Canadian Politics from Canada's Centre

Saturday, April 08, 2006

What Is Important When Considering Action

Save this online in [?] Vote For this Post

Hamas and Iran's perceptions have been given lots of weight recently in Op-Ed columns and other forums. People are arguing, for example, that Israel should wait to see if Hamas will change; not because it will, but just so the international community will accept it's actions against Hamas later. Others are saying we might send the wrong impressions to Palestinians by comdemning their choice of Hamas, because they could consider we're saying democracy is only good if we like who they vote for.
What people need to understand is that Israel, Canada, the US, and other normal states need to act according to what is right, not according to other's opinions, and what others say. You can't control what they think, you can't control what they say, and you definitely can't control what they do. You can only control yourself.

Cutting aid to terrorists is right. Fighting them in Afghanistan is right. Not funding schools in the West Bank and Gaza because they brainwash children to be anti-semitic is right. Cutting diplomatic relations with an organization taken over by terrorists (the PA for example, and/or the former Taliban government) is right. There are infinite things people can say about these things, and we can't control any of them, nor should we try to. Doing what's right will pay dividends. What's good for PR should only be done if it coincides with what's right.
Trying to influence illogical people is a colossal waste of time. Consider Russia's loving stance towards the Arab world, and the terrorism it has reaped as a result (I mean by this that the aim of such love was at least partly to get into the good graces of terrorists... I don't mean that all Arabs are illogical).

So when you hear Hamas saying the US favouring Israel over Hamas means the US loses the chance to be a neutral party, disregard it. Not just because the US hasn't been a neutral party concerning terrorism since 9/11, but because it's a stupid, useless, unattainable goal of influencing such morons. Even if by some weird chance you do, they can just make another ridiculous comment, requiring you to bend even further backwards to appease them.

I'm sick of responding to moonbats, terrorists, and other illogical crackpots and appeasers. They can say too many idiocies for anyone to respond to in a lifetime. Putting them on the defensive by making similar statements against them would just discredit me, and anyone who stoops to that level.
Walking shoulders squared, in the straight line of what's right is what's needed; not mad-man dictated contortionism.

p.s. A friend of mine wants to write a theory on the nature of good and bad, so all of you wondering about how to determine what's "right" should stay tuned, because he'll probably be joining the team in a couple of days.

Related articles:
Canada CAN Cut Aid to the PA (response to an idiot)
Free speech has limits
Freedoms Biblical and Legal
Responding to More Pro-Terrorist Idiocy

Categories: , , ,


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home