The Left's False Narrative

**Azi Tohak** · 07-17-2005, 01:16

Sorry, check lower.

**Azi Tohak** · 07-17-2005, 01:19

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

**Redleg** · 07-17-2005, 01:54

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

You can only have so many characters before the document will not post. THat might be it.

**Red Harvest** · 07-17-2005, 02:21

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

Certain character combinations get rejected as some sort of HTML code. Watch out for "=" and < or > characters together. It will clip them, but they will still be there when you edit so you can identify the problem piece.

Quoting sections use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (minus the spaces sandwiching what you want in between.)

**Azi Tohak** · 07-17-2005, 02:27

Sorry, check lower

**econ21** · 07-17-2005, 03:12

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 07-17-2005, 08:58

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

Kill/Capture them faster than they can recruit them!

**Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe** · 07-17-2005, 09:32

I can't believe this thread keeps going

The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose? Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...
If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture

Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?

Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

Who are you kidding?

Louis,