Dadmanly: You Don't Support Us
Dadmanly: You Don't Support Us
I'm asking the following question not to cause trouble, but because I think it needs to be asked.
One of my site's regular [conservative] visitors pointed me to your excellent "You Don't Support Us" post on your blog. It was poignant and very well written and I intend to recommend it to all of my readers.
My question related to this post, then is simply this:
Do you think that US military interrogators in Guantanamo did indeed play toilet tricks with the Koran - or do you think that the Newsweek reporters fabricated the story?
For the record, I don't view dumping the Koran in the toilet as terribly severe treatment of detainees as far as the list of possibilities go. In fact, I feel that the practice of "waterboarding," which is apparently allowed by US law as an interrogation measure is infinitely more obscene and immoral. If I could swap banning waterboarding for giving interrogators the ability to put the Koran in the toilet, I would.
In all of the anger and hurt on display from The Bush Administration to rightwing blogs about the Newsweek story, I've seen a lot of hair-splitting over which official did or didn't claim to read which allegation in which report - and a lot of moral equivalence rhetoric reminding us how bad the terrorists are - but I've seen nobody address the event behind the allegation itself. I've seen accusations that "liberals" want so badly for the story to be true, which is asinine...
What do you think?
Dadmanly Responds:
Thanks for the kind introduction to and recommendation of the post. Our readers should be aware, that while the Liberal Avenger and I intentionally won't delve into each other's postings to raise disputes (see our ground rules), both of us I think try to make ourselves aware of differing points of view. (Liberal Avenger, I suspect, more than I.)
If we lay aside for a moment any consideration of the truth or accuracy of the story as reported (or if it falls into the category of "fake but accurate"), I want to address the story as written by Newsweek. For it is in this sense I hold them particularly culpable.
I will acknowledge that the section of Newsweek in which this item appeared (Periscope I believe) is somewhat akin to Fox's Grapevine or other features in which a snippet of an idea is briefly mentioned. As such, the heated discussions it has are no doubt somewhat overwhelm the "indiscretion" itself, if I may call it that. That being said, I think Newsweek is held rightly accountable for running with a very thinly sourced story.
I am reminded of the scenes in All the President's Men (I think it was), where Woodward and Bernstein spend untold hours trying to get confirmation of a lead they've been given by an anonymous source. That's classic journalism, at least it was. That's what I understood when I studied journalism, heck, it's what I learned working as an intelligence analyst, confirmation. And that's what Newsweek didn't do, it's what CBS didn't do with the faked Guard memos.
I would think that any editor worth his salt would be on the lookout to block unfounded stories that try to pounce on rumors and planted info and hearsay, in the hopes of getting that next big sexy scoop. That used to be their job. And I think this is an area where the media (by and large) let's their own prejudices color or taint what information they receive. It fits the template they carry around, it fits what they think, so they go with it.
Newsweek was perfectly right to fully retract their story, because that particular story based on their sources was completely unsubstantiated. At that point, you digress from the point at hand if you then make the argument, "yes, but it still could be true." And yes, it might, but that doesn't make this story, this time, any less wrong. Journalism is reduced to fiction if the "essential truth" of something is held in as high regard as the actual truth. So that's my sum and total on Newsweek's violation of journalistic ethics.
I don't think Newsweek "fabricated" the story out of whole cloth, no. There have been numerous accusations and several accounts similar, but, and this is highly significant in my view, many of these accounts appear to derive from Detainees intentionally using their Korans to stuff up toilets. So much for a devout reverence for their Holy Book.
I have seen many accounts recently, and I believe there are books out that emphasize that Al Qaeda and other Jihadists are instructed to make these kinds of allegations and turn the "legal systems of the infidels" against us. This obvious desire and motivation to propagandize should be self-evident, and prompt a supposedly skeptical press to be very wary of any such claims. So far, that has not been the case, and goes a long way to explain the deep suspicion and resentment on the part of military members towards a "neutral press," that seems to bend over backwards to make sure the voice of the opposition (in this case, terrorists and enemy combatants) is heard, no matter how extreme or false. (More on what I consider a gross distortion of the purpose the Fourth Estate in a response to the previous post.)
You may call the focus on the accuracy of this particular story hair-splitting, but I think too much gets published taken as fact and certainty, when in fact it is more supposition, assumption, or deduction.
As one of our commenters pointed out, if the press had reported on Abu Ghraib and other accusations of Detainees in our facilities, noted the ongoing investigations, prosecutions, an opportunity to fully respond, capturing the full context of the security environment, how these individuals were captured, what they were doing, in other words, reported objectively, no reasonable person would find fault. But our New Journalism has long ago traded the hard slow slog of getting the full story into some modern day equivalent of "yellow journalism," where a quick-hit tabloid approach sells and sells well, and that's what they go for.
Okay, having said all that and all that, the really juicy part you want to know. Where there's smoke, is there also fire?
Yes and no. Individual interrogators and guards certainly behaved badly, some violated military standards, others also violated the Geneva Convention or other similar army policies and regulations. Importantly, allegations have and are being investigated, charges brought, convictions won. In some cases, such as at Abu Ghraib, senior leadership (to include leaders 6 levels above the actual illegal acts) has been convicted of poor leadership and negligence in not doing enough to ensure that their prisoners weren't treated humanely or in accordance with procedures, laws, and conventions.
Although we have a detention facility within our area of operation, to which I have Soldiers assigned, I don't have any first hand information about incidents of the type described in Newsweek, the NY Times, and other publications. I do know that the Army has responded aggressively to any perceived abuses and deprivation of prisoners, and Interrogators complain that many of their best tools (sleep deprivation, long interviews, and other non-physical forms of prisoner handling) are ruled off limits of late.
Many of the alleged incidents are exaggerated or exploited by prisoners, or have even been generated by them as a means of dynamically and actively resisting interrogation.
And there are still Soldiers today who think we would achieve more success if we were harsher and more bad-a**. For an Iraq so used to violence, extreme punishment, and terror as they were under Saddam, this is no doubt true. Iraqis do not fear us as they feared Saddam and his police or military.
We were out at a range today with some of our Interrogators, and we got into a discussion about these issues. They are very frank in saying, in the first days of Afghanistan (right after 9/11), and the initial battles in Iraq, tempers and emotions ran very high. There were Soldiers and units that sometimes used excessive force, or treated prisoners more roughly than they would today. We deal with some part-time insurgents (there are such people) whose reluctance to turn themselves in may in part be due to experiences early on that made them expect a rougher and harsher treatment. Still probably not torture in any classic sense, but definitely hard and without respect. And probably not widespread or very common, but out there.
They also express some frustration with what they view as ambivalence or at least a lack of clarity expressed in guidance and directives (or the lack thereof) early on by senior military officials.
I believe a lot of this confusion directly relates to the very unusual nature of our detentions in Guantanamo, of those hostile to the United States who are nevertheless not prisoners of war in any sense recognized by the much misunderstood Geneva Convention. They do not wear uniforms, they do not strive to prevent civilian casualties (in fact they seek them), they violate known and accepted laws of war. They have no state they fight for, there is no one to whom to go to accept their surrender. They are more like spies and saboteurs than Soldiers. They neither accept nor give quarter, nor do they acknowledge Sanctuary, rather they violate it willfully. Terrorists by any definition previously known to civilized countries would be executed on the spot as unlawful combatants. And yet, we hold them prisoner in a limbo state.
But here's a bottom line. Let's say that at times, Korans weren't treated by military personnel with as much reverence or respect as devout Muslims would wish. What would be the point of reporting that? To highlight how culturally insensitive Soldiers can be? (Ask any women in a bar about Combat Soldiers out on the town, now they can tell you stories.) Or that the military is hostile towards Muslims and Islam in general? Which is more likely to be true most often? Can you really distinguish? How perfect would one expect a military to be?
Many of us on the right, and many in the Military, may bristle at accusations like this, but it’s as much because of how the accusations are made, who's making them, and why we believe they are reported so extensively. And we fail to see the value and purpose of these reports, if not to weaken our war effort, or at least diminish its support at home. And we find that disloyal, potentially dangerous, and very disrespectful of the many lives – U.S., Coalition and Iraqi – that have been sacrificed to bring democracy to Iraq.
posted by Anonymous @ 7:42 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
what i find interesting about dadmanly's post are the first few lines:
As a member of the U.S. Military in Iraq, let me say something very clearly to Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, CBS, ABC, and any other media organization of any integrity.
You are creating greater risk for me personally. You are creating incredible hostility in Muslim countries due to incessant negative reporting out of context and ignoring orders of magnitude of good news in doing so
as it happens, i could say exactly the same thing about the bush administration. as someone who occasionally travels in the muslim world, the actions of this president, without a doubt, have vastly increased the dangers to my personal safety.
and while the news media has no obligation to support any troops in any side of a war (in fact, they are not supposed to. they're supposed to be a neutral source of information), the president and his administration has an obligation to protect me and other citizens like me.
i'm curious if dadmanly is willing to extend his "support us" line to the politicians who have put him there in the first place.
Saw a "cute" political cartoon today... and yes, of course, political cartoons are not meant to be neutral... it had a military guy on the phone while some others dragged away a naked body. The military guy is complaining that Newsweek is making them look bad while a fellow behind him says that, oops, they killed another one.
Now... lets consider the media that *is* supposed to be neutral. Are they giving a true impression and true account of our military's treatment of prisoners, or are they portraying rampant torture and calousness? Are they writing stories that reflect truth, or ones that are true but without context other than that they are going to get a lot of attention.
One thing that I hadn't realized is that the president and military, because of their relationship to the JAG and military members, can't make official statements of fact concerning ongoing investigations. They can't say "this is what happened" or "the soldiers are guilty" or "the soldiers are innocent" until the trial is over. Hah! Wouldn't the defense like that one? "My client can not possibly get a fair trial because the president announced him guilty. You've no choice but to dismiss charges!"
So what is more true and neutral? Fuss about a supposed cover-up or an explanation that an investigation or trial is ongoing? Or if they explain about an investigation, are they going to get blasted for kissing the president's butt?
One thing that I hadn't realized is that the president and military, because of their relationship to the JAG and military members, can't make official statements of fact concerning ongoing investigations.
that's not technically right. politicians can (and do) say whatever they want. it's true that historically many politicians avoid commenting on an ongoing investigation (whether in or out of the military), but the bush administration largely does not follow that practice. they have regularly commented on matters that are subject to ongoing investigations, from abu ghraib to the "shoe bomber" to the detainees in gitmo
upyernoz -
as it happens, i could say exactly the same thing about the bush administration. as someone who occasionally travels in the muslim world, the actions of this president, without a doubt, have vastly increased the dangers to my personal safety.
With all due respect: no, sir, you cannot say the same thing. You occasionally travel in the "muslim world." Dadmanly, on the other hand, rises and rests in a war zone: all day, every day. You danger when traveling is occasional, and thus infinitely less dangerous than what Dadmanly and his comrades face as a matter of course.
And, perhaps a history lesson is in order. The rift (for lack of a better term) between the Islamic world and the U.S. did not begin when U.S. troops blew through that sandy berm and entered Iraq. How quickly ideology causes us to forgot our own history. The first Islamic attack on the Twin Towers, the bombing of two American embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole all occurred under while the much maligned "Dubya" was governing Texas, not America. And, of course, the attacks of Sept. 11 predated whatever "actions of this president" that have you so worried about your personal safety.
Dadmanly's main point "you are creating incredible hostility in Muslim countries due to incessant negative reporting" I think he has disproved himself.
Putting aside ALL THE FACTS -- the perception that the US Military is anti-Muslim existed long before the US media started reporting about the abuses in Iraq, Afghansistan or Guantanamo.
Newsweek's story seems to be a very late confirmation of tales told in many newspapers all over the world - and yes the reporting was based on the stories of detainees the US released from Guantanamo - and Ok , maybe the fact that we had nothing to hold them on doesn't mean they were innocent or wern't Al Queda - but their tales were being told in Muslim Media from day one. Abu Ghraib stories circulated on Al Jezeera long before Sy Hersch's article or the Photos on TV (and the internet.) They already hated us – even without the “truth.” I suspect most Iraq's already think far worse things have happened then have been reported in the US - whether worse things happened or not.
Newsweek, however, might have changed the views of Americans, who actually get far less bad news then other country’s media seem to be able to find. And bad press on the war in Iraq and elsewhere might impact negatively on the public’s view of Bush’s Policy in Iraq – and that might lead to a change in policy - which might result in the troops in Iraq coming home. And so there is the notion that if we cut and run (or accept that the neocon policy is failing), we have let down the soldiers who died in Iraq already (though if I were a father with a son in Iraq right now, I’d accept that if I could have my son come home.) But soldiers are not responsible for policy; they are responsible to their duty. Even those who were against this war from the beginning expect US Soldiers to act honorably and with discipline and otherwise kick ass and take names. Any soldier that has died doing this has not died in vain no matter how misguided the policy or how badly some of their colleagues may have acted.
And if the President misled us into this war deliberately, he has as surely commited murder as if he had done it with his own hands. Even in that case, the soldiers who died in the line of duty deserve to be honored and have not had died in vain – they, at least, were true to themselves, their country, and to each other.
upernyoz, "that's not technically right. politicians can (and do) say whatever they want. it's true that historically many politicians avoid commenting on an ongoing investigation (whether in or out of the military)"
The *only* politicians in the direct military chain of command is the CIC... and perhaps the Sec of Defense. Certainly the only elected one is the President.
The other yahoos can spout irresponsible garbage until the cows come home and it is not going to legally affect a military trial.
That's why I specified "president" and "military" and never mentioned politicians.
"I suspect most Iraq's already think far worse things have happened then have been reported in the US - whether worse things happened or not."
Possibly.
After all, they were used to Uday and that has got to impact people's expectations.
And yes... bad feeling existed prior to the various news reports, but are we really going to try to claim that the news reports had absolutely no effect on public perception?
With all due respect: no, sir, you cannot say the same thing. You occasionally travel in the "muslim world." Dadmanly, on the other hand, rises and rests in a war zone: all day, every day. You danger when traveling is occasional, and thus infinitely less dangerous than what Dadmanly and his comrades face as a matter of course.
except dadmanly is armed and surrounded by other u.s. military personnel. i am not. i usually travel alone and always unarmed.
And, perhaps a history lesson is in order. The rift (for lack of a better term) between the Islamic world and the U.S. did not begin when U.S. troops blew through that sandy berm and entered Iraq
you're at least partly right (i'm tempted to quibble with the way you are turning the entire muslim world into a single "side", where anything any muslim does somehow is attributed to the whole). but it's also true that the invasion of iraq made the "rift" a hundred times worse.
for years i have been telling my friends in the middle east not to believe the conspiracy theorists who claimed that the u.s. was looking for an excuse to invade the arab world and seize control of its oil. the u.s. invasion of iraq played right into the anti-american elements hands. it's become exhibit A in their argument that all their paranoid theories are correct. we've effectively made a giant ongoing commercial for al-qaeda. i really can't think of a worse response to 9/11
Alright, lets consider Abu Ghraib.
No argument from me at all that the events were criminal and the people responsible deserve what they get. The General (who is now a Colonel) probably deserves more than she got, though losing rank like that is pretty much like getting fired in disgrace. Her career is 100% over.
What about the aftermath? No dispute over the events, as I said, but what did the media report about the aftermath? Did the media make sure that everyone knew the facts? That prior to the release of the photographs, the abuse had been reported and was being investigated? In fact the pictures were released by the father of one of the perpetrators because he *knew* that the military would not tolerate the events at Abu Graib and his son was looking at significant punishment. People had already been removed from their jobs and arrested.
Or did people get the idea that without the exposure it would have been business as usual? Was the perception given that only our outrage put limits on military behavior and that Bush would have tolerated that or worse, if only he was so lucky as to not have it exposed?
Just how much of the bad feeling was created by the incident and how much was created by the way it was covered?
We all know that the glorious freedom fighters in Iraq do far worse things every day, but when it is reported it is unembellished. The body of Margaret Hassan is found disemboweled. 10 Iraqi police recruits are pulled from a bus and shot in the back of the head. A "suicide bomber" is found to be an abducted Downs Syndrome boy.
Wouldn't a neutral press be interested in exposing Zarqawi's leadership failings?
liberal serving:
Precisely why we are so fortunate to have actual bloggers, military and Iraqi, who understand this "danger" in context rather than in the myopia of press gangs hanging out at the Palestine Hotel.
Who can quite reliably report on events in Iraq in their true context, rather than as dramatic plug in to a pre-written "Quagmire just like Vietnam" template. Who in their daily lives venture further than the bar.
I don't care how many times you say your not comparing our military or the Bush administration to the Nazis, you did, you do, and the aspects of the comparison you dismiss are conveniently the most significant.
No media in Germany reported on the "abuses" because they were either on board or dead. No nazi official or department or military authority was going to "prosecute" wrongdoing on the part of the Nazis.
So why must you insist on using an example that is more different than it is the same?!
I know why, introspection might suggest an answer for you...
Every pro needs a con. Every Saint needs a demon.
The press has always been the archenemy of the military and the government. It is their job not to be supportive but to be ever vigilent and on guard for any kind of corruption. It is not their place to provide support to any military action. It is their job to provide coverage of such action. They are obligated to report the news regardless of what kind of light it may show on the military or the government.
I know it may seem that the media doesn't support the troops but they do. Especially the troops on the ground. As individuals they certainly have sympathy and compassion for those who serve. But they cannot allow their personal feelings to interfere with the reporting of the news. Much the same as judges cannot allow their personal feeling to interfere with interpretating and upholding the law. In fact much the same as you cannot allow your personal feelings to interfere with your performing your duties as a solider. As a former First Sargent my husband has told many a troop, "If the Army wanted you to have an opinion they'd have issued you one...".
I don't think the media's reporting of the news creates any greater danger to the military. No more so than the actions of our government. The difference is the media has an obligation to report what occurrs. Our government and it's leaders are obligated to insure their actions do not create a hostile situation in which the military is placed in danger. A job they clearly are failing at.
When there are times (much like the most recent one with Newsweek) when something printed in the press affects the safety of the troops then that is when we most need to remember, it is for that very right, (the right to free and unfettered speech) for which you stand and fight.
While it is true that Dadmanly and those who stand along side him reside in a war zone everyday, lets not forget this was their choice. No, not this war, but any war, any time any place where our Commander in Chief* chooses to send them. If they were there against their will having been drafted it would be a different story. Although I suspect many of them are there against their will. They signed up in need of a job or a means to a better education. What they got was their worst nightmare. They need someone to lay blame upon. Since they cannot and dare not question the CiC*, they look elsewhere. The media makes a very good target.
No media in Germany reported on the "abuses" because they were either on board or dead. No nazi official or department or military authority was going to "prosecute" wrongdoing on the part of the Nazis.
wait, so now it's good that the media in the u.s. is reporting the military's abuses? we don't want to be like the nazis, right? we should at least be able to agree that that's in everyone's interest.
so i guess the media does support "us" after all
Liberal Serving -
It is the loss of perspective that is so galling to the Dadmanly's of the world. Your last comment is a microcosm of such a loss.
i do think the bush administration is trending towards the fascism and totalitarianism of Nazi Germany
This is utter nonsense if taken literally, and unfair/irresponsible if meant as hyperbole. You confuse a policy that says "there is a right way and wrong way" with facism/totalitarianism. Of course they both/all three believe in the existance of a "right way," but that is where the similarities end. It's like saying democracy is just like communism because they're both methods of ordering society.
The Facist says "All unlike me shall die or serve me." America says "All unlike me deserve the same basic right to self-determination as I have." The Fascist invades a country and marches its people into slavery camps and killing fields. The U.S. Military invades a country and marches its people into voting booths and school classrooms. It is utterly infuriating to see these two polar opposites mashed together in comparison like two positively-charged magnets.
The much feared "good vs evil rhetoric" is not what leads to a facist state; rather, it's the confusion of the two - when men redefine evil to be good. The Islamofacists we fight see virtue in holding civilians hostage and then sawing their screaming heads off in front of a video camera for prompt posting to the internet. Meanwhile, the U.S. Military expends millions (billions?) of dollars creating ever more advanced "smart weapons" in order to avoid and minimize the infliction of death upon those civilians who are not the Enemy. My God, if America cared so little for the Muslim life and was teetering on the edge of genocidal tendencies, why waste the money? Just send a phalank of B-52's and carpet bomb the entire Sunni Triangle with thousands of dumb ol' 2000 lb iron bombs of death. America, to her honor and financial detriment, does not take such action, yet continues to be called a heartless slaughterer of innocents by those who "love her." Unbelievable.
Muslims have been made scapegoats in our culture, just as the Jews in Germany were or the Japanese in our own country during WWII.
Another unbelievable loss of perspective. The Jews in Germany were systematically exterminated by gas, fire, and starvation. The Japanese during WWII were removed from their homes, rounded up and penned in camps. The Muslims in America today? To what comparable treatment are you referring? A suspicious look? Spray-painted graffiti? Threats of harm? All things wrong, but in putting them on the rhetorical shelf next to the Jews, you not only exhibit an utter lack of perspective, but make it harder for people to take the complaints of harrassed Muslims seriously. Your forced comparison puts the focus on how tame (yes, tame) the Muslim scapegoating is because of the stratospheric evil to which you compare it. Calling attention to the ways American Muslims have been harrassed is good, and necessary. Doing so by saying they're our generation's Polish Jews is beyond the pale.
Finally, your extrapolation of a general conclusion from the actions of a minute few at Abu Ghraib is precisely the kind of scapegoating about which you complain. The Left shows no hesitation (dare I say, even an eagerness) to use Abu Ghraib as an example of how America herself (at least, all who are not of the Left-minded) holds utter contempt and disregard for Muslims as a group. Again, utter nonsense. The U.S. Military has an exemplary record for their treatment of Muslim warriors who have been captured or surrendered in war . . . those Muslim warriors who played by the rules: did not hide behind civilian clothes, launch attacks from schools and hospitals, attack women and children instead of the opposing force, feign injury or death in order to kill Americans attempting to render aid, and pretend to surrender only to attack American troops from their merciful rear. It is such savagery that gave rise to the incidents contempt and disdain that we see in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. And yet, despite all that, these incidents are so few in number that they are the very exceptions that prove the rule.
I said...
The General (who is now a Colonel) probably deserves more than she got, though losing rank like that is pretty much like getting fired in disgrace. Her career is 100% over.
liberal avenger said...
Are you kidding?
She's still employed and still bringing home a paycheck!
my reply...
It's a military thing and a bit hard to explain. Employed with a paycheck doesn't mean she will ever recover, recieve another command, get promoted *back* to General, or any of those things. I could be wrong in her case but I doubt it.
"Because you so deeply believe in the good/bad dichotomy, you must believe that our country is pure good and all it's actions are good."
And you believe this on what evidence?
Please do realize that failing to unceasingly list the shortcomings and wrongs that our nation has committed and does commit is not proof of a "pure good" belief system. Not even close.
Though when faced with the Nazi comparisons I suppose we do look fairly pure as the new fallen snow.
So just keep those up, huh.
Pointing out the good, just because it bothers you so, isn't a claim of *only* good.
If we go by Wanda's reasoning, the higher virtue is unceasing criticism.
Where, in any of that, does service to the truth stand? Or neutrality even?
Liberal Serving / Rhiannon -
Because you so deeply believe in the good/bad dichotomy, you must believe that our country is pure good and all it's actions are good.
You have to see things as black and white, good or evil... no inbetween, no fallicy on either side. One side is ALWAYS evil and One side is ALWAYS good.
Did either one of you actually read my whole comment? I ask, because your comments give the appearance that you just picked up on the fact that I believe in morally recognizable concepts like "good" and "evil" and then attacked the caricatures of a person with such a belief like that instead of the substance of what I actually said.
Only a fool would say "I'm always right and you're always wrong." It takes no genius to point out how silly such a belief is. But simply pointing out that "Good" is "always right" and "Evil" is "always wrong" is not the same thing. Good grief: what did I say that warrants the assumption that I think everything America ever does is right? Geez, I used America's internment of the Japanese during WWII as evidence of that which is WRONG!
Nobody here is defending the foolish ideas of the Perpetual Purity of American Action that you so easily decry as stupid. Please come back to the points and arguments that I made and let us hear your thoughts on them:
- the difference between what we're doing in Iraq and what Nazis, Facists, and totalitarian regimes actually did
- the difference between gruesomely beheading uninvolved civilians for internet broadcast and developing "smart weapons" that minimize civilian casualties as much as humanely possible (a concern, incidentally, that has never been shown before in war in the entire history of life on earth)
- the difference in kind, not just degree, between the German treatment of Jews and American treatment of Japanese in WWII and current "cultural scapegoating" of Muslims in America today
- the broadbrush painting of America as "evil" because of the actions 15-25 of her soldiers while at the same time preaching against the "scapegoating" of Muslims
Not that you've commented on your "fascination" with the idiot straw man you've constructed and dispatched, please comment on the actual comments of this actual commenter.
. . . and please kindly overlook the typos. :-)
America, for some, is like their child - it can do no wrong, it can't possibly have murdered it's wife, there is no way it killed its children. For others, America is like a good hearted, but alcholholic brother - yeah he can be prick sometimes, but he's my brother, I love him, what can you do?
We all love our country, some of us unquestionalbly, some of us with the realiation that it ain't perfect.
Personaly, I think the imperfect brother is a far healthier approach.
typos for your amusement...
Liberal Serving -
Thanks for your clarification. However . . .
I said I could see the administration "trending towards the fascism and totalitarianism of nazi germany."
On what do you base this observation? You mention "tax and social oppression" as the fetal stages of genocide - but where are Muslims in American experiencing such oppression? What is going on that the rest of us are just missing?
I will tell you what I do see: I see our government, our President, bending over backwards to remind ourselves and the world that we know that our enemy is not indicative of the vast majority of Muslims. This has been happening from Pres. Bush's first speech after we knew who the 9/11 hijackers had been. I heard no such speeches from the Muslim world; instead, we were treated to crowds dancing in the streets.
Who brutually murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims and tortured countless more? Sunni-Baa'thist (sp?) Muslims. Who sacrificed blood and treasure to free Iraqi Muslims from such mindboggling, real oppression? Not the Muslims of the surrounding region - no, it was the United States Military and her allies, from half a world away.
Who builds schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure to make the future for Iraq better? We do. Who destroys the schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure? Muslims. Who invests billions into weapons systems that minimize civilian casualty like nothing in the history of mankind? We do. Who specifically targets civilians (Muslim ones at that!) for deaths that are ghoulishly brutal? Muslims.
Who seeks to train and supply a native police and security force of Muslims for Muslims? We do. Who uses car bombs and suicide bombers to obliterate the Muslims who would dare line up to earn a living making their home a safe place? Muslims. Who continued to invest blood and treasure to insure that Iraqi Muslims had the same right as free people the world over to enjoy the freedom of self-governance protected by a government elected of the people? We did. Who stepped up murderous attacks on civilians as the election neared in a spasmatic effort to derail it? Muslims.
And who denounces all of these atrocious acts as savagery that are beneath the principles of Islam by a factor a hundredfold? We do. And who watches these horrors and keeps their silence, at best, or cheers, at worst? Muslims.
That, sir, is why Muslims are seen as the enemy. It is not racism, religious bigotry, or cultural jingoism. It is the only conclusion to draw when the Enemy itself says "We are Islam, and all Muslims must join us in a jihad to rid the world of you, America, and you dirty Jewish friends," and the vast majority of the Muslim world either cheers, nods solemnly in agreement, or simply says nothing.
OK
Muslims BAD
Americans GOOD.
No Problem
So Why, exactly, are we trying to bring them democracy?
David -
How do you travel through my argument listing all the ways we have and are working to help Iraq's Muslim populace, only to arrive at the quippy conclusion of "Muslims BAD" and are, therefore, undeserving of the basic freedoms we enjoy?
1) Saying that our Enemy is Muslims (are Muslims?) is not the same things as saying Muslims are our Enemy. That I rattled off the litany of ways we are helping "Muslims" even as we are fighting "Muslims" should've made that obvious enough. At least, I thought so.
2) Even if I/we were saying "Muslims BAD," why does that make them unworthy of freedom? Such bigoted notions ignore that our "inalienable rights" were "endowed by our Creator" without regard to whether we deserved them.
Rhiannon -
I wasn't offended by your post. (Honestly, I'm not easily offended.) I was just frustrated by the rabbit trail that we end up running down when straw men become our guides.
Obviously, you're free to offer a contrary viewpoint. But it just adds confusion to throw something into the mix that is unconnected to what's being discussed. The point was raised that America is on its way to becoming a fascist, totalitariarn, genocidal empire vis a vis Muslims. I raised several facts that, to me, make such assertions inappropriate hyperbole. But rather than address these points, you inform us that people are fools when they think they are "absolutely good" while their counterparts are "absolutely evil." True enough, but what does that have to do with either ya'll's original point, or my response?
I hate to bring rationality to a comments section, but if we've got folks torturing prisoners to death we've surely got folks willing to put those prisoners' holy book in a "honey bucket." Indeed, the Pentagon now admits this.
I expect Al Jazeera covered the story, too. It's a Catch-22 situation for the American media - covering the story proves it exists, not covering the story proves they're merely tools of the Bush Administration.
Bottom line: we need more reporting on abuses being swiftly detected and speedily punished. This is difficult when the military insists on covering up abuses at, say Boghram Air Force base in Afghanistan. (When Captain Carolyn Woods' role in training guards at both Boghram and Abu Ghraib is fully revealed, I'll stop calling it a cover-up, but not before.) Read the Knight-Ridder news Service's 2004 story titled Afghanistan probe implicated Abu Ghraib interrogators" as well as the various follow-up stories documenting Captain Wood's involvement.
Big Pharaoh has a great entry in response to this whole Koran debacle.
And now, Sandmonkey, another Egyptian bloggers and one of my absolute favorite bloggers from anywhere, also gives his two cents. Definately a worthwhile read.
Upyernoz: LONG before The Bush Administration existed, I travelled throughout the Middle East, both my parents were born in Egypt and they know first hand that Muslim countries were HOSTILE TO AMERICANS LONNNNNNNNNGGGG before 9/11.
What you fail to understand is that 9/11 was the day war was declared on Freedom and on the United States.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, should we have sat around and DONE nothing so that it would be "safe" for you to travel to Japan?
I suggest you read War in A Time Of Peace to truly understand the screw ups that were made during Clinton Admin with regards to Foreign Policy and in his mis handling of events in Europe, that added fuel to the fire of Arab hatred.
Your remarks speak to a complete lack of understand about the Arab mindset towards Americans and America that existed LONG before 9/11...in fact it was the reason that 9/11 occurred.
In my travels throughout the Middle East and Europe, in the late 80s and early 90's, the hatred and danger towards Jews and Americans was equally as fervent then as it is today.
Liberal Serving Said: You will continue to be disappointed by media coverage of atrocities committed by Iraqis until there is a functioning media in that country. US media has a dramatically reduced presence in Iraq, and because the country is so dangerous they do not travel as much as they would need to for accurate coverage of what is happening there. It is unrealistic to expect them to accurately report about events they cannot get close to.
What a crock! There are plenty of men in the media in the front lines...try reading Michael Yon for starters.
The MSM Decision makers deliberately chose NOT to report the ENTIRE truth because it doenst fit into their LIBERAL agenda.
Your claim about them being corporate and making corporate bottom line decision is also misguided, and very naive!
Ratings and ad revenues in the liberal media have been on a steady decline for the past 5 yrs! Conservative talk radio and print media, as well as Fox News have all seen INCREASES in their ratings. Both reflect the fact that less ppl are tuning into liberal MSM media and more are turning to talk radio, and balanced reporting that comes from Fox News Network, and assorted print media.
So what kind of Corporate business decision is being made by the liberal media, as you posit! A pretty dumb one!
Not only did I work in a liberal biased Hollywood, whose left leaning bias I can accept, albeit relunctantly since Art has always been someone left of center, but I also had to deal with a LIBERAL BIASED media constantly and still do!
I suggest you read BIAS and ARROGANCE by Bernie Goldberg, a former CBS insider, who had the balls to expose the liberal bias at CBS, and elsewhere, and lost his job for it!
You don't "buy" into liberal bias because liberal press represents your voice..one in which you feel represents the mainstream.
Well the MAINSTREAM spoke on Nov 4 2004 once again! The MAINSTREAM is speaking loudly in conservative talk radio, and on Fox News. And the ratings are there to prove it !
There are some in the liberal media who acknowledge truthfully that liberal bias does indeed exist in MSM!
That there are some that deny this bias, is true, but thats because they think they represent an enlightened mainstream view point, and that there is nothing biased about that. BULL!
News is meant to be reported fairly, objectively , and with the intention of letting the viewer discern what ever he wants. Its is not supposed to frame every story from its left wing POV!
The MSM is BIASED...it doesnt just lean left... IT IS LEFT. PERIOD!
.
No one is suggesting that they NOT report what they KNOW to be fact..but rather that they stop reporting innuendo and lies simply because its what they WANT to believe. And thats exactly what Newsweek, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Chris Matthews, and numerous others did and continue to do.
And more importantly we want them to report the ENTIRE story in Iraq..not just the successes of the Mass Murderers liberals call "insurgents" but also report the successes of our troups on many different fronts.
For gods sake...over 80% of Iraq is safe, secure, stable, and showing signs of prospering. But you wouldnt know it from the NON LIBERAL NON BIASED press....and you wouldnt know that the Middle East is responding with slow but progressive change...as a direct result of the democratic election in Iraq....the election that Chris Mathews DENIED was happening or legit on MSNBC even as the events were unfolding and being witnessed by MILLIONS! NO LIBERAL BIAS THERE!
Even the Arab media is presenting different more progressive voices, instead of the usual BS jihadist anti American, blah blah whiney rhetoric they have been spewing forth for decades!
And I find it very interesting that the alleged Muslims who claim to be sooooo distraught over BOGUS allegations of Koran desecration dont give a rats ass about how a handful of Wahabist jihadists have desecrated THEIR OWN Religion with their BS claim that Jihad sanctions the murder of children and women, or that hijacked their religion and committed the mass murder of over 2000 Americas on 9.11!
And I find it strange how the MSM and the arabs who feign such anger at the alleged descration of their Koran, have not once mentioned the documented proof of Bibles and Crosses being DESCRETATED in Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries!
In an article posted on the Saudi Institute's site -- and published as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Friday -- Saudi Institute director Ali Al-Ahmed wrote of his fellow Saudis: "As Muslims, we have not been as generous as our Christian and Jewish counterparts in respecting others' holy books and religious symbols"
Straight from the horses mouth!
Hmmm and yet NO mention of it in the MSM ..I wonder why??? Could it be that this story just doesnt fit within their LEFT WING BIAS mindset and as thus doesnt represent the left wing BIASED POV endemic in MSM, so its simply ignored?
Liberal serving:
Don't you mean "It's a military thing and a bit hard to JUSTIFY"?
No, I mean it's hard to explain.
Caelestis did a pretty good job, but if you can't comprehend that there is a different culture involved then it's clear that not only is it hard to explain, it's pointless.
It's never going to function in a way that seems transparent to you even when it seems reasonably transparent to me.
I suggest that you take a foreign study course and experience the culture first hand. It's the best way to really get a feel for people with strange customs. Live with them, learn their language and rituals. It will be incredibly eductional.
The Army is now offering 15 month enlistments though the Air Force or Navy will provide the same cultural benefit and would be safer for now. A longer enlistment means facing the uncertainty of a Clinton presidency. The last one included deployments... the next one may as well. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home