Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...host=3&dir=508

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
But I am not sure that with Hamas, killing this guy will make anything better. Maybe it will and I just don't know enough about how Hamas is organized and financed.

The info I've seen suggest that this guy was not merely a titular, ceremonial, revered old ex-leader - he was an active driver of the philosophy of terror, a brilliant tactician and planner who remained heavily involved in current ops, and the source of a lot of fanatical loyalty. It was one of their better strikes.

Yeah, it would be nice if they didn't have to "provoke" more killings - but you can't use that excuse to not wipe out current murderers when you can.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
The info I've seen suggest that this guy was not merely a titular, ceremonial, revered old ex-leader - he was an active driver of the philosophy of terror, a brilliant tactician and planner who remained heavily involved in current ops, and the source of a lot of fanatical loyalty. It was one of their better strikes.

Yeah, it would be nice if they didn't have to "provoke" more killings - but you can't use that excuse to not wipe out current murderers when you can.

Is Arafat next?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
In what way, club?

Here is what he said (omitting the first sentence where he talked about your beliefs):

"Making it easier for employers to fire or lay off workers and off shore jobs makes the economy more efficient, and likely leads to faster growth of GDP, but it decreases job security.

It's harder to fire workers in Europe and Japan than in the US. If there is a backlash against gains in productivity, immigration and offshoring, americans could decide US workers need protection and make the US job market less liquid."

Ok? Please tell me what he said that is not true, and why.

S_A_M

Because, like all em's economic arguments, it never looks at what the effects of em's proposed policy would have. Yes, it is possible to implement the rules em proposes, but it would not have the effect em thinks - quite the opposite.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Is Arafat next?

No.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...host=3&dir=508

He really is a moron.

[Diane_Keaton]

Counting Down, that would now be...two down; three to go.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because, like all em's economic arguments, it never looks at what the effects of em's proposed policy would have. Yes, it is possible to implement the rules em proposes, but it would not have the effect em thinks - quite the opposite.

What effect is he saying it would have. All he is saying in that post is that "X could happen if enough people get pissed" and that "job security and GDP growth are linked".

He never said anything about it being a net good. That's a huge question. For a long time we white collar folks have been rocking along while the blue collar folks get squeezed. That's been cool with us -- so we can hardly expect them to take a broader view.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Is Arafat next?

That would be counter-productive. He's the one that guarantees that the Palestinians remain ineffectual.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
The info I've seen suggest that this guy was not merely a titular, ceremonial, revered old ex-leader - he was an active driver of the philosophy of terror, a brilliant tactician and planner who remained heavily involved in current ops, and the source of a lot of fanatical loyalty. It was one of their better strikes.

Yeah, it would be nice if they didn't have to "provoke" more killings - but you can't use that excuse to not wipe out current murderers when you can.

(a) True enough.

(b) I just can't see how this ends well.

On an interesting, though perhaps unrelated point. I've wondered a lot recently about how the terrorist situation today might be different if we'd had democratic governments in the Middle East for the past 50 years -- especially as I've read more about al Zawahiri's background. It seems to me like less repressive governments that permitted free and open political participation could have provided legitimate outlets for much of this pressure/activism/intellect. Brilliant and scholarly people like Yassin and Zawahiri might have found better things to do than lead terrorist groups.

Note: This probably would not have helped Israel, but remains another example of how hangovers from the Cold War still dramatically affect our lives today.

So, when you get down to it, it's all really the fault of Lenin (or Marx, or the Tsar of Russia, or 19th Century capitalism).

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What effect is he saying it would have. All he is saying in that post is that "X could happen if enough people get pissed" and that "job security and GDP growth are linked".

He never said anything about it being a net good. That's a huge question. For a long time we white collar folks have been rocking along while the blue collar folks get squeezed. That's been cool with us -- so we can hardly expect them to take a broader view.

S_A_M

Read the whole thread. We cannot trade growth for job security.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
That would be counter-productive. He's the one that guarantees that the Palestinians remain ineffectual.

I think he is also one of the main reasons that the Palestinians don't have better lives and that only leads to more and more hopelessness and people willing to blow themselves up.

Arafat has kept most of the foreign aid that has been sent to the Palestians for himself and his gang of thugs. If some of that money actually had gone to make life better for the Palestinians, there may be fewer kids willing to blow themselves up.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...host=3&dir=508

Maybe so, and I'm surprised by the force of his comments, but the f-ing idiot is one Nobel prize and many, many good deeds ahead of everyone on this Board.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) I just can't see how this ends well.

Do you mean the death of this guy, or the Arab world's desire to wipe out Israel? 'Cuz, the one is just a rational response to the other. In my view, all of Israel's acts must be judged in that context.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, it would be nice if they didn't have to "provoke" more killings - but you can't use that excuse to not wipe out current murderers when you can.

The problem is that its an endless supply of "current murderers."
They don't need brillant tacticians to plan someone stepping on a bus and blowing himself up. So what possible end is there? I don't know enough to know how this is different than the last 10 assinations, but surely there will be bombings, and surely Israel will retaliate.

Meanwhile, another generation grows in both countries with hate.