Friedman wonders why thousands upon thousands protested against the desecration of the Quran and why they do not demonstrate against terrorism in Iraq. The civilian bombings in Iraq are being done by certain extremists, fanatics or militias. What happened in Guantanamo with the Quran and what happens in places like Abu Ghraib is being done systematically by an army- an army that is fighting a war- a war being funded by the American people. That is what makes it outrageous to the Muslim world.
In other words, what happens in Iraq is terrorism, while what happens to Iraqis and Afghanis and people of other nationalities under American or British custody is simply "counter-insurgency" and "policy". It makes me naseous to think of how outraged the whole world was when those American POW were shown on Iraqi television at the beginning of the war- clean, safe and respectfully spoken to. Even we were upset with the incident and wondered why they had to be paraded in front of the world like that. We actually had the decency to feel sorry for them.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Operation Lightining and Thomas Friedman
are the focus of a great bit on Baghdad Burning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Friedman wonders why thousands upon thousands protested against the desecration of the Quran and why they do not demonstrate against terrorism in Iraq.
Friedman may wonder this because he doesn't read primary sources. The crowds were riled up quite deliberately by an Islamofascist group that ranges across the Middle East into SE Asia. Originally an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, they have long since morphed into kidnappping, ransom, public bombings, etc. This escapade was a minor diversion.
Is Friedman really so naive that he wonders why they don't riot against terrorism in Iraq? What on God's green earth would motivate them? No imam, no political group is driving them to do so.
_________________
What happened in Guantanamo with the Quran and what happens in places like Abu Ghraib is being done systematically by an army- an army that is fighting a war- a war being funded by the American people. That is what makes it outrageous to the Muslim world.
The "muslim world" is hardly monolithic. As for the 'systematic' behavior, how do you reconcile this statement with your previous belief that our soldiers, however misguided, were serving well in the current war?
You state at the top of your blog that Republicans use lies as a tool of politics. As an Episcopalian and a Republican, I ask you to consider the divisive and harmful effects of such words. Are these a part of our Scripture and Tradition history?
I have never lied for the sake of anything political, nor do I know personally any Republicans that behave so. I have seen us accused of many horrible misdeeds by those who proclaim to love their fellow men and women. I presume this category doesn't include the sub-human Republicanus, hmm?
Thank you for your visit and your comments.
as to 'systematic' behavior, and respecting the men and women. The two points are not at all contridictory. Like the muslim world, The US armed forces are hardly monolithic. Like our society a few are nobel, a few are scum, and the majority are just trying to get by.
But remember, our current administration is the one who devised this system of imprisionment, rendention and tried to redefine tourture to give us more leeway in the way we 'questioned' our foes.
About lies
Check out the;
Star Tribune and the Baltimore Sun.
This whole mess was built on a lie. Those who told the truth were removed and fired. Those who supported the lie were rewarded and promoted.
I have seen us accused of many horrible misdeeds by those who proclaim to love their fellow men and women. I presume this category doesn't include the sub-human Republicanus, hmm?
Republicans are also represendted by Coulter, Savage, Linbaugh, Dobson, Reed, Hannity, O'Riley, etc.
Guilt by acceptance?
Republicans are also represendted(sic) by Coulter, Savage, Linbaugh, Dobson, Reed, Hannity, O'Riley, etc.
Both political parties are often represented by scoundrels and glib, superficial people. If we started holding one another responsible for what spokesmen for either side say, it would merely devalue further the already debased coin of public discourse.
Of the people you list, I can mostly dismiss them as lightweights. But Dobson does harm with his ideas about physical punishment for children. However,in the long run, his methods are less harmful than the laissez-faire style of parenting that passes for "tolerance" in raising children, or the state interference in child-raising which ends up destroying the moral authority of parents with their children. Having worked with abusive families, I know the unintended consequences of that.
I do not hold Democrats responsible for Michael Moore, for Air America, for Eason Jordan's unsubstantiated claims that American soldiers target journalists, or for CNN's decade-long silent witness to the slaughter of Iraqis, a silence which allowed CNN continued "exclusive" access to Saddam and to Iraq.
I do not hold them responsible for Dan Rather's pathetic refusal to see the forgeries he used for what they were; to this day he refers to the papers as "flawed."
I do not hold Democrats responsible for George Soros' heavy-handed attempts to buy the last election. This is the man who ruined the currency valuations of several countries, leaving them in bad shape while he cleaned up. Ask economists in England what they think of him. Soros makes anyone on your evil list look like a kindergartner. But no one is responsible for him except himself. Just because he hates Bush doesn't mean that Democrats are bad.
The people you listed are lightweights. They are entertainers, but they are not serious people and they do not address fundamental change. Neither do the superficial -- e.g., entertainers and "famous" people -- represent the Democratic party. If I were to judge the Democrats by the things that emanate from the pen of Barbra Streisand, the party would be in real trouble.
Harry Truman was a despised Dem. Abraham Lincoln equally so on the Republican side. Yet they both made crucial decisions in difficult times and led our country through some tough times.
There are important thinkers on both sides of the political divide. I read both sides on a regular basis and have come to realize my political compass points to the right.
I read the Nation and the National Review. I read the National Catholic Reporter and First Things. I read Bill Clinton and find a likeable fellow but little coherent philosophy. I read Rorty and Hayek and Jude Wanniski and Brownback. I respect Nader but don't think he'd make a good chief executive.
I read military history, tactics, and strategy from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz to John Boyd. I recognize that aggression is an ineradicable part of our fallen human nature. Otherwise why would we stand/kneel each week and confess to God and to one another the things we have done or failed to do?
It is imperative that as Christians we recognize, address, and attempt to ameliorate the harm we do. Otherwise, what is there left to do but point fingers at one another?
My point remains: that to label a whole group of people as living a lie, or as using lies as a political tool is both inaccurate and unsound from a spritual *and* philosophical point of view. And in the long run it harms the commonweal.
To base the title of your blog on such a claim, and to use that as your motto doesn't seem a wise or healing thing to do. It's an easy shot, not a thoughtful argument. I believe the psychiatrists call it projection. Jesus, as always ahead of them, suggested that we examine the plank in our own eye.
Now wouldn't *that* be revolutionary. Instead of accusing one another of bad faith, we actually tried to clean house where we lived. Sure would be different.
Meanwhile, having known many military men in my life (I grew up in a town with several large military bases) I can say with authority that more than just a few were noble. And some of them were incredible.
If we started holding one another responsible for what spokesmen for either side say, it would merely devalue further the already debased coin of public discourse.
LOL
I use to feel this way, try to keep the discorse civil.
Only to be blasted by so many Republicans who worship at the alter of Rush and Fox.
No more, and I will use you list as an example why.
Michale Moore started out using humor to make his point. He could be agressive and dogmatic, but he kept focused on the humor. Even in this day in age he is, while far less polite, he still will not cross some lines.
Michael Savage, just a week or so ago, spent some on air time on the radio musing about the joy of Killing (like dead) Michael Moore.
How is Soros different from Ken Lay, or the Coors? And poor Easton Jordan, who quote is infamous, but the context was lost.
He was refering to the fact the the US shot dead members of the media, and they did. His concern was the the US troops were firing without determining it the target was a threat, not the the troops were aiming for members of the press.
The inclusion of Babs is a great finishing point. The people I listed are self appointed political and social experts who make their living doing this. Those wou listed on the left are 'other things', but none make their living as voices for thier cause.
This is key, since so many of the voices of hate and division on the right earn their living doing what you are denouncing, and this income comes from the masses on the right who do support their message of hate.
that to label a whole group of people as living a lie, or as using lies as a political tool is both inaccurate and unsound from a spritual *and* philosophical point of view. And in the long run it harms the commonweal.
I have turned the cheek for the last time. It isn't that Rush and Fox and the rest are out there. It is that they have so much support from the right, and no voices on the right denouncing them.
As long as the right, as a whole, is willing to lie down with the dogs, I will be willing to give all those who proudly claim to be a member of the right a trip to
the flea dip.
To base the title of your blog on such a claim, and to use that as your motto doesn't seem a wise or healing thing to do. It's an easy shot, not a thoughtful argument.
After waiting 10+ years for a segement of the right to step up and try to control the hate comming out of their paid voices, and seeing no action, I think is is unwise to do anything but shine a harsh light on those who trade in lies and deception.
(I grew up in a town with several large military bases)
I live in a town with a very large base, and have had the ability to visit many bases across the south in the last 20+ years.
I have noticed that when you want strippers, whores, pawn shops, cheap beer and bar fights, just head to the area around the base. When you want goos schools, peaceful neighborhoods, and nice shops, look on the otherside of town.
That alone is telling.
Again thanks for visiting and your participation
Post a Comment