A Revealing Debate: The American Left's alliance with Radical Islam!
Transcript of Michael Medved Show: The Left Revealed
This is an eye-opening debate between David Horowitz, author of "Unholy Alliance," which describes the alliance between the American left and radical Islamists and Daniel Lazare, writer for "The Nation."
If you have the time, read it and then comment here. I want to see your reasoning skills in action!
posted by Underground Logician @ 8:29 AM
36 comments
36 Comments:
Interesting. Daniel repeatedly says "I'm not drawing an equation, obviously, but I am drawing a comparison." But he is not comparing, and he IS equating. For those of you who don't want to wade thru the article, Daniel is truly equating America with Nazi Germany. OK, so he's wacked... but that doesn't mean that we are right in being over there, either. I think it is time for us to withdraw, frankly. But, I also respect your opinions about the war, Underground, and I understand them.
I really tried to get into this, but frankly, not only was it dull, I didn't find either of them particularly eloquant or logical.
I am not real big on ideologues on either side of the spectrum, and both these guys qualify.
Thank you both for your comments.
It's is silly and slanderous to say the American Left has an alliance with Islamic fundamentalism.
An alliance implies a close association by compact or treaty or being related by common properties or qualities.
UL, you know that is hogwash.
This may MAY apply to some wacked out extremists, but to declare, as you have in the title to your post, that the American Left, which includes me, by the way, is allied with radical Islam is extreme nonsense.
Do you believe John Kerry and his supporters are allied with radical Islam? Joe Leiberman? Al Gore?
Are those men who have served their country in the military and in politics allied with the Islamic left?
Of course not, and you and everyone with good sense know it.
How can we have a sensible discussion when you post calumny such as this.
I am part of the American Left. I do not support radical Islam or any other radical religion or political philosophy.
If you want a discussion, give us something meaningful to discuss.
When I say the "American Left," let me define my terms for clarity. They are the actual leaders, opinion leaders, the hundreds of thousands of those who hold to a radical agenda, that are actually out there. I'm not saying that every liberal has made a written compact or treaty with radical islamists, including you. What do you take me for? A right winged moron? Your veiled ad hominem will not work for you.
We could have a more sensible discussion if you take initiative, Isabella, and drop your negative assumptions. It eliminates the need for clarifying the obvious. At least give me the benefit of the doubt and ask what I mean. I WILL do the same for you. Do we have a deal?
There is a real movment of anti-Americanism within the United States and without; it is large and it is growing. It is identifiable and there are numerous examples of it on the internet. It is fair to identify it, to see what the tenets of the beliefs are, and who are those that are proponents of this ideology.
Okay, UL, agreed.
But may I ask why we should have this discussion only on the anti-Americanism of the Left?
Surely you know there are groups on the Right who espouse anti-American ideas.
Both extremes are repugnant.
I would challenge you in your assumption that "They are the actual leaders, opinion leaders, the hundreds of thousands of those who hold to a radical agenda, that are actually out there."
Who are these "leaders, opinion leaders?"
Are you acquainted with Fred Phelps? He's a "leader" on the extreme Right. I'm guessing he and his ilk have hundreds, maybe thousands who hold to a radical agenda, too.
Are you as concerned by the radical Right as you are by the radical Left.
Both extremes are dangerous.
I guess what I'm getting at is that your post implies that there is danger only on the Left.
PS. I most certainly DO NOT question your intelligence.
My post states that there is danger on the Left. That's it. Especially with the leaders. However, stating something as fact does not deny other extremes. Now, there are dangers on the right as well, but not in terms of any sympathy to Radical Islam.
What I see on the extreme right is this tendency to hasty generalization that ALL Islamists are dangerous, therefore, ALL need to be dispatched. This over-reaction is just as destructive. I especially HATE it when people refer to Muslims as "rag-heads." This type of hatred is a terrible injustice.
If you are interested who are the leaders of these radical left groups, click on the "discover the network" link and peruse it for the groups and individuals involved.
I'm kinda writing this on the fly since I'm getting ready for my 4th prepartations, but I thought I'd respond to your good comments.
Happy Fourth!!!!
I looked up Fred Phelps and I have to agree. He's a nut. But the problem is, I don't think you can equate his leadership role to those of the Extreme Left.
For one, he appears to only have one issue/agenda. Most of the left wing leadership have specific ideas on many topics.
Also, he's virtually unknown. Even before I went to the Discover the Network link, I could have named several high profile people who are Islamic sympathizers / Anti-American propogandists.
Okay, UL, I would be the first to agree that you are a very bright man, but in this case your argument isn't. The truth is most of us on the left are skeptical of most of what passes for religion of any stripe, and despise radical reiligion in anybody's name, be it Christ, Yahweh, Mohammed, Lord Krishna, Buhda, etc. To believe that there are hundreds of thousands of us somehow allied with Islamic terrorists not only stretch's credulity, it is a damned insult, and I am offended by it.
And I don't know of a single leader of the American left who somehow condones Islamic terrorism. Or Isreali terrorism. Or Christian terrorism.
There are many of us who believe that we need a more even handed diplomatic stance in the middle east, rather than the knee jerk Isreal is always right policy we have now. That is a far cry from being in cahoots with radical Islam. And if you haven't got tha figured out, you need to take a time out from the Ivory Tower and spend some time in the real world.
Isabella has a wonderful post today quoting the founding fathers on what THEY believed were the biggest threats to freedom and the nation. You should take a look. They are revealing.
GWB:
It's 3:30 am and I'm up for the third time with my jittery black lab. We have a wimpy T-storm going through now, after a harrowing night of firecrackers and fireworks. Sigh. My dog tires me out.
OK, Bear...you can't name any. With my fuzzy brain, I'll name one for you...Ward Churchill. There's one. Calling the people who died in 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns." Lessee, Daniel Lavare, wanting the Fallujah fighters to win over the American Forces in Iraq, you know, the one who is debating David Horowitz,...that's two. Should I scan the internet and find pictures of protestors who are pro-terrorist? How about I go to the link "Discover the Network" for you? Your not being able to name any does not mean these people do not exist.
The question that I have for you is why do you take it personally that I identify the fact that these people DO exist? If they do exist, and I say that they DO, how does it have any affect on you? They are anti-American, you are NOT. They want America to lose the War on Terror, you do NOT. They consider the terrorists in Iraq as freedom fighters like the French resistence, and George Bush and the military are like Hitler's Nazi War machine, you do NOT. I think this topic is one where you are leaving your senses and getting to emotional.
I want you to see the rhetoric THEY are using in this war of words. These people are not mainstream liberals; they are the Left's leaders that are trying to steer the movement. I want to identify what they are saying or what they believe and see how or if this ideology has trickled down into the mainstream. My fear is that it has.
My post is not about you. Quit transforming my observations into a personal attack on you. You are trying to dissuade me from holding to my argument, to back down because you take offense. It won't work. I wasn't even remotely thinking of you when posting this at all. You want to remain offended, it is an offense of your creation.
This sounds like it's time for extreme measures...we each need have a Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout, served at 33 degrees in a chilled glass. Let's chill, GWB.
I would like to know what Greatwhitebear would suggest is the right way to combat the terrorist threat that had been building for nearly 2 decades until the largest attack of September 11.
For those who believe we haven't tried diplomacy or other tactics, I'd like to know what they think we've been doing since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. (Terrorist acts appear to begin in 1983, but that was the first one here)
Since that 1993 incident, there have been many U.S. Embassy bombings, hostages kidnapped and killed in foreign lands, suicide bombers in military compounds and other places targeting the U.S. and our allies, a couple of airplane incidents here and abroad (one yet unsolved) and let's not forget the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
It appears to me that the U.S. has tried diplomacy for a very long time. It culminated in 9/11. What would you have us do now? I'll even take your opinion that we should not have gone into Iraq -but what should we have done instead?
Happy 4th of July, everyone!
Underground,
I have discovered a blog that I think you will greatly enjoy:
http://masksofgod.blogspot.com/
I'll even take your opinion that we should not have gone into Iraq -but what should we have done instead?
Stayed in Afghanistan and fought the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11.
Build on the solidarity most of the world felt with the US to organize a true international coalition to find and destroy terrorist cells.
Ask Americans to conserve energy.
Remind the American people that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Bush had an opportunity to unite Americans, instead, he and his advisors decided it is easier to win elections by keeping the American voting populace divided and distracted over guns, god and gays.
George W. Bush, worst president ever.
You're kidding, right? We should combat terrorism by asking Americans to conserve energy? And reminding them "that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"?
The first two ideas actually have some credibility, but once you threw those 2 in there, I lost you.
My concern with #1 is that the terrorists are not just in Afghanistan. Our embassies have been attacked in many countries. The U.S. Cole was in Yemen. Afghanistan was a start, but then what? Nothing?
Your second point is well taken, but I think that's what the U.S. tried (is trying) to do. If we were to start with - I don't know, let's say Pakistan - the Iraqi regime would have annilated us as soon as we got there. We're not in Iraq to kill their citizens - we're there to get rid of the terrorists. The citizens are working WITH us. I believe we've lost some support because many other countries (and some Americans) are afraid of the terrorists. They think they will just stop and go away if we leave Iraq. I'm with Saurkraut. I think we SHOULD pull out and let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately, I believe that will mean the loss of American citizens right here on our soil.
My Weighty Thoughts (kidding):
Isabella, I feel that your points 1 and 2 are valid.
However, I have to add that Saddam really was a terrorist sympathizer and he was a miserable s.o.b. I'll never forget the shattering revelation of his children's prisons. The man deserves to be flayed alive. Too bad we're too civized to take that route. (Note: that's as bloodthirsty as I'm going to get here).
I can even understand our going in there when we did. If everyone recalls, Saddam repeatedly did his best to bollix up the UN inspections and thumb his nose at everyone. He thought he could get away with it.
He also housed many terrorists, making him a great sympathizer (and supporter) as well as offering bounties and rewards for assassinations.
However, it is interesting to note he wasn't purely evil (just as noone has ever been purely evil). Still, I bet he comes in as one of the Top 100 Worst Villains of History.
I also agree that energy conservation is of much more importance that the Bush administration is giving it. There are even many prominent conservatives who don't understand why Bush doesn't come out publicly and say "Everyone, let's do our part to conserve." I guess it's because he's in the pocket of Big Business, and selling gas guzzling cars is a goodly sized chunk of Big Business.
...and I wish that all we had to fear was fear itself. I never liked that saying. It's too trite.
But at this point, what I believe we should do is pull our troops out of Iraq. We have accomplished our goal of rooting out the terrorists in Iraq, and we have unseated Saddam and put a strong government in there. Yes, I understand that if we withdraw, the current government might collapse. But the solution is easy: if that happens and the threat appears to be terrorist, then we go in again.
I am concerned that the neocons have made us the World's Policemen. There are a great many atrocities going on throughout the world, and some are as threatening (such as Syria and North Korea) but we can't tackle them all.
If we pull our troops back home, and station them on the borders, we will both protect our own citizens at home, and spare the lives of countless soldiers overseas. I feel at this point, lives lost are merely lives wasted. We have accomplished our mission (as Bush even said years ago). It's time to come home.
Incidentally, did anyone read/hear the news that all of our major oil companies have sent executives to Iraq to parcel up the oil? This is turning into a very lucrative war for Big Business.
(sorry about the lonnnggg post)
I think to be a leader you have to be uh, well known amngst the faithful... who the hell is Ward Churchill.
I take offense because you word your statements as a broad indictment of liberals. "They are the actual leaders, opinion leaders, the hundreds of thousands of those who hold to a radical agenda, that are actually out there."
These are not the leaders, or opinion leaders of the left. They are a few fringe nuts most of us have never heard of. Hundreds of thousands is a gross exageration. It is the Fox News approach, make wild exagerated statements and hope the less sophisticated swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Changing the subject, sorry about the skiddish dog. I'll bet the weekend with all the fireworks was really hard for it. Hope you'll get caught up on your sleep!
saurkraut says:
However, I have to add that Saddam really was a terrorist sympathizer and he was a miserable s.o.b. I'll never forget the shattering revelation of his children's prisons.
Two points: Saddam has always been a miserable s.o.b. But we gave him weapons when he was fighting Iran. Remember that picture of Rumsfeld shaking the miserable s.o.b.'s hand? When it advantages this country, we deal with terrorists.
Second point, you are aware, are you not, that the US is holding children prisoners in Gitmo?
Saddam repeatedly did his best to bollix up the UN inspections and thumb his nose at everyone. He thought he could get away with it.
Saddam let the inspectors back in Iraq in December 2002, but they were forced to leave because of the impending invasion by the US.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/02/sproject.irq.inspectors/
...and I wish that all we had to fear was fear itself. I never liked that saying. It's too trite.
The quote from FDR may be trite now, after having been repeated many times since 1941, but it was original when FDR gave his talk to the American people and encouraged them to face the enemy with courage, not to cower under terrorist alerts. FDR was a uniter, not a divider.
...we have unseated Saddam and put a strong government in there. Yes, I understand that if we withdraw, the current government might collapse.
If it is a strong government, why would it collapse?
This country went to war on a pack of lies. Shame on Bush and his advisors.
And bringing democracy to the Middle East is a weak excuse. There is democracy in the Middle East: Israel, and Jordan has a version of a democracy, not American democracy, but its version, and Turkey is an Islamic country with a democracy. It's rather more advanced than we are, since it had a woman for president not too long ago.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061305Y.shtml
children held at GITMO.
Why should having a woman as President determine how advanced a people is? Isn't it about the leadership qualities the person has, not what sex they are?
Isabella,
Thanks for the info about children at Gitmo. However, these 'children' do seem to be in their teens, and were apparently terrorists (they start young there). Of course, I'm someone that holds teens accountable for murder, not everyone does (I admit).
The reason I don't like the "all we have to fear..." quote is that it often downplays what we really have to fear. That being said, I agree that it is very possible that the Bush administration is inflating the terror to keep us unfocused on our domestic troubles. In fact, I think that is probable.
Still, I don't want to overlook the real probability of another terrorist attack (it's bound to happen). I knew it was coming years before 9/11 - not because I'm prescient, but because it was obvious. I had assumed it would be something biological, though, like smallpox. 9/11 had much fewer casualties. Still, even that could have been prevented if the government had bothered to do anything about it. The government knew this was coming, too.
A strong government can always collapse if there are enough violent rogues/terrorists/insurgents to cause it. But I meant that this government is supposedly strong. I can't vouch for it.
As for Saddam letting inspectors in, he did so repeatedly ... but then he would always do something to get in their way. He was playing games, let's be honest here. I am honest about ALL sides involved in this (or I try to be).
I don't care if the next president is black or white, male or female. But I think that specifying a government must have a female at the helm isn't realistic. There are plenty of females that you would prefer not to see, I'm sure. For instance, I'd be willing to bet you'd take Bill Clinton over Phyllis Shafley as President. ;o)
Uh, GWB, Ward Churchill is VERY well known among the faithful. This post is not an indictment that ALL liberals think like these far lefties. I'm saying that portions of what they are saying, if not most, is accepted by the mainstream that, yes, you may even embrace. However, after blogging with you for awhile, I'm beginning to wonder if you are as leftist as you proclaim. Let me ask:
1. Do you consider Bush a "Hitler?" If so, to what degree?
2. Do you consider Bush's policies as Fascist in any way? If so, how?
3. Do you consider the Fallujah fighters as "freedom fighters" defending their own country?
4. Did you object to Clinton's actions in Operation Desert Fox?
5. Do you think we deserve any of the attacks from the Islamists, in any degree?
These questions are shaped by an honest inquiry. Feel free to answer them or not. However, I do think you are a stickler on having this post be offensive to you, as if I am indicting you to be one who thinks like these left-wing wackos. I'm not budging on what I previously said; this isn't about you. You are creating the offense, bro.
sauerkraut said:
Thanks for the info about children at Gitmo. However, these 'children' do seem to be in their teens, and were apparently terrorists (they start young there). Of course, I'm someone that holds teens accountable for murder, not everyone does (I admit).
I don’t understand the quotation marks around the word children in your post. A teen is a child. We do not recognize them as adults. A teen cannot vote, drink, or enter into contracts, as can adults. They can marry, but the results are usually catastrophic. A teen is a child. Period. And the Supreme Court recently ruled that this country cannot use capital punishment on a teen when he/she commits a capital offense. Science, by the way, is learning more about the human brain, and has discovered that it is not fully developed until about the age of 21.
Still, I don't want to overlook the real probability of another terrorist attack (it's bound to happen).
It’s curious how people forget that shortly after 9/11 we were attacked by terrorists (we still don’t know who they were) when anthrax killed several people and shut down our Government for a while. That was a terrorist attack, domestic or foreign.
As for Saddam letting inspectors in, he did so repeatedly ... but then he would always do something to get in their way. He was playing games, let's be honest here. I am honest about ALL sides involved in this (or I try to be).
What sort of games were we playing when we gave Saddam biological weapons while he was at war against Iran? You’re correct. Let’s be honest. The US dealt with a monster when he was useful to us. We deal with murderers and thugs when it is in our interest. In that, we are no different from the French, Spanish, Germans, etc. All nations act to advance their agendas, of course. Even if it means supporting international criminals.
I don't care if the next president is black or white, male or female. But I think that specifying a government must have a female at the helm isn't realistic. There are plenty of females that you would prefer not to see, I'm sure. For instance, I'd be willing to bet you'd take Bill Clinton over Phyllis Shafley as President. ;o)
I did not “specify” that a government must have a female at the helm. We are at the beginning of the 21st century, and somehow, in the most advanced society in the world, we haven’t been able to see a woman elected to the presidency. Is it because no woman up to this point was qualified? I don’t think so. I think we have a long way to go before we catch up with the rest of the world, vis-à-vis having a female as head of our government. It was just an observation.
Re: Saddam's Prisons for Children vs. Children at Gitmo
I think what's happening here in this discussion is the creation of a "Red Herring" that serves as a distraction by creating a moral equivalence between Saddam's Iraq and the U.S. by equivocating on the term children. Let me interject.
What were the ages of the children in Saddam's Children Prisons? What were their crimes, if any? How were they treated? If my memory serves me right, these were the offspring of Saddam's political prisoners that were of all ages and who were treated horribly. Here's what you are doing, Isabella. By saying that there are children at Gitmo, and not being specific, your ambiguity serves a rhetorical purpose. That is to show, fallaciously I might add, that the United States military policy for prisons holding prisoners of war is similar to Saddam's policies. It's inflammatory, and it's based on an emotional connection you made based on an ambiguity. It basically states,"who are we to condemn Saddam when we do it too."
As a rhetorical device, it is quite effective for it raises the emotions against "what's happening" in Guatanimo Bay. It's devastating in that it is an improper way, logically, to identify the truth. There are rules to induction that help us come to fairly solid conclusions. You have not done that. Therefore, your comments, though rhetorically effective, doesn't convey the truth. Hence, it must be rejected.
No, UL, I disagree.
We Americans, who hold ourselves up as the paragon of liberty and justice for all, sully that estimable self image when we allow our government to imprison even ONE teenager in Gitmo, gourmet meals notwithstanding.
Those children being held in Gitmo HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME. They do not have access to legal counsel.
It seems to me you are the one equivocating. It seems to me that you think the children we are holding in Gitmo are not to be compared with the children Saddam imprisoned because of an age difference, because of whose children they were. But the ends are the same.
Children are in prison.
Saddam did it, we do it.
How can anyone excuse that? How can anyone think their government is interested in justice and liberty when it uses the same means to protect itself as does a mass murderer?
Here is the truth, very plain and simple.
We are holding children in prison in Gitmo without charging them with a crime, without giving them access to legal counsel.
What possible reasons do we as a country that proclaims our gorgeous democracy and its protection of human rights to the world have for doing such a monsterous thing?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I accidentally posted this article twice in the same post, so I deleted the original post and corrected my mistake.
Source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/
2005/06/29/opinion/
edchild.php
Children, too, are abused in U.S. prisons
By Arlie Hochschild The New York Times
THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2005
BERKELEY, California Last month John Miller, director of the State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, said that half the victims of human trafficking may be children under 18.
Children are "at the center" of the problem of trafficking, which, Miller noted, is one of the great human rights issues of the 21st century.
Yes, children should be at the heart of America's concern for human rights. But that concern should start with the children detained in U.S. prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Under international law, the line between childhood and maturity is 18. In communications with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the Pentagon has lowered the cutoff to 16. For this reason among others, we don't know exactly how many Iraqi children are in American custody.
But before the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government a year ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported registering 107 detainees under 18 during visits to six prisons controlled by coalition troops. Some detainees were as young as 8. Since that time, Human Rights Watch reports that the number has risen.
The figures from Afghanistan are still more alarming: the journalist Seymour Hersh wrote last month in the British newspaper The Guardian that a memo addressed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shortly after the 2001 invasion reported "800-900 Pakistani boys 13-15 years of age in custody."
Juvenile detainees in American facilities like Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Base have been subject to the same mistreatment as adults. The International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Pentagon itself have gathered substantial testimony of torture of children, bolstered by accounts from soldiers who witnessed or participated in the abuse.
According to Amnesty International, Muhammad Ismail Agha, 13, was arrested in Afghanistan in late 2002 and detained without charge or trial for over a year, first at Bagram and then at Guantánamo. He was held in solitary confinement and subjected to sleep deprivation.
"Whenever I started to fall asleep, they would kick at my door and yell at me to wake up," he told an Amnesty researcher. "They made me stand partway, with my knees bent, for one or two hours."
A Canadian, Omar Khadr, was 15 in 2002 when he was captured in Afghanistan and interned at Guantánamo. For two and a half years, he was allowed no contact with a lawyer or with his family.
Akhtar Muhammad, 17, told Amnesty that he was kept in solitary confinement in a shipping container for eight days in Afghanistan in January 2002.
A Pentagon investigation last year by Major General George Fay reported that in January 2004, a leashed but unmuzzled guard dog was allowed into a cell holding two children. The intention was for the dog to "'go nuts on the kids,' barking and scaring them."
Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, told Fay about visiting a weeping 11-year-old in the prison's notorious Cellblock 1B, which housed prisoners designated high risk. "He told me he was almost 12," Karpinski recalled, and that "he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother."
Children like this have been denied the right to see their parents, a lawyer or anyone else. They were not told why they were detained, let alone for how long. A Pentagon spokesman told Hersh that juveniles received some special care, but added, "Age is not a determining factor in detention."
Some of these children may have picked up a stone or a gun. But coalition intelligence officers told the Red Cross that 70 percent to 90 percent of detainees in Iraq are eventually found innocent and released. Many innocent children are swept up with their parents in chaotic nighttime dragnets based on tips from unreliable informants.
"We know of children under 15," Clarisa Bencomo of Human Rights Watch told me, "held for over a year at Guantánamo Bay, whom the government later said were not security risks." Even if a child is found guilty, he or she should be treated humanely, rather than tortured or "rendered," as the CIA puts it, to third parties that torture.
Miller is right. Children matter. To really place them "at the center" of U.S. human rights concerns, America should ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, from which only the United States and Somalia abstain.
If the Pentagon must detain children, it should do so in separate facilities, with access to family, under humane conditions that include the offer of rehabilitation and education.
Finally, the Pentagon should open all prisons to human rights inspectors. By taking these steps, the United States could begin to reverse some of the terrible harm that continues to be done to children in America's name.
Isabella,
A true point about children/teens. However, teens should really be called 'in-betweens' because they are in a grey area. You're right about the studies, too, but they indicate the human mind isn't fully developed until TWENTY FIVE years of age. Which explains my failed marriage. ;o)
So, although teens aren't adults, they aren't innocent kids, either. I think there needs to be more accountability for teens who can go out and kill people.
And no doubt, we encourage Saddam to be a b*stard to begin with. And that was VERY wrong on the part of the administrations that did that. However, we should still have stopped it when we did (we should never have helped him from the start).
I definately acknowlege that the anthrax attacks were terrorist (either foreign or domestic). There have been other attacks as well (prior to 9/11 too). I just don't want ADDITIONAL ones than the ones we've already had.
Isabella:
Gee, the children of Gitmo are like the children of Saddam's prisons? NO.
You are the equivocator. You began this dizzying Red Herring discussion of children. You are first, arguing besides the point saying that a humans mind isn't fully developed until age 21 to 25. You end up with an absurd conclusion that must admit to the possiblility that childhood killers who are 15-16 years old who are being held in prison here in the United States are being held unjustly. Second, you are equating the young terrorists under 18 with the children of Saddam. Were the young prisoners of Saddam guilty of terrorist actions, or of prosecuting a war against the Iraqi regime?
Hopefully you can see that this is over the top, Isabella. You sound like you are dead earnest to making this charge stick. Phooey!
UL says:
Were the young prisoners of Saddam guilty of terrorist actions, or of prosecuting a war against the Iraqi regime?
What were the 70 to 90% of the young prisoners held by the Americans guilty of? Did you read the article?
The majority of the children held in American sponsored prisons innocent of any crime.
And even if the children held in American prisons in the Middle East and Gitmo were guilty of a crime, why do we suspend rights we give to others who are charged with crimes here in America?
Why should America not follow its own rules of law? Why?
When we have an enemy, must we become like our ememies? Why can't we always err on the side of justice?
Isabella:
The subject of this post is the alignment with the Left with radical Islam. You have successfully diverted the topic to your discussion of children as prisoners of war, and I have indulged you. However, we have come full circle. It seems the groups that are in question who have political bias against America are the very groups that you cite for your figures.
I can only say that if the figures in the Times article is correct, then there is a major problem. If 70-90% of the detainees who are 18 and under are innocent, then certainly they must be released. Like in any hypothetical syllogism, we would either need to affirm the antecedent, that the figures are correct, or deny the consequent...that these are not examples of human rights violations. We know the mistreatment of children is a human rights violation, so we must then affirm the antecedent. But how? How will we know this information to be true? Believe the New York Times? Believe Human Rights Watch? Believe Amnesty International?
Is this what Amnesty International discovered in Gitmo? Is this why they called it a gulag? Did the Republican and Democrat Senators who visited Gitmo see this as well? Or did the Gitmo guards hide the kids? Did the Congressional group that toured Gitmo get duped as well? If children are being held who are innocent, then why didn't these lawmakers say something immediately. Funny, bi-partisan groups didn't mention anything about children. Is it being covered up in the media?
Now back again, to the subject at hand...the leadership of the Left being in sympathy and alliance with Radical Islam. Did you click the link and read the article I included in this post? Are you aware of what the political bias is with the above humanitarian groups? Does this not worry you? Or are you so convinced of the evil that is in our military and with George Bush that you will not listen? Do you agree with Daniel Lavare and want the so called "freedom fighters" in Fallujah to win, meaning, you want the U.S. to lose?
You are a very persuasive and able rhetoritician, Isabella. You have great abilities and you seem to think quickly on your feet. You haven't done anything to counter the the argument of this post, though. All you have been able to muster is that we are as bad as Saddam and his regime regarding the treatment of children as prisoners, which is completely counterintuitive, and base the authority of your claim on figures from the leftist groups in question.
Now, stick with me and answer this. No bunny trails. Do you want the so called "freedom fighters" to win in Iraq, and if not, what do you have to say to those who do?
UL said:
Isabella:
The subject of this post is the alignment with the Left with radical Islam. You have successfully diverted the topic to your discussion of children as prisoners of war, and I have indulged you. However, we have come full circle. It seems the groups that are in question who have political bias against America are the very groups that you cite for your figures.
Isabella says:
“The International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Pentagon itself have gathered substantial testimony of torture of children, bolstered by accounts from soldiers who witnessed or participated in the abuse.”
To quote you, UL, “…the groups that are in question who have political bias against America are the very groups that you cite for your figures.”
Does the Pentagon have a political bias against America? The International Red Cross? Amnesty International, whose reports the US has used in the past to confirm the brutality of Saddam’s and other despostic regimes? When did these groups become biased against America? When they exposed America’s hypocrisy?
UL said:
All you have been able to muster is that we are as bad as Saddam and his regime regarding the treatment of children as prisoners, which is completely counterintuitive, and base the authority of your claim on figures from the leftist groups in question.
The Pentagon is a "leftist group?"
How about the FBI? Leftist, too?
SOURCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/
US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/
The final case involves FBI agents allegedly observing a dog being used in an "aggressive manner to intimidate a detainee," who was subject to what the FBI official called "intense isolation" in a "cell that was always flooded with light."
The FBI memo says at least the two first incidents were known to some Pentagon officials as far back as January 2003, when a U.S. Air Force captain referenced them in a timeline concerning the reported use of interrogation techniques.
Interestingly, the memo discusses a debate between FBI and Defense Department officials regarding the treatment of detainees.
The author, Harrington, said he wrote the July 2004 document because he said he had no record that the FBI's "specific concerns regarding these three incidents were communicated to DOD for appropriate action."
An FBI official confirmed the memo was authentic but refused any further comment.
I cannot continue a discussion with you when you make generalizations about these international groups, the Pentagon, the FBI, or the New York Times.
I cannot continue a reasonable discussion with you when you assert these groups have a political bias against America, and offer no proof. You break your own rules, UL.
PS. The Left is NOT aligned with radical Islam.
I am on the Left, GWB is on the Left. We do not support radical Islam.
The recognized "leaders" on the Left (Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, Clinton, Reid, Cornyn, etc.) do not support radical Islam.
Your premise should have read, "Some wacko nut jobs on the Left..."
This is what I asked:
"Now, stick with me and answer this. No bunny trails. Do you want the so called "freedom fighters" to win in Iraq, and if not, what do you have to say to those who do?"
DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH DANIEL LAVARE IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED TO MY POST? You can try and justify your claims all you want. You didn't prove that we are as bad as our enemies. Deal with the topic at hand. Or is this your way of evading the question, create a counter charge so as to avoid dealing with the info I posted? Your rhetoric can't help you here.
UL said:
"Now, stick with me and answer this. No bunny trails. Do you want the so called "freedom fighters" to win in Iraq, and if not, what do you have to say to those who do?"
Jeez, UL, I'm trying. That interview was worthless. Two extremists talking with one extremist, and turning his words against him.
Your question to me is a sort of entrapment. Who are these "so-called freedom fighters?" If freedom fighters are fighting for freedom in Iraq, then of course reasonable people would want freedom fighters to win. Now if your question is a trap, (again, who are these "freedom fighters?") I will not be drawn in.
Until I read your post, I'd never heard of David LaZare. But there are some things he said that I disagree with and some that I agree with.
What is it with you? Everything is a yes or no? Black or white? Sheesh. No wonder you support Bush.
UL said:
You can try and justify your claims all you want. You didn't prove that we are as bad as our enemies.
UL,
I don't have to justify a thing. The Pentagon and the FBI acknowledged that children are being held as prisoners by America and that in some cases, they are being tortured. You choose to ignore their findings or call them anti-American.
Facts are stubborn things.
And I didn't prove we are as bad as our enemies? You're proud of that?
Even if we are only 1/4, 1/8, 1/16th as bad as our enemies, it makes us rotten, since we are who the world has looked to for liberty, justice, human rights.
If we can't behave with those ideals to guide us in the worst of times, we deserve no respect. We have failed as an example of what we humans can achieve.
In answer to your questions:
1. Do you consider Bush a "Hitler?" If so, to what degree? No, Hitler was brilliant with major personality disorder, and bordrline nuts. Bush is sane, generally considered a good guy to see a ballgame with, but has (being generous)a mediocre intellect. I think a comparison to Alberto Fujimori or Augusto Pinochet would be more accurate.
2. Do you consider Bush's policies as Fascist in any way? If so, how? The extremly cozy relationship with big business, including allowing the energy industry to make US energy policy (see the Dick's energy task force), his constant attempts at media manipulation, continued efforts to make end runs around the law (see continued efforts to deny Gitmo detainees due process in spite of Supremes order to the contrary), and the continued attempts to curtail Americans civil rights all smack of fascism (see my post of Feb. 16)
3. Do you consider the Fallujah fighters as "freedom fighters" defending their own country? There are as many reasons for insurgents to fight as there are insurgents. In the case of Fallujah, (and Fallujah only for this analysis) the eveidence is yes. These were not people aligned with Al Quida in Iraq. Nor were they exclusively Sunni. The cause that seemed to bind the fighters in Fallujah was resentment of the American presence. So, in the case of Fallujah, yes.
4. Did you object to Clinton's actions in Operation Desert Fox? Given the information available at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000), No.
5. Do you think we deserve any of the attacks from the Islamists, in any degree? No. But unfortunately, a majority of Muslims in Asia and the middle east do. This is largly due to our historical and continued one sided diplomatic policy concerning Isreal. Until we develope a more even handed approach to middle east diplomacy, and in particular the Palesinian/Isreali dispute, we will continue to to create resentment and new terrorists throughout the Muslim world.
Incidentally, you have just inspired my next blog post.."What I believe, and WHY"
Always questioning said: "I would like to know what Greatwhitebear would suggest is the right way to combat the terrorist threat that had been building for nearly 2 decades until the largest attack of September 11."
a) Immediate change in diplomatic stance (as discussed previously).
b) Much better intellegence, particularly HUMAN intellegence. The Bush administration really drpped the ball on intellegence before 9/11, virtually ignoring the Al Queda threat, inspite of Clinton administration warnings. They have now created a huge new bureacracy, when what is really needed is bodies on the ground.
c)Also much better communication with the Arab American comunity. You only have to spend a couple of hours in Detroit or Dearborn to discover that most AA's dispise Al Quida, would be willing to do anything to get rid of them, and would certainly cooperate if asked. Unfortunately, they don't feel they are being asked.
d) Much better cooperation with international police agencies like Interpol. The FBI has never had a good relationship with these agencies, but now is the time to get over it.
e} Return badly needed military resources to the real terrorist fight, not the one we created in Iraq. Because I predicted this outcome before we invaded, this is not hindsight, Invading Iraq was just stupid. It diverted huge amounts of personel and resources away from the real terroist fight, and created thousands of new terroists. There was good reason Dubya's father and his fathers national security advisor were dead set against this war. Not to mention Colin Powell, and much of the top military brass. It was STUPID!
f) Ask Americans to conserve energy. Isabella was right. A great deal of the resentment poor Muslims feel toward us is due to our continued support of totalitarian regimes because we need their oil (see Saudi Arabia). Less dependance on tyrants would certainly improve our credability in the middle east.
Post a Comment
<< Home