Re: MD terrorist blackmail

From: Wim Nusselder (
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 22:07:17 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Dear Platt,

    In your 10 Dec 2004 20:12:51 -0500 post you did not concede that the
    social security part of my propsed solution to Islamist terrorism would not
    imply giving in to terrorist blackmail. Maybe I should have been clearer
    that -of course- the terrorists themselves should not be on the dole. Once
    they have committed terrorist acts, they are criminals that have to be dealt
    with as such. The (globalized) social security system I propose is meant for
    their (potential) supporters, preventing them to BECOME terrorists
    I already DO pay taxes and contributions to the social security system
    voluntarily. There's no policeman needed to collect them from me and from
    99,999% of the Dutch. Of course there IS a real risk of getting a policeman
    at your door when you don't pay. Without that risk the percentage of
    voluntary payments might fall to say 99%. Another 9% might be tempted to
    profit from that situation even though they agree that they would be immoral
    doing so. Even then 90% of the Dutch would voluntarily pay from 'their
    money' (hard-earned or not) a social security system that prevents people
    from falling into poverty if the economy doesn't need their labour.

    You are misinformed when you write:
    'The Dutch are a homogeneous society that shares a common value system. I
    think that's the main reason for their peaceful history. Now they are
    challenged by Muslims with a different value system, resulting in
    unprecedented strains on the system.
    I doubt if [a national social security system not being able to assure peace
    anymore because of globalization is] the reason [for recent political
    assassinations in the Netherlands]. What you are experiencing is a clash of
    social values, a tyrannical system vs.a democratic system.
    We're trying to bring our system to the Middle East, but most Europeans
    object to the effort. Why? I've yet to figure that out. You would think
    those who enjoy the benefits of freedom would want to spread it all over the
    globe and end tyranny once and for all.'
    The Netherlands have accommodated lots of refugees in the course of the
    centuries. Especially in the 16th century, when it was economically thriving
    and in a sense the center of the economic world (like the USA now). You
    should at least know (given your knowledge of the subject) that the
    flourishing of the Arts in the Netherlands in that period was due to a
    steady inflow from countries that were 'on top' the centuries before, e.g.
    Jews expelled from the Iberian peninsula. The same is true for the
    entrepreneurial class. The lower classes (labour power for a growing
    manufacturing industry, peat digging and household services) were
    replenished mainly from Germany and further east.
    In an interview with 'my' newspaper (when visiting the Netherlands last
    week) former CIA analyst Graham Fuller observes that political Islam is less
    a religious phenomenon than a sociological one. It is bred from resentment
    about Western domination in the world and about tyrannies in Islamic
    countries in the Middle-East. Radical Islam is one of the few ways out for
    political grudges. Another one is the choice the moderate political
    Islamists are making in Turkey: trying to become part of the EU.
    One of his statements in this interview made me (and should make you) think
    twice before positing a clash between a tyrannical system vs. a democratic
    one in which we are on the good side is:
    'Democracy is a punishment we inflict upon our enemies, like Afghanistan and
    Iraq. It is not something we give our friends. Egypt, Tunesia, Saudi-Arabia,
    most of the coutries in the region, have been shortening the reins. Partly
    because of that the US have lost almost all credibility in the region. Even
    good plans and ideas will be thwarted just because they originate form the
    Spreading democracy by luring countries into the EU seems a more effective
    way to me than enforcing democracy by war.

    The obligation to spend 0,7% of GNP on development aid for all OECD members
    is one the USA took upon itself as UN and OECD member in 1970, but never
    observed. You can read the history of this obligation in . It was an outflow of the Marshall
    plan thinking.

    Whether UN and a Global Court of Justice represent US values seems to be
    bitterly disputed among Americans. Kerry-voters seem to have different
    'American values' than Bush-voters.

    A good social security system doesn't free people from having to earn a
    living if they can. At least in the Netherlands social security payments are
    gradually reduced if the receiver doesn't seriously apply for jobs or tries
    to find other ways to make a living. Sometimes people are even set to work
    in socially useful ways if they don't find a job themselves and want to stay
    on the dole.

    With friendly greetings,


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 11 2004 - 22:36:14 GMT