"The right to life cannot be taken by another man.": There is the matter of capital punishment in Iran and the US, when life can be legally taken. Most believe in taking life in for purposes of self-defence. For the United States, self-defence includes taking pre-emptive action to rid Iraq of WMDs.

"Aljazeera ... freedom of the press without checks and balances.": I looked at the Aljazerra website and failed to find the bias referred to. I did find a code of ethics (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/07256105-B2FC-439A-B255-D830BB238EA1.htm) which, being a "check and balance" shows the statement is incorrect.

"Israel, used a conventional military force ... to find and kill people lobbing unguided rockets.": No. Israel was attempting to free two kidnapped soldiers.

"[Hezbollah lobbed] unguided rockets into [Israeli] civilian population ... a kind of asymmetric warfare of the most heinous sort." Indeed! Millions were killed in World War II. The military value was dubious and yet powers such as the United States continued the practice in South East Asia and Iraq. Strategic civilan bombing is heinous and useless whether the target be Birmingham, Beruit, Haifa or Hanoi.

"No nation, in the history of man, ever went to such great lengths in war to warn innocent civilians." Really? Consider this: "TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE: America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet. We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man .... EVACUATE YOUR CITIES."

"who is defying the United Nations while he does nuclear research[?]": North Korea and Iran. Additionally, it is also the US and Israel who should comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The American veto on the Security Council is very useful. Why does the author believe that Iran is not subject to the MAD paradigm?

I strongly believe in Western values, so it is shocking when leading nations depart from them, whether it is capital punishment, invasion and occupation, developing nuclear weapons, detention without trial OR using a UN veto to block international concern. It is our departures from our own values which are exploited and/or copied by terrorists.

There were three (or four) key objectives of the war four Israel:

--Elimination of Hezbollah’s rockets.
--Disruption or annihilation of Hezbollah.
--Return of captured Israeli soldiers.

An Israel expert named Boaz Ganor told me the four goals were:

(1) Destroy Hezbollah's rocket forces.
(2) Dismantle Hezbollah.
(3) Cut the physical connection between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran (via Syria).
(4) Rescue the Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah.

See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060731-085006-8134r.htm

Al-Manar (translated: "The Beacon," the name of Hezbollah TV), al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya TV have to be watched and evaluated before they can be understood. A sign that says "no smoking" is not the same as an area where no one smokes.....

The writer's other criticisms escape me now but all readers are certainly wise to doubt every word of everything they read.

John E. Carey
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/

"The military value was dubious and yet powers such as the United States continued the practice in South East Asia and Iraq."

The United States generally uses precision guided missiles on militarily significant targets. Not unguided rockets on civilian population centers.

But don't take it from me (who commanded a guided missile cruiser): we recommend you surf the web and learn more before you form such unguided opinions.

John E. Carey

John E Carey, imbecile and spin merchant extraordinary.
Japan - nice, guided atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Vietnam - nice, presicion agent orange and napalm, cluster bombs and daisy cutters. 3 million dead. Fast forward to

Afghanistan 2001. Bagram airbase tortures and deaths, Gitmo Bay outside all laws.

Nice precision daisy cutters and cluster bombs that looked like food parcels and linger still. Nice guided depleted uranium that poisons the food and water for eons to come.

Fast forward to Iraq - nice new Mark 77 napalm that vaporises people so they can't run down the road like they did in Vietnam.

Cluster bombs, phosphorous bombs, bunker busters, depleted uranium by the thousands of tonnes, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Stephen Green's raping and killing gang, looting and mass destruction of everything.

Now we have Israel planning the same thing on innocent civilians in Lebanon while the civilised in the west sit back and watch after the US and UK approved the whole thing.

The school of the Americas, now Whisc, trains the worst of the worst South American terrorists and has done since WW11 and that is well documented through history.

John E Carey does not belong to any "western values" that I want any part of. In fact John E, you and your ilk totally disgust me and always have.

Lebanon has been blown to pieces by the terrorists in Israel and there is no denying that. The Hezbollah you whine about are just Lebanese people defending their homeland against 4 or 5 invasions by Israel. They are not terrorists with their little mickey mouse rockets and the fact that it took some 3,000 of them to actually hit 40 people, 12 of them soldiers, shows how effective they were.

Israel on the other hand was blowing up passengers leaving their homes, blowing up their homes and lying to disguise the fact. The Hezbollah set up the rocket launchers on "hillsides" according to every single witness.

Handcuffed by Western values, surely this is a spoof, a stalking horse designed to shift the battle to ground of ones choice purity!
Fist the definition of terrorists designed to exclude most of the actions of the west is at best self serving.
The West being the dominant culture at present choices to force others to conform to its needs, particularly markets with scant regard for even so called Western Values, (they are universal). There was of course no terrorism involved in American or British hegemony Philippines, India Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia and many more?
Abiding by treaties. Well the best researched I have seen would be America and Nicaragua though perhaps Australia’s withdrawal from Laws of the seas could be cited amongst many. International law and the UN are used as and when useful to the sides desires. Assassination is common to most cultures including Israel and America but of course such is doing God’s will or something anyway it is okay.
Hypocrisy is the major attribute of civics.
A final point the indiscriminate lobbing may relate more to their being without guidance system unlike the American provided weapons and since Israeli call up troops are indeed amongst civilians as is much of the military infrastructure of Israel it would perhaps be hard to target the military. The argument Israel uses.
Wipe Israel of the map. A colonial concoction assuaging guilt of the Holocaust and rampaging Zionism which has proceeded as though they are indeed the chosen rightfully occupying not just the Colonial allocation but better land, water and access as well leaving a Bantu type social structure. There is even a view amongst some Israeli that this might be correct and might is wrong. That maybe UN resolutions should be enforced that maybe dialogue is needed.
Naturally in Australia thanks to our terror laws, Victoriana with its nosegay, can’t even address reality. Yes killing civilians is wrong why then do we all do it?

That is the most pathetic piece of propaganda I have ever read, completly oversimplified and nothing in it even resembling journalism-the dumbing down of America is a terrible phenomenon, but they are a resourceful passionate people and there country will be great once again, hopefully in my life time.

"A sign that says "no smoking" is not the same as an area where no one smokes"

By the same token, a document that states people respect life and liberty does not necessarily indicate that they do. It’s just a piece of paper afterall and actions speak louder than words. Other pretty fundamental rights are enshrined in various documents in America, but these are very easily put aside when required without much of an uproar, indeed the author himself describes this as “minor”.

To a certain extent, Carey is correct – Americans do have a deep respect for life. But it seems to extend only as far as other Americans. To argue that Americans have a respect for all life everywhere because of the ideals in the Declaration of Independence is simply not backed up by evidence. The Declaration is indicative of the rights Americans see as owing to themselves only, not as being universally applicable.

Also, why in this day and age, does the author refer to humanity as “man”? Even to go as far as to say “Americans see themselves as men with rights “endowed by their Creator”.” Men with rights? So women are not American citizens, or not entitled to the rights? If you’re talking about the things that differentiate us from terrorists surely paramount in this is our evolution to inclusive equal societies, which should be reflected in the very language we use to describe it.

Briliant!

I love it!
in particular:
>What binds us, the Western democracies, together, first and foremost, is the belief that all people have a right to life.

YES! YES! YES! Let's get rid of those shackles.

Just... could anyone please clarify who should we kill, so that only we, the white good guys America likes will survive:
- just the Iranians
- Iranians + Palestinins (they all are Hamas and Hezbollah suporters, ie. terrosist)

- or all Muslims?

Well - somebody said: war is too serious a thing, to be left to generals.

Another one said: a man holding a hammer sometines sees every problem as a nail.

It is just scary.

saddened,
Paul

If I were John Carey I would sue Marilyn Shepherd.

Marilyn Shepherd should buy a burka and go and live in Saudi Arabia; and live out her days as a BMO - Black Moving Object without a face -away from the "degenerate" West that she hates so much. She is a disgrace to progressive values.

I agree Kvasir.Let Marilyn go berko in Bagdad while watching mad Mullahs masticating in the streets.
The left are resonating with facist Muslims to bring down the Western mixture of democracy and capitalism.Who said the Yanks or Israelis were perfect.The US has totally made a mess of Middle Eastern foreign policy,but is this religious facism and answer?

For Marilyn the scenario is thus;my enemy's enemy,is my ally,no matter how retrograde or intellectually impoverished the Muslim Facists are,because it will suit the end result of more power to the lunatic left.

Is there any difference between the religious dogma of the Facist Muslims and the Lunatic Left that seeks to impose their centralised market free Govt control of everything we need?

Neither of these two philosophies want to give us a choice.Marilyn will not engage in debate in the broader aspects of Middle Eastern politics and how the rest of the world depends upon their oil,since this will weaken her purely emotional arguments of innocent victims in Lebanon who didn't prevoke Israel one iota?

To author John E. Carey

The Western worlds present moral compass has developed from 60 years of unprecedented prosperity, which was created by our superior cultural values that were a product of our commitment to education and science. This resulted in entire populations of western people becoming financially secure and comfortably well off. Such people only naturally develop ideals promoting tolerance, compassion and high ideals.

It is from this position that we are confronted by a rival civilisation which is a failure. This religiously based civilisation has achieved nothing in the last 700 hundred years except to condemn it’s own adherents to lives of abject poverty and misery. People living close to the edge of starvation with no hope of salvation will develop mindsets radically different from the wealthy western societies, whom their imams and crooked politicians routinely blame for their woes.

Confronted by Western enemies whio they perceive as being decadent, but also possessing overwhelming military force, it is only natural that the Muslims will hardly bother about applying the Queeensbury rules when fighting their western enemies.

The problem for the West, is that we are too damn tolerant and pacifist for our own good. Trying to differentiate between “good” Muslims and “bad” Muslims in this clash of civilisations makes about as much military sense as refusing to bomb Berlin during WW2 because it was assumed that some Germans did not like Hitler. Fortunately, western people were a lot more sensible in 1943, and we as a people had no qualms at all about mass murdering our enemies, including their women and children, by the millions.

It will take the detonation of a nuclear device in Sydney, New York, or London to get us back to thinking straight again, and once again remembering that in a survival situation, there are no bloody rules other than to win.

"We hold these truths to be self evident,that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,amongst these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Beautiful words John E Carey, always so inspirational to the rest of the world ... until they were trashed by your Supreme Court. Nine Judges, speaking for 250,000,000 of your Americans,took away the'right to life' with their Roe versus Wade decision resulting in the killing of 1.5,000,000 American babies annually for the last 40 or so years! That's when the sanctity of life, the'right to life' was whiteanted in the West...and we here in Australia are every bit as cavalier now about this once bedrock principle.(Just listen to the squeals that will emanate from my posting,John!)1000 babies would have been killed in Australia this week....more than in the entire recent conflict in Lebanon dare I suggest? And their killers were payed by Australian taxpayers!The great humanitarian Dr.Albert Schwietzer was said to have warned: 'When you loose respect for any part of human life you loose respect for all human life'. And this has come to be. In terms of sheer numbers and rank injustice, the most horrific loss of life is in the war on unborn children,a virtual silent holocaust. But take heart John E Carey, you have some very valiant, resilient, dynamic Americans, moved with compassion, slogging their hearts out right now, to overturn your infamous Roe versus Wade decision!
Denny.

Denny the right to life is not so simple.On a purely religious basis your arguments may stand up,but how can we legislate the right to life of all beings when their existence depends upon anothers well being and health.

I think it is best left up to the judgement and conscience of the individual.Let them meet their perceived maker and be judged accordingly.

Why should I live in a Burka in Saudi Arabia because I point out quite correctly that the US has committed more war crimes and invasions than any nation on earth in the last 60 years?

Talk about demented. Then we bring in the abortion issue and forget the 30,000 real children who die every single day of the week each and every day of the year while we throw out enough good food to feed and save them all.

Stop talking utter drivel guys, you are tedious.

I dare one of you Roe V Wade critics to be a 13 year old girl, pregnant and with nowhere to go. You would have an abortion in a heartbeat but try and pretend you wouldn't only because it is your precious little sperm.

How ludicrous you are. As for smashing and killing everything that moves, well that sure shows a sign of maturity in the 21st century doesn't it?

It is a fact that the US have killed over 16 million people in wars and invasions since 1946. Why should Carey sue me because he is spinning a fanciful yarn of "we are better than them".

The US still has the primitive death penalty for goodness sake.

David Latimer,

I must admit that I find most of your posts on the middle east very informative and interesting, but I must take issue with several of your statements above.

You claim that strategic civilian bombing is heinous and useless. Considering that it ended the Pacific War in 1945 with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saving millions of allied and Japanese lives in the process, it can hardly be called useless. The only reason that Germany was not atomic bombed was that they surrendered before the bomb was ready.

You claim that capital punishment is contrary to western values. Considering that it has existed in the west since before recorded history, and has been abolished in places such as the European Union by a process that could hardly be called democratic (very little in the EU could really be called democratic), and is considered by most observers to be supported by a majority of voters in most western countries, it must surely be regarded as a part of western values. In fact the liklihood that if citizen initiated referendum were ever to be instituted in Australia the first referendum to be put to the people would be one for bringing back hanging is usually quoted as a principal reason for not enacting it. I do not believe that the elitism associated with abolition has any basis in western values.

I would consider that the best political comment in recent Australian history on capital punishment was given by Henry Bolte:

"If you want to win an election, put on a hanging".

This whole article strikes me as somewhat dubious. It seems as though all the rhetoric of the cold war against the threat of communism has been redeployed against terrorists.

We have to fight the terrorists (commies) in Lebanon (Vietnam) before they come to destroy our peaceful freedom-loving USA. The terrorists (communists) are motivated by an inhuman code of beliefs that threatens nuclear destruction by Iran (China/Russia/Cuba). We cannot let the niceties of the Geneva Convention get in the way of our WAR ON TERROR (COMMUNISM). So therefore we must assist the peaceful democratic freedom-loving people of Israel (South Vietnam) smash the scourge of Hezbollah (Vietcong) despite the collateral damage that ensues.

In this Newspeak world Eastasia is the enemy and Eurasia is the ally, until of course this is reversed and Eurasia is the enemy again. It must be comforting for Americans to be able to focus on a new enemy to defeat, after all the WAR ON DRUGS seems to have been won by the drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live in a secular democracy than an Islamic theocracy (or a Communist dictatorship). I cherish the personal freedoms of Australian society. But this article by John E. Carey is simplistic pap. "Israel moved humanitarian care and caution in war to a new level." With over a thousand civilians dead, humanitarianism has reached an unusual "new level". Big Brother would be very proud.

So I said: "The military value was dubious and yet powers such as the United States continued the practice in South East Asia and Iraq."

I thank John E Carey for his reply: "The United States generally uses precision guided missiles on militarily significant targets. Not unguided rockets on civilian population centers."

The US military has bombed civilians and caused the death of civilians. Precision-guided weapons have only lowered the number of civilian deaths when compared against World War II and Vietnam. The practice of using strategic bombing and maintaining large nuclear stockpiles is still current in the US military. I do not understand why the United States chooses to tarnish its reputation, encourage nuclear proliferation, risk the lives of its own soldiers and give terrorists groups the moral arguments to recruit and/or seek support.

The US military does argue that it does not kill innocent civilians deliberately. Surely when the orders are given that bombs be dropped, it is known in advance that civilians will die? Will the survivors (neighbours or family) conclude, oh, those Americans believe in life and justice, so it must have been a little accident?

Response to Plerdsus:
In World War II, nuclear weapons gave the United States the military option of completely destroying Japan absolutely. I agree that strategic nuclear bombing is "useful" if it is useful that every country knows it can be utterly destroyed by the United States or Russia. No surprise that North Korea wants them too.

With the advantage of hindsight, it could be said killing the citizens of two Japanese cities, of itself did not end the war, but the new strategic reality so demonstrated. If only that new reality could be turned back off, when the war ended.

Of course, if nuclear weapons ever do end up used by terrorists, then any saved lives from World War II may be at the cost of horrific loss of life in the future. Under this scenario, the "war on terror" is an ever-escalating self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore will pay in the long-term to adhere fully to the NPT.

Perhaps Marliyn loves Islam and the way they kill infidels by slitting the throats reciting allah's words..

Marliyn, Can I just ask you to go and live in the land of islam.. You know it's a free land, where every woman is given equal status to man, where women enjoy power, where women do jobs, where women can wear whatever they like.. etc.

Handcuffed by Western Values..

Nah.. They get freedom, more money, better lifestyles in western countries and that's why they come here. But, the interesting thing is they will cry for sharia and shout Islam will rule Europe, U.S, Australia etc.

My simple question to the jihadists and jihad-supporters:

If you hate the West, why do you live in the west? You can go and live in a peaceful country..the country which follows islam/sharia and live in peace..

An excellent representation of blind stupidity, there's no real difference between either factions aims. The current problem revolves around oil. Japan was on the brink of surrender when it was bombed. Tokyo, already burnt to the ground by bombing. They decided to use the Bombs, to see what'd happen and to reduce the cost of blockading Japan, they had no intentions of invading.

If not for god, we'd have no problems. Its about time people woke up and realised, the god all monotheistic factions follow is Yahweh, the original god of war. No better example is being provided, nor has been shown for this reality, that the actions of those following their god and made in his image.

I certainly don't support Hizzbollah, they're no different to the Viet Cong and other resistance movements trying to evict those invading their country. Ethically, logistically and historically, Israel has not right to exist where it is. It was formed by Zionists and their christian allies, who knew world control would lay in controlling the lands of oil.

Israel's allies, some of the most despotic regimes in history. I worked with US military in Sth east Asia in the 60's, I'm fully aware of how they approach their work. Bomb it, burn it and blast it away. Nothing has changed and their terrorist arm of Israel has learnt the art of murder well, Yahweh is a good teacher.

It's the first tactic of war to disrupt, confuse and instil fear into those you wish to conquer. Defence is purely orientated to removing the threat, not destroying another country. The worst acts of monotheists, are the constant lies they have to come up with, to justify their barbarity.

When it comes to showing who has the best myth, what else can you do but remove opposition by force. After all that's all the followers of god have for proof of their worth, violence, lies and war.

Darwin 1, it's not hating the west, gods the sum total of the problem

What a load of hogwash.

It's either US (pun intended), pure as the driven snow, all apple pie, or THEM, Satanic Muslim mutants out to 'Exterminate! Exterminate!

Remember how for the Mr Careys of this world ('Thirty Years of Military Analysis, Sir!), back in Ancient Times, before 1989, it used to be US (pun intended), pure as the driven snow, all apple pie, or THEM, the Evil Empire of the Commies?

John, get over it, just TRY some homos for Christ's sake, and take up a hobby - knitting, say, in your decrepitude.

“Given the chasm in values between mass killers and people firmly adhering to the right to life (and a lot of other rights), it seems the PATRIOT Act, NSA eavesdropping and restrictions on liquids aboard aircraft are minor indeed.”

You were doing pretty well until this point. The first two of these measures compromise what western democracies are rightly proud of - non-interference from government.

Indeed, “the West must consequently alter the way we view and wage this war on terror in the future.” We could start by paying attention to reality, and quit thinking of what we’re doing in the M.E. as of benefit to anybody but terrorist recruiters.

Britain does not have any laws to parallel these yet successfully tracked down the latest group of would-be bombers

So Strewth, if we shovel away all the apple pie & WAFFLE.
What are you saying-there was no threat from communism.
Hungary was liberated in 1956, Czechoslakia was liberated in 1968.
The Berlin wall never existed, and the Vietnam war -aside from whether or not it was "Just" - was not a factor in fall of the Soviet Union.It was all a fabrication.

And the bomb blasts & planned attacks mentioned in the article weren't for real. There is no danger from extremist Islamic groups.

"Please explain" I'd like to hear, I'll sit here like a devotee awaiting enlightment.

thanks Marylin. you so eloquently pointed out the facts i would have like to have thrown in John Careys too.
It seemed to me Marylin was just stating a few well worn facts not advocating theocratic attrocity. Seems there's a porcity of rationalists on here today.

Marilyn

"I point out quite correctly that the US has committed more war crimes and invasions than any nation on earth in the last 60 years?"

"It is a fact that the US have killed over 16 million people in wars and invasions since 1946."

Where on earth did you get these figures from?

and

"The US still has the primitive death penalty "

Certainly and I agree with you. But how many Muslim Nations have the death penalty? What point are you making here?

"The Hezbollah set up the rocket launchers on "hillsides" according to every single witness."

What about the ariel photographs shown on TV showing rockets coming out of villages. And what about journalists who reported this. Were they not witnesses?

I can see your answer now. Anything you don't agree with has been produced by Zionists or the nasty Americans or both. And I am nasty for even suggesting that you are wrong or giving consideration to the other view.

Horrificus,

When I was a kid my parents always told me to watch out for the bogyman. In my innocence I unswervingly obeyed. Never set eyes on the bugger though. As I entered my teenage years I stopped looking. Then along came the commies and, in response to my masters & betters, I dutifully looked under my bed every night & morning, but didn't see anything remotely resembling what they'd described. As I matured I came to doubt their existence and matured. Now you & John Howard/Carey are trying to tell me that not only was the bugger really there all the time but that now he's wearing a beard & a turban.

Given that I've finally grown up and can think for myself, thank you, and that you & the Johnos are most definitely neither my masters nor my betters, tell me why I should believe you now?

I suspect the Israeli photos of people firing rockets from near houses are about as reliable as the US's use of Colin Powell's presentation at the UN about the WMD in Iraq - much of which was compiled by the Israelis.

You need to grow up all you people who automatically demonise arabs as child killing monsters and remember our own version of the scam with the children the Iraqi parents did not throw into the sea and who now live here happily as permanent residents of our "fair country".

Does it occur to any of you that the Israelis are all reservists in the armed forces? On the Haaretz website there is a self-pitying rant by one of them who claims they broke into Lebanese shops and stole the food and then broke into the few homes still standing and lived in them.

Talk about a gross violation of human decency when we consider the Israelis told them to leave and then bombed them to bits on many occasions and stopped food getting in.

We are delighted that this essay evoked so much discussion and thought!

John E. Carey

Marilyn I suggest that you "grow up" by not launching into a discussion with a spiteful character assassination on someone whose views you disagree with. To wit: "John E Carey, imbecile and spin merchant extraordinary".

Also the excessive use of hyperbole does not help your cause either. Lebanon has not been "blown to bits" as you suggest.

I agree with Savage Pencil that calling John E. Carey an imbicle is not acceptable and urge Marilyn to retract it. On the other hand, I don't see any great offence with the term "spin merchant" as this clearly is in reference to the article as written. As for "blown to bits", I assume it'd be more accurate to say this describes Southern rather than all of Lebanon.

We should remember this article was written for an American audience (in the Washington Post). I don't believe the irony is intended.

For example, the line "the terrorists, media and the UN tend to handcuff the West within its own values even more." Think of the meaningless meaning in this sentence. (I assume that "its own values" refers to Western values due to singular pronoun.) Are terrorists forcing the West to avoid hypocracy ... even more? Is the UN collaborating with the terrorists and media in this handcuffing? Is the West still able to retreat from its values?

This use of the word values is interesting. The author probably is saying in order to retain our values, we need to depart from them in order to attack those who attack us who do not share our values.

If so, this mimics the idea that terrorists should shave their beards, wear Western clothes and not go to a mosque (i.e. depart from Islamic values) in order to attack Westerners (who do not share these values.)

Response to Perdrus on Capital Punishment:
According to the article Western values include an unalienable right to life. If so, this precludes capital punishment because the state is depriving a criminal of life, without another life being at risk as occurs with self-defence. In Australia, support for the death penalty is in the mid 40% range, although it jumped to 51% after the Bali bombings. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059761657.html)

To Strewth
Ah Ha!, now I have discerned your problem.
You see, you've been looking under the wrong bed.
Since you've gotten into bed with Hezbollah,
IT'S BEEN HEZBOLLAH'S BED you've been looking under.
Now of course you won't find the bogyman under Hezbollah’s bed.
They don’t haunt their own kindred -they only haunt good guys.

But I think you haven’t answered my original question.
Do extreme elements of Islam pose any threat to people in the west? (And in giving your answer, please try to consider the ordinary Joe or Jane who has to use crowded public transport or frequent busy shopping centres etc)

Hi Horus. I'm an 'ordinary Joe who has to use crowded public transport or frequent busy shopping centres'.

And you know what? I'm not afraid.

John E. Carey is right to say that "no man should live in fear of terrorists."

Which is why I don't.

Sure, they can bomb my train or my shopping mall. So I'll be gone along with a few hundred other commuters. That's about a week's worth of civilian deaths in Iraq right now (60 per day according to Baghdad morgue).

Heck they can even let off a ground-detonated nuke in one of our cities , as somebody on this forum suggested (with what, Saddam's missing WMD?).

But overall, the damage terrorists can inflict upon our society and our Western values is miniscule compared to the damage our own fears have already inflicted. Look at the effect a few years' fear of terrorism has had upon us here in Australia - see how Australians can't even manage to have a civil disagreement with each other without spitting venom. See the instinct towards totalitarianism bubble up as anybody with a dissenting view is told to "go and live with the terrorists".

Whatever happened to robust liberal democracy? Looks like the terrorists have already succeeded in cutting a lot of people's heads off without even using a knife.

This fear is the cancer that is eating away at our "western values" - our freedoms and our democracy.

So I don't care if you're Arab, Muslim, American, Israeli or Australian - if you talk peace and freedom but you act with bombs and bullets, well, action speaks louder than words.

If you're frightened, you're already dancing to the terrorists' tune.

If you live in fear, the terrorists have already cut off your head.

Response to David Latimer on capital punishment.

David, I thought you were more mature than to believe newspaper opinion polls! Don't you remember the polls in early 1999 on the republic, which had support up in the high 60's?

My main interest in the whole issue is not the issue itself, but the continuing battle around the western world between the people and the elites. A very interesting article on this appeared last week in the London Daily Telegraph, which traces this battle back to the roundheads and the cavaliers in the english civil war, and it can be found at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/12/do1201.xml

As far as I am aware, the opportunities given to the australian people to vote on capital punishment were the same given to the british people on entering the common market, i.e. zero.

At each state election we find the two main parties competing on "law and order issues" trying to outdo each other on penalties. The real reason is that many people would like to see a lot of the offenders hang.

This contest between the elites and the people, with the supreme representatives being Paul Keating and Pauline Hanson, is to me one of the most interesting issues of our time, and very pertinent to western values. In some ways the US is ahead of us, with citizen initiated referendum at state level, and with recall. I believe on balance that we are ahead because of the provision here that only the people can amend the federal constitution.

An article written by a former military leader is likely to have a military bias. That is, it is very difficult to think beyond the values engrained by our background; the values we learnt as children; and then, those learnt in our work environment, have a profound impact on how we think. We, with our Western psyche's just cannot comprehend how somebody of the Middle East extraction might think about the current conflict in the Middle East; and vice versa. That is the tragedy in relation to Iraq as the quagmire created, has Iraq on the verge of civil war.

It's pretty clear that the Israeli's are going to want to take action when suicide bombers blast themselves and others to smithereens. The Palestinians if not killed, have had their houses or orchards bulldozed out of existence for military strategic reasons by the Israelis. Beirut has been bombed, and Southern Lebanon flattened; this occurring when Lebanon is not at war with anybody. In Israeli military terms that may be a perfectly rational thing to do; however, on a human level it is dastardly. Just like it is dastardly to become a suicide bomber or kill and kidnap Israeli troops at a time of truce. To be able to be a person who programs would be bombers; is suggestive in Western terms of an anti social personality disorder when the bombers are directed against ordinary citizens.

Modern weaponry has a sting in the tail with uranium coated bombs ready to cause cancer for unsuspecting Lebanese once they return to their homes. Or, they might be blown to bits by unexploded cluster bombs. To be able to design such weaponry the humanness of the designer must be called in question.

Part2
In other words we are good, they are bad does not make sense; morality does not come into the situation. We are equally as barbaric or as humane depending on the actions being done. Russia, Iran and major Western Nations do good business out of conflicts; being suppliers of the military hardware used.

John E. Carey stated that the Israeli’s warned people in Southern Lebanon about needing to escape prior to mass bombing; their grace was not matched by their action as on at least two occasions they fired upon citizens escaping.
To put it in a nut shell there are no good guys in this scenario.

For anyone trying to take a scientific overhead view of the present global problems, especially in the Middle East, a letter in today's WA Sunday Times, contains a sentence which is like a ray of historical light to any student of global political ethics:

"The US has used its power of veto in the UN Security Council 81 times, and now being the only remaining global superpower, still continues to hijack the UN for its own political agenda.

This article is remarkably simplistic for a 30 year military analyst. It appears to ignore the many many civilian deaths caused by collateral damage. These deaths are in the tens of thousands, and yet, are utterly ignored.

So too does it ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia is the source of the problem, and yet it is ignored.

It makes political sense for the US to ignore it, but to still espouse righteous western values is pure hypocrisy.

Come on - there are good reasons for these wars in the middle east, but quelling terrorism is way down that list. Besides, the neo-conservative movement ought to know by now that bloodshed begets bloodshed - the more you try to fight this whole terrorism concept with guns, the more you will incite it. This isn't a battle that can be won with bombs, yet try telling that to a military analyst.

Marylin

I never demonised Arabs as child killing monsters or in any other way. When I heard the "children in the sea" libel I did not believe any of it and I still hate and despise Howard for that comment.

In any war much of the information is unreliable but with your comment "The Hezbollah set up the rocket launchers on "hillsides" according to every single witness." you take my breath away. You dismiss totally the mainstream view and photographic evidence. And factually "according to EVERY single witness" is clearly not correct.

And was the Hezbollah bombintg of Arab children in Nazareth not also a a gross violation of human decency? And they were not given a warning. And if killing of Lebanese by Israel is wrong then killing of Israelis by Hezbollah must also be wrong.

Before answering count to ten take a cup of tea and reply carefully without malice or you will finally lose all credibility on this forum. This would be a pity because you are clearly a sensitive person and much of what you write is worth reading.

Peter

Horrible,

I'm far more worried about the real, wholesale mega terrorism of the US of Israel, than the retail terrorism of an al-Qaida. I see the former enacted daily in Palestine and more recently in Lebanon. Sickening, and utterly pointless and self-defeating.

Even the good folk of the Benighted States of America are waking up. The latest Zogby International poll shows that only 35% agree that "US policy is as fair with the democratic government of Lebanon as it is with the democratic government of Israel". Only 35%, Horrible! You can't fool all of the people - even Americans - all of the time. Now THERE'S something to worry about, old boy.

"I'm far more worried about the real, wholesale mega terrorism of the US of Israel, than the retail terrorism of an al-Qaida. I see the former enacted daily in Palestine and more recently in Lebanon. Sickening, and utterly pointless and self-defeating."

Thats all very nice and kind of you Strewthy, to be so concerned.

Now lets see, about 1000 people died, give or take a few. Meantime
down in Darfur, the Arabs have killed around the 3 million mark
and I've yet to see much outrage in the Arab press.

Given that you are so concerned about 1000, what about the
3 million non Arabs, non Muslims that have been slaughtered?

Logic, It'd be appreciated if you could provide some links supporting your suppositions. I've seen many photo's and video's, heaps of fakes on both sides. The only ones supposedly depicting Hizzbollah rockets launches, appear to be the same one at a cross roads. I haven't found it yet, but the video it derived from, may be from an earlier conflict. Until you provide factual evidence of your claims, we must accept you as a typical monotheist, supporting their indefensible position. Except for the one video, I can find none depicting rockets fired other than hilltops and valleys, all taken supposedly by Israel jets.

There could be a logical reason for this, either Israel is totally incompetent in regard to their ability to make precision strikes, or their aim was to dismantle and control southern Lebanon. They failed miserably to estimate their opposition, caused massive destruction far outweighed their own damage and continue to attack, disregarding the UN ceasefire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5267736.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5267876.stm

Considering at no time, did Hizzbollah fire a shot at Israel beyond south Lebanon, yet massive damage was caused to greater Lebanon, I think Israel deserves its shame. I don't support Hizzbollah, nor Hamas, they're just as barbaric. But I do support innocent peoples freedom, to live their lives in peace.

However we all know Yahweh, doesn't work that way, its power's the righteous power of the sword.

It's monotheistic values that have our hands tied, not sensible practising secularists. Their bizarre righteousness, is attained by the sword, the bigger the better. All monotheist factions have one aim, to invoke the will of their god, Yahweh, god of war.

It's monotheists who are losing credibility. Marilyn's, just a bit emotional, but on the right track. I just wish god would go away and leave us all alone.

Response to Yabby:

You raise the Dafur. Firstly, I question that 3.5 million have been killed as my sources say it is 400,000. This is a mere clarification, as this number is still far, far horribly larger than Iraq or Lebanon. It is still a number too large to fathom - four MCG grand final crowds! The point you make is an excellent one to raise.

According to the article, the West believes in life and liberty, but should be unconstrained by values in order to defeat terrorism.

The Dafur is an example of the West being slow and weak asserting its own sense of justice and defence of life and liberty in a measured way. This example shows that the West has ignored its own values and by embracing them could again act with justice.

Part of the problem is that the United States does not trust the United Nations, despite having a veto, and also the veto of allies France and the United Kingdom. We can see that when Carey implies Iranians saying "UN was only serving US needs" is discrediting.

An effective response of the Dafur requires strong UN US co-operation and all the US effort to fight terrorism is not enough to bring this about, which is consistant with the view that toppling Sadam was a higher US priority than defeating terrorist groups.

Response to Plerdsus on Capital Punishment: I don't remember any opinion polls suggesting 60% support for the bi-partisan appointment model put to the people in the 1999 referendum. A referendum on captial punishment would not succeed, whether it be to ban it or to enshrine it.

I had a young friend stuck in Beirut for the first two weeks of this illegal demolition of Lebanon. Savage pencil if you don't think it has been bombed to bits I suggest you look again at world news services.

There is hardly a building left standing in places like Bint Jbail that used to house 7,000 people. There is a blog from a reservist on the Haaretz website boasting about how they broke into Lebanese shops to get food and then broke into their houses to hide from the bombs. I wonder what they were hiding from considering the IDF had by then forced every Lebanese person to leave their own homes without too many possessions and then started blowing them up on the roads.

I suggest you widen your reading.

This latest breach - the IDF are boasting about wearing Lebanese uniforms, encroaching into Lebanon all the way to Baalbek, from where not one rocket was ever fired, to launch a strike. They went in helicopters and such. Mark Regev the liar extraordinary, educated in Melbourne, tells us without evidence that they had "intelligence" that weapons were coming in.

Considering the first big lie about this being a sudden invasion instead of one planned with Bush and Blair earlier this year after lobbying started in February last year why would we believe Regev now and why do people bother to ask him? He is only going to lie.

As for Darfur - go and ask our pollies why they have not sent troops or proper aid money for the people starving in Chad or Sudan.

David and Marylin,

Quite amazing that you think that our pollies or the US should be
the world's policemen and problem solvers. Considering that its
Arabs who are doing the killing, what say the Arab world gets off
its proverbial arse and does something to stop their brothers doing
al the slaughtering? They are not short of money, they also have
plenty to say about Lebanon, they also might have more influence in
Darfur then us humble infidels.

Firing Squad
By John E. Carey
August 19, 2006

My friend Amir Taheri asked, “Was it Tacitus who said, ‘Defeat is an orphan while victory has a thousand fathers’?”

In fact, that Roman historian had it just about right.

Argue, if you will, that Israel is the victor in all of this. Meanwhile, we’ll assemble the firing squad.

Even Saddam Hussein has said he prefers the honor of the firing squad to the other more ignominious forms of death meted out as judgment for conduct unbecoming.

There are some simple rules of accountability in the U.S. military and in other places in the world. These can be rather ruthless as they enforce strict guidelines of ethics, personal performance and professional achievement.

http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/

Yappy,

Apart from the connection in your 'mind', what has Darfur got to do with al-Qaeda?

Marilyn, there are family friends of my son's girlfriend who are still in Lebanon. If the country had been "bombed to bits" as you suggest would they have stayed?

As logic noted, if you don't take away some of the malice in your posts you will lose whatever credibility you have left at this forum.

SP almost all Lebanese people stayed in Lebanon and some Australian Lebanese continued their holiday regardless of the mess.

So what? Most Iraqis have stayed, most Afghans, most Sudanese. Again so what?

In interviews with Liam Bartlett on 60 minutes tonight there were a number of Australian citizens fighting with Israel. One young woman claimed that as a fighter pilot the Israeli army would never kill civilians which makes it hard to explain 1300 dead civilians doesn't it. I wonder if she thinks they died of fright or something.

Bartlett was on the scene when the last bombs rained down on south Beirut and Fisk later reported dozens of dead people pulled from the rubble. Guess no one killed them.

SP, you are being malicious and ridiculous and seem to have become divorced from the reality on the ground which everyone in Lebanon says is a catastrophic mess.

Of course the christian and sunni areas of Beirut are not touched but the shi'ite areas have been blown into rubble. Madness when they are 40% of the population.

Yabby
The "Arab world" tends to only get concerned about such things when their side gets the short end of the stick.They will do/say little about Sudan since their side is ethnically cleansing the others.

And as you can see from some of the responses on this thread, it satisfies a deep psychological deficiency in some that they only see & criticize the injustices committed by Israel & ignore those of the rest of the world.

Alchmemist, though its a bit harsh, still like your reasoning, because it's so much like that of Socrates, who quoted that famous phrase "... out with Gods and in with the Good." Could say, however, though a lover of Greek philosophy, still like to call myself a liberal Anglican and determined to stay that way.

Please don't change mate, and keep up those commonsenical comments.

Cheers, George C - WA.

Response to Yabby:

>Quite amazing that you think that our pollies or the US should
>be the world's policemen and problem solvers.

It was not I who gave the US, France, UK, China and Russia, veto power on the UN Security Council. You'll find it is not I, who calls the US President, the "leader of the free world". The US has with open eyes adopted its own foreign policy, maintained its military strength, alliances and it's nuclear options and forward positions.

It is everyone's interest that the West solve problems. The West has the military, economic and diplomatic power to make a difference. Western institutions are being replicated in almost every nation and its Western interrelations that are driving the development of international law.

Since you have used the police analogy - think of how actual policing is done in Australia domestically. We give police weapons and guns. The laws are established democratically. Independent courts provide the sanctions and penalties.

There are only elements of this at the international level, in the relations between countries. Somehow the logic which applies within a modern nation is not strictly applied between nations. A rich American submits to the law, knowing its a better outcome than arranging for their own protection or seeking special privileges. Yet the United States cannot bring itself to support the International Criminal Court.

Now, that is something amazing.

>Considering that its Arabs who are doing the killing, what
>say the Arab world gets off its proverbial arse and does
>something to stop their brothers doing al the slaughtering?

Is this one of these hokey "us vs them" perspectives, which ignore both current reality and history? What have Arab nations ever done in concert to be considered a united force?

David Latimer,

As I understand it, the whole concept of law in Australia is that in 1901 the people adopted a Constitution transferring certain powers to the new Commonwealth Government, and retaining the rest with the States. There was no power for any of these governments, particularly the federal, to delegate any of its powers to foreigners.

The United Nations did not exist in 1901. When it was created there was no move for the people to transfer any powers to the United Nations, and consequently they have none. All so called international law only has force in Australia to the extent that federal law has validated it. The commonwealth has full power to abrogate any treaty that has been entered into, if necessary by referendum, despite the fact that it entered into a convention that it would not do so. (That convention would have to be the first one to be abrogated). Consequently international law is a bit of a joke, as it only applies when nations choose to let it.

This situation is completely democratic. If anyone thinks that the people of Australia would ever give control of their affairs to anyone in the UN, they are operating in a different galaxy. You only have to look at the UN peacekeeping forces, who only have national allegiances, to see what happens when you need an international allegiance, which does not exist. Consequently the UN troops are notorious for their reluctance to fight. The UN has no army, no compulsory court, no power to enforce its dictates independent of its constituent nation states, and this will not change.

With the enormous disparity in wealth and power between the first and third world there will be no international transfer of power in the forseeable future. We will just have wars.

As someone who is firmly in the old Whig tradition that government is the problem, not the solution, and that one of today's main problems is that governments are seeking to interfere more and more in dailty life, I would support the current postion.

"The West has the military, economic and diplomatic power to make a difference."

Ha David, you would have to be kidding! America has yet to wake
up to the fact that being able to drop lots of bombs will solve
anything. Lets look at history! 40 years of sanctions against
Castro achieved nothing. They lost against those "primitive"
Vietnamese. Sanctions against Iraq were a dismal failure.
How long did they last in Somalia? etc. etc. Life is more
complex then that.

For a start, your policeman argument totally forgets a thing
called people skills. The West, in particular the US, is
much hated in the world, exactly because they try to be a
policeman.

Now why should a bunch of crazy honchos in Khartoum take
any notice? Well they don't, as the evidence shows, especially
when its White, Christian Westerners, tryng to boss them
around.

OTOH no nation is an island. Sudan, run by Arabs, has
extensive relations with other Arab-Islamic nations. They
will take more notice of what their "brothers" think, then
what George and Co think. It would not be beyond the Arab
league to point out to Sudan, that if the Arab world wants
to loudly complain about 1000 deaths in Lebanon, it is not
illogical of the West to point out that Arab nations are saying
little about the huge genocide being committed by their Arab
brothers in Sudan. Send US troops to Sudan, people will shoot
them just for being Americans. Send other Arab troops and
they will have to think twice. People skills matter in
politics, sadly George and Co havent noticed that yet.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

On the constitution and international law (Plerdsus):

Section 51(xxix) gives the federal parliament the power for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to external affairs. The United Nations is recognised and its charter incorporated into Australian law by the "Charter of the United Nations Act (1945)". International law is as good as the word and honour of the countries that enact the numerous treaties made. Australia abides by its treaties, and I there is NO public sentiment that it should be otherwise.

Response to Yabby:
One can make a difference in the world without dropping bombs.

As for "policeman argument" I suggest you do a Cntl+F "police" before you attribute it to me. I get very uninterested when people push me to elaborate on a view which they themselves put.

In my posts, I have defended Western values and debunked the idea that our adherence to values is either the cause of terrorism, or is an impediment to preventing terrorism. I have done this by showing that significant departures from our own values, such as strategic bombing, have resulted in civilian death and this is used both as a model for terrorist action (directly or indirectly) and a propoganda tool for recruitment. I have suggested that an effort to reassert Western values, especially in international law, will do more to combat terrorism than John E Carey's confused confounderances.

David, I will have to read some of your other posts, to get a drift
as to where you are coming from.

I certainly don't have faith in international law as you do.
I believe that its still basically the laws of the jungle that
apply out there. Nations will act in their own self interest,
as best they can. The fundamentals of human nature will
apply, international law will be ducked and dodged as best
is possible, to suit whatever agenda.

Much international law is also out of date and is so hard
to change, that nothing is done. Its easier to go around it.
Look at the 1951 refugee convention for instance. Its out of
date, everyone ducks and weaves around it, including us,
for good reasons. Yet to change it, it is seemingly impossible.

So I have much more faith in the laws of the jungle, then in
any international law :)

The law of the jungle in a world where atmoic weapons proliferate: Every monkey can press the nuclear button.

David, I remind you of one of our major problems right now. A monkey
is running the world's largest power, with more atomic weapons then
anyone else. The man is battling to actually say "nuclear" let alone
understand the implications of what his administration has been doing on the world stage. I am still blown away that America, with
so much talent, can vote for such a total dud as prez.

You are correct, most likely nuclear weapons will spread, sadly I
have to say. But lets look at why. The man who sold the secrets to
building nuclear weapons around the world, AFAIK has not spent one
day in jail, less then any common car thief. International law
prevails or law of the jungle applies?

Israel has nuclear weapons, so some Muslim nations will want them
too, for obvious reasons. You can sign up all the international
laws you want, nations will pay attention, usually only if its in
their interest to do so.

Jungle law says that the West has been foolish, playing into
Middle Eastern hands, with our addiction to oil. Thats exactly how
its panning out, no matter what international laws were signed.

If you look at history there is a clear pattern. Nations rise
in power and status, they become arrogant, throw their weight around
etc, oblivious to any kind of people skills. Eventually it bites
them in the arse and they implode. With people like Bush and Cheney
running the show in the US, its looks like history is once again
repeating itself.

How nice, how AUSTRALIAN is caring of someone and something who-knows-where-on-a-globe, omitting own, say, problems.

While policing is a basic stone in the UK and his semi-colonies Australia definitely is, denying policing at international stage is at least premature gesture.

Yes, policing is a reality of life –both infernal and international affairs are reflections of.

The question remains in context, form and reasonable practice of, as “enduring the freedom” in Islamist world was (gramatically correct) / IS (logically to write here)rather good intention than a practically achievable goal used to societies of a different time dimension.

The same law has been seen by and used in different places to even same considerations differently.

And considerations VARY anyway if even the same low and approaches deployed to.

This thread is now getting down to basics of Western philosophy, which is appropriate given the accusation that we are "handcuffed by our Western values." So instead of referring to the law of the jungle, allow me to refer to Hobbes:

"the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them"

The fundamental attack on Western values is the idea that terrorists have no fear of death. If true, then terrorists are superhuman and if we believe Hobbes, the result is they have no inclination to peace.

As conservatives are inclined to believe in a Hobbsian worldview, it is no suprise to see an article like Carey's. The article says look at how these terrorists embrace death. Western philosophy cannot cope!

But Western philosophy also includes the alternate view of philosophers such as Locke, who said "The state of nature has a law of nature which obliges everyone ... all equal and independent [to not] harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..." The same Locke advised the "ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed."

Carey's article commences with the Declaration of Independence which is based upon Locke's view of natural justice. Not only that, it is a document of a revolutionary movement. If Hobbes was right then the Americans should have remained loyal to the the King. This is beyond Carey, because in the 21st century, America is the King.

David, one of the problems we have IMHO, is the very fact that
so many Americans are quite convinced that America is in
fact king, that is then displayed as arrogance and ignorance
towards others. Bush and Cheney, with their attitudes alone
are experts at encouraging terrorism. Compare that to say
the style of Clinton, who had some people skills and in fact
came pretty close to solving things in the Middle East.
But of course in puritanical America, they were more concerned
with his sex life, then his abilities as a world leader.

The present lumping together of everyone under the word
terrorist is also a mistake. What drives people in South
Lebanon is quite differant to what drives the leaders of
Al Queda for instance.

To understand what drives Al Queda and Co, you need to
read what their philosopher wrote, an Egyptian called
Sayid Qutb. His "Milestones" can be downloaded for free
on the net.

It is not unusual in history, for people, if they become
passionate enough about something, to kill themselves
for that cause. The stronger an emotion, the less we
reason.

What America still does not understand is that it is not
king. America has no clue as to how to deal with this
threat, as there is no country to bomb, no target to send
its planes. The more that George and Dick throw their weight
around, arrogantly, the more passionate will become those
opposed to them. The more reason they will have to eventually
buy some nuke from somewhere and use it. If that happened
tomorrow, America could not even respond, as there would
be no target.

Response to Yabby:

Not much to disagree with on your post.

By America being king, I am referring to America the superpower and "leader of the free world". In the jungle the strongest is king. This is the Hobbesian worldview.

In contrast under Locke, who justified the American revolutionary spirit and established the ideals of their Declaration of Independence, America is not king. This largely still how Americans see themselves, unaware of their impact on the world, especially in cultural terms.

The great irony of this article is that the country which declares the unalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", has capacity to destroy all life and a global military footprint of 860 installations in 46 countries (outside the US)

Ref: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20040910_2004BaseStructureReport.pdf

David, in the jungle, the strongest thinks he is king,
only to be surprised in the end, by a myriad of other
factors.

It doesent matter how many bombs or planes the US has,
if there is no target, their army is buggered.

Thats why a bunch of lunatic fanatics has the American
population so scared and so far America is losing
against them.

Bush is spening money faster then it can be printed,
the US is going into debt like never before, Americans
are nervous like never before. All to deal with a bunch
of fanatics.

Clearly a more intelligent US prez is required as George
and Dick are unable to cope with even this situation.

All they have achieved so far is make it worse and the law
of the jungle prevails.

What does drive ants to march throughout Australia recently, David,Yabbo et al?

One must understand no strange reason but consequences of hostel actions, and theories for future prevention will follow as an enemy being crushed.

Hardly surprisingly, the US political system is very much copy-cat of an English royalty but every four years new royals have been crowned elected into a top office.

This rotation presents a significant opportunities for everyone, although the richer are better prepared to grasp a chanse if arised.

Such instant availability of a choice is a driving engine for America to be a king of the world in spite all the hatred the still existing born-to-rule feel towards the States factually.

And this unstoppable democracy motion is a nightmare for playing in democracy only, of whose conformity will allow even some acceptance of “Palestinian fighters” rather than being dispersed into history by more talented clever and capable to do a job commoners, in the UK or Australia/NZ/Canada definitely.

Yabby: I think we're on the same page. Nothing further to add. Thanks for the enjoyable discussion.

o-o-o=
/ \ / \ / \
Re: the ants marching across Australia.

Michael, are you using a computer to translate your words into English? If yes, try reverse translation to check if result is correct.

For example:
"There is a chasm in values between mass killers and people firmly adhering to the right to life." --> "Es gibt einen Abgrund in den Werten zwischen Massenmördern und den Leuten, die fest das Recht am Leben befolgen." --> "There is an abyss in the values between mass murderers and the people, who obey the right firmly alive."

This tells me that "right to life" may not be translating properly.

I suggest you write in a very simple way: Short sentences, simple adjectives and adverbs, no metaphors or idioms. This will improve my capacity to understand what you intend to say.

David,

I really appreciate your advice on English - if this word suits writings in Australia-published mess-media and this site in general.

This is definitely better topic for a native speaker you presumably are to discuss rather than for instance republican motion/western freedom applications as such deliberations need some creative mind and definite knowledgably sustained approaches unreachable, alike too many other intellectual things, for native products of a local colonial system even with local higher education degrees awarded.

As your respondent has a habit to spell-check messages before posting here, yours further traditionally linguistic insinuations might be forwarded to software authors directly.

Thank you for deploying my valuable time to delight you on issues.