Hypothetical: Who would you blame?

[nebula]

Hypothetical scenario.

Suppose the KKK established a headquarters in NM or AZ with its members scattered among the general population in the city and surrounding areas.

Suppose in addition the KKK proclaimed its desire to drive out the Mexicans from all of North America.

Suppose now that the KKK began terrorizing Mexico to the extent of killing Mexican citizens inside Mexico. Suppose as well they kidnapped Mexican soldiers from inside the Mexican border.

Suppose then Mexico decides to retalliate against the KKK with physical firepower and in the process innocent American civilians are killed.

Questions:

Would you call on Mexico to cease-fire to stop killing innocent civilians?

Or would your outcry be against the KKK for their ruthless activity?

Or would you additionally lay blame to the United States for not dealing with the KKK to begin with?

[billie]

Accurate analogy, Nebula. Of course the blame would be first on the KKK, then the US. Mexico would just be defending itself, just like Israel's doing now.

[Old Timer]

NOT an accurate hypothetical.

The U.S. should and would send in the National Guard, the Army or whatever force was necessary to CRUSH the KKK (remember Waco). The KKK would be crushed and Mexico would stop any retaliation. If Mexio didn't stop (and of course they would) then the U.S. would crush Mexico.

The Lebanese army is not capable of stopping Hezbollah nor do they really have the desire to do so. However, if Hezbollah was crushed Israel would stop their retaliation.

I don

Edited July 22, 2006 by Old Timer

[nebula]

Possibly, OT - Lebanon is no US.

But if we can set aside the technicalities and view the hypothetical as is for comparison -

As is, who would you blame?

[Old Timer]

Neb, why I say the situation is unique and therefore difficult to set up a hypothetical.

Hezbollah is entrenched in Lebanon. They have provided humanitarian assistance to the Arab citizens of Lebanon. Lebanon is 95% Arab and many, maybe the majority, of the Arab population has sympathy for Hezbollah. The Lebanese army is divided and week, it also has sympathy for Hezbollah. Lebanon is about 60% Muslim and 40% Christian.

An aside, many of these Christians don

[Old Timer]

Possibly, OT - Lebanon is no US.

But if we can set aside the technicalities and view the hypothetical as is for comparison -

As is, who would you blame?

I would blame the U.S. but, of course, the KKK would be stopped. Remember Waco and the Branch Dividians.

[amor]

First problem with the analogy is as already pointed out that Lebanon is a weak state and doesn't have the power to curb Hezbollah, that makes it different from the USA

Second issue if the Mexican attack was on this super KKK then OK, but if it involved the mass bombing of urban areas where wite Americans causing the deaths of hundreds who had no KKK links, alongside bobingds of civillian infastructure than it would be unacceptable.

Changing focus slightly, as someone who lived in London through various IRA bombing campaigns. I would not have felt it acceptable for the British army to embark on mass carpet bombing of areas of Londonderry and Belfast where those bombers where known to have come from. Nor would I have supported British military or special forces attacks on areas in Boston and New York where those raising money to fund that terrrorism were based. Nor would I have favoured the abduction or assasination of those US politicians who made up the Irish lobby that so supported or excused those terrorist act.

Thirdly, if we talk about the actions of the real KKK and more generally of the segregationist racist regimes that ruled much of the American South until the 1960's. Regimes in which lynching and discrimination against African Americans was the norm. Do you think that it would have been acceptable for a powerful African state such as Nigeria (had such a state existed at the time) to invade the American South to bring about the liberation of the African-American masses?

[nebula]

Do you think that it would have been acceptable for a powerful African state such as Nigeria (had such a state existed at the time) to invade the American South to bring about the liberation of the African-American masses?

If Nigeria was powerful enough to do so - they would have had every right to invade America to bring back their people who had been kidnapped.

[nebula]

Changing focus slightly, as someone who lived in London through various IRA bombing campaigns. I would not have felt it acceptable for the British army to embark on mass carpet bombing of areas of Londonderry and Belfast where those bombers where known to have come from. Nor would I have supported British military or special forces attacks on areas in Boston and New York where those raising money to fund that terrrorism were based. Nor would I have favoured the abduction or assasination of those US politicians who made up the Irish lobby that so supported or excused those terrorist act.

You really don't believe Israel is in a fight for its existance, do you?

[nebula]

Do you think that it would have been acceptable for a powerful African state such as Nigeria (had such a state existed at the time) to invade the American South to bring about the liberation of the African-American masses?

If Nigeria was powerful enough to do so - they would have had every right to invade America to bring back their people who had been kidnapped.

For that matter -

If I could go back in time, I would do whatever I could to have prevented the US gov't and citizens from their slaughter against the Native Americans.

The greatest mistake the Native Amrericans made was to sign those bogus "peace treaties." Anhilation treaties was more like it.

And that's what Hama and Hezbollah and Syria and Iran want - the anhiltion of the people of Israel.