Responding to StB's Counter-Counter-CounterPoint (Just Below)
Published by BG on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 10:08 AM.
I would like to thank BG for allowing me to reply. I know I cannot translate my thoughts as well as he does, but I thought I would give it a try. At the very least, it gave me something to do while the rib roast was cooking.
You're welcome. Let's see if we can agree to argue about the original point, which is whether or not al Qaeda's leader's jihad on America was due to our foreign policy, as OBL stated in the jihad's text, or if foreign policy doesn't enter into it at all. That's ostensibly what this discussion is supposed to be about, right?
Let's start with a focus on who the real enemy of the United States is. It is not just one organization. It is group of different people who have taken extremist views of a religion and want to impose them on everyone. Sounds far fetched? Hardly.
Whoops. I guess refuting the foreign policy point means constructing an entirely new argument to knock down.
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 would be nice if we could live in pre 9/11 world. But we cannot. The threat of jihad is real, whether people want to recognize it or not. It is not something that should be dismissed because you choose to. It didn't take much manpower to hit the World Trade Center. It doesn't take much manpower to blow up a market. They have a plan. Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch explains:
It would appear that the planned attack on Fort Dix has already been forgotten. It is foolishness to think there are not other cells on American soil planning similar attacks. Have we not learned about underestimating out enemy?
Just so we're clear, the government isn't likely to pin an al Qaeda association on the Fort Dix Six because it's likely not there. And since this discussion is about al Qaeda, 9/11, and the motivations behind the specific jihad issued by OBL, I don't think the Fort Dix Six really do a whole heckuva lot for your argument.
And since when should we take anything said by our enemy at face value? To take the direct words of Bin Laden and say it is about an American presence on Arab soil makes little sense. That is clearly just the beginning. Think about it. By planning an attack on US soil, that guaranteed there would be more of a presence, not less. The power of the American military was going to be used. No, there is more behind those words.
How does it make little sense? Islamic fundamentalists have been carping for years about heretics and infidels setting foot within the fertile crescent holy land. This is not a new development, nor is it unique to Americans. And why should we take anything said by our enemy at face value? Let me ask the question another way - why should we totally disregard what our enemy says and assign them motivations and values that are guesswork at best, false assumptions at worst?
Who says they hate the American lifestyle? Please provide proof of this, in their own words please.
There are many reasons for Al Qaeda's opposition to the US. First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Maybe we can use language people may understand. They do not like the American lifestyle because it is not based on their interpretation of their religion.
Funny, if we're discussing whether our foreign policy in the Middle East had anything to do with al Qaeda's attack on 9/11, you've just made my argument for me in that last part. Here, let's quote the link you did there with full context around what you pulled out:
They don't like it because in the United States, women have rights. Simple things like an education or driving. Gay people have rights and are accepted. They are not " terrorized, beaten up and ordered to leave or be castrated." Hell, they would rather you not enjoy a cocktail or a cold beer. Yep, simple rights that we take for granted are that bad to them.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a terrorist attack by al Qaeda on American soil that is because our women go to school or drive. 9/11 was a coordinated attack on two symbolic targets: our center of foreign warfare and our center of commerce and trade. Notably missing from their list of symbolic targets? The Playboy Mansion, the Scores club in NYC, Aaron Spelling's house, the birthplace of Gloria Steinem and Wellesley College.
The American public is stupid, and that's entirely purposeful. Let's take a look at something you said the other day.
So, it would appear the netroots are growing, which would mean that more people are being informed. Of course with one side getting stronger, the other side begins their own recruitment.
So you're saying that Democrats are on one side, and the terrorists are on the other? Could you make sure Fox News gets this memo? Just so we're clear, the Netroots are growing, but America still turns largely to the corporate media to get their news, which is more infotainment than substantive these days. Just because political discourse occurs on the web, and just because it is becoming more organized and reaches more people than it did in years prior doesn't make it a viable, robust and dominant outlet. And even if people were reaching out to the web to get their dissection of the news? Most people aren't willing to do the work to read punditry that addresses various sides of the argument - in other words, people gravitate towards discourse with which they agree, which simply bolsters presuppositions they came to the issue with in the first place. That doesn't make anyone smarter, just more certain their "side" is the legitimate one.
Sounds like the American public is getting smarter. With the number of people voting in the last election up 60%, it would indicate that people are not just relying on 10 sound bytes to get the information they need. Beyond the internet is the daily download of podcasts, talk radio, and the dying newspaper. Give people more credit. The American public doesn't buy in to silly racist sayings about scary brown people. They understand the difference between torture (beatings, electrocution) and reality TV (sleep deprivation, extreme cold).
"The American public doesn't buy in to silly racist sayings about scary brown people?" Well then what was the "don't forget, they want to kill us all and enact Sharia law" portion of your argument all about? No one's arguing these people don't exist, and no one's arguing these people aren't dangerous, but be realistic here... terror attacks and an organized global jihad designed to overthrow the pagan governments of the free world are two totally different things. One is a very real threat, the other is hyperbolic ranting that only people with the most tenuous grips on the logistics of reality can support. It's just not going to happen.
So why does our government want you to believe it can?
It would be nice to see the enemy for who they truly are. To not blame America for all that is wrong. Our country by no means is perfect, but the United States still stands as a beacon of hope for many across the world.
Again, since the argument is whether or not the al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 were perpetrated under a jihad that was issued specifically and directly as a challenge to our foreign policy, this issue of "blame" is just empty rhetoric designed to put the one using facts on the defensive as if he's not a patriotic person for using these facts. I refuse to buy into that frame, and actually think YOU'RE blaming America for taking the very essence of who we are as a people - our freedoms and equalities - and suggesting these are the problem. Personally, I think our freedoms are great and stand as an example to all people, so it's troubling you'd blame those freedoms for what happened to us on 9/11.
I've heard a lot of explanations for what happened, and I've got to say I've never heard that one before. I wish you could love America as much as I do instead of pointing the finger and putting us on the slippery slope to retracting the freedoms and equalities we've cherished for over two centuries. America is an idea, and to blame that idea blames the very core of who we all are as Americans. You obviously don't love America enough if you're blaming Americans for 9/11.
(See how easy that is?)
You're welcome. Let's see if we can agree to argue about the original point, which is whether or not al Qaeda's leader's jihad on America was due to our foreign policy, as OBL stated in the jihad's text, or if foreign policy doesn't enter into it at all. That's ostensibly what this discussion is supposed to be about, right?
Let's start with a focus on who the real enemy of the United States is. It is not just one organization. It is group of different people who have taken extremist views of a religion and want to impose them on everyone. Sounds far fetched? Hardly.
Whoops. I guess refuting the foreign policy point means constructing an entirely new argument to knock down.
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 would be nice if we could live in pre 9/11 world. But we cannot. The threat of jihad is real, whether people want to recognize it or not. It is not something that should be dismissed because you choose to. It didn't take much manpower to hit the World Trade Center. It doesn't take much manpower to blow up a market. They have a plan. Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch explains:
Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.Even if all the radical Islamic fundamentalists in the world managed to sleeper-cell themselves into this country and even if all the radical Islamic fundamentalist sleeper cells in the world coordinated a day of terror attacks the likes of which the world has never seen, there is a zero percent chance that they have the manpower, infrastructure or military might to dismantle our government (let alone China's, India's, Brazil's, etc...) and enact a new leadership based on Sharia law. Having the desire and advocating something is quite different from having this idea live within the realm of logistic possibility. I've been advocating my desire to sleep with Elle MacPherson since roughly 1987, and yet she remains somehow out of my reach. Why is that?
It would appear that the planned attack on Fort Dix has already been forgotten. It is foolishness to think there are not other cells on American soil planning similar attacks. Have we not learned about underestimating out enemy?
Just so we're clear, the government isn't likely to pin an al Qaeda association on the Fort Dix Six because it's likely not there. And since this discussion is about al Qaeda, 9/11, and the motivations behind the specific jihad issued by OBL, I don't think the Fort Dix Six really do a whole heckuva lot for your argument.
And since when should we take anything said by our enemy at face value? To take the direct words of Bin Laden and say it is about an American presence on Arab soil makes little sense. That is clearly just the beginning. Think about it. By planning an attack on US soil, that guaranteed there would be more of a presence, not less. The power of the American military was going to be used. No, there is more behind those words.
How does it make little sense? Islamic fundamentalists have been carping for years about heretics and infidels setting foot within the fertile crescent holy land. This is not a new development, nor is it unique to Americans. And why should we take anything said by our enemy at face value? Let me ask the question another way - why should we totally disregard what our enemy says and assign them motivations and values that are guesswork at best, false assumptions at worst?
Who says they hate the American lifestyle? Please provide proof of this, in their own words please.
There are many reasons for Al Qaeda's opposition to the US. First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Maybe we can use language people may understand. They do not like the American lifestyle because it is not based on their interpretation of their religion.
Funny, if we're discussing whether our foreign policy in the Middle East had anything to do with al Qaeda's attack on 9/11, you've just made my argument for me in that last part. Here, let's quote the link you did there with full context around what you pulled out:
Al-Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons. First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group. Third, Al-Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993, which were viewed by Al-Qaeda as pretextual preparations for an American occupation of Islamic countries. In particular, Al-Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War. Fourth, Al-Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al-Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or with whom it worked, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing.I accept all of these as al Qaeda's motivations for the 9/11 attack, don't you?
They don't like it because in the United States, women have rights. Simple things like an education or driving. Gay people have rights and are accepted. They are not " terrorized, beaten up and ordered to leave or be castrated." Hell, they would rather you not enjoy a cocktail or a cold beer. Yep, simple rights that we take for granted are that bad to them.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a terrorist attack by al Qaeda on American soil that is because our women go to school or drive. 9/11 was a coordinated attack on two symbolic targets: our center of foreign warfare and our center of commerce and trade. Notably missing from their list of symbolic targets? The Playboy Mansion, the Scores club in NYC, Aaron Spelling's house, the birthplace of Gloria Steinem and Wellesley College.
The American public is stupid, and that's entirely purposeful. Let's take a look at something you said the other day.
Not only do the Netroots have the audacity to organize online, but they're speaking out too.
So, it would appear the netroots are growing, which would mean that more people are being informed. Of course with one side getting stronger, the other side begins their own recruitment.
So you're saying that Democrats are on one side, and the terrorists are on the other? Could you make sure Fox News gets this memo? Just so we're clear, the Netroots are growing, but America still turns largely to the corporate media to get their news, which is more infotainment than substantive these days. Just because political discourse occurs on the web, and just because it is becoming more organized and reaches more people than it did in years prior doesn't make it a viable, robust and dominant outlet. And even if people were reaching out to the web to get their dissection of the news? Most people aren't willing to do the work to read punditry that addresses various sides of the argument - in other words, people gravitate towards discourse with which they agree, which simply bolsters presuppositions they came to the issue with in the first place. That doesn't make anyone smarter, just more certain their "side" is the legitimate one.
Sounds like the American public is getting smarter. With the number of people voting in the last election up 60%, it would indicate that people are not just relying on 10 sound bytes to get the information they need. Beyond the internet is the daily download of podcasts, talk radio, and the dying newspaper. Give people more credit. The American public doesn't buy in to silly racist sayings about scary brown people. They understand the difference between torture (beatings, electrocution) and reality TV (sleep deprivation, extreme cold).
"The American public doesn't buy in to silly racist sayings about scary brown people?" Well then what was the "don't forget, they want to kill us all and enact Sharia law" portion of your argument all about? No one's arguing these people don't exist, and no one's arguing these people aren't dangerous, but be realistic here... terror attacks and an organized global jihad designed to overthrow the pagan governments of the free world are two totally different things. One is a very real threat, the other is hyperbolic ranting that only people with the most tenuous grips on the logistics of reality can support. It's just not going to happen.
So why does our government want you to believe it can?
It would be nice to see the enemy for who they truly are. To not blame America for all that is wrong. Our country by no means is perfect, but the United States still stands as a beacon of hope for many across the world.
Again, since the argument is whether or not the al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 were perpetrated under a jihad that was issued specifically and directly as a challenge to our foreign policy, this issue of "blame" is just empty rhetoric designed to put the one using facts on the defensive as if he's not a patriotic person for using these facts. I refuse to buy into that frame, and actually think YOU'RE blaming America for taking the very essence of who we are as a people - our freedoms and equalities - and suggesting these are the problem. Personally, I think our freedoms are great and stand as an example to all people, so it's troubling you'd blame those freedoms for what happened to us on 9/11.
I've heard a lot of explanations for what happened, and I've got to say I've never heard that one before. I wish you could love America as much as I do instead of pointing the finger and putting us on the slippery slope to retracting the freedoms and equalities we've cherished for over two centuries. America is an idea, and to blame that idea blames the very core of who we all are as Americans. You obviously don't love America enough if you're blaming Americans for 9/11.
(See how easy that is?)
