The Left's False Narrative

**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,

**Redleg** · 07-17-2005, 09:50

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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.

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

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

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.

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...

Selective Facts - can also be said of many left-wing mythology and information.

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?

Yes indeed a nice selective bent by the baised author of this article - however again the author wanted to make a point.

Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...

Not really - given that some are soft on Terror in the eyes of the author.

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.

Again not really - it would of made it harder for him to prove, it would require a longer article, it would of required doing a better journalistic job.

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.

Yep - and to say anything different would be intellectually dishonest.

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?

Again not all lefties want the war in Afganstan either. You accuse the author of intectual dishonesty and demonstrate it yourself. A little hypocrisy on your part - or like the auther are you attempting to strike a point?

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?

And in that I would agree with you. Mr Hanson went to far in his opinion - but he is a pundit, just like another individual who is being discussed in a seperate thread.

Who are you kidding?

Louis,

Maybe ourselves - to include everyone.

**Azi Tohak** · 07-17-2005, 18:29

I think the thread keeps going because this is entertaining.

My point about China was they are just as, if not more racist, than evil whiteys like me. (Bad Azi! Bad! Against affirmative action? You must be racist!) Same for Japan. Those countries prove that the idea of racial superiority is not just a western thing.

I'm just curious about what Kerry or Gore would have done in Bush's position. Increase aid to the Taliban regime to buy off another attack? Give money to Hussein and ask nicely that he be a good boy and quit butchering his people?

And no, I'll not blame the US and UK for the deaths of all the Iraqi children. What happened to those kids was the fault of their parents for not overthrowing Hussein. But you know the fun part about popular rebellions? That is called Civil War. The same thing that would happen if the US, UK and Aussies pulled out now.

Despite what some people believe, Iraq won't magically calm down if the Allies leave. It will be civil war. And if you thought hundreds of thousands of dead was bad before, wait until you have millions dead because of the rival religious and ethnic factions.

Was Bush wrong to attack Iraq? Maybe. Did any Democrats really try to stand up the administration at the time? (I'd talk about the UK too, but I get confused with the party names.) Not a chance. Now the left is trying to castrate Bush by claiming "we knew it all along!" Ah bulls**t. The left lacked the spine to stand up to Bush before the war, and now with the media dominance, has the US confused about what is going on there. Heck, I'm not even sure about what is happening and I try to follow closely.

Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them. The rebellion died. But can the US do that? Nope. It is 'inhuman' and 'immoral', and the media would go even more ape than they did over Guantanamo Bay. It would be political suicide because the left has so thoroughly emasculated our society as to believe anything beyond a slap-on-the-wrist is too much punishment. Remember, it is my fault that the mullahs hate me. I would love to see every terrorist tortured to extract info, and then executed, in much the same way as in the Philipines.

Okay, that about exhuasts my vitriol for right now.

Azi

**Pindar** · 07-18-2005, 04:45

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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.

I don't understand the reference to circularity. I have made no circular appeals. Science refers to a set theoretical disposition that involves, as I previously mentioned: physical data, inductive logic, symmetry, verification schema etc. Nothing along these lines developed anywhere else. Democracy refers to popular sovereignty meaning the government reflects the will of the citizenry and derives its power from the same. No other Civilization developed along those lines. Civil liberties refers to an inherent limitation on government force and intrusion power. The initial theoretical impulse for this was found in natural law which gave the individual standing independant of the government. This also was a uniquely western construct. Each position has set criteria that makes no reference to the West, but was developed by the West. There are no tricks, sorry.

It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.

Reagardless of any perceived failings, if you recognize the above as 'goods': that science does have positive products, democracies do in fact exist, and civil liberties have recognized legal standing then the point is made.