Jingo bin Laden vs Jingo W. Bush

[mswas]

Well Jingoism is rampant in this day and age, in fact we have a war fought with Jingoism as it's main weaponry right now, and though our lovely message board straightdope has the lofty goal of fighting ignorance, many of it's luminaries are falling into the Jingo stereotype like lemmings into the ocean. And the Jingoism I've found on this board is worse than your average everyday Jingoism because this Jingoism is coming from the mouths of PhD's and MD's and Lawyers and Computer Programmers, and people that are SUPPOSED to be less ignorant than average folk. Now this frightens me.

Telltale signs of a jingo taken from things I have heard on this board: (paraphrased in no particular order)

1) This is a black and white issue
2) Nukes are a viable option
3) You are with us or you are with the terrorists
4) Peace protestors are immoral

These are all ways that people try to scare us into sharing their jingoism. By trying to make us feel bad about ourselves when we don't agree that this is all cut and dry. I would hope that on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance with such highly educated people we could have more reasoned discourse on the subject. Though I have seen more reasoned discussion here than I have in other places the level of jingoism disturbs me when it should be less.

Erek

[minty green]

Goddamn, you're a useless piece of shit. Or are you participating in some sort of contest to see who can use the word "jingo" the most times? Jingo, jingo, jingo, jingo, jingo, jingo. There, I win.

[MEBuckner]

1) This is a black and white issue
"It's wrong to fly airplanes into buildings and murder thousands of people." Hmmm, that one strikes me as pretty black and white.

"We should try to stop people from doing that." Don't see too many shades of gray there either. ("But aren't we just imposing our cultural values on the terrorists? Our cultural values say that mass murder is bad, but maybe they have different values.")

"We should accept the use of force and violence as a means of stopping the terrorists from mass-murdering people." Okay, I guess this one does get more debate. Still, most people would probably not rule out force entirely. If you do, you pretty well have to argue society has no right to have police or prisons either, since those also represent the institutionalized use of force and violence.

Of course there's plenty of debate when you get down to the nitty-gritty of specific policy proposals.
2) Nukes are a viable option
Yeah, okay, all the loose talk about "nukes", and similar language about "carpet bombing", is pretty stupid.
3) You are with us or you are with the terrorists
Well, if we were actually seriously threatening to wage war on Mongolia or Tuvalu or Liechtenstein because they aren't doing their part against the terrorists, it would be one thing. I don't really have a problem with saying I find it hard to stomach a policy of "neutrality" with respect to flying plane-loads of terrified passengers into office buildings filled with thousands of innocent people. I think decent people should really be against that, and that they should refrain from supporting that, and they should aid in preventing that sort of thing when they have the ability and opportunity to do so.
4) Peace protestors are immoral
Well...they have a right to protest, this being a free country. I think they are misguided, and at least some of them seem to be pretty reflexively opposing whatever the United States does, just because it's the United States that's doing it.

I think there's a difference between jingoism, and a mixture of genuine patriotism and genuine moral outrage in the face of terrorists mass murdering thousands of people.

[minty green]

Incidentally, our jingo-obsessed friend here is a refugee from this GD thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92668).

And I'm still waiting to hear how the murder of 5000 innocent people is anything other than a black and white issue.

[Jodi]

There was a MSWAS had a pet word, and JINGO was its name-o!
J-I-N-G-O!
J-I-N-G-O!
J-I-N-G-O!
And JINGO was its name-o!

Seriously, there are smart people on both sides of this issue, and having a degree (regular, advanced, or decaf) means nothing. That said, I have not heard anyone who supports the U.S.'s actions (either wholeheartedly or qualifiedly) who thinks all of A, B, C, and D. Most think A. Some think C. Very few think D, and even fewer think B.

It may be easier to attack the position you disagree with if you mischaracterize it, but it isn't particularly intellectually honest to do so.

[mswas]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
1) This is a black and white issue
"It's wrong to fly airplanes into buildings and murder thousands of people." Hmmm, that one strikes me as pretty black and white.

"We should try to stop people from doing that." Don't see too many shades of gray there either. ("But aren't we just imposing our cultural values on the terrorists? Our cultural values say that mass murder is bad, but maybe they have different values.")


I would like to say, I almost always like your posts whether I agree with them or not.

I should have been more specific about this black and white thing. Yes flying a plane into a building is wrong. That said, I don't think a terrorist making his point in an incorrect way, amounts to him NOT having a point, which is what was more or less said in the Great Debate thread that Minty Green linked. While I don't agree with their methods I think it is of EXTREME AND UTMOST importance to look at their ideals and the causes of why they did it. Now I think that while American Foreign Policy in that region does NOT excuse that sort of behavior, it does explain how it can possibly happen, and I think unless we take a long hard look at WHY they are doing what they are doing, and avoid painting it in either black and white just because they did something that makes us sick to our stomach, it's going to happen again and again, no matter how much a war on terrorism terrorizes them into submission. They learned something valuable, and we learned it as well. The United States is NOT invincible, they CAN bring the US low, and they did for almost a month. Would we survive six months of being brought that low? Even if we wipe out Al Qaeda another organization will eventually rise up and do the same kind of thing. Al Qaeda is just better funded and organized, but it won't be the only organization of it's kind in the near future and we need to take a long hard look at the root causes of these things.



3) You are with us or you are with the terrorists
Well, if we were actually seriously threatening to wage war on Mongolia or Tuvalu or Liechtenstein because they aren't doing their part against the terrorists, it would be one thing. I don't really have a problem with saying I find it hard to stomach a policy of "neutrality" with respect to flying plane-loads of terrified passengers into office buildings filled with thousands of innocent people. I think decent people should really be against that, and that they should refrain from supporting that, and they should aid in preventing that sort of thing when they have the ability and opportunity to do so.
[/quote]

While I understand this point, I want to use Iran as my example. Iran IS NOT with us on our reaction to this. They do not think that the terrorism is ok, however they are not with Afghanistan either and both Bush and bin Laden are saying "Either you are with us, or with the other side", and in my opinion that's jingoism. It tells me that both sides are trying to get you to throw in with them without having a true rational discourse as to why you SHOULDN'T be with them, by pulling on the gut reaction of your fear that you might be labelled as supporting the wrong side.


4) Peace protestors are immoral
Well...they have a right to protest, this being a free country. I think they are misguided, and at least some of them seem to be pretty reflexively opposing whatever the United States does, just because it's the United States that's doing it.[/quote]

While, I agree that there is a lot of kneejerk on that side, it is no more than on the side of the "genuine patriotism and genuine moral outrage", I think the peace side has a point, and many on the peace side are NOT saying, "Don't react at all."., they are saying, "Don't bomb Afghanistan and don't leave your targets open ended."

I think that bombing Afghanistan is kind of necessary, but I hate the fact that it is so open ended there and in the rest of the middle east.


I think there's a difference between jingoism, and a mixture of genuine patriotism and genuine moral outrage in the face of terrorists mass murdering thousands of people.

I do as well, but I do think a lot of what I described is Jingoism.

Erek

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Jodi

It may be easier to attack the position you disagree with if you mischaracterize it, but it isn't particularly intellectually honest to do so.

mswas and "intellectually honest" are mutually exclusive concepts...

remember this gem (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=91081) of a thread kids?

• "Yeah, let's shut down greyhound because one guy went nuts on a greyhound. That probably happens monthly, we live in a violent fucking country. "

• and "but I'd be willing to bet that someone has some kind of psychotic attack on a greyhound bus at least once a month"

• ..He asserted that yuppies buy SUVs "based on fear"

• ...and that "yuppies RUN greyhound"

Those assertions remain unsupported. Still.

I wouldn't count on him supplying much in the way of support for his claims here...(although I suspect that derivative name calling will be part of this thread soon..)

[minty green]

Originally posted by mswas
I should have been more specific about this black and white thing. Yes flying a plane into a building is wrong.No shit, dumbfuck. Too bad it took you a dozen posts in that thread and this one to come around to this stunning realization.That said, I don't think a terrorist making his point in an incorrect way, amounts to him NOT having a point, which is what was more or less said in the Great Debate thread that Minty Green linked.Erek, you're so full of shit you must have to hire guys from Ringling Bros. to walk behind you with shovels. Nobody had said any such thing in that thread--in fact, I defy you to find a quote illustrating your contention. And now that you've admitted murdering 5,000 people is wrong, I especially defy you to find anything I said that gave you grounds to accuse me of "jingoism and intolerance."

[MEBuckner]

That said, I don't think a terrorist making his point in an incorrect way, amounts to him NOT having a point, which is what was more or less said in the Great Debate thread that Minty Green linked. While I don't agree with their methods I think it is of EXTREME AND UTMOST importance to look at their ideals and the causes of why they did it.
I gave my take on what Osama bin Laden's ideals and causes and "point" are here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1711739#post1711739).

[Milossarian]

Well said, everyone. But you are wasting your efforts on this particular cause.
I think there's a difference between jingoism, and a mixture of genuine patriotism and genuine moral outrage in the face of terrorists mass murdering thousands of people.
But, MEBuckner, mswas doesn't believe in morality. Check out the link.

Anybody else notice his "telltale signs of jingoism" is really "viewpoints with which mswas disagrees?"

And please outline for me the points those terrorists have that we should be listening to. Gonna bring up Palestine? Bin Laden didn't until after Sept. 11.

You by all means explain to me what capitulations the United States can realistically make so that no more slaughters of American people on American soil occur thanks to these "people with the points."

You worry about American imperialism and Osama's "points" to your amoral heart's desire. I'm just thankful my government disregards the babble of you and those like you, and focuses on national security and eradicating the barbarians that want to do this kind of shit.

"But if we don't address the root causes of ... blah, blah, blah."

What are the root causes? You been channeling Osama? What are they? What do we change that makes him our buddy?

There's a big difference between:

A. A bunch of people that dislike America and blame us for their problems, and

B. A well-funded, well-trained, well-organized worldwide terrorism network, actively working to kill as many American men, women and children as they can; cripple the United States economy and topple the United States government.

We need to work on A., in a very long-term kind of way. We've had to deal with A. for decades. There is nothing we can do at the moment that will make us not have to deal with A.

Wiping B. off the face of the earth, on the other hand, is the most black-and-white issue the world has ever seen, right up there with destroying Hitler and Nazism.

And when and as people move from column A. to column B., we should wipe them off the face of the earth, too.

Isn't it wonderful? All those folks over there get to choose how it occurs! If reasonable Middle Easterners want to discuss U.S. foreign policy that pertains to them, the U.S. should by all means engage them, evaluate how their wants mesh with our wants, see if there's any room for compromise, and continue forward.

If they decide they want to engage us on the issue through their statement of September 11, they get to die. They get to damn their cause.

Do you have a problem with that, mswas? Somehow, I'm betting you do.

[mswas]

Beagledave: This is the second thread where you used a thread that has nothing to do with the point to ignore my point, gonna try for three? At least everyone else is attacking me in context.

Jodi: I have your song stuck in my head now, lol

Minty Green: You're a jackass, you didn't even read what I said obviously from statements like this one.

Me: Yes flying a plane into a building is wrong.
You: No shit, dumbfuck. Too bad it took you a dozen posts in that thread and this one to come around to this stunning realization.

I never once said anything to the contrary.

As for quotes from that thread, here goes.


From Nacho4Sara:

Hitler was terrifying, but he was not an unthinking brute, he was not without support. He was most definitely "without a point" however, as is bin Laden. I think it is a black and white issue. If bin Laden was angry with the US, there are a lot of ways he could have handled this that did not include the mass murder of 6000 innocent civilians. He did not have a right to kill those people, no matter how much of a "point" you think he has.


(Again I don't know where I said bin Laden was right just that he had a reason.)


From Minty Green:

And what system of morality do you ascribe to where the intentional murder of 5,000+ innocent people is anything other than a black and white issue?


This is where I decided that you were a jingo, because, you and Nacho4Sara were assuming that because I said he had a reason (never said justification, not once) that I condoned his murder of those people.

And while my using "Jingo" may be distasteful to many of you, I think Jodi's point applies to the above statement from Minty Green, even if there are some like Beagledave that ignore what I said because I said something that he didn't agree with in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with this one.

Erek

[Jodi]

LOL :rolleyes:

Make no mistake, MSWAS, the person I was referring to as mischaracterizing the other side of the debate is you, not MINTY.

[mswas]

Jodi, I made no mistake, I just reapplied your statement, though you guys can show solidarity if you like. Maybe you should link your arms.

So I defy you to explain how it DOESN'T apply to him in this case. I showed a link and explained how it DOES apply. Please enlighten me.

Here's a good thread on the subject.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/10/12/107.html

Erek

[mswas]

Jodi, I made no mistake, I just reapplied your statement, though you guys can show solidarity if you like. Maybe you should link your arms.

So I defy you to explain how it DOESN'T apply to him in this case. I showed a link and explained how it DOES apply. Please enlighten me.

Here's a good thread on the subject.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/10/12/107.html

Milossarian drooled:

You worry about American imperialism and Osama's "points" to your amoral heart's desire. I'm just thankful my government disregards the babble of you and those like you, and focuses on national security and eradicating the barbarians that want to do this kind of shit.


Well you can be thankful that you like the government disregards the babble of me and people like me, though the government is disregarding me AND not responding. You are disregarding and responding to things I didn't even say.

Wow, almost none of you even read what I have said, in fact you've repeated things I denied saying after I denied saying them.

So sorry, Jingoism stands.

Erek

[Jodi]

For fuck's sake MSWAS, we are not aligned against you. We each, and all, individually, think you are wrong.

MINTY said:

And what system of morality do you ascribe to where the intentional murder of 5,000+ innocent people is anything other than a black and white issue?

You construe this as saying "that because I said he had a reason (never said justification, not once) that I condoned his murder of those people."

Of course, MINTY didn't say that. He said it was a black and white issue, and he doesn't understand a moral system under which it is not. That isn't jingoism; it's his opinion.

Let me break this down for you:

1. To some of us, the death of 6000 people at the hands of terrorists cannot and should not be linked to any talk of cause, reason, motivation, justification, grudges, whatever, because to do so implies that there is some way to explain this that makes any sense. There isn't. There is no cause, reason, motivation, justification, or grudge that would in any way excuse what has been done. Therefore, to us, such issues are irrelevant. At this point, what is relevant is that 6000 people are dead and we must (a) see that it doesn't happen again and (b) seek justice on their behalf. For neither of these ends do we need to know the cause, reason, motivation, justification, or grudge underlying the act of terror. To us, the issue is very black and white: 6000 people are dead.

2. To others, talk of motivation, reason, whatever, is necessary -- though frankly no one here or elsewhere has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to why it must be done now. But they think it must, and I accept that. For them the issue is not black and white, it is shaded by questions of why these people are mad at us; what we did to prompt the attack; what we can change to see that they aren't so pissed in the future . . . to those of us on the other side, such questions are not just irrelevant, they are aggravating because they almost inevitably devolve to blaming the U.S., even if the questioners insist they are not intended to do so.

So those are the two sides. All that it is important for you to realize is that those of us who believe the issue is black and white -- indeed, is one of the most obviously black and white issues we in this country have ever faced -- we don't believe this out of "jingoism" or misplaced overzealous patriotism. We believe it because we have examined the facts and that is our truly held opinion. When you paint it as "jingoism" you do as much damage to the cause of communication as anyone who might accuse you of justifying murder -- more, in fact, because you are doing the very thing you purport to decry.

And I am at a loss to imagine what to make of your link to the Moscow Times. I will only state that I think its bias and lack of objectivity, not to mention the total absence of any sort of actual analysis of world events, makes it so obviously a worthless source that IMO you undermine your own position -- which is a legitimate one -- by posting it.

[minty green]

I don't ignore what you say, punk. I just call it for the ignorant drivel that it is. Let's take it from the top, shall we? Try to keep up now, even though coherent thought isn't real high on your list of priorities.

Originally posted by mswas
From Minty Green:

And what system of morality do you ascribe to where the intentional murder of 5,000+ innocent people is anything other than a black and white issue?


This is where I decided that you were a jingo, because, you and Nacho4Sara were assuming that because I said he had a reason (never said justification, not once) that I condoned his murder of those people. Nice try, asshole. But the words of mine that you quoted came immediately after you made the assertion that Osama bin Laden and September 11 were not a black and white issue. And unlike you, I can actually quote your own words to prove it:Anyway, the point is Che Guevera and Pancho Villa were probably villified quite nicely in their time by their enemies and the people in this thread are willing to give them a grudging heroes respect, but they want to damn bin Laden. bin Laden is terrifying, but he is not an unthinking brute, he is not without support, he is not without a point in certain cases. We want to paint this as a black and white issue so that we don't have to "gasp" think about it. This board is SUPPOSED to be fighting ignorance, but it propogates ignorance about as much as it fights it even though that is still a better ratio than other places it's still pretty fucking depressing. I've found that many of the people here who put on a very good veneer of higher intelligence are jumping down anyone's throat that offers an opinion that doesn't jive with the jingoism of the day.So basically, you claim I insinuated you approved of the murder of 5000 innocent people, immediately after you said it was not a black and white issue? Jumpin' jehosiphat, where'd I ever get that idea?

And watch your fucking mouth in Great Debates, dickhead.

Oh, and your quote of Sara's does, of course, show that somebody claimed bin Laden had no point. The trouble is, she didn't make that post until after you arrived on the scene and started shouting "Bin Laden has a point! Bin Laden has a point!" She also made that post after you claimed that this was not a black and white issue. So don't even try to claim that as as justification for your disgusting statements in that thread. Shit don't fly. Just ask those guys behind you with the shovels.

[mswas]

Minty, I cut and pasted what you said, if that's not quoting you, then I don't know what is. Again you skirt my point, I'm done arguing with you. The debate is still open for other people though, and I would gladly speak to those actually willing to read what I type.

Erek

[minty green]

Great, you can cut and paste a quote. Very impressive. Now why don't you try putting that quote in context? Because in context there was one hell of a good reason for me to question whether you thought crashing jetliners into the WTC was in any way defensible.

Also, I look forward to your silent treatment. Keeping your damn fool mouth shut is a very good idea in your case.

[MEBuckner]

1. To some of us, the death of 6000 people at the hands of terrorists cannot and should not be linked to any talk of cause, reason, motivation, justification, grudges, whatever, because to do so implies that there is some way to explain this that makes any sense. There isn't. There is no cause, reason, motivation, justification, or grudge that would in any way excuse what has been done. Therefore, to us, such issues are irrelevant. At this point, what is relevant is that 6000 people are dead and we must (a) see that it doesn't happen again and (b) seek justice on their behalf. For neither of these ends do we need to know the cause, reason, motivation, justification, or grudge underlying the act of terror. To us, the issue is very black and white: 6000 people are dead.

2. To others, talk of motivation, reason, whatever, is necessary -- though frankly no one here or elsewhere has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to why it must be done now. But they think it must, and I accept that. For them the issue is not black and white, it is shaded by questions of why these people are mad at us; what we did to prompt the attack; what we can change to see that they aren't so pissed in the future . . . to those of us on the other side, such questions are not just irrelevant, they are aggravating because they almost inevitably devolve to blaming the U.S., even if the questioners insist they are not intended to do so.
I'd also point out that to examine bin Laden's "point" is not to lessen the black-and-whiteness of the question. He's not just some guy who, in the course of fighting for some noble cause, has tragically turned to evil methods. He wants to create a theocratic empire which would rule hundreds of millions of people using the same noble and enlightened principles of governance displayed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

His methods are evil.

His ends are evil.

He's evil.

To hell with him.

[mswas]

My point about examining his motivations (for MEBuckner and Jodi) is to keep us from making the same mistake in the future and creating more bin Ladens. I am not trying to make him into a folk hero here.

Erek

[MEBuckner]

And what mistake would that be? The Enlightenment?

[Jodi]

My point about examining his motivations (for MEBuckner and Jodi) is to keep us from making the same mistake in the future and creating more bin Ladens. I am not trying to make him into a folk hero here.

Who said that you were? My point is that this does not have to be done right this minute. It is a long term goal that IMO must come after (a) and (b), above. I frankly don't care whether you agree with me or not; we are both (all) entitled to our opinion. But you should not dismiss mine as "jingoism" unless you'd like to to see your dismissed as "justification." See how that works?

[mswas]

Jodi, I don't think you are a Jingoist. Neither do I think that MEBuckner is. Now one can, as much as they like claim that I am justfiying it, but in fact I am not, me calling someone a jingo != to me justifying something. As long as we are working in that kind of logic.

As to MEBuckner, that mistake is why I think we need to examine this as we act from this point on so that we can figure out what those mistakes were. I already mentioned that I think our support of the Northern Alliance is premature and shortsighted. I don't think that bin Laden is the only one of his breed, and he may very well be just as effective dead, as he is alive.

to Jodi, you don't establish what you are going to do in a long term goal later on, that's why it's a long term goal, you start working toward it at the beginning, and you cannot start it without first examining. That's what makes it long term. You start it in the short term and work toward it over a long period of time.

The Jingoism I was referring to was the blatant dismissal of any ideas that say this is not necessarily black and white. Now MEBuckner made that point moot by saying examinations do not change whether it's black and white, therefore it's a semantic issue. However I do not think that bin Laden is completely wrong in what he is saying, I think the US DOES fuck people over in the middle east, or does do things that are unpopular, such as supporting regimes that are not supported by the people such as we supported Iraq in the 80s and they were the main enemy in the 90s such as we supported the Mujahadeen and the Taliban in the 80s and they are the main enemy now.

If we aren't careful the Jihad will become fact, and where we have moderate arab support it will be more difficult for the moderate arabs to support us. As I see it, we are helping bin Laden's cause more than hurting it, even if we annihilate al Qaida and hte Taliban.

Erek

[mswas]

Jodi: How does my link to that Russian article show bias and hurt my position? I thought it was a fairly interesting article and it is far from the only article I have read saying the same kinds of things. What in your mind makes it overbiased?

Erek

[Jodi]

MSWAS --

Jodi, I don't think you are a Jingoist.

Kind of hard to tell, since you've listed a position I personally endorse as a "telltale sign of a jingo." Now you're backing off that, which is fine but leaves me a bit at a loss as to how you are defining the term "jingoism" and who you are applying it to.

Now one can, as much as they like claim that I am justfiying it, but in fact I am not, me calling someone a jingo != to me justifying something. As long as we are working in that kind of logic.

The point is not that they are equivalent, but that they are both untrue. Your position is not a justification. Mine is not jingoism. Therefore, if you wish to complain that people should not misrepresent your position, it would behoove you not to misrepresent theirs. You are the one saying these issues are complicated, which they are. Do not then attempt to make the opposition to them seem simplistic or ill-thought out, when it is not.

to Jodi, you don't establish what you are going to do in a long term goal later on, that's why it's a long term goal, you start working toward it at the beginning, and you cannot start it without first examining. That's what makes it long term. You start it in the short term and work toward it over a long period of time.

Yes, dear, I realize this. But at this moment in time we must prioritize where our energies, attention, and resources are going to be concentrated, and IMO they are not best spent in a time of crisis by setting or exploring long-term goals unrelated to safety or justice. We have too many other things we have to do first.

The Jingoism I was referring to was the blatant dismissal of any ideas that say this is not necessarily black and white.

The fact is that some of is do not believe it is not black and white. So long as that dismissal is not "blatant," I fail to see why you would equate it with jingoism. I do reject your position; I have thought about it, reasoned it through, discussed it extensively, and I do not agree with it. It is black and white. I will dismiss any argument that it is not, because I've already been over that ground like 400 times, and I still think it's black and white. If you have some new argument to make in this regard, I will of course consider it, but I haven't seen anything new.

However I do not think that bin Laden is completely wrong in what he is saying, I think the US DOES fuck people over in the middle east, or does do things that are unpopular, such as supporting regimes that are not supported by the people such as we supported Iraq in the 80s and they were the main enemy in the 90s such as we supported the Mujahadeen and the Taliban in the 80s and they are the main enemy now.

Do you or do you not understand that some of us consider that totally irrelevant to the issues of safety and justice? I am not asking you to agree with this, I am merely curious as to whether or not you even see it. Allow me to reiterate for the millionth time: Nothing bin Laden says can change the fact that 6000 people are dead and those responsible must be brought to justice. It doesn't matter if he's lying his ass off or telling God's own truth about the horrors of America. That is irrelevant at this point in time. Again -- I don't ask that you agree with this, but this is our position, and it is a defensible one, and we are not "jingos" for dismissing your position (after thinking about it) because we don't agree with it.

If we aren't careful the Jihad will become fact, and where we have moderate arab support it will be more difficult for the moderate arabs to support us. As I see it, we are helping bin Laden's cause more than hurting it, even if we annihilate al Qaida and hte Taliban.

I understand this is your position. I'm sure you recognize it is not mine. Just as you are not a justifier by believing as you do, I am not a jingoist by believing as I do. But then, as I've said, I'm not sure who your accusations of jingoism are directed at in any event.

[Jodi]

I really do consider that Moscow Today article to be really obviously biased and worthless, so much so that I'm not willing to walk you through it pointing out where and why. If you really think its an example of balanced and reasoned reporting, that's fine, but I am certainly not obliged to agree. Frankly, I doubt anyone would agree, no matter what their position on the larger questions.

[Monty]

You're joking about Iran not thinking terrorism is okay, aren't you? After all, they are one of the supporters of state-sponsored terrorism.

[mswas]

Jodi said:

I understand this is your position. I'm sure you recognize it is not mine. Just as you are not a justifier by believing as you do, I am not a jingoist by believing as I do. But then, as I've said, I'm not sure who your accusations of jingoism are directed at in any event.


They were pointed mostly at Osama bin Laden, George W Bush and Minty Green.


I really do consider that Moscow Today article to be really obviously biased and worthless, so much so that I'm not willing to walk you through it pointing out where and why. If you really think its an example of balanced and reasoned reporting, that's fine, but I am certainly not obliged to agree. Frankly, I doubt anyone would agree, no matter what their position on the larger questions.

Ok, that's your prerogative. A few people I have spoken to about this article really liked it. Please if you can find me an unbiased news source I'd appreciate it. I haven't found one. And since you are unwilling to enlighten me as to how it is overly biased, can someone else please help me out on this if you agree with her?



Yes, dear, I realize this. But at this moment in time we must prioritize where our energies, attention, and resources are going to be concentrated, and IMO they are not best spent in a time of crisis by setting or exploring long-term goals unrelated to safety or justice. We have too many other things we have to do first.

See here is the crux of my problem. I think that NOT considering this stuff is working against the goals of safety and justice.

Erek

[mswas]

Originally posted by Monty
You're joking about Iran not thinking terrorism is okay, aren't you? After all, they are one of the supporters of state-sponsored terrorism.

They denounced the Sept 11th acts. And according to them the US sponsors terrorism.

Now, so as not to tread on feelings I am not accusing Monty of Jingoism, but what I consider Jingoism is this idea of nations as supporters of terrorism because they support organizations that achieve aims through violent methods that conflict with western ideals. Well, the US commits what they consider State Sponsored terrorism. To many of those nations the bombing of Afghanistan is state sponsored terrorism. To many of those nations Israeli occupation is state sponsored terrorism. The truth is we are well on our way to a slippery slope where tyranny is supported by calling the actions of the underdog terrorism. What makes the Chechen rebels NOT terrorists as opposed to the PLO as terrorists. What makes the IRA terrorists and the Northern Alliance NOT terrorists. What is the actual definition of terrorist, and not as it's defined by the state department, but a universal definition of terrorism that would apply no matter which side you are on.

Erek

[Jodi]

MSWAS says of his accusations of jingoism, "They were pointed mostly at Osama bin Laden, George W Bush and Minty Green." To which I reply, that is hardly clear from your OP, in which you said:

Well Jingoism is rampant in this day and age, in fact we have a war fought with Jingoism as it's main weaponry right now, and though our lovely message board straightdope has the lofty goal of fighting ignorance, many of it's luminaries are falling into the Jingo stereotype like lemmings into the ocean. And the Jingoism I've found on this board is worse than your average everyday Jingoism because this Jingoism is coming from the mouths of PhD's and MD's and Lawyers and Computer Programmers, and people that are SUPPOSED to be less ignorant than average folk. Now this frightens me. elltale signs of a jingo taken from things I have heard on this board: . . .

So far as I know, neither GWB nor ObL are members of this Board.

See here is the crux of my problem. I think that NOT considering this stuff is working against the goals of safety and justice.

Yes. I see that you think that. I do not.

[minty green]

Originally posted by mswas
They were pointed mostly at Osama bin Laden, George W Bush and Minty Green.Gee, I'm in such illustrious company. :rolleyes: I also find it amazing how you started throwing around your magic mantra of "jingo" in that other thread before I posted even one fucking word.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by mswas
Originally posted by Monty
You're joking about Iran not thinking terrorism is okay, aren't you? After all, they are one of the supporters of state-sponsored terrorism.

They denounced the Sept 11th acts. And according to them the US sponsors terrorism.

So fucking what??????

I'm sure, when asked about Paul Castellano's murder, John Gotti probably said 'It's a fuckin shame, I tell ya'. Them denouncing an act that guaranteed a military response hardly puts them on the side goodness and virtue.

Oh, and for this little gem
My point about examining his motivations (for MEBuckner and Jodi) is to keep us from making the same mistake in the future and creating more bin Ladens. I am not trying to make him into a folk hero here.bolding mine

Fuck you. Fuck you in the ear. You just blamed us for what this evil fuck(who want's all dead, BTW) did.

Once again, fuck you.

[mswas]

Ok Spooje :rollseyes:

I never blamed us for what he did, I said we created an environment where a person like bin Laden is possible. But, you probably feel secure in your righteousness, so carry on.

Erek

[Monty]

Mswas:

Which is it? Either you think none of us has a fucking clue about the English language or you just flat out don't know what the fuck you just posted.

IIRC, the United States NEVER FUCKING HELD DIPLOMATIC STAFF HOSTAGE ON THE IRANIAN EMBASSY COMPOUND!

That certainly qualifies for state-sponsored terrorism.

You, you ass, are certainly stupid.

[minty green]

Once again, Erek lies. Or are you truly incapable of distinguishing between the following two statements?Originally posted by some dipshit
My point about examining his motivations . . . is to keep us from making the same mistake in the future and creating more bin Ladens.Originally posted by the same worthless piece of shit liar
We created an environment where a person like bin Laden is possible.

I predict that mswas will once again acuse of us not reading his posts, and that pigs will fly out of his ass.

[voguevixen]

mswas, I hope I don't come across as "jingoistic" :rolleyes: but God Bless our right to free speech here in America because if you lived in Afghanistan and made any sort of remark disparaging the Taliban, I can guarantee you it'd be your last remark as a free person. If they didn't shoot you on sight and throw you in a pit, they'd put you in a prison while they decided whether to have you stoned or just starve you to death. This is the sort of insanity we're dealing with here. We're not talking about people who can be reasoned with in any way. Good grief, do you not have CNN? Do you not see that under the rule of this group, music is banned? If you're caught with a cassette tape in your car, you go to jail? If you are a doctor, lawyer, butcher, baker, etc who happens to be a woman, too bad because now you have to spend the rest of your life in your house with the shades drawn because you are unclean and not fit to look upon? If you're a woman who needs to go to a doctor, too bad because men are no longer allowed to touch women (UNCLEAN!) and there are no more women doctors because they aren't allowed to practice medicine anymore?

On behalf of my Bronze Star decorated grandfather who fought in WWII and Korea: "FUCK YOU!" If you don't know what you're talking about, shut the hell up.

::waving flag and singing "My Country Tis of Thee":: :p

[mswas]

Monty: You are a fucking moron. So Iran held our people hostage, we have sanctions on iraq and bomb their airspace that is NOT restricted. Oh, but you AGREE with our policy on iraq so it's different, it's not terrorism. Now I am calling you a jingoist.

Minty Green: Wow, you caught me. I didn't choose my words carefully enough. Good job. You get an "A". What I am against is the mentality that many of you are espousing right here.

Which leads me to voguevixen who did an admirable job of proving my point. She even used the heartwrenching reference to the family that fought valiantly for our country that every jingoistic redneck will tell you when you disagree with whatever policy they currently espouse. And then she gave me a kindergarten view of the Taliban. Since this is her first post I'll give her the benefit of the doubt since reading comprehension seems low in this thread. "I DON'T FUCKING SUPPORT THE TALIBAN"

Thank you,
Erek

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by mswas
I never blamed us for what he did, I said we created an environment where a person like bin Laden is possible.
Ok folks, the problem is obviously with me.

He's saying we(as a nation) did everything it could to create 'an environment where a person like bin Laden is possible' but is not blaming us for the results. Sombody besides mswas help me out and explain it to me.

[mswas]

Spooje:

Two other people Caiata and Neurotik explained it in this thread.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92668

[minty green]

In Erek-speak, that means "I am totally incapable of explaining myself."

[mswas]

He asked for someone besides me minty, nice try though. I am sure you'll find someway to get me back for calling you a Jingo if you try all day today all day tomorrow and all day the next day when I stop posting in this thread.

Erek

[minty green]

You're right, Erek. I think it would have been entirely too much for spooje to expect you to explain anything.

[mswas]

Keep trying Minty, you'll get it eventually. I admire your dedication in the face of such adversity.

Erek

[Typo Negative]

mswas, you can backpeddle all you want, but your little quote says that we created him. Actually it says 'lets not make the same mistakes and create more Bin Ladens. 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

[mswas]

Spooje'd:

mswas, you can backpeddle all you want, but your little quote says that we created him. Actually it says 'lets not make the same mistakes and create more Bin Ladens. 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

(I did it just for you Minty even though I did it in almost all of my posts that weren't replying to the last thing those people said.);)


Alright Spooje, I thought you capable of understanding metaphor. Since it is pretty obvious that I didn't mean (at least I hope it's obvious) that there were some American mad scientists working in an Osama bin Laden laboratory trying to create a super terrorist out of radioactive spiders and camel jism. I thought you would understand that I was referring to the environment that US foreign policy creates in the Middle East. Of course you don't want to admit that you have anything to do with it, but what do you think makes gas so cheap in this country when it's so expensive everywhere else in the world?

So maybe I am backpedalling but I didn't mean that we literally created bin Laden, just that we had a hand in the current state of affairs and it's naive to look at it as though we don't. We have a hand in his success, whether you want to point at us training him in the 80s and supplying the mujahadeen, or if you want to look at resentments we've stirred up by placing troops in Saudi Arabia, or if you want to look at our enduring support of Israel, or if you want to look at all the pressure on Clinton to stop the assault on bin Laden so that we could focus on Monica Lewinsky instead. For whatever reason our hands have been dirty in this from the very beginning. We've been in the muck and mire along with bin Laden all along, and we are partially responsible for the Afghanistan that currently exists. I'm not saying we should take total responsibility, we shouldn't but we should look at what the root causes were.

And when I am worried about creating more bin Laden's what I am thinking of is stirring up more resentment by hitting more targets of convenience because they are linked to state sponsored terrorism, or by Martyring bin Laden, or by putting a tyrant from the Northern Alliance into power. I mean from what I can tell the Taliban is a more legitimate ruler than anyone from the Northern Alliance could possibly be. I am saying we need to learn from our past mistakes and try and avoid having to take out someone who WAS our ally fifteen years down the road. That's what I mean by creating more bin Ladens.

Erek

[SPOOFE]

Hmm.... MSWAS, are you sure you posted that response in the right thread? I don't know about everyone else, but as soon as I saw you talking about mad scientists and camel jism, I just started thinking, "I don't know what this guy's smoking, but it's probably killing brain cells by the trillions."

Are you sure you're reading in the same language that everyone else is? We're using "English". By the content of your posts, I'd reckon that you're using some obscure dialect of "Stupid".

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by mswas
I thought you would understand that I was referring to the environment that US foreign policy creates in the Middle East. Of course you don't want to admit that you have anything to do with it, but what do you think makes gas so cheap in this country when it's so expensive everywhere else in the world?

Did we put a gun to OPEC's collective head and force them to sell it to us cheaper? Doesn't their foreign policy affect us?

Your seem to be saying that the Evil US is putting the iron boot to the poor middle easterners and we shouldn't be surprised when they rise to bite us.

I'm asking you. What, specifically, did the US do to create such hatred?

[gobear]

[/quote]
So maybe I am backpedalling but I didn't mean that we literally created bin Laden, just that we had a hand in the current state of affairs and it's naive to look at it as though we don't.
[/quote]
Actually, Mswas, there is a case to be made for some responsibility for this mess to be laid on American foreign policy failures, but you aren't making it, just indulging in mindless, knee-jerk, "we suck," America-bashing.

First, we are not responsible for bin Laden because he was not one of the muhajideen; he was another contributor to their cause, same as the US. He's a university-educated Saudi from a prosperous family with ties to the al-Sa'ud royal family.

We are in part responsible for allowing the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan. After the withdrawal of the Russians, Afghanistan ceased to be of interest to the US as a proxy in the geopolitical conflict between the USSR and the US. We let Afghanistan be torn apart in conflicts between muhajideen warlords because it has long been our policy not to engage in nation-building. We gave tacit approval to the Taliban taking over the country because, at the time, the State Department thought that the Taliban would bring much-needed stability to the Afghans.

However, you should assign more blame to Pakistan, because the Taliban were their creation, a militiant group the Pakistani government thought it could control as a buffer against India.

You should also blame the Saudis. The fiercely puritanical clerics have been given free rein to denounce Israel and the US to vent anger that would otherwise be directed at the corrupt and out-of-touch royal family. In addition, until 9/11, the Saudis were strong financial backers of the Taliban.

or if you want to look at resentments we've stirred up by placing troops in Saudi Arabia,

Umm, we're there by request of the Saudis to save them from being attacked by Saddam Hussein. We're also serving our own interests by protecting our chief oil supplier, but the important point is that the Saudi royals want us there.

or if you want to look at our enduring support of Israel,

And what are we supposed to do, wash our hands of Israel? They are our only real friends in the Middle East, a Western-style democracy that embraces the same values as the US. It would be utterly wrong to abandon Israel.

or if you want to look at all the pressure on Clinton to stop the assault on bin Laden so that we could focus on Monica Lewinsky instead.

That's asinine. You'd be smarter to blame underfunded anti-terrorism plans.
From your posts, it seems to me that you haven't bothered to inform yourself by reading any books or magazines beside the Nation. Here's a reading list for you:
An Unexpected Light, by Jason Elliot. It's a firsthand account of travel by a British journalist traveling in Afghanistan just before the consolidation of rule by the Taliban. It also touches on Afghan history and traditional Islamic culture.

Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong. An excellent account of the origins of Islam; the last chapter is a precis of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas Friedman. A fascinating exploration of multinational globalism succeeding the di-polar Cold War, the book also tlaks about fundamentalism as a reaction to Western culture threatening local mores without the support of Western democracy.

Come back and post when you know what you're talking about and are capable of doing more than spout tired, anti-American, hippie claptrap.

[mswas]

Originally posted by spooje
Originally posted by mswas
I thought you would understand that I was referring to the environment that US foreign policy creates in the Middle East. Of course you don't want to admit that you have anything to do with it, but what do you think makes gas so cheap in this country when it's so expensive everywhere else in the world?

Did we put a gun to OPEC's collective head and force them to sell it to us cheaper? Doesn't their foreign policy affect us?

Your seem to be saying that the Evil US is putting the iron boot to the poor middle easterners and we shouldn't be surprised when they rise to bite us.

I'm asking you. What, specifically, did the US do to create such hatred?

Well, first of all I never said the "Evil US" but if you are content to put words in my mouth go for it.

Alright, I'm gonna stop right here. I am not making my point apparently. I don't think the US sucks, I am not even trying to imply that, and I THOUGHT I made the point that what I was trying to say is we need to look at our foreign policy, if people are getting the America bashing idea from me then fuck it, I'm not being clear even though I have stated FLAT OUT that I don't think it is our responsibility entirely, so fuck it. I can't make my point very well, or people are ignoring my point, or whatever, so fuck it, I am stepping out of this thread because I am going to be misunderstood whether I like it or not (though at least half of you have understood my point exactly and reacted accordingly.) However the ones that post continuously in this thread do not understand me, I'll chalk that up to me being unclear and give the credit for any clarity in my posts to SOME people being able to understand things better than most, rather than me being able to post well.

Though, as I would like to point out ONE MORE TIME "I DO NOT THINK THE US IS TO BLAME IN THIS, I DON'T SUPPORT THE TALIBAN, I THINK BIN LADEN SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT, and I DON'T THINK THE WAR ON TERRORISM SHOULD BE OPEN ENDED.", there I hope that was clear enough for all of you.

gobear: Thank you for your post, I'm sorry if it seems that I am just being anti-american, I did not intend that. First, I didn't offer any solutions about what we should do in the middle east, just gripes that there are against us.

I am a firm supporter of Israel, I have family in Israel, I don't think we should abandon Israel at all, in fact I am pissed off at the Bush Administration's handling of Israel in the last month, and I am not saying we should take our military out of Saudi Arabia, I am just saying that we shouldn't be going in there guns blazing as we are, and that we need to change our foreign policy to allow for the generation of fundamentalist factions as a result of our foreign policy, I am not saying we should STOP having involvement in the Middle East. Just that we should change how we view it, and not act like it's so shocking when terrorists hate us because of our policy. We'll always have enemies, but understanding your enemy's motivation is a pretty good idea.

My point got muddled in this. So I reiterate, I am not anti-american, I am not against middle east foreign policy, I just think it needs to be changed to reflect anti-american sentiment and we need to accept that there is a reason FOR that anti-american sentiment.

Erek

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Jodi
At this point, what is relevant is that 6000 people are dead and we must (a) see that it doesn't happen again and (b) seek justice on their behalf.

I realize I am coming in a bit late on this, but Jodi I think everyone posting on this thread including mswas agrees with point (b).

My question is how you are going to do (a) without truly understanding why people are willing to do this.

[mswas]

Heh, thanks again Neurotik, my point was lost in trying to defend myself. You seem to have a knack for summing up my points pretty quickly.

Well I was gonna post an article about Iranian fears that the bombing of Afghanistan is creating more support for the Taliban, but I can't load http://www.worldnews.com.

Erek

[Milossarian]

Neurotik:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jodi
At this point, what is relevant is that 6000 people are dead and we must (a) see that it doesn't happen again and (b) seek justice on their behalf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize I am coming in a bit late on this, but Jodi I think everyone posting on this thread including mswas agrees with point (b).

My question is how you are going to do (a) without truly understanding why people are willing to do this.
OK; how do you do (a)? Eradicating and disrupting the highly organized worldwide terrorism network would seem effective. And their motivations are important to that effort only to a limited extent.

As for dealing with America-hating in the region longer term, virtually all of the anti-American sentiment is either non-specific, or involves America making changes it isn't willing to make , i.e., get out of Saudi Arabia; stop supporting Israel. I would add "quit using your military against 'innocent Afghani citizens' (read: the Taliban and al-Quaeda)." Except that would be disingenuous, because this hatred of America existed long before we took military action in Afghanistan.

Economically, we have; they don't. It makes us bad. We have an effective military, and we sometimes use it. It makes us bad.

Shit, the number of people on this board who agree with that viewpoint is easily in the double digits.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Milossarian
OK; how do you do (a)? Eradicating and disrupting the highly organized worldwide terrorism network would seem effective. And their motivations are important to that effort only to a limited extent.

I disagree here. I agree that eradicating and disrupting the organized terrorism network is an absolute must. And you are right, we don't need to know their motivations to do that.

However, that's not really an effective strategy in the long term. It's too easy to start a new network and each time they do they will learn a bit more about how to hide things better. It will be an endless game of catch up.

As for dealing with America-hating in the region longer term, virtually all of the anti-American sentiment is either non-specific, or involves America making changes it isn't willing to make , i.e., get out of Saudi Arabia; stop supporting Israel. I would add "quit using your military against 'innocent Afghani citizens' (read: the Taliban and al-Quaeda)." Except that would be disingenuous, because this hatred of America existed long before we took military action in Afghanistan.

Economically, we have; they don't. It makes us bad. We have an effective military, and we sometimes use it. It makes us bad.

Well, again, you are correct. I am not advocating doing things like abandoning Israel or retretating from Saudi Arabia. But there might be things we can do to counteract the resentment people feel towards us. Greater economic aid to certain areas. Helping to start education programs and build infrastructure, similar to the Marshall plan. It's obviously too expensive to do everywhere, but picking out a few key locations (especially among our Islamic allies) to start might help. Of course, certain areas you'll have to get rid of certain presences like the Taliban. I say go for it. Just make sure you counterbalance getting rid of the Taliban with something constructive in the area. Otherwise you just end up with more chaos. And be careful in the future of who we topple and who we support. Supporting oppressive regimes who agree with our views has gotten us into scrapes before (Vietnam, Iran).

I don't think that thigns are the US fault and we have no right to retaliate. That sort of thinking offends me to no end. I'm just saying make sure we think carefully about the response and future actions, because there tend to be negative repurcussions when we don't. By just bombing Afghanistan with nothing else then we risk giving terrorists the ammo they need to recruit more troops.

[mswas]

Yeah, I'd like to point out that halting any reaction or abandoning Israel or moving out of Saudi Arabia are not the only option for keeping a cool head.

We were told this was going to be a new kind of war. When I heard new kind of war, I thought it meant "not reducing Afghanistan to rubble", but I was wrong. Now while I am not necessarily against the bombing of Afghanistan, I do think there is an argument that it is counter productive. I was hoping that we'd move toward political assassinations, because fuck this, political assassinations are a whole lot better than dropping a single bomb on a single civilian.

Erek

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by mswas
Now while I am not necessarily against the bombing of Afghanistan, I do think there is an argument that it is counter productive. I was hoping that we'd move toward political assassinations, because fuck this, political assassinations are a whole lot better than dropping a single bomb on a single civilian.Erek
A couple obvious problems with that.

1) There's way too many of them.

2) We're not exactly sure where they the key players are.

3) Some of our Special/Ops troops would have a little trouble blending in the folks over there.

4) Political assainations are frowned upon by the world community. I'm not sure why.

[pennylane]

I don't think that Usama bin Laden has a point.
But that doesn't mean that mswas doesn't have a point.

There does seem to be some jingoism in America these days, which is only understandable after what happened. And I have seen some signs of it on this message board, although I think most people are dutifully fighting ignorance as is their mission...

[mswas]

Originally posted by spooje
Originally posted by mswas
Now while I am not necessarily against the bombing of Afghanistan, I do think there is an argument that it is counter productive. I was hoping that we'd move toward political assassinations, because fuck this, political assassinations are a whole lot better than dropping a single bomb on a single civilian.Erek
A couple obvious problems with that.

1) There's way too many of them.

2) We're not exactly sure where they the key players are.

3) Some of our Special/Ops troops would have a little trouble blending in the folks over there.

4) Political assainations are frowned upon by the world community. I'm not sure why.


1) Bombing doesn't change that. In fact it has gained more people to support the Taliban than it has killed. The air defenses are down, so why are we still bombing?

2) And how does bombing help us find them?

3) I don't know the solution to that one, but I am pretty sure bombing isn't it.

4) Yeah me neither, Sanctions are worse. I think sanctions for more than a year should be illegal under the Geneva convention. If we aren't gonna take Saddam and Castro out, why do we keep sanctions on them? It doesn't hurt THEM? Just their people. Actually I've heard that Iraq has built it's army back up to strength despite the sanctions. So what exactly are they accomplishing?

Erek

[mswas]

I don't have a cite for the Iraq army thing, can anyone help me out with that? I read so many articles that they all blur together and I couldn't hope to find something I read in passing. If I am wrong on this would someone please let me know on that as well?

Erek