Tuesday, June 20, 2006

By their works shall ye know them: barbarians and sadists

The news was all but inevitable: the bodies of the two missing soldiers have been found in Iraq, and spokespeople say they have been "tortured in a barbaric fashion." No details have as yet been provided.

Pajamas Media has a roundup of reactions from both sides of the political spectrum.

All thoughtful people--myself included--mourn their loss, and the suffering they endured before their deaths.

When I read the sad news, however, the use of the word "barbaric" caught my eye. Like many familiar words, ordinarily we hardly think about what it really means.

Here are some synonyms:

barbarian, barbarous, boorish, brutal, coarse, cruel, fierce, graceless, inhuman, lowbrow, primitive, rough, rude, tasteless, uncivilized, uncouth, vulgar, wild

The word is the essence of cultural non-relativism. Its origins are in antiquity:

...from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (barbaros) which meant a non-Greek, someone whose (first) language was not Greek. The word is imitative, the bar-bar representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing spoken a language that one cannot understand, similar to blah blah or rhubarb in modern English.

Many cultures traditionally have had terms for "the other." Even if those appellations don't start out as pejorative, they usually wind up that way. And so it is with "barbarian" and "barbaric," which have come into general use to mean especially vicious, cruel, and sadistic.

It's really that last definition--sadistic--that seems to be the most important element here. When a soldier kills, there is always violence, no matter how the killing is accomplished. But barbarism implies a gratuitous level of mayhem, a sort of overkill, which indicates an emotional element that drives the perpetrator towards inflicting the maximum amount of pain for personal enjoyment and sensations of power.

One of the hallmarks of jihadi violence has been this element of barbarism--or, perhaps more correctly, sadism. There is a practical and strategic goal as well, which is to instill fear. Sadism and strategy are not mutually exclusive, however; they can coexist, and both may be driving this particular behavior. No one who has watched the beheading videos--or even read descriptions of them--can avoid the sense that those doing the deed are reveling in their own barbaric power, unleashed.

Sadism traditionally has been linked to sexual kinkiness. If you Google the word "sadism," most of the definitions you find will have some connection to sex. Many have also remarked on the disturbances in Arab culture's treatment of women and their sexuality (see this, for example), so it's easy to surmise that there's a connection between the two.

But it's certainly not as simple as that--sadism is probably overdetermined among the jihadis. And another one of the elements that go into it are the backgrounds and personality disorders of some of those who rise to positions of power, such as the late and unlamented Zarqawi, who was clearly both a sadist and a psychopath in the classic sense.

But sadism and psychopathology are not limited to Arab culture, of course. In fact, the infamous Abu Ghraib prison scandal clearly involved elements of sadomasochism of the sexual sort, although the sadism did not even begin to rise to the level of that seen with the jihadis.

Then there were the Nazis, who came from a culture with enormous cultural achievements, one that was thought to be almost ultra-civilized prior to WWII. That's one of the reasons the deeply barbaric turn many Germans took at that time was so very shocking: the degree of sadism that was unleashed in the concentration camps, for example, rivaled anything in history, classical or otherwise (and yes, I'm aware that not all the guards were German, but the guiding vision sprung from that society, and was largely a product of German or Austrian nationals).

The bottom line is that barbarism and sadism are possibilities for all human beings. But some societies and some historic times seem to encourage their fuller expression. And the task of a "civilized" military is to reduce the elements of sadism, while preserving the ability to kill.

I've written previously about how US soldiers are trained to kill without sadism, here. It's not an easy task, but it's the goal of the US military to reduce combat stress and make atrocities far less likely to occur (read the post for the details of how this is done). In contrast, the goal of the Nazis was to maximize the expression of sadism in their concentration camp guards. Likewise, this seems to be the goal of the jihadis, or at least many jihadi elements.

And they're not the only ones who are drawn to the admiration of the barbaric. As the Wikipedia article on barbarians indicates, in a discussion of the fictional Conan the barbarian (and with an interesting connection to German history):

The modern sympathetic admiration for such fantasy barbarians as Conan the Barbarian is a direct descendant of the Enlightenment idealization of the "Noble Savage". The German Romantics recharacterized the barbarian stereotype. Now it was the civilized Roman--or that modern Romanized Gaul, the Frenchman--who was effeminate and soft, and the stout-hearted German barbarian who exemplified manly virtue. The reforming of Arminius as "Hermann" the noble barbarian countering evil Rome provided a prototype from the 16th century onwards.

In fantasy novels and role-playing games, barbarians (or berserkers) are still depicted as brave uncivilized warriors, often able to attack with a crazed fury. Conan is simply best known of the type.


Many of those who defend jihadis, make excuses for them, and/or sympathize with them, may indeed be feeling these sorts of Rousseauvian/Romantic stirrings.

72 Comments:

At 5:34 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger David Foster said...

Some lines by Leonard Cohen:

I know that you have suffered, lad
But suffer this a while:
Whatever makes a soldier sad
Will make a killer smile

 
At 5:53 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

The example of the violent life of Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith, the Qur'an, and the religious and juridical doctrines that flow from them are the sources for the key ideas that make for the savagery the world has witnessed from Islam ever since its founding.

The Qur'an and the Hadith encourage the more violent human impulses by giving them religious sanction in the service of Islam and conquest, while the Bible, especially the New Testiment, tries to discourage them. The division of the world into Muslims, to whom good treatment is owed and Infidels, to whom nothing is owed also flows from these sources as does the division if the world into the House of Islam and the House of War. Muhammad said "war is deceit" so, naturally the doctrines of "taqiyya" or dissembling and "kitman" or mental reservations are at play when Muslims deal with Infidels. Finally the idea that Peace will only reign when Islam and Sharia law rules the whole earth comes from these same sources; this is what is really meant when Muslims say "Islam is the religion of Peace."

When Islam hads been strong its forces have ravaged large portions of the world, killing and enslaving countless millions, when Islam has been weak it has been quiescent, biding its time. With such an enemy no lasting peace can be concluded, no agreement signed that will be sure to be honored. Steely determination to make no concessions,to not give an inch, combined with merciless use of overwhelming force are the only policies likely to reduce Islam to quiescence again.

 
At 5:57 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

Ahhh, yes indeed, the soft bigotry of the 'noble savage'. This all ties back into cultural relativism and 'multiculturalism', which encourage a view of 'savages' as 'noble', and, as pointed out in the post, results in a degradation of cultral advacement and civilization.

 
At 6:17 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger ... notes from The EDJE said...

This is why the internet is such a grang tool. To be able to get the learned thoughts of a studied wordsmith.

Sadistic (evil) is the enemy we, the free people of the world, are all are being confronted with in the form of violent Muslim fachists.

May God comfort those who suffer from these events, now.

 
At 9:31 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

There is a practical and strategic goal as well, which is to instill fear.

It is kind of hard to instill fear if people see 100 GitMo terroists summarily executed in return for 2 soldiers summarily executed. It just is.

You don't stop this in the short term or the long term by letting the terroists fill the battlespace of men's minds with this terror and show of will and lethality. I suppose once ultimate victory over terroists has been achieved, this would stop. But the road will be paved with much blood, and most of it will be yours if you don't respond in an appropriate and symmetrical manner to such psychological attacks.

In fact, the infamous Abu Ghraib prison scandal clearly involved elements of sadomasochism of the sexual sort, although the sadism did not even begin to rise to the level of that seen with the jihadis.

Hollywood sexuality in other words. But with country hicks and without the glamor and the beauties.

In the meantime, while Bush is going with the long term strategy, we have an extreme deficit of ruthlessness and efficacy in the short term, which the terroists have obviously exploited with their beheadings and hostage takings. I see about 3 general reasons for taking terroists prisoner, instead of killing on the spot, surrender or no surrender. First, it is for the information, most important. Second, it is to have hostages to ensure the good behavior of their terroist brethren. Third, it is to serve as execution fodder, in case their terroist buddies don't care about them enough to stop killing civilians and torturing soldiers.

As the POWs at Vietnam witnessed, the Vietnam guards got more brutal at the end because they realized America would be going away and they never would be held accountable. Saddam Hussein's thugs tortured pilots shot over Gulf War 1, as well, simply because they knew or suspected that the US would not go into Baghdad. Contrast this with Americans who were captured in the beginning of OIF 1.

If you don't send the message that killing or torturing 2 American soldiers will be prepaid 50 or 500 or 5,000 fold, then they're going to understand that this is the chink in our armor and they will make efforts to do more of these. Now the soldiers can protect themselves, or just fight to the death, but they need not have to. We have several useless or semi-useless hostages in GitMo and around the world. Use them.

All in All, this pisses off the military, and it might scare civilians. But mostly, this will mean that Marines and Spec Ops will find clever ways of killing terroists instead of taking them prisoner, if they know that these terroists will be treated with kid gloves at GitMo even if they had the blood of children, women, and Americans on their hands. It is bad for discipline. The Spec Ops and the Marines have enough discipline not to go crazy, but the point is again they need not have to restrain themselves simply because they want to get rid of terroists.

In the end, you know who can kill barbarians? Other barbarians, trained as soldiers and warriors.

As for "accidentally" killing civilians, Haditha looks more and more like a terroist propaganda project. Oh wait, misnomer, that would be "disinformation project" to be more accurate.

 
At 9:44 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Baron Bodissey said...

There is something about Islam that attracts the sadists and thugs. Maybe it gives religious sanction to what they would already be doing, anyway?

A perfect convergence...

 
At 10:04 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Obviously thugs would be attracted to a society and a religion that justifies their beating up on their women. Men go for jihad because.... it gives you power over women. And if you feel shame that America is more powerful than you, then you can easily feel better by beating up on someone weaker than you. Civilization teaches people not to do this, to bring problems to the courts and to resolve them through arbitration or mediation, not through spreading the misery or vendetta. Arabs don't find any use to the "courts", while they do find use with spreading misery, taking hostages, and doing vendettas. It's the exisgencies of the desert, trust no one and there are no courts.

She was shocked when, as a university student, she held a job as an interpreter for Dutch immigration and social workers and discovered hidden "suffering on a terrible scale" among Muslim women even in the Netherlands. She entered safe houses for women and girls, most of them Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, who had run away from domestic violence or forced marriages. Many had secret abortions.

"Sexual abuse in the family causes the most pain because the trust is violated on all levels," she said. "The father or the uncle say nothing, nor do the mother and the sisters. It happens regularly — the incest, the beatings, the abortions. Girls commit suicide. But no one says anything. And social workers are sworn to professional secrecy."

More than 100 women a year have surgery to "restore" their virginity, she estimates in her published work. While only 10 percent of the population is non-Dutch, this group accounts for more than 60 percent of abortions, "because the Muslim girls are kept ignorant," she said. Three out of five Moroccan-Dutch girls — Moroccans are among the largest immigrant groups — are forced to marry young men from villages back home, to keep them under control, she said.

A year or so ago, Ms. Hirsi Ali's case might not have attracted so much attention. But the mood in the Netherlands, as in much of Europe, changed after Sept. 11, 2001. In the month that followed, there was an unheard of backlash against the nearly one million Muslims living in the Netherlands, with more than 70 attacks against mosques. Sept. 11 also gave politicians licence to vent brewing animosities.

Among them was Pim Fortuyn, a maverick gay politician who was killed in May, apparently by an animal rights activist. He said out loud what had long been considered racist and politically incorrect — for example, that conservative Muslim clerics were undermining certain Dutch values like acceptance of homosexuality and the equality of men and women.

What Mr. Fortuyn did on the right, Ms. Hirsi Ali has done on the left. Many in the Labor Party, where she worked on immigration issues, were shocked when she told reporters that Mr. Fortuyn was right in calling Islam "backward."

"At the very least Islam is facing backward and it has failed to provide a moral framework for our time," she said in one conversation. "If the West wants to help modernize Islam, it should invest in women because they educate the children."


http://factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000470.html

Taking sexual advantage of people is frowned upon in Western civilization, but it is a virtue in gang cultures and Arab cultures. By making other people feel ashamed and weak, the Arab males and gang bangers derive confidence and power in return.

Strategy of Rape and Intimidation

Sadists may contain attributes of animals, thereby making them dangerous and scary, but their animalistic qualities also make them predictable. Anything that is predictable can be broken and shattered, if only you have the will to do it.

Shame is their weakness, and shame is where you can apply the most bang for your buck.

Some have said that people in American prisons are converting to Islam. Makes sense, but there is no hard data.

 
At 10:35 PM, June 20, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

People should stop fighting the last war, and start fighting the current one.

 
At 12:29 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Well things don’t change much around here.

Yrmdwnkr advises, as usual, kill everybody.

Comrade wasp makes reference to his dark underpant capped past, but not much sense.

The obligatory racist remark - There is something about Islam that attracts the sadists and thugs.

And of course there is neo's academic tone of shock and analysis.

What happened to those young men is dreadful. But Neo's use of the word barbaric betrays the world view driving these opinions. Barabarians in ancient Greece where the 'other' the uncivilised, the scum. 'Barbarian' was used to describe their actions - while the ancient Greeks had a few mean tricks of their own.

What you have got here are people in their own country using whatever means - many of which could have come out of the violence filled fantasies of Yrmdwnkr - to resist an occupying army. Then there are the visitors. Every nutcase from miles around come to fight the country that they perceive is oppressing them and is fighting their religion.


…and was this not a little predictable when you invaded the place? And are things getting worse? And do you lot ever think about how to solve this mess rather than simply encourage more death?

As neo so wisely says U.S. troops have been deliberately trained to be more automatic and focused about killing.

Better get those pom poms out. Come on thanatos! Yeah the four horseman!

 
At 12:33 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

oh and if we are in a Leonard Cohen mood

You who build these altars now
To sacrifice these children,
You must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
And you never have been tempted
By a demon or a god.


The Story of Isaac

 
At 1:55 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

Conned: "What you have got here are people in their own country using whatever means... ... to resist an occupying army. Then there are the visitors. Every nutcase from miles around come to fight the country that they perceive is oppressing them and is fighting their religion."

Wasp: "Panties on heads and barking dogs are not morally equivalent to sawing someones head off or mutilating them pre mortem. Or, I might add, setting off bombs in old folks homes."

How much clearer can it get?

 
At 2:49 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

I don't think anyone in their right mind symapthizes with, defends or makes excuses for sadistic thugs, no matter which side they belong to. It is obvious that such incidents are to be condemned, as they are crimes against humanity

So, what you are saying, then, is that most of those on The Left aren't in their right minds.

'Cause I've been pretty much hearing all of that from them on occasion....

 
At 3:14 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Ahhh, yes indeed, the soft bigotry of the 'noble savage'. This all ties back into cultural relativism and 'multiculturalism', which encourage a view of 'savages' as 'noble', and, as pointed out in the post, results in a degradation of cultral advacement and civilization.

Well, in the Conan the Barbarian sense, not exactly -- Conan is a "Barbarian" only in coming from a culture which is more connected to the land in the form of hunting, shepherding, and mountaineering. Cimmeria has no big cities, only villages.

In the stories (not necessarily the movies) One thing that separates Conan from the "civilized" is that he has a strong sense of honor and loyalty. The "civilized" would sell you out in a heartbeat if it brought them a good profit, and betrayal and cowardice in the face of danger are commonplace.

I do think the one scene in the CtC film, wherein the townies have Grace Jones (a captured thief) chained up while they torment her from a distance exemplifies the distinction.

Conan is harsh -- he does not rescue her -- but he does go in, and, as she looks up at him sullenly, expecting to die, he breaks her bonds, so that she has a fighting chance -- and she succeeds in gaining her freedom. It's one of the best scenes in movies of that type that I can think of, and delineates the difference between Conan and those "more civilized" than him.

This has some relevance to modern times -- the "civilized" are those idiot liberal pseudo-intellectuals around you who won't stand up to danger and snarl in its face.

It's up to us "warmongering barbarians" to save their asses because, unfortunately, we have to do it to save our own.

And you know it's true -- to the left, most of the Right are simpletons and/or barbarians. In truth, they recognize that they will not survive without us, and hate themselves for that. They project that hatred onto us and our "warmongering" folk because they don't want to face up to themselves in the mirror.

 
At 3:36 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

actually Douglas it could be a lot clearer than comrade wasp's jumble.

Also, you tell me how you think all this mess is going to get sorted out.

Or is pointing the finger and shouting "Barbarian!" all that you lot can manage?

....meanwhile neo waves her pom poms and more people die.


..and can we avoid the following words in replying. Dhimmi, sympathiser, troll and anti-american and have a bash at thinking instead.

 
At 8:14 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Unfortunately, the present usually cannot be dealt with properly unless the errors of the past have been owned up to, faced and acknowledged.

In human affairs of history and politics, the past does have a tendency to influence the present and the future. But in terms of military victories and wars, continuous fighting of the last war is a great way to lose the current one.

Victor Davis Hanson has wrote and talked much about the strengths and weaknesses of democracies, that Sally refers to. In the past, the Athenians debated all day and partied all night, when it came time to decide what to do. Instead of providing reinforcements to the Spartans and Thebans at the pass in Thermopylae against the Persian hordes, the Athenians were endlessly debating. Instead of welcoming their general home with victory parades, they arrested him and tried him, for that general had exceeded the time limit of the war set by the Athenians. The democratic majority vote that dictated that Socrates suicide, and Socrates acceding to the will of the people voluntarily, is another example of the fruits of debate, majority opinion, and democracy.

Democracy or even the representative democracy and republic we have in today's 21st century political world, is not the perfect solution with no gaps. It is not even a complete solution as we see with KELO. For every advantage that a human being acquires, he also acquires a weakness. And thus this applies to democracies. Democracies are furious in times of war and will annihilate the enemy completely with the Western standard of warfare, but only if the situation has already become dire. The point is to avoid the situation becoming necessary for draconian measures. And in this case, democracies will keep arguing and debating until someone sticks a spear into the back of their brother, sisters, wives, and children. Then they will stop debating and win the war, but that doesn't bring back the dead.

When ultimate victory is assured, the politicians spend more time arguing about who will win it, when they will win it, and who gets the credit, rather than ensuring that their democratic nation wins the war first and then arguing about it. Thus democracies tend to count their chickens before they are truly cooked and dead, and it becomes a stagnant weakness that can be exploited. The Democrats already believe we've won against Al Qaeda, or they believe that when they are in power then Al Qaeda will just be gone. The methods do not matter to them so much as the power and the credit does.

VDH mentioned that democracies are a curious mix of strength and weakness. Very efficient at war when roused, but an endless debating society of disunited joints otherwise.

What Sally mentions concerning right makes might, fails in its inception to actually dilineate between how taking one path precludes the other. While I believe it is true that what is right comes sourced from what is ethically beneficial in terms of survival and society, I don't believe that democracies have this god like armor that protects them from corrosion so long as we stick to the principles of civilized conduct. The principles of civilized conduct were not in effect on Flight 93 and neither should it be in effect in the here and now. Bush is the only one keeping the civilized conduct in existence, because he uses his power to maintain a veneer of civilization perhaps because he fears to look what is beneath it.

In the age of utopianism we demand impossible standards of perfection. Then when they cannot be met, we conclude that we are not good at all, but the equivalent of a Pol Pot, Hitler, or Saddam himself — an elected American president who is a worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden.

And in a war with enemies like few other in our recent history, the contrast between rhetoric and reality is only accentuated: panties over the head of an Iraqi inmate, no head at all on an American prisoner; Korans given to the enemy terrorists in jail, Bibles outlawed for visitors to our friends the Saudis; our elected president becomes a member of the "Bush crime family" as we worry about proper barristers for Saddam Hussein's genuinely criminal family. As we fear that we have fallen short of the postmodern therapeutic age, Islamic fascists brag they are avatars of the Dark Ages.

Second, we don't believe that we are in a war anymore. Jimmy Carter thinks that something we do in Guantanamo galvanizes terrorists, as if the camp had been in existence since 1979, when under his watch this present quarter-century cycle of killing and terrorizing Americans with impunity in the Middle East began in earnest. Thus instead of joining in the effort to defeat Islamic fascists, the opposition and our pundits nitpick and moan, hoping for media attention and political points, convinced that none of their triangulation aids the enemy — since we aren't really in a war at all.


http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081905.html

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson110505PF.html

Strength is weakness, and weakness strength. War is mercurial, as water like if not more so, than the humans that actually fight it. When people say that these things are our strength, what that means is simply that every combatant and his dog will be striking at our strength, whittling it down until it is a midget. Sun Tzu already told us that make your strengths appear as weaknesses, and your weaknesses appear as strength. The interpretation and derivation is obvious, since strength can become weakness and weakness strength given the way things are converted in human affairs. Love to hate, for example.

These deficiencies are being addressed and will be corrected. Living in the past is for reenactors and Ren Fairs.
Wasp

Nothing like combat experience to blood a midget force.


I think what's problematic is this trying-to-divide people into "left" and "right". People hold a wide variety of opinion, on issues
Charles

My counter is that if you consider the metaphysics of politics and realize that instead of being a spectrum that it is actually global in nature, then when you go far enough Left, you will hit the far Right. This includes people with different issues by recognizing that going in one direction of the political spectrum brings extremists together, taking into account their different political views. But the communists and the fascists shared more in common than they would recognize. It was like Baathezu vs T'annari, who is the more evil of the two, Chaotic Murder or Lawful Extermination?

You are trying to club a very large body of people, with quite a wide variety of viewpoints, into one umbrella, generic term called "The Left". (The same is true for "The Right", of course).

Again if you go far enough left, you'll hit the right. SO when people talk about the Left, they're also automatically talking about the Right as well. They don't tell you this, because they still hold to the political spectrum belief, but their hearts tell them otherwise.

 
At 9:08 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

As Charles noted, there are other violent spots in the world, that are not Muslim or Islamic.

This is inconsistent, however, with Charles contention that for the past 1,000 years, there was nothing wrong with Islam. Simply because, as we see today, problems that are internal and does not affect other nations like the US, are treated like Columbian assassinations.

So just because something was off the radar, like Islam, does not automatically grant them the halo of peace and prosperity. Others can argue over whether Islam has been peaceful and non-conquering over the past 1,000 years, so I won't get into that.

This is like the argument about Japan pre-surrender. Is the problem with Japan, the bushido code? Or was it the Emperor system? Was it the type of government, the power of the military or something else?

I really don't believe that it matters what someone's religion is, all religions are tools of mankind and reflect the same virtues and vices that exist in humanity. My problem is with Islamic Jihad and Arab culture. That is the source of the global violence we see. And I need not quote or defend 2000 years of Aryan and Persian and Arab history to justify myself either, since that would not be relevant, unlike others that do choose to delve into the history of Islamic nations.

 
At 9:31 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

Ah, yes the "Golden Age" in Al-Andalus. Happy Jews & Christians, wearing their distinctive dhimmi clothing, dancing in the streets as they made their way to the local Muslim official's office, where they would await with joyous anticipation his ritual pummeling as he took their protection money for the year. And why not be happy; they lived in their own segregated part of town--that must have saved a bunch of money-- they couldn't testify in court, couldn't own property, had to make way for any Muslim and, of course, were spared the expense of building or repairing their Churches and Temples, this was forbidden. Each one of these happy dhimmis was hostage for his entire villiage, which was subject ot pillage, enslavement, arbitrary killing--all sorts of happy consequences--if the Christian or Jew somehow offended any Muslim. I forgot the part about wise and gentle Muslim rulers quoting poetry in perfumed gardens. I remember all this "Golden Age" crap from the books in my youth.

Seems the writers of these old books, in love with Muslim "civilization," forgot to mention the dhimmis at all or all the Spanish towns destroyed--Barcelona, Castile, Toledo to name a few--all their inhabitants killed or sold into slavery and, I guess they just overlooked all those messy crucifixions, mutilations, burnings and throat cuttings. And why just upset their readers by mentioning all the weeping and wailing when young girls and boys were dragged off to stock all those harems. They even forgot to mention all those raiding parties and Muslim armies departing from Spain to pay friendly visits to France, the Rhone Valley and the Sicilian and Italian coasts hundreds of years before the First Crusade; I'm sure a lot of happy dhimmis were there too to see them off and wave their hankies. Better, I'm sure these authors thought, to stick with the "Golden Age."

Finally I should have mentioned that a favorite rhetorical trick of Muslims and their defenders is the old "tuo quoque" routine, i.e. you did some bad things too--lets focus on them and never mind your original charge against us.

 
At 9:31 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

..and can we avoid the following words in replying. Dhimmi, sympathiser, troll and anti-american and have a bash at thinking instead.

....meanwhile neo waves her pom poms and more people die.

 
At 10:57 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger al fin said...

All religions are con jobs.
But Islam is a haven for child molesters, rapists, murderers of family females, and insane jihadist suicide killers.

Is this racist? Hell no. Islam is not a race you fool. Islam is a religion--a con job, like all religions, only infinitely worse.

 
At 11:05 AM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

At 10:31 AM, June 21, 2006, Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...
..and can we avoid the following words in replying. Dhimmi, sympathiser, troll and anti-american and have a bash at thinking instead.

....meanwhile neo waves her pom poms and more people die.


At 10:48 AM, June 21, 2006, cb said...
LOL, Justin. Something tells me he'll waste another post justifying it.


..too right sunshine. gotta kill time between the football matches somehow.

so the reference about neo is my contention that

1. She is racist, as are the rest of you judging by the juvenile debate above here.

and

2. In her support of military "solutions" to the ongoing chaos she is a cheerleader for death - hence the pom pom reference (and the great image on my profile).

As for the 'thinking' comment, that is just some wishful nonsense that one of you might actually try defending neo rather than making all these tired accusations about the "left".

See how you get on. If you get stuck just carry on with the dhimmi, troll ettediouslycetera comments. If you get really stuck I might have a bash at it myself, I am sure I must be able to do a better job than most of you.

 
At 12:16 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

cheers for the example captain wrath (dear oh dear where do they get their names from). This is what I meant by "tired accusation"

Trolls and terrorists like to lash out, attempting to wreak havoc as the modus operandi, but do not seem terribly suited for constructive tasks or discussion.

Now why don't you practice what you rant and have a bash at constructing an argument? You know explain why neo isn't a cheerleader for death.

 
At 12:51 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

I guess this makes me an advocate of speciesism and a kill crazy warmonger.

nope just another sad old man with a laptop and an inability to construct a rational argument.

...anyone else care to have a go?

p.s. the link business - did i leave a broken one somewhere? ah well not that big a brain after all, at least the leg is dry. :-)

 
At 1:31 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

sorry i have lost track....this your biography again? more fire and steel...and underpants?

i always find your range of references a bit out of my cultural experience.

 
At 1:57 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

hmmmm ok then. i am always willing to learn

So, increasingly, in the days ahead the message will become, "Stand with us or stand aside." There are wolves to deal with and a yapping little poodle may get kicked into the middle of next week if it gets too distracting.

so can you explain to me how the Iraqi mess, or for that matter, Palestine-Israel, Somalia, Afghanistan etc. are going to be sorted out by this approach of yours outlined above?

I am curious how you think you are going to create anything other than more wolves.

 
At 2:11 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

Charlemagne--You've got me, I added an "o" but then, again, neither Latin nor typing were my strong suit in High School but History was.

However, I notice that in talking about how you were responding to Sally's post, you never actually responded to the substance of mine, which was that contrary to your characterization of the Muslim occupation of Spain as "a time that is widely regarded as a golden age of religious tolerance during which Christians, Jews and Muslims lived quite happily together and there was no religious persecution," the facts are that the Muslim occupation of Spain was as disaster for such Christians and Jews who were dispossesed, forced to live in segregated areas of towns, wear distinctive clothing identifying them as dhimmis, heavily taxed, forbidden to build new Churches or Temples or to repair old ones, not allowed to own property or testify in court, subject to attack, mutilation and slavery at the whim of their Muslim conquerors. Even to show a cross in public invited drastic punishment from Muslims. Was this a "Golden Age" for anyone but the Muslim conquerers?

 
At 2:27 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

confud you are going to confuse him! Now he won't tell me how he is going to achieve world peace. You recovered from the attempted trollicide?

 
At 3:13 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

wow i have made an enemy....and he is proud of it...which i don't quite get. And he shows off about his special forces friends and what a secret special, insider person he is....

ok then dickhead outside now...oh shit not possible because it is the INTERNET you fool and this is a discussion. Grow up for Gods sake.

Meanwhile back in the real world i think Argentina look bloody good for winning this world cup and that every time you kill civilians in Iraq or anywhere else you get more terrorists but poeple like comrade wasp are too dumb to work this out.

How many do you think you will need to kill until nobody else wants to fight back? 5? 50? 500? 5000? 50000? 500000? 5000000? And how many US and Allied troops get killed in the process? and for what?

 
At 3:31 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Everytime you kill an American soldier, 10 join up in his place.

How many did we have to nuke before the fanatical Japanese gave up?

 
At 3:36 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

wow you are pretty brave with other people's lives, but then i guess you really want that oil.

...so death is the only way forward.

More recruits for the cheer leading team here Neo better invest in some more pom poms and short skirts

 
At 3:41 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

1. She is racist, as are the rest of you judging by the juvenile debate above here.

Racism has what to do with death, exactly? The two can exist independently as easily as they can exist together.

2. In her support of military "solutions" to the ongoing chaos she is a cheerleader for death - hence the pom pom reference (and the great image on my profile).

Fair enough. But wouldn't that apply equally to anyone who has ever advocated (or zealously advocated, depending on how you want to slice it) military force anywhere at any point in history?

 
At 3:41 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

and yrmdwnkr 200000+ But don't forget the many dead during firebombing of Tokyo.

Course to you thats just level 2 killing and hardly worth a mention. How many iraqi's would you kill?

 
At 3:47 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 3:48 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

captain wrath - (it is a sillier name than mine) trolls are not terrorists. Not even close. And it is a meaningless term. You wanna argue? go for it. You wanna whinge that I dont argue right ...well...what can i do? ignore me.

However this made me laugh so much I missed another argentinian attack on goal.

The Geneva Convention is an example of civilization

not for Bush junior....think about it. Nasty International Convention limiting American freedom. The Geneva Convention symbolises much of what Neo-Cons stand against.

 
At 4:00 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

the United States will pursue its' national interest and will protect itself and those interests, full stop.

such honesty from comrade wasp. All the rest is bullshit. Need oil? Invade a country. Don't like the way another country is governed? organise a coup, murder the leader. Whatever it is sunshine it isn't freedom and democracy. Sounds more like a nasty little military dictatorship full of nasty little death obsessed military wannabes like your good self and yrmdwnkr.

I'd leave you cooling to ambient in a heartbeat and never lose a minutes sleep. aint you a nice person



and justin

1. Racism has what to do with death, exactly?
That the US don't care how many "Islamofascists" get killed but get very upset at the relatively low numbers of western deaths in all this. That is what racism and death have to do with each other. double standards.

2. yes. but the point remains as you agree, neo is a cheerleader for death.

 
At 4:03 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

hey hey sense from stumbley - breath of fresh air

The point at which your average Iraqi, Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi begin to loathe these tactics is the point at which terrorism will cease to be effective.

That point is closer than it has been for decades now.


do you honestly think this is true and what is your evidence?

 
At 4:10 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

stumbley I love life more than death

and Comrade Wasp you just lost it man and I win. Need to learn to cool that evil temper of yours. :-)

and i have been watching the wrong game. Well done Ivory Coast

 
At 4:12 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Course to you thats just level 2 killing and hardly worth a mention. How many iraqi's would you kill?

I'm a true believer in the United States Constitution, how many people do you think I'd sanction killing to protect the US Constitution and the people of America, not least of all the military branch?

As I wrote on Bookworm's blog, there is a big difference between ice cold rage and hot out of control rage.

The decision to kill or not to kill must be made free of fear, anger, rage, hate, or prejudice. People who cannot even control their emotions for medium lengths of time, do not have the judgement necessary to even consider being put in charge of any life or death situations.

To Wrath,

They will demand facts and links for their opponents' arguments, but will be less likely, or even refuse, to supply their own. Logic is anathema to them.

To be honest, I'd rather think the problem in this case specifically is that people post too many links, and they do so (on the troll side) because they simply agree with the article in question. They either quote large portions of it, or they just paste the link and say "this proves me right". But in essence, what they are doing is saying "whomever I agree with, exists, and therefore this proves me right". Their counter when other people post articles that is inconsistent with Confud's analysis, is that these articles are "racist" or a "neo neocon fantasy" or some other excuse for why it doesn't matter.

Bookworm has an interesting post about the Geneva Conventions. Check it out.

Link

I like Captain Wrath's name, because he reminds me of the reverse of Captain Planet aka Al Gore.

 
At 6:42 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

Charlemagne--You're quoting Brittanica to prove your point? Sorry to disappoint you but this isn't a high school paper. Brittannica and other encyclopedia's overview articles are often woefully out of date in terms of contemporary scholarship and contain lots of boilerplate written by academics who need the money--some articles are very good, some pretty bad.

You might take a look at recent works that are based on primary documents like, "The Legacy of Jihad" edited by Andrew G. Bostom or Bat Ye'or's books. I believe these books offer a truer view of what really happened.

 
At 10:00 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

LOL Monty Python script again.

Here we go again, and not just in one meaning either.

 
At 11:42 PM, June 21, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

Charlemagne--Lets just say that I think I'm a much better judge of what is good scholarship than you are and if I were teaching a class in research methods, which I have, you wouldn't pass.

P.S. A cursory check found five reviews of the Bostom book including reviews in Library Journal, the National Review, Reference & Research Book News, MBR Bookwatch and the Toronto Globe & Mail. To quote from the LJ review, "In a book that is both broad in coverage and thorough in scope, (Bostom) uses both primary and secondary sources to describe the violent nature of jihad conquests over the past 1,400 years. Drawing from the Qur'an, commentators on the Qur'an, Islamic jurists, and Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, Bostom provides vivid accounts of such events as the massacres of the Qurayzah in the seventh century and the Armenians in Turkey in the 19th. From a historical perspective, this book is an excellent resource and is valuable for academic libraries with collections in Islamic studies."

 
At 12:14 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

Snow on Pine: Ouch!

I just love the irony of Charlemagne using the nom-de-net Charlemagne, given his positions and comments re: Islam.

 
At 3:51 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Tom Grey said...

Conan the Barbarian is a poor example to use in this context, because (as Nick B) said, he is very honorable in a Western, Christian way. However, his honor is very much that of what Americans relate to -- truth, goodness, fair play, good to women; and anger at lies, anger against those who use people as objects, anger at "civilized sophisticates" who rationalize all manner of obviously evil behavior.

Conan is an archetypical "Noble Savage", not at all like the usual barbarians who show no Western/Christian honor.

The sadistic torture by the terrorists, to instill fear, is an effective tactic for control that Conn'd & confud support victory for such sadistic terrorists, a support for victory seen by their troll-ish opposition to fighting evil.

Of course they deny it, just as the anti-Viet war folk deny that they supported N. Viet commie victory. But in a war, like in an election, somebody is gonna win. If your efforts are against one side winning, you either honestly or dishonestly support the other side.

Conan, Noble Savage rather than "barbarian", would be clear and honest against evil, and accept that means supporting the other side, warts/ imperfections and all. The trolls hijacking this thread, are not even honest enough to admit they support victory for terrorists.

Were they anti-war folks from the 70s, I'm sure they'd deny supporting commie genocide in SE Asia, despite that being the actual result of following the anti-war policy of US withdrawal.
300 wrongly murdered in My Lai, in war -- seems worse to these folks than 600 000 murdered after unconditional surrender.

I find that sick, but consistent with the "no genocide" in Rwanda policy, and the UN's "no genocide" in Sudan's Darfur of today.

I just wish the RESULTS of the anti-war policy of withdrawal in Vietnam were more discussed, and compared with the results of Bush's Iraq invasion.

But there's no good solution for good comments without trolls that I've heard of.


The parts of Isam that are intollerant of Free Speech and Free Religion need to be fought, and their intellectual/ spiritual leaders discredited / exiled? / killed?

Hopefully before Islamofascists get and use a nuke on Tel Aviv. More rapidly, and with less GC observance, if afterward.

 
At 3:55 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Tom Grey said...

Conan being "good to women" means treating them as well as Hugh Hefner, meaning in favor of supporting kind promiscuity and lots of sex.

Not really in terms of love and commitment.

 
At 4:20 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4:23 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> You are trying to club a very large body of people, with quite a wide variety of viewpoints, into one umbrella, generic term called "The Left". (The same is true for "The Right", of course).

Also, consider, for example, that both John Kerry and Ralph Nader would count as "the left" according to this binary scheme of thinking only in terms of "left" and "right". Yet, consider the fact that Nader strongly criticized John Kerry and ran against him in the elections. If everyone on "the left" thought alike, how could this be possible?


LOL, it's called "discrimination". One can actually discriminate between one group and another on teh basis of one or more propositions and their responses to them.

It's a part of thinking, despite efforts to paint it as something else.

Yes, I'm sure there are SOME on "The Left" who aren't celebrating whenever someone from the USA dies or gets, oh, tortured with a cattle prod up their ass...

THIS, in fact, was fully and completely recognized by my SPECIFICALLY ADDED limitation on the otherwise broad statement, I quote myself (emphasis applied): "...is that most of those on The Left...".

MOST. Not "ALL". Most.

Now, since you either have to be an idiot or disingenuous to proceed from my comment with your above response as though my original comment was a blanket condemnation of EVERYONE who is on The Left, I'm going to ask a question, since I'd like to discriminate some more: Which are you?

I DO maintain, however, that The Left's behavior with regards to atrocities committed by Islam strongly suggests that those on The Left offended by Islamic atrocity are pretty much as common as "peaceful" members of Islam.

No doubt they exist, but ya hafta look pretty hard to find any actual openly expressed commentary from one.

 
At 5:10 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

Charlemagne--Frankly, I'm surprised that this is as balanced a review as it is, since Bostom's compilation contradicts the rosy view of "wise Muslim rulers in perfumed gardens" approach to Islamic history that has, until recently, prevailed. If you look at the LJ review you will see that the part I quoted is the analytical part of this review. The next sentence has the reviewer admit that Bostom's compilation "...successfully argues that violent episodes have occurred throughout the history of Islam " but the reviewer then has to tack on his PC opinion that "...it does not necessarily follow that the vast majority of people who presently adhere to that faith encourage violent practices." I guess I'm not surprised that the LJ editors didn't cut this gratuitous personal opinion as they should have.

Contrary to the reviewer's characterization of Bostoms compilation, Bostom doesn't just demonstrate that "violent episodes have occurred throughout the history of Islam" so much as he documents that the territorial aggression and violence of Jihad directed against Infidels is not just some episodic aberration but is a constant central feature of Islam.

 
At 6:12 AM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Creating a psychological profile of someone does not mean inventing their positions for them, since the psyche profile concerns itself more with personal behavior, what kind of beliefs people have, rather than the specific sort of philosophical ideals that is present.

I analyze everyone's behavior using psychology. And Ariel can understand why then that propaganda makes people tired, and why for that matter why you don't need to score a hit on someone to defeat them, contrary to what Confud contended.

The physical and the mental. If you are expert in mental attacks but not physical, then you can still stay in the game and even win, by making other people give up.

 
At 1:01 PM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Remmeber what the Human Torch said in Fantastic Four, "Flame On".

Protect yourselves? I don't have to point out your argument about Saddam's capabilites are weak if not completely discredited - about Saddam's future conduct

Again, stop fighting WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and Vietnam. It's time to update yourself to the current war.

This is asymmetrical warfare time, with a vengeance. If you want to do historical analysis, go study Sparta and Athens.

 
At 1:13 PM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Allow me to elaborate, since i cut the previous comment short.

In symmetrical and conventional warfare, Saddam may be contained and defanged. Since the first war of the 21st century is a 110% asymmetrical warfare, conducted in the spirit of Athens, Sparta, Persia timeline 5th century BC, however, this means that people like Saddam can circumvent any rope a dope the US conventional forces may apply to him. The usual stratagems no longer work, because the enemy has become immune to them, such things as diplomatic immunity, civilian and medical asylum, and the rules of civilized warfare.

Because the bacteria has become immune to symmetrical and conventional solutions and anti-bionics, it is time to now try more unconventional treatments to save the patient.

Steve isn't responsible for the safety of Americans, our President is. If steve messes things up and 50,000 people die, he can just shrug his hands and say "not my fault your President messed up, I was just giving my opinions". This is the position from which people criticize the US President. It is true for me, as well as for anyone else. You will never have the power nor the command authority to make these decisions, that is Constitutionally, I hope people know what a constitution is by now, focused upon the Presidency by all of America.

People who don't keep this in mind, appropriate more moral authority and decision making routines to themselves, than is appropriate.

Athens and Sparta fought a 27 year war. A militaristic agrarian serf society with elite land phalanxes, vs a democratic rule by the majority sea power. It could not get any more symmetrical than that.

Sparta only won against Athens when Sparta created a navy and beat Athens' navy. The US will never win unless and until we destroy Al Qaeda's propaganda apparatus with our own.

Military history is not just some manuscript you can cut and paste, and then say you've created a legitimate work of art. The whole picture must be seen. From the day man first killed something with a body, to the last wars of the 21st century.

 
At 1:16 PM, June 22, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Correction, it could not get anymore asymmetrical than Sparta's elite phalanxes against the unreachable Athenian naval supremacy.

 
At 3:32 AM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

The United States has become about 100 times as powerful with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. True power comes from the people, and terrorism has once again done the one thing you should not do, wake the giant and then use a sheep as an animal shield to protect yourself.

Not going to work, we after all, have more than one eye. With all those Predator UAVs around, our eyes are beyond counting, especially with the new generation, Dominators and what not.

What people like steve and confude do not understand, is how to solve human problems using human methods. Their solutions are inevitably, out of synch with reality in one respect or another.

If their beliefs or structures, philosophies and systems, were superior to the United States, then they'd be the superpower and the one gifted by the providence of whatever god you believe exists instead of the people of the United States of America.

The boss is the boss, is the boss.

However many times you argue, and complain, and produce wretched sickness of misery, the boss is still the boss and you still hold the same job as you did before you complained.

If I ever had to mold the US into the caricature of Confude and steve's view of things, I'd have to tear up the Constitution and institute some special assassinations for VIPs.

The center cannot hold, with such a mishmash of bitebacks.

VDH has a writing on the biteback effect if you want to know more about it.

It is simply a person saying one thing, and the opposite is true. Sky is red, sky is blue. Americans kill civilians, American support dictators, and Americans conduct military adventures for profit.

In the end, the only question that matters is, can we kill them now? If we can kill them now, don't tell me we're evil for doing something we have not yet done but are still capable of doing.

The US can destroy the world 5 times over with nuclear submarine ballistic MIRVs alone. No other nation or people or coalition has proven themselves worthy of such power nor responsibility in the history of the human race.

The US is the ultimate example of meritorious gladiatorial combat to the death, he who survives wins.

People back in the 80s were writing about how nuclear fire will destroy the human race, because we have not become any better than our forefathers in our nature. While the thing about our human natures might be feel, it is not completely true that humanity has not advanced. One of the reasons, I believe, that prevents warfare is a direct line of communication between the potential enemies. Miscommunication, misunderstandings, and wars of "blood feuds" only occur if two people don't speak the same language and don't have diplomatic connections in order to resolve conflict.

Humans distrust each other, almost by instinct, if you don't speak the same language, have the same gods, live in the same culture, look the same, sound the same, act the same. It has to do with all those ethnical purges that went on before you know. Strangers=bad news, best beware.

So, when humanity developed electronics, we proved our worthiness of wielding nuclear power and thus we were spared the irresponsible use of such power simply because people had learned how to do it by themselves, through survival first and foremost. The US functions in the same way as a battled hardened veteran front line combat regiment.

He who survives, acquires respect and worthiness, compared to he who does not survive, which no longer has a dog in the fight any more.

Any person or nation, like steve or confude, can replace the United States of America with their own version of "progressive safety". But how much treasure and sacrifice are they actually willing to contribute? Not a lot, from what I can see. And this means, literally, that they are not worthy of such power and glory, for they not only don't want it enough, they are content to snipe from the sidelines against those who do want it enough, the oppressed and the Americans.

You can't just choose one day to "become a superpower". No, this is decades, centuries, millenium in the making. The destiny of a nation is probably set in stone for most parts, depending upon who came first and who will come later.

Daniel Boone fighting the Indians, escorting Abraham Lincoln's grandfather to Kentucky, and doing this all doing the American Revolutionary War, is a good example of what is known as manifest destiny. Some people don't acquire their destiny, but others do. Israel, could be said to be in limbo, neither here nor there.

 
At 11:04 AM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

Steve,

"Gentle? Wow. How's that for intelligent analysis. Good models for comparison lol. See my above post and others for the current plight of Iraqis after three wars, 12 years of sanctions, a corrupt occuption and no end in sight."

What's missing here?

 
At 11:14 AM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

Steve,

You are lamenting the current plight of Iraqis, and mention three contributing factors...

"...three wars, 12 years of sanctions, a corrupt occuption and no end in sight."

Any other contributing factors that might help explain the current plight or Iraqis?

 
At 11:17 AM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:38 AM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

Steve,

No, I would like you to think about it. What other contributing factors could there be to the state of the Iraqis today? There are only three?

 
At 12:08 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

Steve,

Well, just so you know, my first warning bell for dealing with you is the play on the screen name so early on. Does not bode well. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

You just stated to Sally that:

"you've left out a sizeable portion of objective observation to arrive at your position. I have not."

I don't think that's true, frankly. I can't believe that you can't think of even one other factor that contributed to the current state of Iraq and Iraqis.

You mention wars.

Sure. Wars are certainly traumatizing. That is a good point.

You mention sanctions. Well, yes again, sanctions are meant to engender hardship, so its hard to argue that in principle.

Occupation? Sure, occupation, no matter what the circumstances has GOT to have an effect on a populace.

I am just really unsure as to why you have not mentioned something else. Are you really unsure, or are you being coy? Think, Steve, what else may have had a real bigh affect on the current state of Iraq and its people?

 
At 1:37 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

That's some funny stuff, Captain.

Why would you do it? Seems a little insane to me.

I already know human beings are irrational ; )

Sally, I know, doesn't agree with that point you made and the same point Neo made, and Wasp has already told us his reasons for his words to Confude.

Tell me mate - steve

Another Australian?

I have to agree. I'm done. I've wasted my time.

Don't worry, I still read what you wrote, even if I skipped the responses. Well, mostly anyway.

I make an observation only, that steve will argue with Sally and talk about G's lack of independent analysis, but since I've made two such independent analysis, steve instead chooses to pick an argument with people like Sally and G rather than with the independent analysis of steve's beliefs and criticisms.

 
At 2:31 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Here are some book recommendations on insurgencies, and are also quite entertaining to read. Fictional, but quite adequate as a primer's guide to insurgency warfare, as it removes all the technical-military gobbly gook. And it's free.

From what I've read of steve's comments and beliefs, and the implications of his meta-concept, steve is arguing basically that the resistance is justified to do anything to resist, simply because the resistance has done anything to resist in historical terms. Again, a reminder to people that history isn't a cut and paste exercise, so be wary of any specific application of it that is bereft of the big picture.

Not delving into the "ends justify the means" problem with steve's beliefs, there is still one other problem that can be mentioned. In addition to the ends justify the means derivation of steve's position, we also have the situation in which if the resistance is justified in doing anything because they are the resistance, then the United States of American is then justified in retaliation to use any and all means at our disposal to glass the place over, poison the water supply, and otherwise lay siege to the environment and people.

Steve, is in effect almost requiring that the United States destroy all opposition with the maximum of force. He offers no variation in what type of resistance is justified, so why should those who are resisted vary our response? That is the logical trap steve does not recognize. I'd rather see into someone's soul and pinpoint their logical premises, rather than go forever arguing with them based upon just what they say they believe.

If people don't want to analyze their own beliefs and look within themselves, then I'll just do it for them, although what I find is probably the reason these people don't look within using introspection.

Without the experience and knowledge of military history or the human condition, people cannot be convinced otherwise on a simple written correspondence like a blog. Blogs provide information, but information without context is useless to any individual.

I don't consider steve's rather biased anti-colonialist and anti-occupation policies in favor of the historical justification of insurgent retaliation, very objective.

I consider objectivity the comprehension of both the strengths and weaknesses of both the occupation and the insurgency. In historical terms, there are always layers to the cultural, political, and military aspects between the occupation forces like Britain and the insurgency, like the AMerican rebels.

Steve does not comprehend the strengths of America. This presents a gaping maw that no objectivity may result from, irrespective of his inaccurate historical premises.

What is embarassingly relevant to the issue is that the United States is justified in using maximum force against an insurgency that is itself using maximum force, this tends to go both ways. When the occupation exceeds the maximum violence tolerable by the population, then the insurgents then become justified in raising their actions to a higher maximum violence threshold as a response, since now people will consider it justified rather than extreme.

Steve's comments show why he is incredibly biased, and in no position to claim any kind of objectivity.


No you haven't. Electricity, sewage , health care facilities and accessability remain well below pre-invasion levels. Preventable disease is on the rise - unemployment is at 50%, inflation is massive while living wages have decreased. Billions of dollars in reconstruction money unaccounted for infrastructure in shambles while Iraqi workers and companies who did a fine job of rebuilding the damage twiddle their thumbs while multinationals do comparitively nothing to aleviate the suffering. Oil production and output remain well below pre-invasion levels. No it's not perfect. The fact is it way worse than when Saddam was in power. Iraqis economy swindled by mulitnational corporations while Iraqis starve. Is that progress? For who?


Steve has described numerous negative things in his list and zero positives and at the end of it all he says it is still not perfect, is this a reason for us to believe steve is objective since he says it is "not perfect"? How could it be more perfect in steve's view, would Iraq being a total disaster be "perfect" as the case may be?

What kind of objective person seeks perfection anyway, whose side is steve on, given that perfection is different for terroists and Americans? Whose perfection is steve saying has not been achieved yet?

 
At 3:33 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Here's some good stuff about not only the peacenik Leftists but also Oil for blood,

 
At 4:08 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

People like Confude believe the insurgency is justified in cutting off the heads of chldren and putting them in fruit baskets because they believe the US is using the maximum amount of retaliation force as an occupation power. They are sadly mistaken. The US has not used more than say, 30% of our reserve strength.

 
At 4:57 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

Okay, by his silence I am assuming Steve apparently does not have the answer.

Can anyone else name something which might have contributed to the current plight of the Iraqi people? Steve's answers were; three wars, sanctions and an occupation. Anyone else got something that might also have contributed? I have a feeling that a few of you might. What did Steve manage to miss?

 
At 5:25 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

"4. The fact that billions of dollars purportedly for reconstruction have disappeared into republican friendly companies' through closed tender contracts, with little to no output evident.

5. The fact that Iraq had an enormous refugee problem prior to the latest war because those democracy lovers the Al Sabahs expelled 300,000 odd people over Iraq's southern border.

6. See above posts in response to thatguy for a few more."


Actually, it does, thanks, but probably not in the way you think. Anyone else? One more try?

 
At 5:42 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

"Weary, Steve knows as well as everyone else -- it doesn't suit him to say so is all.

Alright, Sally. You are right. I knew it, but I was hoping Steve would have the honesty to admit it.

Saddam, Steve. Saddam, right?

If you are going to list reasons for why Iraq is such a mess, and the people there are in such a plight, you might think to mention Saddam's rule as one major cause, no?

I mean, the guy did rule the nation for, what, thirty plus years? Can we not explain at least some significant portion of Iraq's current problems by looking at the effect of three decades of control by a brutal dictator who ran his state in the mold of Stalin? Especially since we can blame at least part of your list on Saddam's actions as well. He did invade Iran (war one) and he did invade Kuwait (war two). The sanctions placed on him were for his non-compliance with UN resolutions. I will grant you that the third war and the occupation are open for question.

So, the thing that seems important to me, Steve, and what I was getting at, is why it was so hard for you see that? And if you did in fact see it, why was it so hard to say it?

Just something for you to ponder as you look objectively at the issues.

 
At 5:53 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

Confud,

I think Steve can answer for himself now. Thanks.

 
At 6:03 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

Actually, it does, thanks, but probably not in the way you think. Anyone else? One more try?

You've passed the time to spit it out by a considerable margin. My immunology teacher last semester would do that - ask questions where nobody had any idea what kind of answer he was expecting, let alone which, then pace back and forth across the classroom for 15 minutes (causing class to very often go very overtime - he was infamous for that) while people made random guesses hoping to get lucky. It made us want to stab him in the face.

 
At 6:18 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Weary G said...

"You've passed the time to spit it out by a considerable margin."

Actually, a few people here passed the time to come up with a pretty obvious answer. I did not, however, want to stab anyone in the face.

Steve,

I appreciate your gracious answer in this. I was only try to make a point about the problem with looking at something too narrowly. That's all. Have a good night.

 
At 8:28 PM, June 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Steve
No - I'm not justifying it. I use the history part simply to point out the obvious - that there is a resistance - and with all the immoral deeds it entails - and that focusing on eliminating, discrediting it and posing the moral question to the exclusion of the occupation - the initial and most significant crime - is immoral - and irrelevant.


Does it really matter to the survivors and victims who started the annihilation of humanity in WWIII? What matters is what happens now and later because of that. It matters a lot who engages in extreme violent actions and who refuse to tone it down in favor of political self-interest. Insurgents and terroists like the IRA have left their arms in favor of politics, because it was better to live in peace than in the sea of blood red violence. When people say we should focus on the intial "obvious crime" (in your view), this justifies continual blood feud and devastation with no end in sight.

There is nothing immoral about the IRA setting down their arms in the hopes of peaceful co-existence and the safety of their children. Honest resistances want peace and prosperity and would give up the gun if they could be assured they wouldn't be exterminated once they did.

When terroists blow up civilians on a continuous basis, and we have you here saying the initial problem that must be considered is the invasion, you present a problem that does not serve the interests of peace nor prosperity.

There is nothing obvious about your opinion that the Iraq invasion was a crime and the initial problem.

Arguing that the insurgency are the problem and that defeating them will make everything allright is immoral.

That would be the duly elected Iraqi government. I suppose you might believe that elected governments do not have the moral authority to decide what the policy should be in the best interests of the voting citizens, but I'd have to disagree with you.

Consider in terms of how you support the U.S troops in Iraq - you support them but don't support what they did in Haditha(I would hope not) - but for you that doesn't negate the righteousness of their mission(if I may be so presumptous.

Your analysis is wrong. Simply because, if that is all that the US soldiers did in Iraq, the purported propaganda that is called Haditha, then there is no righteousness in their mission. We didn't send soldiers to sacrifice life and limb so they can shoot a bunch of women and children, your unbeatable insurgent terroists however, did.

Drawing a distintion or proclaming the high ground by pointing to corruption in 'there' forces while defending your own from comparable atrocities gives it away.

I'll make a stand and say that Haditha is an enemy propaganda project conducted in order to sow disinformation amongst Americans and the global media.

A refreshing change from the conservatives who usually say that "they don't know what happened". Ah, but I'm taking a gamble.

The US Marines have no comparable atrocities, and you are unable to prove it one way or the other.

Weary Can anyone else name something which might have contributed to the current plight of the Iraqi people?

I'll bite. Saddam and the Nazi inspired Baathists. More Nazi than Baathist I'd wager, they even favor the same amount of meticulous paperwork for some reason.

Saddam, Steve. Saddam, right?

I'm reading this in sequence, so I guess I got it right cause I didn't peek.

While I share Justin's disdain of teachers who waste class time asking questions that don't really teach us anything, (Socratic Method is not asking a bunch of questions to start a lecture) I don't see Weary as being a teacher, so the dynamic isn't the same. Besides, he wasn't asking me the question so much as steve. If steve doesn't want to answer, that's between him and weary. Since I figured the answer out when I started considering, it's not a big frustration with me.

 
At 12:06 PM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Or are you praciticing a 'talk outta your anus' moment?

Is there a particular reason you believe he needs practice with that, that guy?

This report from Amir Taheri (as far from a neo-con as you can get),

People don't have to be a neo con to be a paid CIA agent and crackpot, you know.

 
At 1:03 PM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

I'm pretty sure Confude will soon enough provide you with the proof of Taheri's credibility problems ;)

But (no pun intended) perhaps you know better than I how often he practices the rear end denials. You seem to have posted more often than I.

Indeed, but there's less pressure recently to reply to Confude since everyone now wants a piece of Confude. Very very different from back when Confude was just talking to me and me alone. Which was several, several threads back, back to when he first visited this site to "honestly understand the opposition views".

I gave him the benefit of the doubt. You know the rest.

A well reasoned essay shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

Of course, but as Weary G recognized, just because people don't favor each other's beliefs, doesn't mean there is a need to assassinate each other personally or metaphorically though our character. Weary G did not call me an extremist when I favored taking the UN staff dudes hostage, and I didn't call him a wuss or pro-UN genocider when he favored more peaceful means.

However, "well reasoned" is subjective, based upon whether you, the person, has any "ability to reason". Some people don't use the same reasoning you or I do, others don't even use the same "metaphysical epistemology". Which is different than saying someone has different reasons. Epistemology was very useful for me to learn. Although it took awhile to learn how to apply it to human psychology and internet arguments.

I hear the CIA card thrown around a lot but not much proof to back it up. Maybe you have some. Please share.

The only proof I have is that I read Iraq the Model, and if I was a CIA operative, I wouldn't do it the way it has been done. That's a reason to disbelieve the CIA charge of course, but then again, I never believed the CIA had enough balls and brains to do anything as subtle and effective as Iraq the Model in the first place.

But, that doesn't mean I can't do the devil's advocate position and tell you that people see things another way, i.e. CIA operatives.

People who believe as I think they believe, has many operative paths to choose if you knock our their neo-con route. It's like a terroist cell in methodology, if not morality. One falls down, another activates.

Takes Charles (charlemagne) for example. He posited that Iraqis have a position of hate and fear of the US (not exactly his exact wording), because Confude asked him a question about what Iraqs probably believe. So I countered with Iraq the Model's comments about the subject. Charles didn't believe it, said that Iraq the Model could be be propaganda via the CIA or Bush, and that was it. Innuendo vs actuality.

The epistemology is not the same. Charles believes that the possibility of corruption invalidates the results, I believe you need more reasons and justifications and evidence than a "possibility" to discount something.

I don't take truck with the ad hominem argument that just because someone is biased, that what they say is inaccurate. The global media's history of disinformation and inaccuracy is much more persuasive than say, their internal biases.

 
At 6:06 PM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

But it's widely acknowledged here that certain liberals posting here are trolls

widely acknowledged by the unthinking neo-con denizens of this blog

 
At 7:55 PM, June 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Oh, I don't disagree about the pointing out. The sentence you qouted wasn't framed the way my mind was working. It suggested I agreed, and then pointed out an exclusionary clause. It would have made more sense for me to say, "Yes, of course. In an unrelated episode....". My mind jumps from one subject to another before I'm ready, my grammer tends to reflect that although I try to separate it out.

While I favor agent provocateur as a more proper label than troll, I have to say after having read Apocalypse Troll by david Weber, the title has a certain ring to it.

I have to admit, old chap that guy, I could do a better job of criticizing Bush, convincing Republicans that they are on the wrong path, and being praised for such compared to Conned here.

How and Why? Simply because, I try and seek out the true beliefs of a person, what they really want. Once I obtain that, I can convince them with specific arguments tailored to their desires and specific concerns.

The Left wants to supplant America into some super-perfect uber-nation of noblesse oblige rich people. I can never give them what they want or even consider doing so. So, negotiations break down, we get out the guns, and assassinations start. (like IRA)

If we win, there'll be peace and joy, if we lose, well let's not lose, okay?

 
At 8:52 PM, June 25, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Does anyone know when they'll catch Zarqawi yet?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger