Re: The Problem of Nice Guys Coming in Last
swolf wrote:As to the "palestinians", the only thing I know for sure about Ariel Sharon is that he's a nicer guy than I am or than most Americans are. Given the same level of provocation, Americans would have exterminated the "palestinians" three years ago.
Yeah - I can see how the article would appeal to you, then.
The article first says, quit the nice guy bullshit, we should retaliate "in kind".
As if the notion of 'hell, we'll respond by today's security threats by simply all becoming as ruthless, demented and dangerous as the worst of us are' isnt scary enough, there then is the definition of what "in kind" means. Thats the point I was making re: the WTC vs Mecca, which you seem to have completely missed.
The article says that a retaliation "in kind" for 9/11 would be to destroy Mecca and Medina. Never mind that the WTC, even if there were a great many people in there, was no Mecca or Medina.
Responding "in kind", in my book, means a retaliation that creates as much damage and suffering as the attack it's retaliating for did. Note: "as much". Not: "two, five or ten times more".
Apparently, Mr. Pipes and you are using a different dictionary, cause the same point is magnified to the nth degree in Pipes' other example, which you neatly repeat. The Palestines kill several thousand of our citizens? Then a retaliation "in kind" is to
exterminate them.
Not. Thats not a retaliation "in kind" - that's a mindnumbing
escalation. Hence why I'm very glad you will never have your finger on the atomic trigger.
Unfortunately, Mr. Pipes might be unnervingly close to those who do.