No, that’s not why the left has been shouted down–any sensible person agrees with encouraging stability in the Middle East and defusing anti-American sentiment. You’ll find me bang alongside you on the issue.
Why do some folks bash the left? Hereare some reasons.
BTW, I agree totally with Apo’s last post.
Thank you for encapsulating so neatly and precisely why the American left makes ME angry.
no, wait, lemme guess: because you see that sentence as saying that any such anger is JUSTIFIED?
What a shock.
:rolleyes:
But gobear, what, specifically, in Stoid’s statement that you quoted is incorrect? I don’t mean what don’t you like about what you think she meant, I mean what did she say that was incorrect? It’s pretty clear from his interviews that bin Laden is pissed at actual stuff we did/are doing. This is a true statement. It’s also reasonable to assume that al Qaeda operatives are also pissed at actual stuff we did/are doing. As Stoid said, we can decide whether we should do things differently or keep doing things the way we’ve been. You seem to agree wholeheartedly with this idea, so why does it piss you off to hear it from “the left”?
Meanwhile, back at the Gobear Show…
You got your apology. You only get the one. And the “host of other names”? This seems to be a rather typical ploy: one small truth and a big fat fib.
Noted, only to point out that I’m not gonna bother with it.
And so, having duly advised me that you are too nice a guy to use slander…
And if your politics don’t “convey moral superiority” then what the hell do they convey? An amoral Bismarck style Realpolitik. Of course my politics are part and parcel of my moral convictions. If yours aren’t, why not?
Only have the one “throne”, as it were. Mostly, I sit there and read the morning paper, then wipe my Nixon and go have breakfast.
Before you start trying to use the big words like “impugn”, I suggest a remedial course concerning the meaning of “personal attack” and “honesty”.
Hint: “honest” does not mean “agreeing with my interpretations”.
You linked to two offensive threads from crazies on the SDMB and to two rational and well presented opinion pieces. I don’t understand why you think these things explain “left bashing”. Can you develop your argument a bit?
Got anything worthwhile to contribute yet, Jackmannii?
One more word for your reading comprehension assignment.
Irony: define and use in a complete sentence. Extra points awarded for spelling and punctuation.
xeno: I apologize if I misstated your assessment of my contributions. You (and some others) continue to call them dishonest, however.
Do I think Lippincourt sides with Al Qaeda, and loathes America? No.
Do I think he blames America and doesn’t blame terrorists for 9/11? No.
Do I think he has some goofy and highly ideological views of 9/11, before it, and after it? Absolutely. I’ve outlined them ad nauseum. You and others say his words are being misinterpreted. OK. I disagree on some in particular. He means what he says. I’m not sure on some others. I’m pretty sure you’re right on still others.
I clearly won’t be changing your mind. And you won’t be changing mine. Let’s move on.
Apos - Believe it or not, I agree with every single thing you said in your “What can we do about OBL and Al Qaeda?” response.
I would say on this point, however:
**
I agree. But what I find maddening about the brand of terrorism we face today is how many people in the world, due to their hatred or jealousy of the United States, are outright supportive of what happened on Sept. 11, or at least not particularly outraged.
It’s as if they don’t know what Osama bin Laden and his ilk are all about. What they stand for. The world they are trying to bring about. If it hurts America, they’re for it.
Most of the shameful things the United States has done it its foreign policies in the past had to do with our fears over the spread of Communism. Rational fears in some cases; highly irrational in others.
Since the Soviet Union’s fall, I’d like to think the U.S. has been more responsible in its foreign dealings. We still won’t do what other countries want us to do, just because they want us to do it (Kyoto).
So while I think it’s important to engage the rest of the world in a dialogue and improve relations - and we are - some of the onus falls on those who have extremely screwed-up worldviews to get their acts together. If you don’t roundly denounce what OBL has done and what he stands for, I don’t have much use for your opinion. And that goes for devout, Middle Eastern Muslims, as well as anybody else.
Any attachment of criticism of American policies to the act of Sept. 11 goes beyond the pale, IMO. Talk about it in a different context, AT LENGTH. Don’t attach it to an event for which America cannot possibly be to blame.
No, we’re talking about your first condition “de he have a right to be angry” I think the question is moot because it doesn’t matter. He is a monster, and he needs to be put down. What offends me is not the “justified” but that you think his point of view needs to be respected enough to be answered. It doesn’t. He forfeited any right to be taken seriously on 9/11. Now he just needs to die, him and his whole rotten gang.
In any event Xenophon and I agree on the substantive matters, and I’m done talking.
Damn. That (and what preceded it) was not only reasonable but approached pretty classy. Abashed, I accept the invitation to move on.
As an American, I find it irksome to hear pointless criticism of American policies, whether it’s connected with September 11 or not. But IMO the importance of pointed political criticism in the context of the attacks is that it addresses the climate of fear and distrust for America that enables monsters like bin Laden to operate with some support. It’s that support system I think we must work to eliminate. There will always be sick creatures like ObL; the real work of necessity will have to be concentrated on reducing their recruitment opportunities and limiting/controlling their range of operation. Which, arguably, requires widening the criteria of our policy decisions to include not only our immediate and long range interests, but the future best interests of the people of the region.
HELL-FUCKING-LO!
Is that so hard to understand? Jesus, man, you are unreal.
If you’re going to quote, do it right and get the whole quote up there. You may think it is legitimate to consider whether OBL’s actions reflect the feelings of millions of others–I find it offensive that you would lend legitimacy to his views.
Since you’re going to be abusive, and I’ve struggled to be pretty decent, I’m gone.
Have the last word.
I don’t want to speak for gobear, and I don’t really consider myself part of “the right” (I certainly have never voted for them!), but I think what pisses off some people, including me at times, is that there is a very vocal segment of the left (usually the most radical segment) that automatically assumes that the answer is “Do things differently.” That is to say, that thinks we should change our actions vis a vis the Middle East no matter how the Islamic fundamentalists think we should do it. They seem unwilling to even entertain the idea that we should keep on doing just what we have been doing.
This isn’t the opinion of all of the left, or even most of the left, but it is the opinion of a lot of the most vocal members. And it makes me angry because I think we should only be willing to examine our policies to the extent that we intend to change them; once the demands of the “opposition” stray out of the bounds of rationality, we are no longer under an obligation to consider what we can do to accommodate them.
Fine, I will. (and where I’ve “abused” you I have no idea)
I quoted as little as I could because to my eye it seemed pretty obvious you were uninterested in reading any more than you had to to justify finding some way to accuse me of defending OSL. Give you too much to work with and you find too much to ignore or distort.
And I think your position is pathetic: you appear to be saying that because OSL chose to murder people as ** his ** way of expressing ** his ** rage, anyone who agrees with his rage is therefore agreeing with his acts , and therefore they are meaningless and unworthy of consideration.
How incredibly convenient. Certainly keeps things simple.
To borrow from xeno: feh.
Ok, Ron goes to Nicole’s house to return some glasses that were left behind at the restaurant he works at. Nicole answers the door, possibly with soft music in the background, candles lit, and maybe even wearing “skimpy” clothing. As Ron is about to enter the house, he and Nicole are brutally sliced to death by her ex-husband.
Now, no one agrees with his acts, but millions agree with his rage. After all, how many men get royally pissed off that their ex is dating a younger, cuter, man?
Do we fret and worry that the ex-husband was enraged? Do we try to justify his rage? Do we say that because other people share his rage, that maybe we should look into why he and they are enraged? NO!
So why even consider what OBL and the rest of the terrorists think? You say you don’t “justify” the terrorist acts, (and I’m not saying you do) but why even consider their reasons? Their reasons are irrelevant.
Murder is murder.
** milroyj. ** your example does not apply. Millions of people did not agree with OJ’s rage, because millions of people were not married to Nicole.
I am not saying we should concern ourselves with the terrorists themselves, but with the millions of other people in the world who MAY be pissed off at us for exactly the same things that they are pissed off at us for. They did not forfeit their rights because of acts they had zero control over.
Ok. Let me quote Stratfor, 10/13/01:
So, to answer your question, I trust that the US’s unilateral withdrawal from the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. would satisfy bin Laden.
Let’s review. Bin Laden wants to expel the US from the Muslim world; he believes he can do this by forcing the US to do something that the Arab street will object to, thereby destabilizing the US’s client regimes in the Mideast (Bin Laden’s POV).
By understanding the enemy, we can take steps to thwart him. One medium term strategy (for example) might be to appeal the hearts and minds of democratically oriented Arabs. We could (for example) withhold aid if an Arab client state jails a prominent and peaceful democrat. Another strategy would emphasize the importance of low-key nonpublic help from our authoritarian allies. (That might be an example of a pldennison “more of the same” strategy.) We could also engage ourselves more in the Arab-Israeli peace process than we did in the Spring of 2001.
I could go on. But my point is simple: understanding your enemy helps. I’m sorry that this even needs to be debated.
Where is Collounsbury when you need him?
Obviously, millions of people were not married to Nicole, but millions are in the same situation , cuckolded by wives and ex-wives. And they’re hurt, embarrassed, and scorned. So, what if a few of them murder their wives? Do we try to understand?
After all, the husbands MAY be pissed off at the wives for exactly the same reasons.
To address Stoid, (and, sort of, xeno, in his last response to me)
Stoid said:
**
As I’ve already said, the U.S.'s effort should be ongoing to have dialogue with other nations and their people, and to improve America’s image abroad.
However, tying that effort in any way as a response to the atrocity that was Sept. 11 tends to lend legitimacy to that terrorist act as a response to U.S. policy. It tends to lend legitimacy to those who maybe secretly aren’t exactly disgusted with the act.
And the U.S. should be extremely careful that it doesn’t in any way appear to capitulate to terrorists. We had about a 6-pager on that one, immediately after 9/11, if you’ll recall.
As for those millions of pissed off people, I don’t think we will be removing our military presence from the Middle East anytime soon. I don’t think we’ll be abandoning Israel. And I don’t think we’ll be ridding ourselves of music and movies, putting our women in burqas and forcing them out of work.
We can treat other nations with respect, and seek our interests while not trampling upon theirs. I feel America has been doing that in recent years.
But as for “the millions of other people in the world who MAY be pissed off at us for exactly the same things that (Al Qaeda) are pissed off at us for?” Reading the psychotic things that make ObL upset, they’re just going to have to lump it.
My views on the subject were eloquently stated by Rep. Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, less than a month after Sept. 11.
You can read them in their entirety (it’s just a few paragraphs) here
An excerpt:
[sub]Because this statement was made by Henry Hyde, elucidator will be by to … be himself … in 3 … 2 … 1 …[/sub]