The people who denounce the violence of Islam live in countries whose governments unleash more violence than anyone else by far.
Barack Obama, in his post-election press conference yesterday, announced that he would seek an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from the new Congress, one that would authorize Obama’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria—the one he began three months ago. If one were being generous, one could say that seeking congressional authorization for a war that commenced months ago is at least better than fighting a war even after Congress explicitly rejected its authorization, as Obama lawlessly did in the now-collapsed country of Libya.
When Obama began bombing targets inside Syria in September, I noted that it was the seventh predominantly Muslim country that had been bombed by the U.S. during his presidency (that did not count Obama’s bombing of the Muslim minority in the Philippines). I also previously noted that this new bombing campaign meant that Obama had become the fourth consecutive U.S. President to order bombs dropped on Iraq. Standing alone, those are both amazingly revealing facts. American violence is so ongoing and continuous that we barely notice it any more. Just this week, a U.S. drone launched a missile that killed 10 people in Yemen, and the dead were promptly labeled “suspected militants” (which actually just means they are “military-age males”); those killings received almost no discussion.
To get a full scope of American violence in the world, it is worth asking a broader question: how many countries in the Islamic world has the U.S. bombed or occupied since 1980? That answer was provided in a recent Washington Post op-ed by the military historian and former U.S. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich:
As America’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State militants extent into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV. That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980.
Let’s tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew.
Bacevich’s count excludes the bombing and occupation of still other predominantly Muslim countries by key U.S. allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, carried out with crucial American support. It excludes coups against democratically elected governments, torture, and imprisonment of people with no charges. It also, of course, excludes all the other bombing and invading and occupying that the U.S. has carried out during this time period in other parts of the world, including in Central America and the Caribbean, as well as various proxy wars in Africa.
There is an awful lot to be said about the factions in the west which devote huge amounts of their time and attention to preaching against the supreme primitiveness and violence of Muslims. There are no gay bars in Gaza, the obsessively anti-Islam polemicists proclaim—as though that (rather than levels of violence and aggression unleashed against the world) is the most important metric for judging a society. Reflecting their single-minded obsession with demonizing Muslims (at exactly the same time, coincidentally, their governments wage a never-ending war on Muslim countries and their societies marginalize Muslims), they notably neglect to note thriving gay communities in places like Beirut and Istanbul, or the lack of them in Christian Uganda. Employing the defining tactic of bigotry, they love to highlight the worst behavior of individual Muslims as a means of attributing it to the group as a whole, while ignoring (often expressly) the worst behavior of individual Jews and/or their own groups (they similarly cite the most extreme precepts of Islam while ignoring similarly extreme ones from Judaism). That’s because, as Rula Jebreal told Bill Maher last week, if these oh-so-brave rationality warriors said about Jews what they say about Muslims, they’d be fired.
But of all the various points to make about this group, this is always the most astounding: those same people, who love to denounce the violence of Islam as some sort of ultimate threat, live in countries whose governments unleash far more violence, bombing, invasions, and occupations than anyone else by far. That is just a fact.
Those who sit around in the U.S. or the U.K. endlessly inveighing against the evil of Islam, depicting it as the root of violence and evil (the “mother lode of bad ideas“), while spending very little time on their own societies’ addictions to violence and aggression, or their own religious and nationalistic drives, have reached the peak of self-blinding tribalism. They really are akin to having a neighbor down the street who constantly murders, steals and pillages, and then spends his spare time flamboyantly denouncing people who live thousands of miles away for their bad acts. Such a person would be regarded as pathologically self-deluded, a term that also describes those political and intellectual factions which replicate that behavior.
The sheer casualness with which Obama yesterday called for a new AUMF is reflective of how central, how commonplace, violence and militarism are in the U.S.’s imperial management of the world. That some citizens of that same country devote themselves primarily if not exclusively to denouncing the violence and savagery of others is a testament to how powerful and self-blinding tribalism is as a human drive.
Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
The term “tribalism” really nails it! Humanity hasn’t evolved ethically, but only in respect to technology – a dangerous discrepancy!
Add to the wars all these Free Trade Agreements. Or should I better say nations which don’t agree to a FTA are waged war on? I’ve heard that the Iraq did not agree to the petro dollar. Maybe someone has some information about this.
Here’s a survey of the FTAs: short, clear & understandable.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27167-before-the-zombie-apocalypse-these-four-trade-deals-were-ravaging-the-world
http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm
Thx a lot for the insightful link!
So much for the currency, but I have the impression the European Union is in the grip of Big Brother.
A survey by IPSOS-MORI of 14 developed nations found that Americans ranked 2nd after Italy as the most ignorant nation. Sweden was the most informed. Congratulations all. Now here’s a question:
Is there a correlation between this finding and the billion wars we wage on others? Note that Sweden on the hand has not invaded anyone lately (unless I am ignorant otherwise).
Interesting information!
The USA seems to be right back in the Middle Ages: the crusaders. The videos are from 2009, but the people in power haven’t got wiser in the meantime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL39802699BACCA1B1&v=_FyRZJPB2hw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2EwePZ6n0M&index=4&list=PL39802699BACCA1B1
Really? Now, of course it is true that the US has bombed countless of countries and some of these bombings most likely constitute war crimes, but it’s still about what Maher and Harris said? First Maher called the US out on bombing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGM41C_MlXg) Muslim countries and btw he lost his job at a show called “Politically incorrect” over saying after 9/11 “We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You’re right.” And still? I didn’t agree with his broad critic of Islam, but he wasn’t completely off target either, neither was Jebreal completely on target. And really? “Oh gay people not getting to live their life isn’t important, look at the US bombing” I guess you skipped the part where they taught that injustices don’t offset each other, they only ever add up. Gay rights and women rights are important and criticizing a sizeable portion of the Muslim world (or Eastern Europe or large parts of Africa on the gay rights issue for that matter) is warranted.
Building A Better Syrian Opposition Army
‘The How and Why’
Kenneth M. Pollack (Brookings)
[snip]
The Bottom Line:
‘Added to the costs of building the new Syrian Army itself, these estimates suggest a total annual price tag of anywhere from $3 billion to about $22 billion per year, with the size of the air campaign furnishing the greatest variable. For comparison, Afghanistan has cost the United States roughly $45 billion per year since 2001 and Iraq cost about $100 billion per year between 2003 and 2011.
Of course, it is important to note that the costs would probably ebb and flow from year to year. They would probably start out low since the only cost would be the covert training, organizing and equipping of the initial contingent of the new Syrian army. Over time, the price tag would grow as the force grew, as it occupied Syrian territory (necessitating non-lethal aid as well) and as U.S. air power were called on to support its operations. Historically, however, air campaigns typically start out very intense and then taper off to reduced levels as the initial resistance is broken. One reasonable scenario would see the United States spend about $1 billion in the first year (purely to build the initial cadre of the new Syrian Army), as much as $18 billion in the second year after the force moves into Syria under a fairly intense U.S. air campaign and continues to expand, dropping to about $11 billion the next year as the requirements for air power recede and civilian costs climb, and then stabilizing at about $8 billion per year after that (mostly for security and civilian assistance with some modest air support). That scenario yields an average of $9 billion per year for 5 years. Of course other scenarios, with higher or lower or comparable costs are easy to generate..’
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2014/10/building%20syrian%20opposition%20army%20pollack/Building%20a%20Better%20Syrian%20Armyweb.pdf
“It is likely that we could count on American allies in Europe, the Far East and especially the Persian Gulf to pay for much or even all of the costs.”
US policy toward Iraq as of November 2014:
Military support: train Iraqi soldiers in the US and in Iraq. Provide on the ground intelligence support and direct combat support through the bombing of ISIL targets as requested by the elected government of Iraq and the Kurdish authorities. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Or?
Humanitarian support: direct support to refugees displaced as a direct result of ISIL activities. Financing refugee camps, provide shelter, water, food, sanitation at the request of United Nations, the elected government of Iraq and the Kurdish authorities. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Or?
Economic support: Iraq is part of the US Generalized System of Preference. Certain Iraqi products get preferential custom treatments when imported to the US and US companies willing to invest in Iraq get technical and financial support. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Or?
This is somewhat in response to some of my exchanges below, but rather than bury it in the thread thought I’d just do a new post. I thought this was a timely article and gets at some of my frustration when ‘peacekeeping’ is discussed, in pop culture, as “Keeping peace in Israel-Gaza and Iraq”:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-power/on-peacekeeping_b_6124822.html
Peacekeeping is such a huge global issue and, possibly, will be one of the defining issues of our time. We’ve never lived in a world that was this globalized before and in some very real way we’ll see these dynamics play out for the first time. I think there’s a lot to be said about this. It’s self-evident, to me, that places riddled with violence, oppression, rape, amputations, child soldiers, etc., are a hell on Earth that none of us should want. That said, there are some less tangible issues in the mix, i.e., when Ambassador Power says this:
“But for more than twenty years, peacekeeping has steadily evolved, and we must question how relevant these principles remain to places like Mali and South Sudan, where peacekeepers are called on to defend peace and protect civilians. As Ethiopia’s Prime Minister recently argued, we cannot ask extremist groups for their “consent,” remain “impartial” between legitimate governments and brutal militias, or restrict peacekeepers to using force in self-defense while mass atrocities are taking place around them.”
I agree in large part with this, but to me this looks like the beginning of a transition into something resembling global justice. And that’s such a huge societal (global) conversation – how is that going to work? How are legitimate avenues of revolution against tyrannical regimes in the world going to be preserved and who’s going to judge and delineate those groups from “brutal militias”? Who’s going to pay for this and how will international consensus on issues be decided upon and maintained?
Just look at how difficult it is now, when , even in places where it is obvious who the bad guys are, we have such opposition to us asserting our “world police” authority from so many corners of different political ideology ! In this day and age, even when we have an obvious enemy of humanity, we have trouble getting much real support for dealing with them.
It wouldn’t matter if I was sittin in front of the tube or behind my cell phone cause its no illusion that wherever I go there is a fight for my freedom an I’m in it.
Brilliant article…thanks.
Being a German citizen I feel ashamed about the German government actively supporting the violent US attacks (mainly drone attacks) from German territory (base in Ramstein). We as voters have no power any more. The real power is in the hand of secret services, economists and mainly what is called the “financial industry”.
In a nutshell we are told to live in a democracy but actually live in a plutocracy.
Why US and Israel wants to ban this video…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5XlEZoi1c
Not enough?
A closer look at the strategy in Iraq:
“the “good news” is that IS has not yet taken control of much of the rest of Iraq and Syria, and that Baghdad hasn’t been lost. These possibilities, however, were unlikely even without US intervention.”
Any military professionals on the ground to back up that claim?
“Washington might “win” in the IS-besieged Kurdish town of Kobane, right on the Turkish border. If so, it will be a fauxvictory guaranteed to accomplish nothing of substance.”
Is it really Washington that might win or the Kurds in that city who have been fighting invaders responsible for thousands of displaced inhabitants?
“Unlike the US, the Islamic State has a coherent strategy and it has the initiative. Its militants have successfully held and administered territory over time.”
Is it the opinion of military professionals from the ground?
The Pentagon seems to believe that the strategy is lacking:
One general’s solution for Iraq/Afghanistan: Should have never stayed in the first place.
General Dan Bolger says what the US does not want to hear: Why We Lost
(Bolding mine)
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/10/general-dan-bolger-iraq-afghanistan-why-we-lost
Yes, we got it. The US failed, Afghanistan is worse than it was under the Taliban, and thanks to the US, Syria and Iraq are a mess. Your point has been made. The US has the worst foreign policy one can imagine. So, tell us what the US should do now (November, 2014) to fix it?
Don’t feel badly; the Afghans are the world’s foremost experts at inducing other countries to invade and then milking them for all they’re worth. The local rulers do this by demanding payments to ‘keep the peace’ between the various feuding warlords. Eventually the invader grows tired of this game and leaves, and the Afghans repeat the process all over again.
Sometimes they do more than milk invaders, as the late Maj-Gen Sir William Elphinstone could testify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul
Well according to the article, the British made a crucial mistake:
Now that we see both Coram and Benito in the same room, it’s clear they’re not the same person.
There’s also this lady, who has her grandfather’s mouth, eyes and jaw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Mussolini#mediaviewer/File:Alessandra_Mussolini.jpg
Now that would be one helluva atavar.
I should say a word …or two. It can get much, much ‘worse’ than you imagine, Steb.
The US isn’t very good at nation building, but no one is perfect. However, it’s really good at training other nations how to fight Americans; it should really focus on its strong points. Like many individuals who are actually very successful, the US spends too much time obsessing over its failures.
Concur. Have gotten hold of Bolger’s book and it’s worth a read. Also recommend “@War” by Shane Harris and “Out of the Mountains” by David Kilcullen as current and perceptive analysis of present-day conflict. Lt. Gen. Bolger’s mea-culpa is certainly on point, given our imminent re-entry into Operation Iraqi Freedom. His point is that we already lost two wars — Iraq and Afghanistan — and here we are, ready to lose the Iraq war twice.
Two wars and three stars. Coram nobis says check it out.
Steb 09 Nov 2014 at 9:27 pm
1. This Sunni Shia conflict may be 1400 years old, but there have been long periods of peace between them in that region.
2. Saudi Arabia can at least stop fuelling this conflict. And their fuelling is not limited to Iraq. They are doing it in other parts of the world too.
3. Does Iraq even exist? “Can Iraq Survive?”, at http://www.aliallawi.com/videos.php#canIraqSurvive
Saudia is an important proxy state that is incapable of fueling anything without being actively urged to do so by those who profit the most by keeping the region in a perpetual state of turmoil.
Here a friend describes his assessment of US foreign policy as a ‘collapse of trust’ …
‘Gorbi’, as Gorbachev is affectionately known in Germany and a harsh critic of Putin in the past, also urged western leaders to “carefully consider” the Russian President’s remarks at the Valdai forum: ““Despite the harshness of his criticism of the west, and of the United States in particular, I see in his speech a desire to find a way to lower tensions and ultimately to build a new basis for partnership.””
Of course, your quote of “Gorby” carefully avoided mentioning the illegal annexation of the Crimea Peninsula and the Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine – not to mention his country’s role in propping up the murderer Assad. I know……Details.
Sry (forgot the link) … ‘Gorbi’ supports Putin’s position in Ukraine http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/08/gorbachev-cold-war-threat-berlin-wall-25th-anniversary
Thanks.
Henry Kissinger himself acknowledges that Crémiahas been historically part of Russia.
Really? Who the fuck cares what Kissinger says? The annexing of Crimea was illegal under international law and violated the Soviet…..uh Russia’s own agreement with Ukraine in 1994 recognizing the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
You will derive comfort in knowing that Henry Kissinger could care less about your opinion of him. He drew his comments from an historical record dating back to the 10th century if not before, that establishes Crimea as part of Russia…
@ Pat B
Does it mean an annexation of Alaska by Russia would be right? I am not sure what your point is. You just want to report what Kissinger said or ….?
You are comparing apples and oranges. Alaska is not Crimea. The histories of the two places are different. Lastly, the mention of Kissinger is not intended to hold him as the focal point of the discussion but to highlight what he merely repeated from an existing historical record.
We will post pone any further intrusions while we await the outcome of Lauren’s liberation process. Be advises she is in questrstion for attempting to outrun state police.
This is news to Lauren as she thought a person had to be arrested or notified of pursuit not simply followed and tortured which she deemed as illegal. What Lauren realizes is those people who consider themselves lovers of liberty love fame and money more. This is the web that tangled her and to this day it infuriates her. She doesn’t feel like she was a runner. She was a fighter for rights.
We side with Lauren. If the cops can’t tangle you in a sting it should come to a close. You can’t keep domestic terrorism charges open indefinitely it’s inhumane. Mary is going to be obliterated most likely. There will be a female justice as Diane has required one.
The conclusion of this article–that the US and the supposed “rule of law” has motivated far more terrorism than any Islamic related terrorism–is a vastly under-appreciated fact in US society. I reiterate Glenn’s point because this exact mechanism of “self-blinding tribalism” helps create an atmosphere of intolerance towards “others” (e.g. Muslims) and was ultimately a crucial mechanism for the public acceptance of ethnic cleansing under the Third Reich. History repeatedly demonstrates how easy it is for governments to assert civility while all too often they carry out bloody terrorist acts against “others” in the name of defending the values of freedom, a racially pure country or insert contemporary banal rhetoric here.
how many have cross the pond and imposed their god rants as law…. since 1491….. and how many are under occupation over your god rants of a dead man,,,,,, how many ships did you send that us to rule over vis a supremacy of your god across the pond
There will be a closed door conference at the Supreme Court with Lauren’s files tomorrow. There will also be a senate intelligence conference discussing Oklahoma’s alternative to criminal indictments in secret court.
It’s very hard to keep your eyes closed during the lights but even harder to open them when you are sleep deprived. I could squeeze my eyes together and makes crosses out of the lights sometimes. The worst part were the monster faces and death skulls. This was frightening but somewhere I knew there was a human being controlling these factors and that it would haunt them as well. It does. Stop the reporting. I am tired. Rosie.
Ellie Goulding Lights…every night for three weeks graduating with sleep deprivation and into sex trials. A rate of 9. Lauren was not going to fall down. She drove her daughter to school and cleaned the house. She waited for the constitional lawyers to set her free. She believes in America. If she didn’t have this profound feeling of freedom she says she would have crashed. We believe she would have if she didn’t have this extreme since of liberty for people. However, she sees journalists as profoundly sympathetic to people of other countries and that out of this hatred for the USA they will condemn all citizens who don’t speak for liberty as opposed to a silent oppression of stalling like Rosa Parks. She used this trick in her original story about Little Weed. Lauren is a silent fighter her lips are sealed.
The Maine event is painful to remember quit bringing it up.
Steb,
And here’s someone who speaks through his higher self:
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
So, human beings do not need to establish an imaginary ideal existence for the human self to rise in consciousness.
In case you’re wondering, I see the manifestation of the lower and higher selves in human beings regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations.
Steb,
Here’s an example of someone speaking through his lower self:
“Major Democratic Donor: Israel Should “Bomb The Daylights” Out Of Iran”, at http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/major-democratic-donor-israel-should-bomb-the-daylights-out
Interesting [his]story at Truthout about more of that renowned U.S. helpfulness – a little closer to [your] home, Glenn.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/27294-military-personnel-trained-by-the-cia-used-napalm-against-indigenous-people-in-brazil
Ha! I hissed myself…
Steb engages in magical thinking:
Steb, allow me to inform you that the words “policy” and “mechanism” are not incantations. Repeating them has no power to effect anything, at all. These words are concepts which must have specific content capable of implementation.
So, if the U.S. could rid Iraq of ISIL by tomorrow: 1. what specific actions could be taken to prevent another ISISL-type group from filling the void, and 2. which nations and institutions would likely be necessary to implement the SPECIFIC mechanisms and policies you cite?
Please keep in mind that invading Iraq did not prevent first Al Qaeda in Iraq, and then ISIS, from swarming there. Nor did that invasion prevent horrific levels of tribal and sectarian strife. Therefore, your answer should address why what you propose is unlikely to repeat these debacles.
Mona
“…..So, if the U.S. could rid Iraq of ISIL by tomorrow: 1. what specific actions could be taken to prevent another ISISL-type group from filling the void, and 2. which nations and institutions would likely be necessary to implement the SPECIFIC mechanisms and policies you cite?…..”
To understand what is necessary to prevent the ISIS or similar group to fill a void in Iraq or Syria, one needs to understand why they rose in the first place – and it has been mentioned numerous times already at the Intercept. Initially, al-Qaeda began their brutal campaign of murder in Iraq after the US invaded, and in Syria after Assad crushed protest in support of the Arab Spring. AQI sowed a considerable amount of destruction during the civil war, but the surge resulted in the defeat of AQI – at least for the most part. The Sunnis had been brought into the Iraqi government (during the surge) when US troops armed the Sunnis to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq with the promise of forcing the Maliki government to be more inclusive. AFTER the US was kicked out of Iraq (in 2011), there no longer was anyone to influence the Maliki government on behalf of the Sunnis. The surge worked not because it was a military solution, but because it was a political solution. In that sense, a similar political solution is necessary today as well.
The short-sighted Maliki government marginalized the Sunnis from the government (after the US left) alienating the Sunni population which motivating many in the Sunni community to choose the ISIS. ISIS (formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq) grew in power eventually taking large swaths of Iraq leading to the current mess in Iraq.
To re-marginalize the jihadists (defeating them entirely is much more difficult because of the regional complications) and return control of all of Iraq to the Iraqi government is really simple in concept: include the Sunni community in the Iraq government. Demands by the US to replace the Maliki government were implemented by the Shia-majority government with that obvious political solution in mind. In effect, what Steb suggested was dead on (“…including Sunnis and Shias in leadership positions…”) and supported by US government actions.
The Maliki government came to the US to find a solution in Iraq. Currently, the US is bombing ISIS in support of the Kurds and Shia so obviously they (we, us, Mona) are the country to take action.
I find it fascinating that while those who fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan were/are affectionately called “Mujahideen”, those who fight against the West are called “Jihadists”, which is akin to calling them terrorists.
I once had a colleague from Russia. I asked her how the Afghan fighters who fought against the Soviet Union were referred to. She said that they were called terrorists. The term, Jihadists, was not invented back then, otherwise, they would’ve been called that (in Russian though).
If someone deliberately harms a non-combatant, including off-duty soldiers, they are neither Mujahideen nor Jihadists. They are criminals and terrorists who commit evil.
In classical Islamic literature, they’re referred to as Kharijites.
The Prophet (S) warned his (S) followers about them and gave many distinguishing characteristics of them. Some of them: long beards; claiming to be Muslims; non-state characters; violent.
“…..I find it fascinating that while those who fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan were/are affectionately called “Mujahideen”, those who fight against the West are called “Jihadists”, which is akin to calling them terrorists…..”
I believe the west affectionately called the mujahideen “freedom fighters” as well i.e., free from Soviet occupation. Terrorism is simply targeting civilians for political gain – and it is loosely used interchangeably with “jihadists” to describe ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram etc. That might be completely wrong, but Wikipedia defines jihadists,
“……is used to refer to armed jihad in Islamic fundamentalism. This has been a major meaning of the term since the later 20th century, but with a continuous history reaching back to the early 19th century…..”Jihadism” in this sense covers both Mujahideen guerilla warfare and Islamic terrorism with an international scope as it arose from the 1980s, since the 1990s substantially represented by the al-Qaeda network…..”
But your point is also well taken (“…..If someone deliberately harms a non-combatant, including off-duty soldiers, they are neither Mujahideen nor Jihadists. They are criminals and terrorists who commit evil…..”). Wiki goes on to point out that,
“……Muslims have argued that press use of the term Jihadism to denote terrorist activities has helped the recruiting of terrorists, but the term Jihadism is viewed positively by Muslims, and is understood to mean the fundamental struggle for good against evil,[1]….”
I think the term is misunderstood, but also may have several meanings (Wiki again).
“……Jihadism with an international, Pan-Islamist scope in this sense is also known as Global Jihadism. Generally the term jihadism denotes Sunni Islamist armed struggle. Sectarian tensions led to numerous forms of (Salafist and other Islamist) jihadism against Shia, Sufi and Ahmadi mosques……”
Regardless, if Sunnis attacks Shia, Sufi and Ahmadi in the name of jihad, they are terrorists – like the TTB attacks Shia Hazaras in Pakistan.
Thanks Sufi
This is news to me. I am not aware of any Muslims who view the term, Jihadism, positively.
It, nevertheless, distorts the term, Jihad, which is given spiritual significance by traditional (exoterically and esoterically) Muslims.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-9-no-1/spiritual-significance-jihad-seyyed-hossein-nasr/spiritual-significance-jihad
I believe the terms, Jihadism and Jihadists, have been invented so that the Afghan fighters who fought against the Soviet Union can still be called Mujahideen and their actions Jihad.
And if those in power in Iraq do not include both Sunnis and Shia in leadership positions? That is, how will “we” make sure this happens, and then remains in effect?
What “U.S. government actions” will result in avoiding any further groups such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, and then ISIS, from existing in Iraq?
Do you have access to my comments? Because you keep bringing the points I have already addressed.
Other countries can only help or pressure Iraqis to have an inclusive governments. They cannot stop a conflict that is roughly 1400 years old. There is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that any policies would prevent the return of terrorist groups similar to Al Qaeda or ISIL in Iraq. Policies can only reduce the level of violence. As of now the Iraqi government includes Kurds, Sunnis and Shias thanks to pressure from the international community, which stated basically we will not help you until you have an inclusive government. I think a policy that reduces the violence is way better than just watching ISIL massacring others on TV and blame the US for it.
There is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that any policies would prevent the return of terrorist groups similar to Al Qaeda or ISIL in Iraq.
General Dan Bolger agrees:
You do not need a General to see that point. It is common sense.
Stay for 100 years like the British? I suppose we could do worse, but it’s worth remembering that the British lost an entire division in Iraq in 1916, and an entire army in Afghanistan in 1842. Meantime, if we do suppress IS and AQ in Iraq, what’s to stop another attack coming at the U.S. out of, say, Yemen, or the Maghreb, or Pakistan or somewhere else?
We could do worse.
Boots — boots — boots goin’ up an’ down again
An’ there’s no discharge in the war
— Rudyard Kipling
“……What “U.S. government actions” will result in avoiding any further groups such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, and then ISIS, from existing in Iraq?….”
Do you mean zero Mona? Really? Don’t be ridiculous. I explained how Islamic terrorists like ISIS can be marginalized in Iraq, but not eradicated. Try as you might, you will never get rid of all the rats in New York – especially if some people in Brooklyn or Queens are feeding them.
Thanks Mona
I mean what “U.S. government actions” will result in avoiding any further groups such as Al Qaeda in Iraq — at no greater number than you would find tolerable — and then ISIS — at no greater number than you would find tolerable — from existing in Iraq?
Done
Thanks Mona
Israel is not a democracy, but Sheldon Adelson thinks that’s fine.
Israel is an ethno-religious apartheid state for reasons I’ve documented many, many times. Today, Haaretz reports that Sheldon Adelson doesn’t even want Israel to be a democracy, or care whether it ceases to be such (it already has). At the LA-based Israeli-American Council:
At the same event, Haim Saban, the billionaire DNC and Brookings bankroller, said:
It’s hard to choose the most astonishing set of statements from this rancid confab, but if forced I’d go with the following, as reported by Buzzfeed. If someone had drafted this as parody, they’d be called antisemites. Because, to borrow some from Bill Owen’s observations on Twitter, it reads like the “Protocols of Millionaires Adelson and Saban”:
Mona
You are pathetically obsessed and downright boring. Who cares what Sheldon Adelson says? Oh I forgot, he bought the Republican Party in 2012 – and lost.
Major media care what Sheldon Adelson says, which is why this was widely reported. These people also care what he says; the amount Adelson gave them in ’12:
Those are just the political groups required to disclose donors. Adelson quite certainly contributed a great deal more to Republican causes and groups that toe the line on Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu also greatly cares what Sheldon Adelson thinks.
This is repetitive take her out she moans too much. This is a place for real women that scream out the truth not moan it out.
Here’s more from Haaretz, Craig:
So the Zionist billionaire who own press in Israel and who is close to Netanyahu, rejects that Israel should be a democracy. Adelson should, then, be pleased with the current state of Israel, except that he’d have it be even less democratic.
Ho Hum Mona
Oh I forgot, he bought the Republican Party in 2012 – and lost.
Everyone knows it takes a bit of time to earn a return on investment: ergo, 2014.
@Mona: Many of Israel’s well-intentioned Western friends have long fretted about how Israel is to remain both “Jewish” and a democracy in light of observable trends. From Israel’s less well-intentioned friends, as well its current leaders, the answer is becoming increasingly clear: fuck democracy.
A while back you brought to my intention a compelling essay by the anti-Zionist Jew Mark Braverman. He wrote of (among other things) an encounter with some Jewish friends of Israel who decried its atrocities and described themselves as “sad Zionists.” He then posed to his readers this simple question, with resonated powerfully with me: How sad are we willing to be?
I guess time will tell.
Gator90
Mona hates the Jewish state far more than she loves the Palestinians. Nothing she discusses has anything to do with Palestinian self determination and statehood. In fact, she could care less about the Palestinians. She is obsessed with Israel and delegitimizing Israel with as much venom as David Duke. She holds Israel to a different standard than every other country in the world (clearly since she criticizes Israel’s democracy while ignoring every despotic country in the world). She refers to Israel as an ethno-supremacists state. She believes that Zionists (i.e., Jews) control the Republican Party and run US foreign policy. I wonder how she feels about the financial markets and banks? She has been harping on Adelson since the 2012 Presidential elections. Mona continually refers to Israel as an apartheid system while opposing the existence of the Jewish state i.e., opposes Jewish self determination.
“In the State of Israel all citizens—Jew and Arab—are equal before the law. Israel has no Population Registration Act, no Group Areas Act, no Mixed Marriages and Immorality Act, no Separate Representation of Voters Act, no Separate Amenities Act, no pass laws or any of the myriad apartheid laws. Israel is a vibrant liberal democracy with a free press and independent judiciary, and accords full political, religious and other human rights to all its people, including its more than 1 million Arab citizens, many of whom hold positions of authority including that of cabinet minister, member of parliament and judge at every level — including that of the Supreme Court. All citizens vote on the same roll in regular, multiparty elections; there are Arab parties and Arab members of other parties in Israel’s parliament. Arabs and Jews share all public facilities, including hospitals and malls, buses, cinemas and parks. And, archbishop, that includes universities and opera houses.”[221] – Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Warren Goldstein
Her hatred of Israel clearly crosses the line between constructive criticism of a country into hatred and bigotry (by any definition you might want to use). Mona is a bigot – plain and simple.
PS I also find it ironic that she always quotes from the Haaretz which is a good example of Israel’s free press.
@Craig – Your assertions that Mona is a Jew-hater (that is what you mean to say, yes?) are wholly unpersuasive. Give me some actual quotations from her that you feel support your claims, and perhaps then we can talk. Absent quotations, you’re just flinging tiresome, unsubstantiated crap.
I have come to believe, after years of resisting the idea, that Israel practices apartheid or some close approximation thereof. Quite simply, it exerts control over millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while denying them civil rights. (That Palestinians in what is sometimes referred to as “Israel proper” have such rights is good, but it doesn’t change the oppressive and abusive nature of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians outside Israel proper.)
I have also come to oppose the existence of a “Jewish” state in Palestine. I think the only just, fair resolution of the I/P conundrum, and the one with the best chance of producing longterm peace, is a single secular state consisting of what are now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, a state that would be home to both Jews and Palestinians.
Mona cannot delegitimize Israel. It is steadily, by its actions, delegitimizing itself. Fuck Jewish self-determination. Look what we’ve done with it.
Would you call me a Jew-hater, Craig?
It’s actually a little humorous, in a sad sort of way, to see Summers trying to teach Gator90 about Mona.
Mona and Gator go way back Craig. Long before you ever had Greenwald as a twinkle in your eye, Mona and Gator were carrying on these conversations. But Gator was and is more honest about such things than you will ever be.
How sad are we willing to be?
I remember that exchange Gator. As moved as I was at that time, it can only be a fraction of the turmoil that you have, and will, go through. I hope there can some day be a resolution to this that allows for Palestinians and Israeli Jews to live peacefully side by side. If that day comes, I would be honored to celebrate it alongside you. As would Mona, I’m sure.
Hi Gator
“…..I have come to believe, after years of resisting the idea, that Israel practices apartheid or some close approximation thereof. Quite simply, it exerts control over millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while denying them civil rights. (That Palestinians in what is sometimes referred to as “Israel proper” have such rights is good, but it doesn’t change the oppressive and abusive nature of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians outside Israel proper.)……”
First of all, a majority of Palestinians living in Israel have a favorable opinion of Jews (contrary to almost all Muslim majority countries) – and they enjoy the same democratic rights as Jewish people with the exception of land and immigration laws. Certainly after a half century of war there is plenty of racism – on both sides. Mona has argued that Israel is apartheid which is completely fabricated as the above quote indicates from my previous post. Yes, Israel wrongly exerts control over Palestinians in the West Bank, but regardless, the Palestinians living east of the Green line have no right to vote or claim the same democratic rights as Jews and Palestinians living in Israel. Palestine is the future Palestinian state and the Palestinian Liberation Organization is recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people by over 100 countries including Israel – and is responsible for democratic elections and civil rights in Palestine.
The West Bank and East Jerusalem are recognized as “occupied” by the ICJ and the international community. It is incumbent on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank to create a Palestinian state – and no one can deny that Israel is preventing the creation of a Palestinian state (although this has not always been the case. For example, the second Intifada was started by Arafat after an offer of peace from Israel).
“…..I have also come to oppose the existence of a “Jewish” state in Palestine…..”
Most Jewish people would of course oppose that position. You certainly have the right to oppose a Jewish state because you believe (wrongly) it would be the best solution, but it is wrong to oppose the idea of Jewish self determination just as the 2004 ICJ decision recognized the right to self determination by the Palestinians. Very few minority populations succeed in this regard. The Basque and many other minority ethnic populations seek self determination.
“…..Mona cannot delegitimize Israel. It is steadily, by its actions, delegitimizing itself. Fuck Jewish self-determination. Look what we’ve done with it…..”
Delegitimization is carried out in concert by the radical right (including Islamists) and the radical left (as political allies) by equating Israel with apartheid South Africa; equating Zionism to racism; referring to Israel as an ethno-supremacist state and denying Jewish right to self determination – all of which Mona supports.
Israel hurts their own cause by denying Palestinians their right to self determination and building settlements on land appropriated for a Palestinian state.
“…..It’s actually a little humorous, in a sad sort of way, to see Summers trying to teach Gator90 about Mona….Mona and Gator go way back Craig…..”
That Mona and Gator go back a long way is neither here nor there to me. Either he can see her fixation on Israel and faux support for the Palestinians for what it is, or he can bury his head in the sand. Mona has suggested that it is US aid for Israel which is behind her criticism of Israel’s democracy, Israel’s Jewish character, the apartheid analogy and other labels she uses to describe Israel. but none of that has anything to do with the Palestinians. She does not apply anything like that to any other country. In addition, she says absolutely nothing about despotic Egypt which also receives aid from the US. She clearly has a double standard which she only applies to the one Jewish state in the world. No other country – even the US – receives more criticism from Mona. Of course, this is not too surprising considering the positions that Greenwald has taken as well.
Aside from that, there should be support for stopping bigotry at any left or right wing site (or far left as in the case of the Intercept).
Thanks
Craig – you said a lot of things, but you did not answer my question.
Like Mona, I think Israel practices apartheid. (Recently in Gaza, it practiced mass murder as well.) I oppose the existence of a Jewish state. I’m more concerned about Israel’s misdeeds than those of other countries. I don’t give a flying fuck about US aid to “despotic Egypt.”
Would you call me a Jew-hater? A bigot? Have you the balls to do that?
“…..Like Mona, I think Israel practices apartheid……”
No you don’t…..like Mona (at least based on your last post). Mona believes the entire state of Israel is an apartheid system BECAUSE it is a Jewish state. That’s why she calls Israel an ethno-supremacist state – for that reason. Of course, I have yet to hear her complain about the “ethno-supremacist” Armenian state, or the ethno-supremacist South Ossetian state, or the ethno-supremacist Abkhazian state or the religious-supremacist Iranian (Islamic) state – only the JEWISH state.
Mona (in effect) accuses Jews of dual loyalty and controlling US foreign policy through AIPAC and financial influence like Adelson. Of course, she is not alone in her thinking. She would get a lot of support from the far right on these issues – and many in Europe (like in Spain and Poland). She is fixated on Jewish money to influence US elections while ignoring influence from many others like the Koch brothers who poured an estimated 100 million dollars into the 2014 midterms for the same Republicans that Adelson supported in 2012. Seemingly, only Jewish money and influence matters to Mona. In addition, Mona holds Israel to a completely different standard than any other country. Part of that is understandable because the radical left is obsessed with the US and Israel (notice how many articles appear in the Intercept about Israel – and it is not about the Palestinians).
Mona is not dangerous like the far right, but ignorance is no excuse for antisemitism. She is a classic example of a left wing bigot for which there are a large amount of sources available on the subject if you care to do some research (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/antisemitism.html). Ben Cohen has a very good article on the subject. Mona hates the Jewish state without a doubt and that includes the underlying reasons for the creation of the Jewish state which has been distorted at the UN (and then repealed) and distorted by extreme right and extreme left wing opposition to Israel i.e., Zionism is racism. Far left wing opposition to Israel has been actively promoting the lies that Israel is an apartheid system similar to South Africa; Israel is an ethno-supremacist state; Zionism is racism; and Israel is a colonialist venture (which it was not). To Mona, a good little Jew should quietly melt away into western society. Jewish pride and support for a Jewish state is simply over the top.
The answer to your question is not very likely, but I have not heard you carry on about the perfectly legal Israel lobby or large financial donors like Adelson (not to mention where he stands on democracy). Nor Have I heard you accuse the lobby or Jewish donors of running the Republican Party or US foreign policy – a position that even Chomski rejects. Nor have I heard you justify the murder of a Jewish Rabbi peacefully protesting the ISRAELI law banning Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount. Maybe as you continue to post, I’ll change my opinion……
Thanks.
That should be “attempted” murder of a Jewish rabbi
I realize the thread is dead, but I just wanted to add something about “dual loyalty.” A substantial number of American Jews do, in fact, have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. I certainly did, for most of my life. And there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with dual loyalty, in my view. If Israel weren’t such an asshole, it would command my loyalty still.
“……And there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with dual loyalty, in my view. If Israel weren’t such an asshole, it would command my loyalty still……”
Fair enough – and just for the record, even though I may suggest otherwise because the rhetoric gets heated, I don’t believe Mona is a “Jew hater” – and I have probably spent two years discussing the issues with her.
I have already addressed your question regarding “void” in Iraq. As usual you chose to ignore it. You can still read the comment here. I specifically provided details regarding Iraqi main areas.
which “nations”? I also answered you and you chose to ignore it. It is up to the Iraqis to set up an inclusive government that would at least reduce the level of violence. Other nations, Iran, SA, Turkey, USA, Kuwait… can only help or pressure the Iraqis. They cannot stop a conflict that is roughly 1400 years old.
Political solutions are not similar to vaccines against diseases. I already stated here there absolutely NO GUARANTEE that Al Qaeda or ISIL type groups will not come back to Iraq regardless of the policies you set up. We still had a genocide in our face in Rwanda after many conventions were signed after WWII
However, the level of violence can be greatly reduced. I do not think daily massacres in Iraq, and displaced refugees should be ignored by the international community.
You have not answered my question. You keep referring to a report written in 2004 that has nothing to do with establishing policies toward Iraq as of November 2014. Nothing surprising about that, you spend more energy calling others names than attempting to solve anything.
Steb:
Translation: I cannot tell you what specific mechanisms or policies could be taken to prevent another ISISL-type group from filling the void if the U.S. could vanquish ISIL tomorrow, and neither can I state which nations and institutions would likely be necessary to implement the specific mechanisms and policies, which, again, I cannot describe in any detail.
I will answer you again just to display your ignorance. Other countries can only pressure or help the Iraqis to set up an INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT because conflicts in Iraq represent a danger to SA, Iran, Turkey, and many others. There is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that any policy would stop a conflict that is roughly 1400 years old. The goal is to reduce the violence and historically Sunnis and Shias have had periods of peace when both sides had access to leadership positions and social services. About you? What would you propose? Go read your favorite report that was written in 2004 when the situation was completely different? Or just keep calling others names and blame the US for the earthquake in japan?
I told you, I’d consult experts such as the authors of the Defense Science Board report, and also knowledgeable others, with preference for those who had meaningfully recommended against the Iraq war. I certainly wouldn’t care what your view is, because you have nothing specific to suggest; merely very vague, general, aspirational “mechanisms” and “policies.”
And what do the experts say about the policies of the US toward Iraq as of November 2014? Since you are incapable as a concerned citizen to have a view on what the US policy vis a vis Iraq should be without consulting the experts, then I suggest you wait until the experts give you their opinion about what should be done today (2014) not 2004 before you start clapping for whatever Mr Greenwald states because he is certainly not an expert on international politics. I gave you my opinion as you requested. Whether you like it or you surprisingly understand it is completely irrelevant to me.
@ Mona
I think you should stick to what you know best: clap for Mr Greenwald and call everybody else a Zionist.
Translation: I STILL cannot tell you what specific mechanisms or policies could be taken to prevent another ISISL-type group from filling the void if the U.S. could vanquish ISIL tomorrow, and neither can I state which nations and institutions would likely be necessary to implement the specific mechanisms and policies, which, again, I cannot describe in any detail.
But he quotes and cites those who are experts in U.S. military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, including, but not limited to, the Defense Science Board and Andrew Bacevich.
@Mona
And what SPECIFIC policies that the Defense Science Board and Andrew Bacevich propose that the US should establish toward Iraq as of November, 2014? Until you find those proposals from these entities and present them to us keep clapping for Mr Greenwald, blame the US for the Ebola virus, and call everybody else a Zionist. That is your area of expertise!
Steb wanted me to determine what Andrew Bacevich thinks about U.S. policy in Iraq re: ISIL, and I’m happy to oblige. Bacevich was interviewed a few weeks ago by Al jazeera, and said this:
Bacevich also stated:
And neither you nor Craig have explained how these conditions will stop producing groups and movements like ISIS. Especially in the context of our “irredeemable failure” in Iraq.
NO Mona,
You have to show SPECIFICS from Bacevich. You have shared his general view that the US must demilitarize his policy in the Middle East, (Like pulling all the troops out from Iraq in December, 2011) and lower our profile in the region. Show US the SPECIFICS you have obtained from this expert with regards to Iraq.
NO Mona,
You have to show SPECIFICS …
Translation: “Until you and Bacevich can tell me exactly how many squares of toilet paper will be required, we cannot/must not stop shitting all over Iraq, etc etc.”
@Pedinska
NO Mona,
You have to show SPECIFICS …
Translation: “Until you and Bacevich can tell me exactly how many squares of toilet paper will be required, we cannot/must not stop shitting all over Iraq, etc etc.”
Very interesting Pedinska, why haven’t you provided that translation to Mona when she was asking me for SPECIFICS? I never presented myself as an expert of international politics. Yet, when I ask SPECIFICS from the guy that you present as “expert”, your answer is worthless. I am not surprise at all, part of your expertise is to call others names, blame the US for earthquakes…and of course clap for whatever Mr Greenwald says.
In other news, Obama, the Zionist-loving (don’t believe the MSM), liberty-destroying sociopath that he is* has nominated a black person named “Lynch” to be attorney General, someone not only from the corrupt New York Fed but also someone with the most laughably tone-deaf nomenclature possible for wading into the Ferguson crisis.
*No, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Scott Walker, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden etc – NONE of these are better, in fact they’re all corporatist/militarist/police & surveillance state pro-Zionist morons as well. All politicians from the two major parties, all congresspeople, all the executive, all the Supreme Court are CORRUPT.
I leave you with a tip for dealing with Craig Summers and Steb: They will NOT change their minds even when they are corrected. Take it from there.
Elisabeth Warren is also a pro-Zionist corporatist/militarist. And Bernie Sanders. Do not be deceived.
Love and kisses
Cindy
I shouldn’t need to link to Sanders’ hypocrisy, but those who think Warren is a darling should look at her views viz. Israel and also things like this:
*Warren’s Great Sellout*
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/02/shikha-dalmia-on-elizabeth-warrens-great
(All such crap will only get worse, the closer she gets to real power, if she does.)
I’m off soon to work for a while at a paradisiacal retreat with no internet, only emergency phones, so no, I was not banned.
“……Elisabeth Warren is also a pro-Zionist corporatist/militarist…..”
Actually, your rhetoric is humorous. Most Americans support the Jewish state (and certainly believe in her existence). In fact, according to Wiki, “….160 of the 192 …..UN member states (83%) currently recognize Israel…….” i.e., recognize the Jewish state. And most Americans believe in a strong military – obviously both democrats and Republicans. I am curious how you might define “corporatist”, Cindy.
“I am curious how you might define ‘corporatist’, Cindy.”
Well, you just stay curious, you mentally defective, degenerate, fascist, murder-supporting piece of shit.
PS: Most Americans are propagandized, as you well know, but you don’t want to admit it (because you’re a fucking idiot who thinks it’s good).
(Perhaps I will get banned after all. I’ll blame your relentless stupidity.)
“Corporatist” is a vague term I kind of thought you might have some trouble defining it. Of course, anti corporate rhetoric is in vogue for the far left even if you are not quite sure why.
Thanks for your really challenging response.
You deserve only absolute scorn, for your ideas are ultimately race-superior (which is ironic, you Jew you) and corporatist/militarist.
You are neither sincere nor innocent. You are in fact corrupted yourself, and you’ll see this one day.
Or not.
I’ve challenged you and proven you wrong on many occasions, as have many others, you simply return with the same idiocy as before.
Because you are a twit. More explicitly…
Because you are mentally (and in a primary sense emotionally) imbecilic, as well as surprisingly retarded in critical thinking (unlike Steb, who only pretends to be), though you are admirably fluent in propagandistic distraction, persuasion and (“stuff my post with quotes”) tedious long-windedness.
And as a tip of the hat to your insipid gratitude at the end of your posts:
Thanks for your dickweed response, you brain-dead, coward, piece of shit, murder-supporting, asinine fool.
Again, changing the subject to avoid defining “corporatist”. You are sneaky, Cindy (like a Jew).
Sneaky like ‘a Jew’? Have you lost it? That’s fucking disgusting.
Corporatism is the control of government by corporations, just as militarism is the control of government by the military-industrial complex.
It isn’t fucking complicated.
“……Corporatism is the control of government by corporations…..”
Well, not really Cindy. That is just how you want to view “corporatism”. It has nothing to do with controlling the government, but corporations (legally) lobby to influence the US government to further corporate interests. Salon has a reasonable article on corporatism where the author believes the term “corporatism” should be no longer used. Wikipedia also has a little different definition than what you are proposing:
“…..Corporatism (also known as corporativism[1]) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2….”
But let’s look at the definition proposed by Michael Lind at Salon (“The “corporatist” confusion: Why a prominent political term needs to be retired”):
“…..There are at least four different and incompatible meanings of “corporatism”: political representation by vocational groups; centralized collective bargaining among employers and organized labor; modern industrial capitalism; and “crony capitalism” or the corruption of public policy by special interests……”
He goes on to explain why the term should be retired.
“……Many goals of today’s opponents of “corporatism” are legitimate and must be part of any program of economic and political reform. But those goals can be pursued using other terminology. The phrase “corporatism” is so ruined by multiple meanings and misuse that it ought to be dropped from the political lexicon……”
You are a classic abuser of the term “corporatism”, Cindy. Shame on you.
Thanks.
“You are a classic abuser of the term ‘corporatism,’ Cindy. Shame on you.”
You are a classic idiot, Craig Summers.
I would say ‘Shame On You,’ but you have no shame because you are disingenuous and without distinguishable moral reflection, and simply a twit, as I have painstakingly explained here.
Corporatism means corporate control of government – which is wrong.
Notice the word ‘wrong’ here, Craig, and consider its meaning.
Militarism means militarist control of the government (police/surveillance state and war mongering) – which is wrong.
Again, pay attention to the ethical descriptive here.
Which leaves you, Craig Summers, and those like you from both sides of the proverbial ‘aisle’ as THE FUCKING IDIOT WHO (willfully) DOESN’T GET IT.
Now think twice before broadcasting your impotent, emasculated view of what should be, for you disempower yourself with every post, revealing nothing but your pathetic subservience, submissiveness and acquiescence toward demonstrably dubious ‘authority.’
That you (wish) to believe that corporatism mean control of the (US) government probably sits well with the failed “Occupy” movement. Militarism is defined as:
“…..Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.[1][2] It may also imply the glorification of the ideals of a professional military class and the “predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state”[3]….”
There is nothing in there about control, however. Neither corporatism or militarism imply control of the government. That was made up by you to fit your political ideals and anti-Americanism. Indeed, corporations and the military do NOT control the US government (nor does AIPAC).
Thanks. You are a sweet person, Cindy.
Well, I’ve got a bus to catch, but (regardless of your belligerence) yes, ‘corporatism and militarism’ do indeed describe very well the captured state of government at the present day.
And yes, I am in essence very sweet. I don’t suffer fools gladly, however. And you are sour, Craig.
Very sour.
Even rabid antisemites would want the state of Israel to exist,as a destination for the traitors within,so they won’t continue the hijacking of America,but of course that doesn’t fit your narrative of BS.
You Zionists need a comeuppance.It will come eventually,it does to all with overweening pride of place.
I was surprised to see Bosnia and Kosovo listed among the Muslim countries that the US bombed. Though they did bomb those areas (which, at the time were part of the country of Yugoslavia and weren’t–nor had they ever been until the US intervention–separate countries) they bombed them not to punish Muslims (which is the implication), but in order to punish the Serbs (who, ironically, had been our allies in WWI and WWII) and to wrest those territories away from Serbia’s rule and to give them to the Muslims living there. So, although those areas were bombed, it wasn’t anti-Muslim bombing, it was anti-Serbia (hence, perhaps, anti-Christian) bombing.
Iwasjustthinking
“……I was surprised to see Bosnia and Kosovo listed among the Muslim countries that the US bombed……So, although those areas were bombed, it wasn’t anti-Muslim bombing, it was anti-Serbia (hence, perhaps, anti-Christian) bombing……”
I really hadn’t even noticed, but you are correct. There are several other countries and/or dates listed which are deceptive as well. No where in the article does Greenwald say “anti-Muslim” as you have written, but it is implicitly implied from previous articles and by this sentence in the article:
“…..Bacevich’s count excludes the bombing and occupation of still other predominantly Muslim countries by key U.S. allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, carried out with crucial American support…..”
Whenever Greenwald mentions Israel, that implies anti-Muslim. Quotes from several of Greenwald’s previous articles indicates he believes US policies are grounded in anti-Muslim racism. Of course, Glenn would never mention that the killing of Muslims by the Assad regime is carried out with crucial Russian support. Depending on your point of view, some policies like the bombing of al-Qaeda in Yemen can be interpreted to be pro-Muslim unless you believe that a takeover of Yemen by al-Qaeda would be a positive development for Muslims (or that the Yemen government asked for US help). Bombing in Bosnia and Kosovo are also clearly pro-Muslim. Kosovo became an independent Muslim-majority country because of US/NATO actions in 1999 – and is recognized by 109 countries in the world. How can kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait be interpreted as anything but pro-Muslim (at least pro human rights)? This was also a UN sanctioned military action after Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait. Pakistan and Afghanistan are two more countries listed which are deceptively implied as anti-Muslim actions taken by the US military. Listing Syria is simply a joke and so on.
Of course all of this is simply to help us understand why Muslims attack us – cause and effect, blowback, repercussions, justification etc.
Yes, everyone (sentient) knows that. But even if most Muslims endorse that particular bombing, Greenwald couldn’t keep it off the list, because it simply is an instance of the U.S. bombing a Muslim nation in the period beginning in 1980.
“……Greenwald couldn’t keep it off the list, because it simply is an instance of the U.S. bombing a Muslim nation in the period beginning in 1980…..”
But as is the usual case with Greenwald, he made no attempt to qualify the list in any way. As has been mentioned on this thread, it doesn’t mean anything without viewing the context with which the US bombed each of those countries on the list. Germany bombed a bunch of “Christian” countries during WWII. Did they bomb them because they were anti-Christian racists, or to expand their empire.
Looks like we’ll have to discuss this issue, simultaneously..
re:
ISIS mission: Obama authorizes sending 1,500 more troops to Iraq:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-mission-obama-authorizes-sending-1-500-more-troops-to-iraq-1.2828063
This is the product of America uniting with Arabs who want peace in the region. You however have no idea what you want as you have no contribution to the end of violence other than saying that violence is the reason we all sitting around bombing children. Which no country wants to do. Nor did we want to invade Lauren but reporters couldn’t leave the woman alone and drove her crazy.
James Clapper did something finally that deserves a clap or two. He flew into Pyongyang, threatened to reveal all the emails and phone conversations that Kim Dot Un ever had with anyone, and came back with our two spies. Great job, my friend!
I have been called a warmonger, a dishonest interlocutor, an authoritarian, a fucker, a stupid individual and even an individual with personality disorder. This is how most of the Mr Greenwald’s followers here answer to someone who ask them what the US should do differently in Iraq. I disagree with probably 99.99% of what Sufi usually states here, but at least he/she provided a concise answer based on what he/ she knows about US policies and about Iraq history and current situation. And NO she/he did not write a 200 page analysis. So, Sufi thank you very much for the answer ( I disagree with most of it). I guess the others will have to wait for Mr Greenwald to provide the policies that the US must follow toward Iraq.
I too find the insults on this site sometimes lack originality. But that is often compensated for by the heartfelt sentiments behind them.
Sorry you didn’t find the answer to the world’s problems here. Better luck at the next site you visit.
Dr. Leo Marvin: You think he’s leaving? He’s not leaving. That’s the whole point! He’ll never leave!
Stebmund Yanksfurter III : Is this some radical new therapy?
Dr. Leo Marvin: YOU SEE?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=what+about+bob+
Hey! I never said a word to him … Its Not My Fault! *looks @ benitoe
~ round & round we go in the circle game ~ ht joni
Sono d’accordo, Duce.
You’re full of it. I didn’t say you had a personality disorder, although admittedly I threw the term out there as a one of two possible explanations for specific behaviors. (When it comes to Iraq, actually, I often lean towards the first explanation I gave, that people get into such a state of terror over the thought of jihadists that they are like a distraught patient ‘in crisis’). I’ll keep conversations limited to specific issues from now on, though. Psychoanalyzing in debate is, admittedly, a poor habit on my part that I have a hard time resisting.
A compulsion to psychoanalyze may be indicative of your need to assume control in any type of interaction, by placing the other person into a defined category. Once defined, you can then deploy set of pre-arranged strategies, proven to successfully deal with this type of person. This provides you with the structure and order you need to make sense of an otherwise chaotic and confusing world.
Just kidding, your comments are great :)
“…..Just kidding, your comments are great….”
Too middle of the road.
I think it’s a generational thing. I am always amazed how participants on reality tv shows, who spend most of their time naked and covered in spilled Jello shots, and probably couldn’t find 90% of the world’s countries on a map, give long, thoughtful, reasoned descriptions of their interpersonal dynamics when talking to confessional-style cameras. We’re the children of the hippie generation, lots of counselor-led classes and ‘critical thinking’ in school and few hard facts.
And thanks, enjoy your posts too.
The first skill to be rendered obsolete by computers was arithmetic, as numerical computations became automated. Then came knowledge, as everyone had continuous access to information stored in cloud databases. Next will be reading and writing, as communications with smart devices will be verbal/visual.
But knowing how to manipulate other people will always be a useful skill.
There’s a link between Jello shots and the NSA (Wikipedia):
There’s a link between Jello shots and everything. They’re in a category with things like ‘love’ or ‘knowledge’ or ‘universal oneness’ or ‘Kevin Bacon’.
Btw – manipulation is, I think, just the shadow side of the word ‘influence’, and a logical consequence of interrelatedness, so in some non-satirical sense I agree with you. It all depends on what a person’s goals are. A therapist might ‘manipulate’ a client into leaving a depressed state or overcoming a phobia, a friend might manipulate you into smiling, a mother might manipulate a baby to stop crying, etc. Even doing absolutely nothing or withholding all interaction from another person will have some sort of influence on the situation. Interrelatedness and an understanding of it is always an important thing.
Oh, boo hoo. Toughen your hide a little. Nobody likes a whiner. (Feel free to add “whiner” to your list.)
@gator
are you referring to me? You do not get it, do you? All those who called me names are not hurting me at all. They just prove a point I have been stating for awhile here. They are just blind followers of Mr Greenwald. They cannot state a basic policy that the government they bash every day should adopt. They wait for Mr Greenwald to state a point and spend hours bashing others who dare to challenge Mr Greenwald’s point. I do not expect anybody here to like me. I expect whomever states that a policy is wrong to come up with a better idea. Obviously most of Mr Greenwald’s followers cannot.
@stebmund
Dearest ‘Citizen of the World’,
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, the Glennbot with whom you are addressing has politely stated that his policy would be to discontinue the current one. Since it’s obvious that you disagree w/ said opinion, what policy(ies) would you recommend to counter their sentiments?
And while you’re at it, how about you share w/ the class ‘your’ nationality, and whether or not your sentiments w/ respect to their policies towards Iraq, are mutual.
Good Day..
thedongerneedjustice
Your repetitive use of that asinine label is an example of how you’ve again and again earned the reputation of being a dishonest interlocutor. How many times do you think you’ve written, “Mr. Greenwald’s followers” or some spinoff from that? It’s a meaningless, childish insult. Transparently so.
Read your multiple comments again to find perfect examples of insults.
“……How many times do you think you’ve written, “Mr. Greenwald’s followers” or some spinoff from that?…..”
Come on Kitt, “glennbot” is a term of endearment. Many of you have been reading Greenwald for a long time – and it’s not because you disagree with him. Those who do at this site are going to get pummeled for political reasons (we accept that). In the same respect, I probably would agree with Krauthammer on most issues although I don’t read him incessantly (or even that much). And Steb has only earned a reputation as a dishonest “interlocutor” for political reasons Kit. And no one on this site has taken personal attacks to the level that you have – both at the Guardian and the Intercept. No one is even close.
Thanks.
Almost every one of your comments are laced with, filled with a litany of personal insults. The one I’m quoting is yet another personal insult. Or it would be “personal” if it weren’t so phony. It’s what you do within every so called argument that you long windedly make up.
And you, as always, don’t speak for me, not ever and not with your opinion that “Glennbot is a term of endearment.” It’s not only not that, but it is an old tactic used by lazy people who are prone to using airhead attempts to dismiss. It’s the same as your “far left” hard left” radical left” and whatever “left” that you so often use to dismiss anyone’s argument, or, more precisely, the straw man argument that you’ve made up and assigned to the named, or often times nameless-faceless persons of your fantasy world.
It isn’t our fault if politics drive Steb to behave dishonestly here. Pedinska performed a useful service in dispassionately analyzing the why and wherefores of Steb’s fallacious drek.
That’s truly hilarious. *You nominate *Kitt as the most notorious slinger of personal attacks. You, Mr. “Leftsist,” “bigot,” and “Jew hater” lobber? Moreover, even on “our side,” Kitt is not the most likely to identify an asshole as such.
“……*You nominate *Kitt as the most notorious slinger of personal attacks. You, Mr. “Leftsist,” “bigot,” and “Jew hater” lobber?….”
I apologize Mona…..but the truth has a way of being painful.
We can, and have. That you dislike the answers many of us proffered does not mean they were not provided.
Moreover, and again, the best discussion of your comments and “questions” has been drafted by Pedinska, here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/#comment-87504
Her opening, thesis statement is that you are a “dishonest interlocutor.” But contrary to your pity party, her observation is not “name-calling”; it is an argument for which she then provides much reasoned and persuasive analysis.
There’s a Sufi saying: You cannot attain enlightenment unless a hundred people have denounced you.
One reason is that denunciations can be opportunities for self examination and humility.
The reverse is also true, in that when one is praised, one may puff up with self-pride — not good.
So when one is praised one should eat a piece of the humble pie to check any rise of the ego.
I think I’ve got it watching this video: “Kaelin Clay Drops Ball At 1-Yard Line, Oregon Runs It Back For Touchdown”, at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/kaelin-clay-fumble_n_6127852.html
Does this give you a metaphor for a foreign/military policy?
Either leave that area alone or go all the way.
What should the US do differently in Iraq? The US should do the same in Iraq as Japan is doing. Or Argentina. Or Jamaica.
Are you too sensitive to be promoting totalitarianism? I hate to think how you might react to being tortured. Let’s hope it never happens to you.
Hurt feelings aside, your characterization of all commenters opposed to you as Greenwald’s followers is false. Not all who dismiss your opinions — preferring to point out your profitable, repetitive, and expensive failures instead — are his followers, but I better stick to speaking for myself. I sometimes pay attention to articles and comments on this site because I thought Snowden and Greenwald had some information which might help me, personally, end my torture session and expose criminal patriots. It would give me some relief; for others, an interesting story, given the millions of dollars and hundreds of perps involved in the crimes and efforts to keep them concealed. No such luck, so far.
Buck up, US propagandists still have almost all of the american people fooled, all of the time. You can’t have everything you want, even if you’re entitled to it.
As for Iraq: Your fuckups are regional; your demand for the right ‘Iraq Policy’ is dumb and deceitful. The solution must be regional, and take into account reality — not bizarre american perceptions of it. Admit to the world you fucked up again. Provide humanitarian assistance where you can while that region violently sorts out problems you were instrumental in creating. Pay reparations. Stop being Israel’s pet. Agree to creation of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as capital. Re-start the draft (no deferments for plutocrat offspring), then do what you should have done decades ago: garrison 1/2 million on the Green Line and protect both Israelis and Palestinian citizens from each other during the migration. (I would have gone in 2001, as I said I would, but I really am too old for that now, and I have purchased — with a currency called torture — a deferment.) Give settlers 12 months and sufficient U-Hauls to move back to Israel, and let those who choose to remain under Palestinian jurisdiction stay at their own risk. The deal is 12 months, after that, they’re on their own. As part of reparations to Palestine, build a reasonably fast passenger rail and a cargo rail between the West Bank and Gaza, and protect it. Let Palestine do business — import goods, water, and yes, even weapons — above ground. Stop acting like a 2 year old about Iran — they have the most critical role to play as the states of Syria and Iraq dissolve. They also have just as much a right to nuclear weapons as you do, given the numerous offensive acts of war you have committed against Iranians since 1953. As you know, deterrence works both ways. Iran has a right to defend itself against you.
The above paragraph glosses over many details [sic], and may not be the best solution, but we won’t know until it is tried out. What we do know is you offer nothing but more of the same shit. And another thing: this plan is much cheaper than yours.
Not sure the thread indentation worked properly. I was replying to Steb 09 Nov 2014 at 11:19 am
‘
She’s a beaut, indubitably.
I just took a bite from humble pie:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=humble+pie&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=3C1371CBB73EDAE27A2CE801A1A3FFEF67DC4A28&selectedIndex=6
Ah,Humble Pie;I don’t need no doctor after 30 days in the hole.Sorry,OT but couldn’t help myself.
As of November 2014 this is the main policies of the US government toward Iraq:
1) Military support. The US provides training to Iraqi forces in the USA and in Iraq. The US also provides direct intelligence support and combat support through the bombing of ISIL positions in Iraq. The military support has been requested by the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities in the North to combat ISIL.. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why?
2) Economic support. The US government has placed Iraq in the Generalized System of Preference Program. Certain Iraqi products get preferential entry to the US while US companies willing to invest in Iraq get technical and financial support. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why?
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp
3) Humanitarian Assistance. As a direct result of ISIL activities more humanitarian assistance has been requested by the United Nations, the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities to respond to the influx of refugees. The US has provided shelter, water, food, sanitation, medical services and other humanitarian assistance as requested. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why? http://www.usaid.gov/iraq
4) Diplomatic support. The US supports a negotiated settlements between the Iraqi government and the Kuwaiti government regarding the dispute over the demarcation of their sea border. The US does not support an independent Kurdish area in the North of Irak. The US supports Iraq membership to the WTO. Do we stop these policies? Change them? Why?
These are the main official policies of the US government toward Iraq. Mr Greenwald and his followers believe that US policies toward Iraq is a mess. Now please, share with the world which policies need to be stopped or changed and why.
Steb 08 Nov 2014 at 11:05 pm
That’s not necessarily true. There have been periods of peace, tranquility and interactions between the Sunnis and the Shias in that region.
You may want to read: “Son of Karbala”, by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri, at http://www.askonline.co.za/ebooks.php#ebooks
It’s available as an eBook.
The author describes growing up in Karbala.
Certainly. However, there’s a need to learn from the past mistakes and not repeat them.
Some have suggested that the US should disengage from the Middle East. It is worth considering a possible denouement.
– Iran shuts down the straits of Hormuz, a choke point for the world’s oil supply;
– At an emergency meeting of OPEC, Iran agrees to reopen the straits, providing all oil is priced in gold;
– The US dollar plummets in value and the US government declares all debts to be forfeit;
– Amid the economic collapse, thousands of militias spring up across the US, to control food supplies;
– Eventually, the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation makes deals with the dominant militias, and the US is reconstituted as a trading post, supplying oil and wheat to China.
Of course, it is possible to construct a number of pessimistic scenarios as well.
It can lead to other interesting scenarios as well, Duce.
– Turkey might have to take an interest in what’s happening in sight of its southern border
– Our friends the Saudis might have to find better uses for their time and money
– The Iranians might have to deal with the situation further
– The United States might have more money to spend on fripperies like infrastructure repairs and public health
– The Chinese might find that they would have to defend their Middle Eastern oil supplies themselves
– Sens. McCain and Graham might be out of a job
Boots on the desert sand
Trackless footprints and MRE packet litter
And ye mighty look on and despair
All we are is dust in the wind
— “Ozymandias and Harriet”
Welcome back, coram nobis! Mwah!
I personally think that the situation in Iraq has gone out of control. The country has a volatile mix of tribes and religions, with a lot of interference from all its neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
As starters, we should drop a few nukes on Ankara and Riyadh. This will take care of outside interferences. Then a few nukes on Baghdad, Mosul, Kobani, Damascus, etc., to take those blokes to the stone ages. I really don’t see how else we will get a lasting solution in the region. Maybe Mike Wolf would have come up with a solution, but now he is MIA.
To begin with, we should have simply used covert action and drones to eliminate Saddam’s two nasty sons, which would have brought Saddam in line. That’s where our policies slipped, and now we are slipping and slipping.
Please help us.
http://freedomfchs.lefora.com/topic/7442322/nanodevices-in-sensory-overload-mind-control-torture
The United State’s siamese twin, Israel, is the main intended beneficiary of a sustained campaign to perpetually weaken the militaries, and devastate the economies, of Islamic nations in the Middle East that are deemed by the United States to be defiant to its authority, or overtly hostile to Israel.
Periodically, a time arrives when personnel trained in the dust of New Mexico must test their skills in a real war. Periodically new weapons systems that have progressed to fielding phase, need to be tested in a real war. Islamic militaries become the convenient targets, their civilians the expendable collateral.
Removal of demonized leaders of these nations, no angels themselves who often have blood stains on their hands, is often given as the reason their people must be “freed” from their leaders’ yokes and chains, but that may be patently false as the US could just drone-kill the leaders if that were truly the intention behind the invasions.
Oil is only a much thirsted-for spoil to be savoured in the halls of Wall Street. Geopolitical advantage in the region, another.
As the war cries against ‘radical Islam’ and ‘terrorists’ and the public’s memories of the horrors of nine eleven are refreshed constantly, all who dare question become tagged as ‘terrorists’ themselves, and the public consents to it all by indifferent acquiscence.
Or, the West reacted angrily over the video of a men getting their heads removed by sadists.
“Those who sit around in the U.S. or the U.K. endlessly inveighing against the evil of Islam, depicting it as the root of violence and evil (the “mother lode of bad ideas“), while spending very little time on their own societies’ addictions to violence and aggression, or their own religious and nationalistic drives, have reached the peak of self-blinding tribalism.”
Its just that seeing men beheaded on videos, and muslims laughing about it, sort of sticks in one’s head. Why is that hard to understand?
Take a look once to see who is destabilizing all the ME countries, Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, and Pakistan: its not the West.
As of November 2014 this is the main policies of the US government toward Iraq.
1) Military support. The US provides training to Iraqi forces in the USA and in Iraq. The US also provides direct intelligence support and combat support through the bombing of ISIL positions in Iraq. The military support has been requested by the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities in the North to combat ISIL.. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why?
2) Economic support. The US government has placed Iraq in the Generalized System of Preference Program. Certain Iraqi products get preferential entry to the US while US companies willing to invest in Iraq get technical and financial support. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why?
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp
3) Humanitarian Assistance. As a direct result of ISIL activities more humanitarian assistance has been requested by the United Nations, the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities to respond to the influx of refugees. The US has provided shelter, water, food, sanitation, medical services and other humanitarian assistance as requested. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why? http://www.usaid.gov/iraq
4) Diplomatic support. The US supports a negotiated settlements between the Iraqi government and the Kuwaiti government regarding the dispute over the demarcation of their sea border. The US does not support an independent Kurdish area in the North of Irak. The US supports Iraq membership to the WTO. Do we stop these policies? Change them? Why?
These are the main official policies of the US government toward Iraq. Mr Greenwald and his followers believe that US policies toward Iraq is a mess. Now please, share with the world which policies need to be stopped or changed and why.
As of November 2014 this is the main policies of the US government toward Iraq.
1) Military support. The US provides training to Iraqi forces in the USA and in Iraq. The US also provides direct intelligence support and combat support through the bombing of ISIL positions in Iraq. The military support has been requested by the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities in the North to combat ISIL.. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why?
2) Economic support. The US government has placed Iraq in the Generalized System of Preference Program. Certain Iraqi products get preferential entry to the US while US companies willing to invest in Iraq get technical and financial support. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why?
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp
3) Humanitarian Assistance. As a direct result of ISIL activities more humanitarian assistance has been requested by the United Nations, the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities to respond to the influx of refugees. The US has provided shelter, water, food, sanitation, medical services and other humanitarian assistance as requested. Do we stop that policy? Change it? Why? http://www.usaid.gov/iraq
4) Diplomatic support. The US supports a negotiated settlements between the Iraqi government and the Kuwaiti government regarding the dispute over the demarcation of their sea border. The US does not support an independent Kurdish area in the North of Irak. The US supports Iraq membership to the WTO. Do we stop these policies? Change them? Why?
These are the main official policies of the US government toward Iraq. Mr Greenwald and his followers believe that US policies toward Iraq is a mess. Now please, share with the world which policies need to be stopped or changed and why.
Well move to declassify when you turn yourself in. Lauren will never go to open court she is a witness to national security now.
“Also, do you think the current policies toward the Muslim world are based on high moral values or self-interest”
Foreign policies between countries are based on SELF INTEREST. I have no doubt that you would want them to be based on high moral values, but I do not believe it will ever possible. Again that is my personal opinion. I am not discounting anybody’s effort to change the factors on which these policies are based. Sometimes there are strong moral arguments presented to back up a specific policy, but the ultimate goal is self interest. However, some of us who have high moral values can still benefit from a foreign policy that is based so self interest. For instance, sending thousands of troops to Africa to fight Ebola is a strategy to protect your territory from the source of the disease. It is not based on the moral concern for poor Africans dying. However, if you are a doctor in Africa who believes in moral values then that strategy would be very helpful in your fight to stop poor Africans from dying due to Ebola.
As long as these policies are based on self-interest and not selflessness, generosity, truth, lack of desire for power, control, resources and land, etc., they will continue to produce negative results.
Humanity has tried self-interest and what’s practical for thousands of years.
It’s time to give high moral values a chance.
So, if that ain’t gonna happen, then the results will continue to be what we are seeing today, and we will continue to chase shadows.
Humanity sometimes corrects its course after a huge disaster. Why not correct it before that happens? Why wait for the Prince of Peace to come and establish peace on earth?
Interestingly, there are a lot of people, religious and non-religious, whose hearts reflects positive qualities, to varying degrees. Even those who are in power and control reflect them towards certain people, especially their own loved ones.
So they know what these higher values are.
Today’s political climate is bad. Politics is meant to SERVE people, not used as a mechanism to experience lust for power and control.
From my perspective, when actions are based on selflessness, generosity, truth, etc., it benefits us all. What goes around does in fact come around.
Steb, here’s a link to a few minutes of that George does the opposite episode of Seinfeld:
http://youtu.be/cKUvKE3bQlY
In it, is an answer to your oft-repeated query. Let’s see if you can figure it out.
Is your response that of the premise of this case? Shall we move to overtake the news station instead of converse with it? Cause if we do the opposite of what is normal then we just come in and blow your whole fucking organization away. And that will take care of the question and answer forum!
Steb, this is why I referred you to that “George Does the Opposite” episode of Seinfeld:
Do the opposite of what the instincts tell, especially those of Lindsey.
I have given you a more detailed answer elsewhere. The system is currently not producing leaders who act selflessly in matters of policies. So how can the results be constructive and positive?
Before we put any more boots on the ground, let’s talk about what happened to the last group of veterans.
http://interactive.fusion.net/a-losing-battle/
Such are the dividends of patriotism.
Look who’s back!
[Standing Ovation/Clapping]
coram nobis returns!
Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven,
exult, let Angel ministers of God exult,
let the trumpet of salvation
sound aloud our mighty King’s triumph!
Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her,
ablaze with light from her eternal King,
let all corners of the earth be glad,
knowing an end to gloom and darkness.
Rejoice, let Mother Church also rejoice,
arrayed with the lightning of his glory,
let this holy building shake with joy,
filled with the mighty voices of the peoples.
I went away from the lights of 14th street
And into my personal haze
But now that I’m back in the lights of 14th Street
Tomorrow will be brighter than the good old days
(Those good old days)
Excellent point coram nobis…that being that those who are unaffected directly by the ravages of endless war petulantly defend the lies fed by a corrupt governmental system that pushes war strictly for economic gain.
Glad to see you alive and hopefully well.
Best wishes.
In my many years of reading blog comment sections, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a style of “debate” quite like Steb’s. He/she just asks the same question over and over, relentlessly insisting it has not been answered no matter how many times it has, in fact, been answered. Crazy.
Not quite the same question over and over. As Porniska notes below, when Steb gets answers, s/he then invariably moves the goalposts. As Porninska aptly describes this bad faith MO:
Exactly.
What is amazing to me is that when you get the floor, by you I mean (Mr Greenwald’s followers), to present your case you do exactly the same thing: blame everybody who disagrees with you. You even blame me for asking the question without even answering it. When you are incapable of answering it, you blame me for criticizing you for not answering it.
If I ask a question regarding foreign policy about Iraq, you can answer it however you wish. However, calling me a “warmonger” and stating “US is responsible for that mess” for asking the question without providing one single idea on policies simply means that your answer is null and void. Pedinska wrote a long comment blaming me instead of answering the question. Whether the policies are satisfactory to me is irrelevant. However, they should show that you have a basic understanding of what is going on in Iraq and be consistent with the great concerns you have shown for the safety of US and Iraqi citizens.
What the hell does the safety of Americans have to do with Iraq?Jeez,that card was played from the bottom of the deck in 03,and look at all the Americans harmed.Total poppycock,and only the Israelis are in danger(proximity) from the disaster that the Zionist neolibcons have wrought,but isn’t that justice,that the instigators of evil pay the price?
Yankee come home,embargo or remove the weapons we’ve supplied,and leave them with sticks or swords to fight it out,if that’s their wish.
But of course,profit is the driver of our monsters,so that won’t happen WO the proverbial sea change in American politicians.
Sorry to go into psychoanalysis mode, as it’s admittedly tangential, but I think this is characteristic of 1) People in crisis 2) People with personality disorders. I’ve observed the crisis part because I work in a health-related field, and standard wisdom is that families will not absorb what you are telling them when you deliver bad news (so you should write it down, give out printed materials, etc.) or even misremember it. For some families, this state of shock lasts for awhile and they will literally ask the exact same questions over and over each time they come in. For people with personality disorders, I’ve noticed the circular argument is a classic go-to precisely because it is circular, it’s like a merry-go-round of crazy that you accidentally step on and can never step off (sorry Steb, not saying that’s necessarily the case with you, just a general observation.) As in: Answer question A…. Ok, here’s my answer to question A… But you didn’t consider B… But you didn’t ask me about B, well, ok, I’ll bite, here’s what I think of B… But that contradicts what I think about A, how do you explain that…. Well, here’s my answer to your point on A… But you didn’t consider B… Whee!!
I have a better idea. Read the question and give me an answer, then you can play psychoanalyst all day. Is it fair enough?
Basically, I think we should leave them alone unless there is some huge, compelling threat to the US involved (security-wise or economic), in which case that should be a national conversation. ISIL may well gain significant power there but so long as that’s a local affair, trying to control who comes into power is just delaying the inevitable, to my mind. Running a country is not like making a half-assed effort at a 9 to 5 white collar job, whatever group comes into power ultimately will have to have a force of extreme conviction and passion behind it, and we can’t, as outsiders, control where that spirit emanates from. That depends on the sociocultural development of Iraq, which is in a very different place than we are and born of a very different mindset. Trying to knock down a group with real popular support and prop up a democracy that isn’t organically grown, ground up, on the part of the Iraqi people, will probably fail – if Iraq hates ISIL, let them rally and fight for what they do want. But it has to come from them, not us.
I’m mildly interested to see if Steb will acknowledge that Nic has, in fact, answered Steb’s question. (And answered it quite well, in my view. It’s exactly how I would have elaborated on my “leave ’em the fuck alone” policy if I were as smart as Nic.)
@Gator
Yes, he did answer the question. He could have just provided that answer before his “health” analysis. My answer to him would have been the same I gave you: “Thank you for your answer”. I am sure you can understand me if I do not say thanks to those who answered me by saying I am a warmonger for just asking a question.
Aw, thanks Gator.
@Steb- You are indeed quite sensitive, though you deny it. Listen, it could be worse. Some of GG’s “followers” have called me a Zionist.
I got the Zionist one even before I mentioned anything about Israel! When I finally mentioned Israel it was to state that I think Israel should leave all occupied territories, dismantle all settlements, and have East Jerusalem as an international city since both sides cannot agree on its status. Guess what was the answer I got: “You are still a Zionist”!!
Gator — no hyperbole — I almost spewed my cola on my monitor. U a funny guy. ;)
No.
Moreover, you are a Zionist.
Steb won’t play by the rules he imposes on others. Many of us here have answered his boatloads of questions; certainly I have. But he will not answer this:
1) I do not impose rules on anybody here.
2) I have not answered anybody’s questions with another question. So, I think I deserve the same courtesy. I ask a question, then I should get an answer first, then other questions. If anybody believe the question is irrelevant, stupid etc..then he/she can ignore it.
3) Very interesting that you talk about rules being imposed on others. Is calling others names such as “morons” …part of the rules you imposed on others? If you use a very impolite word to describe me, should I use the same against you?
Did you watch this panel discussion?
http://www.aliallawi.com/videos.php#canIraqSurvive
Also, do you think the current policies toward the Muslim world are based on high moral values or self-interest.
P.S. I’m also interested in your response to Mona’s question. I think it’s very crucial. Thanks,
It is, on every level, moral and practical.
No. Don’t care.
Now, I have answered many of your questions, and ask you to please answer mine, which again is:
I deem it fruitful to know how you answer that before I respond to your latest inquiry; my answer will greatly depend on the one I first need from you.
1) the answer I seek from my question is your personal opinion. If I want answers from experts, then I would ask academics, generals, Iraqi government officials. I notice that many of you blame the US for a lot, so I am just wondering what you would want the US to do differently in Iraq.
2) Your question is a completely personal opinion. I am not sure why you are interested in my personal opinion to present your own personal opinion. So, I have disregarded it until Sufi (the one who holds the ultimate word of wisdom) made me think that I should actually answer it.
3) based on my experience, Iraq is actually three countries in reality. The North controlled by the Kurds for years, the Western and Central part controlled mostly by Sunni tribes and the South-Southeast controlled by Shia tribes and militias. There was no “void” in the North and it is still largely controlled by the Kurds, ISIL only controls a few small towns. If today, the US and the Kurds drive ISIL away from those towns, then the Kurds will get full control of those towns as it was before. There is no “void” in the South and South East neither. Those areas are controlled by the Shia government and Shia militias. Driving ISIL away today would not really affect those areas since ISIL does not control those areas. The Western and Central parts have always been under the control of Sunni tribes for hundreds of years. No forces, foreign or domestic can have control in those areas without their support. Al Qaeda run away in these areas because those tribes wanted them to go away. ISIL got into these areas because many of those tribes allowed them to come. So, if ISIL is driven away today, then these tribes will be controlling their areas again.
Assuming, arguendo, this is all true, would relative peace and security ensue for the people and the region? That is, assuming the U.S. could swiftly remove ISIL, does Iraq stabilize?
Btw, I agree that Sufi speaks many words of wisdom. I struggle with some things he argues about Muslim culture and practices, but I pay him respectful attention.
Again, this is my personal opinion. The Kurds have maintained relative peace and security in their areas for years. History is the judge of that not me. Sunnis tribes and Shias will always be fighting each other. It is a religious conflict that has been going on for almost 1400 years. However, you will not have a situation where Sunni tribes will try to “cleanse” their areas from Yazidis, or any other religious groups and you will not have thousands of Shias evacuating a city and becoming refugees in their own country. Sectarian violence will continue in the Western, Central and Southern part, but in a level not similar to the current extent.
We weren’t’ supposed to get Al Qaeda in Iraq after we invaded, but we did. We weren’t supposed to get ISIL a decade later, but we did. What basis do you have for believing no such similar group or groups will find Iraq to be fertile territory if ISIL were eliminated in Iraq on Monday?
NOBODY can predict the future. We were not supposed to have another war “like this” after WWI yet we had WWII. We were not supposed to have a genocide after WWII yet we had Rwanda and Sudan. Nobody can guarantee you that no terrorists groups similar to Al Qaeda or ISIL would never go back to Iraq. You can only set up mechanisms that make it hard for those groups to become powerful enough to establish chaos in the society. The Sunnis and the Shias never really like each other, but historically the main tribes have not shown an inclination to decimate each other when both group have access to leadership positions, jobs, infrastructures, social services.
Who is the “you” doing the “setting up,” and what, specifically, are the “mechanisms” they set up?
Keep in mind that the victors of WWI believed they had made the world safe for democracy and ended war for the foreseeable future. They were, of course, grotesquely wrong. Also, keep in mind that our invasion of Iraq was supposed to free the country for democratic rule; instead we got Al Qaeda, ISIS, and a lot of sectarian strife during and in between. So in your answer, keep these recent, real world lessons in mind.
You ask a lot of questions regarding my personal opinion, yet you have not answered the one I have asked you. The “you” is a general term. As for Iraq, it will be up to the Iraqis to design efficient policies to prevent Al Qaeda or ISIL type groups from coming back to destroy their country. Other countries can assist or even pressure the Iraqis to set up those mechanisms because groups like ISIL will eventually represent a danger for Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc… Again, the conflict between Sunnis and Shias is religious and it is roughly 1400 years old. There is absolutely NO guarantee that a specific policy will stop it completely. A policy or mechanism that consists of including Sunnis and Shias in leadership positions and providing social services to all might reduce the violence well below the current level. However, no one, no policy can guarantee the end of a 1400 years old religious conflict.
Steb 08 Nov 2014 at 10:17 pm
I’ve given you two answers:
1. My personal, which is spiritual; I do not see much positive and constructive outcome from the world leaders who are involved in affecting Iraq’s future, and that of a few other Arab countries, since I do not perceive them acting through their higher selves; they are more concerned about self-interest.
So until policies are based on high spiritual (aka moral) values, such as selflessness, justice, love, etc., they will not produce sweet fruits.
In this way, I am being a Gandhite, who opposed British India’s involvement in WWII, at least in the beginning, and suggested that the solution was of spiritual nature.
2. My second answer is to direct you to a very detailed book of Dr. Ali Allawi, who was a minister in the post-Saddam Iraq.
I realize that you do want our personal answers only. However, even my second answer is also personal.
Dr. Allawi wrote an article several years ago pointing out that Iraq was no more. That it was actually now three countries: Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.
You may also want to watch his panel discussion: “Can Iraq Survive?”, at http://www.aliallawi.com/videos.php#canIraqSurvive
Good! You also recognize that it’s actually three countries. Iraq was created by the colonial powers. It was an artificial country as were a few other countries in that region.
Kuwait was not given to Iraq, also for a reason.
On the above Dr. Ali Allawi’s website, please navigate to its “publications” section to see he has written another book: “Faisal I of Iraq”.
This book will give you a few more insights.
Appreciate the above analysis.
The real situation might be more complex.
Some think that the West has two options:
1. Go all the way, occupying that region, providing security for the common people, and then rebuilding it.
Or
2. Stay out.
Totally agree with your prescription of compromise and international Jerusalem,and Zionism is just Israeli nationalism,and as an American nationalist,I see nothing wrong with that movement,if it didn’t include brainwashing Americans into policies that impugn on our American nationalism,and create disaster after disaster for US.
Steb perhaps doesn’t see that the form of Steb’s question makes a framework in which the question is unanswerable without an explanatory qualification of the past.
Or, Steb very well sees this, and wants no one to notice.
Steb’s question is the equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?” (It’s a trap: You can’t say yes, you can’t say no, without the wife-beating being an unquestioned/accepted fact.)
Steb wants the West’s interventions has in the past to be irrelevant, and won’t accept the direct, contextual and obvious answer that says “Well, we should not do THAT, that’s for sure.”
I am assuming that you vote. Suppose you are a US citizen who votes and there will be a general election this month. What policy would you want the elected leaders of the US to establish in Iraq? That is basically what I ask. Do you vote by comparing what you would like with what the candidates are offering?
In an episode of Seinfeld, George is upset that whatever he’s been doing in his life hasn’t worked.
So he decides to do the opposite of what his instincts tell him to do.
When he goes against his instincts and does the opposite, he not only gets a girl, he gets hired by the Yankees owner.
Remember that episode?
It’s relevant to what you’ve been asking.
Steb weebles on his wobble:
If, by some magic, the U.S. could bomb ISIL out of Iraq by next Monday, who or what do you think would fill the void? Support your answer with facts and reasoning.
In order to gauge a policy or examine a way of thinking that has become rote, it helps to turn it around. What, do you imagine, the conversation would be if we lived in a world where this were the question: What policy would you want the elected leaders of Iraq to establish in the US?
One of the reasons I love reading the Guardian is because it garners an international audience; one that doesn’t take as its default position that the world revolves around the US. Can you imagine anything more obnoxious, dangerous, or outrageous than assuming that another nation gets to set policy for you? Yet that is exactly what the US is doing; that that doesn’t even strike you as odd is very telling.
Politics and power are 99% psychology, but we are so illiterate about basic human instincts and needs– to protect our families (I can goddamn guarantee you that if bombs started falling in downtown Chicago or Cleveland tomorrow we would not expect the denizens to cower in their basements without protecting themselves) and to fear or hate (or both) those actively harming us are chief among them–that we keep repeating the same mistakes. A good starting place would in relinquishing the arrogant notion that we have a right to set policies in sovereign nations, and to enforce them at the end of a drone.
—————
Still no editing functions? Sigh…
My question has absolutely nothing to do with setting policies for Iraq. It is a question aimed at those who choose their leaders through elections in the US. I asked how the US government should design its policy vis a vis Iraq. I did not ask how the US should set up Iraqi economic, social or even political policies. How is it arrogant to ask how a sovereign nation (USA) should deal with another one (Iraq)?
This: “What policy would you want the elected leaders of the US to establish in Iraq?” was a direct quote…from you . Are you now saying that this was not a sincere question? Odd,and as others have noted, it certainly makes debate nearly impossible if you keep walking back from what you just stated or asked.
I quoted you directly; are you taking exception to your own point?
Iran (1980, 1987-1988) After taking prisoner and torturing Embassy personnel.
Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011) After German night club attack, and then downing of airliner.
Lebanon (1983),
Kuwait (1991) Kuwait appreciates our aid
Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), 1998 not 2001- After they asked us to, and their nation was used to attack the US
Sudan (1998), After several attacks on our embassies and US Cole
The US has attacked no Muslim country that did not first begin war with the US.
Lesson: If you don’t want one country to occupy or bomb you, don’t provoke with terrorism.
It takes a completely uncaring and closed-minded head-in-sand sociopath to persevere in pretending one’s intentionally destructive and toxically motivated actions of yesterday should have no consequence in choosing to do the same today, or that an impeccable record of previous failures somehow has no bearing on such decisions.
Someone’s small and smelly strawturd should really be shoved back up the combination ass from which it was pulled.
Mr. Greenwald:
Your must be a special kind of stupid. Our enemies, who are bent on taking over the world with their ideology and Islam extremism, must be smiling. They have idiot allies like you amongst their enemies helping to do their work for them.
Steb
“……What would be the appropriate US policy in Iraq as of November 2014. They argue a lot about how ineffective and violent US policy in that country has been. They do have a valid point. However, when facing the issue of presenting new policies, these are their responses……”
I think you are misinterpreting their responses, steb. Many of the posters on this site support the US doing nothing i.e., “….Stop all military support/relations with Iraq regardless of the elected government request for military aids to fight ISIL, regardless of ISIL dedication to decimate the Kurds and other religious groups…..”. Belittling their response is simply a miscalculation on your part. And it doesn’t matter whether you discuss US policies in Iraq or Afghanistan, the goal is the same: the more innocent people that die the better. The reason that no one can come up with an answer to your question is because doing “nothing” gets the best result – more death, destruction, chaos and – therefore – failure of US policies.
If the Kurds or Yazidis are totally wiped out in Iraq, that’s because Bush lied about WMDs and illegally invaded Iraq – and those are more reasons that Bush should be brought to the Hague for trial. If the Taliban completely retake Afghanistan at some point in the future and subjugate the population under harsh sharia law, then that decisively refutes US policies – and that is clearly worth the cost. Punishing (especially) Bush or Obama policies is worth the sacrifice of doing nothing to save those people – for political reasons. The radical left is not driven by human rights or what might be for the good of humanity, but by opposition to US policies. Failure is the best possible result.
So don’t misinterpret their responses as “ignorance”. There is no political political strategy in ignorance.
While I’ve argued the US is achieving its strategic goals in the Middle East, I never went so far as to claim it was covering itself with glory. Are people opposing new military adventures in the Middle East out of the fear they will be wildly successful? I may be wrong (as I’m not as good as you at acting as a spokesman for my opponents), but I really don’t believe this is their darkest fear. The goal of military intervention is to help some people kill some other people, and then vice versa if the other side starts to get the upper hand. If either side gains supremacy, they are liable to respond by kicking the US out. So maybe the people you are arguing with are right; failure is indeed the best possible result. If that’s case, a certain reluctance to initiate such an undertaking is perhaps understandable.
To look at this from another perspective, the people who keenest for the US to attack the Middle East are ISIS. Does it follow that they are more pro-American than anyone else?
“…….Are people opposing new military adventures in the Middle East out of the fear they will be wildly successful?….”
Of course, that would be the greatest fear of the radical left because the US is the greatest threat to peace in the world (along with Israel) as every poll conducted in Muslim-majority countries indicates – and “wildly” successful policies would only encourage the US to intervene more. The neocons would regain power in the US government. A total collapse of Iraq into anarchy and genocide is worth it belittle US policies, and to save the world from further intervention by the US. The US already rejected intervention in Syria to help bring down the murderer, Assad, precisely because of the perception that the US failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Failure” influences US policies even if it is not perceptible to the naked eye. It’s even caused the US to pursue negotiations over Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program.
“……To look at this from another perspective, the people who keenest for the US to attack the Middle East are ISIS. Does it follow that they are more pro-American than anyone else?…..”
The ISIS is the new gunslinger in town challenging the old order – al Qaeda. The world economy is still not doing so well. Oil prices are down. The jihadists are competing for recruits and funding in a competitive business. They might be “pro” American in that respect. However, let’s just pretend that the Mossad was not responsible for 911 and make the wild assumption that Islamic terrorists associated with al-Qaeda actually did plan and execute that attack (big if). It follows that the jihadists are probably not pro American in reality – but hate us simply because we kill Muslims.
Thanks Benito
Real peace comes through spiritual transformation, when the self reflects the higher qualities, such as, selflessness, generosity, love, peace, justice, detachment from power, control, land and resources, treating others like one would want to be treated (not seeing any otherness), service to fellow human beings with no expectations to receive anything in return, humility, lack of anger and revenge, forgiveness, sharing, etc. etc., …, and not from political agreements or military actions.
[By the way, I recall someone saying: Violence begets violence.]
When a peasant living in a remote village in, say, Peru, grooms his self to reflect these higher qualities, the positive and loving impact he will have is understandably limited to those with whom he interacts.
But if the world leaders reflect them in all aspects of their lives — personal and official/governmental — the policies they devise will be positive and constructive, and will have wide ranging impact on the condition of human beings on earth.
There is a well-known (to us) saying of Imam Ali: The most qualified person to hold a position of authority is the one who has no desire for it.
Until we see this transformation in those who are managing the world’s affairs, as well as in the non-state characters, I’m afraid, humanity will continue to chase shadows.
I’ve said this to many people, regarding the Second Palestinian Intifada, which was triggered when Sharon decided to visit the Al-Aqsa mosque to lay claim over it:
If you recall, he went there with soldiers. The Palestinians started to throw rocks. The soldiers fired, killing several Palestinians, and it started the Intifada.
A real Sufi leader of the Palestinians, and other Palestinians, would have welcomed Sharon with love and forgiveness, offered him dates and coffee, allowed him to roam around the area, and the whole thing would’ve been defused. As a matter of fact, I still have the image of a prominent Christian Palestinian leader pleading with the Palestinians to not throw any rocks and deal with the situation with patience and peace. I don’t remember his name, but after he died (not related to the Intifada, I think he became ill and died in a Jordanian hospital), Israel allowed him to be buried in Jerusalem.
Sufi literature is full of real stories of forgiveness and love, and detachments.
I think the Palestinian leader I mentioned above was Faisal Husseini, and he might not have been a Christian, and died in Kuwait, not Jordan.
“…..There is a well-known (to us) saying of Imam Ali: The most qualified person to hold a position of authority is the one who has no desire for it…..”
No one exemplifies that quite like Nelson Mandela who stepped down voluntarily – and I think there is a lot of truth to the statement by Imam Ali. So-called leaders become intoxicated by power.
Thanks.
“If the Kurds or Yazidis are totally wiped out in Iraq, that’s because Bush lied about WMDs and illegally invaded Iraq – and those are more reasons that Bush should be brought to the Hague for trial. ”
The Sunnis would still be doing the same thing if Saddam where in power.In fact, if taking how many muslims died from muslim Saddam, more Muslims would be dead today.
An `rrheard sighting!!
Reminds me of the ‘Salooney Tune’ days when `terry5135 would habitually facepimp `heru-ur back to his casa in Anarchyville..
Andre ‘scuzzaman’ Mizrahi.. Holler at your boy!! -javier ‘ninja’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1eSFxSQaDg
ht`t-wan
In reference to my insistence that, before we can begin to create solutions to the problems we create, we must be told the truth, here is a small bit of that truth:
Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw
The situation in the Middle East is pretty much ideal from the US point of view. Various factions fighting each other, obliged to pump as much oil as possible at favorable terms in order to finance their ongoing struggles.
It is less ideal from the point of view of people living in that region. So the question should be what are they going to do about it? Will the various religious factions and ethnic groups learn to live together? I doubt it, and assume they will remain easy prey for predators such as the US, China and Russia. Possibly once their oil runs out, abandoned and left to their own devices, they will finally be able to benefit from that benign neglect and begin to solve their problems. For those in the West who support this outcome, use as much oil as possible, which will speed progress towards that eventual resolution.
It scares me how true that first sentence rang in my ear…
It is a very lazy way to get at the truth, by way of Youtube, where sources are never sited, and lies can be easily told. Its about as good as e-mails.
Steb, I am not sure you will answer but I only have one question for you if I may? It is a YES or NO question. DO YOU AGREE WITH US POLICY FOR ISRAEL?
How does the 1980 attempt to rescue hostages from Iran qualify as an ‘invasion’?
Glenn Greenwald, are you dishonest or just stupid?
We aknowledge this statistics in which historians has already documented. As shown this American violence is not only to Muslim world but throughout the world. Countless millions of people have been killed; thousands maimed throughout their lives and I wonder why this violence from a country that shout everyday as ‘exceptional’. I now realise that when decline begins, violence beget.
The blow back due to the overreaching of conservative/right/religious/republican/neo….. etc.., is something that will play out for generations to come. However, as a free people, are we to not address the reality of a militant faction of Islam. When the math is done, is it not clearly more than a small irrelevant amount of Islamic adherents? I don’t want promote any negative stereotype ever, but to suggest that a substantial number of humans who happen to be “somewhat” ideologically influenced by the Islamic faith…….are actually NOT….
This is a nonstarter.
If 6% of the 1.5 billion Islamic faithful are radical?
That’s an OH SHIT number…..why can’t we at least agree there?
I have asked Mr Greenwald and his followers a very simple question. What would be the appropriate US policy in Iraq as of November 2014. They argue a lot about how ineffective and violent US policy in that country has been. They do have a valid point. However, when facing the issue of presenting new policies, these are their responses (Not Mr Greenwald’s):
1) The US is responsible for the mess in Iraq (is that the policy I asked for?)
2) Stop support for Israel (I specifically asked proposals for Iraq)
3) I am a warmonger for even asking that question!!
4) Arrest American war criminals
And then finally,
a) Stop all military support/relations with Iraq regardless of the elected government request for military aids to fight ISIL, regardless of ISIL dedication to decimate the Kurds and other religious groups.
b) Do not support the Shiite government until that government is a real representation of the Iraqi society. Although the Iraqi government as of November 2014 includes Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, but apparently it is not “inclusive”. Yet no metrics have been provided to evaluate the inclusiveness of the Iraqi government.
Somebody here stated that some criticisms are
“Constructive, positive, healthy, courteous and based on knowledge. This type of critique is very helpful or
Destructive, negative, discourteous, and based on a lack of proper knowledge and training”
I wonder how Mr Greenwald and his followers’ criticism should be described. They spent days and hours bashing the US, mixing legitimate concerns with illogical deductions but they are incapable of formulating a single realistic policy towards Iraq that would benefit the Iraqis. Their defense: everybody who disagrees with them is a Zionist, a bigot, a corporatist, a warmonger, a brain washed individual, (I am avoiding the more vulgar words they use). The world is not a pretty place for most of his inhabitants, but there is no doubt it would be worse if most citizens were following distorted logics presented by Mr Greenwald.
If, by some magic, the U.S. could bomb ISIL out of Iraq by next Monday, who or what do you think would fill the void? Support your answer with facts and reasoning.
I will answer your question if you give me the courtesy of answering mine.
What is the appropriate policy that the US should follow towards Iraq as of November 2014?
My answer heavily depends on the strength and nature of your answer to my question, to wit:
Steb’s simple question has been simply answered many times:
Stan
Reparations.
Steb
Elaborate more please.
JCDavis
…the first order of business is not to start new wars and fund terrorists, as we have been doing, but to arrest and prosecute our war criminals.
Joe Stein
After making a mess of gargantuan proportions in Iraq, the US policy should be to leave not only Iraq , but the entire Muslim world “the fuck alone”.
Steb
Please elaborate
Redhead
Start by stopping the violence and starting talking about mutual concerns.
Step
Be more specific.
Gator90
I can’t speak for Mr. Greenwald or his “followers,” but I have a proposed policy: Leave ‘em the fuck alone and expect the same
steb
Steb
What does leave them the F… alone mean?
Gator90
I would think “leave ‘em the fuck alone” to be pretty clear English, but if elaboration is required, it means don’t bomb anybody and have no other military involvement there. Ever..
Sufi Muslim
Base policies on the higher self/consciousness, which reflects qualities I have listed often.
avelna2001
07 Nov 2014 at 11:10 am
Let’s not focus on one country at a time. That’s worse than useless. The US can start by withdrawing support to all those regimes who perpetrate the same atrocities as ISIS like Saudi Arabia. The US can withdraw support from Israel unless and until Israel engages honestly in a peace process with the Palestinians. In Iraq the US can withdraw support to the Shiite dominated government unless and until it stops slaughtering Sunnis and forms an inclusive government with proportionate representation for all. Policy has to change throughout the whole region, not just in one country if the mess is ever to be sorted out.
Steb
US policy in Saudi Arabia is different from US policy in Israel, so that is why I think it is better to focus on one country at a time. For Iraq, your view is clear: withdraw support to the Shiite government until the government is inclusive. About the Kurds? About ISIL?
@DocHolywood
You actually believe these are answers to my simple question? Let me give you an example of a US foreign policy
State Israel
1) Military support through bilateral training and exchange of technology.
2) Economic support through special loans and loan guarantees
3) Diplomatic support by backing the State of Israel in international organizations such as the UN and IAEA and placing pressure on the Palestinian authority for the establishment of a two state solution.
That was a brief EXAMPLE of what a foreign policy looks like. Most of you will probably use that example to bash me instead of answering my simple question because the name Israel is on it.
These so called answers show how blind most of Mr Greenwald’s supporters are. Reparations to whom? A check to every Iraqi or humanitarian aids or special economic assistance? What are the consequences of stopping ALL military support to a country whose inhabitants face ultimate death by a powerful violent terrorist group? Talk to whom about mutual concerns? The Kurds? The Sunni tribes? Well, they are talking to the US government. I did not ask for policies towards Israel or Saudi Arabia. Arresting American war criminals would be an internal US policy not a foreign policy vis a vis Iraq.
So, no. You have not answered the simple question. Maybe you are waiting for Mr. Greenwald’s proposal, which you will automatically support.
Iraq is not a vacuum. Your insincerity reeks every time you post a comment.
Yet, you have not answered the question.
“……Your insincerity reeks every time you post a comment……”
Resorting to once again what you do best – personal attacks.
This one actually thinks he has a point or something. If we don’t answer his question with 200 page policy document, then his wonderful question has not been answered.
What I actually did there in that comment to the steb person is tell the truth. I don’t believe that the steb person is an honest interlocutor. He makes that clear in almost every single one of his comments. An actual “personal attack” is often times an untruth, aka a lie, such as the comment I’ve quoted from you that you directed at me.
@ Bill
I will make it easy for you. Just give me five points, not 200 page, but five. If you cannot, then I guess you will have to just ignore the question.
Is that fair enough?
@ Kitt
You may believe I am dishonest, I am Susi, Hercules or I am Virgin Mary…It is irrelevant. This is the Internet, so take advantage of it and tell the world what the US policy in Iraq should be as of November, 2014. Many of you have spent a long time telling the world what the US policy in Iraq should not have been. I think everybody got it by now. Now today, what should it be.
Steb, Kitt is free, of course, to reply to you as he chooses. My view, however, is that the best answer he could give you has already been brilliantly set forth by Pedinska here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/#comment-87504
What’s happening in Iraq is not happening in a vacuum. Changing policy in Iraq alone will not resolve anything. I find it hard to believe that you would be stupid enough to think so.
Okay, but you still have to change policies in Iraq, so what are the policies you would change in Iraq and why? Show the world that you are capable of answering that question before you call others “stupid”.
Alrighty then. WWSD pray tell. What’s your solution? Oh, and BTW, I didn’t actually call you stupid, though I’m beginning to wonder.
Steb
“……What would be the appropriate US policy in Iraq as of November 2014. They argue a lot about how ineffective and violent US policy in that country has been. They do have a valid point. However, when facing the issue of presenting new policies, these are their responses……”
I think you are misinterpreting their responses, steb. Many of the posters on this site support the US doing nothing i.e., “….Stop all military support/relations with Iraq regardless of the elected government request for military aids to fight ISIL, regardless of ISIL dedication to decimate the Kurds and other religious groups…..”. Belittling their response is simply a miscalculation on your part. And it doesn’t matter whether you discuss US policies in Iraq or Afghanistan, the goal is the same: the more innocent people that die the better. The reason that no one can come up with an answer to your question is because doing “nothing” gets the best result – more death, destruction, chaos and – therefore – failure of US policies.
If the Kurds or Yazidis are totally wiped out in Iraq, that’s because Bush lied about WMDs and illegally invaded Iraq – and those are more reasons that Bush should be brought to the Hague for trial. If the Taliban completely retake Afghanistan at some point in the future and subjugate the population under harsh sharia law, then that decisively refutes US policies – and that is clearly worth the cost. Punishing (especially) Bush or Obama policies is worth the sacrifice of doing nothing to save those people – for political reasons. The radical left is not driven by human rights or what might be for the good of humanity, but by opposition to US policies. Failure is the best possible result.
So don’t misinterpret their responses as “ignorance”. There is no political political strategy in ignorance.
@Craig- my memory is hazy, but I seem to recall an argument among Americans in 2002-2003 regarding Iraq. Some contended that using American military force there would serve the causes of “human rights” and the “good of humanity.” Others maintained that a US invasion of Iraq would sow “death, destruction [and] chaos” and was therefore a bad idea. Of course, the people favoring invasion accused the anti-war dissenters of political calculation, and of callous indifference to “human rights” and the “good of humanity.”
How’d that turn out?
A very detailed answer is here: http://www.aliallawi.com/pub_occupationOfIraq.php
Dr. Ali Allawi was a minister in the post-Saddam government, and had a front seat to what was happening.
“Can Iraq Survive?”, a panel discussion, at http://www.aliallawi.com/videos.php#canIraqSurvive
Hi Gator
“…..How’d that turn out?…..”
You are deviating from what I posted, but this is a reasonable question which probably requires a really much longer answer than I’m going to give to answer it fairly. Getting rid of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein is certainly positive, and the majority Shia are rightly in power. The Kurds were also liberated and live in an autonomous area of Iraq. Iraqis also voted for the first time ever. Iraqis made a huge sacrifice to get to that point. They paid in terms of lives lost, displacement either as refugees or ethnic cleansing and in the chaos that followed the invasion. The US unleashed a brutal civil war with regional overtones much like in Syria today. No one can deny that. However, after hostilities settled down, the Iraqis formed an inclusive government represented by the major religious and ethnic divides in the country which, more or less, was similar to the government in Lebanon.
Unfortunately, the Sunnis were marginalized from the Maliki government after the US was forced to leave which led to the current situation in Iraq. ISIS has filled the void recruiting disaffected Sunnis and taking over a large swath of Iraq in the process. The primary tactic of the ISIS has been to target and bomb Shia civilians in markets or Mosque. They have proven to be a racist and especially brutal Islamic terrorist organization seeking to subjugate Iraqis, Syrians and Arabs, in general, under an authoritarian system with sharia law. They are a huge threat to minorities like the Kurds and Yazidis.
The US message to the Iraqi government is simple: the problems with ISIS cannot be resolved unless you become a more inclusive government for all Iraqis – including and especially the minority Sunni population. US demands to (rightly) replace the Maliki government were met, and US policies are now focused on getting rid of ISIS in Iraq through (re)training the Iraqi army, protecting the Kurds and bombing ISIS positions. The war necessarily will be extremely bloody as ISIS seeks the cover of civilians in population centers like Mosul.
So the answer to your question is: it’s still turning out…….
Thanks.
Still too early to tell, eh? Riiiiight.
Prediction: At some time during the next 1000 years, life in Iraq will improve to the point of being something other than a nightmarish hellscape. Whereupon the warmongers of the day will crawl out of their slime pits, do an obscene happy dance, and proclaim: Bush was right! The hippies were wrong! Neener neener neener!
“…..Still too early to tell, eh? Riiiiight…..”
I don’t think it’s too early to tell that things are not very good at the moment; however, it could get much worse or better depending on a bunch of factors. Look at Syria, for example. On the other hand, about 1-1.5 million people died in the Korean War and who can argue that the South Koreans are not much better off because they won with the help of the US and NATO? It is too early to tell what will happen in the long run in Iraq.
Yes, and Gator’s response to your first iteration of that still obtains, to wit:
Steb: “a single realistic policy towards Iraq that would benefit the Iraqis”
You appear to assume that (a) the principal goal of American foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq is to benefit Iraqis, and (b) Iraqis will benefit from the use of American military force in their country. I’m no foreign policy expert, but both assumptions strike me as unrealistic. Can you defend them?
Precisely, this one’s argument, such as it is, is predicated on the notion, the nonsensical, evidence free notion, that the US is in the Middle East to ‘help” the people. If this counterfactual assertion is indeed operative, he must prove it.
Faulty premises lead to bad conclusions. As Mr. Steb demonstrates.
Gator
“…..You appear to assume that (a) the principal goal of American foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq is to benefit Iraqis, and (b) Iraqis will benefit from the use of American military force in their country. I’m no foreign policy expert, but both assumptions strike me as unrealistic. Can you defend them?….”
The principle goal of US foreign policy may be to protect the oil supply from falling in the hands of the ISIS, but so what? That may still benefit the Iraqis by getting rid of ISIS who are a threat to Shia Muslims under any circumstance. For example, the US ousted Saddam from Kuwait in 1991. My guess is that the main reason was to protect oil supplies, but the Kuwaitis benefited from that policy. What might fall under US “interests” can serve a dual purpose.
And considering that the Iraqi army ran when confronted by the ISIS, it makes sense that the US can only help the Iraqis fight the ISIS. However, as I suggested in a post above, the Iraqis need to make some political adjustments for a military strategy to be successful.
1) I did not ask you anything about US military intervention in Iraq.
2) I ask you again what do you think would be the most appropriate US policy in Iraq. If you believe military intervention is a bad policy, then that is your choice. Most voters who pick their elected leaders are not experts in foreign policy.
You are a dishonest interlocutor.
I have asked Mr Greenwald and his followers a very simple question. What would be the appropriate US policy in Iraq as of November 2014.
You ask a question, a very simple question, then immediately object to receiving simple answers, answers that gloss over details of how to emerge from a situation that you yourself want to treat simplistically for the purposes of subsequently deflecting the very answers you claim to seek. Then, when you have received these answers, you change the terms of your request:
they are incapable of formulating a single realistic policy towards Iraq that would benefit the Iraqis.
By tacking on that oh, so, tiny after-the-fact qualifier, you render every suggestion null and void because there is no solution that will meet that criteria, at least not for every Iraqi, which you are very aware of. So, you are simply engaged in disingenuous deflection in asking for a solution since your default position is that none will be offered that will be satisfactory to you and, therefore, none will be valid. That such fallacious argumentation is rejected here should surprise no one.
Let me ask you a simple question: Why do you think anyone can offer a solution to a complex problem when the people being asked to supply said solution have been lied to from the very beginning of time about why their country engages in the violence it does? Or is your simple mind incapable of realizing that is the case? It must be so much easier in life to simply toe whatever line the authoritarians you worship lay out for you, never questioning the accuracy of their assertions. I believe I pointed out the dangers in that when I showed you how wrong your assertions in general about Muslims were by producing pertinent quotes from the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/25/compare-u-s-responds-killing-americans-based-killing/#comment-84966
So, until we are shown the truth in a transparent manner – as we should be if we are to be considered a democracy as opposed to an authoritarian oligarchy – then your little exercise is nothing more than a feeble attempt at distracting people from the the lies they have been told for years which are starting to be revealed here and elsewhere.
Have you read any of the answers before you called me a dishonest interlocutor? About you? why don’t you answer the question before you bash me as usual as an authoritarian.
So let me write the question again. What would be the appropriate US policy in Iraq as of November 2014?
These are the answers I got: “Arrest American war criminals”, “stop supporting Saudi Arabia, Israel”, (while I specifically stated just IRAQ please), the “US started that mess”, I “(Steb) am a warmonger”.
If you believe these answers actually pertain to my question, then please stop acting as if you possess the right to decide whether I am intellectually inclined whenever you answer my comments.
The other answers, “reparations” “stop military support to Iraq” “stop support for the government” are very relevant, but I asked for more details. Reparations to whom exactly and how? Do we ignore ISIL when we stop military support? When do we start supporting the government? These questions can be easily answered by those have been following US policy in Iraq enough to believe that Mr Greenwald’s views are correct.
If you or any of Mr Greenwald’s followers believe only experts can answer that question because it is too complex, then
1) None of you should be bashing the US policy in Iraq because it is too “complex” to be understood
2) All of you should go to diplomatic, and history school before you vote for the American leaders.
Because she quite keenly and insightfully explained the essential bad faith nature of your question and the manner(s) it is phrased then extended.
Here’s a policy for you boopsie, STOP KILLING. Duh.
There is no need to qualify the time and place. The appropriate US government policy is to serve the interests the United States of America.
The main interest of the United States in the Middle East is to control the global supplies of oil on which the world’s economy runs. To accomplish this:
a) local governments must be kept as weak as possible, to prevent them from using their oil as a strategic weapon or directly opposing US interests in other ways.
b) the US must have an on-going and enduring military presence in the Middle East, particularly with regard to control of shipping lanes.
There are many specific actions that can be taken to achieve these objectives, but once clarity of vision is achieved, most of them are fairly obvious.
why USA need Booming spacialy in Muslims countries ???? only answer is FREEMASON’S NEW WORLD ORDER IMPLEMENTAION , AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE FREEMASON’S ARE USEING USA POWER ,WHICH WERE GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION WHICH WERE HIJAKED BY THE DAY OF 911………..>>>
That is not a sharp defense to rely heavily on the “count” to present the US as the most violent society the world has ever known and then to turn around and state “the count isn’t mine”.
“That people are willing to justify their own side’s ongoing violence is all obvious – but also totally irrelevant to the point”.
It is very relevant Mr Greenwald. How would you describe the Kuwaiti soldier in 1991 who decided to fight the Iraqi invaders? Was it noble for him to defend his country? Or was he a “savage” or a “primitive” human being? How would you describe the Kurds who are fighting against ISIL for their survival? As a journalist you probably know what ISIL would do to the Kurds if they take over their territories. Are the Kurds noble for fighting against insane terrorists who behead journalists like you live for the world, or they are “savage” and “primitive” for using violence to protect themselves?
How you describe Kuwaiti soldiers in 1991 or Pershmerga fighters in 2014 has a lot to do in supporting or blaming the use of violence by the US. Your attempt to distort reality in this article can only work with your blind followers. According to your logic it would be acceptable for a society to present its police force as the most violent entity in a country because the police has killed more citizens than any other force for the last thirty years. It would be irrelevant whether or not the cops had to use lethal force to protect themselves or others.
“it’s nonetheless a fact that the U.S. has engaged in far more violence, bombing, occupations and invasions of other countries around the world no matter the time period you choose (last 5 years, last 15 years, last 30 years, etc)”
How far can I go in history? Because I can go as far as 600 AD, in that case the US does not hold the top position in violence, occupations and invasions of other countries.
To track Greenwald’s argument, the question would be how violent is American law enforcement, including citizen fatalities, compared with other police forces in the world? (If you like, in per capita terms.)
You, Steb, keep incoherently wandering, far afield of what the Greenwald piece argues and is about.
1) I am not sure why you pick American law enforcement. I did not mention US law enforcement.
2) I was comparing the police with other “entity” in a society. You may have drug cartels, mafia organizations and others involved in violence in the society. Since the police has killed more people than all of these organizations, then according to Mr Greenwald’s argument the police would be the most violent entity in the society. It would be irrelevant whether or not the police killed so many people to protect themselves or others. What matters is the number of people killed by the police even if the police has a perfect record in terms of human rights. The FACT that the cops killed 500 citizens (all of them, hardcore criminals who were attempting to kill others), and other criminals killed only 200 citizens makes the Police the most violent entity in the society. Only narrow minded individuals would believe that this FACT is a fair tool to conclude whether the Police force in the most violent entity in that society.
In your world, the police only kill on “hardcore criminals” (“all of them, hardcore criminals who were attempting to kill others”) is good evidence that you are insane.
Read again the word “EXAMPLE”. I used CAPS to avoid misinterpretations like yours.
Does domestic peace then reign? Because the actual situation Greenald is describing does not, remotely, usher in peace. Rather, it incites more terrorist attacks on the West.
If many individuals such as Mr Greenwald is convincing a lot of members in that society that the FACT the police killed 500 people makes them the most violent entity in the society, then of course many members in the society would result to violence against the police because they will perceive cops as a bunch of killers who completely disregard the value of human life.
(A FAKE SOCIETY, NOT A US, NOT A GERMAN SOCIETY. A FAKE SOCIETY I USED TO PRESENT THE WEAKNESS OF MR GREENWALD’S ARGUMENT)
Steb drools forth:
Got that out of your system, Steb? Perhaps you can now answer the question:
surely it should be how many countries have they bombed, not just islamic countries………. people are people what ever faith they follow or dont
The post, lightly [edited] for honesty:
“[My] statements represent a gross[ly prejudiced and disgusting take on] US policies as well as a misunderstanding of [American] terrorism which represents a fundamental drive for power – worldwide.
[If I had integrity, then I would acknowledge the obvious: the US government, whether by design or accident, has strengthened and armed groups] like the ISIS, the Taliban, [the MEK], and al-Qaeda. [Muslims don’t] hate our freedoms, [they hate our policies]. [The US government seeks power to subjugate Muslim [as well as non-Muslim] populations world-wide under the [Orwellian phrases of “democracy-promotion” and “the war on terror”].
[Muslims] oppose US foreign policy [just as the US Department of Defense Science Board Task Force determined over a decade ago, because so much of American policy has much] to do with the US bombing and killing of Muslims. After all, Muslims are [now] the biggest recipients of [American] terrorism in the world. This is about power, not revenge. Killing ordinary Muslims is as intrinsic to [US policy] as killing [hundreds of thousands of [mostly children, the elderly, and the sick was] to US [sanctions on Iraq]. In Pakistan, [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, billions of dollars in US military equipment and support has gone to brutal regimes and groups that oppress, attack, and kill] Shia [& Sunni alike].
[The US directly slaughters innocent Muslims as well,] even at prayer in mosques [or in schools, or in funeral processions, or in wedding parties, or asleep in homes] simply because [its leaders really don’t care so much about most people. That’s why it supports barbaric dictatorships that are] generally racist and supremacist in ideology. Nothing further needs to be said about [Saudi Arabian] policies on women, minorities and gays.
The war on terror is a war on the terror perpetrated primarily [by the war on terror just as predicted and later confirmed by the US intelligence community]. Attacks against the West are used for propaganda purposes to promote the falsehood that it is our [“freedom”] which invites the attacks. However, this is about altering US foreign policy so [that Muslims] are free to [conduct their own affairs; the US government – and the oil companies it serves – cannot allow that, so American policy is to] subjugate Muslim populations under an extreme form of [imperialism].
The idea that US policy is [for the benefit of Muslims, or even for the security of Americans] makes [no] sense [when those polices are clearly accomplishing just the opposite]”
Kosovo was liberated by USA not occupied! Get your facts straight before you write sh*t!
nice timing on taibbi! he’s eating your lunch over at rolling stone.
Congratulations on contributing absolutely nothing to this column or comments.
That’s because Matt eats his own girlfriend out for snacks and forgot to leave Glenn’s lunch at the grocery store where Target has all his video information. So Glenn let Matt take his lunch and leave his girlfriends crotch at the Intercept.
I usually get a laugh when saying, “I’m American…I’m sorry,” but this is so fucking ugly and obviously true that it makes me feel that mass suicide by the middle part of the North American continent might be the best thing for the world. I’m only partly joking…we may need to bring along the other idiots who seem to consistently and greedily support our savagery.
Can only hope that it’s the final darkness before the dawn, but I fear it may be just after midnight and there’s a hell of a lot of darkness before we’re struck by the only light substantial enough to penetrate our thick skulls with truly revolutionary ideas. Seems to me that real salvation can only come by admitting our collusion, sincerely repenting our deeds or lack thereof and changing our fucking ways so that we once again resemble humane beings. Please tell me there’s hope…otherwise I must live and then die with the terrible guilt of leaving my beautiful daughter and her fellow Earthlings a hopeless world.
In the NYT Israel officially embraces the 1-state, apartheid state. The illusionof Israel supporting a 2-state solution has been such for a very long time. Presumably,Tel Aviv has now decided to start dumping the act:For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/opinion/naftali-bennett-for-israel-two-state-is-no-solution.html
(h/t bah, below)
Bah asked me to pass this on to you but other than reposting it here or at the other place I had no way of doing so. So…I’m glad you found it though maybe you aren’t! It’s hard to count the ways in which this is so wrong, but one thing that struck me is how effing condescending the asshole is.
Oh, I’m glad to have seen it. Israel is simply finally admitting what it has long intended; the status quo is its preferred solution. Israel will never permit a 2-state solution, and is entirely happy with a de facto, 1-state, apartheid state.
As you know, most of Israel’s American Jewish friends desire a 2-state solution, and many persist in the delusion that Israel has some actual interest in same. Will Israel’s newfound candor puncture the delusion, and if it did, would it matter? I suspect the answers are “no” and “no,” but I’ve been wrong before.
Steb 07 Nov 2014 at 11:30 am
I don’t have an answer to address your concerns vis-a-vis U.S. and European courts, except to point out that there are those Muslims who feel that what they consider to be sacred needs to be protected as is done for other religious groups. I don’t agree with that, but it’s true.
And, I am aware that some Muslims living in the West turn violent.
However, the overwhelming majority of Muslims living the West show patience and restraint, and condemn any illegal or immoral reactions.
Their stance and voices need to be publicized too.
The root of the problem is the human self/consciousness, as I have stated often.
So the solution is for these Muslims to groom the self and move away from the lower self, which reflects negative tendencies, such as anger, revenge and injustice.
When people draw cartoons of the Prophet (S) to demonize him (S) or burn the Qur’an, they reflect their own inner selves, and ALL Muslims need to realize that these actions do not reflect any threats to Islam or its Prophet (S).
It’s a matter of spiritual training and maturity.
“ALL Muslims need to realize that these actions do not reflect any threats to Islam or its Prophet”
Very well stated. Fear and ignorance are driving the negative behavior of humans. Also, regarding your final thought:
“It’s a matter of spiritual training and maturity.”
Hence the need for more education and tolerance all around. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here.
“Equality cannot really be imposed. If any authority is strong enough to level people, it is also strong enough to create special privileges for itself. That is, in a complex society the great equalizers do not include themselves among those to be equalized.” – Robert Wesson, Politics: Individual and State
The self can get attached to certain things.
We Muslims need to realize that we don’t worship Islam or Muhammad (S), and not get offended when someone criticizes them, or even demonizes them.
And, if we claim that we worship God, and someone criticizes Him/Her/It, we should take a deep breath and realize that He/She/It can take care of Himself/Herself/Itself.
“And, if we claim that we worship God, and someone criticizes Him/Her/It, we should take a deep breath and realize that He/She/It can take care of Himself/Herself/Itself.”
Thanks again – a very relevant and completely underrepresented viewpoint.
Great post Sufi.
So, maybe that is why Islam gets so much attention nowadays. Not because most of Muslims are law abiding citizens, but because there are some Muslims who are willing to kill an individual just because he or she is exercising his/her freedom of speech. I am not sure whether you remember that Bill Maher was very harsh on the Catholic Church when many priests were getting arrested for molesting children. Again, Bill Maher thinks all religions are loaded with bad ideas. In his mind, you are not reasonable to even believe there is a God. So, according to him even the most peaceful Muslims are crazy because they believe in Allah. That was his point. Therefore, a catholic should expect harsher and more unsophisticated words from him when a lot of priests are involved in child molestation cases; and a Muslim should expect even harsher words from him when terrorists are massacring other religious groups in the name of Allah.
That’s an extremely tiny part of the reality, Einstein.
Some Muslims are committing terrorism, and that’s a larger part of the reality than the exercise of free speech thing you’ve mentioned, which, in some cases, is to demonize Islam, its Prophet (S) and the Muslims at large, speech that they dare not make against other, certain, groups.
There are Muslim countries that are committing atrocities.
That’s also a larger part of the reality.
But, the biggest, and extremely large, part of the reality is that the Muslims are carrying out good works every single day all over the world!
How come that doesn’t make the news?
Here, local Imams collected over $43,000 for a children’s hospital. Muslims, who are not that well-off and contribute to other charitable causes as well, contributed generously.
It didn’t make the news.
Why are the media, the pundits, writers, politicians and commenters are fixated on the bad and not the good?
Don’t you think it distorts the picture, and creates an atmosphere of suspicion and hatred towards the law-abiding Muslims who are contributing to the development and progress of their countries every single day?
Moreover, when bad acts of a few Muslims are reported, the imagery that is routinely shown implicates ALL Muslims. For example, I have seen it many times that while the news reporter is reporting a bad act, Muslims are shown praying on the screen, which, in the minds of many non-Muslims, creates a link between those bad acts and the basic tenet of Islam: prayer.
It’s no wonder that if a Muslim prays openly at an airport, that activity gets reported as “suspicious behaviour”.
And that’s a reflection of Maher’s inner self, and it tells us more about him than anything else.
And the Muslims should just shrug their shoulders and not get sensitive, as what Maher says has ZERO impact on how the religion of Islam is moving forward in this realm of time and space.
Moreover, some of the things he says, many Muslims agree. So why not represent them as well?
No, the more courteous and correct thing to do is to criticize THOSE Muslims who are carrying out these actions and emphasize those Muslims who are regularly speaking out against the atrocities committed by these evildoer Muslims.
On Boko Haram and the beheading of a journalist, his tweets said “Islam”, not “Their Islam”.
This implicates ALL of Islam, and he should know it.
Did he tweet the denunciations of the overwhelming majority of Muslims? Does he even know that Islam is not monolithic? How much has he read about Islam anyway? I doubt if he has done a sober and thorough study of Islam – the religion, and even understand what it is about.
He should give balanced coverage on I/P issue as well. He is extremely biased in favour of a certain group.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Maher needs to carry out Bill Moyer type of 90-minute interviews with scholars and Sufi teachers, such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, William Chittick, and Kabir and Camille Helminski and really dig in to understand what Islam really is. His knowledge is very weak and his behaviour is very biased.
Einstein? I take it as a compliment.
I cannot believe I am defending Bill Maher for free!! Bill Maher is not Bill Moyer. He is a comedian and entertainer. He believes all religions are bad and crazy. In his mind Boko Haram members are crazier than the Muslims who are helping others. However, all Muslims are crazy because they believe in Allah. All Catholics are crazy because they believe in the Virgin Mary and it goes on and on. I do not believe somebody is a racist or a bigot because he targets your beliefs.
Are we still denying that the Crusaders wars had ended about 1000 years ago!
Glenn writes:
I would just suggest adding:
American violence is so ongoing and continuous and so frequently downplayed, omitted, denied, and– in the rare instances when officials and Beltway propaganda are confronted–reluctantly admitted, though always self-righteously, that we barely notice it any more.
Indeed as Chomsky says, “Those who hold the clubs insist on historical amnesia.”
This elision and editing is deliberate. It’s purposeful. The ruling class doesn’t want humans in America to develop empathy for and solidarity with our brothers and sisters outside America, especially when the US capitalist class is murdering, oppressing, displacing, and terrorizing, directly or indirectly, the 99%.
There is no constition for liberals that says they can pillage society for indiscriminate reasons. And mommies brain is 100%. But she still has opinions and getting involved in your civic community can be cumbersome if your not educated on how to overcome the social elite. She suggests learning how to manipulate like the home room moms who basically run over the principal and run the school. That’s how you do it. This world is filled with evil people learn how to maneuver around them. And write letters without people’s names and sign your own. Then hope the governor gets her ass kicked for being involved since day one. That’s 100% for sure.
Your reflexive defense of Islam is perhaps your biggest blind spot, and it clearly confuses you. Let me draw some distinctions so at least you can never say you weren’t told how badly you’ve conflated things:
1. We can stop intervening in the world in the way we do and still find Islam deeply troubling. You always claim the intellectual high ground in whatever debate you engage in, but apparently when it comes to Islam you just forget history. The Salafist impulse in Islam, pre-dates U.S. interventionism and began 200 years ago, and in fact, even before Attaturk comes to power, the idea of Islamic moderation and reformation was under assault. Shiite pretensions at holy status and purity are more modern, but in no way can they be attributed even mainly to the exercise of U.S. power. Anyone who actually bothers studying the history of Islam actually knows this. In fact, it’s an insult to Islam itself to reduce it’s motivations to externatities.
2. One can loathe and criticize Zionism and not support Islamism. In fact, moral consistency demands one do both. They are both religious/ethno supremacist ideologies which give license to their adherents to do vast amounts of violence with no compunction.
3. Islamic terrorists exist in the real, occurring world today. We should kill them wherever and whenever we find them. I do believe we are not exercising as much care as we might in some of our drone strikes, but we need to kill them and fast. That’s called self-defense. There have long been bloodthirsty Muslim warriors who see it as their duty to Allah to kills all infidels, you included, Glenn. At a certain point it becomes that basic. And yes, we have killed some of the wrong people. There are all kinds of problems with how we are prosecuting this “war” to begin with – but you don’t have a single answer as to how we might do that. You seem to assume that if we just stopped intervening there would not a revanchist movement in Islam today but that’s simply ignorance on your behalf. Islam was beaten back and down by the west, that’s the only thing that stopped its totalitarian and imperialist ambitions. One might say when Napoleon took Egypt with such ease, this was the moment that Islam recognized it was had no chance of advancing its empire further.
You never discuss the imperialist history of Islam or the Arabs themselves. You never talk about the hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by other Muslims in senseless acts of slaughter. Instead, you cannot overcome your pathological hatred of the West. Just like that plagiarizing wingbag Chris Hedges, your emotions have destroyed your intellect. It’s not good enough to be balanced and correct about half the time. Yes, it’s true that you come up with good ideas sometimes and good observations. All true. But you wreck your credibility with these sorts of blindspots.
Last. Criticism of religious ideas and philosophy is not defacto emanating from bigotry. When Sam Harris describes Islam as containing the “motherlode of bad ideas” he has evidence to back it up. It is the only major, ancient world religion that has in the main resisted reformation and as such contains ideas and practices that are barbaric and anathema to the our modern, liberal values.
Congratulations, you win today’s prize for Completely Missing the Point of the Article. You have done a masterful job of supporting your misreading with jazzed up talking points, and you even numbered them! *clap clap clap*
@Glenn D: I note that in Point 2, you say “Zionism” and not “Judaism.” Which of course is appropriate because they are different, though related, things. I would wager that you never say “Jews” when you mean “Zionists,” because you understand that while some Jews are baby-killing, land-stealing Zionist bastards, many others are not. You get that there are many different types of Jews and strands of Judaism. You appear, however, to be unwilling to afford Muslims the same understanding and courtesy. Weird.
He mixes the terms “Islam/Islamic” and “Islamism”.
Subconsciously, I believe, many people are anti-Islam and not anti-Islamism. I have often seen them using the term “Islamism” in one sentence and then switching to “Islam/Islamic” in another.
All those people who come out to protest mosques and centers do not appear to oppose something called “Islamism”. They are clearly against “Islam”. Moreover, if you ask them what is “Islamism”, they’ll either say they don’t know or their definitions will vary.
When polls are taken to determine non-Muslims’ opinion, the opinion is on “Islam” and not on “Islamism”. And they show that anti-Islam/Muslim sentiments are on the rise in the West, which is, partially, due to the intermixing of the terms “Islam” and “Islamism”.
The term, Islamism, does not have a fixed meaning, and is thrown around carelessly, with no opportunity given to the Muslim who has been declared an “Islamist” to clear his or her name.
Same with certain Muslim organizations.
I’ve seen some people call an individual Muslim or an organization “Islamist” primarily because they are engaged in some sort of social or political activism and have criticized certain things.
Since, it’s been said by many that the West is at war with “Islamism”, a clear and consistent definition of this term is needed, and those, living in the West, labeled as such given the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law.
Islam is not monolithic. So which and whose Islam are you talking about?
That said, I don’t see how you can say that he reflexively defends what he considers to be Islam.
I’m quite certain that he recognizes that there are currents within Islam that warrant his criticism.
Perhaps, he should write a book with his criticisms, to make you happy.
Many Muslims’ Islams are about self-purification and doing good. There are Muslims who do good works all around the world every single day!
Malala is a Muslim and adheres to a form of Islam.
Are you troubled by the Islams of those Muslims who are striving for self-purification and doing good works?
Are you troubled by the Islam of Malala?
Or, are you troubled by the Islams of certain groups who are using violence? If so, then know that many, many Muslims agree with you.
History is full of human beings doing good things as well as doing bad things.
At the core is the human self.
When it reflects the higher qualities, it produces good results.
When it reflects the lower qualities, it produces bad results.
There is a wide spectrum of qualities the human self reflects; from the lowest to the highest.
Lowest qualities include, selfishness, anger, revenge, arrogance, lust for power, control and resources, injustice, hatred, etc.
Highest qualities, the opposite of the lowest, include, selflessness, love, humility, forgiveness, lack of desire for power, control and resources, not doing unto others what one does not want done unto oneself, etc.
This is regardless of a person’s religious or non-religious path.
History is full of Muslims doing bad things and also good things.
If the Muslims engaged in bad things, there have always been those Muslims who have criticized them, some even paying with their lives.
You need to see goodness as well as badness.
Ah, the Salafi movement!
It’s certainly transformed Islam from being based on love, to something thorny, and is responsible for a lot of bad things around the world.
However, please keep in mind that the modern state of Saudi Arabia (The House of Saud) was the works of the British who wanted to counter the Ottoman empire.
The House of Saud then made a deal with the Salafi/Wahhabi clergy: They let the clergy continue with their stranglehold and promulgate their brand of Islam around the world, and, in return, the rulers received their blessing and protection.
After WWII, someone else took over providing sustenance and protection to the House of Saud.
Without the support of that power, the House of Saud will fall like a House of Cards.
Moderation and Reformation, within the context of Islam, are not necessarily the same as within the context of Christianity or the West.
The Salafi movement presented itself as a Reformist movement.
The Taliban presented itself as Reformists.
Same with the Muslim Brotherhood.
These movements deviate from the Traditional (exoteric and esoteric) Islam in some to many ways.
You may need to read some books to understand what I am talking about. Start with Dr. Abou El Fadhl and Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
By the way, Ataturk was a secularist and tried to destroy Islam, including the many forms of peaceful Sufi Islam that existed during his time.
He failed, as is clear from the existence of the many forms of Sufi Islam today.
The Mevlvi Sufi Order, headed by Kabir Helminski and his wife have strong connections with today’s Turkey.
I don’t get the impression that the article you are commenting on is meant to be an exhaustive study on the history of whatever you think Islam is.
Islam’s history is mixed.
A lot of achievements, together with a lot of destruction. And here, I am referring to the civilization of the Muslims, and not the religion of Islam as can be derived from the Qur’an.
And that’s how people link “Islamism” to “Islam”: by using the word, “Islam”, in one sentence, and then using the made-up word, “Islamism”, in another.
So, common non-Muslims cannot make a distinction between what Islam says or does and what Islamism says or does, regardless of whose Islam one is referring to.
The term, Islamism, is made-up, its definition fluid, and is highly politically manipulated.
See Dr. Abou El Fadl on what he says about this entity called “Islamism”.
See, how you switched from “Islamism” to “Islamic”!
I’ve seen many people do that. It makes it very clear that in your heart, you think it’s the same entity.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing Islamic about terrorism!
This is the view of a fairly large numbers of Muslims all over the world.
So we reject the term, “Islamic Terror”.
Humanity hasn’t figured out an effective way to remove this cancerous tumor, so, forgetting about that brown, smelly, God of Islam, and turning to the Christian God of Love and Peace, and ask this question: What would Jesus do?
I C!
Is there number growing or going down?
If it’s growing, then perhaps, there’s a need to take a deep breath and re-evaluate the strategy.
If it’s going down, then someone should inform some people so they can stop with their fear-mongering.
Glenn needs to write a book that provides solutions.
Good to see how you use the word, “Islam”.
Yusuf Islam might not agree that he was “beaten back and down by the west”.
The “totalitarian and imperialist ambitions” were of certain Muslims, which were/are in a minority, but in power and control.
Many scholars spoke against them and were imprisoned or executed.
An average, ordinary Muslim just wants to live an ordinary pious life.
So, Islam is either a person with that name, or a monolithic entity that is capable of “recognizing” things.
Also, again, you are talking about something called “Islam” and not “Islamism”. Your beef is clearly with “Islam” and not “Islamism”, whatever this term means today.
So, what should the West do?
Glenn needs to fix that.
But know that there are many Muslims who are aware of it and frown upon these Muslims who were engaged in imperialism. Their voices count too.
So, you do sympathize with those Muslims who are being slaughtered by other Muslims! Good to see that.
However, do you also sympathize with these victims’ Islams too?
…
If criticism is done with courtesy, in a positive and constructive way, with knowledge, it’s very useful and people generally become quite receptive to it.
But, if it is done in a discourteous, negative and destructive way, with lack of knowledge and arrogance, it’s not going to be perceived in a receptive manner.
So, he DOES blame ALL of Islam!
Good to know.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t realize the nature of “reformation” movements within the universe of Islam either.
Do you, for example, know that the Salafi/Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Taliban movements are considered reformation movements?
Do you know what Traditional Islam (exoterically and esoterically) is?
Are you familiar with how the Sufi movements began and what their objectives were?
Do you know areas many Muslims think reformation is needed and how?
Ah, so the truth finally comes out!
What YOU want is for Islam to conform to (Western) Liberal values!
It’s the Muslims who are going to decide what needs to be reformed and what needs to be restored to the Original Islam, and how.
And they are!
Even though you let your lower qualities (id) show – ¨You have no idea what you are talking about¨ – which, I am sure you will repent for (no, I don’t know if Sufis repent, but I do know Sufis enjoy the arts, sex and leisure, which I think is great!), I liked that you finally got some history in their. I just got schooled! And, I appreciate it. This is the best clarification of the argument that I have heard, and, though you may have been reflexively defensive at some points (I am also reflexively defensive, as well as quite offensively arrogant and id-ego oriented, yet never super-egotistically arrogant… I just don’t think so highly of myself, which I think is a plus in this world of narcissism [no, Snowden is not a narcissist]), you went on the offense, DISMANTLING the other guys argument, whose name I can’t even remember at the moment…
Why should Bill Maher get to spend time with Sufis? Send me in to the land of Sufi hahahahaha! I want an oud, a beautiful woman, and perhaps an ayran to sip on! If there’s no ayran, I’ll take a falooda with some gulab jamun, please (I asked nicely, though I felt no purification of my soul… yes, I believe it exists, but only through a Pascalian wager that I would like to believe we’re not such cracked and empty vessels… though logically I think we are).
Good stuff, Sufi. You should let your id show more often… think balance, just don’t be phony like the Wall Street Buddhists who use balance as a euphemism for social Darwinism. I think we agree a lot more than we realize.
Salaam,
Blacklisted aka The Ghost of Wajid Ali Shah
You know, I agree with about half your points here. I agree that the Middle Eastern Muslim world might still be a mess if the US had never set foot there. Possibly even a mess with anti-Western sentiment and certain groups dreaming away of a global caliphate – no way to know for sure, but it’s entirely possible. I agree that there are some very nasty dudes in that mix and certainly not anyone you would want to cross paths with.
But (caliphate portion possibly aside,) that’s true of many places in the world. And mixed within your polite intellectual points are some sentiments I find downright disturbing. Maybe best summarized here:
“Islamic terrorists exist in the real, occurring world today. We should kill them wherever and whenever we find them. I do believe we are not exercising as much care as we might in some of our drone strikes, but we need to kill them and fast. That’s called self-defense. There have long been bloodthirsty Muslim warriors who see it as their duty to Allah to kills all infidels, you included, Glenn. At a certain point it becomes that basic.”
This is just so jacked up on so many levels, and it’s an argument that would not be out of place in a totalitarian regime. Those Others are Especially Evil, hunt them and destroy them and if we make some mistakes, well, that’s obviously ok because it was in the pursuit of crushing Evil! I believe self-defense is ethically acceptable and even necessary to allow ‘good’ societies to survive, but your thinking goes beyond that into demonization. Demonization being, it’s not actions that matter, it’s some ethereal inherent quality of this ‘other’ that’s important. Knowing someone is planning a terrorist attack is one thing, that’s a very real plan of action with consequences. Thinking they are a bloodthirsty warrior for Allah who we should simply destroy at all costs is a very different way of framing that, and, to my mind, leads to a very different place.
I’m talking about arguments here, of course, not you, I don’t want you to take that personally. At a personal level, I try to be sensitive to the Argument From Bogeymen, because I have plenty of those myself. If the Zetas were trying to take over the world, I might possibly be calling for nuclear drone strikes, because organized crime in general invokes this horrible sense of dread in me (I was raised religious, so possibly this is why religious crazies just fall into the ‘Run of the mill Evil’ category for me, although I find their behavior abhorrent.) Islamic extremists are scary, no doubt. Many things in the world are scary. Neither one of us would do very well if airdropped into a tumultuous area in the Congo or gang-controlled part of Mexico or South America or a North Korean prison. That other human beings, who could be you or I, do live in those situations, is inherently unacceptable in some sense. But taking the moral high ground by assuming the thinking style of a fascist is a contradiction in terms when assessing those ills.
Modern liberal values;How is that value measured,by dead bodies?Dead fetuses?Energy greed?Safety and security for some over safety and security for all humanity?Stock market gains?Sheesh.
How about live and let live,do unto others and the golden rule?Screw modern liberal values,give me them old time values anyday.
Excerpt from interview of Dr. Sheldon Wolin by Chris Hedges:
WOLIN: Well, certainly one is the–in classic totalitarianism the fundamental principle is the leadership principle and the notion that the masses exist not as citizenry but as a means of support which can be rallied and mustered almost at will by the dominant powers. That’s the classical one. And the contemporary one is one in which the rule by the people is enshrined as a sort of popular message about what we are, but which in fact is not really true to the facts of political life in this day and age.
HEDGES: Well, you talk about how in classical totalitarian regimes, politics trumps economics, but in inverted totalitarianism it’s the reverse.
WOLIN: That’s right. Yeah. In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the leadership group but which in fact doesn’t rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the people are enshrined at the top but don’t rule. And minority rule is usually treated as something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have.
For entire (8 part) interview: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12550
Ralph Nader on GOP’s 2014 Wins: Democrats Can’t Use Citizens United, Voter Restriction Laws as Alibi
“”We shouldn’t let Citizens United and voting restriction laws … be used as alibis by the Democrats in Congress,” he says of the GOP’s victories on Tuesday night. “The Democrats have dropped the economic issue that won election after election for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. They can no longer defend our country against the most militaristic, corporatist, cruel, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-women, even anti-children programs of the Republican Party.” (Democracy Now; November 06, 2014)
“A new probe finds the Pentagon has failed to act on claims by more than 600 U.S. service members who have reported being exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003. The numbers came to light through an internal Pentagon review after a New York Times report last month found the Bush administration concealed the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq that had been developed with U.S. support in the 1980s — and then denied medical care to the wounded U.S. soldiers involved. The initial report put the number of injured soldiers at 17, but the Pentagon’s own records now reveal that 629 service members described suspected exposure to chemical agents on post-combat health surveys. According to the Times, after years of failing to properly track or treat the victims, the Pentagon will now launch outreach efforts, including a hotline.” Democracy Now November 07, 2014)
Americans love domination all over the world at any cost. So they elect people who will execute this domination attitude. Senate and congress eagerly support all acts of aggression whatever form they think plausible and applicable. They fail to care for the educational, social upliftment of the general public. They love spending money in war, then spending in human and social developments. By doing that, they also gain or earo go on the war lords.
Hi TI folks.
I was able to contact coram nobis via another forum where we both post and he told me that he has been unable to post here since late September.
Can someone please tell me how he can get reinstated and/or tell us why this sort of thing is still happening?
Thank you!
Frig! Pierre&co. need to stop fucking w/ the journalists* and do something constructive (or they’re gonna piss me oof.). Hell fire, how hard can it be? … i bet there are folks right here in the threads that could fix these things.
*I find it more than a little odd that Taibbi said nary a word for 7months @ FL and the day after returning to RS has a huge expose’ on the Big Bubble of 08.
ps. good mornin’ … was at that bar last night w/ coram, but the moonshine fumes overcame me and had to lay down a bit (i’m fine now.).
Hear, hear! Bring coram nobis back!
Hi Pedinska –
Thanks for the update; I’m glad Coram is ok and that the ‘only’ problem is that technical one. Hope they can get him back soon.
As Sam said at the end of Lord of the Rings, “Well, I’m back.”
Has anyone seen Coram?
Yay high, yay wide, wears a burqa sometimes, speaks fluent English.
You must have read my mind Sufi. :-)
Went looking for him last night and found him at another bar. We had a short drink together and he shared his TI woes. Apparently, TI has left him for another suitor, but we’re going to see if some roses and chocolates will do the trick. ;-}
Tell him to try using Tor.
Tor? No, thank you, haven’t and won’t, since it does have a way of garnering attention. It is truly written that the toothless dragon fears not the orthodontist.
She got on the plane to Lisbon, and Lindsey got on the 3:10 to Yuma.
KC 06 Nov 2014 at 8:32 pm
If you recall, you stated this:
As I have indicated in the past, the terms, Jihadists and Islamists, are made up terms, whose definitions are fluid and the terms are highly politically manipulated.
These terms are first given very negative meanings and then thrown around carelessly. Ordinary people are unable to make a distinction between a Muslim and an Islamist, so some of them come out to protest the building of mosques and centers, as if it’s the “Islamists” who are trying to build them.
Tarek Fateh has made a career out of labeling those Muslims Islamists who disagree with him.
You consider those Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy as Jihadists and Islamists!
Wow!
Recall, 2/3 of Americans thought that Saddam had WMDs and had something to do with the evil acts of 911.
I’m sure, if the polls were taken after two atomic bombs were dropped, support for it in America would have been quite high.
Yes, there are an awful lot of Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy.
But, just like the Americans who believed that Saddam had WMDs and had something to do with 911, and those who supported the dropping on atomic bombs on the civilians, were not necessarily bad/evil people, who loved violence, and believed what they believed because of what they were told by the orthodoxies, these Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy are not necessarily Jihadists and Islamists, and believe what they believe because of the stranglehold the orthodoxies have on them.
Overwhelming majority of these Muslims are very ordinary Muslims, and have nothing to do with the so called and made-up entities, Jihadism or Islamism. You need to find sources other than Harris to get a clearer picture of the Muslims.
People can be easily fooled into considering something that is bad, as good and noble.
I have not shied away from indicating that the mainstream Muslims, both Sunnis and Shias, have dug a lot of holes over the past 1400+ years, and have transformed Islam, which is a religion of love to us, into a religion of Do’s and the Don’ts and laws, many of which are not based on the Qur’an and in fact contradict it.
Apostasy is one of these holes.
It’s very unfortunate, but their support is based on a variety of complex issues, such as their reliance on Hadith, instead of the Qur’an, and how they are interpreted by the orthodoxy, and, again, their stranglehold, on the common Muslims who sincerely want to know what their religion teaches, and are fed these things.
The Original Islam, as we see it, came to remove the shackles of the clergy that it had on the common people, so that they are free to find a direct way to God.
Sadly, the clergy was able to put their shackles on ordinary Muslims soon after the Prophet (S) left this world.
I’d also reiterate that reformation of the main streams of Islam on issues, such as the un-Quranic apostasy law, will take place in the West, where we can freely criticize these things, and we are. There have been many articles written to refute the apostasy law. Here’s one such article:
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm
So, instead of stereotyping us all, Maher should support our efforts, or at least acknowledge them.
I have suggested elsewhere, Maher needs to invite four Muslim leaders and conduct Bill Moyer type of interviews of them.
Ah, the old “I doubt you actually listen to Bill Maher or Sam Harris so you really have no idea what they say.” trick!
That’s the second time I fell for it this week!
As I look at my PVR, I see that Maher’s show has been set up to record the entire series on a regular basis.
I ask you Glenn…how many Muslims have been killed by other Muslims since Obama took office? And which Muslim country would you and your husband feel comfortable living in?
Your essay is very informative.
Remember, folks – they hate us for our freedoms.
This underlines how US capitalism depends on racial hatred and xenophobia to keep the war wheels turning and bring and endless stream of profits to the military-industrial complex. It is revealing to see what trouble the administration goes to to keep this fact from the public. Look what happened in Ferguson, where Obama helped the Ferguson police create a no-fly zone to keep media from filming the demonstrations there. We have institutionalized racism here, and yet people won’t look at it because they want to believe that having a black president ended all of that. The myth of national innocence is truly pernicious, especially when the very groups who would in the past have fought against such crimes as police-on-black violence are now spending all of their time defending their hero Obama against both the right and the left. If it is easy for citizens to close their eyes to these troubles at home, imagine how much easier it is to dismiss violence against Muslims. Glenn’s article concerning the State Department’s statements about the deaths of Israelis versus the deaths of Palestinians uncovers the administrations appallingly bigoted PR efforts as well.
Excellent comment reflecting my own beliefs as well, PI, though I’m less forgiving and might’ve chosen “it’s easier” over the words ‘they want.”
Fear’s always been one of the company store’s best tools, and to keep taxpayers endlessly feeding the store’s imperialist MIC instead of OUR own country’s poor – they’ll burn down the house around them and claim it’s because “some terrorist” hates freedom. And yes, most of the rest of the world now understands perfectly who most threatens peace everywhere – while most media here somehow just tightens their blinker straps.
Speaking of who threatens peace everywhere, Putin just gave an important speech about the U.S.:
The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23137
I would be very interested to see Glenn talk about this.
Thanks so much for sharing that, PI.
Scanned Putin’s remarks briefly yesterday and studied them, at length, more closely last night. It’s encouraging to see [some] prominent world leaders take their responsibilities for peaceful coexistence around the world with such clear-eyed acuity.
*>”I would be very interested to see Glenn talk about this.”
I believe Glenn, in his way, is talking about this! (but I know what you mean.)
WE as Muslims condemn the act of terrorism not only against west but against fellow Muslims. As strongly believe Islam offers peace to all mankind, we need to address core issue here .Have u ever heard screams of men , women and children bombarded without justification , calling it COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Who will provide them justice . The consequences leads to terrorism everywhere.
The reason the US is bombing muslim countries is not because they are muslim. It is because they are placed in a region that is important for an empire, like the US, to control.
The US in the 70’s & 80’s had a similar destructive policy towards Latin America, and they were christian nations.
That said, there is a deliberate anti-muslim propaganda campaign lead by clowns like Maher and Harris. The aim in that is clearly to stir up anti-muslim sentiment to justify our continues bombing of muslims.
Glenn, the US bashing is just becoming plain sad now. Starting to lose a lot of respect.
I’m not sure that you have provided proof that America is bombing these countries BECAUSE they’re Islamic. As such, I’m not sure what your point is.
Glenn never said these countries were bombed because they were Islamic. He was pointing out that America is a violent country, the most most belligerent country in the world. This isn’t exactly news to most people. Gallup did a survey last year and found that around the world, people thought America was by far the greatest threat to peace. Americans by and large won’t accept that, of course, as we think we wear the white hats, but it’s true. Cheney said he would take us to the dark side, but that wasn’t necessary, as we’d been there all along.
American politicians and leaders have just one objective when they are elected to office. It is a debt to the people who fund their election campaigns..the oligarchs of big business, namely the military industrial complex , the energy barons, and the Zionists whose only aim is to go after those countries they see as enemies of Israel.
Does that explain why America doesn’t want real democracy in the Muslim world, and has installed their puppets as dictators, and is waging a generational war ?
“Those who sit around in the U.S. or the U.K. endlessly inveighing against the evil of Islam, depicting it as the root of violence and evil”
Since this article seems to be in response to the various Real Time episodes on the subject of Islam, it should be pointed out that the original point was a defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A courageous secularist who criticizes Islam at considerable personal risk. Not even in the most “moderate” of Islamic states would she be allowed to visit, let alone speak out in, or she would very likely be murdered, or put to death by the state. Glenn, I know you like to play at being an exiled dissident, but she’s the real thing. So if we can’t speak out here in the US or the UK due to “dirty hands” where could someone speak out? The Netherlands? Where Ms Ali’s collaborator Theo van Gough was murdered for making a film. Denmark? Where cartoons of the prophet triggered worldwide riots that killed hundreds. It’s a serious question. If not here, then where?
Pres. Obama only does what his Zionazi slave owners tell him to do. What did people think would happen to America after letting mass murderers give everyone the real cause of AIDS for decades? A picnic? Look to Africa to see where you will be in 5yrs. They didn’t bomb them all away because it was easier to just jab them too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOno_2m_8LY
Pres. Obama only does what his Zionazi slave owners tell him to do. What did people think would happen to America after letting mass murderers give everyone the real cause of AIDS for decades? A picnic? Look to Africa to see where you will be in 5yrs. They didn’t bomb them all away because it was easier to just jab them too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOno_2m_8LY
This is a question to Mr Greenwald and his followers. What would be the appropriate US foreign policy in Iraq as of October, 2014? Since they strongly believe US policy in the Middle East is a complete mess, so as concerned citizens tell those who disagree with you what the US is doing wrong in Iraq as of October 2014. Let’s focus on one country at a time.
Reparations.
If you don’t describe U.S. policy in the Middle East as a mess, how do you describe it?
A question coming from a “12 years old” should not be that hard to answer, Mona. Read it again and answer it. You probably cannot, but at least try.
“If you don’t describe U.S. policy in the Middle East as a mess, how do you describe it?” –Mona
A big fucking mess.
“What would be the appropriate US foreign policy in Iraq as of October, 2014?”
Reparations.
Elaborate more please.
Handing over our war criminal leaders to the ICC would be cheaper and make a better impression on the rest of the world.
Except for Israel; Israel truly fears USA’s war criminals ever facing justice – because of their own.
Of course the world’s bad actors would not be pleased, but this will never happen in any case. The American president now has advance authority from Congress to invade the ICC should any of our war criminals end up there–not that the president needs Congressional approval anymore. As Obama has demonstrated, Congress has gone the way of the Roman Senate and is now just a center for dividing up the loot.
Roman Senate? ICC? What all of this have to do with my question? Again, what would be the appropriate US policy vis a vis Iraq as of October or rather November 2014? What US policy towards Iraq would satisfy Mr Greenwald and his followers?
@steb
I wasn’t addressing you. I was addressing Stan and NFJ. As for your question, we have attacked countries in wars of aggression, and the first order of business is not to start new wars and fund terrorists, as we have been doing, but to arrest and prosecute our war criminals.
I can’t speak for Mr. Greenwald or his “followers,” but I have a proposed policy: Leave ’em the fuck alone and expect the same.
@Gator90
Which means stop all diplomatic and economic relations with Iraq? What does leave them the F… alone mean?
I would think “leave ’em the fuck alone” to be pretty clear English, but if elaboration is required, it means don’t bomb anybody and have no other military involvement there. Ever.
Your second answer sounds way smarter than the first. No US military involvement in Iraq regardless of specific requests from the Kurds or the elected government fighting ISIL. That is your clear proposal. Thank You.
>”Gator90
07 Nov 2014 at 9:58 am
I can’t speak for Mr. Greenwald or his “followers,” but I have a proposed policy: Leave ‘em the fuck alone and expect the same.”
Let me guess gator … born again Christian? :)
@Steb: You’re welcome.
@Bahhummingbug: He not busy being born is busy dying…
So that’s set. The appropriate policy toward Iraq as of November 2014 would be the arrest of war criminals? That’s set? No idea about ISIL invasion or refugees or economic policies?
You’re catching on, steb. The criminals in the US government who started all this in 2003 can’t fix it. And Obama can’t fix it either. In fact, he made it worse by arming ISIS in Syria. ISIS is now allied with Baathist generals in Iraq–the resistance we failed to eliminate–while the Kurds are fighting their own war and considered to be terrorists by our friends in Turkey, who themselves were funding jihadists in Syria and are even suspected of the chemical attack that was supposed to push Obama over his red line. Its a disaster with all sorts of groups fighting one another and with our guys killing people from the air with our “humanitarian bombing,” a term that is almost unspeakably absurd. Look around. Every country we’ve touched in the area is in turmoil. Our leadership is the problem, and until we face that fact and do something about it, these disasters will continue.
There are no specifics in your proposal. The only policy you propose is the arrest of war criminals. I think you mean what you consider American war criminals. That’s not really an answer to the question I asked. But thank you anyway.
After making a mess of gargantuan proportions in Iraq, the US policy should be to leave not only Iraq , but the entire Muslim world “the fuck alone”. Of course that is a pipe dream , because our bosses in TelAviv wont allow that, not to mention the energy barons thirsting for cheap oil and all the other vested interests, whose riches depend on continued military involvement.
Again, Steb, if our Middle Eastern foreign policy isn’t a “mess,” then how would you characterize it?
Unuseful strawman, in effect “if you can’t fix it your criticisms have no value”.
There are plenty of potential avenues for peace and reconciliation. Start by stopping the violence and starting talking about mutual concerns.
Be more specific. “Stopping the violence”, do you mean the US should stop bombing ISIL? “Starting talking about mutual concerns” Do you mean the US should start talking with ISIL? The US is already talking to Sunni tribes, Shia officials and Kurds. So, be specific. If you honestly believe the US has a bad policy in Iraq as we speak, so you should be able to identify what is bad about the policies and suggest how to fix them.
http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/09/187851/six-steps-short-war-beat-isis
Read this detailed book first to understand the situation:
“The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace”, at:
http://www.aliallawi.com/pub_occupationOfIraq.php
Since TI comments section doesn’t allow multiple links, I can’t link to a panel discussion that is on this website. It’s titled, “Can Iraq Survive?”.
You’ll see the link to that video on the right hand side of the website.
I do not need books to understand the situation. I have been there many times. What I would like to know is what is the policy that the US should adopt when dealing with Iraq according to Mr Greenwald and his followers. So far, one individual stated war criminals ( Americans) should be arrested and another stated the US should leave Iraq the F… alone. I am not sure what that means. Should the US stop all diplomatic and economic relations with Iraq or …? I am still waiting.
You want to look forward not back? Sorry, that line was taken a while ago, by another war monger who also has no idea how to put Humpty mother-fucking Dumpty back together again. It is very convenient to try to narrow the scope of the problem when you are a war monger or a torture apologist. It makes it so much easier to digest, and you get to frame the debate. Awesome! Sorry, you don’t get to frame the debate, but do keep trying. Those who care about peace, war crimes, imperialism, rampant militarism etc do NOT have to engage war mongers in finding solutions to the problem you fuckers created. Even if it were possible to fix this shit, you would not be part of it, because you do not know how to stop killing your way to freedom.
okay, why don’t you tell everybody how to fix this sh..?
Base policies on the higher self/consciousness, which reflects qualities I have listed often.
Let’s not focus on one country at a time. That’s worse than useless. The US can start by withdrawing support to all those regimes who perpetrate the same atrocities as ISIS like Saudi Arabia. The US can withdraw support from Israel unless and until Israel engages honestly in a peace process with the Palestinians. In Iraq the US can withdraw support to the Shiite dominated government unless and until it stops slaughtering Sunnis and forms an inclusive government with proportionate representation for all. Policy has to change throughout the whole region, not just in one country if the mess is ever to be sorted out.
Okay!!
US policy in Saudi Arabia is different from US policy in Israel, so that is why I think it is better to focus on one country at a time. For Iraq, your view is clear: withdraw support to the Shiite government until the government is inclusive. About the Kurds? About ISIL?
So you believe that the US is only capable of focusing on one thing at a time? Doesn’t say much for your apparent opinion of the US.
My question had nothing to do with the US capability of handling multiple international cases.
Speaking of Israel. Do me a fav, avelna, and forward this NYT editorial on to mona … I don’t have the heart for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/opinion/naftali-bennett-for-israel-two-state-is-no-solution.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Wow, that guy’s really a dick.
You’re asking a very broad question here and to really give a reasonable answer you have to consider decades of foreign policy that got us into this mess in the first place. The US has manipulated governments all over the word to support US interests since the end of WWII. The CIA has a long history of controlling media in foreign countries to spread campaign propaganda in support of their puppet leaders, organizing coup’s to overthrow democratically elected officials, and then when that fails they attempt to assassinate said person like they tried w/ Castro or Chavez many times and succeeded w/ others. If this still fails then there’s talk of military intervention like the Bay of Pigs clandestine attempt to remove Castro and when that doesn’t work (behind closed doors) then US media jumps on the call to spread support for flat out War like what we have seen in the ME. If you want an example of how the CIA works look up the coup against democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, to keep oil rights in the hands of BP instead of allowing Iran to nationalize their main resource. The US gave power back to the Shah which led to 25 more years of extreme oppression which then gave rise to the Islamic Republic. I think what TI is trying to bring to light is that war inherently causes discontent in the occupied country and also leads to more instability and poverty. This fuels more anti american sentiment and provides the ground work for recruiting more terrorists. So, the question I have for you is how has decades of war in the MI panned out so far? Do you think the US is safer now after killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in pursuit of a few bad guys? Do you not think that if even half the trillions of dollars we’ve wasted on war would bring more peace if this was used for humanitarian cause or education instead? The only objective of our foreign policy to exploit people and resources.
What you call “a mess” is actually evidence of massive and ongoing war crimes as well as crimes against humanity.
No big deal.
It is worth pointing out that in Bosnia and Kosovo, we were bombing occupying serbs. In those cases, the Muslim population would have viewed America as an ally
Mr. Greenwald understandably sees war as an act of aggression, but that view is too limiting. Modern war is more properly understood as a partnership. In this case, each partner assists the other to achieve its desired goals.
Muslim extremists believe the West is corrupting the morals of their youth. By inducing the West to attack them, they can demonize it and use the resulting struggle to force their own people to reject Western temptations and embrace traditional Muslim values. If the US pauses in their bombing campaigns, the extremists start beheading journalists until the attacks resume.
The United States on the other hand needs a strong military presence in the Middle East. Not so much for ensuring their own oil supply, but for the strategic value of controlling the entire world’s access to oil. In other words, military control of the Middle East means having the World by the balls.
So the current situation is eminently satisfactory to both parties. It’s a little hard on some ordinary folks and some journalists, but I don’t believe they factor into anybody’s calculations.
Partnership Benito?….that is the word used by the empire all the time when it refer to its lackeys ….because everybody knows that no Empire had “partners”.
Cynical, yet interesting (and potentially useful) analysis.
I’m not sure quasi-sovereign strategic projections of power or, perhaps especially, military strategy from someone named ‘benito mussolini’ is the way to go … or even useful.
‘every war is won after it’s fought’ *my son sue.
I’m wounded Bah, by your lack of faith. However, I must note that one the liberating features of continually lying is the freedom to tell the truth, secure in the knowledge that no one will believe you.
Vital national interests are not based on bigotry. But bigotry is a tool which can be used to support vital national interests. It’s a cart and horse thing.
Don’t feel bad, benitoe. I have complete faith and utter confidence in ‘you’ … your track record speaks for itself!
#whatnottodo :)
What I miss here is the fact that both Al Quaeda and ISIS are products of USA foreign policy in middle east and they could not exist today without direct and indirect financial and antidemocratic military support from USA in combination with those facts that Glenn mentioned in this article.
So to support and nurture an evil in the first place and kill innocent people in the name of democracy and sexual orientation is nothing else but a SUPER EVIL act.
Kay, that’s just plain stupid.
This is the in the top two or three pieces of writing I’ve seen this year, anywhere.
right on
Glenn’s article eloquently connects all the facts in a meaty-well-seasoned-steak-fresh-off-the-grill-like concise manner.
Naturally, I 100% agree this is a if not THE TOP writing piece regarding the realities of our country bombing others because everything he says is 100% TRUE with supported facts. Every-time I read Glenn’s articles, it does 2 things to me:
1. Greenwald’s writings make me feel smarter.
2. Glenn’s journalism (and video media appearances) have actually sparked me into action to improve our government. ( I joined WOLF-PAC.com + voiced my concern with my local representative + VOTED for the appropriate candidate + signed petitions )
Dr. (JD) Greenwald, if you’re reading this…:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RELENTLESS WORK ETHIC regarding researching, composing, and sharing these truths with all of us (including me –> Educated American Guy). If I could give you a HUG, I would!
The one Muslim, and I am assuming that he is a Muslim because of his name, who killed millions of people is the Mongol Ghenghiz Khan. Rest of all the world-class mass murderers are mostly Christians of some form or the other. There is some controversy about one of them whose Indonesian identity proclaims him to be a Muslim, but by and large guys like Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Mugabe, etc., weren’t quite Muslims in any sense. Idi Amin was probably another Muslim who killed people for his supper, but he wasn’t exactly human. The worst Muslims are in Saudi Arabia, but they are our dear friends. The only Muslim I can trust is Muhammad Ali.
Genghis Khan was *not* Muslim.
he was not a muslim. some later muslims took the khan name which is more of a honorific mongol title
Thanks for the info. I also had a feeling that a name like Khan or Hussein did not by itself imply being a Muslim.
At a deeper, spiritual, level, the word, islam, refers to an inner state of higher consciousness, which reflects the qualities of peace and justice.
A person in that state is called a muslim.
This state is achieved/experienced by anyone, regardless of the title one has given to one’s path.
So, when a person commits an unjust violent act, he/she is not in that state at that point.
There’s a very detailed metaphysical discussion on this subject.
Americans are the most dangerous people on earth. Never mess with us. The only country that we are wary of is Saudi Arabia whose leaders are pretend-Muslims.
I love your comment Sufi Muslim! Where is the very detailed discussion, I would like to hear more.
These are the greatest comments I’ve ever seen. Good job everyone…
We also bombed places controlled by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. So what’s the point here? Either we have a good reason to bomb or not — that there’s a pattern against Muslim countries proves nothing. And while we’re on the subject, how come Snowden hasn’t picked a Muslim country. They’re very fine places to live, donchaknow.
How about dropping books, democracy, freedom, love, peace, harmony, building infrastructure, forgiveness, lack of desire for control and power, instead of bombs?
If you want, we can drop some “suicide bombs” and vests, but after that you guys will have to do the rest.
Mr. Greenwald
“……That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980……”
In previous articles, you have charged Americans with racist policies which target Muslims and Muslim majority countries. Some of your previous statements follow:
“…..It likely won’t be in the form that has received the most media attention: the type of large Predator or Reaper drones that shoot Hellfire missiles which destroy homes and cars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and multiple other countriesaimed at Muslims…..”
“….I’m most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki’s killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread….”
“….spending decades bombing, invading, occupying, droning, interfering in, imposing tyranny on, and creating lawless prisons in other countries generates intense anti-American and anti-western rage (for obvious reasons) and ensures that those western nations will be attacked as well…..”
“…..Every war – particularly protracted ones like the “War on Terror” – demands sustained dehumanization campaigns……..applied almost exclusively to Muslims…..It is worse than that: it is based on the implicit, and sometimes overtly stated, premise that Muslims generally, even those guilty of nothing, deserve what the US does to them……”
These statements represent a gross simplification of US policies as well as a misunderstanding of Islamic terrorism which represents a fundamental drive for power – worldwide. In fact, Islamic extremist like the ISIS, the Taliban and al-Qaeda hate our freedoms and oppose globalization and democracy. Islamists seek power to subjugate Muslim populations world-wide under the caliphate. They oppose US foreign policy, but it has nothing to do with the US bombing and killing of Muslims. After all, Muslims are the biggest recipients of Islamic terrorism in the world. This is about power, not revenge. Killing ordinary Muslims is as intrinsic to Islamic extremism as killing Islamic extremist is to US drone warfare in Yemen or Pakistan. In Pakistan, the TTB has attacked the Shia Hazaras countless times even at prayer in Mosques simply because the Shia are apostates. Islamic terrorists are generally racist and supremacist in ideology. Nothing further needs to be said about their policies on women, minorities and gays.
The war on terror is a war on the terror perpetrated primarily against Muslims by mostly Sunni Muslims (like ISIS). Attacks against the west are used for propaganda purposes to promote the falsehood that it is our anti Muslim policies which invites the attacks. However, this is about altering US foreign policy so Islamists are free to take power, and subjugate Muslim populations under an extreme form of sharia law.
The idea that US policy is racist against Muslims makes as much sense as bombing Serbia in favor of the creation of an independent Muslim state in Kososvo was anti Christian.
Consider the idea that the irony of the US condemning violence from or in the ‘Muslim world’ while waging butchering assaults on it was not Greenwald’s main point.
The wars may well be waged mostly for resource and/or population control on behalf of corporatism/militarism entrenched in US foreign policy – which is to say the plundering and looting of a financial elite.
But the propaganda we receive politically and via the media about the reason for US violence is ALL about condemning violence from or in the ‘Muslim world.’ Perhaps Greenwald is illustrating this, and merely using irony to hammer the point home.
Cindy
Population control, Cindy? Holy fuck Cindy, if I understand you correctly, that has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen. I expect the “corporatism” comment. I expect the “resource” comment. These are classic positions of people that obsessively oppose US policies…..but where did the population control comment come from? Presumably, by this you mean Muslim population control??
“…..But the propaganda we receive politically and via the media about the reason for US violence is ALL about condemning violence from or in the ‘Muslim world.’ Perhaps Greenwald is illustrating this, and merely using irony to hammer the point home……”
I have no doubt you are partly right about that. However, Greenwald has also driven home numerous times in the past about US “racist” policies in the Muslim world. I just wanted to drive home the point that Islamic extremism is a violent religious/political movement(s) which targets mostly Muslims to gain power.
Control of the populace. That’s what I meant.
In an historically context the US empire did invade with its ‘marines’ Central America ….how many times ?….Cuba, Dominican Republic, Granada, Nicaragua, Panama or directly did act in the name of “freedom” to overthrow lawful, constitutional government all over Central AND South America. Cases like Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay…..you name it…. the list here is incomplete and all those cases of ILLEGAL intervention were also to “protect” the so called “american way of life” because all those countries “hate” the US American people ?…. or because the Empire of Chaos (to use here an expression of my friend Pepe Escobar) doesn´t like nationalists governments that really care for their own countries and their Peoples ?…
Now Craig, you know better than this, as you’ve seen the evidence for the overwhelmingly primary cause of Islamic violence against Westerners presented many, many times.
First, Malala Yousafzai, the Pakastani girl who was shot in the head on her school bus by Taliban gunmen, and who subsequently met with President Obama, where she reports she said: “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”
Then there are the findings reported to the Pentagon by the Defense Science Board, as quoted by Pedinska here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/25/compare-u-s-responds-killing-americans-based-killing/#comment-84966 An excerpt:
Hi Mona
I’m specifically talking about Islamic extremist – not Muslims in general. I have never said Muslims hate our freedoms. The committee was completely wrong to site that particular grievance. One just needs to look at the Arab Spring to refute that statement. As far as Malala Yousafzai goes, she was shot in the head by people who do seek power. The TTB is a brutal terrorist organization which does seek power to rule over Muslims in OPakistan un der a twisted Sharia law. They have attacked the Pakistan government, the Shia Hazaras, the US and Afghan civilians. They are a classic Islamic terrorist organization that opposes girl’s education, democracy, civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights and globalization. Malala is naive about the cause of terrorism in Pakistan which has been supported by the Pakistan government.
“…..Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination…..”
Democracy will NOT occur overnight Mona. Murtaza has a relatively good article about the Arab Spring. In Iraq, the US promoted democracy after the civil war calmed down, but it was the Shia dominated government which marginalized the Sunnis from the government. In Afghanistan, people voted, but democracy will take a considerable amount of time to establish – especially with the 7th century loving Taliban fighting to take over the government. The US supports democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – and the results of the democratic elections. Popular resistance and an overzealous military brought the Morsi government down. I agree that this was a bad day for democracy in the ME, but the US rightly condemned the military takeover and threatened to cut off aid to Egypt. Unfortunately, since then, the US has provided support to al-Sissi.
The committee report is way out of date.
Thanks.
Any group that claims the assassination attempt on Malala Yousafszai is my mortal enemy. She is a better person than me because if that happened to me I would retaliate, or seek revenge for the rest of my life… Hey, Craig, what would you do if the Iranian government sanctioned the drone killing of your family? Your neighborhood? Your town? Your state? Your country? Against the region of the world you identify with? Now, I am openly not a Christian, but what would you do Craig? Would you turn the other cheek, or would you sell your cloak and buy a sword?
Thank you!
sorry the usa did not support the muslim brotherhood but was afraid of another iran style revolution if it supported kleptocratic mubaraq government at the height of the uprising so usa lets the revolution take place and then works with the military or atleast give the green signal to the military that the usa would not look with displeasure if a coup takes place.
“…..sorry the usa did not support the muslim brotherhood but was afraid of another iran style revolution if it supported kleptocratic mubaraq government at the height of the uprising so usa lets the revolution take place and then works with the military or atleast give the green signal to the military that the usa would not look with displeasure if a coup takes place…..”
The Arab Spring caught US policy makers by surprise just like everyone else in the world. After all, if Assad had his initial response of murdering peaceful protesters to do over, he might take a different approach (200,000 dead Muslims later). The US supplied critical support for the revolution which helped oust Mubarak – and led to general elections. Regardless of why the US supported the democratic results in Egypt which elected the MB to power, the US DID support the election results. After the military removed Morsi from power (in part driven by Egyptian popular protests against the policies of Morsi), the US condemned Morsi’s removal from office and threatened to cut off aid. So the US did not turn a blind eye to the military takeover in Egypt. The President and Congress condemned the actions which infuriated al-Sissi and their close allies in Saudi Arabia.
Under pressure from the Saudis and the Egyptian military, the US restored aid to Egypt. In my opinion, that was an unfortunate cave by the US President to US geopolitical regional interests. There should have been strings attached for the restoration of democratic elections in Egypt. Regardless, the brutal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, and their designation as a terrorist organization, alienated about one-half of the Egyptian population and set back democratic reforms for years. Democratic reforms are not easy to implement under the current power structure in the Middle East.
“Cite,” Craig, not “site.” You still don’t know how to spell. Even after all these years. Amazing.
Welcome back Dabney……it’s been a long time. How have you been? Your incite is most welcome on this issue.
@CraigSummers – How have I been? Thanks for asking. I’ve been kind of pissed off at an old friend who abused a position of power to fuck me over. But he knows that, because I’m sure Jeffrey K. explained it to him. I’ll bet Jeffrey K. reamed him a new one. Not that I think a public platform like the TI comments sections is an appropriate venue to air my grievances. But since you ask.
Hi Dabney
Things could be worse Dabney. Cindy gave me a little love with her creative name-calling (below) – and sillyputty thinks I label?
“…..Well, you just stay curious, you mentally defective, degenerate, fascist, murder-supporting piece of shit.…”
“……Most Americans are propagandized, as you well know, but you don’t want to admit it (because you’re a fucking idiot who thinks it’s good)…..”
“…..You deserve only absolute scorn, for your ideas are ultimately race-superior (which is ironic, you Jew you) and corporatist/militarist……”
“……Because you are a twit. More explicitly…… you are mentally (and in a primary sense emotionally) imbecilic, as well as surprisingly retarded in critical thinking (unlike Steb, who only pretends to be),……Thanks for your dickweed response, you brain-dead, coward, piece of shit, murder-supporting, asinine fool…..”
“……You are a classic idiot, Craig Summers….. Which leaves you, Craig Summers, and those like you from both sides of the proverbial ‘aisle’ as THE FUCKING IDIOT WHO (willfully) DOESN’T GET IT…. think twice before broadcasting your impotent, emasculated view of what should be, for you disempower yourself with every post, revealing nothing but your pathetic subservience, submissiveness and acquiescence toward demonstrably dubious ‘authority……”
Followed in her last post by this beauty,
“……And yes, I am in essence very sweet…….”
Yea, what a sweet little thing. I have a picture of a trans-blogger in my mind – a poster that uses a female moniker, but is really a male. OK, probably not, but politics does always bring out the best in people. She really was clueless about the definition of corporatism, but that is not surprising.
Well, I hope you resolve your issues with your old friend. I’m not sure why you want to exit from this site. It really is quite entertaining at times.
@CraigSummers – oh, I see you think I was referring to Mona’s condescending, supercilious dismissal of me. I wasn’t, but I’ll play along. I know Mona thinks I am an idiot, and sometimes I am an idiot, but other times I have an almost savantish ability to see straight through things. Like, for example, I know where Lazy Starfish got his name. Sometimes I don’t know how I could be so smart and so stupid, all at the same time. I’ll probably never figure it out, because my brain is so puny and feeble that thinking is physically painful for me. Perhaps I am an idiot savant. But I know that can’t be true, because back in tenth grade, as part of the admissions process for this fancy prep school I wound up attending, I had to take an IQ test, and I scored 147. I’m pretty sure that score would qualify me for a MENSA membership, if I went in for that kind of stupid, snobby, elitist bullshit. Which I don’t and never will.
I really don’t care what Mona thinks about me, because I’ve got her number. Mona is a snob, and intolerant of other people’s thoughts and opinions, when they don’t comport exactly with her own. But that’s not what I dislike most about Mona. You want to know what it is? Your response, I’ll instruct you in advance, will be, “No, what?”
I’ll check back for it.
Uhh…..no, what?
Oh please. It’s from 2004, and nothing has materially changed to alter the reasons it found as to why Muslims want to commit violence against Westerners. As Malala has most recently reinforced.
Your response was so weak I feel no need to say more.
The report by the committee does a major injustice to the reasons for Islamic extremism. The left (and especially far left) clings to the report for propaganda purposes, but the report is far too simplistic – and attempts to blame US policies for Islamic extremism while ignoring why Muslims kill Muslims at an alarming rate (all around the globe). Greenwald took the additional step to promote the idea that US policies were based on (white) racist attitudes toward Muslims. He also ignores the obvious. These are all simplistic responses in a complex region. Why do Muslims attack and murder Muslims? To avenge US policies in the Middle East?
Malala is a courageous young woman (now), but nothing exemplifies what I’m saying quite like Pakistan. The Pakistan government is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan through their support for the Taliban which began in about the mid 90s. Pakistan intelligence has provided arms, funding and support for the Taliban – and a safe haven for their training in Pakistan for attacks in Afghanistan against NATO and Afghan civilians. The Taliban accounts for about 75% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The US uncovered a plot by the Karzai government to work with the TTB to attack Pakistan targets.
Malala’s government has blood on their hands – for geopolitical reasons. Malala needs to assign the blame for drone warfare in Pakistan to her government which provides the safe haven for the Taliban to operate and murder people in Afghanistan. Malala need to call out her own government which has funded and trained terrorist for their war against India over Kashmir. Pakistan is a hotbed of terrorist activity supported by Malala’s government. Until the people of Pakistan realize their government’s complicity in promoting terrorism for regional political reasons, the tribal areas will continue to be the focus of US drone warfare.
US policies in Afghanistan have nothing to do with why Malala was shot, or why the Pakistan Taliban attack the Shia Hazaras in Pakistan. The TTB has attacked little girls with acid, burned down schools and attacked the Pakistan government. The TTB aligned with al-Qaeda seeks to establish Pakistan under sharia law. Even you might understand what the Afghanistan Taliban want to reestablish in Afghanistan if they win the war – and it ain’t democracy. The Taliban (both strains) hate democracy. We have seen how the Afghanistan Taliban govern in Afghanistan. Of course the racist (supremacist) Islamic terrorists oppose US policies which prevent their drive for power. Duh?
Thanks Mona
Craig, I realize you represent another point of view here, and I think that’s important. I do find the notion that all would be well or so much better if the US just played nicely with others a bit naive. Unfortunately, without a world government, nations and societies are in something like a state of nature with each other right now, and defense and security are important facts of a successful society, to my mind.
That said, you’re edging into conspiracy thinking with “any information I don’t like is wrong and / or part of the mass delusion”. The government’s own science committee is wrong, Malala is wrong… Where I have a problem with your argument here is that you’re getting out of ‘defense’ and into ‘world saving’, which I’ve told you before, makes no sense to me in the way you envision the world here. It’s as if Africa, Asia, and the countries south of the US border don’t exist, and we were all skipping along the street merrily hand-in-hand when “Dunt dunt dunt”… along comes a giant black storm cloud and Islamic extremism appears. If one wants to look at things from a ‘Knight In Shining Armor To The World’ perspective, I’m not actually even averse to that, but you have to do it in a way that makes some kind of sense. Plucking Islamic violence out of the context of world violence and saying “How can we not address this?!” makes no sense to me. In the past decades there have actually been much greater, in terms of scale, instances of violence and human rights violations happening in the world. Often, we don’t seem to lose any sleep over these or even think about them at all.
Thanks for your response.
“……That said, you’re edging into conspiracy thinking with “any information I don’t like is wrong and / or part of the mass delusion”. The government’s own science committee is wrong, Malala is wrong… Where I have a problem with your argument here is that you’re getting out of ‘defense’ and into ‘world saving’, which I’ve told you before, makes no sense to me in the way you envision the world here…..”
In some ways, I really do have to agree with your assessment, Nic. I take a hard line at this site on some issues that if I was posting at the Wall Street Journal, I might take a more conciliatory tone. I don’t believe that the US is always the force for good. In fact, the US has supported some really bad causes. I fully understand that Muslims living in the Middle East or North Africa might disagree with many of our policies – like propping up Mubarak for years, but I really don’t care if Muslims disagree with our invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was far more controversial, however. I have stated numerous times that the Arab Spring not only confirms that Muslims don’t hate our freedoms, but they are more than willing to die for political rights. Stanley Fish wrote in the New York Times in 2007:
“……Given that democracy privileges some values — personal mobility, individual entrepreneurialism, tolerance, cosmopolitanism — and downplays others — community, ideological conformity, cultural stability — its attraction will vary with the values a particular society embraces. A society for example that rests on a strong religious foundation may find some democratic practices useful, but it will not be inclined to fight and die for them…..”
Obviously, he couldn’t have been more wrong in his assessment. People seeking freedom is so basic that the committee just reiterated the obvious without understanding the motive of the people (Islamists) that do hate freedom, democracy, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, women’s rights – and seek power. They are no different than any violent political movement except they have an underlying religious ideology which underpins their anti-democratic philosophy. In my mind, they are no different than a Marxist movement, a socialist movement or a democratic movement (Arab Spring). Violent Islamic movements (jihadists) are not isolated, but are part of a world movement albeit relatively small. Regardless, they are not motivated by our policies that kill Muslims.
But what has never made any sense to me is the idea that Muslims are so pissed off at our policies – policies that admittedly result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims – they join terrorist organizations that target and kill mostly Muslims. It’s so absurd as to invite ridicule. It’s also the racism of low expectations to believe that the same Muslims dying in the streets today for political rights are going to join a terrorist organization like the racist ISIS because we are bombing the ISIS who primarily kill western journalist and Muslims – and are anti-democratic to the core. The people who join ISIS do not support democracy and support a policy of murder and terror to gain power.
One of the reasons I concede very little on this site is simply because Glenn Greenwald sets the precedent with his comments. Nate hit the nail on the head in his response to this article by Greenwald.
“…..Knowing Glenn is so fixated on the hypocrisy of others, this gave me a good laugh. Let’s see, who do I know that highlights the worst behaviors of – let’s say…the U.S. government and its allies – while ignoring………and the bad behaviors of others? Hmmm…I wonder……”
Of course, Glenn is anything but “fair and balanced”, nor does he make even the slightest attempt to concede anything when he posts (like Islamists kill Muslims for power, not out of revenge for US policies). In fact, Glenn rarely even mentioned Hamas during the recent war in Gaza (in several articles) even though they were a possible/significant factor in the start and duration of the war. Of course, most of his readers like that part of Glenn – and few are conciliatory in their arguments as well (see Mona on Israel, for example). I enjoy challenging the political mindset of many on this site for that reason.
Thanks.
Nic hits it on head re: Craig:
Yes, that’s Craig. Toss in word salad about “the left,” “leftists,” “the extreme left”; add a lot of whataboutery, especially involving Eastern Europe and Russia; then finish with rejecting all inconvenient facts for, er, less than compelling reasons — do all that, and you have identified Craig’s MO.
Craig, I am usually middle of the road on everything, and this is no exception. I would probably take great issue with GG and think he was being a hypocrite if he assumed the posture of neutral third party analyst, or put forth his ideas as some sort of realist perspective on reality. But as he’s always been pretty open about representing particular narratives, I don’t generally take issue with it. My biggest worry with this stance is that it could easily slide into knee-jerk negativity – i.e. “How can I possibly turn these actions into something that look horrible?”. Forming one’s own opinion is important, but starting with the premise “This group must be up to no good” as a sort of starting axiom I don’t agree with, and I think over time being ‘adversarial’ can turn into that. We’ll see though, I guess.
I think you and Nate are pretty adversarial about your own perspective, though, which is unsurprisingly less “try to see both sides” than mine. Possibly this makes me a boring person, but it’s just how I think. To say that foreign policy has no impact on an area strikes me as unlikely as saying it’s the prime causal factor. We made a mistake with the Iraq War, there were no WMD, and when you make a mistake, the responsible adult thing to do is to acknowledge that, not demonize the people who are angry and destabilized by it. I mean, can you imagine, even begin to imagine, the outrage if an Islamic country killed over a hundred thousand Americans? What the people who speak out about the dangers of Islam would say if ISIS killed 180,000+ of us? We would be on the verge of nuclear war, is my guess. And yet the same numbers on their side merit mostly a “Look, everyone makes mistakes”. The fact that they have their own problems doesn’t change that. And of course I think there are plenty of problems in the Middle East, as there are in many parts of the world. They may well have hated us, again, whether or not we were ever over there, but I think it’s a failure of basic human conscience to kill people in those numbers and then act annoyed at the suggestion that this might have impacted people’s thinking a bit, because the only possible answer is that hatred of Westerners must simply be inherent to such people because of their primitive doctrines.
As to your dislike of the ‘far left’ – I kind of get it, I grew up in the 80s and 90s, when conservative thinking as it stands today was still a minority position and people did feel ‘brave’ for ‘saying what no one else wanted to say’. Things that often, at the time, did need to be said. At least that was the impression I got as a kid in those years. But now, when I hear people go off about “PC Police!!” often – not always, but sometimes – what they mean is “People stopping me from airing my racist views in public, can you believe the gall?!”. My prediction is that we’re at peak conservative right about now and that over the next couple of decades liberals and libertarians will get it together enough to pendulum swing that. Not back to more of the same, because hopefully we learn some new lessons with each cycle, but my moderate soul is becoming quite irritated as what I see as the open xenophobia in public discourse these days.
Nic
“……As to your dislike of the ‘far left’ – I kind of get it…..”
Thanks for your reply. Iraq is a good topic of discussion, but I prefer to put that off to another day possibly on a thread where the topic is Iraq. However, I want to make sure you distinguish between the “far” (fringe, radical, extreme, hard) left which I do dislike and the “liberal” left which I have a great deal of respect for – and so should all people that enjoy freedom including many of the protections in western society provided for minorities (whether racial, religious and ethnic). Liberals support civil and human rights and civil liberties for all people. Amnesty International is a direct offshoot of liberalism.
This contrasts with the intolerance and bigotry exhibited by many on the far left who obsessively focus their attention on the US and Israel – to the exclusion of most other conflicts and human rights violations (like the ongoing slaughter in Syria). The Intercept is a perfect example of that focus with authors that couch their opposition to Israel and their anti Americanism in their synthetic concern for the human rights of the Palestinians and Arabs (Muslims), respectively. Liberals might support intervention by the west to help the Yazidis, while the radical left opposes US intervention even if genocide is committed against the Yazidis by the ISIS.
The difference between the radical left and the liberal left is stark in my opinion. It’s a compliment to be called a liberal (although I am not a supporter of the welfare state model), but you should be offended if you are called an extreme leftist. Many extreme leftist are associated with anti Jewish bigotry.
Well, as to the subtle delineations of character on ‘the left’, I won’t argue with you, because I have no idea. The finer points of politics interest me about as much as the goings on of sports teams (that would be, not at all). In general I am opposed to extremism of any type, in part because of a Buddhist “middle path” mindset, and in part because I’m lazy and slightly flakey, and if there’s one thing that doesn’t go over well with extremists, it’s when people wander off in search of marshmallows and then see a shiny object and then forget all about The Cause by the time they get back. No doubt ‘fundamentalists’ of any group play an important role – defining the boundaries on issues (how could I, after all, be ‘in the middle’ if no one defined a hard left and hard right); standing firm on the occasional historical issue where there really is no middle ground, like slavery, etc. But in general I prefer the Zen-ish stance that all things both embody and transcend dichotomies, so taking a hard stance on one side or the other doesn’t usually interest me. Unless it’s something obvious, like “How freaking cute is Glenn Greenwald?” in which case, infidels who don’t intuit the obvious answer (cuter than a barrel of puppies) should be beaten with a wet noodle or something. But those are rare issues, on most things I try to see both sides.
“……But those are rare issues, on most things I try to see both sides……”
That’s kind of unusual on this site (including myself). I appreciate your responses – and I realize you are going to disagree with my point of view on a variety of issues. At least I hope we can keep it on a civil level……
Thanks.
“But what has never made any sense to me is the idea that Muslims are so pissed off at our policies – policies that admittedly result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims – they join terrorist organizations that target and kill mostly Muslims” CraigSummers
My distinctly inexpert and unpolitical view on this is that it is mostly a pragmatic response. In other words, ISIS, et .al target and kill mostly Muslims first because they are literally surrounded by them, and thus these non-aligning Muslim’s are the first line of opposition to be dealt with locally (wherever that locale may be in the world). Also, it’s also easier to kill unarmed/less well armed opponents, as opposed to say, western army personnel, for example, or to invade others countries to sow discord there.
ISIS, et .al need a place to play, in other words, and being the latest schoolyard bullies, they are obliged to claim the local playground first.
This same killing scheme may also be meant to and/or result in frightening the other local Muslims/populace in order to both convince them to keep their heads down and thus not become a future threat, so that they may concentrate on the bigger fish to fry (whatever that may be) whilst also, paradoxically, eliciting recruits from the frightened population to help them with their cause (if you can’t beat em’, join em’). I know. Preposterously, this recruiting methodology does work, to such a bizarre extent that it even results in pulling in foreign mercenaries as well. I don’t understand it, but there you have it.
Of course, these self-avowed, politically unaligned views must first both be labeled and pigeon-holed in order to assess there veracity.
After all, how else could anyone deconstruct anothers position on something without using ad-hominem fallacies such as self-defined labels that only they understand and that are then promptly placed into convenient pigeon-holes of their own making?
On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed CraigSummers and Nics discussion on here. That’s more like it.
*Pigeon-holing and Labeling*
“This error in thought comes from stuffing people and things into simplistic categories — “pigeon-holes” — and assigning inaccurate names to them. This can be done without malice, and yet, it still results in erroneous thoughts and wrong conclusions.
“Many simple-minded people want to stuff everything that they don’t understand into some simple pigeon-hole, and then they believe that they know what it is.”
“Propaganda and Debating Techniques”</em" – A. Orange
Labeling Examples, Courtesy of George W. Bush, et .al
George W. Bush calls his attack on Iraq “a war for freedom”. Every time Rumsfeld attacks another city like Fallujah or Najaf or Kut or Sadr City and kills several hundred more people, including women and children, Bush says that it’s a victory for “freedom”.
Bush also calls the rebels against American hegemony “the enemies of freedom”. No, they really want to be free — especially free from our army in their country.
Bush says that they hate us because of our “freedom”. No, they hate us because our military forces are destroying their country and killing their children with our “Shock and Awe” bombing.
Thanks again to “Propaganda and Debating Techniques”” – A. Orange
Of course the list needs updating to add Obama, et .al, and expanded tactics such as drones, etc., but you get the picture.
To be utterly clear – labeling doesn’t explain anything – it just puts a name to something and categorizes something to the benefit of the labeler, not the discourse. The same holds for pigeon-holing.
““Misunderstanding is generally simpler than true understanding, and hence has more potential for popularity.” – Raheel Farooq
I don’t see why not. I get along with the vast majority of people, and if I don’t, 9 time out of ten it’s because they can’t deal with my ADD-ishness or they’re a certain breed of snippy church lady-esque (male or female) type who I reliably butt heads with (for reasons that elude me). If neither of those comes into play, again, I appreciate your perspective even if I think you’re guilty of your own overreach in many areas. To me, arguments about conflict in the Muslim world, if compared to a divorce, would boil down to: 1) One group saying “My ex husband/wife is a psycho. A fucking psycho! It’s so easy for you to judge everything I said and did in that relationship, but if you were ever involved with a psycho like that, you’d know exactly how I feel.” 2) One group pointing out, in terms of statistics, the disproportionate violence in terms of actual actions (and again, it’s certainly not as if all of those actions were directly defensive). So I don’t rule out that some parts of the world may well be the equivalent of “Yer Psycho Ex”, who, really, there is no reasoning with. But a society should be judged by how well it treats ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people – anybody can get along with a lovable friend, the true test of character is how we treat an enemy.
I might be wrong but this article is about discussing and refuting the view that few holds about muslims in general but now is trying to take root in mainstream America as the main point of view about islam and the muslims as a whole. Look at the various discussion boards for news articles and tell me I am wrong
You are a hopelessly broken machine Craig.
“……You are a hopelessly broken machine Craig……”
I guess it depends on how you define “broken”. If you agreed with me on anything politically, I would consider myself a hopelessly broken machine.
KC, dude, YOU are the ignorant one here, certainly about Bill Maher. You write:
Get a puke bucket ready:
Is Bill Maher a Zionist, do ya think, KC??? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Oh, KC, I can get tons more of soul-sickening paeans to Zionism and Zionists leaving Bill Maher’s mouth. Just ask, and get the Tums.
I defend you all the time, Bill Maher, on the grounds of free speech and my love of comedy, BUT that’s just disgusting! You are ahistorical when it comes to Israel, and that is your biggest offense against your purportedly scientific view.
Mona, this was pretty damning evidence in light of recent events! I still reserve the right to dismantle each and every one of your arguments, but here you are spot on.
“……Is Maher saying here that Netanyahu will only do interviews with Zionists? Maher also neglects to mention that his interview with Netanyahu was in 2006, soon after Israel had decimated southern Lebanon for a month, killing 1,180 people (about a third of whom were children), wounding over 4,050, and displacing about 970,000 others as direct result of the more than 7,000 air attacks by the Israeli Air Force and an additional 2,500 bombardments by the Israeli Navy that deliberately contravened international law and targeted civilian infrastructure…..”
Of course, it was Hezbollah that started the war Mona. You managed to leave out that minor detail. Hezbollah has largely remained on the sidelines with Israel since that time – even as Hamas has taken a severe beating on two occasions. That war in 2006 served as a deterrent to Hezbollah aggression. Hezbollah is another terrorist organization which keeps hostilities alive with Israel in hopes of defeating the Jewish state – a near impossibility.
Nasrallah said about the Jews (not just Israeli Jews):
“…If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of having to go after them worldwide…”
Racism and bigotry personified.
Even if it is true Hezbollah started the war (I’m agnostic), Israel’s slaughterings were obscene. And sure, that Nasrallah can say some nasty things; some are competitive with the viciousness of certain Israeli Zionists.
In any event, I trust KC has realize he made a woefully stupid error in challenging me on the matter of whether Bill Maher — BILL MAHER!!! — is a Zionist.
“……And sure, that Nasrallah can say some nasty things; some are competitive with the viciousness of certain Israeli Zionists……”
As the leader of a Lebanese militia and major political party in the Lebanese government, he should be condemned Mona, not given a free ride to threaten all the Jews in the world. Why is it such a problem for you to condemn racists?
So, Mona Holland has to pay attention to Nasrallah, else he has a “free ride” to say mean things about Jews? Can I also halt Ebola with my Bene Gesserit Voice?
“…..So, Mona Holland has to pay attention to Nasrallah, else he has a “free ride” to say mean things about Jews?….”
Racism and murder are justified as long as they are committed against Jews.
Thanks.
Oh, definitely, to exactly the same degree Ebola will not be controllable until I get My Voice back.
First, vast majority of the Muslims oppose AQ and ISIS and other terrorist groups. Yes, there are many more Islamic terrorists than other religions. However, one needs to ask why these young men and women are now attracted to such terrorist groups? was this feeling there all along? What has radicalized Muslim youth? Looking at the past 100 years 4 major events has taken place that caused major radicalization of the people in the Middle East. First, discovery of oil and exploitation of the wealth of the people by the western powers. Two, support of the oppressive dictators by the west to ensure access to oil and other riches of the region as well as using the region in their conflict with USSR. How do you expect the people in the region feel when their rights are pummeled and wealth plundered by the corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and other countries in the region. Third, creation of Israel in 1948 by the West and the continued plight of the Palestinians for over 6 decades. Palestinians getting attacked, bombed, humiliated, and killed continuously has been witnessed by the people in the region specially in the age of TV and internet. Israel has basically gotten away with many crimes against humanity with the support of the US and EU countries. and finally, attacking and destruction of many Muslim countries by the western powers at will that has caused death of millions and destruction of their countries. All of these created hopelessness in the part of the youth that has been taken advantage by the hardcore Islamists hell bent on vengeance. Unless the root cause of this radicalization and conflict are addressed the terrorist groups will survive and thrive.
“…Yes, there are many more Islamic terrorists than other religions.”
——–
The term, “Islamic terrorists”, is oxymoron; there’s nothing Islamic about terrorism.
Also, I doubt if there are more terrorists who claim to be Muslims than those who identify themselves with other religious traditions, unless you define the word, terrorism, in a certain way (hint).
KC preposterously claims about Sufi Muslim:
As a Greenwald reader for some time now, Sufi — like me and many here — is familiar with the facts Greenwald addresses in his writing about Harris and Maher. Many of us are independently knowledgeable, including Sufi. I also know a great deal — even beyond what Greenwald sets forth — regarding Sam Harris or Bill Maher.
To acqaint yourself with the level of understanding and sophistication you are dealing with, EC, please see this Greenwald column: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus
It’s about Sam Harris and the New Atheists. Sufi and I were extremely active in the lengthy and challenging comment section attached.
The “gay bars” comment rivals Bibi’s “telegenically dead” as some of the most disgusting and shameless things to say in light of Israel’s latest slaughter. If you still follow the situation in Gaza, you’d know that it’s literally hell. Universities, factories, houses, people’s prospects lie in utter ruins as Israel, with the US’s abetting, continues to obstruct humanitarian aid, construction materials, further straggling an already desperate population. But of course it is the lack of gay bars that draws Maher’s attention. I’d love to see Palestinians getting enough materials through the blockade to built one.
And his audience laugh and laugh at his positively sociopathic criticism. Jus as Malcolm X says after his pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, “they cripple the bird’s wings, and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they.”
If this posts, it will be an utter miracle.
Glenn – when you say “lawlessly,” do you completely ignore that a federal judge rejected Congress’ lawsuit against Obama for lack of standing? Doesn’t seem like something you’d necessarily want to gloss over. Judge Walton said:
So, what is your basis for claims of lawlessness? A paragraph into your latest article and you’ve already misinformed your readers.
More misleading information from Glenn. His own link to the Reuters article says that “TRIBESMEN said the drones targeted positions held by Ansar al-Sharia in the town of Radda in al-Bayda province and a vehicle used by the group.” As for the “almost no discussion,” these drone strikes in Yemen have been covered by Al Jazeera, Huffpost, ABC Online, Democracy Now, IB Times, Al Arabiya, The Nation, Reuters, Yahoo, Lawfare, CNN, and the Long War Journal, to name the bigger outlets. What is your support for such claims of media malpractice? Your Twitter feed? Also interesting is that Glenn does not point out that the following, it was reported that drone strikes in Yemen killed some senior AQ officials. According to al Jazeera, “Shawki al-Badani, a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) and a designated “global terrorist” by the US, was one of four armed group members killed, along with Nabil al-Dahab, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen’s al-Bayda province, tribal sources said on Wednesday.” Glenn Greenwald folks, misleading by omission.
If you were living under a rock for the last several months and read this prior article from Glenn, you’d probably conclude that the U.S. just likes to blow up Muslims, like a redneck likes to blast prairie dogs. To those following the efforts against the Islamic State, you should know this is a grossly misleading and pathetic representation. There are legitimate complaints against the U.S. strategy against IS, the inept legal justification used, and the sidestepping of Congress, and Glenn is quick and correct to point this out. But for some unknown reason, Glenn is unwilling to direct any of the intense scrutiny that he reserves for the U.S. and its allies, towards the Islamic State. They’re enslaving women, torturing children, lobbing mortars indiscriminately into Kobani, beheading journalists, executing groups of unarmed men, trying to murder the retched “Kuffar” Yazidis up on Mount Sinjar who have the nerve to not convert to Islam with the barrel to their head, and other despicable actions, but Glenn essentially gives them a free pass by sticking to his platitude that the U.S. just loves bombin’ those Muslims! And by doing so is just as guilty as the people he decries for giving one-sided information.
Also, Glenn never stops to ask himself if the instability in predominantly Muslim countries that leads to continuous conflict is the fault of anybody other than the West. If you look through that list of countries, it may help to actually look at the factors that led to each one. For example, anybody care to argue that the motivation for Kosovo in 1999 is the same as Iraq in 2003? What about Afghanistan in 1998 when the U.S. went after Bin Laden or the botched strike in Sudan the same year. What say you, sitting here with the power of hindsight, about not firing at Bin Laden when he was a Tarnak Farm near Kandahar?
While I intensely disagree with those who blame billions of Muslims because of the actions of a tiny extremist minority, roll my eyes at cable news viewers and commentators whining that Muslims don’t condemn the extremist’s actions (they do, but their voices aren’t heard), and scoff at those who generalize with tripe such as Islam being the “motherlode of bad ideas,” I simultaneously reject the far left’s and “obsessively pro-Islam polemicists’ proclamations” that those who level any criticism at Islam or Muslims are mere bigots. That there are no gay bars in Gaza (if even true) may not be equivalent to violence elsewhere but is emblematic of how far behind some Islamic countries are in terms of equality and human rights, and for the most extreme Islamic groups how hateful and backwards they are. The most extremist Islamic groups are a problem, and I challenge any of you to refute that TODAY (not decades or centuries ago), the vast majority of religious extremists that are causing violence throughout the world, do so in the name of Islam. No other religion today can compete, and in no other religion do you face the level of risk if you dare criticize Muhammad or Islam in a widespread and public fashion. Glenn is right that there are some reprehensible anti-Islam bloviators out there, the Intercept is about as close to “pro-Islam apologist” as I can find. Murtaza just last month tried to divorce the “Islamic State” from the religion of Islam. As some author said a month or two ago “If ISIS Is Not Islamic, then the Inquisition Was Not Catholic.”
Knowing Glenn is so fixated on the hypocrisy of others, this gave me a good laugh. Let’s see, who do I know that highlights the worst behaviors of – let’s say…the U.S. government and its allies – while ignoring positive aspects and the bad behaviors of others? Hmmm…I wonder.
Also, your argument is a tu quoque logical fallacy because Israel’s disgusting killing of so many civilians in Gaza is a separate matter than groups like the Islamic State. Your raising the issue is just an attempt to deflect criticism from Islam to the Jews. They both deserve their lumps. Which raises another matter about Glenn’s style of reporting: you resort to more logical fallacies than any blogger/journalist/advocate I’ve ever encountered. You’d make a wonderful side-stepping politician if it weren’t for the fact that the concept of politics doesn’t exist anywhere in your self-righteous mind.
More BS from Glenn. Let’s look in Iraq and Syria: Who invaded Iraq? And to back up, what does “invade” mean? It is to “enter a country or region so as to subjugate or occupy it.” So who is attempting to subjugate and occupy Iraq and Syria? The Islamic State. Who has unleashed more violence in Iraq and Syria? Seeing that the U.S. left Iraq militarily in 2011 and is back there because of the Islamic State, that should be a good hint. Also, go glance at Human Rights Watch’s website and it may make you reassess who the real violent actor is here? Who does more bombing? From the air, the U.S. obviously. As before, the invasions and occupations are being done by IS.
This has been another trademark Glenn Greenwald post, full of twisted information, filled with links that if you actually read them, often cherry-pick or don’t support the narrative, and a stunningly simplistic worldview.
A miracle! Your opinion appeared!
Cindy, help me. The Intercept is censoring my posts. Go and get Rand Paul to rectify this situation!!! :P
And it didn’t take 2 days!!
Only to read.
Sorry Cindy
Don’t be, Nate. We’ll still have Paris.
A few points:
1. There are Muslims who have changed their conservative and traditional views on gays and lesbians because of Glenn.
2. It’s false to claim that it’s risky to criticize Islam and its Prophet (S); Islam and its Prophet (S) are the most criticized and demonized religion/person. There are tons of written and multimedia material solely to criticize and demonize Islam and its Prophet (S). There have been billboards on buses and subways and protests against the construction of mosques and Muslim centers.
These days, Islam is a fair game.
“These days, Islam is a fair game”
You cannot be serious. Or maybe you are exclusively referring to mostly non predominantly Muslim countries. What would happen to Bill Maher if he shares his opinion about Islam on national tv in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Gaza, even Indonesia?
Boy Steb, no one can put anything over on you, for sure! [rolling eyes]
I think you should ignore what you do not comprehend or just run to Mr Greenwald for help.
Yes, I was referring to the claims non-Muslim Westerners make that criticizing Islam and its Prophet (S) is risky, because that’s where these people live: In the West, all the while doing just that: criticizing and demonizing Islam and its Prophet (S).
So I find their whining hypocritical and completely false.
I have pointed out many times that the situation in the Muslim majority countries is not conducive to criticizing Islam and its Prophet (S), generally speaking.
I have also pointed out that because of the freedoms in the West, it is the right place for the Muslims to reform certain aspects of (exoteric) traditional Islam.
And yes, Islam is a fair game these days, in the West. People are saying things about it they cannot say about a few other paths and lifestyle and keep their high profile jobs.
I’m of the view that there are two types of criticism:
1. Constructive, positive, healthy, courteous and based on knowledge. This type of critique is very helpful.
2. Destructive, negative, discourteous, and based on a lack of proper knowledge and training.
Criticisms of Bill Maher, Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Tarek Fateh, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, Steven Emerson, and the likes fall under the second type.
I’ve mentioned an encounter of a friend of mine with Steven Emerson in 1986/87. Emerson showed up at the gathering of a few Muslims looking for dirt. My friend took him to a Taco Bell for lunch. He was not interested in anything positive. He was there to gather material for a book in which he was going to discredit Islam, and was very disappointed to see goodness there.
Well, Sufi don’t you think it is risky to draw cartoons of Prophet Mohammad in western countries? US courts, European courts have sent people to jails for threatening to seriously hurt others who criticize Islam through writings or TV shows. Some have even attempted to kill the cartoonist in Denmark. What do you seriously think would happen to Bill Maher if he burns the Christian Bible live on TV? About the Holy Koran?
@ Mr Greenwald
That is not a sharp defense to rely heavily on the “count” to present the US as the most violent society the world has ever known and then to turn around and state “the count isn’t mine”.
“That people are willing to justify their own side’s ongoing violence is all obvious – but also totally irrelevant to the point”.
It is very relevant Mr Greenwald. How would you describe the Kuwaiti soldier in 1991 who decided to fight the Iraqi invaders? Was it noble for him to defend his country? Or was he a “savage” or a “primitive” human being? How would you describe the Kurds who are fighting against ISIL for their survival? As a journalist you probably know what ISIL would do to the Kurds if they take over their territories. Are the Kurds noble for fighting against insane terrorists who behead journalists like you live for the world, or they are “savage” and “primitive” for using violence to protect themselves?
How you describe Kuwaiti soldiers in 1991 or Pershmerga fighters in 2014 has a lot to do in supporting or blaming the use of violence by the US. Your attempt to distort reality in this article can only work with your blind followers. According to your logic it would be acceptable for a society to present its police force as the most violent entity in a country because the police has killed more citizens than any other force for the last thirty years. It would be irrelevant whether or not the cops had to use lethal force to protect themselves or others.
“it’s nonetheless a fact that the U.S. has engaged in far more violence, bombing, occupations and invasions of other countries around the world no matter the time period you choose (last 5 years, last 15 years, last 30 years, etc)”
How far can I go in history? Because I can go as far as 600 AD, in that case the US does not hold the top position in violence, occupations and invasions of other countries.
I’ve keenly wondered about that.
As we can see, Putin is moving with the Russian Orthodox Church in a virulently anti-gay direction. For him, it is a means of distinguishing and preserving Russian culture from the depredations of a decadent West. Using gays as victims, he’s stomping on them to prove the West can’t control him.
Equality and acceptance for gays is, in our times, quite new. It has been a Western innovation that, unfortunately, has accompanied grotesque Western imperialism in the Muslim world. To speak in religious terms our Western”witness” of equality and justice is not persuasive to the victims of our empire.
So if Muslims largely hold steadfast to anti-gay animus, the West has no moral authority to shake a finger. Indeed, such finger-shaking could seem just another manifestation of imperialism.
Tragically, while Russians and Muslims oppress gays within their respective boundaries at least in part to stick it to the West, the ones who suffer are their gays, not the West.
“……As we can see, Putin is moving with the Russian Orthodox Church in a virulently anti-gay direction. For him, it is a means of distinguishing and preserving Russian culture from the depredations of a decadent West. Using gays as victims, he’s stomping on them to prove the West can’t control him…..”
Did you read the article Mona? Greenwald notes:
“…..There are no gay bars in Gaza, the obsessively anti-Islam polemicists proclaim—as though that (rather than levels of violence and aggression unleashed against the world) is the most important metric for judging a society…..”
I find it ironic that you focus on Russian treatment of gays after Russian military aggression in Ukraine – and Russian propping up the murderer, Assad, in Syria. Putin is homophobic, but there are more “important metrics” for judging their foreign policy and government actions which include the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and military foray into Ukraine which probably included the downing of a passenger jet which killed 300 people. In all, about one and one-half times more people have died in Ukraine than Gaza (the “genocide”).
Craig’s neurons misfire:
Yeah, truly inexplicable, since I quoted and was responding to this by Sufi: “There are Muslims who have changed their conservative and traditional views on gays and lesbians because of Glenn”
My discussion being about non-Westerners, including Russians, who see oppressing their own gay citizens as demonstrating anti-Western bona fides, to the great misfortune of their gay citizens.
That you prefer I’d written about another topic is, well, tant pis.
That’s my point Mona. That’s the only time you have brought up any subject which includes Russia (despite their aggressive and murderous foreign policies).
on Point 1 – that’s great to hear
On Point 2 – I think it has more to do with risks faced by influential people and institutions although there are also obscure incidents that go viral. In the last decade, there was the whole South Park-Muhammad fiasco, Theo Van Gogh’s murder, the Danish newspaper cartoons, the arrest and calls for death for the Briton who let her class name a teddy bear “Muhammad” in Sudan, the 2012 protests in Egypt over that obscure video “innocence of Muslims,” and protests and deaths due to the U.S. military’s inadvertent burning of Korans in Afghanistan.
the NY Review of Books said in 2006:
That’s what happened with Comedy Central. Although they value free speech, the practical truth was that airing Muhammad could result in violence and to them the risk outweighed the benefit.
A very tiny minority in the Muslim majority countries goes out to protest. Among that tiny minority are a fraction of those who turn to violence, either they start the violence or react violently when police fire upon them.
What’s not pointed out is why they come out to protest.
What happens is that, rightly or wrongly, they look at these things as a continuation of West’s war against Islam and its desire to colonize the Muslims, albeit in new modern ways.
Overwhelming majority of Muslims shrug their shoulders and go about their lives.
I’ve met and had discussions with a lot of Muslims throughout my life. Not a single person has ever gone out to protest something that has happened in the West against Islam or its Prophet (S).
We always feel that those who go out to protest are idiots.
We also know that many who protested against Salman Rushdi never even read his book.
Of course, the media focus on the protests and distorts the overall picture.
“……Knowing Glenn is so fixated on the hypocrisy of others, this gave me a good laugh. Let’s see, who do I know that highlights the worst behaviors of – let’s say…the U.S. government and its allies – while ignoring positive aspects and the bad behaviors of others? Hmmm…I wonder……”
I had to laugh at that one as well.
– “… the U.S. just likes to blow up Muslims, like a redneck likes to blast prairie dogs.”
Bingo.
– “…U.S. just loves bombin’ those Muslims!”
Bingo again. But don’t forget the bidnes interests.
– “…That there are no gay bars in Gaza (if even true) may not be equivalent to violence elsewhere but is emblematic of how far behind some Islamic countries are in terms of equality and human rights, and for the most extreme Islamic groups how hateful and backwards they are.”
Hypocrisy. I spent my first 27 years in Jim Crow’s Texas, a state that contributes much to your evil empire’s nasty reputation in the area of human rights, extremist violence (terrorist bombings) and all ’round backwardness. I lived among people who literally love killing living beings, express blood-lust with much vigor, and on a personal note, instigated an ongoing, 10+ year long torture session on yours truly — for mere opinions. (You are complicit, Stasi hack.)
– “Let’s see, who do I know that highlights the worst behaviors of – let’s say…the U.S. government and its allies – while ignoring positive aspects and the bad behaviors of others? Hmmm…I wonder.”
The words on my passport — United States of America — tell me which country to criticise. Given its behavior, the criticism is warranted. I’m certain more validation is forthcoming. By the way, take a look at your own passport. Which country does it tell you to criticize? Hmmmm, I wonder.
Your last two paragraphs: oral diarrhea. “Who invaded Iraq?” … “what does invade mean?” … citing Human Rights Watch, known to be compromised by the Stasi… and your best quip, the phrase “stunningly simplistic worldview”. I’ve seen some pretty simplistic world views in my time; your own is equally unoriginal. You eat from the same unsanitary spoon feeding those red-neck texans.
Notice how those complaining that the count I provided excludes “context” (by which they mean justification for the violence) don’t mention a rather critical fact: the count isn’t mine, but is Andrew Bacevich’s, a former US Army Colonel and one of the best-regarded military historians and scholars in the country.
Obviously, people are free to claim that some or all of the violence he lists is justified. It would be shocking if some didn’t claim that. That’s what rank tribalism is: my side’s violence is noble and good, and the Other Side’s is savage and primitive. This is the self-loving dynamic that drives virtually every war, the one that leaders also exploit to massage the cognitive dissonance that comes from, on the one hand, depicting oneself as opponents of savage violence when done by others, while on the other, constantly supporting and justifying one’s own. The purest example of that was when Rudy Guiliani said that whether waterboarding is “torture” “depends on who does it.”
That people are willing to justify their own side’s ongoing violence is all obvious – but also totally irrelevant to the point. Whatever else is true, it’s nonetheless a fact that the U.S. has engaged in far more violence, bombing, occupations and invasions of other countries around the world no matter the time period you choose (last 5 years, last 15 years, last 30 years, etc). That’s just a fact that isn’t going away, no matter how many people who are responsible for it think it’s justified. And my citation for that count isn’t myself but rather Professor Bacevich, who provides plenty of “context” in the op-ed I cited and linked to.
I see that you are getting paid by the word now. Good for you!
what’s wrong Bill, couldn’t form an actual retort?
Nate,
Thanks for this. It’s the post that I would write if I had the time.
“TRIBESMAN said”
sounds like even better journalism, forget justice, than
“American officials say” or
“IDF Spokesman says”
I notice a bit of hero worship in some of the comments and that’s OK, but if these devotees of Glenn’s limit themselves to reading only Greenwald authored articles, they are missing so much more that The Intercept has to offer. I don’t know Glenn but if he is anything like someone from whom he has drawn inspiration then I don’t think adoration or worship is what he’s about. I could be wrong but aren’t the issues and what we as still free peoples do about these issues the important thing to remember. If we limit ourselves to just one viewpoint we aren’t being true to what democracy means. We should be listening to as many voices as we can from both sides and then using our own minds to formulate ideas . Speak up people while we still are free. Good article, Glenn. Infuriatingly sad, but good.
Horse shit. That statement not only assumes that people reading here don’t read lots of other authors (I read mounds of various authors) but it is also is as lame as the excuse used to “tell both sides” with the “balanced” type of bull shit writing that can be read from many New York Times authors and such as that. I’ve read and formed opinions. I don’t need some scolding school marm person to come along and preach at me to read and listen to, perhaps Bill Maher, or Richard Cohen or David Brooks. Most of us here aren’t elementary school children, or new to the world of politics and the manure factory.
Well, I just got two types of shit for my comment. I guess you told me off now, so I’ll go home and sulk. Nah. Why such vitriol thrown my way? I was only pointing out, what is obvious to those who choose to see, the people fawning all over Glenn. You seem to have taken my comment personally which wasn’t my intent. First, a schoolmarm person scolding you one would have to assume you were the object of said scolding if it was scolding. I wasn’t aware that I mentioned your name or comment or even hinted it was you or something you wrote. So, sorry that you felt like I was scolding you. That is not going to change my observation of a bit of Glenn worship by some. All you have to do is look at the comment count for the different authors on here to see what I’m talking about. I like Glenn’s articles and am glad he’s doing what he’s doing but I’m going to read all the articles published here by all the authors and merely suggested others give the other authors a read. By the way, being in my 60s, I’m not an elementary school student either.
I didn’t “take your comment personally,” I was using the first person POV because I was speaking only for myself, but at the same time I was assuming that others would have similar disagreement with your assumptions and advice . I did take it as a scolding to many of the commenters who post here, because that is what it was. Again, speaking only for myself, I’ve been reading all of the authors here at The Intercept, but your comment directed people to “listening to as many voices as we can from both sides.” That would clearly include more than just the authors at The Intercept. Which is why I replied the way that I did. How many more David Brooks or Richard Cohen articles does one have to read before concluding that Brooks is a pansy authority worshiper, and that Cohen is a frightened bigot who can’t write a column without making an idiot of himself? Should I/we be reading Max Boot regularly too, so that I/we will have “voices from both sides” to help “formulate ideas?”
And you accuse Bill Maher of “generalizing” yet here you are distilling thirty years of conflict into “bombing Muslims”. Greenwald and his minions can feel smug by decontextualizing a highly complex history. There are certainly more excesses in US foreign policy than many care to admit but these are very different campaigns, launched for very different reasons, that were very different in scope, with very different levels of global, western, Muslim and Arab support. Yet those complexities don’t serve Greenwald’s agenda of silencing anyone with a remotely critical perspective of Islam and public opinion in Muslim majority countries.
… and of course as usual no mention of the fact that Bill Maher opposed most of them.
Glenn Greenwald is like Governor General James Dalhousie of the East India Company; a cherry picker!
Satyajit Ray film “Shatranj Ke Khilari” (The Chess Players) HD with SUBTITLES Part 01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCsn-he5Kk
Greenwald is neither generalizing nor “distilling”; he is stating a fact. America’s unceasing attacks on Muslim countries are “why they hate us.” This is demonstrated by both the specific statements of various Islamic extremists, as well as by a Pentagon-commissioned study.
He sure is. He provides absolutely no context for any of those conflicts. Maybe that makes sense in the minds of an extreme pacifist but it makes no sense in the real world. Some (but not all) of those “bombings” had very legitimate humanitarian objectives or (arguable) defensive objectives, and enjoyed support from the international community including countries in the Muslim world. Greenwald portrays it as the US going around killing Muslims for the fun of it which is nonsense..
If you think that the context for America’s bombings would make them better, I’ve got some news for you. As if neoimperialism is a better excuse to massacre people than gasp religions.
So? No context is needed to simply state a fact. But in truth Glenn provided a context, to wit:
FACT
Here’s some more “context”:Those wars on Muslim countries are part of the policies Muslims cite — and which a Pentagon-commissioned study cites — as the reason for Islamic “terrorism.”
It may be literally true but it is a sloppy “fact”. Its like me saying “Canada has freedom of speech”. Its technically true but reality is much much more complicated reality.
No, it’s just literally true.Facts may be sad, frightening or exciting, but they are not fat, accelerated or…sloppy.
Really? Who has Greenwald silenced, or attempted to silence? What is the evidence for this astonishing claim?
He is attempting to silence any critics of the role that Islam and the public opinions of Muslims play in the disfunction in the middle east through his accusations of “bigotry”.
Your one-sentence comment is a classic example of why, in the hearts and minds of a lot of non-Muslims living in the West, ALL of Islam and Muslims are to be blamed.
You have generalized Islam and Muslims as if they are monolithic.
I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Nor has Bill Maher, nor has Sam Harris. It is YOU who is reading that in. I am well aware that there are a significant number of decent, liberal Muslims out there who abhor violence, as well as barbaric punishments for faux crimes (like apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality). I am also well aware that there is wide variation in beliefs amongst Muslims. I’m simply not in denial that plausible interpretations of the doctrines of Islam are a contributing factor to the demonstrable reality that support for such barbaric punishments are proportionally higher than among other groups in most countries.
So, Glenn Greenwald can single-handedly silence motor-mouths like Sam Harris or Bill Maher by uttering the word “bigotry.”
Huh. Glenn is successful at most things he tries, but this has been an EPIC FAIL.
I don’t know where I said “single handedly”. I also never said he succeeds. I said he is “attempting”.
Curious how this is (correctly) noted as correct when charges of “anti-semitism” are used to silence criticism of Israel.
There is no thuggish Muslim Lobby operating in the U.S. to silence people. There is, however, a vast Israel and Zionist Lobby that is very effective at silencing/punishes people with charges of antisemitism. See: Salaita, Stephen.
You offer no evidence that Glenn identifies persons such as Maher as bigots in an attempt to silence them. Greenwald would know that is impossible. But I suspect he’d like people to start understanding that it is bigotry they are hearing.
Just say, “some forms of Islam”, instead of “Islam”, “some Muslims”, instead of “Muslims”, and point out the good things an overwhelming majority of Muslims do everyday, and you’re good.
Also, know that there are also decent conservative Muslims, in addition to liberal Muslims, who abhor violence and reject apostasy and blasphemy laws and respect gays and lesbians.
That type of speech tends to be very convoluted and wordy. Maybe instead people should avoid quote mining instead. This is a very obnoxious form of discourse. It is abundantly clear from the overall context of what people like Bill Maher or Sam Harris say that they are not referring to all Muslims (Harris talks of jihadists and Islamists being 20% of the population) or all interpretations of Islam (Harris uses the expression “one plausible interpretation of Islam”). But instead people fixate on one imperfect sentence like “motherlode of bad ideas” or “Islam acts like the mafia” to delegitimize the entirety of their commentary. Its just dumb. Everyone slips into imprecise language from time to time. You have to look at the totality of their commentary.
As for my comments I think “some” is implied in the expression “public opinions of Muslims”.
If a few more words will make a statement accurate, it’s worth it.
No, it’s not clear from many of the things Maher and Harris and others routinely say.
That 20% is a very high number, and is total B.S.
And no, they don’t provide a balanced coverage.
If they want people to look at the totality of their commentary, then Maher needs to stop tweeting. In some of his tweets, he DOES implicate ALL of Islam.
These people are not doing a good job of giving constructive critiques and giving balanced views.
In the Pew poll 24% of the worlds Muslims said that they support the death penalty for apostasy. The 20% figure is not “very high”.
I doubt you actually listen to Bill Maher or Sam Harris so you really have no idea what they say.
Maybe instead people should avoid quote mining,/strong> instead.
Quote mining! Drink!
It’s OK coz us civilized westerners can’t even be bothered to follow international law, we kill more civilians and invade more countries than these terrible muslims and their religious book. That book is clearly the issue then….
Presumably our actions can’t even be blamed on a book of fairy tales, I’m sure we have more sophisticated reasons for doing what we do… and that means we get to be judgmental and feel good about ourselves while never looking at our own cognitive biases.
Maher is a vaccine denier who has no problem with being spied on by the NSA, he’s good for jokes and that’s about it.
Harris is a gun lover, pro-torture islamophobe who get his knickers in a bunch when someone call him out on his professional career of pointing the fingers at muslims and criticizing them at large (like they will listen to him for advice anyway, how clueless can he get).
Millions of mulsims are worst than Dick Cheney. Yeah, sure Sam, whatever you say.
Maher doesn’t oppose Obama’s foreign policy of death. Indeed, Maher gave Obama a large amount of money. Maher is a bigoted hypocrite.
Bill Maher opposed the Iraq War, and he opposes the intervention in Syria. Obama may not be perfect but he is certainly better than the Republicans. If he hadn’t been elected in 2008 the US would probably be mired in a war in Iran by now.
Bill Maher opposes what Obama is doing right now in Syria? Iraq, too? Drone bombing in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan? Did he oppose the Libya killing Obama did?
You know well Maher supports all this.
And Obama may be a lesser evil, but with liberal support he becomes a rather effective evil indeed.
You obviously don’t listen to him so there is little sense reasoning with you. A few weeks ago he was musing about the idea of voting for Rand Paul because of his anti-foreign war views. Hes also lambasted Obama on several occasions for being too much like the Republicans.
Does he take a knee-jerk, leftist, “I oppose every single military engagement regardless of the merits or the circumstances” approach? No. But he is hardly the neocon hawk that the likes of Glenn Greenwald try to present him as.
I know he financially and vocally supports what Obama does, regardless of your dithering about Rand Paul. Maher was also fond Of Ron Paul until it was important not to be (for the establishment.)
My point is Bill Maher is a bigoted hypocrite who supports Obama’s murderous, sociopathic behavior, and you’ve done nothing to dissuade me.
In terms of foreign policy, above all else, Bill Maher is a Zionist. Radically so. Racist, anti-Muslim hate is a primary Zionist tool.
Cindy – As opposed to supporting who? A mythical third party in the United States that preaches a wholly isolationist foreign policy? Its about lesser of evils.
Mona – Riiiggghhhht. An atheist who happens to be ethnically half jewish “Zionist”. Good one.
KC – 3rd parties are kept out deliberately, I believe, so that corporatism/militarism (and the deaths they cause) continue unabated.
The US system is corrupt. Your ‘lesser evil’ is merely a theatrical device to continue the deception.
Unlike Mona, I believe Maher is a statist, more than a Zionist (though he is that, too.) And I think he’s only a statist now because Obama is *his* kind of murdering sociopath in charge of the state. Which is to say I diagnose Maher as demented by vanity and hypocrisy.
Brilliantly stated. This two sentence comment from KC summed up Glenn’s post accurately and concisely.
In your humble opinion.
Yep, great observation Cindy. Have a cookie!
That’s rich, an american nationalist using the phrase ‘highly complex history’.
Stan watch out, I sent the Stazi to your place.
I agree that reducing complex issues to simple linear relationships (Islam causes violence! The US causes blowback! etc.) is ill advised in most situations. Probably not all – for example, I think such dichotomies get people involved in issues and debates initially because they’re far easier to process than reading 2,000 pages worth of history and sociology, and they invoke a sort of football game mentality that draws people in. But I read this argument by Bertrand Russell not long ago that kind of blew my mind and sums it up for me:
“I think perhaps the strongest argument on Hume’s side is to be derived from the character of causal laws in physics. It appears that simple rules of the form ‘A causes B’ are never to be admitted in science, except as crude suggestions in early stages.”
Really? I had no idea, I actually assumed that physicists did write all sorts of A leads to B style equations. But I suppose he’s saying relationships play out as webs, not obvious “first this, then that” entities, even something as ‘basic’ as gravity.
That said, I think there is plenty of value in standing back and looking at the entire ‘web’, in a way that doesn’t involve unproductive, simplistic blame but does summarize a pattern. It’s kind of like that friend you have who doesn’t understand why every relationship she has with her boyfriends ends the same way. If she tells you about it on a micro scale, of course, there are all kinds of different causes and conditions and reasons and things that impacted outcomes and on and on. There are plenty of places where you sympathize and think “Wow, yeah, I can see just how you’d think that and I probably would have done the same thing, I mean, what else could you have done?”. And yet, she has had the same relationship, with different details, about eighteen times now. Does it make sense to say it’s all one giant coinkydink? That it must be all her fault? All the guy’s fault? All the fault of karma or whatever circumstantial details happened each time? Probably none of those, but it would be silly to say that if one wants to improve the situation, the best thing is to skip blithely into the next relationship without changing anything, sure that things will all go differently this time.
Martha,
Your puppy-love analogies are verbose and insightful, but some people who have read tens of thousands of pages of history can’t be bothered with going into much detail on internet post-its, especially if the readers are american. They won’t process it, as you said. One might as well cut to the summary, in the local vernacular.
Didn’t mean to imply that the comments section was the place for such a thing, just that in general, causality will be multi-faceted but patterns over time are often discernible. Also, thanks but I’m not sure who Martha is. :)
I LOVE u Glenn!!!
Are you a fanbot or just a pretending Ziobot?sheesh.
As to the column,totally accurate,and its unbelievable and utterly ridiculous that their is not one MSM outlet saying these obvious truths.
No I AM not pretending i find dis man to be intellectual and a role model… I say again I LOVE U Glenn!!
“…….Are you a fanbot or just a pretending Ziobot?….”
Your response says more about your obsession than his/her response to Greenwald.
I’m sure the article doesn’t intend for this take-away message, it’s probably just me reading too much into things. But I feel like, when stuff like this comes up, I’m being asked to excuse some violence (eg. the sorts of extremism we see in certain parts of the world), in order to prevent more violence (ie. the strange and stupid actions of a country with too many bombs in the name of whatever).
I don’t really want to endorse any kind of violence, implicitly or otherwise. If I denounce one side, the other construes it as support; I feel trapped in a false dichotomy where even silence is somehow regarded as an opinion. 99% of the time, when I write something like this, I take the coward’s way out and delete my comment before hitting post. I don’t know what it means and I don’t like it. But I can’t be the only one who does this.
Obama asked for the AUMF because that is what American leaders do when they are out of ideas and have lost their mandate, they go back to killing people. On this there is always agreement.
Good points, Glenn, But i can already anticipate Bill Maher’s response to your points. Here they are:
But Obama is not bombing muslims because they are muslim.
But Jews dont behead people in the name of their religion.
and more along those lines.
— I wish you debunked those talking points of the bigots. Thats what his response was to Rule Jebreal. And she didnt have a good response.
I addressed much of that directly on his show – here.
A reasonable answer to the likes of Maher is simple:
The universe of Islam is not monolithic. There is a wide range of islams within it. There are certainly those Muslims who commit bad to evil acts. But they do so in the name of THEIR islam, not the islams of a very significant majority of Muslims, who are doing fair to good to excellent works on a daily basis in all corners of the world.
People, like Maher, overly generalize and do not emphasize the good works of Muslims, so they do not provide a complete picture and actually distort it.
Moreover, they use terms that nevertheless implicate all of Islam. See my other post in this thread.
Additionally, when some of them quote Islam’s primary source, the Quran, they quote it out of its textual context, something I’ve seen even Reza Aslan do, context that’s fairly easy to see in a lot of cases.
“Additionally, when some of them quote Islam’s primary source, the Quran, they quote it out of its textual context, something I’ve seen even Reza Aslan do, context that’s fairly easy to see in a lot of cases.”
Can you explain this “textual context”? Reza Aslan sure knows his historical context when it comes to Jesus, and I thank him for it. I am almost certain there was a man named Jesus who lived, but, I hate to tell many Christians, Che Guevara shares more in common with Jesus than either MLK or Gandhi. In 300 years, with the rate that Che’s icon has been mass produced, do you think we will still remember that he dropped his stethoscope to pick up arms as the boat, which sailed from the shores of Mexico, across the Gulf, to the shores of Cuba, lost half of it’s less than 100 soldiers. VIVA CUBA! VIVA LOS SOLDADOS QUIEN QUE SACRIFICARON!
Now, where is Reza Aslan to write a book about the historical context of Muhammad? I will read it, and so will Salman Rushdie.
Thanks again for letting me share my views.
ADDENDUM:
What Maher needs to do is as follows:
1. Append the word “Their” before the word “Islam” when mentioning the bad acts of a Muslim or a Muslim group, such as Boko Haram.
2. Point out that Islam is not monolithic and then emphasize the good works done by the Muslims all over the world.
3. Conduct 90-minute Bill Moyer type of interviews with four people: 1. SEYYED Hossein Nasr; 2. William Chittick; 3/4. Kabir Helminski and his wife, Camille.
To prepare for the interviews, he should read some of their works with an open heart, and also attend the Sufi events that are led by the Helminskis.
Maher will hopefully see some goodness in the world of Islam.
The above should be done by the MSM too, especially Fox News.
What’s needed are sober analyses, not sound bites, and a much more accurate and balanced coverage.
Those proclaiming innocence the loudest are, usually, the guiltiest. Last century we persecuted Jews; this century it is Muslims. We haven’t learned a damn thing.
I still hold out hope of forging a synthesis of Harris/Maher’s critique of Islam and Greenwald’s position that US foreign policy is a destabilizer and instigator of Islsmist violence.
The problem is that the former – intentionally or otherwise – directly fuels and supports precisely those US foreign policies which I critique. For more on that relationship, see here.
Why isn’t anybody making the obvious counterargument to Bill Maher’s specious argument and/or questions:
Q. “What does it say about Islam that there are no gay bars in Gaza.”
A. “It says no more or no less than it says about Christianity that there 1000s of cities and towns all over America that have no gay bars.”
Moreover, I’d be willing to wager dollars to donuts, that if you are familiar enough with a country, anywhere in the world, you will find a thriving gay community engaging its members socially regardless of whether or not those interactions are being engaged in overtly and openly under the “this is a gay establishment” banner.
So basically Maher commits a whole litany of informal logical fallacies:
argumentum e silentio, onus probandi, confirmation bias, fallacy of composition, naturalistic fallacy . . .
Bill Maher is not actually making an argument. He is analogous to the sheep in Animal Farm chanting ‘four legs good, two legs bad’. Arguing with sheep is a waste of time (and confuses the sheep).
However, rest assured he’s been positioned to disseminate his opinions for good strategic reasons, even if he himself is unaware of them.
Great point! However, the question of cultural relativism is still not discussed in your response. Shall we judge all, or none? What varying shades of postmodern subterfuge can be used as an excuse for oppressing gay communities worldwide? However, however… I will say that for the people living under the oppression of Netanyahu’s heel in the Gaza Strip, finding a gay bar to socialize in is probably not a priority as the Israeli war machine, manufactured by the US, is raining down death, destruction and chaos upon you. Yes, Bill Maher should be called into question over his disgusting defense of Israel, but what about the people in Alabama who have no gay bar? If Bill Maher really wants to crusade, he should look to the closest community of gay people being oppressed for their sexuality… all he has to do is get off the coast and go into the Eastern areas of California. But, but… should we say that the people of Gaza who must repress their sexuality for survival feel any less pain than the people anywhere else in the world who live in the same situation? I think John Lennon said it best when he said, “God is a concept by which we measure our pain.” I think Lenin said it best when he said, “What is to be done?”
Thank you to The Intercept for giving me a platform to share my views!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWCAyrcTjmo
It’s good to see you here, rr! :-)
Indeed!
What about the whiff of cultural relativism/puritanism that just blew through the door?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnesV4
Aw shucks–thanks. Been reading the entire time just haven’t had much to say. But Bill Maher bugs me, particularly his smug shitty arguments about important things.
There are 1 billion plus Muslims in the world comprising, or part of, an incredibly diverse group of cultures and/or countries. It is one thing to argue that any particular act, policy, value or viewpoint is moral or immoral, good or bad, . . . it is another thing entirely to overgeneralize about 1 billion people based on what some subset of that population believes in or the acts they engage in.
That is not to say that there aren’t very real negative consequences that flow from particularly revanchist and widespread views of faith, gender, social hierarchies, governments etc., but they aren’t limited to the Muslim world. They are present all over the world including all over “Christian America” and in every other supposed “civilized” nation of the world.
Ms. Jebreal and Prof. Aslan have done the best job so far of explaining why that is. Glenn has tried when on Bill Maher’s show when he’s been invited. However, Bill Maher and his guests are usually too busy catapulting their talking points, talking over Glenn or engaging in their smug little self-deceptions or reveling in their false premises making it difficult to overcome in “real time” even as persuasive a debater as Glenn is.
Keep up the good work Glenn. Hope to see a few more Snowden revelations if possible (or if there are any big ones left).
Regarding more Snowden revelations, it would be a wonderful thing if, as a long-term project, The Intercept might commit to eventually publishing each document in entire Snowden archive, without redaction, at the latest by its “declassify on” date. This will be of great value to historians and other researchers.
As far as I’m aware, there haven’t been many Muslims stoned for blasphemy recently, in the US or elsewhere. I find the egalitarian axiom: “there are some bad people everywhere, so no comparisons are possible” to be wanting when it comes to actually looking at what’s going on in the world.
Ditto on the nice to see yous! I was wondering where you were just the other day.
Next thing you know,some crazy injun will show up.Where’s Coram Nobis BTW?A very intelligent and nice fellow.
Ha! We could use Titonwan’s hatchet AND sense of humor around here. Wish there was a way to drum him up…..
coram has been missed here as well.
I’ve also been wondering were Coram has been. Anyone know? Is he ok?
rrheard! Woo hoo!
Long time, no hear. Your presence is always appreciated!
Joe referred to us all as The UT Diaspora on twitter today! :)
In really excited about your new additions to the crew. Please tell someone to write about Odeh.
Well said, Glenn. Those who actually engage in the violence are often the ones to question it or to be so ashamed and mentally battered by the experience that they take their own lives and sometimes do violence to their own families. The whole system is disgusting and relies on a sick psycho-sexual relationship with violence which ranges from the vicariously pornographic to the avid pursuit of notches or other tokens of kills as evidence of ‘strength’
.
I’m sorry, this is slanted. America is an equal opportunity aggressor. This is a fine tradition going back to attacking the Barbary pirates, as immortalized in the Marine Hymn, “..from the halls of Montezuma to the