Brace Yourselves Boys and Girls

161 Replies to “Brace Yourselves Boys and Girls”

1. I am a centre-left progressive and I unequivocally condemn such dispicable actions.

2. Ignore Oscar folks:
   The comment: “So they’re dispatching a few of the baby-raping pukes” … will not be deleted. It’ll remain just to demonstrate what the ultra-left stands for. I suggest though, that you not use up gray matter debating such highbrow comments.

3. There have been perhaps 100,000 tragedies in the Iraq war. These horrors are just the latest. What will tomorrow bring? More of the same.

4. I think the problem I have with your mode of argumentation, tedlnancy, is that you treat the situation as if it were some university debate of equal liberal-minded, educated sets of individuals debating between only two opposing perspectives, with ‘honest differences’. I don’t think that this is the case.
   I don’t think that Islamofascism is open to dialogue. You either follow its tenets or you must be killed. Period.
   Hadith is not equal to Islamic beheading soldiers or kidnapped hostages. First, it hasn’t been proven only alleged. Second, a military and a civilian are not the same, and are not to be treated the same. A civilian throwing a grenade is not a member of a military force.
   I don’t think that ‘the right’ understands the acts to be the result of irrational islamo-fascists. We are quite aware that the islamofascist is quite rationa; they know exactly what they are doing; they have a specific agenda – to establish a fascist Islamism in the ME, to retain tribalism in the ME, to reject freedom and democracy, to conquer all ‘infidels’ and make them either Islamic or subservient ‘dhimmitudes’. That’s their agenda. It’s quite rational. It’s also quite unacceptable.
   The leftist reasons for terrorism are invalid – eg. getting the Americans out of Iraq. Well, terrorism began long before Iraq. And, one way to get the Americans out of Iraq, is to stop sending all your insurgents from Iran, SA, Syria, Pakistan into Iraq to kill Iraqi Muslims.
   I don’t agree with you that the left is not justifying the horrors. They are; they are saying that the West – whether its the bombed victims in New York, London, Madrid, Indonesia, Iraq and etc – all ‘deserve it’ because of..whatever.
   It isn’t simply that terrorist acts must be ‘met with force’. That puts the West and democracies into only a reactive mode. That’s insane. All we would do, would be waiting for our trains, planes and subways to be bombed, and then, we’d ‘go after them’. That won’t work.
   It is that the ideology of tribalism and fascism must be met with force. What’s the force? In this case, it is taking out tribal dictatorships and enabling the peoples there to, on their own, move into democracy.

5. “You must provide factual data and evidence, not just your words-of-hearsay. That is, provide the links, not what you think they said, not what you think they wrote. But, the actual links. It is a common problem that what one individual thinks they read or heard, can be different from what actually was written or spoken.”
   Nice challenge in theory. But a bit disingenuous when you’d dismiss any proferred links as being from marxists/MSM/moonbats/insert favorite tighty-righty epithet here. If you don’t like the message, just skewer the messenger…Fox much?
   Of course it sucks that these soldiers were tortured. But why are you so afraid to allow people to to question what they were doing there in the first place. War is hell…if you can’t hack the consequences, don’t wage one where you’re not wanted.

6. ET: I don’t think that Islamofascism is open to dialogue. You either follow its tenets or you must be killed. Period.
   I agree. I was talking about a dialogue between the ‘left’ and ‘right’ on how to respond to it.
   ET: Hadith is not equal to Islamic beheading soldiers or kidnapped hostages. First, it hasn’t been proven only alleged. Second, a military and a civilian are not the same, and are not to be treated the same. A civilian throwing a grenade is not a member of a military force.
   I wasn’t claiming they were equal. I’m honestly really not sure how to go about figuring out which is ‘worse’. It has been alleged by the top military brass, but ok, if this soldiers are convicted and if it turns out to be what it appears to be, then it is horrific. So, without doing some sort of moral calcuations (how?) I say I am horrified by both. I think some people might call that moral equivilancy.
   I don’t think that ‘the right’ understands the acts to be the result of irrational islamo-fascists. We are quite aware that the islamofascist is quite rationa; they know exactly what they are doing; they have a specific agenda – to establish a fascist Islamism in the ME, to retain tribalism in the ME, to reject freedom and democracy, to conquer all ‘infidels’ and make them either Islamic or subservient ‘dhimmitudes’. That’s their agenda. It’s quite rational. It’s also quite unacceptable.
   All excellent points ET, in fact, I would agree. My claims about left and right were not meant to be taken as some well-defended thesis, they were meant as an EXAMPLE to highlight how both left and right are invovled in a similar project, trying to understand the situation and decide how to best resolve it.
   The leftist reasons for terrorism are invalid – eg. getting the Americans out of Iraq. Well, terrorism began long before Iraq. And, one way to get the Americans out of Iraq, is to stop sending all your insurgents from Iran, SA, Syria, Pakistan into Iraq to kill Iraqi Muslims.
   Well, those seem to be to be the terrorists reasons. Leftists, like myself, don’t necessarily claim that these reasons should be addressed, just that, we should be frank about what they are. So for instance, the reasons the terrorists are fighting we’d call invalid and name them an enemy, while the reasons Imrahn who sells fruit during the day and plants IED’s at night might be different, and our reponse (even if its identical to the terrorist) should at least understand and acknowledge that difference.
   I don’t agree with you that the left is not justifying the horrors. They are; they are saying that the West – whether its the bombed victims in New York, London, Madrid, Indonesia, Iraq and etc – all ‘deserve it’ because of..whatever.
   Alright, well, those on the left that say so aren’t a part of what I would call a reasonable discourse. To hell with ’em.
   It isn’t simply that terrorist acts must be ‘met with force’. That puts the West and democracies into only a reactive mode. That’s insane. All we would do, would be waiting for our trains, planes and subways to be bombed, and then, we’d ‘go after them’. That won’t work.
   It wasn’t a plan of action ET, it was a sentence included to ackowledge the reality that simply withdrawing within our own borders and using ‘diplomacy’ won’t work. Other than establishing that bare fact nothing else was implied regarding how exactly to go about meeting the threat.
   Regards,

7. Steve d: 100,000 tragedies???? Please don’t tell us that you still buy into the 100,000 dead civilians myth that even Iraqi Body Count debunked.

8. By the time the U.S. ‘liberates’ Iraq (from the U.S.) and installs ‘democracy’, there won’t be too many living Iraqis left to celebrate the U.S. ‘victory’.Posted by: Lew
   Lew
   Which is it? Are you ignorant of the facts or a liar? Sadddam killed somewhere between 600,000 and one million innocent Iraqis over 24 years. This is a minimum of 25,000 per year. In the war to liberate Iraq the Americans have kllled about 5,000 innocent Iraqis and the terrorists (which the left supports ) have killed about 25,000 in their failed attempt to thwart progress. The war to liberate and democratize Iraq has saved lives even as it is being fought. So what informed person in their right mind opposes it?
   Oh, but it was in violation of (so-called) International Law. Yeah right. You mean it was opposed by two communist countries and France. That’s a mark of honour, not condemnation.
   BTW no one is attempting to nor is it possible to “instal democracy” and this expression give you away as someone who doesn’t have a clue. The coalition is supporting Iraqis who have chosen democracy. Did you not see those 12 million purple fingers?
   “Sorry Omar. We have to go. France, China, Russia and the delusional left do not support your wish to bring peace, democracy and the rule of law to Iraq”.

9. “It is that the ideology of tribalism and fascism must be met with force…taking out tribal dictatorships and enabling the peoples there to, on their own, move into democracy.”
   As three more children move into democracy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5099978.stm – and I’ll bet they and their families feel enabled now eh? So kids…how many of the world’s rightist elite will step forward and condemn the crime without the usual excuses thrown in (ie: If Hamas weren’t in power, this wouldn’t happen)? How many righty blogs will condemn the crime without drafting moral equivalency arguments that include the 9/11 bombings, the London subway, the Madrid train, the Indonesian restaurants, the Jordanian wedding bombing?
   Mhmmm.

10. Debris Trail
    I said ‘perhaps 100,000 tragedies’ not dead. You see I figure its a tragedy if someone loses their limbs or other parts of their bodies or is burned or otherwise disfigured. Maybe your standards for a tragedy are much higher but for me that would be it. The tragedies are on both sides by the way. I am including the 20,000 or so Americans including hired guns and sundry other help as well as Iraqis dead and maimed.

11. Arbee: When the IDF or any other western army begins specifically targeting children, then come and talk to us.
    Do you really not understand the difference between specifically targeting civilians, and doing all possible to avoid civilian casualties, including clearing houses room by room as is done in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you reall not understand the difference between detonating a bomb in a market, purposefully, and killing civilians by accident after incredibly strict protocols are followed?
    I love it when guys like you post… you give readers a wonderful glimpse into the mind of the common garden variety leftist.

12. On neutralsam and steve d, I agree with every comment made to and about them. Experience has taught me not to make eye contact with them anymore. You can craft responses all you want, but, they aren’t listening.
    A ground rule in psychiatry is that when the dialogue descends into a game it’s time to end it. It’s not a real dialogue anymore. Neither of these individuals have ever responded to factual evidence or provided any. You aren’t genuine if you won’t play by logical, fact-based rules. When asked to put up or shut up, they keep blathering.
    They aren’t haunting Kos or the Democratic Underground daily because they would be nobodies. They get fed here.

13. steve d: So, how do you respond to the statistics that show that actually fewer have died post-Iraq War, than were dying on average under Saddam?
    By the way, do you believe there is anything worth fighting for? Or, do you believe that the Iraqi people want the Baathists back; that they wish Saddam was never removed?
    And, what do say to the majority of Iraqis who actually live in peaceful circumstances, not those not within the Baghdad MSM microscope? What do you tell the Kurds, or the millions who adore the Coalition troops?
    You see, in all of your moralizing about bodycounts and injuries you prove that you really don’t give a damn about anyone, othewise you would consider in your logic what Iraqis think, and you’d consider who it is that is killing Iraqis today, and what their motives are. You would, in essence, understand the difference between terrorists who kill fellow Muslim civilians and those troops who die because they won’t simply destroy a building with “big” bombs and choose instead to clear the houses the difficult way.
    Your comments have no context. They are the tossing around of stats that anyone with a grade 5 ed. can do to prove or disprove a point. Context, is what gives facts meaning. Context, is what history is about, not stats.
    But, I’ve got to say, everytime you write, you prove again and again the incredible lack of grasp and “humanity” that is evident in the left today. It is amazing, that those who preach in the name of “compassion” have the least.
    I’ll leave you with Mr. Mill:
    “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight… is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself”. John Stuart Mill

14. arbee – how do you know that I dismiss links? That’s specious on your part. I’d certainly dismiss links of any sort, right or left, that are merely opinions; I’m asking for factual evidence, not opinions.
    And where do you get your conclusion that I’m afraid to question why they are there?
    tedlnancy – I don’t think your definition of ‘moral equivalency’ is very robust. It is subjective – it depends only on your subjective reaction. That’s pure subjectivism and not a very good grounds for ethical and moral evaluation. There’s a great book by Harry Gensler on Ethics – which outlines the problems of subjectivism. [And he has a wonderful web site as well.]
    You wrote: “So for instance, the reasons the terrorists are fighting we’d call invalid and name them an enemy, while the reasons Imrahn who sells fruit during the day and plants IED’s at night might be different, and our reponse (even if its identical to the terrorist) should at least understand and acknowledge that difference.”
    Sorry – I’m very unclear what you are talking about. I don’t think that focusing on 1,000 individual reasons for terrorist actions will achieve anything. Such reductionism actually dissolves the topic into such ambiguity that it disappears from the mind. But not from reality. The bomb still goes off.
    arbee – the Israeli-Palestinian situation has absolutely nothing to do, in my view, with islamofascism. It’s about land and water. I happen to promote a two-state solution. But a real two-states, with Palestine having a large enough land base (and water) to support its population. That means – end the occuption, demolish the settlements. The Oslo accords didn’t recognize Palestine as a state.

15. This is a world war. The enemy declared war on us. Their intention is to kill you and destroy your civilization, your way of life, your freedom and your heritage. There will be no statues of Buddha in Taliban territory, no Bible or Torah in Saudi Arabia. Or in Europe, or in the world, if and when they win. And with weapons of mass destruction, they can win.
    You may say it is Bush’s fault. You may say it is for oil. You may say it is from a long history of Western imperialism. You may say that America provoked Japan before Pearl Harbour. You may say that the Jews of Europe had it coming. You may say that Stalin, Castro, Mao and Pol Pot were well-intentioned, but thwarted by the C.I.A. You may say anything you want. Your opinions may be interesting, profoundly researched, heart-felt, and in some cases you may actually be right. But it makes no difference. The enemy has plans to kill you. We are at war. It is a world war, just beginning. And we will win the war. Or we will lose the war. Your opinion will make no difference. But victory or defeat will make all the difference in the history of the world.

16. Actually Mr. Debris, the only specific target in this case was the militants in the car. A surgical strike _so precise_ that they had time to leap out before the blast.
    Thanks for your delicious irony to compliment my garden salad though, using “incredibly strict protocols” in direct relation to jets firing missiles at a car in “a group of children playing”. Oh but wait…they were human shields of course, it’s all their fault.
    As for clearing houses room by room, the term you seek is mouseholing. You can read what one of our veterans has to say about it’s non-lethality here: http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000186&rd=89824#. Bet those civvies huddled the other side of the wall would agree how precise it is…all 400 chunks of them.

17. ET: tedlnancy – I don’t think your definition of ‘moral equivalency’ is very robust. It is subjective – it depends only on your subjective reaction. That’s pure subjectivism and not a very good grounds for ethical and moral evaluation.
    I haven’t presented a definition of moral equivilancy. I have tried to guess what people who criticize those on the left mean by it. I have tried to suggest that if they mean being dismayed by horrific acts (like the two I mentioned) committed by American Soldiers and Al-Quada in Iraq, then I’m fine with being accused of moral equivilancy. However, I think that many on the right then confuse this moral-equivilancy with moral justification, and also with some sort of ethical judgement about the severity of each act. Thus, I might be accused of seeing the tortue of the soldiers as the same as Haditha. I think no such thing. I have no idea how to compare them, to say which is worst, but I do know that both are horrific.
    You wrote: “So for instance, the reasons the terrorists are fighting we’d call invalid and name them an enemy, while the reasons Imrahn who sells fruit during the day and plants IED’s at night might be different, and our reponse (even if its identical to the terrorist) should at least understand and acknowledge that difference.”
    Sorry – I’m very unclear what you are talking about. I don’t think that focusing on 1,000 individual reasons for terrorist actions will achieve anything. Such reductionism actually dissolves the topic into such ambiguity that it disappears from the mind. But not from reality. The bomb still goes off.
    If I may suggest then, if you are unclear of what I am talking about to ask for clarification instead of assuming I’m trying to make an argument or understanding each and every single rational for each IED planted. Let’s try this from the other direction instead. You’ve ruled out finding 1000 different reasons. Ok. But you haven’t ruled out the only point I was trying to make, that we need to look at the reasons why these things occur, not to justify them, but to understand how our response is likely to affect both the immediate problem (bombs going off) and the underlying factors that lead people to plant bombs.
    Of course this doesn’t mean finding 1000 different perspectives. But if you agree with the principle, then when someone like myself comes along to a right-wing blog and says something like “Ordinary Iraqis are part of the insurgency against Americans, and they say they want the US out of the country”, well, it means that taking a moment to think about the implications of that. If it is the case that ordinary Iraqis are against the US presence, then the tactics used against Al-Quada in Iraq (kill them) may not work against a home-grown resistance.
    I don’t want to get into a dialogue about this now, that’s not my intent. My intent is to get people like Kate to stop implying (or outright saying) that people who raise these issues support terrorism. Even if you disagree with me that there is an Iraqi resistance, you can at least see that I am interested in the same goal as you, stopping the IEDS and terrorist acts in Iraq and elsewhere. And when I raise the reasons for terrorist acts I don’t do so with an eye to justifying them, I do so with an eye to better understanding how well certain kinds of responses are likely to work.
    Regards,

18. “20)Liberals learn that lying, innuendo, straw men & other tools except logic & facts backed by president [sic] are real debating tactics. That emoting , screaming,lies, distortions, personnel attacks are not debate , but the ravings of spoiled tots.” – Posted by Revnant Dream at 01:45 PM
    Actually, Revnant said it all – delete “Liberals” and insert “Conservatives,” and it is just as true and valid.
    I must admit that I have seen no point in getting into this debate. In the first place, how does one attack a 200 pound right-wing propaganda marshmallow, and secondly, what’s the point, since the lack of substance is obvious.

19. Got Another Big Al Qaeda Fish
    Candygram for Mansur Suleiman al-Mashhadani: US troops kill Zarqawi’s ‘right-hand man’. (Hat tip: Sugiero.)
    The US military says it has killed the “right-hand man” of slain Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
    Major General William Caldwell says Iraqi Mansur Suleiman al-Mashhadani was killed on Friday by US forces in Yusifiyah, south of Baghdad.
    “We do know that Sheikh Mansur was a key leader in Al Qaeda in Iraq with excellent religious, military and leadership credentials within that organisation,” General Caldwell said. He describes him as Zarqawi’s right-hand man and a liaison between Al Qaeda and tribes in the restive area south of Baghdad. The Mashhadani are a major tribe of Sunni Arabs.
    “He was tied to the senior leadership, including having relationships with both Zarqawi and al-Masri,” General Caldwell said, referring to Abu Ayub al-Masri, whom the US military claim to be Zarqawi’s successor. “We do think that his death will significantly continue to impact on the ability of this organisation to regenerate and organise itself.” …- via LGF

20. Thank you Kate for supplying an excuse to break my self-imposed ban on engaging trolls as that is really the meat of this thread.They look overfed already,so I can’t see where my helping expose them would be doing any more harm!
    Firstly,consider the”off”type of individual it takes to enjoy hanging around his”enemy’s”house,continuously looking to provoke him and pick fights(I mean,really,think about it!).Have you ever visited a liberal blog?How were you treated?..’nuff said on that point!
    Secondly,many here need to learn the courage of their convictions.Again,how many here have witnessed an informative thread get side tracked by a trolls bait and the inevitable rush of a foolish few to defend their sacred beliefs against these EMPTY attacks?Yeah,me too!So much for any more new or creative imput,just another partisan circle-jerk!…Have you considered that IGNORING a troll’s bait may be the BEST way to DEMONSTRATE your confidence in your beliefs?
    Go back and read ANY back-and-forth on any thread with a troll and you’ll see they all seem to amount to the exact same quality of debate…
    OH YEAH?..YEAH!,OH YEAH?..YEAH!,OH YEAH?..YEAH!
    Next,to you trolls yourselves…Your transparent need to defend your religion of liberalism by attacking any and all things not your definition of liberal is very reminiscent of a certain Middle Eastern religion’s concept on how to handle diversity.You are boorish,close-minded,selfish,mean-spirited,bigoted and above all dishonest.That last one sting a little?Well then,how else do you explain a group of individuals who STILL put their STRONG support behind the LPC and defend the repeated dishonest and even illegal actions of far too many members.
    But,to get more on topic,THIS little habit of yours takes the cake!In your enthusiasm to attack the right,you don’t give a SH*T who you step on.(just like the LPC’s campaigns)I mean you DO NOT CARE!
    How else do you explain your consistent,rabid attacks and undermining of our government and allies in a time of war?We ALL know you hate Bush,we’ve heard it THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of times from you!But,in your rush to attack the right,you have positioned yourselves as a valuable propaganda tool for terrorists who want to kill your families!..HELLO?…HELLO?,…ANYBODY HOME?
    Unlike too many others here,I realize NOTHING I can say will help you see anything but what you want to see.You are NOT here to learn!That is why you are so f*cking clueless when many here are dumbfounded and outraged by your passive support of terrorism.
    Don’t get me wrong,I understand you don’t REALLY support terrorism,it is that you just don’t care if you are indeed helping them and endangering our troops by your partisan agenda and attacks!And,quite frankly,that is all I need to know about your character to decide you are contemptable and unworthy of my attention.

21. Kate,
    You allow all the abuse against people who oppose the war in Iraq, yet, an observation is made about how you handle people who disagree with your opinion, and you remove the post.
    That’s classy.

22. Nice summation C.O.
    J, I’d have to think her site – her rules!

23. Canadian Observer: I agree with your “troll” comments for the most part. Interestingly, very few non-leftists go around trolling leftist sites… I’ve had some good debates on leftist sites but the sheer volume of trolling done by leftists is…. just plain weird… or masochistic really.
    In most cases, divergent stats and facts and context-less points are raised by trolls; and very often they are soundly debunked. The problem is that in a properly moderated debate, most of their points would be out of order as divergent anyway, and immaterial to the topic.
    There is a massive ideological gulf between the left and those who cherish liberal democracy. It is demonstrated very much by “trolls”. Trolls often force us to rationalize our beliefs, and force us to defend them. But, as you say, endless circular arguements do nothing; no matter the topic.
    As well, I would hope that all of us have been set back on our logic at times by trolls. Eventually, they do score a hit, even though it is a result of flock-shooting.
    But, you are correct that most trolling is done simply to stir the pot, degenerate the debate, and see what rise can be gotten… speaking of RISE or lack there of, I wonder if their isn’t something Freudian about trolling…

24. J: I removed the comment. If you’d read the post in the first place, you’d see that it was written by a guest blogger. Since Kate is traveling and not in attendance, I suggest you save any remarks directed at her until she is here to defend herself.
    I emailed you to make that clear.

25. Thanks for the clarification.
    But I will say then, my previous comments apply to you I suppose for comments like this against another individual:
    “I love it when guys like you post… you give readers a wonderful glimpse into the mind of the common garden variety leftist.”
    In my opinion, you provided little or no facts, nor substance in your posts against the “trolls”. So how are you different than those you complain about?

26. Cjunk,my apologies,I also missed the fact it was your post.I also owe you the thanks then for the opportunity to vent a little on this topic!

27. TedlNancy – Again, I’ll disagree with your point. You use a particular ‘modus’ of argumentation, which is to reduce two ‘events’ to decontextualized bits and then, attempt to evaluate these bits as two comparable sets. I say it’s a fallacious tactic of simplification.
    Your examples of ‘American Soldiers’ and ‘Al Qaeda’ as ‘moral equivalency’ simply isn’t valid. The way you achieve this seeming equivalency is your tactic of reductionism to ‘bit parts’. You can then say that the bits consist of: (1) fighters; (2) bad acts – and say that they are ‘morally equivalent’. But they aren’t. What is missing in this oversimplification is the context – which includes the formal, final and material causes. Your focus only on the efficient causality of bit parts leads to a false equivalence.
    You’ve done the same with your assertion that ‘ordinary Iraqis’ are against the American presence in Iraq – and your equating this desire with the Al Qaeda desire to get the Americans out. First, your reduction of all Iraqis to ‘ordinary’ ignores that many ordinary Iraqis do NOT want the Americans yet out of the country. And, I think that the term ‘ordinary’ is too general to be functional.
    But, the chief problem is your reduction of the two sets to similar bit parts and this enables your equivalence of the two ‘sets’ of people (Al Qaeda and ordinary Iraqis) as equivalent because they both want the Americans out. But this argument is untenable. You are focusing only on those bit parts of: (1)fighters and (2) a specific desire.
    You are ignoring context, which are found in the material, final and formal causes. Al Qaeda might want the Americans out so that they can overthrow the elected Iraqi gov’t and establish a fascist Islamic state (Final cause). The ‘ordinary’ Iraqis might want the Americans out because then they can get to work on developing their own country as a democracy.
    I appreciate your arguments, but – I don’t think that reductionism is a valid tactic.

28. J: I’m stating an opinion based on personal experience, something that would take an internet “study” to substantiate statistically.
    Now, there’s an idea for a study!
    CO: I don’t mind big gear grinding debates. In this case the trolling can hardly be called trolling. The lack of context to stats and circular reasoning are maddening, but that’s a far cry from comments like Oscars above. Now that’s trolling with a Cap T. and good load of hate tossed in.
    I often wonder how people would behave face to face, instead of through the computer monitor.

29. Well, Observer, I hope you are feeling better having gotten that diatribe off your chest.
    I really like the “You are boorish,close-minded,selfish,mean-spirited,bigoted and above all dishonest.” I assume that it is directed at yuor “trolls”, but it also is a good fit for the defenders of the conservative faith on this thread.
    Since I assume that you are addressing me too, let me tell you why I hang around my “enemy’s house.” Back in March (the 10th, at 09:11 AM) I explained my presence in SDA: “Without the benefit of opposing views, you merely would be restricted to mutual mental masturbation over the righteousness of Conservatism. … Opposing views are the precondition for debate, and you do not have democracy where you do not have debate. So if even non-Liberal “trolls” like me throw a little cold water on your public celebrations, accept that as proof that freedom (of expression, for instance) still is alive and well, that we are open for discussion, and try to convince us of errors of fact or logic. Silencing opponents vice convincing them is a hallmark of fascism. Let’s not go down that road. And hurling insults only shows a lack of useful ammunition – and intellectual immaturity.”
    Observer, I have absolutely no interest in hijacking or sidetracking a thread. But when I read uninformed opinion turning into ill-informed opinion in discussion, when I see facts distorted to suit an end (here, the end of conservative propaganda,) I object for the simple reason that silence implies consent, and I hate to see propaganda – of any kind – accepted as if it were truth.
    Why do you immediately have to equate disagreement with defending the “religion of liberalism,” fanatical islamism, or support for the LPC? There are enough grounds for disagreement without having to be an adherent of any of those three. How about a simple interest in truth without having to march under a partisan banner? And, of course, morphing a distaste for propaganda into a lack of support for the troops is simply not true and is getting a little shopworn.
    Hate to tell you this, Observer, but you know nothing of my character. I can live with you finding me “contemptable and unworthy of my attention”, but at least now you know what I’m up to.
    Should Kate admit that SDA is nothing more than a conservative propaganda blog, I will be quite happy to go away.

30. Hey Ted L. Nancy, you’re pretty funny, you must’ve gone to real fancy university to put together words all pretty like that, I especially liked:
    “Thus, I might be accused of seeing the tortue of the soldiers as the same as Haditha. I think no such thing. I have no idea how to compare them, to say which is worst, but I do know that both are horrific.”
    How about if you wait until the official investigation into Haditha is complete and the truth of it fully revealed by due process? Do you think you might have a better idea how to compare them then? You blithering bigot…

31. Regardless of whether ordinary Iraqis want American soldiers out of Iraq – and I’ve not seen a recent survey on the topic- the duly constituted government of Iraq clearly wants the Americans to stay, at least until the security situation improves.
    Opinions of ordinary people are influenced greatly by what their betters in the media tell them to think. Most people are too busy with their lives to study the issues. This explains why Bush’s approval rating on the economy is at 37% despite the fact the economy is sizzling and, based on objective factors – low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and significant job creation – Bush’s approval rating on the economy should be in the high 60’s or even low 70’s.
    As elections approach people pay more attention to the details. This is why Republicans do better in elections than between elections.

32. I appreciate your efforts to engage in this conversation with me ET. Unfortunately, I confess that I really don’t understand what your most recent point was trying to get across.
    All I can say in hopes that some clarity will be thrown on my position is the following:
    1. I don’t know what is meant by moral equivilance, but I think it means attributing the same moral judgement on two seperate acts. By act I mean all those aspects of (for example) a bomb going off in a market that we would use in making a moral judgement. That includes context.
    2. I wasn’t comparing Haditha and the recent murder of two americans in order to defend some idea of moral equivilance, I was doing it to show what I think is meant by people who use the term. I’m not sure what you mean by reductionist. The incidents are seperate and concrete. I fail to see where I simplified the incidents other than to say ‘here are two things that happened, and I feel moral outrage over them’. To the extent that feeling moral outrage is synonomous with moral equivilance, in the minds of those who use the term, then I wouldn’t object to being labelled withh it. There is no seeming equviliancy, I’m telling you as a fact. I feel moral outrage at both of these incidents. I cannot say if I am more outraged at one then the other, I can only say I feel a certain moral outrage at them both. To that extent, and that extent only, would I categorize them as morally equivilant. Again, I’m not breaking anything down here, I’m not weighing one against the other, I’m not making a judgement of better or worse since I don’t know how to do so without adopting the kind of reductionist approach you accuse me of.
    I also don’t know what you mean by ‘formal, final, material or efficient causes’. It sounds to me like your talking about ‘context’, and are suggesting that I am parsing context to arrive at some judgement about each act. If so, nothing could be further from the truth.
    3. I have not asserted anything. I have given a hypothetical example in the hopes of making my point more clear. You can choose any example you like which would illustrate the very basic premise that ‘it is important to understand what motivates the other’, where the other is anyone who disagrees with you or is your enemy. For instance, you have had this disagreement with me over some substanitive points and we have tried to resolve them through dialogue. But if I told you that I didn’t really believe any of this and that I was only writing it to upset you that would change your approach to me. You’d realize that negotitating was pointless, and you’d ignore me. Understanding my reasons provides you with information relevant to responding to me. I’m really not sure how to make this point any more clearly, indeed, I had hardly thought it would require this kind level of explanation.
    4. Regarding ignoring context and the EXAMPLE of iraqis versus al-quaida. My entire argument is that context is vital. If we ignore context all we see is a bunch of middle-easterners setting IEDs to kill Americans. In this example, we are presuming they both want the same thing (American’s out), though they want it for different reasons (fascist state versus democratic one). Without taking the different reasons for resistance into account we might just approach the problem as if it was uniform. With context however, we can at least ask the question, should we try to handle these acts in different ways depending on whether they are part of AQII or a home-grown resistance? I don’t know what the answer would be, but I believe it is an important one to ask.
    5. Finally, to return to my intial argument. I felt that the original poster CJUNK (Apologies to Kate for writing that it was her argument/point that I was responding to) implied that raising issues like Haditha when talking about terrorist acts on Americans amounted to a moral equivilance. By that, I felt that CJUNK was implying that raising these issues implied justification for the attacks on Americans. My entire point in these last few posts has been to suggest that (a)trying to understand why these things happen is vital, and its something that both the right and the left do. Its just because we arrive at such different answers and bring in different factors/context that it seems like we are doing different things, but in fact (b) we are both trying to understand events so that we can respond to them appropriately. (c) given that we are working towards the same thing, it is wrong to imply that those on the left support terrorism.
    This is my entire argument in a nutshell.
    Kind Regards,

33. Muslim Islamist Terrorists: Crocuta C. crocuta: a predator, not a scavenger.
    …-
    No Letup
    The first instinct of any family is to do anything possible to save their loved ones. For individual families it is often better to cooperate with captors to obtain some chance negotiating a release than to press them unremittingly. For society as a whole the incentives go the other way: yielding to intimidation only leads to worse. Evil men must be pursued so that they may never harm again. Unfortunately individuals must pay the price when evil strikes back.
    News that the bodies of two soldiers who may have been taken captive on June 16th were found today, allegedly in a mutilated condition suggests their captors could not take them far. A group describing itself as linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq “claimed without offering proof that it had kidnapped two American soldiers, as thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops looked for the missing men in an area known as ‘the triangle of death.'” If the past is any guide, this group’s preference would have been to parade them on television and make political demands for an American withdrawal, or else they would have killed at the scene of the first clash. That the terrorists had to forgo their customary media carnival can only mean they found it too dangerous to go further, like a predator who must drop his victim because the beaters were right behind them. …
    belmont club

34. “How about if you wait until the official investigation into Haditha is complete and the truth of it fully revealed by due process?”
    Calgarian, when has any discussion on this site waited for the results of an official investigation or full revelation of the truth in due process? That suggestion is as inappropriate as your “blithering bigot.”

35. Calgarian: How about if you wait until the official investigation into Haditha is complete and the truth of it fully revealed by due process? Do you think you might have a better idea how to compare them then? You blithering bigot…
    Sir, you are obviously a man of words and I must say what deep respect I have for you, and that I greatly appreciate your heartfelt words.
    It is with great sadness therefore, that I must inform you that I had previously addressed this very point which was raised by the gallant ET who challenged my presentation of Haditha as something definitive which had occured. After which I wrote:
    It has been alleged by the top military brass, but ok, if this soldiers are convicted and if it turns out to be what it appears to be, then it is horrific.
    Dear Calgarian, I know that for one so widely read as yourself you may find this acknowledgment lacking. So I will say it again, Haditha remains an allegation and discussing it as if it were fact is premature. The signs are not good, but then, who would have guessed OJ was innocent? But then, I acknoweledged that fact and then continued to use it in the “if this is true” sense after that. Besides which, the point I was trying to make doesn’t really depend on Haditha and if I had to change the name Haditha to some other example in order for you to engage with the material of my post I would be happy to do so.
    Humbly yours,

36. hey lew, steve d et al should succomb to “Einsteins Law of Butt” and y’all just fly on up yer own arseholes – h/t thanx maz2 for the chuckle

37. PS. To those who mentioned stuff to the effect of ‘why do lefties come here’. For me at least it’s because I really like to have my ideas challenged. It forces me to clarify my own thinking, and helps reveal my biases and blind spots. There are a few people here that are excellent at it. See a few months back in a conversation on feminism and the montreal massacres. One or two posters on SDA essentialy handed me my ass on a plate.

38. Since the views of “ordinary Iraqis” have been raised, here is the view of one Iraqi, ordinary or otherwise:
    http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
    Although dated 10 June and dealing with Zarqawi’s death, the views expressed about the Iraqi government and the war are pretty clear and unflattering. Go ahead and call it Bathist propaganda … but what if it’s as valid as the propaganda of the other side?

39. In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a “daily phenomenon” by many troops in the American-led coalition who “do not respect the Iraqi people.”
    “They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion,” he said. “This is completely unacceptable.” Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added.
    From the talk here this looks alot more likely. I’m sure some here would show the Iraqis the same respect some of the troops over do.
    It’s up around 8 US troops that have been found guilty of Murder, with more trials going on.

40. agitfact – one view is one view. Period. It can’t be used to define all views. So, your presentation of one Iraqi viewpoint is just one. It can be countered with any number of Iraqi viewpoints that say the opposite.
    Equally, you are one person; your views don’t define all Canadians, do they? Do all Canadians think the way you do? No.
    Didn’t you say that you hated to see propaganda accepted as truth? Well, if you assert that the view of one person (pro or con) is ‘truth’, then, that’s actually propaganda. Not truth.
    And, in your continuing search for truth, I’m sure that you realize that your statement of “Should Kate admit that SDA is nothing more than a conservative propaganda blog, I will be quite happy to go away” – is actually a fallacy akin to the ‘stop beating your wife’ fallacy.
    Since SDA is NOT a conservative propaganda blog, and you know that very well, then, you have self-defined yourself as some kind of ‘necessary truth serum’ to this blog. That’s rather narcissistic, isn’t it?
    You have told us that you consider that without your presence, we would deteriorate into a morass of conservative propaganda; that without your presence, we would have no opposition to create a dialectics. Such a self-defined ‘noble duty’ is, perhaps, admirable to your ego, but the problem is internal. It’s a self-definition. Self-definitions are never truthful, not because of any lack of will but simply because they are strictly internal. Just like that viewpoint of one person.

41. RE: agitfact,
    “Go ahead and call it Bathist propaganda … but what if it’s as valid as the propaganda of the other side?”
    IMO agitfact etc. etc. are very obvious and open in their efforts to help the Ba’athists and undermine our own soldiers and our own governments war efforts.
    She refers to our allies as “the other side”.

42. C’mon, ET, if you can’t be fair, at least be truthful.
    I specifically said that it was one view, and I offered it up because no one else had cited a known Iraqi’s view, just “views” in general. If you wish to cite another Iraqi’s views for comparison, do it.
    I did not claim it was the truth, only the possibility that it could be as valid as the pro-Government/pro-American propaganda. Yes, ET, there is propaganda on all sides.
    ET, I have no problem with my views being considered as those of only one individual. I assume that your views are singular too. So what?
    Hell, I see “Have you stopped beating your wife” questions here almost every day, fortunately not nearly as often as ad hominems. What SDA is could be debated, but in the six months of my exposure to it I have seen regard only for conservative “truth.”
    As to self-definition and narcissism, let’s not go into that. As an anthropologist, you should not be practicing psychology without a license.

43. Concrete, if you think that, the concrete is between your ears.

44. Hey neutralsam, we’re still waiting.
    Found those facts yet?

45. agitfact – citing one view is irrelevant. Either cite a valid statistical sample, or don’t cite at all. Your posting of one view had an agenda of persuasion – and your ‘caveat’ of ‘it’s only one’ is a red herring.
    And don’t try the invalid argument of ‘I didn’t claim it was the truth..only the possibility that it could be valid’. That’s specious. If you claim a ‘possible validity’, then, you are asserting a legitimate claim-to-truth. You, agitfact, are busy, busy, with propaganda, aren’t you?
    No, agitfact, I’m quite capable of going into an analysis of your narcissism. Anyone who asserts that they have a ‘mission of enlightenment’ to bring ‘truth’ to a blog, has a serious case of narcissism.
    The fact that you’ve seen others use the invalid ‘stop beating your wife’ tactic doesn’t validate your use of it, does it?
    If you see here a regard only for ‘conservative truth’, then, why do you remain here? No, don’t try the pompous (narcissistic) argument that you are trying to teach us, to enlighten us, to bring us further along the road to truth. Tell us, without reference to your own needs to act as a Missionary of Truth – why you are here?

46. It’s up around 8 US troops that have been found guilty of Murder, with more trials going on.
    Posted by: neutralsam at June 20, 2006 10:00 PM
    This is news to me. What is the source of your information- and please provide a link . And please, it better not be al Jazeera or Mass Line.

47. I could take anyone of you for a walk in Saskatoon’s west end, and you could learn from the locals all about capitalist greed, the nasty whiteman, and the brutality of the police, and above all, the racism of “all” the white people in Saskatoon. You’d see the crime, the hookers, the drugs, the street gangs and street kids, and you’d come to the conclusion that Saskatoon is a shithole.
    That is, by my best understanding, the view we get of Iraq. It’s primarily a “westend” view, especially since the most violent place is now Baghdad, where all the AP types hang out. Yet, if one looks at all sources, from bloggers of all stripes to the firsthand accounts of coalition troops, and especially of the elected government, the view changes throughout different regions of Iraq.
    What view would we have of American “aggression” if all reports on Iraq came from Mosul, or the Kurdish North, or any one of the hundreds of communities that have had American and Coaliton troops install power, water, schools, and all sorts of infrastructure. (I’m sure you all saw the CNN docuementary where even in Sadar City the USA troops were cheered as they drove through.) Now, if no mention was made of the ever shrinking Sunni triangle, you’d think that America and her coalition were angels.
    The point is, there are millions of Iraqis who hate the coalition, for reasons ranging from family members being killed, to loss of Baathist control, to Arab Nationalism, to Islamic fanatism. There are also millions of Iraqis who adore the troops, who are greatful, and who do not want the coalition to leave until they can handle the “terrorist coalition” on there own.
    Given the balance of evidence, both factual and anecdotal, it amazes me that there are those in the west who promote an immediate pullout, and who buy into the “evil” America view. I stress “the balance of evidence”, because very little evidence coming from Iraq is factual.
    Iraq is in flux. The final chapters have not been written. The conflict is not at all old in historic terms, and real and true factual evidence is yet to be gathered, if ever. That leaves us with ideological reasoning for much of what we believe. The facts, on all things Iraq, will have to be measured and delt with by historians of the future. We, are not historians, and the pundits and MSM and politicians are not either. Everyone is painting a picture to fit an ideological stance and trying to fit in facts that are usually not based in any context.
    I personally am more than comfortable with my stance, given the little I know about the “real” Iraq.

48. Debris Trail
    John Stuart Mill never fought in a war. Most of the time wars are fought for economic gain. Mass death is never worth economic gain, especially someone else’s gain not your own. Even as a soldier on the victors side often you are punished by the country whose thanks ends with cheap words.
    If your country is invaded you have no choice, you fight. Ones country is worth fighting for. I don’t pretend, like some, to know what is good for others. So I wouldn’t likely go to another country and assume like Superman, to know the mind, culture, politics and religion of the country.
    The USA had no idea of what they were getting into in either country they invaded. They had no understanding of the cultures nor the political, social and religious realities. They went in blind. It looked like it too. They just thought with the greatest amount of ethnocentricism ever seen, that they would be greeted as saviours because they are, after all, coming from the greatest country, with the most money, and the best political system, and the most moral and providencially blessed. Add the greatest military the world has ever seen and the recipe for disaster is complete. Total ignorance mixed with total confidence is a guarantee of disaster. Low and behold that is exactly what has transpired.

49. steve: I’d be more apt to accept, or consider, your point of view if it could be proven true years from now. Proof of your stance, which is completely ideology based, will take time, even years. And, I hope you realize that you just demonstrated to all of us why you must now “cheer” for the terrorists; if they fail, you’ll be proven wrong.

50. ET said “Andrew Mason- your example of people who supported the fascists in WWII as doing so because they rejected communism, is inadequate as a reason for all support of the fascists in WWII.”
    Re-read my post. That’s not what I was saying. I was clearly talking about conservatives supporting or refusing to attack fascists prior to WW2 for their own ideological reasons. Its just a fact. The left did the same thing, viz. attacking “fascist” aggression in Spain while refusing to protest the Red invasion of East Europe in 1939 or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The left still does it – ie. nuclear disarmament (but only for the West), anti-war/violence (but only re. the West) etc. etc.
    My point is we have to be real here – I believe political expediency will always shape how we react to world events. Conservatives were prepared to use Saddam against Iran, the Red Chinese against the Red Russians etc. Such is life. So why feign such outrage when our ideological foes jump on world events to attack us?
    I also think the Canadian left is unpatriotic, that their rhetoric is often disgraceful – the list goes on. I can also see every situation from their point of view and could play devil’s advocate.
    But mostly I think its important for all of us, right and left, to understand that even if we will never convince one another we should still strive for civil debate — although it is of note that I wouldn’t even bother trying to convince anyone of that on a lefty blog…I guess I just expect more from this crowd then I do from them!