America vs. The Narrative

[Pardalis]

Wil, I’d take your twoofie derail more seriously if you’d bothered to check what my “track record” actually is before formulating your Pavlovian ad hom fiction.

Actually, bringing up your twoofiness isn't a derail at all, it informs us of what you mean by that "Narrative" of yours.

You've got a completely different "Narrative" than the rest of the world, a completely different view of history, and a flawed one.

If you think 9/11 wasn't the work of Al Qaeda, and that Al Qaeda doesn't exist, then this changes your conception of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, you are not on the same planet as the rest of us..

 

[WildCat]

My only point was that a sector of the Middle East was still embittered by that experience. I would think that this could have been curtailed somewhat if Bush the elder had backed up his words with action and protected the Sunnis in the ensuing years from Saddam's reprisals, instead of enabling them.

I think you meant to say "Shia"?

 

[Pardalis]

Here's the problem with your list. There are value-laden statements in 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10.

Isn't that what you do?

- misapplications of force that resulted in the deaths of innocents

Wow.

Ho many countries are guilty of that charge?

And what is wrong with supporting Israel?

 

[JihadJane]

Actually, bringing up your twoofiness isn't a derail at all, it informs us of what you mean by that "Narrative" of yours.

You've got a completely different "Narrative" than the rest of the world, a completely different view of history, and a flawed one.

If you think 9/11 wasn't the work of Al Qaeda, and that Al Qaeda doesn't exist, then this changes your conception of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, you are not on the same planet as the rest of us..

I should clarify that I use the word "twoofie" (noun and adjective) to refer to twoofer enthusiasts (rather than "twoofers" themselves) in the same way Star Trek enthusiasts are known as Trekkies.

Your justification, Pardalis, for bringing up "twoofiness" might be relevant if I thought any of the the things you say I do but I don't.

I wonder how many other of your beliefs are founded on faith-based dogma rather than reality.

The real problem here is the misinterpretation of Freidman's remarks. "The Narrative" is that the US is at war with Islam, which Freidman says is false (and to which I agree).

I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread woud disagree with you.

Freidman then gives examples which show that the US is not at war with Islam, and it is these remarks which Peephole, JJ, and Praktik have misinterpreted and have asserted that Freidman says the US is "a Global Charity organization for Muslims".



Sorry, that's not at all what Freidman is contending.

Though it's already been pointed out several times I'll point it out again in case you didn't notice. Friedman claims that US foreign policy has been "largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny".

Ultimately the US, as any other nation, looks out for its own interests. in this particular instance, it is in the US interest to have Muslim-majority nations not lead by dictators and religious nutjobs. It's also in US interests not to have these same dictators and religious nutjobs, in particular those who acively work against our intersts, in control of a vital resource such as oil. thus, the first Gulf War to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait and subsequent 2nd Gulf War to remove Saddam from power. And though many will disagree, the argument is that the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off for it.

On the contrary, the US is perfectly happy to have several Muslim countries led by dictators and religious nutjobs. The US itself was, until recently, led by a religious nutjob.

Afghanistan, as everyone here except JihadJane will agree, was responsible for harboring those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Relatively few people will argue the Afghanistan war was unnecessary.

Can you back up either of these assertions? Who has benefitted from the war?

The Bosnian war is a bit of an exception, the US had and has no strategic interests in the region, it was in fact almost entirely motivated by humanitarian reasons.

The Balkans are intensely strategic because of their geographical location. The "humanitarian intervention" enabled the US the garrison the region with a permanent military presence including the infamous Camp Bondsteel, the largest US base in Europe. The Balkans also represent an important transport route for Caspian Basin energy.

But what should be abundantly clear to everyone is that there is no US war on Islam, which is in fact the narrative being sold to the "Arab street".

Who, on this thread, is arguing otherwise?

And in fact, the suspect in the Ft. Hood shooting indeed contended that the US was at war with Islam.

Freidman stated what to me appears obvious, and so far the only arguments against what he is saying to me appear based on misinterpretations for the most part and sheer delusion for a few others, such as JihadJane and the rest of the "truthers".

Friedman is one of the talking heads responsible for encouraging fears that the US is targeting Islam. He even does it in the article we are discussing.

Which brings me to another point for JihadJane - you cannot contend in the Politics section that the US is fueling Islamic terrorism, and then over in Conspiracy Theories claim that there is no Islamic terrorism and it's all a fabrication by the news media and perpetrated by the CIA, Mossad, NWO, whatever. Those are diametrically opposed positions, you can't possibly believe both.

I have asked you to back up the unsubstantiated nonsense you have already posted about my alleged beliefs on this thread. You have not done so. Instead you post yet more rubbish about what you imagine I believe.

What's your game, WildCat?

 

[Praktik]

I think you meant to say "Shia"?

yes, thank you

 

[Praktik]

Isn't that what you do?

yes. But then I didn't design a trap wherein I was ostensibly listing historical "facts" and asking someone to deny or accept them.

In such a list the language should be neutral.

And what is wrong with supporting Israel?

I don't think there's anything wrong per se, especially since there are coinciding interests and cultural similarities, but I didn't think we were talking about whether support for Israel was good or bad, but the consequences of that on the muslim street.

And I do think that in recent times there are places where the national interests are diverging, and that American support for Israel would perhaps be made more effective if it wasn't interpreted so often on American shores as entailing absolute and unconditional support in all things.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, and I think he has a moral responsibility for all the horrible things he advocates.

You need to get a grip. Hyperbole doesn't strengthen you position.

Besides being a terrible writer and an idiot in general.

As to "terrible writer" he's sloppy with his cause and effect relationships, yes. The Earth is Flat, for example, is rather soft on any hard analysis. His Pulitzers were for earlier work, so he was at one time a decent writer. He's not the first writer to lose quality of output after initial success. It's a hazard of the business.

And an idiot in general.

Criterion for assessing him an idiot. Curious. Again, I am not enamored of his recent work (last ten years or so) and I think he has become an unabashed globalist shill.

DR

 

[WildCat]

I have asked you to back up the unsubstantiated nonsense you have already posted about my alleged beliefs on this thread. You have not done so. Instead you post yet more rubbish about what you imagine I believe.

You can't possibly be serious! You have quite a history here Jane, most of it in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section where you spout off such things like:

Evidence of Intelligence manipulation and evidence of a terrorist plot are very different in nature. The main evidence indicating any covert Military/Intelligence operation is the ensuing cover-up. There is also evidence of pre-911 investigations being obstructed from upper end of the chain of command.

<snip>

It is also possible that "a small group in the CIA" or some other group in some other organisation would seek to use Islamic militants to further other agendas. Note, also, that the US allied with Islamic Fundamentalists in the Balkans and that al Qaeda is allegedly part of the Afghanistan/US/Turkey illicit drug business.

I can find many more such instances where you imply that al Qaeda was employed by the CIA, that the US government knew about 9/11 beforehand, that they were complicit in the attacks.

This is all too easy Jane, your record here is clear and Google knows all.

 

[WildCat]

Just one more post by JihadJane where she speculates that al Qaeda is actually controlled by the CIA and other western entities, and exposes her irrationality:

The truth about KSM would emerge from an exhaustive exploration of the relationships between international narco-trafficking, Intelligence agencies, the world of finance and banking, organized crime, non-State political groups and, of the course, the US/UK misguided and destructive, right-wing struggle to achieve global dominance.

Couldn't possibly be that KSM is fundy religious nutjob with a murderous anti-western agenda, could it JJ?

 

[dudalb]

Just one more post by JihadJane where she speculates that al Qaeda is actually controlled by the CIA and other western entities, and exposes her irrationality:


Couldn't possibly be that KSM is fundy religious nutjob with a murderous anti-western agenda, could it JJ?

Don't forget that JJ started her career at JREF with the statement that "9/11 needs to be understood not through scientific understanding, but political Understanding".

 

[JihadJane]

You can't possibly be serious! You have quite a history here Jane, most of it in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section [not true, btw - JJ] where you spout off such things like:

Evidence of Intelligence manipulation and evidence of a terrorist plot are very different in nature. The main evidence indicating any covert Military/Intelligence operation is the ensuing cover-up. There is also evidence of pre-911 investigations being obstructed from upper end of the chain of command.

<snip>

It is also possible that "a small group in the CIA" or some other group in some other organisation would seek to use Islamic militants to further other agendas. Note, also, that the US allied with Islamic Fundamentalists in the Balkans and that al Qaeda is allegedly part of the Afghanistan/US/Turkey illicit drug business.

I can find many more such instances where you imply that al Qaeda was employed by the CIA, that the US government knew about 9/11 beforehand, that they were complicit in the attacks.

"Spout off"?


You are now introducing new, further claims about my beliefs. What about the rubbish claims you have already made?

I wasn't implying that al Qaeda “was employed by the CIA”. That's your characteristically absolutist and cavalier, add-on spin.

Arguing that elements of the USG had ample warnings about the attacks is hardly the territory of mad conspiracy theories.

This is all too easy Jane, your record here is clear and Google knows all.

Wil, the extract you offer doesn’t remotely support any of the lazy, scatter-gun allegations you have made in this thread, that, for example, I “claim that there is no Islamic terrorism and it's all a fabrication by the news media and perpetrated by the CIA”.

Happy googling!

Just one more post by JihadJane where she speculates that al Qaeda is actually controlled by the CIA and other western entities, and exposes her irrationality:

The truth about KSM would emerge from an exhaustive exploration of the relationships between international narco-trafficking, Intelligence agencies, the world of finance and banking, organized crime, non-State political groups and, of the course, the US/UK misguided and destructive, right-wing struggle to achieve global dominance.

Assertion is simply assertion.

I was arguing that there are miriad areas that would need to be explored and investigated before one could confidently assert that al Qaeda acted alone, without assistance.

I was not speculating that al Qaeda was "controlled by the CIA” etc. You made that bit up.

It’s all too easy to impose your own convenient spin on someone's words and then argue against it as if your spin came out of their mouth. This is similar to the spinning you attached to Friedamn's list, above.

Couldn't possibly be that KSM is fundy religious nutjob with a murderous anti-western agenda, could it JJ?

How would being “fundy religious nutjob with a murderous anti-western agenda” prevent one being used as an unknowing/knowing intelligence asset?



To sum up, you appear to have forgotten what you actually claimed I believe.

Back up your random nonsense with fact, WildCat, including the crap about “nano-therm*te/bombs/space beams/mini-nukes”, or that I believe “that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, that al Qaeda doesn't exist”, or that I’ve paraphrased Larry Silverstein etc. etc. etc.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Back up your random nonsense with fact, WildCat, including the crap about “nano-therm*te/bombs/space beams/mini-nukes”, or that I believe “that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, that al Qaeda doesn't exist”, or that I’ve paraphrased Larry Silverstein.

OK, now that JJane and Wildcat have gotten the CT forum bickering bit out of their systems, can we get back to JJane's original theme?

Friedman's story telling style, it's pro and con.

DR

 

[JihadJane]

OK, now that JJane and Wildcat have gotten the CT forum bickering bit out of their systems, can we get back to JJane's original theme?

Friedman's story telling style, it's pro and con.

DR

Good idea, though I think it's understandable that I'd want to protect my good reputation from Cat's story-telling style.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Good idea, though I think it's understandable that I'd want to protect my good reputation from Cat's story-telling style.

I am so tempted ... but won't.

Back to Friedman: just how influential do you think his ramblings are?

 

[Tailgater]

I am so tempted ... but won't.

The temptation is overwhelming.

 

[Skeptic]

Part JihadJane's confusion, I think, is that she falls for the deliberate misuse of language in the media. In the media, usually, a right-winger is usually called a "right-wing extremist", while someone who is a left-winger is called a "moderate" or, if his views are obviously not moderate in any sense, a "progressive" or an "activist".

Similarly, dictators the US opposes are known as "leaders" (as In Castro, the "Cuban Leader", or Saddam, "Iraq's leader") or "the X government" (as in "The Iranian government"); dictators the US supported are known as "dictators" (as in Pinochet, the "Chilean dictator").

Examples could be multiplied. Is is any wonder JihadJane thinks the world is divided into into evil, right-winger extremists who support dictators, on the one hand, and good, progressive, moderates who merely like building bridges with foreign leaders, on the other?

 

[JihadJane]

Is is any wonder JihadJane thinks the world is divided into into evil, right-winger extremists who support dictators, on the one hand, and good, progressive, moderates who merely like building bridges with foreign leaders, on the other?

I don't think that , Skeptic, but don't let that get in the way of your high-falutin' theories!

Which left-wing-supporting media are you referring to, BTW? The New York Times?

 

[WildCat]

Looks like 5 more US Muslims bought into the "narrative" Jane doesn't think exists:

Pakistani police on Wednesday arrested five American men believed to have gone missing from the Washington, D.C. area last month, officials from both countries said. U.S. officials say one of the missing students left what investigators call a farewell video saying Muslims must be defended.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20091209/4b365f1b-d467-4e96-a590-64fef5ea0a2f

In other news, suicide bombers killed over 120 civilians at a market in Iraq the other day in order to "defend Muslims" or something.