Archive for the 'Terrorism' category

Guilt By Association And The Left’s Hypocrisy

Oct 07 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, John McCain, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans, Terrorism, War

On the same day that the Obama defenders are rallying to his side and suggesting that years of working alongside a domestic terrorist don’t make Obama a bad person, the left is also trying to attach the actions of random crowd members at a rally to McCain-Palin.

Now, I’ll first repeat my firmly held position that John McCain is no great shakes, but come on. How do you, with a straight face, suggest that Obama, who even CNN admits largely owes his political career to someone who targeted his fellow Americans with explosives, should be held harmless for that association? How do you then, in the very next breath, suggest that McCain and Palin are somehow responsible for what one or two unhinged nutbags say or do while attending a rally?

Further, when most of the Democratic party online has spent the last five years calling Bush a war criminal, a traitor, or worse, how do you feign indignation when someone suggests that calling our military a bunch of baby killers is tantamount to treason? Here is Obama’s exact quote in context:

Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages, and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

Compare that to John Kerry’s now infamous winter soldier testimony:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This portrayal of our military as a bunch of mongols ravaging the countryside with little regard for “killing civilians” and “air raiding villages” is epidemic in the Democratic Party. It is part of the anti-military talking points. You can’t possibly act surprised that people take Obama’s remarks as an attack on our military.

Yet we’re supposed to look the other way when a man who wishes to be Commander in Chief denigrates our troops?

At the same time, we’re supposed to give a candidate a pass for associating with a man who apparently believed, and remains without remorse for the belief, that the only appropriate use of military power should be against civilians working in our own government? A man who, after bombing his countrymen, still says he wishes he could have done more for his cause.

Honestly? You will defend Barack Obama’s associations with that man, and his own disdain for our troops, yet you will try, with flimsy reasoning, to connect the GOP ticket with some random crowd members?

What if the roles were reversed. What if John McCain had spent 15 years cuddling up to Tim McVeigh? What if Terry Nichols had held a campaign kickoff event for J-Mac in his home? What if McVeigh had worked to secure tens of millions of dollars for an initiative that John McCain ran? Would you give him a pass? I doubt it.

While I am shocked by the Democrats’ indifference to Ayers, I also think the events of the Vietnam war were, as Obama says, 40 years ago. People have moved on.

However, I do not see how you can ignore that, also ignore your candidates defamation of our military’s service on behalf of our nation, and then try, laughably, to make McCain and Palin responsible for some random nutjob in a crowd of thousands.

It makes you look hypocritical and ridiculous.

Comments

Drawing Analogies

Nov 05 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Craziness, Terrorism, The Internet, War, Writing

I love reading blogs. I also have a particular fondness for columnists. The reason goes beyond a general sense of curiosity about other people, what they think, and why they behave the way they do – which is often tied to how they perceive the world and illustrated in their writing. The reason I love to read people’s personal opinions and thoughts is to be a better communicator myself. This “learning by witness” takes two forms – being provoked into thought by someone else and trying to verbalize my response, or by seeing something that strikes me as abusrd, and not knowing how to respond.

A Wired article titled Suicide Bombing Makes Sick Sense in Halo 3 falls into the second category.

I used to find it hard to fully imagine the mind-set of a terrorist.

That is, until I played Halo 3 online, where I found myself adopting — with great success — terrorist tactics. Including a form of suicide bombing. …

I know I’m the underdog; I know I’m probably going to get killed anyway. I am never going to advance up the Halo 3 rankings, because in the political economy of Halo, I’m poor.

Specifically, I’m poor in time. The best players have dozens of free hours a week to hone their talents, and I don’t have that luxury. This changes the relative meaning of death for the two of us. For me, dying will not penalize me in the way it penalizes them, because I have almost no chance of improving my state. I might as well take people down with me.

Or to put it another way: The structure of Xbox Live creates a world composed of two classes — haves and have-nots. And, just as in the real world, some of the disgruntled have-nots are all too willing to toss their lives away — just for the satisfaction of momentarily halting the progress of the haves. Since the game instantly resurrects me, I have no real dread of death in Halo 3.

The author does specifically state that he is not trying to “trivialize the ghastly, horrific impact of real-life suicide bombing” or to “gloss over the incredible complexity of the real-life personal, geopolitical and spiritual reasons why suicide bombers are willing to kill themselves” because this is “impossibly more nuanced and perverse than what’s happening inside a trifling, low-stakes videogame.”

And yet he follows that disclaimer with this statement:

I’ve read scores of articles, white papers and books on the psychology of terrorists in recent years, and even though I have (I think) a strong intellectual grasp of the roots of suicide terrorism, something about playing the game gave me an “aha” moment that I’d never had before: an ability to feel, in whatever tiny fashion, the strategic logic and emotional calculus behind the act.

This may be one of the strangest pieces of ‘journalism’ I have seen in some time. To argue that you understand terrorism because you have “read scores of articles, white papers and books” and have a “strong intellectual grasp” betrays your completely egocentric worldview. I have read books on terrorism, have taken courses on the subject from renowned experts in the field, and studied the subject with great vigor, but I claim to have no sense of what causes someone to take another person’s life for a political goal.

The one clear difference the writer ignores is the fact the person he’s fragging “from beyond the grave” in Halo was actually trying to kill him in the game. Most often terrorists in real life do not strike directly at other combatants. They strike at innocent women and children.

Thompson’s piece might make sense if terrorism were confined to attacks on military targets (as they sometimes are in Iraq), but falls desperately short of anything approaching a rationale conclusion when weighed against the actions of terrorists who strike at families dining at Sbarro.

Drawing analogies is dangerous if it’s easy to poke holes in your comparison. In this case, it’s all too easy. To compare, in any way, the irrational acts of depraved terrorists bent on killing innocents to make a political point and the spastic tactics of poor video game players does little to make a point. It does more to teach others how not to make a case.

Comments

We Win, They Lose

May 03 2007 Published by under Congress, Government, Legislation, Terrorism, War

Ronald Reagan once described his foreign policy with regard to the Cold War in fairly simple terms – we win, they lose. It’s a simple message that is easy to understand and makes clear our commitment to the outcome.

To be perfectly clear, the Administration has truly bungled a great number of things. The war in Iraq is just one item in a long list that includes the Katrina response, the ongoing mess that is the Justice Department, the Myers nomination, social security reform, immigration, etc., etc. That said, the one thing they have gotten consistently right is their belief that the outcome in Iraq cannot be a withdrawal and surrender of the nation to extremists.

That was our approach to Somalia, and 15 years later it is still a disaster cranking out militant ideology. That was our approach to Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew and we paid the price in the form of the Taliban and its support for terrorism.

Whether there were terrorists in Iraq prior to our military action there, the fact is there are certainly terrorists there today. Handing them the country as we head out the door is not a viable option from a military standpoint or for the sake of the world my kids will inherit.

Despite my misgivings about much this Administration has done, I stand firmly in the belief that we must not surrender Iraq, we must not allow Congress to usurp the power of the Commander in Chief, and we must not set arbitrary deadlines for a withdrawal simply because “the people” don’t like the way things are going. “The people” look at the world as they see it today. We hire the President and Congress to move us toward a future world. For their jobs, they owe us more than retreat and defeat.

As a result, I am signing onto the petition created at WeWinTheyLose.com. If you would like to join as well, the petition and a simple form to complete are provided below for your use.

—————————————

Comments

Horrible

Mar 21 2007 Published by under Terrorism, War

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, said adults in a vehicle with two children in the backseat were allowed through a Baghdad checkpoint on Sunday.

The adults then parked next to a market in the Adamiya area of Baghdad, abandoned the vehicle and detonated it with the children still inside, according to the general and another defense official.

“Children in the back seat, lower suspicion, we let it move through,” Barbero said. “They parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back.”

“The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn’t changed,” Barbero said.

Absolutely unconscionable.

Comments

Irresponsible Selective Perception

Feb 14 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Craziness, Democrats, Politics, Republicans, Technology, Terrorism, The Internet

What constantly amazes me about politics is the ease with which partisans can ignore the worst traits of their own ranks while casting stones at the sins of those on the other side of the aisle. It is appalling the extent to which some will go to make a point, while pretending to be completely ignorant of the atrocities committed in their name.

Take, for instance, Chris Bowers at MyDD. A recent post of his takes issue with the acts of the unhinged right.

Much like the democratic means attempted by conservatives to outlaw abortion, the media pressure against Edwards didn’t work. Unfortunately, the violent threats against Melissa did. Over at Pandagon, Amanda offers a taste of some of the tamer threats she received during the episode, and which it appears she continues to receive. Ultimately, it appears that it was the continuing threat of violence, not any media pressure or caving from the Edwards campaign, that allowed the right-wing to “take scalps” in this whole affair. (emphasis mine)

Well, if you look at McEwan’s post (which Bowers excerpts) what she said was:

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats.

She received what she considered to be threats. That is, to be sure, absolutely inappropriate. The posts over at Pandagon are atrocious. The venom in them is atrocious.

The trouble is, with few exceptions, none of them, actually threatened violence. They said horrid violent things, and wished all manner of ills on Marcotte, but they weren’t specifically threatening. They wished harm on people simply because they disagreed with their lifestyle. Why does that sound so familiar? Oh wait!

They sounded like the comments of Kos himself. They sounded like the comments of the fringe left (#8 is my favorite example).

Even McEwan, at least, referred to them as veiled threats. Her post not only downplayed the nature of those threats, but also explained that those who had called for her expulsion from Camp Edwards were “tacitly” condoning those who had threatened her.

Well, frankly, that’s just stupid.

Does that mean that anyone who is pro-environment is tacitly endorsing the actions of groups like Earth First when they spike trees to break chain saws and cripple loggers? Hardly.

Does that mean that people who advocate for higher CAFE standards or electric cars are tacitly endorsing the actions of the Earth Liberation Front? Nope.

Bowers (and McEwan to a lesser extent) are guilty of exactly that of which they accuse Republicans – attempting to equate one very reasonable action to the irrational acts of a fringe element. In doing so, they seek to persuade others against the rational act.

For Catholics to oppose the continued employment of Marcotte and McEwan was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate act. Anyone who issued threats, or engaged in fringe behavior should be recognized as the fringe. Those actions are beyond the pale.

Bowers, on the other hand, uses McEwan’s post to engage in the worst possible form of misdirection. Threats against her are bad. Claiming that those threats represent some sort of sustained conscious campaign on behalf of the Republican Party is just ridiculous.

Terrorism and the threat of violence against American citizens remains a key political tool for the American right-wing. This is true both in the sense of conservatives and Republicans trying to scare people into voting for them / justifying their legislative agenda, and in the sense of actual terrorism and threats of violence against Democrats and progressives who stand in their way… physical violence and the threat of physical violence is still successfully being employed as a political tactic against individual progressives in America.

If you want to look at the use of terrorism as a political tool, fine. Do it honestly, however. Any discussion of such violence should recognize the role of the left in actual terrorism. The two examples cited above would be good places to start.

Earth First and the ELF have caused significant damages to businesses that are legally operating just as abortion clinics are. ELF was actually identified as the single greatest domestic terror threat until the attacks of 2001. Does Bowers renounce their actions? If so, why doesn’t he recognize the activity of the fringe left as well as the fringe right?

If he doesn’t reject their actions, and believes that the spiking of trees to prevent legal timber gathering, and the acts of arson and vandalism carried out by ELF are legitimate financial attacks (assuming they don’t hurt of kill anyone), then surely he believes abortion clinic bombings done after hours, when the clinics are empty, would be perfectly legitimate too. Right?

Unfortunately, he doesn’t spread his distaste of violence and threats of it around evenly. I suspect if you scan through the comments on MyDD, you’ll probably find more than a handful of veiled threats against the Bush Administration. Does he denounce all of his readers for the stupid comments of a few? If he did, maybe his claims about the fringe of the Republican Party would ring true, rather than hollow.

Comments

Older posts »

Livefyre Not Displaying on this post