“Sunshine on My CINDY!” (©2005, Atrios and the Human Debris)
Sunshine on my CINDY! makes me happy
Sunshine on her PAIN can make me cry
Sunshine on those peace signs looks so lovely
Sunshine and the dime bag I bought off an itinerate hippie hanging out in front of the Crawford Peace House playing guitar and chain smoking American Spirits, almost always makes me high
If I had a day that I could give you
I’d give to you a day just like today (only cooler, and with lots of tasty sandwiches)
If I had a song that I could sing for you
I’d sing of sweet DISSENT (and of marriage gay!)
Sunshine on my CINDY! makes me happy
Sunshine on her PAIN can make me cry
Sunshine on the peace signs looks so lovely
Sunshine and a sixer of Berry wine coolers in the back of a Honda Element, chatting up two cute Austin coeds while Bushitler stews inside his faux-cowboy ranch, almost always makes me high
If I had a tale that I could tell you
I’d tell a tale that’s sure to make you smile
In it holy lands are taken from the Jews*
Their filthy feet no longer to defile*
Sunshine on my CINDY! makes me happy
Sunshine on her PAIN can make me cry
Sunshine on the peaceniks looks so lovely
Sunshine and a bit of grandstanding meant to hurt the President during “war” time with the hopes that upping the political pressure will force us to cut and run in Iraq, almost always makes me high
Yes CINDY! almost all the time makes me high…
Enjoy all 15 Greatest Hits!
1. (Everyone Knows it’s) CINDY!
2. Stairway to CINDY!
3. There’s Always Something There to Remind Me (of CINDY!)
4. Wake CINDY! Up Before You Go-Go
5. Salt ‘n’ CINDY!
7. Scenes from an Italian Restaurant with CINDY!
8. Jack and Diane and CINDY!
9. (CINDY’s! Got) Betty Davis Eyes
10. Desperado
11. Sunshine on My CINDY!
12. The Smile Has Left CINDY’s! Eyes
13. Walk Like an Egyptian Version of CINDY!
14. Where Have All CINDY’s! Flowers Gone
15. The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin’ CINDY!)
You know what I like about Cindy? She’s six years younger than me and looks ten years older.
Many supporters of the Iraq war have emphathized with Mrs. Sheehan… noting that there are many others like her in our country. However, in her grief and anger over the loss of her son (which is an understandable emotion to have), she seems to have allied herself with the wrong groups and ideology.
I posted a comment here noting that conservative and libertarian website have also published her writing and viewpoints, and I inquired as to what her personal viewpoints and political philosophy is, which I am still unclear about. I know that in the past, she has praised President Bush… But then again, many people who felt that way about the President, and about the Iraq war, have changed their minds; and the casualty count and WMD issues have been major factors regarding this. [This is what happened to two of the most conservative House members from Jesse Helms’ home state… And to a number of others who supported the Iraq war.]
If the anti-war movement wants to make a case against the war involving the feelings of family members of fallen soldiers, then it appears that they may have chosen the wrong person to focus on.
Excellent concept, poor execution. I like the album cover, though.
Sheesh, that’s awful
I hope they include a remix of the Meet With Cindy Conference Call Audio over on Joe Trippi’s site. What rhymes with “Our government is run by one party, every level, and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government.”?
Atrios is right, you know.
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Sheehan comes to me
speaking words of wisdom,
“It’s about me. It’s about me.”
Seriously, after reading everything I can find on this woman, I don’t think she loved her son. There’s no genuine or sadness or grief in that face, only the joy of someone who is finally getting their 15 minutes of fame.
Couldn’t you have chosen a song from say, Bow Wow Wow, rather than John Denver?
Holy crap, you got a David Duke article praising and supporting her? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That’s just priceless. Birds of a feather, y’know…
Turing: research; as in nicely done, Jeff.
A song from Bow Wow Wow doesn’t fit in with the hippy image of love and flowers and patchouli. And sunshine for Cindy!
BTW Jeff, you’re one weird dude. Don’t you have a burrito to interview?
red state moron–
how about Fountains of Wayne(stacy’s mom)?
Casey’s Mom has got it goin on.
Casey’s Mom has got it goin on.
Casey’s Mom has got it goin on.
Casey’s Mom has got it goin on.
Cindy Sheehan wants to take us neocons to scho-oo-ol (cons to school)
She says George Bush is really an Israeli t-t-to-oo-ol (Israeli tool)
Cindy is a gift to the Left in their time of need (time of need)
Michael Moore digs her blood-for-oil screed (oil screed)
Crawford Texas just ain’t the town it used to be
Now it’s 24/7 Cindy Cindy Cindy!
Casey’s Mom has got it goin on.
she’s all that they want and they’ve waited for so long.
Casey can’t you see? your Mom is on tv!
She can’t possibly be wrong, the Left’s in love with Casey’s Mom.
I’m just really simple. All I could think of is “I Want Candy”. Sorry. I suck.
Very good nellodee! LOL!!
Atrios — creative reader?
So. Is Atrios an octopus symbol?
You know what I like about Cindy? She’s six years younger than me and looks ten years older.
Yeah, losing your kid will do that.
Seriously, after reading everything I can find on this woman, I don’t think she loved her son.
What have you read exactly to lead you to this conclusion? What a bizarre and quite possibly moronic thing to say.
I think the presents s problem for the Democratic Party. Sheehan is a sympathetic figure, but she’s also a bit outside the mainstream. Sheehan’s position is: We invaded Iraqi for oil, we need to bring the troops home, screw Israel, and she’s not paying her 2004 taxes. Are these position Democrats agree with?
What should have been an embarassment for Republicans has instead become a lefty freak show. Atrios and Daily Kos and the whole lefty ‘sphere are dragging their party into the ground by exposing how nutty their base really is. What does Joe Lieberman think when Cindy says “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel?” What do Jewish voters think?
Is Cindy Sheehan the new voice of the Democratic Party? They’d better hope not.
Salvage, adults don’t take comments out of context. Grow up.
And if “Salvage” is interested in an example of how mature adults comment on this situation, he need only scroll up and read TallDave’s remarks.
Spot on. Spot on.
Talldave is right. It’s a freakshow with clowns for the Democratic Party.
Mother Sheehan getting the backing David Duke, who just picks up her talking points (the Jews/Israel etc) says it all.
Code Pink, Kossacks, ANSWER, Communist Party USA, and now DAVID DUKE all back “Mother Sheehan.”
Heck maybe Dukie can get down to the Crawford Peace House and he and Cindy can have a nice ol Cross Burning! I’m sure Senator Byrd has an old sheet or two lying around.
Jeebus. There are many, many substantive criticisms to be made about Bush’s Iraq War handling (not enough troops, force, not raising a whacking great army and just pounding the jihadis, not being ruthless enough, not pushing political solutions with a “deal” with the Sunni tribal chiefs, etc.)
These are all substantive policy critiques that IMHO would resonate with the American People. Warmed over anti-War rhetoric when everyone is waiting for another bin Laden mass casualty attack, coupled with the Insane Klown Posse is just … mindbogglingly stupid.
Shocking “news”:
Bush To Insert, Remove Sheehan Feeding Tube
CRAWFORD, Texas (Rooters) – Speaking to reporters gathered outside his Crawford ranch, President Bush said that he will “take swift and decisive action to end the suffering†of war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq.
Bush said he has approved a plan in which doctors would insert a feeding tube in the 48-year-old woman’s throat, and then remove it, after which she would be allowed to starve to death.
“I have learned from the sad case of Terry Schiavo,†Bush said, referring to the brain-damaged woman whose own feeding tube was removed earlier this year after she spent 15 years in what some physicians described as a persistent vegetative state.
“Sadly, nothing I can do will bring back the son Mrs. Sheehan lost. And I now realize that when a woman is suffering with no chance of recovery, we should end that suffering quickly and humanely. I intend to do just that for Mrs. Sheehan.â€Â
In a heated question-and-answer session following his statement, Bush brushed aside repeated objections that Mrs. Sheehan, unlike Mrs. Schiavo, remains alert and fully aware of her surroundings.
“Mrs. Sheehan may appear to be protesting our nation’s presence in Iraq,†Bush said. “But her anti-war statements are mere reflex actions that don’t require conscious thought.â€Â
I don’t think she loved her son.
What have you read exactly to lead you to this conclusion? What a bizarre and quite possibly moronic thing to say. <blockquote>
Hello salvage —
First, let’s agree that our host, Jeff Goldstein of protein wisdom, has never questioned whether Ms. Sheehan loved her son. In fact, I haven’t read any “wingnut” bloggers who make the accusation. This is just me talking.
I base my claim on couple of things. Let’s start off with the fact that members of Ms. Sheehan’s family have written that she’s doing this for herself, not Casey. Likewise, her husband has been silent, which has to mean “unsupportive.” I’m at work, have a busy day ahead, and don’t have time to make links, etc, but I’m sure you’ve seen what the family said. When your own family is willing to undercut you in a such a public way, it indicates something is very wrong.
I add that to experiences I’ve had with my own family members. I’ve been to a lot of funerals, seen lots of family members die and watched the aftermath. True grief is terrible. It has a dignity, “like ice, like fire” in the words of one of my favorite poets. I don’t see this in Ms. Sheehan. I see faux grief and posing. I’ve seen it before.
In my family, we had a member who always wanted to be an important person. She was a sad wackjob. She didn’t want a husband, but married. She didn’t want kids, but had them. She often told her kids she wished she had not had them. She could not give love, because there was a huge hole where her self-esteem should have been. People came and went in her life. It was all the same, because they did not feed her hunger for importance. When her moment finally came (she became involved in local politics), she would insist everyone sit and watch her appearances on television at 10, 6, and 11. She was ecstatic. Even the death of her own son didn’t penetrate that. His funeral became one more occasion to talk about herself. Cindy Sheehan reminds me of her.
Another reason for my claim is that I’ve spent a lot of time around moonbats and attended quite a few “peace demonstrations.” I used to socialize with these fruitcakes. If you haven’t already done so salvage, you should go meet these people (notice how decent I am in not including you in their ranks?). They are seriously screwed up. They live in a weird fantasy land where grief is a story-book thing. Have you seen the movie “Grizzly Man” yet? If that guy hadn’t been setting himself up to get eaten by a grizzly, he’d have been at an anti-war demonstration. Ms. Sheehan talks and acts just like a moonbat of that variety.
Don’t get me wrong—I feel sorry for Ms. Sheehan. These fruitcakes usually live tortured, unhappy lives. I just don’t think we need to base foreign policy on their need for attention.
I gotta run.
So basically what you’re saying is that you think she doesn’t love her son because of your own family experiences?
Well I think you don’t love your parents because of my own family experiences.
See, that doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. At least to me it doesn’t.
As for the Drudge thing, so what? Her whole family doesn’t agree? Wow, that must mean that she doesn’t love her son! Families never have rifts, only an unloving mother could create one? Her husband isn’t there? Well that clinches it, she must have hated her son, probably cheered the day he dies thinking “At last! Now I can be a celebrity!â€Â
To suggest that you know a complete strangers’ relationship based on your own experiences and or something from Drudge is just plain silly. You simply don’t like her message so you’re looking for any excuse to dismiss it.
The fact is her son died, Bush called it noble and she wants him to expand on that. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S., there were no WMD, and as each day goes by hope for democracy, security and freedom goes weaker and weaker to the point that even the U.S. government is lowering expectations. Is replacing an evil thug with a theocratic thug a noble cause? I don’t think so and right now that’s looking like Iraq’s best case scenario; the new Iran on the block. The worst case is a complete Somalia civil war.
I’m not even sure I think the protest is a good thing. It’s just another flea circus to distract people away from the war itself (never mind another day of carnage in Iraq, look at the sad angry mom!) There should be protests but it should be for the removal of the gang of idiots that have launched and botched this war.
Slightly OT:
The term “chickenhawk” is not meant to imply that only the military or those who have served should have a say in what wars we fight.
Allow me to explain:
We were sold this war on the basis of an imminent threat to the western world from Saddam Hussein. Mushroom clouds. Biological attacks. Anthrax. Mobile weapons labs. Dirty bombs in Manhattan. You know the spiel. We were sold it on the basis that Saddam was able to launch a chemical attack at 45 minutes’ notice (cf: Downing Street dossier circa Feb 2003). We were sold it on the basis that Iraq was a viper’s nest of terrorists waiting to attack us in our homes. We were told that if we didn’t fight it, our very existence was under immediate threat.
There are many of us who didn’t believe any of these claims at the time, and therefore were skeptical of the decision to go to war. We were branded traitors and cowards.
I believe that if any of these claims had been true, anyone who seriously values their liberty and life would not have hesitated to sign up and fight. A just war is generally not plagued by a shortage of young men signing up to fight in it. (See: WWII, for example). But this didn’t happen – in fact, young men stayed away from the recruiting offices in droves. Why?
Well, it is now clear (even to those who were deceived at first), that NONE of the claims made for this war were true. No mushroom clouds. No chemical weapons. No terrorist connections. And yet the same people who clamoured for war, and condemned those who opposed it are still claiming that we are involved in a vital, historic battle to preserve our very way of life against an imminent threat. Even though that threat has been proved to be much exaggerated. They still claim that we are engaged with an enemy who seizes on every word of opposition to the war from the USA and uses it to feed his dastardly plans for world domination. And yet these people won’t actually grow the balls to go and confront this terrible threat themselves – they prefer to sit at their keyboards and shout “traitor” at other people while sending other people’s children to die for the “cause”.
The term chickenhawk is therefore reserved for those who still (against all evidence) believe that we are fighting to preserve our very lives by occupying Iraq, and yet lack the courage to go and do something practical about it. Either the treat is real – and therefore worth dying for, or its not.
We might also apply it to those who believe that there are other reasons for fighting this war (such as control of oil reserves or the projection of American foreign policy) that are sufficiently important to justify the killing and maiming of OTHER PEOPLE, but whic are not sufficiently important to compel them to make any personal sacrifices towards achieving those goals.
In other words, “chickenhawk” is really just another way of saying:
“Put your money (and your life) where your mouth is”.
Or:
“Actions speak louder than words”.
Or:
“Coward”.
Comments?
/OT
Like the left loves America, but hates Bush more, I believe Sheehan loved her son, but hates Bush more.
And salvage, if you think the Camp Cindy Crawford is a bad idea, why aren’t you debating that over at DU and Kos, instead of telling us?
Ian, you have wandered into the wrong blog. lol!
Well, yes, John Edwards did say that, fortunately he wasn’t elected(to the VP, anyway). Since you seem completely ignorant on your chosen topic I think we can safely ignore the rest of what you have to say.
Well, how about the fact that she is supporting people that wished her son dead? Not the behaviour you would associate with love, now is it? And her continous lying about him, trying to turn him into an addled dupe instead of a brave volunteer(twice for enlistment and again for the mission he got killed on) isn’t exactly a sign of love.
And when you consider that he enlisted(twice) against her will, he may have not been all that fond of her.
Of course, maybe she does love her son. That is, she loves the cute little baby Casey that exists in her mind. She doesn’t seem to be too fond of the adult Casey that had a mind of his own.
Ian
We were sold this war on the basis of an imminent threat to the western world from Saddam Hussein.
I stopped reading you right there, as that is a lie. Period. Full stop. As in any credibility you might have ended with the period after the word Hussein.
Gawd, I’m SO tired of these Left Cultists. Booorrring. Where’s the next couch jumping by Scientologist Cruise?
BTW
I do have a family member in the military, IN IRAQ at this very time.
Doesn’t mean a friggin’ thing to the cultists piddling in the comments on my blog. Cuz they just move the requirements on support of the military each time…now it has to be one of my daughters, or myself, over there to qualify as an “authentic” voice.
Yeah. Right.
As RWS points out she heard a man interviewed, a father who lost his son in Iraq last November, “Mother” Sheehan refused to meet with him because he wouldn’t denounce the war.
The “chickenhawk” meme is a distraction because the Left doesn’t mean a word of it anyway. They brook no support of the military unless they shoot their officers.
feh
If you will read the text of the now infamous State of the Union address in question, you will see that Bush specifically said “there is no imminent threat”. The quote again: “THERE IS NO IMMINENT THREAT”.
His point was if you wait until the threat was imminent there will be many more casualties. Are you so fucking simple-minded that you think we should have waited for Saddam to rearm and use the weapons before we took him out?
And if there were no WMDs what killed all those Kurds? What killed all those Iranians? Put down the talking points memo, walk outside and take a deep breath. Try to learn to think on your own, it is really quite fun once you get over the initial fear.
A smoking gun is one that has already been fired. The damage has been done. Personally I prefer intervention before the gun goes off if possible.
Ok, Ian, please explain why you felt the need to post something which has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. Your “OT” disclaimers mean little, as we don’t know you- you act like this is a place where you have friends who may wish to discuss the um… how shall I put this gently… shit which seems to be exploding from your posterior and taking on written form.
And funny, I always thought “liberal” was synonomous with coward.
Because DU is the Free Republic of the left and echo chambers are boring.
And my main point is that it is stupid for anyone to claim that they know the mother / son relationship of complete strangers.
What are you talking about? How is she doing that?
oh and
Is a hella-lame dodge of a valid point, but I guess you have nothing else you can say. The reality is the Bush Administration built the whole invasion under a doctrine of “pre-emptive strike” to make that fly he would have to “sell this war on the basis of an imminent threat”. Please don’t drag up those stupid Democrat quotes, see what they said is meaningless because, and this is the important part, they didn’t invade did they? They’re not in power are they? Bush on the other hand did, kind of more than a fine distinction don’t you think? At worst they’re liars who thought that a quick and easy war would forgive the lack of WMD and at best they’re incompetent boobs who will go down in history as the architects of stupidest military adventure since Lord Raglan said “Oh those Russian cannons look nice, go on and fetch them will you?â€Â
You know you just can’t argue with incoherence.
and yet the ones in congress agreed to grant the president the power to use force. huh. you’d think the margin of dissent on that vote would have been wider.
and yet, i’ve just attempted it b moe. i’m sorry. that’s what happens when i’m not working.
Um you’re going to have to help me out here, I can’t find that quote, <a href=”http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/” target=”_blank”>I can find from his SotU</a>:
and
and (my fave)
and maybe this is what you meant?
Saddam was not a threat then, he was not a threat ten years ago. Bush made him out to be one, this was, again, at best wrong at worst a lie. Either one is unforgivable.
What is a threat to all of us now is Iraq turning into the new terrorist recruitment and training ground not to mention cause.
Because DU is the Free Republic of the left and echo chambers are boring.
Take a risk. Be bored. You say the demonstrations are not a good idea. Why tell us? Go convince your comrades.
And my main point is that it is stupid for anyone to claim that they know the mother / son relationship of complete strangers.
It’s more stupid to take Sheehan’s word on what were her son’s beliefs when facts and common sense say other wise.
??????
Are you answering for Ian now, salvage?
First of all, let’s dispense with this whole “Does she love her son” stuff. It’s a total red herring that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. I know that someone else brought it up, but you jumped on it, and turned it into a distraction. I think that her actions show that she’s cynically using her son’s death for her own purposes, but I’d never jump from that to saying she doesn’t/didn’t love him.
Having said that, I do think it’s possible to discern her motives in this whole thing. You can say, “How do you know what’s in her mind” all you want, but one of the things that sets us apart from the animal kingdom is the ability to take a set of discrete pieces of evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion about what they mean. That’s what juries are supposed to do. I wish more jurors understood that concept (see O.J.), but that’s another topic.
In reading her statements, and looking at her actions, I don’t think that any reasonable person–and sadly, that excludes most of your compadres–can come to any conclusion other than that she was an anti-war, anti-Bush moonbat long before this, and is cynically exploiting her son’s death in order to try to bring down the hated Chimpy McBushitler, all the while being equally cynically exploited (with her whole-hearted acquiescence) by the moonbat left as a prop in their ongoing war against Bush, and yes, their treasonous effective support for the people who killed Casey Sheehan, and who want to kill you too, salvage. Wake up, my friend. You and your kool-aid drinking friends are on the wrong side of history. Again.
What is a threat to all of us now is Iraq turning into the new terrorist recruitment and training ground not to mention cause.
Hello salvage—Given that sentence, I’m curious as to how you’d propose stopping Iraq from being used as a recruitment and training ground. I think we can agree said use is a bad thing. What do you propose?
As for Ms. Sheehan loving or not loving her son, I agree I can’t know that for a certainty. Craig pretty well lays out her cynical exploitation of Casey’s death, however, and while he isn’t willing to jump to the conclusion of non-love, I’ve got additional life experiences to add to Craig’s evidence—a certain template I’ve seen before. So yes, I make the jump.
As for you and I making assumptions about each other based on our “family experiences,” Jeez, salvage, we’re just pseudonyms on a screen.
This whole Sheehan episode is just another manifestation of the permanent campaign that started after the 2000 election. Bush’s victory has never been accepted as legitimate by the Left. They would have opposed anything he did. If he decided not to invade Iraq, he would have been attacked for ignoring an imminent threat, for allowing the genocide of the Iraqi people, etc. This is all pure political posturing; it is completely insincere and calculated.
salvage, what part of not waiting until he became a threat don’t you understand?
The neighbors down in Crawford are getting upset with protesters. Supposedly one neighbor was shooting clay pigeons with his shotgun trying to intimidate the protesters. I wonder if somebody could record the “Casey’s Mom” song above, and then the neighbors could play this song on large speakers out on the end of the driveway. Sort of like how they play seagull-in-distress sounds out at our local landfill to keep the seagulls away.
Holy crap, I agree with CraigC.
= NOT WAITING UNTIL the threat is imminent
which does NOT = “imminent.”
And of course, what the left wants you know to believe is that they would have supported continued sanctions, but what they REALLY stand for is allowing tyrants to oppress their people, just so long as they maintain “stability” in the region—the very formula that culminated in 911.
The are foreign policy REALISTS, now—though this is new to them. They are also proto-isolationists, which is why their foreign policy prescriptions dovetail so nicely with those of Pat Buchanan and his ilk.
Of course, it makes no difference HOW MANY TIMES you point out that CONGRESS called for Iraqi regime change under Clinton, or that the Clinton administration, and every western intelligence agency, thought Saddam was a threat; because the progressive policy procedure is to govern by hindsight—except on the domestic front, where they are FOR nannystatist policy and social engineering programs to help preemptively “shape” future generations in the “correct” way.
Arguing with these people is fruitless at this point. Nothing penetrates. The same canards are repeated over and over again, as if they’ve never been addressed before. It’s silly and a waste of time.
Heh. Hi, Bill.
I think this item pretty much says it for me. I would add, however, that the bit about Casey being promised a different assignment is total BS. When you sign up, you have to sign a document that expressly says what your MOS will be.
That’s silly, what facts and common sense say are the exact opposite. At any rate at what point has she spoken for her son? What words has she put in her son’s mouth? Has she said “Casey felt this war was wrong!” or anything of the sort?
If I knew the answer to that I’d be a lot richer… er I’d actually have money. The easiest solution I can see is invent a time machine and go back three years and stop Bush from invading. Other than that I haven’t a clue. Pulling out certainly isn’t an option right now. Knee jerk I’d say more boots on the ground but that’s not going to happen without a draft and that’ll never happen unless something goes horrifically wrong.
True dat.
What part of “no-fly zone†“sanctions†“inspections†“international pressure†“diplomacy†“Afghanistan still not finished†“Al Qeada, China, North Korea, Sudan are bigger threats and more imperative problems†don’t you understand? There’s a reason why Bush Sr. didn’t go into Baghdad the first time around; we’re seeing it now. Saddam was a problem but not the priority nor was this invasion the solution. All Bush has done is created a fresh set of dangers for the average Iraqis; they’re still violently dying just in different ways. New terrorists have been created who now have a real reason to hate the U.S. and the West. You think little Habib is going to care why his family was blown apart by a stray JDAM? When the Al Qeada recruiter comes around do you think he’s going to have to try very hard to get Habib to put on a belt of explosives and nails? You think his rage is going to be sated by purple fingers and constitutions?
This is exactly what bin Laden wanted, now he can point to Iraq, to the photos of torture and say “See? This is what the crusaders will do to all Muslims unless we stop them!”
A lot of Americans seem to forget that for every action there is a reaction.
Well, how about the fact that she is supporting people that wished her son dead?
Michael Moore? Lynne Stewart? You’ve heard of these people, right? Apparently they’re Cindy’s new heroes.
And there’s this lovely quote
This woman is Michael Moore with a dead son. And she’s just as vile. And yes, I am questioning her patriotism. Why do you ask?
You know what, Jeff’s right, it’s pointless. It’s not worth the time or the effort to refute every single thing when they throw out a bunch of lies and misstatements that have been debunked a MILLION FUCKING TIMES. Go away, salvage. Crawl back into the insular little make-believe world that you and your clinically insane friends inhabit.
Funny how some people always know exactly what bin Laden wanted.
Of course when US forces invaded Afghanistan, that created civilian casualties and western occupation of a muslim nation. So Bin Laden wanted that as well, apparently. And the interrogation of terrorists at Guantanomo Bay? Bin Laden’s fantasy come true. Patriot Act? Bin Laden get’s an erection just thinking about it.
So what action can we take that isn’t “exactly what Bin Laden wanted”? Pull all support for Israel and convert to Sharia law. Really, it’s the only way we can stick it to Bin Laden.
Ian, go to school. <a href=”http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_019500_conscription.htm” target=”_blank”>Learn something:</a>
After Pearl Harbor, the lawmakers removed all remaining restrictions and extended the draft to men aged eighteen to thirty-eight (and briefly to forty-five) for the duration. Approximately 10 million men were drafted through the Selective Service System, and nearly 6 million enlisted, primarily in the U.S. Navy and Army Air Corps.
Which doesn’t address whether or not Bush described Iraq as an “imminent threat”. Usually when someone changes the subject like that I consider it conceding the argument.
Nice way of dancing around the fact that you know you’re lying when you employ the “imminent threat” canard.
Instead of imagining what Bin Laden wants, try hearing what he actually said he wants: the resoration of the Caliphate, the recovery of the Islamic Empire, the death of Jews and Crusaders!
Yes, but you’re missing the point. What we are doing is helping to bring that about, the argument goes.
In other words, taking the battle to the terrorists and trying to change the underlying conditions of the region that gives rise to terrorist sympathizing is giving them exactly what they want.
To fight them effectively, we need to ignore them and hope they go away.
I hear MotherSheehan® is baking pies now. Cherry and apple, my spies tell me.
Mmmmm, pie!
BECAUSE OF THE INIQITY!
SB: slowly
I turned, step by step…
salvage, by all reports Medea loved her children too. Euripides has a whole speech about it. But that didn’t prevent her from using their deaths for revenge and to further her ambitions.
And yes, the Kossacks are promulgating a story that Casey told his mom that “he changed his mind about the war in Iraq when he came home from Afganistan”.
So Michael Moore and Lynne Stewart wanted her son dead?
Uh huh… her first statement is factually true but immaterial and naïve and her second one is a matter of opinion, how does this support anyone trying to kill her son? You seem to think if someone is saying something you disagree with they must axiomatically be against everything you believe in. That’s rather specious, narrow thinking. If she didn’t say these things would it make a lick of difference in Iraq?
Er I addressed that in the above, Bush and his people went on and on and on about WMD. But let’s get it right from the mouthpiece:
“But make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.” (Ari Fleischer Press briefing, April 10, 2003)
I guess those WMD weren’t the imminent threat kind? It’s sad no matter how much they lie to you; you just eat it up and call it ice cream. Clinton only lied about a blow job and I still call him a scum weasle.
They launched the war as an act of pre-emption claiming that Saddam was armed to the teeth with WMD, the majority of the planet knew that this wasn’t true and said so, you invaded anyway and are now stuck making a bad situation worse. At some point these simple truths will become overwhelming and you can either deal with it or crawl deeper into the denial. You can be like those guys who claim the U.S. won Vietnam or that there was no moon landing.
Iraq was a mistake, the wrong war at the wrong time fought the wrong way.
Who is this “majority” of people that “knew” Saddam didn’t have WMD?
And please. Dude, judging from your remarks here, we all know you were supporting Bill Clinton 100% against the nefarious efforts of the extreme right-wing cabal of vibrator snatchers that sought to bring down a great president and reverse the results of two elections. Fess up!
And if “this country isn’t worth dying for” is a matter of opinion, what’s your take?
But whatever. It is pointless to engage the left on these questions.
Le sigh…
Ok salvage. Tell us what you want. What you really really want. Cos’ you’re obviously not going to let up until you “make your point”.
What is it? Do you want:
A – Bush impeached in the US, convicted by the “World Court” in den Hague, and then subjected to live vivisection on Court TV
B – Rove indicted, and then drawn and quartered on “Iron Chef”
C – “The Jooooooos!” out of Palestine (and Gaza) and Miami Beach
D – Saddam restored to power and those bitchin’ palaces he had built
or
E – Michael Moore to win an Oscar and then be named chairperson of the National Endowment of the Arts
What is it? What do you want? We are obviously BAD PEOPLE for what we’re doing now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly New Jersey. We’re obviously worse for thinking we’re doing something, ahem, right.
Shall we pull out unilaterally and let the Iraqis go it alone? Let’s let the Afghans cover their own sorry asses for a while.
I recall the major troop drawdowns in Germany and Korea – – when we finally, FINALLY gave them their wish and pulled a big chunk of folks out. The Germans were ecstatic – no more Amis driving across their pristine farmland. The Koreans were shitting kittens – – you mean we actually have to defend OURSELVES? Are you f-ing CRAZY?
So – please. We’ll wait. Give it to us and set us straight. What would “Salvage” and the rest of your lot do to unf*ck the Middle East?
B Moe said…
Any evidence that he was rearming? Please link to it if you can find any, but from what I’ve read (and it’s clearly more than you) it would seem that he wasn’t rearming, since we didn’t find any stockpiles of WMDs (even though Donny Rumsfeld told us “We know where the weapons are”) and the sanctions were pretty much removing his ability to acquire conventional weapons.
Ermm… those would both be back in the 1980s – when we were supporting him. And selling him the weapons to do it. (That’ll be old Donny Rumsfeld again).
Where does this concept of “pre-emptive defence” fit into the legal framework of the world? As far as I can see it’s the international relations equivalent of punching a guy’s lights out in a bar fight because “well, officer, he wuz lookin’ at me funny”.
Matt said
Nice. There was me thinking that this was a forum for discussion, not a space for, um, how shall I put this gently.. mutual mental masturbation amongst narrow minded fools who simply swallow, gargle and regurgitate the lies of cynical, vicious thugs who manipulate them.
As regards your claim that George Bush never uttered the exact words “imminent threat” – I suggest we’re looking at a Clintonesque “that depends on your meaning of ‘is’” type defence here. Grasping at straws my friends.
If anyone is interested, a member of the Black Helicopter crowd has parked himself here—ostensibly to debunk the Popular Mechanics debunking of the conspiratoids who insist the Trade Centers were brought down by a controlled demolition.
I’d engage myself, but I’d rather play with my kid and eat lunch.
Thanks to Salvage, this thread reads like it’s two years old.
Ian – see my gentle post to “Salvage”. What do YOU want? Do you and Salvage want the same thing to happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, New Jersey?
Tell us – we really want to know. What would YOU do to unf*ck things now that McChimpy Bushhitler has screwed it up so badly? Feel free to use the selections I provided for Salvage, or perhaps come up with something more inventive yourself.
But – please – and I’m being serious here. Either put up or shut up. What is it that you and your ilk WANT?
Anyone who believes otherwise better get themselves down to the recruiting office real quick. Cos if you don’t, then I’m afraid we only have one word for you. Here’s a clue – the first word is “chicken” and the second rhymes with “dork”.
Of course, the truth is that most who claim they’re willing to die for their country really just mean that they’re willing to kill for it…
And kudos to Ian, as well, for his medley of Kos’ Greatest Hits.
How do you know? Are you one of them? Because if not, you can’t speak for them. Otherwise you’re a chickenchickenhawkhawk.
Chickenfork?
Chicken fork
Chicken spork (hated those things)
Chicken cork
I’m not getting it. And, not enough anhydrous ammonia to finish the next batch and ascend to the higher level of consciousness necessary for true enlightenment, to boot. Damn shame.
Yup. You pegged me. I joined this man’s Army because I just wanted to travel to garden spots and shoot at people I’d never meant before. All that and three hots a day. Much better than the trailer park.
Anyone who believes otherwise better get themselves down to the recruiting office real quick. Cos if you don’t, then I’m afraid we only have one word for you. Here’s a clue – the first word is “chicken†and the second rhymes with “dorkâ€Â.
I’m 5’6”, weigh 345 lbs., suffer from severe hypertension and diabetes, and have handicapped plates (not that I can really drive in my current condition). Ian thinks my opinion of the war is invalid—no, wait—he thinks my opinion of the war is invalid if my position disagrees with his. Feel that progressyve love.
I don’t think I’m gonna be able to post any more, there is a guy here with a gun wants my stuff. I would call the police, but since I am not a cop, and don’t have family who are cops, I just don’t think it would be right to ask a policeman to put himself in danger like that.
And when “International Law” includes a real Constitution and Bill of Rights and a legitimate legal system I will take that in consideration in my views of international affairs. Until then might does make right.
And you guys are right, if you can’t positively prove something, it obviously doesn’t exist. Saddam never had any plans to rearm, he just lied and refused to cooperate with arms inspectors because he was a wacky kind of guy. And reopening trade with Niger? He just wanted some onions! No harm there.
Dang, almost forgot. (the bandit was nice enought to take the computer last)
Consider too if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we would be fighting the “insurgents” in Afghanistan, a much less hospitable place where quagmire might actually be a fit adjective.
…crickets chirping…
Ian?
Salvage?
Still waiting for your response.
…more crickets chirping, sounds of black helicopters in the distance…
DC:
How should we unf*ck the Middle East? Well since you asked, I’ll have a go at answering. But first I’d like to point out that it’s pretty clear that whatever we’re doing to unf*ck the place right now doesn’t seem to be working. Would you agree?
Secondly I’d note that most of the things I’m basing my suggestions on are drawn from the successful attainment of peace in Northern Ireland, where terrorists were blowing people up for over 30 years. They aren’t blowing people up now. Things aren’t perfect of course, but they are a LOT better. We didn’t get there by bombing the f*ck out of Dublin, that’s for sure.
So, how to unf*ck the middle east:
1. Acknowledge it’s f*cked and accept that a significant proportion of the blame for f*cking it up lies with our past actions. Not all, but a significant amount. And that to resolve it, we are willing to act honestly and fairly and not exclusively in our own short-term financial, political or military interests. We are aiming at a bigger picture here – lasting peace and true democracy, not simply short term fixes, corporate profits and political pawns.
2. Engage in honest dialogue with moderate leaders in the region. And yes, they DO exist (although each time we blow up innocent people with our “smart” bombs their voices become less and less influential) and start working towards a just resolution of the issues raised.
The point here is this: Most Muslims aren’t terrorists. Most Muslims would prefer to live in peace with the rest of the world. But our actions (invading countries, installing dictators, undermining democracy when it doesn’t suit our purposes, overthrowing democratically elected governments) mean that we are justifiably accused of hypocrisy. Now you can claim that all we are really doing is acting in our own interests and that’s fine – but don’t then bother giving us the bullsh*t about bringing democracy when all our past actions show that to be a lie. This hypocrisy makes it very easy to for extremists to convince the population that what America really seeks is world domination. Not justice and democracy, but full spectrum domination of the planet. Not surprisingly, that strikes most people us unjust. And here’s the important bit: terrorism exists in a context – that context is the lack of a political voice for people who feel they have been treated unjustly. Injustice is the root cause of terrorism.
It’s not that these people are crazy, or that Islam is a violent religion per se (in Ireland people were blowing themselves up in the name of the Pope and yet nobody was calling for him to be “taken out”). The problem is simply that if you have no political voice, what option do you have for making your views on injustice known except violence?
Each terrorist is a person – somebody’s son or daughter (just like Sheehan’s son). Mothers don’t want their children to die. Mothers are unlikely to support their sons killing themselves for a cause if they believe that they could simply go into politics and seek to resolve injustice that way instead.
Each terrorist is part of a society. Terrorists need social infrastructures to hide themselves, arm themselves and fund themselves. These infrastructures exist because people believe implicity that there is no alternative but to fight to redress the injustices that they feel. What political voice do the Palestinians really have? They don’t get to vote in Israel. They barely even get to survive. Give them a REALISTIC alternative, and a REALISTIC political voice and the support network melts away. I say it again – mothers don’t want their sons to have to die for a cause if there’s a legitimate alternative.
Ireland is again the example here – for 30 years we “refused to negotiate with terrorists”. In other words, we refused, under any circumstances, to listen to the views of those who supported the terrorists aims – the redress of injustice. This simply allowed the terrorists to convince the populace that there was no alternative but to carry on the struggle. And for 30 years the bombing continued. Finally the politicians, specifically Maggie Thatcher (ironically) grew the necessary balls to start talking and listening and hey presto, the bombing stops. Not immediately – since trust takes time (especially when you’ve been lying to each other for 30 years), but eventually.
So – in very brief terms, those are my suggestions. I don’t claim that the solution is easy – politically it’s a tough sell, since we’ve all been told that dialogue with terrorists means that the terrorists win.
To this accusation I would respond as follows: Well, they seem to be winning right now, so what’s your suggestion? More troops? Good luck.
Mothers don’t want their children to die.
Tell that to the Pali boomer-daycare moms that have the little tykes waltzing around in Hamas headbands, carrying toy (hopefully) M-16’s and wearing toy bomb belts.
Cute, huh? Sick, but cute.
Give them what they want, and they will stop doing what they did to get it.
I’ll bet you don’t have any children or large dogs, huh?
Yeah, and no American kid ever played with a GI Joe doll, huh? Nice try.
Yeah, well I don’t consider the entire population of the Middle East to be either children or dogs, I consider them to be be no more or less rational than all the rest of us on this planet. But I guess the subtlety of the argument was lost on you. Or perhaps you are just trying to ignore what I wrote.
Let me be clear – most Muslims want to live in peace in a just society. They don’t want war. They don’t want to run the world – any more than most Swedish or Belgian or Greek people want to run the world. They don’t care if there are non-muslims in the world. But they do care if their countries are invaded by people who probably have an ulterior motive for doing so (based on past actions) and clearly understand nothing about their culture.
This makes it easy for extremists to convince them that their battle is for actual survival, when in reality it’s nothing of the sort. (Just like George Bush and friends managed to convice the American people that the war in Iraq was a battle for the very survival of the American way, when in reality it was nothing of the sort.
Is that any clearer?
Ian –
Well that’s a start. At least you didn’t call for a unilateral pullout of troops or reparations for our “sins” in the region. Neither did you ask for the US to pull all its support from Israel because it’s “unfair” for the Israelis to have what the Palestinians cannot.
I am curious – do you not think we are attempting to engage moderate leaders in the Middle East? What should we engage them about and what are our desired objectives? Keep in mind we have national interests just as they do – – just because we “act fairly” doesn’t mean we ignore what we want to see happen.
I am also interested – why do you think the IRA decided to give up on “armed struggle” and what do you think Sinn Fein will get out of it? Is it just posturing? And recall, it did take 30 odd years to accomplish – – how long have we been in Iraq by comparison?
I have to disagree with you on this one – murder is not something that one can take in or out of context. It is simply that – murder. Whether it is driving a car bomb into a gaggle of children by the side of a road, taking over a school in Beslan, blowing up a nightclub in Bali, trains in Madrid, or buses in London.
These are not military targets, as the IRA purported to attack in Northern Ireland, these are innocent and defenseless civilians going about their business. To state otherwise is foolish – – if we only “understood” these people more we could help them make better choices.
Here again, I have to disagree. The Qu’ran is pretty specific about Islamic goals and one religion, yada yada yada…lots of people have done things in the name of religion and it’s foolish not to read between the lines to see the radical agenda.
Still – a good start. I’ve tried this on other blogs and what usually happens is left and right hold dramatically different views on “reality” and beliefs on what is “right” and “fair”. At the end of the day, we have to base our actions on what these people DO and what we must do to protect ourselves and meet our own needs.
Ian –
What I am hearing is a lot of “contrition” over how wrong we are to be there – – the left is working very hard to get the beginning of the story to match their interpretation of “fact” and presuming that, since we are there illicitly, we are wrong and eventually everything will (and should) come tumbling down on us – – that’ll teach us to be so imperialistic. The right is more focused on the end of the story – – getting things to turn out as they “should” and attempting to support the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to allow them make it so on their own.
Still though – what should happen in Iraq? Regardless of HOW we got there, who lied about what, what wasn’t there, yada yada yada. We are THERE now. So what do we do now?
That’s what boggles me about Mother Sheehan – – it’s all about blood, oil, and “The Joooooos!”. Well gas just hit $2.40 here in Houston – I say Bushy McChimpHitler isn’t doing a very good job at co-opting the oil we fought over.
well, see, dc, the thing you’re missing is that chimpy mchitlerburton’s friends are making millions off this. their oil is cheap, but don’t think for an instant that they’ll pass the saving on to you. /moonbat.
(i dan’t believe i just typed that, but i also can’t believe i haven’t seen it spouted elsewheres yet.) never mind that venezuela would have been much easier pickins for oil.
Paul Z
You’re right to point out that the draft did exist in WWII. Just as there is the historical amnesia about the bitching and moaning about the “failure” of American occupation of Europe post WWII, there’s the bit about all American men trying to join up during WWII.
While my own father lied about his age to enlist and went into the Army at 17, he tells the story of a cousin of his who deliberately took a hammer an broke a bunch of his teeth to get out of the draft.
Army took him anyway..after pulling the rest of his teeth and issuing him dentures.
Yes. He was fighting the brave… let’s see what was it… “minutemen”(who aren’t terrorists, no matter how many bombs they use to blow up Iraqi civilians). Also, apparently, these “minutemen” WILL WIN!, and Mikey’s really excited about that.
Of course, Moore is just a supporter, a mere chickenterrorist, so to speak. Lynne Stewart, on the other hand, actively aided and abetted terrorists intent on killing Americans(like Cindy’s poor beloved son who she is not cynically exploiting to advance a cause that would disgust him, were he alive.)
I see Ian lying again
Hey, numbnutz, Saddam was a SOVIET client, which supplied somewheres on the order of 90% of his weapons.
Jaysus, Mary and Joseph…!
Yeah, why didn’t the Chimpler invade Canada for its oil?
Big, open border – check
Already disarmed – check
Half the country wishes we would invade – check
Boy, the Chimpy Wonder is dumberer and eviler than I ever thought possible.
McBush Hitlerburton is smart enough to leave Canada alone – – he knows, from careful listening to Peter Griffin from “Family Guy” that:
“Canada Sucks”
Besides, it’s bad enough dealing with liberals here and jihadi in the middle East. You think we need the toothache called “Quebec”?
/sarcasm
DC:
Two points here: Firstly, it is my belief that the IRA gave up the armed struggle for exactly the reasons that I described. They recognised that they stood a good chance of attaining their goals by political means, and, equally importantly, the people in Northern Ireland and also the Irish Republic also recognised this, and were unwilling to continue supporting the paramilitaries. This brought them to the table and produced the ceasefire that was implemented in 1994. I believe that the final impetus to persuade them to fully renounce the armed struggle and make the ceasefire permanent arose from the murder of Robert McCartney some months ago by IRA members, followed by the theft of 26 million pounds in a bank robbery. This persuaded the populace that what had once been a legitimate organisation fighting for the Republican cause had degraded into a criminal gang and therefore no longer had a role to play in what had become a genuine process of political settlement.
As regards the time it took to reach a settlement, you are incorrect. The struggle lasted 30 years, (largely, I believe, because of the insistence that we “nevere give in to terror”) but once real dialogue had started (let’s use the issuing of the Downing Street Declaration in December 1993 as a start point) the IRA ceasefire was in place within 9 months – at the end of August the following year. Pretty quick, by my standards. From this date, the level of violence fell very dramatically, although some attacks continued, largely carried out by extremist fringe factions (Continuity IRA and the Real IRA for example) who have no legitimate support in the republican community. These factions are not a major threat and are easily dealt with by policing and criminal justice organisations.
I would agree with you – killing is killing. Though you have chosen to use the word “murder” because it carries more emotive impact that “killing”. But murder is simply that – killing people. (You may argue that the issue of intent comes into it, but I will address this point later on, if I may). And whether the killing is collateral damage caused when an American bomb destroys the houses that surround a terrorist hideout or the deaths caused when a terrorist blows himself up in a car, the dead are still dead and their families still feel unimaginable loss and anger. And just as you have used the deaths of the people in Madrid to justify further violence, the extremists will use the deaths and anger caused by American weapons to justify their own continuing struggle. (The IRA did exactly this with the Bloody Sunday massacre, incidentally). And so the cycle of violence continues. It takes politicians of REAL courage (not just the “bring it on kind”) to break this cycle. It’s one of the few areas where I have some admiration for the political courage of Margaret Thatcher.
Not true – the Canary Wharf bombings, and the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings are three examples of civilian targets attacked by the IRA.
Not gonna argue with you on this one – both Judaism and Islam have some violent tendencies, and both have pretty bloody histories. Whether either one’s violence is “justified” by the texts concerned is a matter for scholars of comparative religion, not me.
Indeed – and they judge us on the basis of what WE do, and not on what we say we do or why we say we do it. Invading their country and killing lots of innocent people (whether deliberately or not) is likely to swing their opinions against us, however much we may protest our good intentions. Intent is a neat concept, but can easily be subverted, especially when portrayed (as it is by the extremists) as mere window dressing for imperial ambitions. Remeber that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and sadly we seem to be moving down that particular road at high speed, in full military battledress.
Once again, I ask you: How would you unf*ck the Middle East?
Judging from this quote of his not only did he want her son dead, he says it is a necessary sacrifice so that God will forgive us.
Not enough time for a detailed reply, although it’s nice to see we’ve progressed beyond sliming Mother Sheehan.
Short answer – IMO, we ARE doing something productive in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have facilitated the removal of the Ba’athists in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan. Looking at it through western eyes, the people there are better off – – self-determination is something that they have never had before and only time will tell if they use this “gift” (again, through western eyes, freedom IS a gift) well.
We are supporting these governments in building their own infrastructure to the point where they can stand on their own – yes it is nation-state building and America is the only country with the heft and willpower to do it – – whether it’s right or not is a matter of interpretation. I’m personally past caring about how we got there – I DO believe there was justification for going in in GW1 and GW2 – – but now we need to finish the job we started and help these new democracies get off to a good start.
On that note, off to home.
Cheers –
DC
“Yeah, well I don’t consider the entire population of the Middle East to be either children or dogs, I consider them to be be no more or less rational than all the rest of us on this planet. But I guess the subtlety of the argument was lost on you.”
ROFL! What was that bit about a mote in the eye?
Say they are rational people.
Say they want something.
Say they negotiate and don’t get what they want.
Say they blow shit up and do get what they want.
What rational decision would you make the next time you wanted something, Einstein?
Dogs, children, adults, it doesn’t matter.
If behaviour is rewarded it tends to be repeated is one of the most obvious fucking truisms of all time.
Salvage is a prime example of how those who call President Bush a liar so quickly begin lying themselves.
Thanks to Ian for the primer on the IRA and effective persuasion in a democratic system. Sure makes us look like the prime chumps of all time for limiting ourselves to electioneering.
“[S]elf-determination is something that they have never had before and only time will tell if they use this “gift†(again, through western eyes, freedom IS a gift) well.”
You might want to include the receipt with that gift. Just in case.
“Looking at it through western eyes”
No kidding.
Paul,
So what’s your suggestion? I’ve detailed to you an example of how terrorism can be eliminated by creating a political process. Do you have any examples of a different way of eliminating terrorism? Or do you prefer to just sit there on the sidelines and take shots?
Strangely enough, by mentioning electioneering, you’ve actually simply helped me to make my point. Electioneering is possible BECAUSE we have a political system that people can turn to to address their grievances. Nobody in the general population is likely to support violent extremism whilst they believe that the political system provides a voice for resolving grievances. Take Timothy McVeigh – did he enjoy popular support for his attack amongst the population? Of course not. People condemned his actions because, like every other adult in America, he had many other ways of addressing his grievances. Do the people living in Palestinian refugee camps for 20 years have such a voice? No. So what is the alternative for these people? Demonstrations? They tried it but they didn’t work – they’re easy to ignore. Running for office? How? You’re not even allowed to travel, let alone vote. Their only alternative is to fight for a voice.
Do you have ANY evidence that your method of resolving terrorism is working? Because as far as I can tell (and I’m willing to look at any accurate statistics you can produce) it seems to me that the current approach (be it War on Terror or Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism) isn’t working by any means. More innocent people are dying in terrorist acts now than were dying before the GWOT began. So explain to me again exactly how your way is working. How will you win the War? What will victory look like?
B Moe:
So – Are the IRA still blowing people up in Ireland? No. Are the ANC still blowing stuff up in South Africa? No. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you: It’s because the injustices that created the extremism has been addressed through a political process, thus neutralising the appeal of extremist violence to the population at large. Once again I’ll say it – terrorism exists in a context.
You seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the complexities of my argument. I will try once more to explain it to you. I’ll do it point by point so that you can decide whether you agree or disagree with me at each step, and if you disagree, we can discuss each point and so see if we can understand each other better. It’s not as much fun as screaming and shouting at each other but it’s a lot more grown up, no?
Here goes:
Injustice creates grievances.
Most people suffering injustices are usually too busy getting on with their lives to actually do anything about these grievances except complain and grumble.
Therefore there is no violence.
But if the injustice endures too long or becomes too unbearable, some people (not everyone, but SOME people – the more extreme amongst them, or those for whom the injustices are particularly acute) will decide that they’re “mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it any more”.
Some people in the general population won’t feel so strongly and will counsel tolerance. Some may be indifferent and not care either way, whilst others may implicitly support some form of direct action, whilst not being willing to engage in such action themselves. (eg – Not everyone in the South was a member of the Klan, but there was a level of implicit support that allowed the extremists to survice and thrive).
Are you with me so far?
The violence begins at a low level. (eg – Throwing stones at troops during the first Intifada in Palestine).
This violence provokes a violent response from the authorities. In other words, violence begets more violence. (eg – Soldiers respond to stone-throwing incidents with rubber bullets which may accidentally result in death of innocent victims).
Still with me? Good.
Extremists then use the violent reponse of the enemy to ratchet up their own violence and to illustrate to the more tolerant elements of the population (those who might have initially not supported violence) that the injustice is getting worse and that the authorities are willing to kill innocent people. Violence becomes more pronounced. (eg – Stones become petrol bombs. Petrol bombs become real bombs. Soldiers and policemen start dying).
Those in power then authorise the soldiers to use more extreme methods to suppress the extremists. Violence begets more violence. (eg – Soldiers start using live ammo and kill more people). These dead people then become martyrs within the community. Their deaths cannot be in vain. Their deaths become an argument for the killing of more people on the other side.
Still agree?
Both sides are now locked into a cycle of escalating violence. Each death is another death that must be avenged. Each atrocity is presented as another example of the depraved inhumanity of “the oppressor” or “the terrorists” according to which side you’re on. Communication becomes impossible through words and becomes exclusively through violence. Indeed, the very suggestion that discussion can take place becomes tantamount to betrayal of the cause because “We’ll never talk to terrorists” or “We will never negotiate with the oppressors”.
Do you agree with me that this is an accurate representation of what happens? I do hope so.
So, answer me this: Who wins in this situation? How do you stop the violence?
There are only two options, really:
1. Dialogue. A political process, a ceasefire, the resolution of grievances, and eventually, peace.
Or:
2. Violence. Carry on killing the other side until they are all dead. There is another name for this: Genocide.
Which option do you support?
If they were willing to negotiate, which to my knowledge no fundamentalist Arab has ever done in good faith with an infidel, what is there to negotiate, Ian?
They want Israel gone. Period. If anybody over there were capable of negotiation Israel would be a postage stamp little country nowhere near Jerusalem and none of this would be happening.
You have to have two willing sides for option 1 to accomplish anything. I only see one.
Option 2 can be effected unilaterally.
Since you go on to critique the alternative I supposedly haven’t offered, I guess it’s a moot point. And that alternative does include democratization, though for one reason or another you don’t seem too happy about that. I just don’t mistake it for a panacea; the example of Britain, whcih was a democracy all the while it was being bombed, and where rumors of terrorism’s demise seem to be greatly exaggerated, bears me out. As does the example of the American South, likewise a democracy. What do you think the government should have done to satisfy the legitimate grievances of the KKK?
B Moe,
Yeah, genocide usually *is* a unilateral option, so you’re right there.
Your argument about “no fundamentalist ever negotiating with infidels” is both diversionary and circular. It’s diversionary because you don’t have any evidence to support your claim. (The fact that negotiations took place but did not succeed immediately does NOT prove your point – quite the opposite, in fact).
And it’s circular because you want to define “fundamentalist” as “not willing to negotiate”.
So you tell me that second option I provided (i.e. genocide) is the only one you will accept. Let’s be clear what you’re advocating here: The elimination of all Muslims. Shall we place an order for cattle trucks and gas chambers now, or should we perhaps discuss this matter further before you commit to that point of view?
Let’s start by seeing if you can explain to me the ways is which your desire to remove all Muslims from the face of the planet is different to the Islamic fundamentalists’ view that Israel must be eliminated. Go on – I dare you to try.
I mean really, Moe, who is the fundamentalist, here?
Paul,
I think you’ll find that Irish terrorism is pretty much a non-issue. Do you not agree? Now if you want to discuss how to resolve Extremist Muslim terrorists, let’s talk, and let’s take the lessons we learned from the peaceful resolution of the Irish problem into that discussion.
And where have I said that I do not favour democratisation? You have completely missed my point – during the Irish troubles, the political wing of the IRA (Sinn Fein) was a banned organisation – thus excluded from the process. Hence the violence. Democratisation is therefore part of the solution, but democracy means accepting that the people may choose a government that imposes Sharia law. Accept it – that’s what democracy means. Or do yo uonly want democracies that elect right-wing, Christian governments?
Ian –
I’m in the middle of a book called “The Sling and the Stone” written by a US Marine Colonel named Tom Hammes. Very interesting book, once you get past the initial “dryness” of the subject.
Here is a link to a review in NPR (also known affectionately as “National Proletariat Radio”)
<a href=”http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4176645″ target=”_blank”>
The gist of the book is that warfare has evolved several times over the last 100 or so years and that leaders like Mao, Ho Chi Minh, the Sandinistas, the Palestinian Intifada, etc. have all refined a variant of “insurgency” that Mao came up with in China. We’re not going to see standard warfare anymore, and the “insurgencies” are using words, politics, and the media to “get their point across”. What they are really after is not to defeat our military on the ground, but to defeat our national will, our willingness to continue the fight because of the “price” in lives lost, economic impact, etc.
I think it is a dangerous and misleading assumption that these “insurgents” want only to come to the bargaining table and be given a “voice” they did not previously have. Much like my earlier reference to freedom being a Western “gift”, politics is as much about control as it is about pithy dialogue.
Let’s not kid ourselves. That’s why the Islamic insurgents are attempting to foment civil war between the Shia and Sunni, to spin things further out of the control of Iraq’s fledgling government. These people don’t want to talk – they want us GONE, they want the government to be theocratically based, like Iran’s, and the institution of an Islamic society. They will “bargain” on their terms and make it appear that they are compliant – – as long as they get what they want.
All of this posturing leverages the West’s weakness – our sense of “compassion” (or guilt, take your pick), and “fairness”. These are terms the left cherishes and which it thinks the US routinely violates – – it’s UNFAIR that we’re so big and powerful, so we’ve GOT to be infringing on someone else’s rights.
Radical Islam rejects Western government and its rules and wants to restore a caliphate with Islamic law. I don’t see these radicals changing their position, since they know that enough blood and violence will eventually get us to change for them. That’s called “appeasement”, and you can go back to Neville Chamberlain to see where that got us.
We’ve already explained until blue in the face the lessons learned from Major’s craven appeasement of the IRA: Blowing up innocent people is an effective way of overruling the wishes of Britain’s electorate. Yassin Hassan Omar and company learned that lesson even if you did not.
I shall ignore your preposterous strawman about “right-wing, Christian governments”, as I assume Moe will ignore your preposterous stawman about “genocide”.
If you need evidence to support the claim that Arab leadership has refused absolutely to negotiate regarding Israel then quite frankly you are too ignorant to be discussing this issue. Get off the forums and go study some history. David Ben Gurion was willing to accept at one time an Israel that basically encompassed historic Galilee and a small strip of land to the coast. The Arabs refused to consider the propsal. Don’t remember the details, it was from a white paper in the 20’s I think. Look it up.
And I do not advocate the genocide of all Muslims, only the ones hell-bent on the genocide of all infidels. How exactly to you propose to placate the terrorists without commiting genocide against the Israelis? Do you think you or anyone else is going to convince them to abandon their country?
See you later, this is getting to ridiculous to be fun anymore.
Man, all you commentors are crazy going off on A-rabs and Canadians and Joos.
Didn’t ya’ll see that Crawford Peace House has a rock garden labyrinth maze? Nothing says world peace like a rock garden labyrinth maze.
<a href=”http://www.crawfordpeacehouse.org/index.html” target=”_blank”>
Ahhhh…I feel all peaceable just looking at that maze of rocks. Makes me want to cart a few over to “Camp Cindy” and toss a few at the denizens, you know, to show them how to emulate the intifada.
After they dig the rocks out of their skulls and nether regions, they can wash them gently in patchouli oil and then toss them at black cars with flags and at any black helicopters that might wander by…
Incidentally, here’s a bunch of video of what Sheehan is actually saying.