Blame America? Empty Argument.
Published by BG on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 8:40 AM.Yes, let's blame America.
It's our fault that al Qaida murdered 3000+ innocent Americans on 9/11.
Blame America first.
So yesterday I posted an argument that stated that one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 was due to our intervention in the Middle East. CJ disagrees with the notion entirely, and instead believes that al Qaeda Islamic fundamentalists hate us because of "our values" - i.e., democracy, women's rights, ability to worship whatever god we choose to, Melrose Place...
(Why I'm talking about this as if someone besides CJ is reading, I have no idea...)
I don't pretend to be an expert in foreign policy, but I do try to listen to more people than politicians and pundits to try to see the issue clearly. I quoted the February 1998 fatwa issued by OBL his damn self, which states in no uncertain terms that the occupation of the "lands of Islam" by the United States, our aggression towards Iraq* and our support of Israel are the "crimes" on which the violence he advocates is licensed.
*In an effort to short-circuit the "al Qaeda hates Iraq, you liberals can't have it both ways" argument, allow me to present exhibit A, that shows al Qaeda had been working in vain to ally with Iraq through the 90s:
You know, I don't know why I'm arguing against a baseless assertion when the three key players from al Qaeda (OBL, KSM, Atta) were all quoted as saying foreign policy and Israel were their motivations, not mini-skirts, Mapplethorpe, or McDonald's. My evidence is there, and I'm choosing to take it at face value. What evidence is there that al Qaeda exists because of Jesus and Cinemax anyway?
But this "blame America" bullshit... You know, OBL can "blame" America for al Qaeda's irrational rage. He said so himself. We continue to tell Arab governments how to behave, and we continue to support Israel with nearly unconditional fervor. Even if our goals are the most noble goals possible, is it entirely beyond belief that the most potent recruiting tool al Qaeda could have would be the interference of a pagan government in Islamic matters, justifying in their fundamentalist rhetoric a necessary war to drive the infidels out of their land?
The idea of "blame" is crap, however. It's empty rhetoric meant to shift an empty argument from reality to some abstract concept of patriotism, and on top of that it's purely dishonest. I said, "this is what Osama bin Laden, the idealogue behind the 9/11 attacks has said about the United States." You take that and accuse me of "blaming" America. How is that not dishonest? I give you facts, you accuse me of being unpatriotic. How is that not dishonest?
Osama bin Laden blamed America for 9/11. You'd agree on that statement, right? It was something about us that prompted the terrorist attacks, correct?
Why is it disagreeable for me to point to his fatwa on America to attempt to show you where their irrational leap in logic came from?
I don't understand this head-in-the-sand approach at all. See, no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s. There are probably fantastic reasons to change our foreign policy in the Middle East, but kowtowing to the irrational rhetoric of a lanky cleric who lives in a cave is certainly not one of them.
What this becomes is a house of cards for the rhetorical arguments made by this administration that we should or shouldn't do something because of the terrorists. Don't appease, don't embolden, don't withdraw... The problem with our government acknowledging that (say) our enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq back in 1995 is why al Qaeda hates us, or that our support of Israel is why al Qaeda hates us, is that those policies then enter the discussion with the added weight of the threat of terrorism.
To be clear, Saddam was a bad guy and the no-fly zone survived three Presidents across two parties, so it was probably a good idea. Also, our relationship with Israel, while certainly more complicated and fraught with consequences than we generally acknowledge, is a strong relationship with a long-time friend that carries value.
So the same administration that suggests that "we're fighting them there so they don't follow us home" and warns that they believe the warning sign "might be a mushroom cloud" over a US city cannot allow the decisions of our government to enter into the argument about preventing terrorism.
The fearmongering that has done since 2001 will absolutely backfire on the government if the people begin to believe that something as simple as pulling troops out of the Middle East will prevent al Qaeda from attacking. For the sake of clarity, I don't believe that to be true, as our relationship with Israel is not something that can be realistically dissolved, and that's probably a bigger part of the problem in their eyes than Iraq anyway.
Point being, terrorism is an easier sell to the public if they feel the illogical irrationality of the terrorists is due to an abstraction and not a reality. You can "fix" our involvement in Iraq (again CJ, I don't think this solves the al Qaeda problem either), but dammit, we won't "fix" freedom. As long as people believe that we don't have to fix a goddamn thing about ourselves to address this problem, the government continues to keep the support of the people to "solve" terrorism without coming to terms with the base motivations that spark their insurgency.
I don't see why this is such a leap in logic for conservatives to make.
It's our fault that al Qaida murdered 3000+ innocent Americans on 9/11.
Blame America first.
So yesterday I posted an argument that stated that one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 was due to our intervention in the Middle East. CJ disagrees with the notion entirely, and instead believes that al Qaeda Islamic fundamentalists hate us because of "our values" - i.e., democracy, women's rights, ability to worship whatever god we choose to, Melrose Place...
(Why I'm talking about this as if someone besides CJ is reading, I have no idea...)
I don't pretend to be an expert in foreign policy, but I do try to listen to more people than politicians and pundits to try to see the issue clearly. I quoted the February 1998 fatwa issued by OBL his damn self, which states in no uncertain terms that the occupation of the "lands of Islam" by the United States, our aggression towards Iraq* and our support of Israel are the "crimes" on which the violence he advocates is licensed.
*In an effort to short-circuit the "al Qaeda hates Iraq, you liberals can't have it both ways" argument, allow me to present exhibit A, that shows al Qaeda had been working in vain to ally with Iraq through the 90s:
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994.
You know, I don't know why I'm arguing against a baseless assertion when the three key players from al Qaeda (OBL, KSM, Atta) were all quoted as saying foreign policy and Israel were their motivations, not mini-skirts, Mapplethorpe, or McDonald's. My evidence is there, and I'm choosing to take it at face value. What evidence is there that al Qaeda exists because of Jesus and Cinemax anyway?
But this "blame America" bullshit... You know, OBL can "blame" America for al Qaeda's irrational rage. He said so himself. We continue to tell Arab governments how to behave, and we continue to support Israel with nearly unconditional fervor. Even if our goals are the most noble goals possible, is it entirely beyond belief that the most potent recruiting tool al Qaeda could have would be the interference of a pagan government in Islamic matters, justifying in their fundamentalist rhetoric a necessary war to drive the infidels out of their land?
The idea of "blame" is crap, however. It's empty rhetoric meant to shift an empty argument from reality to some abstract concept of patriotism, and on top of that it's purely dishonest. I said, "this is what Osama bin Laden, the idealogue behind the 9/11 attacks has said about the United States." You take that and accuse me of "blaming" America. How is that not dishonest? I give you facts, you accuse me of being unpatriotic. How is that not dishonest?
Osama bin Laden blamed America for 9/11. You'd agree on that statement, right? It was something about us that prompted the terrorist attacks, correct?
Why is it disagreeable for me to point to his fatwa on America to attempt to show you where their irrational leap in logic came from?
I don't understand this head-in-the-sand approach at all. See, no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s. There are probably fantastic reasons to change our foreign policy in the Middle East, but kowtowing to the irrational rhetoric of a lanky cleric who lives in a cave is certainly not one of them.
What this becomes is a house of cards for the rhetorical arguments made by this administration that we should or shouldn't do something because of the terrorists. Don't appease, don't embolden, don't withdraw... The problem with our government acknowledging that (say) our enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq back in 1995 is why al Qaeda hates us, or that our support of Israel is why al Qaeda hates us, is that those policies then enter the discussion with the added weight of the threat of terrorism.
To be clear, Saddam was a bad guy and the no-fly zone survived three Presidents across two parties, so it was probably a good idea. Also, our relationship with Israel, while certainly more complicated and fraught with consequences than we generally acknowledge, is a strong relationship with a long-time friend that carries value.
So the same administration that suggests that "we're fighting them there so they don't follow us home" and warns that they believe the warning sign "might be a mushroom cloud" over a US city cannot allow the decisions of our government to enter into the argument about preventing terrorism.
The fearmongering that has done since 2001 will absolutely backfire on the government if the people begin to believe that something as simple as pulling troops out of the Middle East will prevent al Qaeda from attacking. For the sake of clarity, I don't believe that to be true, as our relationship with Israel is not something that can be realistically dissolved, and that's probably a bigger part of the problem in their eyes than Iraq anyway.
Point being, terrorism is an easier sell to the public if they feel the illogical irrationality of the terrorists is due to an abstraction and not a reality. You can "fix" our involvement in Iraq (again CJ, I don't think this solves the al Qaeda problem either), but dammit, we won't "fix" freedom. As long as people believe that we don't have to fix a goddamn thing about ourselves to address this problem, the government continues to keep the support of the people to "solve" terrorism without coming to terms with the base motivations that spark their insurgency.
I don't see why this is such a leap in logic for conservatives to make.
Powered by ScribeFire.
