<< HISTORY ALTERED ~ MAIN ~ PRIZE RECEIVED >>
GENUINE 100% MEDIA REPRESSION
Thirteen publications are closed following their Danish cartoon displays. At least twelve journalists face charges. Seven are in prison:
Reporters Without Borders calls on everyone to take a stand in support of the imprisoned journalists, who were simply doing their job and passing on news that made headlines around the world.
Most media organisations have taken a stand by boldly running away. Which is odd, considering how hot for tales of repression the media has been during these blighted years of the Illegal Smirkler Regime (dissidents jailed! Mao-reading students probed!). Actually, the media is still hot for repression sagas, of a particular type. The latest involves a hideous 18-hour delay for information on Dick Cheney’s Texas-wide murder spree. About which, here’s Mark Steyn:
Given that the media’s spent the last two weeks telling the public why they don’t need to see these Danish cartoons, it’s hard to take them seriously as sudden converts to the public’s right to know every detail, if only when it comes to minor hunting accidents.
Journalists can spend entire careers mouthing off about their commitment to free speech without ever having the chance to properly demonstrate it. I once had a theory that the lack of repression in modern democracies drove journalists to invent McCathyesque threats, so much did they crave an opportunity to stare down those who would silence them. Their ideal imagined foes (I’m guessing): brutish religious fundamentalists opposed to progressive notions on women’s rights, homosexuality, art, and education.
Problem is, those imagined foes were always named Falwell or Robertson or Nile (or John Paul II). Faced with fundamentalist religious demands from people bearing less familiar titles, however, the media froze. Missed your chance, journalists! (Many of them know it, too; I’ve got an e-pile of e-mail from journalists supporting this site’s posting of the dreaded Motoons, most regretting they were unable to do the same. Happily, lots of support from the left.)
Hey; I’m wrong. That chance is still available. What with the closure of those publications and the arrest and imprisonment of journalists and editors not averse to running the odd Motoon, not to mention continued deadly rioting, several news angles still exist that would justify publishing one or all of the Danish Dozen. So post or publish, if you already haven’t. Don’t care to follow the example of a right-wing idiot like me? Fine; do it in support of Mohammed al-Asaadi, editor-in-chief of the Yemen Observer, currently in a basement cell awaiting trial:
Newsweek: Do you regret now the decision to run the cartoons, however censored, given the climate? There are plenty of religious fanatics in Yemen, even if they’re a minority.
al-Asaadi: We had a meeting to discuss this before we published them, so it wasn’t an accident. And we felt that these cartoons had already been shown on Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya and millions of Muslims had seen them. And I personally believe these cartoons should be published. If we make it unlawful to look at them, we give them an importance they don’t deserve, as if there’s something holy or special about them. We should be able to discuss them openly, which is what we did.Newsweek: Some hard-line preachers at Friday prayers called for your execution; some even suggested death by beheading or immolation. Aren’t you afraid for your future, in or out of jail?
al-Asaadi: Of course I’m afraid. I’ll have to take precautions when I go to and from my office and travel around in the future. But Yemenis as a whole are very moderate, and I know I can persuade any reasonable person that I did nothing wrong. And I believe in God. What I did was in defense of the Prophet, and I don’t think God will let me down for doing that.
Compared to al-Asaadi, most of us will face barely any retribution at all for hitting the publish button. Consider it.
UPDATE. The New York Times reports from outside the UN:
A few men from a group called the Islamic Thinkers Society roamed around the plaza carrying signs, including one with photographs of President Bush and Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish paper, with targets placed on their foreheads.
Australia’s Michael Leunig also appeared in the Thinkers Society’s posters, following a process that might have gone something like this:
* Leading Islamic Thinker receives word that Leunig is involved in some kind of controversy about cartoons and such.
* Islamic Thinker thinks: “It’s pretty obvious what this must be about; the Leunig fellow has clearly defamed the Prophet.”
* Islamic Thinker puts two and two together and comes up with DEATH TO INFIDEL! It’s a default setting.
UPDATE II. Pakistani cleric Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, who has announced a $1 million bounty on the devilish Danish drawers, doesn’t know much about the cartoons in question:
Qureshi did not name any cartoonist in his announcement and did not appear aware 12 different people had drawn the pictures.
Qureshi isn’t the only guy who has failed to work that out:
The publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad in European newspapers was “a mistake,” former US President Bill Clinton, who is on a visit to Pakistan, said ...
”We live in societies where people are free to say the wrong things and right things. But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper which decided to print them may not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet,” he said.
The multiplicity of illustrators would be obvious, even to Clinton, if more newspapers had simply published the cartoons.
UPDATE. It gets worse: 15 dead in Nigerian cartoon riots.
What wronwright said. And now ...
Thanks to modern technology, we don’t even need images to be able to make blasphemous imagery.
Mohammed (((:~{>
Mohammed playing Little Orphan Annie
(((8~{>Mohammed as a pirate
(((P~{>Mohammed on a bad turban day
))):~{>Mohammed with sand in his eye
(((;~{>Mohammed wearing sunglasses
(((B~{>Mohammed with a bomb in his turban:
*-O(:~{>Mohammed on a *really* bad turban day.
)8(:~{>And for Leunig fans, Mr Curly Mohammed issuing a fatwa:
(((@:~{0>
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 02 18 at 03:01 PM • permalinkGah! Tim, I just had cervical spinal surgery; the anesthesiologist accidentally tripped over my IV, yanking it out and spattering the OR with my blood; I have a 3-inch slit in my throat--but all this pales in comparison to the naming and quoting of that blowhard, bloviating, bloated SOB Clinton! I’d really really rather hear from Hillary, that’s how much Clinton rips at my nerves…
It is against US federal law to threaten the life of the president. So why the hell are the picketers of the Islamic Thinkers Society (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) in the slammer?
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 02 18 at 03:57 PM • permalinkSorry - previous post should read “are not ... in the slammer”. Preview is my friend ...
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 02 18 at 03:59 PM • permalink>From President Clinton: “But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper which decided to print them may not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet,”
President Clinnton may not even know that the reason the cartoons were drawn was to show that Moslem blasphemy laws do not apply in Denmark.
Though now we know they do.
My wife will not look good in a burka.
Bill,
Your wife and daughter are both educated and have jobs outside the home. You and they are insluting Islam. You are also guilty of blasphemous conduct by allowing you wife and daughter to keep their clits.
Religion of Pieces.
Posted by perfectsense on 2006 02 18 at 05:19 PM • permalinkDaveS,
Quaker Bomber Pilot Association
Posted by David Crawford on 2006 02 18 at 05:33 PM • permalinkOrdinarily when, say, organized crime types, or drug lords, make war on one another, or rioters pillage and burn their own neighborhoods, I stand off to the side with bemused detachment. But this kind of stuff really pisses me off:
Witnesses told AFP that protesters [in Nigeria] turned on the Christian minority in the northern city of Maiduguri, burning shops and churches, after police dispersed a rally called to condemn European newspapers that printed the caricatures.
Now tell me again why we should accord you, your religion or your prophet any respect whatsoever. Animals.
Islamic Thinkers Society BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 02 18 at 05:42 PM • permalinkCan we make a short list of mainstream media organisations who are actually defending our freedoms, our principles, our civilisation? Yup.
A very short list.
As a private citizen, a little guy, one has zero protection from aggressive and probably murderous fanatics. As a public figure, and a member of a large news organisation, there is a higher level of protection. With the backing of government, police, and ultimately the armed forces, there should be no contest. Any transgressors should be dealt with harshly and quickly.
The cracks in this argument appear in Victoria, with those dodgy vilification laws. Then reflect for a moment on the fact that all the states have ALP governments.
This carries with it the taint of wet left pandering to minorities, branch stacking assisted by ethnic groups (more minorities pandered to in return), and more than a suspicion of a lack of will to be tough on certain types of crime.
One’s sense of protection takes a bit of a nosedive at this point. Thank goodness for the Federal Police. Give them all the phone tap rules they want. Now.Amish Technology Association
Then again, RV manufacturer Jayco, located in the heart of Indiana Amish country, is owned and operated by an Amish family. So I suppose it’s possible that a society of thinking Islamists could exist somewhere. Although clearly not in New York.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 02 18 at 06:08 PM • permalinkGreat post, Tim.
1. I just heard a non-observing Moslem say that he was taught that even turning shoes upside down was considereed a terrible insult to Allah because they dirty soles pointed upwards.
Even today if he sees any such shoes, he turns them over. Talk about fear!2. No-one seems to have noticed that Moslems must not make any images of Moses, Jesus or any other prophet either.
Here’s endless reason for world riots against Christianity - not to speak of Buddhism…The issue is plainly not moving on. If I was an editor, I would have thought there was no point of publishing them now, as it is (should be) old news. But the mad mullahs are clearly not moving on, making sure the cartoons continue to be news.
Does this mean that it is time for a second round of publication of what, in the end, are pretty ordinary cartoons? I am not enthusiastic about another media frenzy similar to the Abu Ghraib perpetual generation MSMachine.Can’t we have some new cartoons? Preferably funny this time.
Another thought, does this mean The Bulletin will publish them this week? Will have to buy a copy.
Well said, Tim. I hope other journalists take up the sword as well.
As for Bill Clinton.....apparently, he now gives blowjobs instead of getting them. Maybe he learned this from Algore.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 18 at 06:51 PM • permalinkHas anyone else noticed that Leunig doesn’t have a target on his head on that Thinkers Society’s poster?
Is this significant?
Or is it just my poor eyesight?
Posted by Mr Anderson on 2006 02 18 at 06:56 PM • permalink* Islamic Thinker puts two and two together and comes up with DEATH TO INFIDEL! It’s a default setting.
Best quote Ive seen in ages.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 18 at 06:58 PM • permalinkExcellent post, and excellent comments. I laughed at the Mohammedicons, and was also wondering why those Islamic… er… excuse me, Thinkers? (what’s up with that?)... aren’t facing charges because of threats against the president. If I wrote a letter to the president with a threatening word in it, the Secret Service or the FBI would be at my door within an hour of receipt.
I’ve tried to be fair and think about what I would do were I a journalist or editor and knew that publishing those cartoons might put my life in danger. I like to think that I would publish them in order to stand up for a basic principle that makes life in our society bearable. Because those that have the power to publish them and don’t are giving in already to the forces of intolerance and totalitarianism. Having had freedom all my life, I do not want to give it up, for myself or my descendants.
As for Bill Clinton.....apparently, he now gives blowjobs instead of getting them.
It’s par for the course for leading left-center politicians who are out of a job, though. Gerhard Schröder shills for Russian state-owned Gazprom now, too.
I suppose it’s all their expertise in pulling the wool over the eyes of their dimwitted supporters that makes them so valuable to the dictators and wannabe totalitarians of the world.
I really hope the media don’t miss an opportunity now to report on this. It is so important. Regarding Leunig and the Islamic Thinkers, I wrote this email to him:
Dear Michael Leunig,
I saw on the Internet today that the Islamic Thinkers Society seems to have put a fatwa on you. Maybe they took offense to you pulling out of the competition even though you never entered it. They are easily offended.
They shouldn’t be targeting you. They should be targeting the Danish cartoonists for offending Islam, shouldn’t they?
After all it wasn’t like you supported those cartoonists. I hope everyone will be standing up for you. I’m sure all you want to do is get on with life, walk in your garden and such things, and these people unfairly want you dead. Ironically that is similar to the situation Israelis are in.
If I was in your position I would be concerned about my security and maybe put extra security around my property. I know that is something you are opposed to. Can you imagine the Jews calling you a hypocrite after you compared them to the Nazis for doing the same.
Kind Regards
Melanie.
I couldn’t believe my eyes on Friday night waiting for Lateline to come on, on the ABC. I just happened to catch the end of Ali G In Da USA. And what was he up to??? He was taking the piss out of a Christian Minister, mercilessly and offensively ridiculing this guy’s religious beliefs!
Great timing ABC. Great, GUTLESS timing!!!
I’ll take Tim Blair seriously when I see the cartoons published in The Bulletin. His weak rationalisation of the decision not to publish has destroyed his credibility on this issue.
anagillis has the right of it. Tim is not in charge of the Bulletin. And it would be poor ethics for him to discuss internal policy decisions that his boss didn’t authorize. Therefore, no rationalization is needed.
The only credibility destroyed here is that of whyisitso, a village idiot whom wandered away from home.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 18 at 09:21 PM • permalinkExcept for the ones that admit they didn’t publish out of fear, I can’t stand the excuses they give for not publishing.
The ones that acted out of fear should maybe publish them but substitute Mohammad’s face for Popeye’s. At least people can then see what all the fuss is about and also it would ridicule the whole thing even more.#31, whyisitso. Tim Blair published the cartoons here on his blog, all twelve of them, which is an offense that would call down the wrath of Allah (and his nutball fanatics) on himself alone. As his employers have chosen not to publish, they are quite safe. I call that courage myself. Perhaps you’re not the kind of person who can recognize courage when you see it.
It’s par for the course for leading left-center politicians who are out of a job, though. Gerhard Schröder shills for Russian state-owned Gazprom now, too.
Good observation, PW. Thank you. Algore, Jimmuh Cahtuh, and other former leftie politicians follow the same pattern. I suspect there’s also something to do about staying in a spotlight....if there’s another things these twits have in common, it’s an oversized ego.
Only now, I have to wonder what other lefties will do should they leave office. Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer.....I shudder at the thought of one these people whoring themselves to a Al Quaeda Veterans Convention in a few years.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 18 at 09:31 PM • permalinkThis would all be much more impressive if most of the conservative blogger types hadn’t already pilloried the American press for running the Abu Grahib photos (and the American press is still too timid and cowardly to run most of them).
As for Gore, Anonymous Liberal’s post gives a good rundown of the truth about Gore’s speech. Gore, who is more serious on national security than Bush or Cheney could ever hope to be, was defusing Bin Laden’s propaganda: Bin Laden wants Muslims to think that all Americans agree with Bush, and Gore wants them to know that this is merely anti-American propaganda. Because the Bush administration’s policies—trapped as Bush and Cheney are in their pre-9/11, Cold War relic thinking—have been the best friend of Al Qaeda; Al Gore, a serious thinker who (unlike Bush) has adjusted to the realities of the post-9/11 world, is doing what he can to counter this. The most pervasive anti-American propaganda is that all Americans agree with the Bush administration. Thankfully, Gore cares enough about his country to try and combat the Bush administration’s anti-Americanism.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 09:45 PM • permalinkGore, who is more serious on national security than Bush or Cheney could ever hope to be
trapped as Bush and Cheney are in their pre-9/11, Cold War relic thinking
Al Gore, a serious thinker
the Bush administration’s anti-Americanism.
Just highlighting the parts of your parody that I especially liked. Overall, very tight satiric writing that shows quite some promise. I’m giving it a 7 out of 10.
Au contraire, it’s the right that “with a bit of fear can be made to agree to anything”—fear of terrorism is the entire rationale for every Bush administration policy. It is the right that is consumed with fear; it is the Bush administration that has allowed Bin Laden to falsely caricature all Americans as warmongers and torturers. Fortunately there are still people who are serious about national security and America’s good name, and who are not irrational fear-mongers—people like Al Gore.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 10:09 PM • permalinkJust highlighting the parts of your parody that I especially liked. Overall, very tight satiric writing that shows quite some promise. I’m giving it a 7 out of 10.
Good for you. But it is of course true that Bush and Cheney were and are trapped in a pre-9/11 mentality. The idea of invading Iraq and invading Saddam pre-dated 9/11, and might have made some sense before 9/11. After 9/11, with the new realities, it was clear to rational people like Gore that Saddam was not a major threat and that America needed to be focused on real threats—but Bush, clinging as he does to the polite fictions of the pre-9/11 world, was unable to see that.
The fact that you are unable to see that simply attests to the fact that you have Bush Derangement Syndrome (those who oppose Bush are rational; those who support Bush, still, are truly deranged).
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 10:13 PM • permalinkEver notice how on the Internet, there’s often an inverse relationship between the size of the intellect and the grandiosity of the username?
“Maestro”, indeed.
Gore, who is more serious on national security than Bush or Cheney could ever hope to be
Examples, please.
was defusing Bin Laden’s propaganda: Bin Laden wants Muslims to think that all Americans agree with Bush
If it’s all about Bush, then how come AQ tried to take down the WTC in 1993, during the Clinton/Gore administration?
Because the Bush administration’s policies—trapped as Bush and Cheney are in their pre-9/11, Cold War relic thinking
Al Gore, a serious thinker who (unlike Bush) has adjusted to the realities of the post-9/11 worldWuh? What is “pre-9/11, Cold War relic” and “post 9/11” thinking, to you? I don’t see Bush increasing American troop levels in Europe to counter the Soviets while Gore is warning us about the murderous terrorist jihad breaking out around the world. Explain.
I bet you think Iran is “not a real threat”, either. Pray tell, what are those real threats that Bush et al. have been ignoring? It’s curious that your ilk always asserts that they’re there, but I’ve never seen any credible enumeration of them. Seriously, asserting that Al freakin’ Gore of all people is a serious person about anything except perhaps his marriage has to rate as an early contender for troll of the month.
Ahh, screw that, I’m tired from watching the Olympics 24/7. Have fun tearing apart the lunatic, folks, I’m goin’ to bed. There’s a men’s cross-country relay race to watch in 7 hours.
#45 Maestro "fear of terrorism is the entire rationale for every Bush administration policy"
Oh yes, people are too scared to publish Motoons because of Bush’s fearmongering and the threat of terrorism isn’t real but just Bush scaring us??"it is the Bush administration that has allowed Bin Laden to falsely caricature all Americans as warmongers and torturers"
So Bush owns the MSM too - the lefties are giving that image!"Fortunately there are still people who are serious about national security and America’s good name, and who are not irrational fear-mongers—people like Al Gore"
It’s a scary thought to think that someone as clueless about the real threats to the world almost became the US president.Fortunately there are still people who are serious about national security and America’s good name, and who are not irrational fear-mongers—people like Al Gore.
Hahaha! Maestro, I think that a lot of people are getting sick of the Al Gores and Jimmy Carters of the world.
As an Aussie, I don’t care much for America’s good name. I care for her wellbeing. Sod appeasing the sensibilities of those who are out to drag us into the umma whether we like it or not.
Al Gore and his cohort of vote/publicity whores (Hilary, Cindy, Jimmy etc) are happy to sell their country out, so they can fark off over to Mecca and see how they fare there without the media machine.
I’d be happy to organise a Kontiki itinerary for them. It would, of course, include all the local attractions - bastinados in the prison, the view from the bridge, hanging about in Tehran, that sort of thing.
It’ll be a blast.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 18 at 10:31 PM • permalinkit is the Bush administration that has allowed Bin Laden to falsely caricature all Americans as warmongers and torturers.
No, it’s your lot, for caricaturing even some Americans as warmongers and torturers.
Fortunately there are still people who are serious about national security and America’s good name, and who are not irrational fear-mongers—people like Al Gore.
Uh-huh. Cuz the idea that people want to slit our throats, cut off our heads, blow us up into pieces, and fly the planes we’re on into packed skyscrapers is just so much irrational right-wing paranoia.
But hey, at least folks like you are serious about national security. So, how would you proceed to eliminate this threat (if there actually was a threat, that is, and not all this fanciful paranoia about “jihadists” and “suicide bombers” and “Islamic attack unicorns.")
Deutsche Welle, German international television, has just broadcast a picture of the unfortunate Italian Minister, Roberto Calderolo, sacked by Berlusconi for wearing a Toon T-shirt. DW pixillated the poor man’s chest so we can’t see which cartoon he was wearing. Who needs information if it might offend the Islamists?
Reuters publishes the story without a picture at all. Who needs ...?
BBC likewise, although they did find a picture of a burning car in Libya to hang on Calderoli.
bbcSo which cartoon(s) did Calderoli have under his shirt? One of the wet ones, or one with a point? Perhaps some journalist will find out and tell us, while our media go on hiding such details.
Maestro Anonymo
The planning and early put together of the 9/11 attacks happened while you Al was VP.
A number of earlier “minor” attacks outside the US but against US interests also took place. A few cruise missiles were launched in retaliation, whoopy chook, big deal.
A problem you seem to have is that the “bad guys” dont wear black hats. Saddam will fund suicide bombers and give cash benifits to their families.
He will fund ANYONE he sees as acting against the US but the US shouldnt dtrike at him because he didnt directly do it??If I pay for a hitman, or lets say me and 10 others pay for him, to carry out strikes against “soft” targets am I not responsible?
Then lets say I just give that money to them in the expectations of “soft” targets and it is used for a mojor strike does that reduce my culpability?
Silly troll.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 18 at 10:34 PM • permalinkThe name “Maestro Anonymo” is taken from something that the composer Donizetti used to sign his name anonymously to something—I don’t claim to be any sort of Maestro myself.
<quote>If it’s all about Bush, then how come AQ tried to take down the WTC in 1993, during the Clinton/Gore administration?</quote>
AQ’s actions are not all about Bush. However, AQ’s propaganda is dependent on creating the idea, among Muslims, that the bad actions of an American government are supported by all Americans. It is important to make it clear that this is just propaganda and that, despite what Bin Laden wants them to think, not all Americans support these policies; just as we Americans need to understand that not all Iranians support the actions of their government (not that Bush is as bad as the Iranian government, of course). We must make sure, for our safety, that hatred of Bush’s policies does not automatically boil over into hatred of all Americans.
<quote>Wuh? What is “pre-9/11, Cold War relic” and “post 9/11” thinking, to you? </quote>
Basically, Cheney and Rumsfeld viewed the war on terror as similar to the Cold War, a long-term conflict where you hang tough against your opponent, prevent him from expanding, and eventually force his collapse. The problem is that terrorism isn’t like Communism at all, or at least it’s not like the kind of Communism that the U.S. fought (which was more a political system than an ideology). And the problem was exacerbated by the fact that they picked as their number-one enemy (the equivalent of a Soviet client state) a country, Iraq, that wasn’t particularly connected to radical Islamism. And terrorism will be around forever in some form or another, making it unwise to treat it as a “war” (wars need to have tangible goals). Finally, the whole “encourage the spread of democracy” idea is a relic of the Cold War, based on things like Radio Free Europe that encouraged democracy in Communist-occupied countries. Bush/Cheney tried to apply this technique to the Middle East, only to find that whereas encouraging democracy in Europe has good results, the same technique tends to have bad results in the Middle East (cf. Hamas).
The post-9/11 realities meant that, like it or not, many of the most effective strategies for combatting terrorism are the wimpy techniques hated by so-called neoconservatives—law enforcement tactics, coalitions, port security, changes to immigration policy, “hearts and minds” strategies to improve the image of America. These tactics may sound wimpy, but they work. This is why Gore and Kerry and Pat Buchanan and all the rest of them are more attuned to post-9/11 realities in one way or another than Bush is.
As for Gore’s national-security credentials, he’s always had a strong record on national security, going back to his days as a Senator. That’s part of the reason Clinton picked him.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 10:41 PM • permalinkMaestro Anonymo
Ah so “brown” people dont deserve the rule of law, property rights and democracy then?Just another racist lefty in denial then.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 18 at 10:49 PM • permalinkIn the words of Glenn G reenwald: Opinions about terrorism are the new form of political correctness, and even hinting that this threat is not the all-consuming, existential danger to our Republic which the Bush followers, fear-mongerers and hysterics among us have relentlessly and shrilly insisted that it is, will subject one to all sorts of accusations concerning one’s patriotism and even mental health.
The commenters here seem to fit the pattern pretty nicely, cowering under their beds in fear, unable to tell one Muslim from another (some of the current riots are very similar to race riots among blacks in America, but you wouldn’t hear the same posters screaming about making war on the approaching black menace), and dreaming of their political opponents getting their heads hacked off by the ever-helpful head-hackers. Paranoia and fear: the hallmark of the 9/11 mentality that reached its apotheosis in the dark days of 2002 and 2003. Fortunately much of America is coming around to a sensible post-9/11 mentality.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 10:49 PM • permalinkAh so “brown” people dont deserve the rule of law, property rights and democracy then?
It’s not a question of what they “deserve,” it’s a question of what is in America’s interest to encourage. It is not, at this point, in America’s interest to encourage democracy in much of the Muslim world, since it leads to things like Hamas getting elected and the rise of Islamism in Iraq. I believe that what is good for America must come first for Americans—that is the patriotic view.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 10:52 PM • permalinkThen when and in which parts?
Quite honestly, I don’t think it’s really in America’s interest to be encouraging democracy at all. I’m not very liberal on foreign policy, and I have a certain affection for the old-fashioned, hard-nosed foreign policy where America encourages developments that will be in its own interest. I don’t think I want a full-fledged return to the Chile/Guatemala strategy of openly thwarting democracy, but I do think that it’s rarely in America’s interest to encourage democracy.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 11:03 PM • permalinkMaestro A,
A healthy fear of a real danger is not paranoia. In fact it can be helpful if it goads one to action, as when the USA opposed the imperialistic expansion of totalitarian Soviet communism, and eventually defeated it. (Did that make you sad?)
You don’t like American “warmongers and torturers”. How do you feel about Islamic head-hackers and mass murdering suicide bombers?
If Bin Laden had nuclear bombs instead of truck bombs, he would use them. Doesn’t that bother you, or are you just another typically fearless leftist?
And don’t you think Al Gore is an incredibly sore loser?#58 Maestro
We must make sure, for our safety, that hatred of Bush’s policies does not automatically boil over into hatred of all Americans.
As we can see from the Motoons, hatred on the Arab street is both irrational and orchestrated by those wanting to manipulate the situation. We have to do what is needed to uphold Western values and not to appease the Arabs because of threats of violence. Their anger will boil over for some reason or other as long as we remain Infidels.
Bush/Cheney tried to apply this technique to the Middle East, only to find that whereas encouraging democracy in Europe has good results, the same technique tends to have bad results in the Middle East (cf. Hamas).
Iraq seems to be doing OK except for the insurgents that are not representative of the majority and apart from the left leaning MSM who are doing there best to keep the Arab street angry. As for the Palestinians - what do you expect when the left-leaning do gooders have been giving the terrorists legitimacy for all these years and trying to ‘understand’ their grievances. It is the lefty policies that we have been adhering to for so long that has made the situation today so bad. Time to stand up to them and uphold our values.
A healthy fear of a real danger is not paranoia. In fact it can be helpful if it goads one to action, as when the USA opposed the imperialistic expansion of totalitarian Soviet communism, and eventually defeated it. (Did that make you sad?)
Ah, but the U.S.’s biggest successes against Soviet communism came when Reagan (against the wishes of his more conservative advisors) decided to negotiate in good faith with Gorbachev. Its biggest failures against Communism tended to involve direct military action (Vietnam) or encouraging military action by others (Bay of Pigs). And of course the U.S. helped itself by creating a positive image of itself among young people in the Communist countries. The military options, while sometimes necessary, are not what wins a “cold” war.
You don’t like American “warmongers and torturers”. How do you feel about Islamic head-hackers and mass murdering suicide bombers?
I think that they are not as big a threat to Americans as, say, car accidents—and even if they were, the cities that are most in danger from another terrorist attack, like New York, tend to be quite liberal and anti-Bush. I defer to their wisdom.
And don’t you think Al Gore is an incredibly sore loser?
Not really, no. He had the guts, in 2002, to oppose the Iraq war at a time when most Democrats (to their shame) were supporting it. It cost him the Presidential nomination in 2004. If he were a sore loser, he would have done everything in his power to get nominated again and beat Bush; instead he decided that his principles were more important than winning.
I think John Kerry could be considered a sore loser, though.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 11:17 PM • permalinkAh, bloodthirsty warmongers--for shame! Surely you would know--if not trapped in your. . .ah, ‘pre-9/11 Cold War thinking’. . .that the way to be, er, ‘serious on national security’ is to, um. . .
. . .you know what? We’ll get back to you on that. As well as what exactly ‘the real threats’ and ‘the new realities’ are (well, we’re pretty sure that ratifying Kyoto and the ICC fits in there somewhere) but other than that, just rest assured--that at any given moment, whatever Bush says they are--they are not. It’s like that musical, dontcha know--you folks just think you’re rooting for the good witch!
Anyhow--if you’re so goddamned interested to know our ‘serious’ solutions to the world’s problems (in fact, they may or may not all be just the result of Bush’s being elected--we haven’t decided yet)--maybe ya should have thought of that before you didn’t elect us in 3 countries? Huh? Huh? I mean, we’d be happy to tell you all of our great ideas--really, we would--and they’re AMAZING ideas, folks--but frankly, we’re just still too hurt and confused by your vicious right-wing barbarism to know if we should even bother telling you our really, really, serious, amazing, serious, subtle, conscientious, serious, ideas. Honestly, we really just don’t think that you’d even have the wherewithal to understand them.
So in conclusion, we’ll just leave you with the following deep thoughts/light muzak.
Wage peace with your breath.
Breathe in firemen and rubble,
breathe out whole buildings
and flocks of red wing blackbirds.
Breathe in terrorists and breathe out
sleeping
children and
freshly mown fields.
Breathe in confusion and breathe out maple
trees.
Breathe in the fallen and breathe out
lifelong
friendships intact.
Wage peace with your listening: hearing
sirens, pray
loud.
Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes
pins, clean
rivers.
Make soup.
Play music, learn the word for thank you
n three
languages.
Learn to knit, and make a hat.
Think of chaos as dancing raspberries,
imagine grief as the outbreath of beauty
or the gesture of
fish.
Swim for the other side.
Wage peace.
Never has the world seemed so fresh and
precious.
Have a cup of tea and rejoice.
Act as if armistice has already arrived.
Don’t wait another minute.Great post, Tim.
How many bombs, riots and threats of murder will it take for some on the ‘left’ to realise what we are dealing with here?
The huggi-cultural lobby are faced with a trump. A group who use multi-cultural nostrums as a wedge through which to drive fanaticism and intolerance. It’s perfect: the aggressor can play the victim and the victims blame themselves.
Do the huggies think themselves foolish? Not at all. It is almost as if they are grateful to Islamists for this chance to demonstrate how their faith can be tested.
If they cling to the myth of white western ‘discrimination’ and beg to be punished who can wonder at the result? They are putting us all in danger.
Iraq seems to be doing OK except for the insurgents that are not representative of the majority and apart from the left leaning MSM who are doing there best to keep the Arab street angry.
Ah, yes, it’s the left-leaning MSM—the same left-leaning MSM that published all those reports about Iraq having WMD, that exchanged friendly e-mails with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, that praised Bush for his “sunny nobility”—that is conspiring to cover up the news of all those schoolhouses that are getting built and focusing instead on the bad news, like people shooting at them. As Rob Corddry put it, “The facts have an anti-Bush agenda.”
Ah, bloodthirsty warmongers--for shame! Surely you would know--if not trapped in your. . .ah, ‘pre-9/11 Cold War thinking’. . .that the way to be, er, ‘serious on national security’ is to, um. . .
One of my favorite (as in least favorite) things about the 2004 election was that Bush was constantly hailed as the man who would get “tough on terror,” but never explained what “tough” meant. The closest he ever got was saying that he thought of the war on terror as a “real war,” but apart from the fact that it obviously isn’t a real war (real wars have enemies and goals and declarations of war and stuff like that), he never explained how treating it was a war differs from not treating it as a war.
Bush had one idea: invade Iraq. He has no ideas left, about Iran, about Syria, about terrorist gangster organizations, about anything. If he wants some serious ideas, he’d do well to throw out the frivolous Rumsfeld and bring back some of the serious people from his father’s administration (Scowcroft, for example).
As it is, those who mock the opposition for having no ideas are fighting the battle of 2004. It’s true, John Kerry had few ideas about foreign policy—though Bush has stolen some of Kerry’s ideas for dealing with Iran. But Kerry is a relic of 2004, and he will not be the nominee in 2008 (no matter what he thinks). Bush is in power now, and he has no ideas about national security; he merely repeats the tired old ideas of 2002, unable to see that things have changed and new ideas are needed.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 11:28 PM • permalinkMilitant Islam is on the rise whether people like Maestro choose to see it or not. Even though the British people chose not to see the threat of National Socialism and fascism it was real nonetheless. They paid a heavy price for their pacifism and stupidity in the end, and were nearly conquered in the process.
The Islamists would like to see a return of the Caliphate - Muslim rule of the world. Is this just more paranoid right wing fantasy?
It’s crazy all right, but along the lines of the crazed claims of Bin Laden and many other Islamists that Spain should be returned to the Muslims because they had once conquered it and then were driven out again.
"Thankfully, Gore cares enough about his country to try and combat the Bush administration’s anti-Americanism”
In the same way that the Rosenbergs thought they were combating Truman’s anti-Americanism, no doubt. Maestro, I can see where you’re coming from in some of your comments, e.g., many people have made the argument that democracy needs to develop “organically”, so to speak, in an environment that is hospitable to it, and that some cultures simply aren’t ready for it. True enough, I guess. But there’s also an argument to be made that cultures steeped in medieval despotism and held together by a messianic religion that easily lends itself to violence aren’t going to have much of a chance of evolving into something more sophisticated without a rather sizeable nudge. If the caldron of animosities that is the Middle East hadn’t boiled over into a terrorist movement that threatened people in other parts of the world - most notably, the U.S. - it would have been easier to say, “let them stew in their own juices”. This is not the way it panned out, and so I believe there is a possibility that forcing the issue - i.e., attempting to loosen the grip of the monarchs and the military strongmen and the mullahs - is worth the effort. Stasis was bound to fail, in the end, and what we’re about now may ultimately fail, too, but if we do fail, we will at least have the advantage of the experience and (it is devoutly to be hoped) the wisdom to develop other forms of engagement. But I don’t think we will fail, and I believe the last, especially difficult link in the chain of terrorism is Iran, toward the resolution of which problem we are rapidly approaching - and it isn’t going to be very pleasant for anybody, but, as Burnham pointed out, it only takes one side to declare a war and define its aims. The fanatics in Tehran have effectively declared that war, and they have established aims that are incompatible with peace - unless, of course, the peace of the grave appeals to you.
Good lord, where did the delusional Gore supporter come from? I didn’t think even the most hardcore Democrat still thought of him as a viable candidate.
Hm.
Mr. Gore? Is that you?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 18 at 11:34 PM • permalinkBack in 1999, the Guardian ran this story on how Saddam Hussein was actively offering aid to Al Qaeda, and how if the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan, it would be likely that Osama bin Laden would take Saddam Hussein up on the offer.
And amazingly eneough, when Western forces drove the Taliban from power, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fled Afghanistan and took up residence in Iraq, from where he continued to lead the Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (a group involved in the millenium bombing attemps against the U.S., and nowadays known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia).
And, as bizarre as it may seem to some, George W. Bush thought it a bad idea to allow Iraq to serve as a safe haven for an Al Qaeda terrorist leader who had a record in attempting attacks against the continental U.S.
If only Al Gore had been president. He takes American security seriously; he has a post 9/11 worldview; he would have let Iraq play host to all the terrorist leaders formerly hosted by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2006 02 18 at 11:38 PM • permalinkI believe the last, especially difficult link in the chain of terrorism is Iran, toward the resolution of which problem we are rapidly approaching - and it isn’t going to be very pleasant for anybody.
I think this is more circa-2004 thinking. The Bush administration has very limited options with regard to Iran, and most of the military options have been ruled out for various reasons (and the Iranians know it). Bush is above all a political person and cares mostly about his political fortunes; he may beat the drums of war this year as an election issue, but actually going to war would be a political disaster, and that’s all that matters to Bush.
The best hope, sadly, is probably the John Kerry idea of letting the Iranians have some nuclear material and supervising them to make sure they only use it for energy purposes. That idea doesn’t appeal to me, but I haven’t heard anything better—which may be why Bush himself recently endorsed it. We’ve reached a sad state of affairs when President Bush is stealing ideas from John Kerry.
As for democracy, even assuming that the Bush administration is really interested in democracy—and their attempts to undermine Hamas suggest that they are not respectful of democracy; it is, after all, an American tradition to undermine elected governments, and I don’t even think it’s necessarily wrong to undermine them—it’s naive to assume that things can’t get worse than they were under the old strongman system. Things can always get worse. That’s why Israel warned the U.S. that democracy in Syria would be worse than the current government. Iraq is becoming friendlier to radical Islam than it was under Saddam (who funded suicide bombers when it suited his purposes, but wasn’t a full-time friend of the movement). Think back to the Cold War, when we thought that nothing could be worse than Soviet domination of Afghanistan, and we wound up with the Taliban. Things can always get worse thanks to meddling.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 11:42 PM • permalinkMaestro:
Al Gore decided his principles were more important than winning.1. Al Gore had no chance of winning in 2004.
2. Since the 2000 election he has devoted himself to opposing Bush at every turn no matter what the cost to his own nation, and no matter how petty and disgusting his opposition has become. For example: “Bush’s Gulag.” and “Digital brownshirts.”
I’d say he’s an pathetically sore loser. Thank God he lost.
Good lord, where did the delusional Gore supporter come from? I didn’t think even the most hardcore Democrat still thought of him as a viable candidate.
I’m not a huge Gore supporter, but I am betting on him to be the candidate in 2008. Hillary Clinton has John Kerry’s problem: she voted for the Iraq war and has not renounced her support for it; she is wrong on the most important issue of our time, the Iraq war. Gore has the advantage of having been right all along on that issue. He also has a base of support from 2000, and has become a better public speaker than he was then. He is also building support among conservatives who oppose Bush’s wiretapping (e.g. Bob Barr, Grover Norquist). Finally, while the conservative MSM tends to portray him as a raving lunatic, this doesn’t really register with the general public, any more than the liberal MSM’s attempts to portray Bush as an evil idiot.
I’m not a huge Gore fan, but he will be a very strong contender in 2008.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 11:49 PM • permalink1. Al Gore had no chance of winning in 2004.
Well, he did have an excellent chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 2004. Until he spoke out against the Iraq war. The idea was that this was electoral suicide, and the party dropped him. Ironically, when 2004 actually rolled around, the opposite proved true: Kerry, who shamefully voted for the Iraq war, was (correctly) portrayed as a “flip-flopper” and could not appeal to the many people (including many conservatives) who felt the war was a mistake.
2. Since the 2000 election he has devoted himself to opposing Bush at every turn no matter what the cost to his own nation, and no matter how petty and disgusting his opposition has become.
This is the biggest fallacy of those who talk about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or “Bush Haters”: the idea that opposing Bush’s policies is done purely for the sake of opposing Bush, rather than because the policies are bad.
I remember in late 2001, many people who hated Bush were coming to like him because of his excellent initial handling of the Afghan war (this was before Tora Bora). A friend of mine, who was so anti-Bush that he was nicknamed “Bushwhacker,” said that Bush would earn greatness if he kept this up. The “Bush hatred” that developed in 2002 was not some irrational thing brought on by rage and paranoia; it was a direct, rational result to Bush’s determination to invade a country for patently bad reasons.
Again, the shameful people in the Democratic party are those like Clinton and Kerry who went along with Bush’s flawed policies just because they thought it was politically smart. There is no shame in opposing Bush’s policies when they are bad, and they usually are. Show me a good Bush policy and I’ll support it.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 18 at 11:57 PM • permalinkI’m not a huge Gore supporter
No, you’ve only invoked his name in just about every comment here as the Great White Hope of American and the Western world. But you’re not a fan! No, you’re a sycophantic little toady, and also an idiot. I’ve had quite enough of the Gore in ‘08 shilling, not to mention the completely Bearded Spock worldview of what people are saying here. Please go bore someone else.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 18 at 11:59 PM • permalink’Maestro Anonymo’ is Jim Treacher taking the piss right?
Al Gore? BWAHAHAHA!! Good one Jim!Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 19 at 12:00 AM • permalinkMaestro Ano
Are you studying history with Professor Juan Cole?Cheers
JMHPosted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 02 19 at 12:00 AM • permalinkDamn that insomnia...still not in the mood to debate much, but one gem just needs to be quoted:
I’m not very liberal on foreign policy, and I have a certain affection for the old-fashioned, hard-nosed foreign policy where America encourages developments that will be in its own interest. I don’t think I want a full-fledged return to the Chile/Guatemala strategy of openly thwarting democracy, but I do think that it’s rarely in America’s interest to encourage democracy.
And we’re the guys who are blindly supporting Cold-War era politics? Holy deity, you’re the most spectacular case of projection I’ve ever encountered.
Wow- I though MA was actually trying to articulate a reasonable response, and then he made the mis-step of suggesting the negotiations with Gorbachev were Reagan’s greatest stroke in defeating communism. Whoops, that is very wrong.
Reagan’s greatest step in ending soviet communism was his persistance in placing tactical nukes in Europe despite overwhelming public opposition in Europe to the idea. It publicized what the military leaders in the Kremlin already knew. Reagan will out build us, forcing us to destroy our economy to try and keep within shouting distance of them. Carter (who despite being a truly horrible president and ex-president) began the military buildup and of course Reagan fully accelerated it. His actions to bury the soviets forced Gorbachov out to try and negotiate a way to stop the US from completely outpacing them militarily. In the end Gorbachov got nothing, or close to it,and Reagan achieved his goal of destroying the Soviets and discrediting the communist economic philosophy.
You can argue that we have no business nation building and get a pretty good discussion going. But, to suggest that Al Gore is a serious national defense advocate is ludicrous and indicates your lack of knowledge in this decade exceeds your obvious lack of knowledge of the 80’s. You think if we left them alone they will leave us alone. Pity, just like an osterich, your head in the sand, you will never see them coming.
No, you’ve only invoked his name in just about every comment here as the Great White Hope of American and the Western world.
Well, that’s necessary when someone is being constantly pilloried as an anti-American traitor. The obsession with Gore is not mine, but that of the right blogosphere, which has long been deranged with rage and hatred against him. Find a new whipping boy, and I’ll move on to invoking him.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 19 at 12:02 AM • permalinkAre you studying history with Professor Juan Cole?
“Juan Cole” being the right blogosphere’s synonym for “person who knows more about the Middle East than I do.”
And we’re the guys who are blindly supporting Cold-War era politics? Holy deity, you’re the most spectacular case of projection I’ve ever encountered.
Some Cold-War era politics still apply; some don’t. There were two ideas in Cold War politics at the same time: encourage democracy where it makes sense to do so (Eastern Europe) and discourage democracy in other places. The problem with the Bush administration is that they got the whole thing mixed up, and decided that the Middle East was just Eastern Europe with a different accent.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 19 at 12:08 AM • permalinkMaestro, have you noticed what is not the subject of this post? I’ll give you a hint: it starts with “g” and ends in “ore.” The only one obsessed with him is you.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:10 AM • permalinkGore is an idiot who the media tried to portray as an intellectual. His comments in SA were inflamatory and nothing more than a suckup to a country that paid he and Clinton much cash. Now it should be noted that most incumbent presidents get a fair amount of money from the Saudis. But I cannot remember the last time a former pres or veep went to Saudi and said that.
Gore “grew” in office; throwing off most of his conservative inclinations as a semi-southern democrat, as he spent more time in Washington, and as his presidential ambitions grew.
He did nothing to combat the increasingly aggressive islamic radical growth and their attacks against the US and its interests. he had 8 years and did nothing. Or at least nothing has since come out suggesting that he did. He sat back dumb and happy - as did we all - perceiving nothing publically and hoping against hope that the security briefings would turn up wrong. Well, he missed it. If we spent the 90’s esssentially ignoring them - which is what I take you believe MA - and did nothing to change that stance until after 9/11, why did 9/11 happen in the first place?
"I think this is more circa-2004 thinking.”
I’m sorry, Maestro, but your own thinking is circa 1994, or maybe even 1979. You undermine your arguments by throwing up the names of people like Gore and Scowcroft as paragons of intelligence on foreign policy issues. These magnificoes have been associated with military isolationism for a long time. Gore, particularly, since he was part of an administration whose response to terrorism was merely reactive, sporadic and completely ineffectual. This hopelessly incompetent floundering didn’t do anything but embolden the terrorists to ratchet up the scale of their violence. Come now, you don’t really see Gore as the Democratic nominee in 2008, do you?
“The best hope, sadly, is probably the John Kerry idea of letting the Iranians have some nuclear material and supervising them to make sure they only use it for energy purposes.” This is, frankly, a rather absurd variation on the “little bit pregnant” theme.
PS: How supremely funny that the Bush 41 type of “realists” who got us into this Islamism/terrorism mess in the first place with their “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch” policies are now found on the Democratic side.
Bush 41 was a good President, better in my estimation than Clinton or Reagan (and certainly better than his son).
Anyway, it’s naive (again) to think that the Bush 43 administration ever really rejected the “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch” doctrine. Their idea in invading Iraq was to install Ahmad Chalabi as leader; that’s in the “realist” tradition of installing a friend as leader of a country. What happened was that, to their surprise, Chalabi had lied to them repeatedly about everything (including his level of support) and they couldn’t install him; they were therefore forced to stick around and try to build a democratic government there, hoping (in vain) that the result would not be an Islamist-friendly government.
The point about Bush 43 is not that they’re against the “realists”—they are, after all, sucking up to the Saudis as much as the previous administrations did—but that they’re really inept at the old “realist” tactics, forcing them to try and adopt other tactics on the fly, equally ineptly. Oh, for the ruthless but competent policies of Bush 41.
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 19 at 12:13 AM • permalinkEr, no, “Juan Cole” is the “right blogosphere’s” synonym for “someone who knows a whole lot less about the Middle East than he claims to know.” Just like “Maestro Anonymo” is our new synonym for “someone who is trying to mindfuck us, but he failed because to mindfuck someone you must have a mind yourself, and in place of a mind Maestro has a few scraps of shriveled, moldy tofu.”
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:15 AM • permalinkReally? I’m nearly bored blind.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:17 AM • permalinkWait a minute - then are you of the old realist school? Of course you are! You think it is fine that we do our best to maintain the status quo, do nothing to promote change. You would not have agreed with Reagan’s response to Soviet aggression, since the state department never did. He rocked the boat too much. I believe Bush 41 was a decent man, he just didn’t know why he wanted to be president, and had no over riding principles to guide his decisions. Almost like Clinton, but Bush I was not the politician Clinton was, so Clinton managed a second term (well Perot(sp?) helped too). Are you related to someone in the state department or the CIA? You know the ones who said the east germans had the 4th strongest economy in the world, or that the soviets were our equal? Or the ones that have no human assets on the ground to tell us what is going on in the middle east right now? Yes, those paragons of brillance and virtue - and ignorance!
How is it that a discussion on the so-called cartoons has degenerated into an argument of the pros and cons of American politicians? Like all politicians worldwide Gore, George “Wanker”, Clinton etc., are all inconsequential in the big picture. What is the point of freedom if one cannot exercise that freedom to the extent of publishing these cartoons? Why is it that most publications shied from printing them? Brown -trouser editors I guess. I have yet to see them but from reading the latest blogs have come to realise that my thinking has been all wrong. I thought Mohammad was the psychotic leader of a band of marauding thugs and killers. I did not realise he was a Moslem substitute for God! [Perhaps I had best apologise to someone]. The fact that all bombers are Muslim does not, apparently mean that all Muslims are bombers. I can see the logic in that.....!
PS. Can someone direct me to a link that will enable me to see these cartoons. I haven’t had a laugh for some years.Posted by The Hunter on 2006 02 19 at 12:22 AM • permalink#98 Andrea:
Well, interesting as in “at least it’s coherent thinking”, even if his premises are so laughably wrong it’s funny. I suppose it’s a worthwhile demonstration of why logic doesn’t mean jack if you can’t get the basic facts right. Or of how far one can develop an alternate reality model of the world if one is truly committed to make it work.
At least it’s better than most lefties who pass through, simply drop a stack of unrelated factoids into the conversation, and assume that the argument they’re trying to make is self-evident at that point.
If we spent the 90’s esssentially ignoring them - which is what I take you believe MA - and did nothing to change that stance until after 9/11, why did 9/11 happen in the first place?
Because they got lucky. The idea that a big terrorist attack could have been avoided if we’d only invaded the right countries, frankly, doesn’t compute. Not a single post-9/11 policy could clearly have prevented 9/11. And to the extent that it could have been prevented, it wasn’t within the power of Clinton or Bush to prevent it. The idea that a super-strong and resolute leader could have stopped 9/11 is a nice little fairy tale we tell ourselves to calm our fears.
My view of 9/11 is that it was not a good guide for future policy. Some extraordinary measures were necessary at the time, in case there were a whole bunch of terrorists hiding out in America waiting to strike again. But it’s almost five years now, and invocations of 9/11 as a justification for policies seem quaint and pointless now. Bin Laden, like most terrorists, dreamed of pulling off a big job that would scare a country into submission. He succeeded in scaring the Bush administration into submission, but otherwise....
Posted by Maestro Anonymo on 2006 02 19 at 12:27 AM • permalinkinvocations of 9/11 as a justification for policies seem quaint and pointless now
Of course, nobody’s doing that. What people are in fact invoking as justification is the potential repeat of 9/11. But then, I don’t really expect you to understand why pro-active policies are necessary, given how invested you seem to be into that ostrich approach of yours.
Peace in our time!
MA #105
“He succeeded in scaring the Bush administration into submission, ..”Submission being defined as invading a couple of countries in pursuit of OBL and filling the sky with predators just waiting for him to put his nose outside the cave? Perhaps the problem with this thread is that you are using an entirely different dictionary to the rest of us.
"Invocations of 9/11 are so 2001!”
Sheesh.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:42 AM • permalinkOn second reading, I guess you’re treating 9/11 is a kind of lottery jackpot for the terrorists, and that it’s exceedingly unlikely to crack the jackpot twice in one’s lifetime.
I don’t suppose it has occured to you that bin Laden isn’t the only one who’s capable of hitting the jackpot the second time.
Gawd, get off your high horse, blogfurphy. This gambit of baiting of Islam by placing yourself at Lord Protector of the Realm of Free Speech is curiously transparent, even for you. Voltaire must be soiling his grave.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 02 19 at 12:44 AM • permalinkHands up anyone else who thinks it’s time to turn off the Maestro Anonymo show?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:44 AM • permalinkOh hey—Mirander is back! Yay!
Now show ‘em how a real troll behaves, ‘Randy.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:45 AM • permalinkCan someone explain to me what that deranged phony Al Gore has to do with rampant media hypocricy, the original topic of this thread?
Next we’ll hear how he was only being “practical and acknowledging global realities” when he took
bribescampaign contributions from the People’s Republic of China.Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 19 at 12:47 AM • permalinkNo MA - it happened for a number of reasons - mostly because Bin Laden was convinced we wouldn’t strike back so he took the shot. Of course as the 9/11 commission noted we did all in our power to make sure we couldn’t talk with each other - of course they made sure to couch the language in such a way to make sure that one of the policy’s advocates wouldn’t be called to the carpet. Is it possible that the policies implemented after 9/11 are the reason we have not had another similar episode?
Andrea,
Hands up anyone else who thinks it’s time to turn off the Maestro Anonymo show?
Seeing how he is more frightfully boring and a profligate waste of bandwidth rather than genuinely offensive, I say just close the thread.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 19 at 12:51 AM • permalinkWell I don’t want to punish everyone for the acts of one Gore Bore.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 19 at 12:52 AM • permalinkMontalban,
You were expecting that, weren’t you?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 19 at 12:53 AM • permalink
Tim, this is one of your best postings. You’ve made a commitment to freedom of speech and uncensored publication of news by the media regardless of the risks and pressures. It speaks well of your integrity and commitment to freedom.