Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Cave paintings (or, rhetoric probably DOES matter, but so what?  SOLDIERS ARE DYING!)

Anybody else find it curious that Ayman Al-Zawahri, one of the leaders of a medievalist death cult bent on reestablishing the caliphate and spreading Shari’a law at the tip of a sword, is on tape talking about a “war for oil” and likening the US campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to Vietnam?  I mean, you’d think he’d be more interested in, say, Andalusia and the Crusades.

Not that I’m suggesting Zawahiri’s comments were influenced by Western politicos and their partisan political mouthpieces in the media who’ve shown a tendency to provide al Qaeda with rhetorical cover, mind you.  Such an argument is just a silly wingnut fantasy, after all—a desperate attempt by chickenhawks to divert blame from the real reasons for terrorist grievances (namely, that we’re stealing their oil and fighting an illegal Vietnam-type war, to name just two…).

Anyway, I’m not passing judgment.  Just, y’know—making an observation

****

update: ultraloser (via email) tips me off to slain reporter Steven Vincent’s thoughts on why rhetoric matters, reprinted in today’s Opinion Journal (and excerpted below the fold):

Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.” Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents” and especially “guerillas” has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.

Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology–and, by extension, the narrative–of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.

The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers–the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour–they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism, or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought–should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.

Some of us are trying, Mr. Vincent. 

Rest in peace.

****

update:  Still more on the growing battle over defining and controlling terms, this time from Lastango, writing at DailyPundit—who is unhappy with the political maneuvering from Republicans he interprets as a continued weakening of the martial will. 

15 Replies to “Cave paintings (or, rhetoric probably DOES matter, but so what?  SOLDIERS ARE DYING!)”

  1. BLT in CO says:

    Our message is clear: You will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers,” al-Zawahiri said.

    Dude, at $61.60 a barrel, let’s have a little discussion on the definition of stealing, shall we?

  2. mojo says:

    Y’know, looking at the map, eastern Saudi Arabia is just kinda sitting there. Maybe Bahrain, Qutar and the UAE could use some extra liberated land with gigaliters of petroleum?

    I’m sure France and Germany wouldn’t mind.

    Nah…

  3. kelly says:

    Damn straight.

    BushchimplerMcHalliburton is so stoopid, he can’t even get stealing their oil right. Thus we get oil at over $60 a barrel.

  4. kyle says:

    It’s more than a little telling that Zarwacky says he hopes to get the chance to shed more British blood, “god willing.”

    No, they aren’t a death cult – just purveyors of a religion of peace.  Misunderstood freedom fighters.  The new minutemen!

  5. TallDave says:

    ZAWAHIRI’S DISSENT IS PATRIOTISM!!

    HE IS THE REAL HERO!!!

  6. As soon as I heard the “Vietnam” reference I knew it was a dog whistle to the left.  You just very succinctly said what I was thinking.

    -T

  7. Let’s just accept that it doesn’t matter what we do, we’re still targets as long as he’s alive.

    If we do nothing, it’s Andalusia and the Crusades.  If we do something, it’s stealing the oil and wealth.

    the bottom line is that the rhetoric is just a distraction.  It’s what’s available right now.  It’s propaganda you pay attention to if you have the attention span of a goldfish (~9 seconds) or a leftist axe to grind.

    Unfortunately, about 48% of those who vote fall into one or the other of those categories.

  8. Chrees says:

    No more curious than Osama’s pre-presidential election recording sounding like outtakes from Faranheit 911.

    If you’re going to do the speechwriting for those that wish to eliminate non-believers, you might as well collect royalties and live it up for a brief time.

  9. Forbes says:

    “Our message is clear: you will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers,”

    Zawahiri is Egyptian, Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian (though stripped of his citizenship), Zarqawi is Jordanian, so, of course, our land, our oil, and the corruption of the rulers is based on their definition. Sounds like a lefty argument: because we say it’s so, it’s so.

    “getting” as in getting real tired of these al Qaeda clowns.

  10. corvan says:

    Waiting for the first lefty to say Zawahiri is right.

  11. Sean M. says:

    It’s probably already happened, corvan, but I ate not too long ago, so I don’t feel like wading into Kos or DU to find out.

  12. Perfect. My bloglove continues.

  13. “right wing paramilitary death squads.”

    Remember them?

    Maybe somebody could at least tell Fox News [coff, sorry, coff, Faux News] to use the language of the Left in describing the threat.

    Let’s just use the Way Back Machine.

  14. ultraloser says:

    Patrick Carroll:

    …the bottom line is that the rhetoric is just a distraction…

    Could you explain your position a little more clearly?

  15. narciso says:

    If he does do something significant; Hiroshima and up; the NorthWest Frontier of Pakistan, will

    be a fine red mist. They’re a much better target

    than Mecca and Medina

Comments are closed.