"(So) this anti-Western bias among elites inside the West has given the terrorists enormous advantages in this conflict. If one doubts the sophistication of al Qaeda in echoing Western self-loathing, examine the recent communiqué in which Adam Gadahn condemns Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, while praising Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk, and George Galloway. Not long ago Osama bin Laden tried to interject himself into the 2004 elections by hinting that each state will have to accept the consequences of its vote. Earlier he had praised William Blum’s savage take on America, Rogue State."So Nadir, while you may see freaks like Adam Gadahn as not a real Muslim and not a true representation of Islam, he and his bretheran are a real threat and they are very good and have become very adept at taking the anti-war, peacenik, conspiracy-theory laden Democrat talking points and using them against us.
As Paul stated the other day, you're well within your rights to believe what you want and to disagree with this President and with this war, but remember, much of what you say is being used as propaganda against us.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. But then again, since you seem to believe that the U.S. and the rest of the "imperialist" free West deserves it's comeuppance, maybe you think it's your "responsibility" then to make sure it gets it.
3 comments:
Six: I hope that Nadir doesn't interpret our view hear to mean that we want people to hide their honest views. I certainly don't want that.
I think that we war mongers needed to take into account all actual factors that exist in the modern world, including:
1. Many Americans are devoted and loud anti-Americans who believe that America is the greatest source of evil and misery on this earth, and ultimately responsible for most world problems.
2. Americans no longer accept "total war", which excludes the tactics that won WWII and the war against the Confederacy. Some of those "total war" tactics may have been unneccessary, and the new view in such a case represents an advance in civilization. But some neccessary tactics of those war may also now be excluded by the contemporary American populace.
A democratic leader has a difficult delema. On the one hand, once elected, he has an obligation to make the decisions that he feels are right, not merely what "the people will like". On the other hand, he answers ultimately to "the people", and thus has practical limits to what he can accomplish, even if he thinks that something is correct.
The most clear example of this for me is the position that Abe Lincoln found himself in running for president the first time, and when he took office. Imagine if he had said while running, or when he took office, what Nadir would now admire: a blunt abolitionist position. That would have impressed Nadir in 2006, but it would not have helped get any slaves freed in 1859 or 1860. So he "sold" the voters on a position of "preserving the union" and "holding slavery in place". Then he sold the Union state public on supporting a war to enforce those views, even staging an event that would permit him to make a legal argument for invading states that had utilized their constitutional rights to secede.
A very similar situation to Bush's on 911. While I don't think that Bush is an idiot, and to the contrary believe he's a smart guy and a good communicator, I don't think that he's a timeless genius in these areas, either, which is what Lincoln was.
Lincoln also faced relentless objection and protest. And he got it also from both sides. The abolitionists initially hated him, though of course they came to love and admire him completely. Bush has not been able to win his critics, from either side. When Lincoln "came clean" and issued the Emancipation, the Union public rallied behind the war, and that played an essential component in victory.
Bush may have to face that there are just too many Nadirs out there, who will automatically loudly oppose any use of US force, and enthusiastically embrace nearly all criticisms from enemies. Do you and I want Nadir to hide his feelings? No. But we do believe that his expression of these honest views of his help advance those who want to bury-to-the-neck and skull-crush women who have extr-marital sex, and to execute those who do not proclaim and rigidly practice a particular religion.
I do find it very sad that so many Americans feel the way that Nadir does. And it may mean that the US no longer has the practical capacity to engage in the sort of war that Bush (and Lincoln before him) embarked upon.
Six: I propose an and to the phrase, "talking points." Each side uses it against the other, and it's just an ad hominem. If indeed any of these contentions are "talking points", that doesn't nullify them. And it's impossible for any of us taking any position to assert ourselves without employing what somebody else may have listed as a "talking point." Some of what you or I may believe about an issue surely exists on some "talking point" list used by somebody on "our side".
Maybe we learned about that assertion via somebody reading from a list of "talking points." Does that invalidate our point? If indeed somebody is merely reading from a list of "talking points" assembled by somebody else, does that in any way invalidate their argument? Any "point" should logically stand or fall on its own, regardless if one or more of its advocates actually is merely parrotting it mindlessly from a sheet handed him.
Furthermore, if you and I were going into a debate against Nadir and Tom (whatever happened to him?), I would certainly propose a list of "talking points" for us to ensure that we work into discussion.
The term "talking point" has taken as illogically a perjorative meaning as has the word "agenda." Everybody has an agenda, except the witless and confused. The word "agenda" is not synonomous with the term "hidden, sinister agenda." The phrase, "he has an agenda," should not indicate anything negative, except in the minds of people who invent their own definitions for words.
Have no problem with your idea here. However, I was only trying to point out that the Left's anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-West talking ponts have been and are being hijacked by the enemy ala Tokyo Rose/Axis Sally and are used as propaganda against us.
I'm not so righteous to think that don't have my own set of talking points.
Post a Comment