 |
“Did you catch my act over the weekend, Billy?—when me and ninety-something other irate CITIZENS OF THE WORLD protested outside the US Embassy in Spain, giving voice to inconvenient truths being buried by the Zionist-friendly western media, namely, that Iraq is worse than Vietnam ever was, and that Bush is by every objective standard a war criminal?”* | |
 |
“No, sorry, missed that—though in my defense, I was a bit distracted by those fifteen million or so purple-fingered Iraqis I saw on CNN fleeing for their lives from Pol Pot.
“And with nary a makeshift raft in sight. The poor oppressed dears.” |
Cindy who?
That link … my eyes. What the hell was Sheehan saying/doing when that photo was taken. Where is Allah someone needs to photoshop that image.
It’s odd because I really thought that the rafting industry was set to explode if we just got Saddam out of the way.
Weak puns don’t help, Rob.
Quick!
Revoke the hag’s passport…..
Heh. Damn racist leftist Marxist socialists.
TODD—Before she tries to come back. Time the woman without a chin became the woman without a country.
Billy is becoming downright reactionary.
Must be the constant kung fu blows to the head.
Sure. But when you think about it, after a few conversations with Sheehan, Michael Moore would be putting on his war face and running through Iraq firing on insurgents.
Billy’s only lasted this long because of his training in Native American mysticism.
And bourbon.
Oh, we’re cracking firewater jokes now?
RACIST!!!
Can you BE racist towards a lapsed-Catholic Mick chop-socky actor? IS this one of those So-What-Iron-Eyes-Cody-Is-Italian things…?
Wait. Sorry. I thought this was an Adkins Diet site.
Are we supposed to assume as received wisdom, for the purpose of this comment about Sheehan’s commitment to the global war on terrorism, that the war in Iraq is actually promoting rather than, as many experts and others (including this author) believe, hindering the war against terror-jihadism?
Of course, I suppose that among RWers, this is strongly believed, but to assume that anyone else believes it or should automatically agree with this shibboleth is not merely presumptive, it is failing to recognize the existence of alternative points of view being possible.
I don’t care what you believe, frankly. But to think I should base my posts on how you might react is not merely presumptive, but—oh fuck it.
Whatever.
Helpful hint: Stringing together lots of long words doesn’t make you sound intelligent. In fact, it makes you sound like someone desperately excercising their thesaurus. True intelligence is expressed by clarity, not word choice.
The entire quoted phrase could have been reduced to “you should know that others disagree”, and not only would the meaning be clearer, but more people would be likely to read it, rather than simply skipping over it in a MEGO reaction.
Sadly, though, your comment would still be met with an eye-roll, because it doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been said a million times. Repetition still doesn’t make it true.
Sounds reasonable. Let me give it a try:
In other words, killing terrorists is what creates terrorists?
You’re right, Robert, this guy is an idiot.
tw: Against all reason.
I figured Billy Jack would like his news “fair and balanced.”
Whoops, and also, “unafraid,” naturally.
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
Consider the proclamation, that “killing terrorists is what creates terrorists”, is the only point that someone who opposes the Iraq War and does NOT see it as furthering the struggle against terror-jihadism could possibly mean. What has been done is precisely what was described in the passage, the language of which was subject to protestation from another angle. It does exactly what I said—assumes as received wisdom a given spin on the Iraq War, and then dubs anyone who disagrees with that position an “idiot”.
But here are some problems. The US did not invade Iraq, even purportedly, to go after all those terrorists that were collected there. It was supposedly to address a near-imminent WMD threat that turned out to be trumped-up. Then of course, there is the argument that we were toppling Saddam Hussein, who was it is true a nasty dictator (one we found convenient in during the Reagan era), to establish the country as a font of democracy to spread through the region, with democracy being the best cure for the spread of terrorism. The logic of that causation actually coming about is dubious—what I wonder is why, with the reconquest of Kuwait, a much better candidate for a stable working democracy that doesn’t require a US military presence indefinitely to keep things the way we would like them, wasn’t pursued. After all, the emir was totally in our debt, and democratic concessions in that much smaller and more unified society should have been a no brainer, given that goal.
But then there is the idea that we are fighting “the terrorists” in Iraq so we won’t have to face them here, arguably the weakest of all these pretexts for geopolitical positioning in an oil-rich region, in particular on top of Iraq’s huge reserves. The “terrorists” are the resistance to our occupation, over 90% of whom were NOT linked to the Al Qaeda network before the war. It is said that, while Al Qaeda and its affiliates had no presence to speak of in the portion of Iraq controlled by Hussein before we invaded, they have sent in fewer than 1000 agents, and recruited some indeterminate degree of support.
Now, just because the resistance uses IEDs doesn’t class them with Al Qaeda and its affiliates, who are determined to project their power beyond the region to threaten the US and our allies elsewhere. Those folk were mainly in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, when we failed to put the necessary resources into closing in on Tora Bora ourselves. So merely bandying about the word “terrorist” doesn’t truly solve, except in safely partisan venues (like where Bush likes to appear) the problem of whether, globally, the sympathy for the terror-jihadist network that threatens the US, and its recruitment, aren’t in fact HELPED by the Iraq War. It merely tries to avoid it by a semantic sleight of hand.
And this with all the complaints about language and clarity and length ad nauseum.
Here is one question: experts who follow the websites frequented by terror-jihadists noted a decidely gloomy mood as the US and its allies closed in on Tora Bora. They also noticed elation as the idea of the Iraq invasion was broached, and as war loomed, and especially with the state of the occupation now. Why are they so elated with policies that YOU claim are the most effective in combatting …. terror-jihadism? I suppose one could claim that this diversity of chatter at a number of sites (in languages I don’t know and you probably don’t either, including Arabic, etc.) was for the purpose of ‘fooling’ the West. But, rather than deal with those hard questions, it’s so much easier to take the notions about the Iraq War, notions I and Cindy Sheehan, and many terrorism experts reject, and simply hurl the label “idiot” at the view.
It is one thing to hone ideas, and another to, that’s right, merely cheerlead. And although I gather whatever I say can be attacked on any grounds, it is an outrage to suggest that such presumption and solipsism, and such inability to consider any point of view other than one’s own in its own terms, should be subject to countecriticism.
And, by the way, the supposedly equivalent statement to what I said wasn’t really equivalent at all. Not that it matters anyway.
WHAT?????? HUH????????? Take another Klonopin and go to bed, ok? Jeff, I think you need moderated comments.
What a complete gasbagging spanktard.
tw: underwhelmed…
Now Cloudy lumps himself together with a terrorist collaborator like Cindy Sheehan.
Cloudy, seriously, you are an idiot.
Wow. I must be really tired. For a minute there I was tempted to explain to Cloudy that people who blow up civilians are generally considered “terrorists” by virtue of their tactics.
That was close.
Democrat Party! Democrat Party! Democrat Party!
cloudy’s version: 86 words
My version: 21 words
See the difference, cloudy? Assuming I translated correctly, of course. Your syntax is convoluted.
This CLoudy Clown and his ilk can spin how Cindy’s just against the war and otherwise is just a peachy keen American Patriot voicing her opinion. I think they’re full of it. Anybody catch this little tid-bit in that link?:
So basically, what this is about is condemning US Troops that (in her worldview) go around and haphazardly target innocent journalists (unlike say the Terrorists who just let them go about their business).
Once more demonstrating that brevity is the soul of wit.
Why are [terrorists] so elated with policies that YOU claim are the most effective in combatting …. terror-jihadism?
Oh, I dunno. Maybe for the same reason they thought videotaping beheadings and blowing up Iraqi women and children were great public relations moves?
Calling Pfr. Strunk. Pfr. Strunk? Bombast spillage, aisle 12.
Or, to paraphrase Master Strunk himself, never send a fifty cent word to do a ten cent word’s job.
The Clouded Random Prose Generator strikes:
Ah, Clouded, Earth here … we’re picking up some odd transmissions … somewhere down in the static … roger what seems to be your … SN is … off the scale … try again.
Ignoring the soggy mess from the CLOUDburst above and back OT, it appears that Cindy was invited to Madrid by a group known as American Voices In Spain (website), an anti-war/anti-Bush group of expats and other left-minded Americans living and working in that country. At the bottom of the linked page they’ve posted their mission statement which consists of 7 bullet points. The fourth reads, ”Support the right of all people to live in a transparent, democratic society.”
Do they not see the inherent humor in opposing the very thing they claim as a founding principle? I can easily imagine the outrage they’d exhibit about Iraq had a Democrat been elected to the White House in 2004. It’d sound something like this:
…
What is it about Bush Derangement Syndrome that causes people to abandon reason and actively wish for; work for; hope for harm to others in pursuit of bringing down this single man? It boggles. It confounds.
It’s amazing how seamlessly what I described as “received wisdom” is simply assumed to be the only point of view possible. The answer to my question, of course, as to whether the Iraq War is to be so presumed as promoting the war on terror—a contention hotly disputed by people along a broad spectrum of political opinion, mind you—is to be considered received wisdom is a simple ‘yes, around here, that’s received wisdom’.
The answer given as to why terror-jihadists, gloomy when our forces in Afghanistan were closing in on Tora Bora, were elated about the prospects of an Iraq War? ‘Because they’re knuckleheads who presumably don’t know what furthers their cause.’ Well, it might be a satisfying ideological answer for the faithful, but it isn’t analytically very convincing.
Then the same solipsism carries over into the ‘killing terrorists is what creates terrorists’ supposed editing to be a briefer equivalent. No it isn’t. Your translation assumes precisely what my longer statement rejected, namely, that this statement is a fair summary of the widely held view that the war in Iraq is NOT furthering the struggle against terror-jihadism.
Again, the fact that tactics you define as terrorist (Chomsky uses the same definition to arrive at some faulty reasoning on the other end of the political spectrum, by the way, so you are at least in what I consider good company) are used by the resistance does not mean that the struggle in Iraq is helping in our struggle against a loose-knit but fairly definable group of forces who are indeed out to attack the US and its interests, whether we occupy their country or not. The confusion between the two is indeed little more than a RW talking point, not an analysis of the problem.
Merely touting your talking points and razzing anyone who disagrees reveals the hollowness of a given political approach. Sometimes, as when what if true was an incredibly stupid (and false) statement by Reid is presented—in its context as supposedly showing paradox and contradiction to the call for a 90 extension of the Patriot Act—that is evidence of a position. But simply to proceed on the assumption that anyone (now the majority of Americans) who want out of Iraq and feel it was a mistake to have invaded in the first place is simply a de facto ally of terrorism is ridiculous.
The term for that kind of thinking is solipsism—the inability to see a world that exists independently of one’s own subjective perspective. And building on that foundation, it is easy to consider oneself ever so clever.
And you do consider yourself ever so clever, don’t you?
And using the word solipsism in a sentence it must be easy for you to consider yourself quite clever, too. Please, just stand back for a second and try to grasp the fact that you’ve been treating a brief, insightful, and humorous post without showing any of those qualities yourself.
I’m glad others are reading the cloudbursts so I don’t have to. I figure that if there’s a point buried in the rainstorms, one of the journeyman trollbusters will find it.
Ah Clouded, Houston here … still receiving … S/N unreadable …. sshhhhhhh … pzzzzt …. shhh … retransmit when … ssshhhp … reemerge from behind Uranus …
tw: The middle of nowhere.
The term for that kind of thinking is solipsismâ€â€the inability to see a world that exists independently of one’s own subjective perspective. And building on that foundation, it is easy to consider oneself ever so clever.
Oh, man. Pity the poor bastard of an underpaid and overworked TA who was stuck reading cloudy’s epic-length Philosophy 101 papers last semester.
cloudy and his/her ilk are the reason the ‘page down’ key on my computer’s keyboard has worn off its paint.
NOBODY READS YOUR VERBAL MASTURBATION WITHOUT ROLLING THEIR EYES!!
…and one time at Band Camp, I stuck a squirrel up my ass.
Cloudy, would do a fella a favor? I’ve got something I’d like to put in your mouth. Just keep it warm for me. No sucking necessary.
Dude! That is so. fucking. heavy.
The point about solipsism is that anything that deviates from the hard-right orthodoxy so many in this locale seem to embrace, rather than truly being considered in terms of what arguments are made, is rejected out of hand. Then come the put downs and infield chatter, and then the complaints that I criticize it.
You know, the notion that Cindy Sheehan is a “terrorist collaborator” would in most venues—and I don’t mean LEFTIST venues, but most mainstream ones as well—be considered as humorous as many consider all the protestations about Strunk, the squirrels, the protestations about using the word solipsism, etc.
Yet not one person has tried to argue that the type of RW thinking here is NOT solipsistic, but is open-minded, responding to arguments (even those they don’t happen to embrace) outside a narrow band of opinion, and ready to marshall evidence rather than invective in its support.
To simply assume or proclaim that such “goes without saying” is only a demonstration of solipsism, not a disproof of my observing it.
There is a world out there of people who might disagree with Sheehan, but don’t consider her essentially a traitor. Those folk (presumably the beknighted majority) on the whole now feel that going into Iraq was a mistake, and are horrified at any notion that journalists might indeed be targeted by our military forces when deemed convenient.
I will reiterate what I said before, which is still spot-on:
Cloudy, Cindy Sheehan appeared at an event to raise money for Lynne Stewart who was convicted of aiding WTC bombing conspirator Rahman to smuggle communications out of prison. That makes her a terrorist collaborator.
Thankew! I’ll be here all week! When do I get paid?