Thursday, July 14, 2005

Anon Got It Right

My post below about the suicide bombers and their fairly middle-class well educated upbringing was addressed by none other than "Fluffy Bunny", who dumped quite the supply of un-argued talking points on the matter of the genesis of terror. And then an anonymous poster (who really needs credit for his/her thoughts) saved me the trouble of dispelling the twaddle.

A few things though by way of clean up.

If economics bred crime and terror, then every poor person (or just about) would be committing crimes and making bombs. The explanation (and the only salient one) I usually get for that from the left is that not all people choose to commit crimes. Which is quite correct, meaning that committing crime is a matter of choice, not irresistible compulsion programmed into someone from poverty. And note well the behavior of many of our athletes. I can't tell you how many members of the Baltimore Ravens have ended up in the dock for very real criminal activity. They're filthy rich. There is no correlation between economics and crime.

But the argument about the "little people" of the world being the fodder for Saddam's (or whomever's) woodchipping was perfect, and I reserve the right to use it in the future (with credit to Anon, of course). The left views the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whom they will never meet, as backward and quaint little demi-people whose existence is the topic of their academic discussion. Guess what? It's arrogant attitudes like that which spur hatred. Ever met a full-English speaking Arab? Ever met an Iraqi exile? I have. Their tongues aren't silver, but more properly like iron. And they don't like to be looked down upon by liberals without a clue.


I forgot to mention Fluff's comment that this site is hateful. Not really. Actually, it is a place for advancing certain ideas and striking others. The left misses the point that disagreement is not hate. But since they cannot effectively argue and become frustrated, they equate competing ideas with malevolence.

When argument won't work, use labels.


Most people on the left don't get their hands dirty. They sit here in the coziness of the U.S. and rationalize that the Iraqis didn't want to be invaded because they at least had some stability under the Dorito-loving Saddam. If Fluffy wants to condescend to help the masses in Iraq and Afghanistan, feel free to join the peace corps or perhaps the Army or Marines, like my brother-in-law who will be leaving his wife of 5 months to spend the next 18 months there.


Blogger Fluffy Bunny said...

What another huge leap!!! Support your argument that the left and liberals aren't supporting "little people". Why can't the same type of rhetoric be used to describe the right/conservatives about their opposition to the U.S.'s involvement in peace keeping efforts in Serbia, in the 90s?

Frankly, if someone were to make the statement that, because conservatives/republicans didn't support going into Serbia to protect stop the genocide, conservatives/republicans don't support the people being killed, I would smack them down!!! It would be a ridiculous statement!!! Most conservatives/republicans didn't want to get involved with serbia not because they didn't care about the Serbians being murdered and displaced but rather because (a) U.S. forces were part of a multi-national force not under the complete control of the U.S. & (b) there was no clear exit strategy.

Moreover, conservatives/republicans didn't seem to care about the Iraqi people when the Reagan Administration was supporting Saddam back in the 80s.

I'm more afraid that, even assuming the best case scenario that Iraq flourishes as a stable democracy, the U.S. will have lost the nerve to do the right thing in other parts of the world (i.e. Uzbekistan).

And again, it seems to me that there is pretty much unilateral support for our actions in Afghanistan. If anyone is neglecting the Afghan people, it is the Bush administration, which diverted resources to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan.

And as for your statement that the left views the "people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whom they will never meet, as backward and quaint little demi-people whose existence is the topic of their academic discussion" I'm willing to wager that most of the people who volunteer for the Peace Corp would be considered from the left. I bet that most of the people working under very dangerous conditions for NGOs in Afghanistan and Iraq would be considered from the left ( So, if you are going to make such a statement, back it up by facts.

Your unsubstantiated, gross generalizations seem not designed or intended to actually engage in a substantive debate or to make this country or the world a better place, but rather to foment discord between the political parties in this country. What an honorable pursuit.

9:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home