CB: I don't quite understand the purpose of this post.

You state that "Of course, insanity of this type is in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt that the many BlogCritics commenters would prefer to spin it as conservatives repressing things like their love of war and desire to dictate what women do with their own bodies." However your entire post is an (a)typical spin of a particularly nasty kind.

In general terms, one of the greatest dangers to anybody, or any society, is an insistence upon their particular world view, despite the indifferent and objective reality. That is to say, when the sun rises in the East, we have to accept that, no matter how much we wish it were not so.

You might want to reflect upon the particular form of insanity that takes on the form and appearance of "rationality" and "reason" to dress up and conceal some pretty ugly psychology of a particularly hateful kind.

Here we have classic examples of "subjective dissonance", to coin a phrase, from Dr Sanity (and how many insecurities or neuroses does that choice of name suggest..?), this Father Bill character and, alas, your previously good self.

On the subject of terrorism, if we used the terminology back in the day, would not the brave soldiers of the American Revolution been considered terrorists as they fought the then legitimate rule of the Britsh Crown?

There is way too much bandying about of the word terrorist these days and it is becoming an increasingly unhelpful term.

To re-phrase slightly: "This is why so often the authorities present an unsolvable puzzle to an outside observer. How can they argue for Peace and behave violently? How can they demand Free Speech but simultaneously suppress it in others? How can they be for Diversity and squelch any dissenting opinions? How can they claim to be for freedom and democracy, and make common cause with those who would destroy it? The catalog of paradoxes goes on and on."

Alienboy, I'm stumped. I can't figure out specifically what in the post you are objecting to. But I will make these comments:

• The purpose of the post is the same as any political post: spout off my opinion on something in the hope someone will stroke my ego by reading it. For this post, a more specific purpose would be to give some advice on how to be at peace with someone who disagrees with a core belief: you don't have to convince them, maybe they are insane.
• The "eye of the beholder" para was intended to balance the piece by acknowledging that people with contrary views could just as easily see conservatives like me as the ones repressing their true feelings or beliefs. Your "authorities present an unsolvable puzzle" para illustrates this: you see authorities contradicting themeselves where I see people like Lynne Stewart doing so.
• You don't seriously equate American revolutionaries with today's Islamofascist terrorists do you? When did American revolutionaries mass murder people buildings-full at a time? When did they spin up young stupid followers into homicidal/suicidal religious fervor enough to kill themselves along with their victims for heavenly reward? When did they take over theaters and schools, and kill as many innocents as possible? When did they saw off the heads of their still-living victims? If you think there is an equivalence there, then you must be...well...you know.

If it becomes clear that facts and logic are irrelevant to the other person, I gracefully exit the discussion because I know it is pointless.

This is also why you don't get far in a discussion on religion with a person on the extreme right.

alienboy says: I don't quite understand the purpose of this post.

It's to slam the Left. That is it's purpose.

i'm not sure that actually IS the point of the post. I read most of it and was getting all ready to write a pissed-off reply, then i re-read the title.
Correct me if i'm wrong, CB, but i think your point is that if you come across someone that you argue with about the same thing over and over again, going in circles, never making progress either way, the best thing is to leave it, and accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your POV

CB: You could always try re-examining your core beliefs.

I, for example, have as a core belief that killing people is wrong and so see the United States as barbaric for its devotion to heavy weaponry and state execution. But every time I meet a total jerk, I re-examine that view, LOL!

There are rational ways of understanding what is happening in the world and formulating effective strategies for dealing with it, at either a global or personal level, but they are seldom utilised as they clash with fixed agendas and dogmas.

I think the comparison is valid. I don't know the details of the Revolution, but I'm sure there were many atrocities committed, though obviously their scale would have been limited by the available technology.

Let's face it, if the Americans, and their loyal allies, The French (yes, really!) had lost, it would have been called the American Rebellion, not Revolution. People use what means they can when they have to, I'm sure you understand that.

The tactics being used in Iraq are rational to the Sunni because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that nothing else can be done to resist the invaders of their country more effectively, either in Iraq or in the battle for public opinion in the USA.

If the strong German campaign to win the support of the USA in the 2nd World War had been victorious, as it so nearly was, then I, and almost everybody I know, would be terrorists resisting the evil occupying Germerican Empire.

These labels are simply evidence of the victors re-writing history to suit them in order to justify themselves and their actions

jadester:

accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your POV

Steve, I don't think the post slams the left excessively. He does point out that the same kinds of criticisms can be made of some right wing beliefs and gives examples. Seems pretty balanced to me.

And his point is valid for ideologues on both sides. You can't reason with someone whose beliefs come from ideology handed down from some higher source. Only positions originating in reason are arguable.

Dave

Come on alienboy, the comparison is hate/murder/death cult vs. radical visionary liberal revolution. Where did you learn your history?

CB, two things are going on here: you are presenting a set of views, and you are discussing a meta-method for analyzing and at least partially understanding all views. You are obviously aware that your own specific perspective can be viewed as pathology just as easily, but the rationality and amiability with which you present these views is disarming, even charming. Great post.

You trying to make me blush, Eric?

not necessarily

CB: It is my comparison so I'll set the terms thank you very much!

Nice 9, Eric.

Hmm, I'll have to give it some thought. I find a lot of the premise erroneous.

some examples...

Anti-war "peace" marches represent repression of the fact that some leftists just don't want others to be free.

Of all the peace protesters that I have read about, or known or have heard of, not a one of them is marching for peace because they support slavery or oppression.

And "choice-" and "liberation-" spouting abortion proponents are repressing the simple truth that they just don't want more babies to be born.

I have never heard of a pro-choice person, choosing pro-choice ideology because they want babies to quit being born.

Okay folks, if you say so, this is filled with non-biased fact and not an attempt to demonize anybody with 'insane' rhetoric and false representations. okay. okay. Sure, I'm convinced.

>>I have never heard of a pro-choice person, choosing pro-choice ideology because they want babies to quit being born.<<

You have now. I'm pro-choice specifically because I don't want poor people to have babies they can't support and because I want the overall population kept down, particularly the population of unwanted kids. I make no bones about it.

Dave

Steve, Dr. Sanity's point is that the underlying belief is being repressed. Thus, in the examples we have been discussing, the person would not admit the underlying belief because they don't know they are repressing it!

This is clearly not the case with Dave and his view on abortion. (Had to pick my jaw up off the floor after I read that one.)

I partially agree: it doesn't have that much to do with economics - I don't want ANYONE who doesn't want to have children to have children. It's hard enough to be a parent when you want to, when you are willing to make the commitment, at least within your own imperfect human mind, to do so to the best of your ability, than to force people who aren't willing, unable, unprepared to make that commitment to be responsible for raising children. Most of societies problems -- although certainly not all -- stem ultimately from poorly raised children. This becomes more and more important as the world transforms from a communal, agrarian-based -- where the more bodies the better, and a world where a sizable percentage of children don't make it to adulthood so you'd better have a shitload to make sure SOMEONE carries on the family -- society, to a world where the focus is on the individual and all the eggs are going into fewer baskets. You'd better be able to take care of those baskets, and if not, the world is better off without them. I TOTALLY buy the argument that we must value the ACTUALLY living over the potentially living and the availability and legality of abortion has to be part of that.

To moderate what I said earlier, I think adoption is an excellent thing and am all for it when it's done in a legal, binding and never to be screwed up way. I'd rather see unwanted babies adopted than aborted, but I sure don't want to see them being born and neglected.

Dave

I agree adoption is better than abortion, but if we preclude abortion as a legal and available option, we are forcing women to go through the complete transformation of their bodies for nine months with nothing to show for it in the end. This may in fact be a very noble course of action, but it is unfair for society to demand it.

You guys are giving me an idea for a future posting: a list of possible prenatal and postnatal actions, ordered by relative moral badness. With some simple inputs of basic pricicples, I bet I could do it with a spreadsheet...

interesting idea: you can begin with the temptation to engage in nonprocreative sex

CB says: "choice-" spouting abortion proponents are repressing the simple truth that they just don't want more babies to be born.

Dave says: and because I want the overall population kept down, particularly the population of unwanted kids.

While at face value, both statements say the same thing, at the same time, one says volumes more. That was my point of contention. One is more clearly defined, the other is vague enough to cover just about anything including the often spoken rhetoric of the Right about people on the Left hating life. Not worth dwelling on, but was why I spoke up.

Another reason why I questioned the intent is because I wondered what the next logical question of the premise would be. Yes, people would make ideological decisions based on repressed feelings. People also would make ideological decisions on traumatic experiences, major life changes or anything else going on in their life. That would be a given, I would think. So the next logical question is, how much of the Left is going through repressed feelings? Enough to sway the abortion vote in the Left's favor? Enough to worry that pro-choice public opinion might not unduly swayed by repression? I don't think that many millions of people are suffering from repression, so I guess it just sounds like an attempt to undermine the ideological choice of pro-choicers, rather than being a factor for serious concern. Just an opinion.

What "abortion vote?" The current state of US abortion law is the result due to the opinion of just seven "pro-choicers."

Having said that, yes, part of the intent of the post may have been to attempt to undermine some small number of people's ideological views. But since the discussion has been balanced, it seems just as likely to affect people on either side of whichever debate.

So, I'm back to ego-stroking, attention grabbing, and a dash of getting-along-with-others advice as the main intents of the post.

CB, there was no such thing as a 'pro-choicer' when the Supreme Court voted on Roe v. Wade. The justices may have been more liberal than the ones we have today, but they mostly made the decision on law and what they thought was best for society, and court watchers believe that if RvW came up for a vote in this more conservative court it would still be upheld. Remember, the decision was originally made in a lower court then appealed and held up by an appellate court and then it went to the Supreme Court. An awful lot of judges looked at it and supported it, not just seven liberals.

Dave

What a great thread. Especially loved the honesty of 14 and the follow-up 16-18 and 20!

Thanks for: "I don't want ANYONE who doesn't want to have children to have children. It's hard enough to be a parent when you want to, when you are willing to make the commitment, at least within your own imperfect human mind, to do so to the best of your ability, than to force people who aren't willing, unable, unprepared to make that commitment to be responsible for raising children." and "we are forcing women to go through the complete transformation of their bodies for nine months ... it is unfair for society to demand it."

I suppose the idea that people should be responsible enough to not get pregnant in the first place is too much to suggest?

>>I suppose the idea that people should be responsible enough to not get pregnant in the first place is too much to suggest?<<

You can suggest it Dr. Pangloss, but in the real world it doesn't always work out that way, mainly because people are dumb as posts.

Dave

Carpe Bonum : "You don't seriously equate American revolutionaries with today's Islamofascist terrorists do you? When did American revolutionaries mass murder people buildings-full at a time? When did they spin up young stupid followers into homicidal/suicidal religious fervor enough to kill themselves along with their victims for heavenly reward? When did they take over theaters and schools, and kill as many innocents as possible? When did they saw off the heads of their still-living victims? If you think there is an equivalence there, then you must be...well...you know."

-- I certainly do. If you create a situation where an individual or individuals have nothing to loose and are harboring tremendous anger, then they are going to do whatever they can to get revenge. "Reason", as was said earlier, goes out the window. With regards to this issue they are insane.

Now lets look at the current American military. Any army of soldiers from a peacetime country waging a questionable war -- Well their tactics aren't going to be as ferocious at first, though they will kill just as efficiently.

A terrorist on the other hand; his war is ideological on the deepest level because he has been stripped from all that was worth hanging on to. He is fighting for someone else's future, and for history; not for his life.

Now I'm not saying it isn't awful to use the techniques that terrorists use. What I am saying is that firing a bullet thru someone's head, or dropping a bomb from ten miles above a city block should not be considered more ethical than strapping a bomb to your back and blowing up people that way. So where do we Americans get off tryin to take the moral high road? They are both a really sad situations and they are both circumstances born out of a social and psychological environment. 'What gave rise to this environment?', should be the question.

To sit and consider which form of killing is more ethically righteous is ridiculous and creates the deluded notion that Terrorists are some sort of otherworldly evil beast that can be killed off one by one. They are human beings who have nothing to left to loose. Obviously ee don't remedy this problem by killing and bombing countries.

Also, who are these terrorists? Really think about it. Are all the insurgents in Iraq, terrorists, or are they freedom fighters caught in the midst of a civil war and an invasion?

How many terrorists have cut the head off of a still living person? How many would have no part in an action like that? If America was a nation bombed to a heap of ruble and engaged in civil war, without order or law, how many sick fucks would turn up in the news killing and raping and all the rest? I'd bet there would be plenty.

"When did American revolutionaries mass murder people buildings-full at a time?"
Seems to me that there was some buildings bombed in Iraq. Probably some people in them too, or did the call ahead and have all the innocent civilians evacuated? Oh, maybe not 3000 people as were killed in new york. But none the less there have been over 500, 000 Iraqi women and childern killed since the first gulf war.

Sorry this entry is so long, but it seems to me that your writing reveals many characterizations you've made of war and of the terrorists. You don't seem to have the ability to empathize, or understand the humanity of the people our country is at war with.

Sydney, I want to point out two things in your response that are verifiably wrong.

First, in drawing an equivalence between the US war fighting methods and the terrorists', you are ignoring the fact that Zarqawi, al-Qaeda, et al. intentionally target innocents for the express purpose of terrorizing the populace into submission. If this is not evil, then nothing is. The US on the other hand, expends unprecedented amounts of effort to avoid harming innocents while destroying enemy combatants. Yes, innocents are unintentionally harmed. But if we were of the same stripe as the terrorists, you would see mushroom clouds over Mecca and Medina, not US Marines handing out toys and candy to Iraqi children.

The second fallacy in your post is the oft-repeated terrorists = freedom fighters meme. Zarqawi has debunked this himself:

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

Sydney: But none the less there have been over 500, 000 Iraqi women and childern killed since the first gulf war.

That number is utter crap and you should know better. To get a number like that you have to blame every death from every cause including all natural causes from the start of Gulf War I to the present on the US. Are you really that big a fool?

As for the difference between the moral high road and the moral low road, it's extraordinarily simple. When he sees the crowd of civilians the suicide bomber runs towards them to make sure they die. When he sees the crowd od civilians the American soldier tries to aim somewhere else so they are protected. That's the difference. If you can't see that you're as morally degenerate as the terrorists.

Dave

Sydney while you are so obviously and terribly wrong, I'll give you one point, though you have the reasoning behind that wrong as well: The terrorists are fighting because they have nothing left. That's right, slowly, but surely, the terrorists are finding fewer places to work out of, and fewer Iraqis that will support them.

For all the rest, if you took a little time to really educate yourself as to the restrictions placed upon soldiers in Iraq versus the actual methods and motivations of the terrorists, you'd see how wrongheaded your moral equivalence is in this matter. Soldiers are bound by rules and laws to avoid as much as possible causing civilian casualties, putting themselves in further harms way by not firing on a sniper hidden in a crowd when they certainly have more than enough firepower to "kill everyone and let God sort 'em out". The US military could have levelled Falujah so not one stone would be left upon another. Could level a city block to root out a suspected terrorist, line up citizens pulled out of their houses and shoot one after the other until someone gives up the information that is sought, decimate a village to prove a point after one of its soldiers is killed on its outskirts, yet it does none of those things. The terrorists will not hesitate to kill civilians, will kill anyone to prove a point. It is a shame that you can't even take the time to consider whether your gut level responses have any merit.

Carpe Bonum: But if we were of the same stripe as the terrorists, you would see mushroom clouds over Mecca and Medina...

Dave Nalle: When he sees the crowd of civilians the suicide bomber runs towards them to make sure they die. When he sees the crowd o[f] civilians the American soldier tries to aim somewhere else so they are protected.

John Stuart Mill: War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Robert A. Heinlein (Lazarus Long): You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

Winston Churchill: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Éttiene de la Boétie: The only power tyrants have, is the power relinquished to them by their victims.

Woodrow Wilson: No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence.

Lovely, Dr. Pat!

not to gang up on old Syd, but I agree with pretty much every word between 28-32. Yes, we do have the moral high ground and it is critical that we maintain it: that is why it is so important to not fall into moral traps like Abu Ghraib, and to thoroughly and honestly investigate and adjudicate them when they do happen.

Back to the abortion angle, yes Ski it is absolutely preferable to avoid pregnancy in the first place, but none of the methods of birth control are fool proof (pun intended) and those with the strongest biological pressure to express themselves sexuality (teens and young adults) are unfortunately those least prepared to evaluate the consequences. This is simply reality, a reality that no amount of celibacy indoctrination will undo.

Thanks for the kind words Angela!

HaHa.. I knew i would get a rise out of you all for that post. I was a little careless I suppose but I think the essence of my comment was correct.

That is to say that (in my opinion) terrorists are very minor participants in this war. There are terrorists out and about and engaging with the U.S. however, most of the so called terrorists are elsewhere in the world. Certainly, Al-queda et al. are not in Iraq.

Iraqi civilians are engaged in a civil war and a war against what they believe is an occupying power trying to instill their interests in Iraq. Sure some of these Iraqis are using horrible tactics, but we created the state that country finds itself in. There were much less damaging means of getting rid of Sadamm Hussein. Nor do I believe it was our place to remove him, especially under the pretenses that Iraq was part of a war on terrorism. That was a flat out lie, and the world knew it was from the get go. That hole bit of charades at the security counsel with Powell was just a low point in American history.

Ok.. so what I was saying was America being on Iraqi turf gives us little or no moral clout, even if we do have an upper hand on a handful of psycho terrorists. So to listen to you guys go on about the details of certain terrorists actions, is to be blind to the situation at large. We should be ashamed of our ignorance and our stubbornness to face the real problem.

I think most Americans like to imagine that they are at war with a country full of evil terrorists. We arn't, but we sure are doing our best to create some.


Those quotes about wanting to rid America of democracy, well that's just crap. How many Iraqi's are out on a war against Democracy. next to none. Your listening to one or two quotes from rebel rousing clerics or terrorists. Do you really think this is what were fighting? Such crap...

Anyway, my position is that Americans would have done better to gather multilateral support for the formation of a intelligence community and counter terrorism strikes across Europe and the east. Instead we decided to attack Iraq for totally different reasons and alienated everyone. Now the citizens of the world, and their governments are all working against us in the hopes that we fail (and this is real, they really are working against us).

So we try our best to justify our war as being against terrorists. "terrorist" has become a blanket term to refer to anyone who points a rifle towards an American, and we prefer this use of the word cause it makes us feel morally justified. Sure we drag the odd the kidnapping victims and other to the surface and use this to reinforce our beliefs that the average Arab is crazy, but in reality we as a people don't have the slightest clue what an Arab is like or about, nor do we realize the years of insult we have hurled upon them. We think we have the solution -- we'll bomb them and show them American money at work, let them see the wonders of capitalist economies in the Arab world. They wont think twice of the losses they took in those bombings because they'll be so impressed by the economic opportunities. It's soooo pathetic, and depressing, and most of all arrogant..

Sydney, What-in-the-fug-are-you-talking-about?
NO Al-Queda in Iraq? You are kidding us
right? Abu Masab al-Zarqawi was named by
Osama himself,as Al-Queda's No.1 cretin
in their ideological & physical battle
to return Iraq to the fucking stone age.

The war currently being waged by these
sick assed terrorists has many fronts to
be sure,Iraq being only one of them.

I think you're just trying to stir shit
up around these parts as you obviously
know much better than to make such an
easily disproved & to be blunt,highly
assinine statement such as this. Bored?

Sydney, the only attacks in Iraq yesterday were 8 suicide bombings. Suicide bomb attacks against civilians are only one thing, acts of terrorism.

Terrorism is defined by how it is carried out and by who it targets. Regardless of whether the person brainwashing a poor Sudanese martyr to go blow himself up is al Quaeda or Baathist, when he chooses a suicide bomber as his weapon and civilians as his target, he's a terrorist. The same is true of a car bomb, a haphazardly aimed mortar barrage, or any other indescriminate attack which is designed at making a mess and killing civilians rather than making war.

People in Iraq sure seem to understand this. They don't differentiate between one band of terrorists and another. Perhaps that's because being there they have a clue that you didn't pick up in your pampered American world, Sydney.

Dave

Sorry about that,Eric.I didn't know the
run on sentence was going to do that.
I had no way to fix it from my region of
cyberspace.Once again,sorry 'bout that.

The people using those tactics are perhaps terrorists, but one thing is for sure. Al-queda was not operating in Iraq before the war. Sadam Hussein we ideologically opposed to their organization and had a long standing feud with Osama.

Those people in Iraq who are still fighting are not the same terrorists that had anything to do with 9/11. They are Iraqi civilians who took up terrorists tactics after the war started because they haven't any weapons or a more effective strategy to use. Are Americans suddenly the superhero who goes around defining and fighting terrorists? Terror tactics have been used since the beginning of time and in every war. We've used them in many wars ourselves and still do use them. You ignorant fucks think that because G.W.B. says were out to fight "evil" and "terrorists" that all of a sudden we've been morally sanctioned to go on a witch hunt , no matter what the citizens of the world think.

Most, or nearly all, of those terrorists were created by the war. I'm not defending their tactics but some of you don't realize war is not the means of riding the world of terrorism. It's a ridiculous and backwards notion.

And your idea of morality with regards to this issue is sick. Keep comparing yourselves against terrorists if you like, but when you finally decide to hold yourselves up to the standards of the rest of the world you'll see how deeply arrogant and flawed we (Americans) are.

Sydney:

>>The people using those tactics are perhaps terrorists, but one thing is for sure. Al-queda was not operating in Iraq before the war. Sadam Hussein we ideologically opposed to their organization and had a long standing feud with Osama. <<

This is categorically not true. Yes, Saddam and Osama were philosophically opposed, but they did work together in an unofficial way. It's already been well documented that not only did Al Quaeda have a training base inside Iraq with approval of Saddam's government, but various Al Quaeda operatives spent time in Iraq under the protection of the government, either to hide out or in some cases to get medical care. Yes, no official relationship, but plenty of mutual support behind the scenes.

>>Those people in Iraq who are still fighting are not the same terrorists that had anything to do with 9/11. They are Iraqi civilians who took up terrorists tactics after the war started because they haven't any weapons or a more effective strategy to use. <<

Again, mostly wrong. Yes, there are some Sunnis who have joined the terrorists, but the two main groups remain Al Quaeda who are mostly from outside the country and former Baathists who want to bring back the old regime or something like it. Are you not even vaguely familiar with what's going on in Iraq?

>>Most, or nearly all, of those terrorists were created by the war. I'm not defending their tactics but some of you don't realize war is not the means of riding the world of terrorism. It's a ridiculous and backwards notion.<<

You have no clue at all. The terrorists are opportunistic. They are out for themselves, and they victimize innocent people from the most backwards Moslem countries like Yemen and the Sudan who they bribe and brainwash into doing their dirty work for them as suicide bombers.

Dave