And what mistake would that be? The Enlightenment?
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?
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
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
MSWAS –
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jodi said:
They were pointed mostly at Osama bin Laden, George W Bush and Minty Green.
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?
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
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
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:
So far as I know, neither GWB nor ObL are members of this Board.
Yes. I see that you think that. I do not.
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.
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
[sub]bolding mine[/sub]
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.
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
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.
Once again, Erek lies. Or are you truly incapable of distinguishing between the following two statements?
[Criswell]
I predict that mswas will once again acuse of us not reading his posts, and that pigs will fly out of his ass.
[/Criswell]
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”:: 
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
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.
Spooje:
Two other people Caiata and Neurotik explained it in this thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92668
In Erek-speak, that means “I am totally incapable of explaining myself.”