Is Common Wisdom post 9-11 Actually 'Wise'?

Great Debates
81

Can’t speak for everyone, but I will say that several dozen signs were spraypainted onto the walls and concrete plaza at HUmanities saying, essentially, that America was at fault. This was at the University of Tennessee. The U had to pay a small fortune in overtime for a couple of weeks to scrub the crap off. Usually, the U is pretty cool about people using chalk and stuff, but I expect if caught these guys wouldn’ve been hauled into court for vandalism.

So in any case, the local antiwar movement (bastards, all of 'em!) most difintely did say that it was all our fault (piss, moan, piss, moan).

Sorry for the hijack

82

It just gets more bizarre.

Not only do you fail to recognize your own words when quoted, you are now projecting your own debate strategies onto your opponents.

May I remind you that as author of a set of claims in a debate, you are obliged to provided cites for them when requested?

xeno: “I’ll continue to respond substantively here, where appropriate…”

We’re still waiting for you to get substantive, rather than spouting predjudices and libeling the opposition. If you do not find it “appropriate” to provide cites, you should not be posting in GD.

83

By the way: remember this? How us Americans ought to watch what we say?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h100101_1.shtml

Remember Michelle Malkin’s citing of a single high school student in Berkeley California to prove that all liberals hate America?

84

I’ve provided cites, in this thread and in the other, which show the phenomenon I described in part 1 of the OP. Other posters have even displayed the phenomenon within this thread. The existence of the phenomenon cannot logically be disputed.

Are you asking for cites for anything related to part 2? If so, please be specific in your request, and I’ll try and oblige.

85

What cites? They seem to be invisible.**

You’re returning to the mischaracterization of opponents for which you earlier apologized?**

You’re starting to sound Biblical here. Saying “It exists, therefore you can’t prove me wrong” is not going to cut it.

xeno (in this thread): “I acknowledge that the burden is on me to produce evidence that demonization occurs more than sporadically.”

So, produce.

86

Jackmannii, I refer you again to the cites provided in the Pit thread (three of them provided by you) and in this thread (see Apos cite just above my last post; see gobear’s reaction to Michael Moore and Susan Sontag).

No, I’m referring to the phenomenon referred to in part 1 of the OP, as clarified by the ejection of the offending clause.

87

Or remember this:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011119.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2001_11_25_archive.html#7400438

88

That whole “Clinton blames America at Georgetown, says we had it coming” flap not so surprisingly reminds me of the current NEA mess, not in the least because it started as yet another Washington Times article.

89

[quote]

see gobear’s reaction to Michael Moore and Susan Sontag).

[/quote
Wait a sec–I disagree that my post was an example of the first clause of your OP.

I am all for emphasizing tolerance and not blaming all Arabs or Moslems for 9/11. I am all for using the Japanese internment camps to teach the consequences of racism and national hysteria.

My point–and I have one–is the Left’s uncritical acceptance of the thesis that America’s actions led to or caused 9/11, as in Stoid’s post to me. The Left acts as if some action of america;s could have averted 9/11. As has been pointed out, bin Laden never gave a rap about Palestine exceot to rally muislims after 9/11. He hatwes us because we are a contamination–individual rights, rights for women, secular society that allows freedom of conscience-those are anathema to him.

I’m sure the Left would equally admonish the victims of the Kmer Rouge: “If you didn’t wear glasses and weren’t educated, you wouldn’t have been executed.” To the Tutsi in Rwanda: “If you guys had not discriminated agaisnt the Hutu, you wouldn’t have been executed.”

When the Left defends bin Laden’s actions as a justifiable reaction to American foreign policy, they betray the principles they supposedly hold.

90

gobear, it seemed to me you were reacting to Moore and Sontag’s citing of “historical examples of American actions which could be viewed by some parties with antipathy.” Both of them used those citations to press their point that, in their opinion, American policies helped create some of the hatred felt against us. You, and others, indicated disapproval for that line of argument, and portrayed it as if the authors were directly blaming America for being attacked. This, I believe, is a perfect example of the phenomenon I’m talking about.

As you know, gobear, I’ve retracted the part of my second question which included antidiscrimination rhetoric as part of the verboten material; I thought by implication it was understood that I’ve retracted that part of my summary statement as well. Here it is, then, as modified by my retraction: “[T]he ‘common wisdom’ [is] that historical examples of American actions which could be viewed by some parties with antipathy are off-limits in relation to the September 11 attacks specifically and in some cases the ‘War on Terror’ in general.”

Do you really believe that’s a fair analysis? Or is it rather “the Tutsi and the Hutu have a long history of antagony preceding the brutal campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Hutu; here’s examples. Perhaps by doing things differently in the future, competing tribes might reduce the likelihood that madmen from one faction might be enabled by their fellows to commit such atrocities.”

91

Underlining mine.

If anyone is wondering why I have pulled this quote, please see the beginning of my previous post, the part directed at Apos.
And never mind ** gobear’s ** possible protestations that he is not “of” the right, because he is. He just has a problem with the right’s vilification of homosexuals, everything else he is in lockstep with as far as I can see.

92

I had at first decided not to respond to this, but I can’t leave it lay. gobear, regardless of whether “the Left” can be characterized as a monolithic ideology, I resent, as an ostensible member of that bloc, your assertion that we have ever portrayed the September 11 actions as “justifiable”. You know better, I think.

93

Sean Hannity’s new book contains the same sorts of accusations against the left, including the nonsense about Clinton’s Georgetown speech. Perhaps this is still “sporadic”: but then, it is already a non-fiction bestseller on Amazon, and is certainly poised to take over Ann Coulter’s bestselling liberal bashing screed, which presumably, is also just a sporadic (i.e. selling hundreds of thousands of copies) phenomenon.

—The Left acts as if some action of america;s could have averted 9/11.—

But so does the Right, all the time! The difference is that the left blames the right (and sometimes the center), and the right blames the left (or, more specifically, Clinton).

—He hates us because we are a contamination–individual rights, rights for women, secular society that allows freedom of conscience-those are anathema to him.—

I would say his chief beef is not what we do in our own country, but the fact that our foriegn (unclean) troops are in Saudi Arabi (holy land): which he highlighted again and again as the primary abomination we are guilty of of. Everything else, including that he hates our values, is just window dressing: a slap in the face to go with his real cause.

That’s certainly the impression I got from reading the interviews with him: this is basically what I remember as the gist of what he’s said: he considers the U.S. involvement in Muslim affairs an affront to Allah and the national interests of Arabs. His rationale for using terror is that he hopes that the pain he causes will convince ordinary Americans that the price for meddling in Arab affairs is just too high to bear, getting them to push the U.S. government out of the Middle East no matter what their interests or convictions or rationalizations are for staying there.

Ironically, far from saying anything bad about democracy, democracy is what convinced him that ordinary Americans are guilty enough of American foriegn policy to justify attacking them directly, since they are the final authority for what happens. And he argues that the mass destruction of civilians is a justified war tactic because of the American defence of it in Hiroshima (quibbling about what a “war” is besides, he thinks he’s at war).

Now, anyone can point out how any or all of that reasoning is nutty and wrong, but I think it’s sort of silly and ego-inflating to pretend that what we are really defending is our way of life, when, despite his obvious hate for our way of life, his real interests seem predominately political and rooted in the Middle East.

—When the Left defends bin Laden’s actions as a justifiable reaction to American foreign policy, they betray the principles they supposedly hold.—

Um, you just did it again. You used that problematic word “justifiable.”
That’s exactly what’s causing the trouble: people switching too easily from the idea that his actions were irresponsibly provoked and permitted by sloppy foriegn policy (which is a charge both left and right commonly make) to the idea that his actions are morally justified (which is what this thread claims the right often falsely accuses the left of saying).

94

That presupposes that there is a course of action that could satify the goals of both parties and lead to amicable coexistence. That, in my view, is a false view of the political dynamics of terrorism in gnernal, and 9/11 in specific. I agree that there are tactics we can employ to win over the hearts and minds of the Ahmed in the street, pushing Israel to end colonization of the West Bank, for example.

But that would not satisfy bin Laden, for he will settle for nothing less than the destruction of the United States and the death of its people. Stoid, Elucidator, et al., seem to beleive that we are provoking the righteous wrath of bin Laden, and that if we changed our policy, he would be mollified. That is not so, any more (forgive me, Godwin) than any action of Britain or France could have mollified Hitler.

I provoke some people, like Fred Phelps, by my mere existence. If I get gay bashed walking out of a gay bar alone (happened 12 years ago in Phoenix), did I deserve it? Did I provoke it? Stoid and company, I suspect, would answer in the affirmative.

If my apartment were firebombed by a fundamentalist because my boyfriend and I are gay, would we have been responsible? Would we have provoked it by living together? Or would the responsibility be on the bomber? Would you have us go back into the closet and hide so we don’'t provoke anyone else? And is that the world you want?

95

I know of no cites provided by me (or any others) which support your claim that there’s an effort to silence critics of U.S. policy in the wake of 9/11 by placing certain topics “off-limits”. To what comments are you referring?.

Bill Maher got slammed for saying this: “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away,” Maher said on the Sept. 17 show. “That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” According to Apos’ link, Ari Fleischer when told of the quote commented that such remarks should not be made.
I don’t think you can spin that into evidence of a sweeping attempt to place criticisms of U.S. policy “off-limits”.

I don’t know what Michelle Malkin said, as the dailyhowler is too busy calling names to actually reproduce the offending passages.

Where exactly did gobear say that certain topics should be proscribed/forbidden/off-limits? I don’t see it. You must be uncanny at reading between the lines.
You don’t like criticism - understandable. Sometimes unfair criticisms are leveled in various directions - feel free to argue your position on a case by case basis. But don’t postulate nonexistent movements/conspiracies to silence you.

96

If you think that, **Stoid[/b[, it just shows how little you know. For exampIe I loathe President Bush and I deplore in the strongest terms his determination to start a war with Iraq. And I have always voted Democratic. That doesn’t mean I forfeith the right to think for myself. A proper concern for America’s misuse of power does not mean that one should automatically asume that America is always wrong, as your crowd does.

You need to show me where it’s a false accusation.

97

No it doesn’t! It presupposes that antagonistic parties can pursue processes which deal with their very real differences in ways which actively try and avoid exacerbation of tensions and which discourage extremism.

gobear, the situation of gays in this country (and elsewhere in the world) is not, repeat NOT comparable to American foreign relations. Gays have been historically discriminated against and victimized; violence against gays has not been perpetrated due to any political power or social influence possessed by them but rather has been enabled due the marginalization of gays and the enabling of extremist viewpoints by mainstream society’s “blind eye”.

On the other hand, the US has arguably greater political, military and economic power outside its own borders than any other country, and cannot be said to have been victimized by more powerful enemies. The attacks of Sept. 11 were just as monstrous and repugnant as a firebombing of your apartment would be, but the situations are not nearly the same.

98

You’re kidding, right? You mean the flat condemnations don’t do it for you? “Rightists” are allowed to distance themselves from the remarks of the Attorney General of the US and the Press Sec’y to the President, but “leftists” aren’t allowed to distance themselves from the very few (non-office holding) extremists who cheered the attacks?

Feh.

99

I agree, but I wasn’t comparing the two. I was making the point that both were provoked by their mere existence.

Our enemies are not more powerful, but they most certainly victimized us.

Thank you for unequivocally condemning the attacks. I wish more leftists, whatever their views of our policies, would do the same.

100

Let me clear. I know you, xenophon are a good man and a patriotic American, and even though we may have political differences, we both have the same goal–the welfare of the people of the United States. I don’t necessarily agree with you, but I totally respect you.

However, just as there are some Republicans who put their party’s goals ahead of the good of the nation and provoked a Constitutional crisis merely to count coup on a president they despised, there are leftists who are more concerned with trashing the U.S. than they are about preventing terrorism or supporting their country in a time of crisis.

I am on their side in supporting civil liberties against Ashcorft’s authoritarian tactics. I agree that we need to review our actions in the Middle East and elsewhere and that we must not demonize our Arab American and Muslim populations.

But when the first words out of the mouths of the left after 9/11 are to call Bush a warmonger and blame the State Department and exculpate bin Laden, when they wish to impede the effort to find and punish al-Qaeda and call the US response to 9/11 a “racist war,” they have shown themselves unworthy of respect from any decent person.