Counter-Counter-Point
Published by BG on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 12:52 PM.From the comments on this post:
Conservatives live in reality. We don't need to live a life of guilt and draw ridiculous conclusions to support elitist attitudes. Why else would someone take a Blame America stand?
Who's blaming America again? What's elitist about saying "this nutball says he attacked us for this reason," and then pointing you to his words directly? By no means am I suggesting his logic is sound or his motives righteous.
And just so we're clear, the purpose of my post, and ostensibly this comment is to discuss the notion that our foreign policy in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the attacks on 9/11, right?
Is it so wrong to stop a madman like Hussein from invading countries, supporting terrorism, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Do we not, as a powerful nation, have a morale (sic) obligation to step in and stop it?
Had you actually read the post instead of assuming you knew where it was going, you'd note that I specifically stated "...no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s." It's asinine to claim on one hand that we're a shining city on a hill, a moral beacon willing to right the wrongs of the world - but then on the other hand make our foreign policy decisions based on the worldview of some illogical nutball who lives in a cave.
Let me state this clearly: There are plenty of good reasons to change our approach to foreign policy. The fervor of Islamic fundamentalists preaching a radical agenda and utilizing terror techniques is not a good reason.
Also, my use of the word "change" above is purposefully nebulous. Foreign policy is a living, breathing set of ideals that need to be agile to deal with the economic and social realities of the countries with whom we're dealing. Nowhere in these last three paragraphs can you honestly assign any statements as to what *I* think our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East should be, other than we shouldn't let terrorists dictate what we can and can't do with our friendships with Israel and Saudi Arabia (as an example).
Apparently you think the American public is stupid. You claim that terrorism needs to be sold, that the public cannot draw their own conclusions from what they see or read.
The American public is stupid, and that's entirely purposeful. Terrorism doesn't need to be sold, but the fear of terrorism and the heavy-handed paternal politics we've seen since 9/11 (warrantless wiretapping, the "quaint" nature of the Geneva Convention, the Patriot Act) are part and parcel with one another, and that's not accidental - it's marketing. Americans want to have an opinion about everything, but don't want to spend more than fourteen seconds formulating that opinion, so we're given something easier to understand than 50+ years of American/Israeli cooperation and how the continued economic disenfranchisement of Arabic men requires the Sheikhs and Emirs who control the wealth to actively fund and encourage this political hatred in order to keep their prideful male population focused on perceived problems they can't control. Life is more complicated than people want to hear, and I guarantee you that this administration does not want to honestly address how our intervention - militarily and politically - in the Middle East over the last fifty years is causing radical Islamic fundamentalist clerics to rally their followers and encourage holy war.
Find me evidence that supports your view on this that doesn't come from the keyboard of a white guy in Washington, and I'll be happy to consider
You do a great job of selling it yourself. I may begin to keep a count on how many times you can you "mongering" in these posts.
Gee, thanks. I'm flattered. I guess if I don't blindly agree with the administration's view on everything, I'm on their side? That's an intellectual argument.
You fail to acknowledge the jihadis want to destroy our civilization and install Islamic rule.
I'm sorry, hang on... Show of hands - who really believes this to be a remote possibility? Do Islamic Fundamentalists have the manpower and the infrastructure, let alone the military might to engage the rest of the world to establish an Earthly Caliphate? These guys are dangerous, but they're not capable of installing a Caliphate in the Western hemisphere. This isn't even an argument worth countering.
It is not just AQ we are engaging in Iraq, but Islamic extremists. Yes, they do hate the American lifestyle. And they would like to stop it by whatever means. Whether it be flying airplanes into buildings, bombing dance clubs, or beheading innocent girls, they have chosen a violent path to achieve their goals.
Who says they hate the American lifestyle? Please provide proof of this, in their own words please. I had the courtesy of supporting my arguments with actual evidence from a source with whom I virulently disagree. But still, I managed to use logic and reasoning to look at those words and draw an indisputable conclusion from the paragraphs - OBL said...
No one expects you to agree with why he's saying what he is, but let's not go around assigning al Qaeda (which is who we're talking about here - we're talking about 9/11 and al Qaeda, not Islamic fundamentalism as an abstract concept that threatens to maybe someday become a full-fledged unified movement) motivations for their 9/11 attacks that they aren't directly claiming in their own words. Until and unless I see or hear OBL's or KSM's or Atta's words that specifically state otherwise, I'm going to take the evidence I have at hand and use that to assign motivation.
I don't see why this is such a leap for you to make.
Because I choose to operate with the information I can gather and process, instead of inventing a non-factual solution that allows me to blissfully ignore the white noise of reality.
Conservatives live in reality. We don't need to live a life of guilt and draw ridiculous conclusions to support elitist attitudes. Why else would someone take a Blame America stand?
Who's blaming America again? What's elitist about saying "this nutball says he attacked us for this reason," and then pointing you to his words directly? By no means am I suggesting his logic is sound or his motives righteous.
And just so we're clear, the purpose of my post, and ostensibly this comment is to discuss the notion that our foreign policy in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the attacks on 9/11, right?
Is it so wrong to stop a madman like Hussein from invading countries, supporting terrorism, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Do we not, as a powerful nation, have a morale (sic) obligation to step in and stop it?
Had you actually read the post instead of assuming you knew where it was going, you'd note that I specifically stated "...no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s." It's asinine to claim on one hand that we're a shining city on a hill, a moral beacon willing to right the wrongs of the world - but then on the other hand make our foreign policy decisions based on the worldview of some illogical nutball who lives in a cave.
Let me state this clearly: There are plenty of good reasons to change our approach to foreign policy. The fervor of Islamic fundamentalists preaching a radical agenda and utilizing terror techniques is not a good reason.
Also, my use of the word "change" above is purposefully nebulous. Foreign policy is a living, breathing set of ideals that need to be agile to deal with the economic and social realities of the countries with whom we're dealing. Nowhere in these last three paragraphs can you honestly assign any statements as to what *I* think our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East should be, other than we shouldn't let terrorists dictate what we can and can't do with our friendships with Israel and Saudi Arabia (as an example).
Apparently you think the American public is stupid. You claim that terrorism needs to be sold, that the public cannot draw their own conclusions from what they see or read.
The American public is stupid, and that's entirely purposeful. Terrorism doesn't need to be sold, but the fear of terrorism and the heavy-handed paternal politics we've seen since 9/11 (warrantless wiretapping, the "quaint" nature of the Geneva Convention, the Patriot Act) are part and parcel with one another, and that's not accidental - it's marketing. Americans want to have an opinion about everything, but don't want to spend more than fourteen seconds formulating that opinion, so we're given something easier to understand than 50+ years of American/Israeli cooperation and how the continued economic disenfranchisement of Arabic men requires the Sheikhs and Emirs who control the wealth to actively fund and encourage this political hatred in order to keep their prideful male population focused on perceived problems they can't control. Life is more complicated than people want to hear, and I guarantee you that this administration does not want to honestly address how our intervention - militarily and politically - in the Middle East over the last fifty years is causing radical Islamic fundamentalist clerics to rally their followers and encourage holy war.
Find me evidence that supports your view on this that doesn't come from the keyboard of a white guy in Washington, and I'll be happy to consider
You do a great job of selling it yourself. I may begin to keep a count on how many times you can you "mongering" in these posts.
Gee, thanks. I'm flattered. I guess if I don't blindly agree with the administration's view on everything, I'm on their side? That's an intellectual argument.
You fail to acknowledge the jihadis want to destroy our civilization and install Islamic rule.
I'm sorry, hang on... Show of hands - who really believes this to be a remote possibility? Do Islamic Fundamentalists have the manpower and the infrastructure, let alone the military might to engage the rest of the world to establish an Earthly Caliphate? These guys are dangerous, but they're not capable of installing a Caliphate in the Western hemisphere. This isn't even an argument worth countering.
It is not just AQ we are engaging in Iraq, but Islamic extremists. Yes, they do hate the American lifestyle. And they would like to stop it by whatever means. Whether it be flying airplanes into buildings, bombing dance clubs, or beheading innocent girls, they have chosen a violent path to achieve their goals.
Who says they hate the American lifestyle? Please provide proof of this, in their own words please. I had the courtesy of supporting my arguments with actual evidence from a source with whom I virulently disagree. But still, I managed to use logic and reasoning to look at those words and draw an indisputable conclusion from the paragraphs - OBL said...
No one expects you to agree with why he's saying what he is, but let's not go around assigning al Qaeda (which is who we're talking about here - we're talking about 9/11 and al Qaeda, not Islamic fundamentalism as an abstract concept that threatens to maybe someday become a full-fledged unified movement) motivations for their 9/11 attacks that they aren't directly claiming in their own words. Until and unless I see or hear OBL's or KSM's or Atta's words that specifically state otherwise, I'm going to take the evidence I have at hand and use that to assign motivation.
I don't see why this is such a leap for you to make.
Because I choose to operate with the information I can gather and process, instead of inventing a non-factual solution that allows me to blissfully ignore the white noise of reality.
Powered by ScribeFire.
