Jingo bin Laden vs Jingo W. Bush

The BBQ Pit
1

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

2

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.

3

“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.

Yeah, okay, all the loose talk about “nukes”, and similar language about “carpet bombing”, is pretty stupid.

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.

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.

4

Incidentally, our jingo-obsessed friend here is a refugee from this GD thread.

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

5

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.

6

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.

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.

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

Erek

7

mswas and “intellectually honest” are mutually exclusive concepts…

remember this gem 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…)

8

No shit, dumbfuck. Too bad it took you a dozen posts in that thread and this one to come around to this stunning realization.

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.”

9

I gave my take on what Osama bin Laden’s ideals and causes and “point” are here.

10

Well said, everyone. But you are wasting your efforts on this particular cause.

**
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.

11

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:

(Again I don’t know where I said bin Laden was right just that he had a reason.)
From Minty Green:

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

12

LOL :rolleyes:

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

13

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

14

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:

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

15

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

MINTY said:

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.

16

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.

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:

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.

17

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

18

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.

19

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.

20

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