« how many idiots can dance on the head of state? | Main | thursday edition of "presented without commentary" »

thinking out loud

Why do people on the far left - most notably the Indymedia and DU crowd - always direct their anger at Bush when there is a terrorist attack somewhere. Why don't they ever get angry at the people who are responsible for the attacks?

I don't really expect to get any answers. The most anyone on the far left will give me is some conspiracy theory that Bush really controls al Qaeda.

I try to understand the mindset of protesters. But I just can't. How can you be against a war on terror? And make no mistake, this war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. What is the alternative? Just let them all be until they attack us again? I wonder if the attacks in Instanbul this week were in America or Britian instead, would they be so eager to protest against the fight against terrorism?

We are in a fight for our lives here. A fight to the death. I'm sure you've all seen enough samurai movies or the like to know what a fight to the death is. Last man standing and all.

Either the terrorists - meaning al Qaeda and whatever terrorist organization they have aligned themselves with in Iraq, Turkey and elsewhere in the mid east - will succeed and in a few years we'll all be under Sharia law, or we will succeed and in a few years we won't be worrying about imminent attacks.

Terrorism is not something that happens to other people. It happens to us. To you. To everyone. Radical Muslims are even killing other Muslims.

We are the good guys, folks. We should be the last ones standing, and we should be standing over the corpse of terrorism. But as long as there are people who show solidtarity with our enemies (and yes, if you are out there protesting against Bush and Blair and telling the US to get out of Iraq, you are showing solidarity with terrorists and resistance forces), our enemy will still feel brave.

Sit down, shut up and let our leaders continue their fight. I'm sure you won't feel so smug about your ideals when the next bomb lands in your city. Trust me, you don't want that for a wake-up call. Been there, done that and it's a hard way to learn who the enemy really is.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference thinking out loud:

» Al-Qaeda Strikes Again from dcthornton.com
This time, in Istanbul, bombing a building housing the British consulate and a British bank. And yes, they claimed responsibility... [Read More]

» Al Qaeda: Leftist Terrorists from Brain Fertilizer
Yep. You heard me. As I think back on everything I've seen and heard and read and learned in life, one thing that I have come to believe firmly is the main distinguishing characterstic of Leftist thought is: The imposition... [Read More]

» Last Man Standing from sgt hook
By far the best post that I've read regarding the subject of who the bad guys are. An excerpt: I try to understand the mindset of protesters. But I just can't. How can you be against a war on terror? And make no mistake, this war in Iraq is part of the... [Read More]

» If the lions get hungry, the smart lambs can shoot them! from Classical Values
Not long ago, I wrote a post about cultural tension between IQ and masculinity -- and the related issue of IQ and race. I realize that I barely scratched the surface, which I think I first touched here: Just as... [Read More]

Comments

“But as long as there are people who show solidarity with our enemies (and yes, if you are out there protesting against Bush and Blair and telling the US to get out of Iraq, you are showing solidarity with terrorists and resistance forces),”

They should be tried for treason (view it as giving aid to the enemy)

Excellent post! But it could a Samurai graphic to go along with it...

Your comments are the comments of a scared, paranoid, tribal, deeply hostile person.

Get away from the idea that there are "two sides" in a "fight to the death." Thats bullshit. The world isn't divided into shades of black and white like you, Bush, and al-Qaeda seem to believe.

The brave people protesting in London and Miami today are thoughtful, intelligent, and full of enough love to reject the false dichotomy of "you are either with us or are with the terorists." We are with neither. We are with the world.

"We are with the world."

We are the children?

I may be quibbling with semantics, but "terrorism" is only a method, a means. A "war on terrorism" is never-ending because a terrorist act can never be 100% prevented. What we're facing is an ideological enemy who wants to impose strict Islamic law upon the world (as you correctly put it) and sees terrorist attacks as a justified means of doing it.

Smart, Drew, you fuckup. Perhaps you could respond to what I had to say. Perhaps because it's true, you have nothing TO say.

The left is just cranky because Bush actually delivered a decent speech and they don't have anything to bash.

"We are with the world."

I don't want to live in a world where periodic bombings are a regular occurance. When it comes to Islamists, there are only two sides. THEY'VE made this distiction through their actions, not our response.

Chris: How exactly are these protestors brave? What are they doing that is courageous? They have NO lives, and they're pathetic...not brave.

Sorry Chris I didnt relize that the terrorist had a sliding scale on who they kill. I was under the impression that you also felt you are either for or against them?

But your "we are the world" was to much to pass up....

"Sit down, shut up and let our leaders continue their fight. I'm sure you won't feel so smug about your ideals when the next bomb lands in your city. Trust me, you don't want that for a wake-up call. Been there, done that and it's a hard way to learn who the enemy really is."

Before your city got bombed, some crazy white guy decided to blow up a federal building in mine.

I think you're right. We need to go after those terrorists and get them where they live: Texas. We can't wait for crazy white Christian gun-toting militia members to strike again. We must take the fight to them before they can impose their right-wing radical agenda upon us all.

Scott,

I know you meant your comment to be ironic (probably laughing to yourself at what you thinking is biting wit), but what makes you think we're NOT going after right-wing militants in our own country?

The federal government went after that "crazy white guy" and now he's dead. They also burned down a house belonging to David Koresh and shot a few people at a place called Ruby Ridge. Sounds like equal opportunity to me.

Blowing up innocent people is hostile.
Black and white.
One being fearful of that is not paraniod, just existing in an actual world.

You can have all the grey matter in the world and still be a sociopath.

JFH said: "I know you meant your comment to be ironic (probably laughing to yourself at what you thinking is biting wit), but what makes you think we're NOT going after right-wing militants in our own country?"

And then MC666 said: "The federal government went after that 'crazy white guy' and now he's dead. They also burned down a house belonging to David Koresh and shot a few people at a place called Ruby Ridge. Sounds like equal opportunity to me."

Yeah, but what have you done for me lately?

You can't seriously be arguing that McVeigh's execution, the deaths at the Branch Davidian compound, and the deaths at Ruby Ridge are "equal opportunity" when compared to the "war on terror(ism)" as it's currently underway, can you? We've got soldiers all over the world now fighting terrorism and yet we're ignoring very real threats right here at home--and threats that have struck before.

I'm very sympathetic to the line that the hard-core anti-US left should, y'know, grow up & realize that the terrorists are nobody's friends. But as a tax-paying member of the 'loyal opposition', I worry about lines like "Sit down, shut up and let our leaders continue their fight." Some of us think that the leaders are doing a pretty lousy job of that fight, and it is precisely because we despise terrorism that we want to vociferously disagree with the current leadership & its policies. And I'm liable to get violent if told that, as a result, I am 'showing solidarity' with the very people I worry my government is doing a bad job of eliminating.

I know that M's post was aimed only at the uber-granola crowd, but I worry that some of that acid rhetoric will splash over on people like, well, me.

ROFLMAO! You goofy liberals who think if we would all just sit back and think happy thoughts, why then all those Islamicists would just suddenly go away and stop trying to follow the Koran where it says that all good kufrs are dead kufrs. All the suicidal murders would just stop stop murdering innocent women, children, and other non-combatants. All we need to do is think happy thoughts and all the evil in the world will just disappear. Except that mean old President Bush just won't play along and pretend along with those loons...

"The brave people protesting in London and Miami today are thoughtful, intelligent, and full of enough love to reject the false dichotomy of "you are either with us or are with the terorists." We are with neither. We are with the world."

There was a country that was offered an opportunity to participate in the attack on Iraq, and declined. That nation was Turkey.

I wonder how they now view the usefulness of "rejecting false dichotomy" and being "with the world".

"Smart, Drew, you fuckup. Perhaps you could respond to what I had to say. Perhaps because it's true, you have nothing TO say."

Hey Drew, are you full of enough of Chris' love yet?

Oh! Oh! Oh! (waving hand in air) I know!

Wesley Clark presided over the Branch Davidian compand as it was burning. For oversight he had Janet Reno.

And who ordered the British to attack the Russians in Kosovo? Wes Clark.

I guess that was why Clinton fired Clark.

But leave it to moonbats to blame Waco on Bush.

Perhaps if Bush had done anything to stop terrorism, I'd be less critical. Meanwhile, our ports are still unguarded, airlines barely check commercial baggage, Al-Queda remains intact, and all we've managed to do is make terrorists more determined by invading a country for no reason.

Yeah, Al-Qaeda's just perfectly intact. So perfectly intact that Osama is probably rotting in the remains of Tora-Bora, half the leadership is captured or dead, and the best they can manage in the way of attacks is stuff in their own home neighborhood. Perfectly, totally intact.

Why was it justifiable to invade/occupy Kosovo/Bosnia to prevent genocide, but not Iraq? I'm still waiting to see an anti-war sign that says "Bring our boys home from Kosovo."

The sentiment of ANSWER seems to be: "Fuck Bush, Fuck Iraq - Give Saddam his country back!"

You say Bush has done nothing to stop terrorism at home yet, with all the "imminent threats" we've had from terrorists since 9/11, we've yet to face another attack on US soil.

Someone must be doing something right.

But Joe you consider terrorism Israel tearing down the houses of terrorists, detaining terrorists and building a fence to keep terrorists out - how is it that you reconcile what you just said on the post below with what you spewed here?

Confused.

For some reason this topic makes me think about http://www.imao.us/

"You are about to speak with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il," Karl Rove told president Bush, "and you need to take a hard stance with him."

"Hey, I know how to do deeplomosee, Rover," Bush answered, "I will be resolved in these talks."

...

"You will negotiate with me!" Jong demanded, "You will sign a non-aggression treaty!"

"But I like aggression!" Bush responded, "You're an evil, murderous dictator, and you better watch it or you're going to end up like Saddam and Osama - successfully hiding from us while occasionally sending out videotapes."

Jong smiled. "I like to be on T.V.!"

"You better like it," Bush answered threateningly and then cut the communications. He then turned to Rove. "I think I told him."

"What is the alternative?"

Perhaps fighting a war on terrorISM instead of "terror". Pretty difficult to fight a war against an emotion, though in fairness, it would appear the enemy knows how to cause an anxiety attack.

Another thing that kind of bothers me, while I'm here~
"Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less"
I think it's supposed to be "couldn't", because when one says "I COULD care less", it implies the individual cares but it would diminish with some effort, whereas "I couldN't care less" leaves no room for caring whatsoever.

BTSI - It's a song title.

Sleeping late, scoring weed, and watching Rockford Files - that sounds cool to me. Does this mean I have a problem? I don't get out much.

"The brave people protesting in London and Miami today are thoughtful, intelligent, and full of enough love to reject the false dichotomy of "you are either with us or are with the terorists." We are with neither. We are with the world."

The problem with this statement, Chris, is that while the "brave people" seem to be armed with quite enough anti-Bush signs and slogans, I have yet to see/hear a single anti-(insert terrorist organization here) sign or slogan. Michele has been quite consistant in pointing out that the typical protestor has no problem equating Bush to Hitler yet can't seem to make the connection between Saddam and even a schoolyard bully.

Are you really ready to give up all your freedoms and liberty to the group of terrorists that manages to make the biggest bang? Are you? Because that's what they really want. They really want you to live a life where if you open your mouth and say the wrong thing, then you get taken out to the soccer field and shot. You might not be for it, but you sure don't seem to be against it either.

The far left and the far right have nothing useful to add to any rational debate about anything, as far as I'm concerned.

By way of clarification, if you believe that The U.S. government, George Bush and the Israeli government are all inherently evil and seek to destroy the world, you're a member of the far left. Bonus points if you believe that Yasser Arafat is truly a man of peace. Conversely, if you believe that virtually every member of the Democratic Party is a crazed moonbat and that George Bush and all Republicans (except for a few Democrats-in-hiding like John McCain and Colin Powell) are pure of heart and should be trusted implicitly, then you're a member of the far right. Bonus points if you actually listen to anything Jerry Falwell has to say.

"The brave people protesting in London and Miami today are thoughtful, intelligent, and full of enough love..."

What, precisely, is "brave" about protesting in a country that protects freedom of speech? If they were really brave, perhaps they would go to Palestine or Pakistan and protest against the tolerance of "honor killings" there.

And where is this "love" about which you write? Based on their signs and their quoted comments, they appear to largely be people who are filled with overwhelming hate.

A Different Bill, you say "They really want you to live a life where if you open your mouth and say the wrong thing, then you get taken out to the soccer field and shot. You might not be for it, but you sure don't seem to be against it either.". Don't you find it funny that you are scared of losing the right to dissent, and yet complain about protestors who are using their right to voice their opinions against the war and our President. I don't agree with the protestors tactics sometimes. After all, what is democracy worth if we cannot voice our opinion either way?

"I think you're right. We need to go after those terrorists and get them where they live: Texas. We can't wait for crazy white Christian gun-toting militia members to strike again. We must take the fight to them before they can impose their right-wing radical agenda upon us all." - Scott.

SNICKER If the DU and IndyMedia [and the "Peace" activists] are examples of the Onward Leftist Soldier movement, I'm somehow not real worried about ya'll invading Texas. That should be brief, but hilarious. ;]

Funny - last I checked, the US was suffering terrorist attacks every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, and as for Israel, I call it a terrorist act when they act with no proof and little suspicion. As for their wall "keeping terrorists out," that makes as much sense as the Maginot line. Also, it would be one thing if the wall was on the border between Israel and the West Bank - but it's a blatant land-grab down the middle of the West Bank.

I haven't seen any right leaners say anything about squashing the protesters rights at all.
We just think they're going about it in a manner that is not only unproductive to furthering their cause, pretty thoughtless to the chaos brought about by their behavior, and quite out of touch with reality.

They get more ridiculous as they get more desperate. Shouting louder and louder and getting hysterical are doing nothing to bring light to their agenda. It just makes the rest of us who are paying attention to the actual problems more likely to get incrementally annoyed. And very entertained.

I'd personally take notice of the fact that when most people are making fun of your activities, your method is no longer effective. It's just become an art form.

I wish you'd all read "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer. It's a short read but highly insightful. And it might make you rethink your opinion on organized protesting and the psychology of those who participate in it.

Osama bin Laden has said he wants to obtain nuclear materials and blow up as many Americans as possible. President Bush says he wants to stop him.

I'm having a difficult time finding the "shades of gray" here.

It doesn't matter how brave they are, or how much Scott hates the Bushitler™ or the Busharon™. Both he and the protesters are still infidel kufr, and the terrorists are going to be more than willing to kill them all in the hopes of appeasing Allah (or at least His pants). Some things really are black and white.

The Maginot line did not go from the start of the French border with their neighbor to the end and secondly as far as "land grabs" are concerned 1) read UN 242 and 2) understand that ALL of "palestinians" aspirations are nothing more then a "land grab".

Your ignorance of terrorism, the Middle East and history is stunning.

as Different Bill pointed out, the protesters needed very little bravery.

I'd like to add that the phrase "full of love" isn't as accurate as "full of pious pride"

and "intelligent" should be replaced by "vacuous"

"Don't you find it funny that you are scared of losing the right to dissent, and yet complain about protestors who are using their right to voice their opinions against the war and our President."

I was not complaining about the protesters, I am all for protesting and freedom of speech. I was pointing out that Chris's statement about the protesters also being against terrorism is quite inconsistant with their actions of only attacking Bush.

However, in my opinion, those who would protest against the US's involvment in Iraq are in effect saying that Iraq should have remained under the rule of it's previous brutal dictator. Those who would lead the cheer for us to turn our backs on terrorism, also lead the cheer for world domination by people who would not tolerate the same dissent. If you are going to shout your opinions, fine. But know what it is you are shouting for and against.

Serenity said: "Far Left's Answer to the war on terror....[insert hippie lovey-dovey bullshit."

Do you really want to see what we might be able to dig up from the right? Would you mind if I painted the Right with that nice, big, broad brush?

Why yes, Scott, I would. If your comparison is someone speaking out against going a little too far as opposed to someone traveling around with a peace rug, then yes.

The trouble with these 'brave' (They are brave? Somehow......not that anyone can explain how they are brave.) protestors is that they have their little meetings, take opinion polls on how they think things are and then they go out and protest not caring that if the US did pull out that Iraq would plunge back into terror. The Iraqis can't be freed by the US because someone there might profit, much better to have the Iraqi people living in terror as far as they are concerned. Email their groups and let them know that the big wide world won't fall for their lies, let them swear and throw insults while you send them facts. And get a laugh as they try and distort facts to back up their flawed perspective.

The pro-terrorism protesters are neither brave nor thoughtful, and their intelligence in in question. They are the hardline Leftists, people who came out for a big party and deluded fools. They are gathering to promote a thousand different causes, and most of them never heard of Iraq until they were told that the evil, nasty Americans were attacking it for no reason. The marches were "organised" -- as much as any gathering of wackos can be -- by Stop the War, an openly anti-American group whose web site proclaims "Free Palestine!" and hawks "Palestinian flags and other solidarity items". Sure... we all know who they are and who's backing these pro-terrorism protesters.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-11_cy-2003_m-11_d-19_y-2003_o-0.html

"Sit down, shut up and let our leaders continue their fight."

Sorry, no can do. I'm an American.

The War on Terrorism, sometimes called the War on Terror is a multifront war. This means, Joseph J. Finn, that we are NOT suffering terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, those are continuing skirmishes in the War on Terrorism--a fact made amply clear by the presence of non-Iraqis amongst the combatants.

It also means, Scott, that we are, in fact, paying careful attention to the actions of terrorist cells at home...a fact that will soon have ALF/ELF screaming bloody murder.

It's a war on terrorism people. And, it's got an endpoint...

The goal of this effort is to make it plain to all who would try to use acts of terrorism as a means that the acts get you nothing other than death. Simple really. But hard to implement. That's why Bush stated, quite plainly, that this would be a long conflict, but a conflict that must be won.

Because, Chris, there IS a dichotomy. There are those who WILL sneak into a crowd and blow things and innocent people to bits to make a point, and there are those who won't. Pick one.

Hopefully, through the judicious use of ordnance we can convince these people that giant puppets and placards are the REAL way to voice one's discontent. Then people will get to make a point and go home in something larger than a cigar box.

"Do you really want to see what we might be able to dig up from the right? Would you mind if I painted the Right with that nice, big, broad brush?" - Scott

Umm... hate to introduce any like, facts, into your dissent, Scott - but like Totten, Esmay's a centrist and a classic liberal, not a "righty". You'd have been better served linking to Coulter or Hawkins.

But... I don't expect much from someone who seems to know as much about research as he does about Texicans. yawn

Let me just say about Chris: it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that your attitude is betrayed by your language and not your 'we are with the world' drivel.

There has not been one single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. How is that a faiure to stop terrorist attacks? Sure we could be doing more, but one could always say that. One may debate how to go about killing Islamic fascists, but there is no debate that you either support those who commit terrorism or you are against them. There is no gray there. I do not want to be part of one big happy world that is content to let wackos blow up buildings, whether they be rednecks or wahhabists. We are slowly but surely stopping them all, one way or the other and I am glad to see that someone is finally addressing the threat. And by that, I do mean our President who I respect for having some serious sack.

My objection to the "war on terror" is that in fact, it could be equally well characterized as 'a war OF terror, or A war FOR terror."

That is to say, if I were to set out to create conditions optimum for terrorists to spring up, for them to get practical experience, network, and find materials to do their dirty deeds with, the current situation is how I would go about it.

Leave the goddam rhetoric aside for a moment, all of you.

IF the goal is to NOT get blown up by the modern equivalent of Hash-crazed Assassins, then it behooves one to select means that may reach those ends.

This is why I opposed the invasion of Iraq - not because I don't think kicking out that regime was a bad thing - but it's a necessarily chaotic process, and until the more immediate situation of terroristic funnymentalism was dealt with, Bin Ladin hunted down or made irrelevant and the areas surrounding Iraq made less porous - well, while invading it would not do much against terrorists, but it could do a lot for it.

It's also a question of resources - our capabilities, though large, are not infinite and they are stretched to the limit. And arguably, poorly placed.

Furthermore, it's bad politics, and took a conflict that was as close to 100% supported by the american people and cut the support in half - and dropping. NOT a good plan, folks.

The military term for this sort of action is "inviting defeat in detail."

The ideologically-based yammering pro and con both miss the point - indeed, they obscure it.

You can't have a war on an "ism". As long as you try to think of it as a war, and try to fight it conventionally, you will waste time and resources.

For examples - the war on drugs, and the Great Society "War on Poverty" that was structured in a sort of socialist wet-dream way of centralized military structure - and left the inner cities of the us looking EXACTLY like they'd been bombed out.

Wars only work on problems that can be solved by killing an organized restance that is either emblematic of the people OR which holds that people captive. The war in Iraq is a fine example of the latter - but it wasn't the right war at the right time, for the issues important to us. A few years ago, a couple years from now, yes. Well worthwhile - if someone else didn't take it on.

Ends may not justify the means, but they sure as hell do define them. I don't think taking out Saddam did anything but make Al Queda's life easier.

Terrorism is a criminal act, and a political act, committed by individuals. The response has to be in kind, to be effective. That does not mean "co-operation with terrorists," but it may well mean hijacking a terrorist agenda.

Counterterrorism is by definiton a police-type action. It may be paramilitary in nature - the SAS are past masters of this sort of thing. It's every bit as ugly and ruthless as anything we are doing now; maybe more so. But it's not the same thing at all!

One ESSENTIAL goal is to forestall, frustrate, hamstring and cripple terrorist networks without ever lending them additional significance in the process. It is therefore quiet, with the messages sent being intended just for the terrorists - not the voting public.

How many times have you read of a IRA or Hamas "bomb expert" blowing himself up?

Think about it. How likely IS that? These are pros, and semtex is not at all likely to go off by accident. As long as it really IS semtex... :>

But one bomb-maker dead without him being regarded as a martyr for the cause is priceless. Anyone he's trained is under suspicion for being a thumb-fingered idiot. Any bombs he made before he "blew himself up" are likely to be carefully buried somewhere - would YOU want to mess with it?

Then of course, the terrorists have to kill off part of their supply chain and find a new one - all without being entirely sure if the replacement isn't another setup. :>

On the other hand, through diplomatic, social and economic means, you do your best to undermine the terrorist talking points. You make them seem irrational, sociopathic, dangerous nutcases. One by one, you hijack the things they are fighting for and turn them into things they are fighting against.

You cannot do any of this with hellfire missiles or grim-jawed heroism.

And all of it means that you must ruthlessly examine the situation irrespective of the political costs implicit in doing something about the underlying causes. I mean, if you think random bombings are bad things, you must.

You cannot ever eliminate the possibility of terrorism - that's the other thing, the only system that could possibly stand a chance of bringing us true safety would be a totalitarian state of absolute control and surveillance. I don't think that's a good tradeoff; I'd rather take the tiny risk of being a terrorist casualty than give up my liberties.

The average american has far more to fear from weather than terror, by several orders of magnitude. But you don't hear anyone clamoring for a war on weather, do you?

:)

I haven't seen any right leaners say anything about squashing the protesters rights at all.
---
“But as long as there are people who show solidarity with our enemies (and yes, if you are out there protesting against Bush and Blair and telling the US to get out of Iraq, you are showing solidarity with terrorists and resistance forces),”

They should be tried for treason (view it as giving aid to the enemy)
Posted by Drew [quoting Michelle] at November 20, 2003 12:22 PM , as the very first comment.

Yeah, nothing like redefining treason to get around the first amendment - that way you can say that no rights are being abused. Is that what you are trying to say? :>