clear you wouldn't care less about their opinions either. Probably because they have the same "Baal-worshiping ancestors".

Unfortunately, you "crush their skulls to powder and suck the marrow from their bones" guys aren't right-wing, no more than Hitler or the Klu Klux Klan were right-wing. But we have to deal with having to defend quotes made by you guys. Thanks tons.

Qwinn

[HiTech RedNeck]

I don't think that it is 'sensitivity training' to try to get into their heads, if only for the practical reason that that is the best way to stop them.

Depends on what it is that we try to get into the terrorists' heads. A bullet would work nicely.

[Kaiwen]

Wrong.

The problem will not solve itself.

Re-read my post. It was sarcastic.

There needs to be resolve to stand unflinchingly in the face of terror - and annihilate it completely.

In WWII, we annihilated the German ability to wage war. We did not annihilate the Germans.

Somehow, I cannot imagine Winston Churchill saying we need to be more understanding of Herr Hitler and his minions.

So I guess I was wrong in believing that the OSS spent a huge amount of time and resources during WWII studying the Nazi movement and composing phychological profiles of its members and the German public.

[Qwinn]

Actually... having read the original article and then Horowitz's again... I take at least part of what I said back.

He's actually raising enough good points that I don't think he hits "demagogue" status here. While I STILL don't like the gnashing-teeth bloodlust of some of the posters here, he makes a good case that other societies in their same position do -not- resort to these tactics, and have had far more reason to.

Now, I don't think it has a DAMN thing to do with who their ancestors worshipped, and I -do- care about innocents caught in the crossfire - but in the original article, she IS -actively defending- this woman who killed many. She deserves no sympathy, not even a little. The victims deserve the sympathy, and Horowitz's diatribe against the author for failing to notice them, or the bomber's part of a terrorist family, is right on.

I wanted to agree with you at first... but after reading the original poster's article more carefully, it's clear it's Leftist pity-our-hired-killers-they're-just-victims propaganda. Big time.

Qwinn

[Kaiwen]

After re-reading your post, I think you misunderstand the point I am making. I am not calling for us to be more understanding of suicide bombers. I'm calling for more understanding of suicide bombers. Can you see the difference?

[ppaul]

So, what exactly do you find disagreeable about Horowitz's analysis of this terrorist sympathizing puke leftist professor?
And don't just come back with ad hominem digs.

[Kaiwen]

I never said I agreed with the author. In fact, I disagree with her completely on many issues she raises. My original point was that the article in no way celebrates the suicide bomber in question.

IMO, the author's argument, that despair causes suicide bombers, is a valid arguement that merits discussion, even though I think that it is woefully naive and wrong. To state that there are reasons for a persons actions, as the author does, and to defend that person are not the same thing. For example, a dissertation on the reasons behind Hitler's rise to power is not the same as defending the German people who voted him in.

I think that Horowitz, though he does sometimes raise good points, is as much a demagogue as those on the left. Neither side wants an honest evaluation of certain actions because they are afraid that it will make their pet cause, be it Israel or the Palestinians, look bad.