Dr. Sanity on terrorists and the press
I think this article by Dr. Sanity is very--sane. She has done some original work here, analyzing the complex interplay between terrorists and the press and comparing it to the suicidal gestures of Borderline patients and the reactions of their enablers in the helping professions.
Terrorists need the press very, very badly; in fact, they could not function without it. Oh, they could kill people, but they couldn't get the word out properly. Unfortunately, as Dr. Sanity rightly points out, the Munich Olympics massacre taught the Palestinians, and all potential terrorists, the important lesson that terrorism pays. It's been paying ever since.
Dr. Sanity also offers some excellent suggestions that the press would do well to adopt to end this symbiotic (or perhaps parasitic) relationship. But I wouldn't advise you to sit on a hot stove till they do.
posted by neo-neocon @ 11:16 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
"Dr. Sanity also offers some excellent suggestions that the press would do well to adopt to end this symbiotic (or perhaps parasitic) relationship. But I wouldn't advise you to sit on a hot stove till they do."
Excellent advice...well heeded.
As you are probably aware, the sensationalist journalists' adage is:
"If it bleeds, it leads."
Irresponsible cretins abound...
Only thing the press upholds as 'journalistic standard' is the Al Queda training manual.
Ho - if taliban style rule and law is all that is being offered up by these islamic, fundamentalist, wahhabi facists, then by any and all means necessary must it be eradicated. If their vision is keeping half the world's population locked in homes, uneducated, unemployed, pregnant and the property of males, then it is better to die fighting this monstrous aberration than to bear its living degradation. We simply will not be driven back to the stone-age of sharia law. Yes, there is injustice done in the course of civilized advancement, there are crimes and mistakes and there are some bad leaders, but the operative word here is progression, not regression. Contrast the terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill civilians with the firefighter that goes into the twin towers and dies trying to save people. Which mentality will ultimately prevail? Which sustains human potential? Which gurantees our collective survival? History shows this scourge of islamic terrorism will run its course. Responsible journalism certainly could facilitate the process.
I would like to see someone be able truly explain the liberal mindset to me and explain what makes these people so full of self-hatred.
Maybe I have missed it somewhere and if I have, I would be grateful for someone to kindly point it out.
Yo Ho,
Let me ask you some questions about meddling.
First of all, in your country of Vietnam, the problems really began with French colonialism in the 1840's. During World War II, you were under the control of the Japanese, and as the war was coming to an end you, Ho, were beginning to organize a movement to rise up in revolution and retake control of the country. Aside from the fact that you were communist, this was laudable.
There were two problems for you however. Due to some of your "tactics" which enable you to win 300 of 350 seats in the general assembly, the opposition parties had begun to cooperate rather than fight amongst themselves. Also, the French wanted their "colony" back.
Had you not relied upon unsavory tactics to ensure your victory, it is likely that the "opposition" parties which were primarily located in the south would have sided with you against the French and brought about Vietnamese independence much more quickly. As it was, the south threw it's lot in with France.
Was that French "meddling"? Or did you choose the wrong strategy?
In the period between French involvement and the US involvement, the biggest mistake that the US made was in helping Ngo Dinh Diem win a referendum to replace Emperor Bao Dai.
As it turned out, Ngo Dinh Diem used the same tactics in the south that you were using in the north. His major oppostition was with the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao religious sects, and the Binh Xuyen mafia. By 1960, Diem was effectively a dictator.
So here's the next instance of meddling, and it can be legitimately argued that the US made a major misstep here. But you must realize that the only alternative (other than perhaps supporting a better leader for the south) would have been to allow you to continue to use your brutal tactics to take control of the south.
The die was cast following the meeting between Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna. Khrushchev tried to bully Kennedy into conceding certain key "contests" (e.g. Berlin). With your infiltration in the south and Dien's tactics, the Communists were set to win the election that was coming. Kennedy decided he couldn't afford the loss. With the memory of the fall of China while Truman did little to stop it, JFK felt he couldn't appear to be "another Democrat soft on Communism". Adopting a strategy of "limited warfare" sealed the deal... the result was determined. All that was left was to determine the final body count.
The vast majority of US meddling can be directly attributed to the giant chess match between the US, USSR, and China with most of the third world acting as pawns.
If the US had not meddled, that didn't mean that the Chinese and Soviets wouldn't either. Communism is not nice to people who oppose it. Had we ignored it's advance, people would still die brutally. If anything, the biggest mistakes the US made were in choosing how and when to meddle.
Your neighbor Cambodia saw a slaughter after the Vietnam war had ended. But the United States, still stinging from Vietnam, and with the general population war-weary, did nothing. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Cambodia and we didn't even stand by and watch... we pretended it didn't happen.
We should have meddled.
For me, the most useful insight in Dr. Sanity's posting full of useful insights is the idea that terrorists always "win," in the sense that they always gain a margin of support, no matter how atrocious their acts.
Before 9/11 there was no constituency of support for Al Qaeda in the west outside of a militant fringe of the muslim community. After 9/11, there still isn't much open support for Al Qaeda, however much tacit support there may be among some parts of the radical left. But what Al Qaeda did win for itself on 9/11 was the foundation for its future "legitimacy" when the memory of its attacks that day starts to fade.
I've always thought that within five years of 9/11 we would see the appearance of Osama bin Laden as a gothic-camp icon on dorm room walls, a la Charles Manson and other serial killers.
I'll add to that a speculation that within ten years of 9/11 we'll see the emergence of Al Qaeda as a "mainstream" movement with which certain parties, mostly European governments and left-wing groups, will be willing to negotiate openly.
The relevant precedent here is one that Dr. Sanity notes: the case of the Palestinian movement as it evolved from a primarily terrorist approach in the 1960's to one which mingles terrorism and "legitimate" advocacy.
I think there will come a time when Al Qaeda takes steps to "moderate" its stance toward the West, at which point the refusal of the U.S. and others to negotiate will be seen by the movement's enablers as proof that the U.S. and its allies were "terrorists" themselves all along or, at best, as much the source of the terrorist dynamic as Al Qaeda itself.
Osama bin Laden's video on the eve of the presidential election was a preview of this approch, with its attempt to "reason" with sections of the U.S. population. The "overture" was rejected then and one hopes that it will always be.
We should be as wary of Al Qaeda's carrots as we have been of its sticks. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that some of us won't be.
Yo Ho,
You said: "playing one state against the other as we arm all sides, not to mention our one sided Israeli policy."
Okay, I'm confused here. Should we play both sides or pick a side?
With regard to Israel, they had very little "one-sided" support from us until after the Six-day War in 1967. After that, it was obvious that Israel was going to be under siege by the Arab states for a very long time.
I guess it is my day to ramble and occupy blog space. I often try to view Liberals as watch-dogs in the sense of trying to hold the rest of us to a higher standard. I try to see them as a force that brings balance in a Democracy. I see them as idealists strongly desiring equity and fair play in life. They are as divers as Conservatives are and neither side of this polarity can fairly and adequately catergorize the other with a catch-all description. The piece of advise that has best served me came from an ultra-liberal college professor who told me never to deny an opponent his or her humanity. That advice is hard to apply, but it must be applied, somehow. I see Liberals at present serving to keep some of us hard-corps conservatives from turning into what we are fighting
against in this war against terrorism. I do. It is easy for me to say 'kill em' all and let God sort em' out' and folks like me are more than capable of doing just that. Applied intelligence is fostered when other, differing voices chime in, fortunately. They are every bit as wary of us as we are of them but finding common ground is the real challenge of thinking people. Having survived the war of Independence, the war of 1812, the civil war, countless natural calamities and many other wars, the great depression, the vast upheaval of the labor union and civil rights movements and 9/11, we certainly will make it through these devisive times. We are more than the harsh feelings generated by a simple George Bush/Howard Dean dichotomy, much more than that. To answer your question Ihm, I don't think the Liberal mind-set can be fully understood and explained until we fully understand our own. Freedom of expression is indeed a wonderful thing and it is of vital importance that we continue to exercise this freedom, the opportunity for which this forum aptly provides.
Bryan - I always get a good laugh when people harp and whine that the US provides and sells arms to Israel. I always think of all those Soviet tanks and equipment used by the arab armies that tried to invade Israel ( the Geneva conventions certainly wouldn't have been applied had they succeeded, but that is another matter). How many attempted invasions were there? 3?4? I forget, but I remember well the pictures and news clips of Soviet tanks and all the AK-47s rifles. None of that was made in Cairo or Damascus now was it?
The world's two super powers each took a side and provided assistance and guess who won? Outnumbered by about 52-1 and totally surrounded by arab neighbors armed to the teeth with state of the art Soviet equipment, invaded 3-4 times and the Jews won! HA! HA! Who says there isn't a little justice in the world from time to time? Oh little Israel! while you were putting a man into orbit in outer space, the neighbors were engaging in honor killings. My my! and some think the terrorists in Iraq are going to win by blowing up women and children at the markets and hospitals......
Ho - the turning point in the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan came when the Mujahadeen were given US stinger missles, which in turn started taking down the Soviet Hind attack helicopters. The Hind was not only devastating entire villages even remotely suspected of being logistical bases for the mujahadeen, but were keeping mujahadeen patrols and movements somewhat in check. How typically Left wing of you to actually believe that by assisting someone to fight a common enemy we, or anyone for that matter, become responsible for the aftermath. We have never had any logistical interest in Afghanistan until the taliban became pro al qaidah and training camps were developed, which led to 9/11 and their subsequent destruction. You have an odd sense of geo-politics and history. Now we do have logistical interests in Afghanistan due to the democratization there, but more importantly, to stay on the flank of Iran as they seek to become a nuclear power. Using your logic, we would have stepped in immediately once the Soviets left.
Sure we had a relationship with the taliban. Can you guess why? To keep the heroin focused more on the Asian markets and less on Europe, our allies. That is the Pakistani connection to Afghanistan by the way. The taliban shouldn't have gotten in bed with bin laden - now they are trapped in the Paki frontier caught between Musharraf on one side and the US on the other side. That's the price one pays for double dealing against the US. The same goes for saddam hussein, who is going to be hanged and his execution televised to the world. Another 3rd worlder fighting a common enemy, Iran, but something tells me you think the US should have just turned the other cheek to Khomeni, right? Anyway, saddam thought he could equal Saudi Arabia in power and influence if he just had more oil. He actually had trans-arab dreams - can you imagine that? Sort of like our concept of manifest destiny, wouldn't you say, Ho? Funny isn't it how in nature and human affairs, some nations are just plain dominant and others are not. How typically Left of you to believe some nations should have this status, but not America. What do you have left on the board, Ho?
The UN is about discredited, the EU is falling apart and Europe's overall economy is not exactly robust. All you have is China, but don't you suppose Japan will go nuclear very soon? It would be in our interest, wouldn't it? Somebody has to be a winner, Ho, it may as well be the US. You must have ulcers as you go to the library and study US history trying to figure out how we manage to exist and grow. Good luck and happy reading!
Ho,
State sponsored terrorism? What are you talking about? The only terrorists are those who would send missles into the buildings of their enemies even when those buildings might have some civiians in them at the time. The U.S. would never do that, would they?
Yo Ho,
Sorry I've missed so much of the conversation. I don't post on the weekend.
I'd like to make a few points:
First, regardless how Ho Chi Minh became a communist, and regardless how many people he killed in the process of seizing control, the fact remains that the only reason the United States became involved in the '60s is because he was communist. Kennedy would not allow himself to APPEAR to be another Democrat soft on Communism ala Truman and China.
Second, while you are free to assert your belief that everything Ho did was for the good of Vietnam, in 1925 he betrayed Phan Boi Chau to the French for 10,000 Hong Kong dollars. (Phan Boi Chau, a fellow communist, advocated peaceful independence from France)
You assert that the OSS had Ho released in 1942. Actually, Nguyen Hai Than requested Chang Kai Sheik to release Ho and he did. It is possible that you are correct and that I am not as much of Ho's "official" biography is manufactured to be more hero-like.
You said: "I disagree that Northern Vietnam used the same tactics as Ngo Diem in the south. They didn't have too. Most of the Catholics had already regrouped to the southern Geneva cease-fire zone before Ho took control."
15,000 Catholics were executed in North Vietnam between 1954 and 1956, the years Ho was consolidating his power. This might explain why Catholics had regrouped in the south.
But it wasn't just Catholics going south. By 1955, over 1,000,000 people had fled the peoples "paradise".
You said: "The people of Vietnam opposed capitalism and we weren't very nice to them either."
More correctly, a minority of the people of Vietnam opposed capitalism, executed and/or terrorized their opposition, and seized control of the country regardless of what the rest wanted.
Finally, one last point, you have repeatedly mentioned that Ho appealed to the US for help against the French while lambasting the US for meddling in foreign affairs. The simple fact of the matter is that Wilson didn't think that Vietnam was worth going up against the French, and neither did Truman. Kennedy was afraid of being labeled soft on communism and then he and Johnson proceeded to mismanage the war they got us into.
Yo Ho,
You said: "National Socialism, although resembling eastern socialism in many ways, rejected the class element of bolshevism.... Therefore one big class, a national class, everyone together for everyone's interests."
You are a little off base here. National Socialism is Socialism with a Nationalist flavor.
Hitler was a National Socialist.
Ho Chi Minh was a National Socialist.
The single-class socialism you refer to is a pipe dream that has never occured in history (except for a few failed settlements in the early American colonies). The inherent problem with socialism is that the guy who decides that it is the way to go always sets himself above everybody else. You wind up with two classes, the Ruling Class and the Everybody Else Class. How is that any better than Fuedalism?
Remember the line from The Holy Grail...
"He must be a King."
"How can you tell?"
"He isn't all covered in shit."
People start to notice when the Ruling Class isn't as equally miserable as the Everybody Else Class. Some people get ideas. Some people start to talk. If you want to stay in the Ruling Class, you have to take steps. The steps are usually fatal to someone.
By the way, just as an aside, Memorandum (nt) in German is an imported word and does not have an umlaut over the 'O'. Also, it is a noun so Memo should be capitalized. Your usage was correct for political memos. Business memos are Mitteilung (f).
Yo Ho,
You said: "..Did you know 78% per cent of German's DIDN'T vote for Hitler in his last, Nov. 1932 election.
How was he made Chancellor then?"
In the first round of the election, 62% of the votes went to other candidates (not 72%). The second round was necessary because Paul von Hindenburg did not get at least 50% of the vote.
In the second round, 73.2% voted for one of the two other candidates. Note that while Hindenburg did manage to garner 53% of the vote, 47% of the vote went to some sort of socialism (either the National Socialists or the Communists).
This is actually how Hitler became Chancellor. As an appeasment, Hindenburg APPOINTED Hitler to the position.
One final note, In 1925 Hindenburg was a far right candidate who was strenuously opposed by the left and the center. In 1932, most of the center and even some of the left supported him to prevent Hitler's election.
Post a Comment
<< Home