Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Justice, al Qaeda style
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, July 01, 2007

Micheal Yon's latest dispatch from near Baqubah, where, in a deserted village, they find and excavate the hasty graves of its men, women and children, murdered by al Qaeda:
Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children. Had al Qaeda murdered the children in front of their parents? Maybe it had been the other way around: maybe they had murdered the parents in front of the children. Maybe they had forced the father to dig the graves of his children.
***Warning, graphic pictures****

However, if you have any interest in why this is important, you need to read the article.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Very interesting. This reinforces the fact that we should not have attacked Iraq in the first place — this wouldn’t have been happening. However, it makes it difficult to know what to do now given the complexities of the situation.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Right, Al Qaeda wouldn’t be killing anyone if we hadn’t attacked Iraq. Because they never killed anyone before March, 2003.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
All together now : "It’s all BUSH’S FAULT."

OK now the way sung the obligatory Liberal mantra, let’s look at the facts...

I suppose your comments would make sense if it wasn’t for the Kurds. You remember them, don’t you, Scott?

One major reason we went in was because it was already happening, and in more places, than just Iraq. Funny how quickly you forget.

Even totally absent those points, what your comment amounts to is "had we only appeased these people".... etc etc.

I don’t suppose the name Chamberlain rings any bells with you, either.

Ladies and gentlemen, I gave you a Class A example of why Educational system is broken :
Scott Erb.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Of course, Scott. With Saddam in charge they would have been perfectly safe. Probably out flying kites and riding ponies, too.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
All together now : "It’s all BUSH’S FAULT."
Of course it’s all Bush’s fault. If he hadn’t started that illegal and immoral war in Iraq the Islamists would have kept to themselves and we would never have had the bombings of our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the bombing of Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole and the three attacks on the World Trade Center. The policies of Bush and his cronies have done nothing but rile up the Arab world.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Saddam wasn’t engaging in anything like this level of violence by 2003, Saddam wasn’t even as repressive as the Saudi regime. And save the "it’s all Bush’s fault" mantra. I’m noting an undeniable fact: the US invasion of Iraq created an opening for al qaeda that they would not otherwise have had. I am convinced that has improved their recruitment as they thrive on chaos and lack of order. This isn’t about Bush, it’s about learning from our mistakes and people who supported the war having the moral and intellectual integrity to admit that the choice to go to war has led to consequences they did not consider at all likely back in 2002 or 2003. Now, at the same time, those of us who opposed the war have to recognize that "just leaving" is not a true option any more given the state in Iraq. Either lock yourself into a politics-game-driven rhetorical spiral where Iraq is less important than domestic political arguments, or deal honestly with reality. (That goes for the left too — many Democrats are correct in noting this was a policy failure, but aren’t dealing with the fact that regardless of who was right in 2003, the choices in 2007 are not clear — we have to deal with the conditions we have).

Bithead, you need to get an education about foreign affairs. No one has called for appeasement, and Saddam was pretty ruthless against Islamic extremists. Your ignorance appears boundless. Oh well, at least you’re not in a position of responsibility where you could do harm.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Al Fin, I didn’t even bring Bush up, I simply noted the initial decision to attack Iraq was wrong. In fact, I recently posted the following in comment thread 6332:
But Bush did adapt. He brought in Gates and Lute, two critics of the policy and even the surge, put Rice at State, and quietly changed course and approach, even if the public pronouncements remained strong. He shifted diplomatic tone, rebuilt relationships with European states, and now is reaching out to try to fix the damage done in American-Russian relations (driven not just by Bush, of course, but Putin’s confidence thanks to petrodollars). Domestically he’s been stymied in every major effort, good or bad — social security, immigration, and his "ownership society," which could have been the hallmark of his Presidency, is but a forgotten slogan. I actually have more confidence in Bush than almost any time previously in his Presidency. I still would not vote for him, but he’s surprised me by seeming to learn from mistakes and showing adaptability. In that sense, I rather feel a bit sorry for him. Like Jimmy Carter, he gets a lot of unfair partisan-driven criticism.
You are right that this is primarily a choice that is being made within the Muslim world. I think the choice of going to war with Iraq was a risky gambit to try to make Iraq a model of stability and democracy in a manner that was so painless to the US that every other country would quiver at the thought of the US thinking "regime change" and looking their way. That failed. I thought it would — it was a very idealistic policy — but it’s not ’dwelling on Bush’ to note it failed. Also, note in my post that I criticize many Democrats for not realizing that the situation in 2007 is not like 2003; we can’t undo the damage, so the questions on ’what next’ are much more difficult.

I’ve thought since the 1990s that the issue of the future of the Muslim world was primary, and countering terrorism was absolutely job one. I just think that Iraq, ultimately, has made the job more difficult rather than easier. But the task is still at hand.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
No one has called for appeasement
Does anyone... ummm everyone... want to correct Scott, here?

I’ll start; not responding to Iraq was appeasement.

And, Scott, have you seen the democratic underground lately? Have you seen the blatherings of Kos lately?

Saddam wasn’t engaging in anything like this level of violence by 2003
Scott? You’re forgetting the Kurds, again. You’re also forgetting the documented points of contact with AQ. Not surprising, since it to feature entire world view.

I’m not going to bother discussing this with you further, (facts never change your mind, anyway, so what’s the point?) but I just couldn’t let your nonsense pass without calling you on it. I’m going to sit back and watch the others flay you for a while.

Anyone got any popcorn?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
He’s also forgetting paying bonuses to the families of terrorist suicide bombers. But that’s not engaged in violence, I suppose. And I guess that’s being ruthless toward Islamic extremists.


 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I think Scott is getting pushed a little too hard here...if we had not invaded, and the world community had kept sanctions in place, and we had kept no-fly zones in place, Iraq might have been better off than it is now vis a vis civilian deaths.

The problem for me is that it seemed like sanctions were going down the tubes in terms of world support and after 9/11 I was not too keen to see Saddam Hussein even potentially have access to WMDs. A guy who cuts checks for terrorists is not a good risk.

BTW, I think Europe could have stepped up big time then to re-assure Americans by sending fighters to enforce the no-fly zone and offering their troops to augment/replace ours in Kuwait etc. to keep up the pressure. Such an offer I think would have possibly swayed people like me to at least give containment one more shot.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Dr. Erb, quit whilst you’re ahead....Saddam must have killed at least 500,000 to 1,000,000 human beings in Iraq, Kuwayt, and Iran...please don’t go down this path. The reason that Saddam wasn’t using this level of violence was HE DIDN’T NEED TO! Jesu Christi, man get a clue. He had control of his country, he certainly used this level of violence in 1991, against both Kurds AND the Shi’i.

You can use international law to oppose the war, incorrectly, but please don’t ry re-writing history, too.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Oh well, at least you’re not in a position of responsibility where you could do harm.
And thank goodness, neither are you.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It’s evidence that you can not be taken seriously Scotty- you read that article and your first comment:
This reinforces the fact that we should not have attacked Iraq in the first place — this wouldn’t have been happening
Nothing constructive, just some placing of blame.

And that’s how you approach this problem. As long as you can sound scholarly while assigning blame, that’s your first move.

*SIGH*

The dead are meaningless to you, except to advance your political agenda.

That’s a very ugly performance Scotty.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Bithead: al qaeda was an enemy of Saddam’s, your vague allegations of contacts have been denied even by the Administration. Even if they had been true they’d have been minor, nothing like the open field al qaeda has been given in much of Iraq (which hopefully the ’surge’ will dampen). Also, you need to learn what appeasement means; you seem to be throwing around words you don’t understand. Finally, if the enemy is Islamic extremism, attacking Saddam ultimately aided our enemies. We eliminated the biggest foe of Iran (who until now has won the most from the Iraq conflict), and gave al qaeda a gift. And, no, I don’t read "Kos" or really any other blogs. This one at least has some interesting ideas that break away from the mainstream (though at times it looks more ’right wing’ than libertarian, unfortunately).

Steverino: our allies, the Saudis, have for years been paying bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. Yet the Vice President is very close to the Saudi leadership, and they are an important ally of the US. Why the double standard? Why does this mean going to war with Iraq, but staying close to the Saudi leadership, which has textbooks that demonize Israel and whose repression goes beyond what Saddam was doing? Saddam was secular, the Saudis support Wahabi religious extremism.

Joe: Almost all of the deaths attributed to Saddam were war time deaths, and Saddam was not capable of starting another war. He had lost control of the Kurdish north, and his repression, while real, was by 2003 typical of third world authoritarians. If he had stayed in power, Iraqis would be suffering a repressive leadership, Shi’ites would have their religous practices severely repressed, but most Iraqis killed in the last four years would be alive today.

Harun: Your points are more on the mark. In 2003 we didn’t know Saddam’s capabilities, and there was reason to think that he might get sanctions removed and become a danger again. That’s why I said that the policy was a failure, but despite the way it was read by some, I don’t condemn the Bush Administration for it (though I think there are lessons to learn from the apparent groupthink and intelligence manipulation that went on there — and to some extent goes on in every administration). We need to learn from the mistakes, not play political gotcha games.

I do think that the French and Germans by late 2002 were starting to try to go that extra mile — Chirac was even pleading for an extra six months (contrary to claims at the time, he didn’t say that he’d never support an intervention at any time). The Bush Administration was convinced that invasion would work and that letting Saddam have more time would only make it less likely that they could pull it off. There are a number of important lessons here we need to learn:

1. It is easy to overestimate the ability of military power to shape political results; even when mixed with massive reconstruction aid, local factors are important;

2. It is important to know about a culture and its state before intervening, so that we are not surprised when things go wrong; and

3. Contrary to what Americans often believe, democracy is not the natural political state for most of the world, and simply removing the bad guys and setting up a democratic structure is not enough. Democracy is hard to build and maintain and depends on a variety of factors, most of which Iraq was far from. Too many people looked at post-WWII Japan and Germany and thought that meant democracy could be built rather easily after defeating a dictator. But those were very different cases.

Finally the good news: the British case this week shows that counter-terrorism works, and Islamic extremists have limited reach. They do a few dramatic bombings every few years, get stymied more often than not, and kill a relatively tiny number of people, despite the drama of a blast. We need not fear them. The key now is to assure that they do not gain more control in the Mideast and become more dangerous than they are. How to do that is a question with real uncertainty, worthy of vigorous debate, and in it Iraq is very important. I’ve got an open mind on this, I’m not tied down by the political positions of the day or ’left vs. right.’ This is fundamentally so important that it has to be raised above partisanship, and people have to be willing to question their own positions and really listen to other points of view.

Which is why I read this blog, follow links to people reporting like Yon and others, and try to break out of seeing this through a political lens.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Joe said:
Dr. Erb, quit whilst you’re ahead....
I like that. Dr Erb. Hey man, whatcha’ smoking in that pipe. It’s erb man—Dr Erb. Too much Dr Erb and ya’ get woozy.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Actually, Erb is in a position where he can do quite a bit of harm: a position that allows him to indoctrinate hundreds of people a year in the Leftist world view. Hopefully, that will soon be corrected.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
"3. Contrary to what Americans often believe, democracy is not the natural political state for most of the world, and simply removing the bad guys and setting up a democratic structure is not enough. Democracy is hard to build and maintain and depends on a variety of factors, most of which Iraq was far from. Too many people looked at post-WWII Japan and Germany and thought that meant democracy could be built rather easily after defeating a dictator. But those were very different cases."

Why is Japan a good case for Democracy after WW II? I just don’t see how anyone could claim Japan would have a good chance for democracy to flourish after WW II EXCEPT if you added that they would have it forced on them by an occupying power. Oh, and Japan had a democracy with one ruling party for 50- years! YAY!

Just like in China, some people say that China can’t have a democracy - too many people, too chaotic, too confucian (?) and yet India has one. Taiwan has one. Korea has one. Its the year 2007 not 1907 or 1807.

Lebanon had a democracy despite having a similar ethnic mix to Iraq. Its not impossible and we should not consign people’s to being backwards due to their cultural background. (or if you really want to do this, then I’d say stop all aid to Africa - I mean what’s the point of feeding corrupt tribal people who culturally will never progress...)

In fact, Scott, you keep trying to convince people that Iran has a nascent democracy. Check out their ethnic/cultural mix and explain why they can have one but Iraq cannot?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
" this wouldn’t have been happening."

" Saddam wasn’t engaging in anything like this level of violence by 2003,"

And we knowe this because if it had, CNN would have reported it.

"Your ignorance appears boundless. Oh well, at least you’re not in a position of responsibility where you could do harm"

Tell us again, dear doctor, about the evils of the ad hominem attack and what it says about the attacker.

*************************
" and the world community had kept sanctions in place, and we had kept no-fly zones in place, Iraq might have been better off than it is now vis a vis civilian deaths."

But I thought those sanctions were killing tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Steverino: our allies, the Saudis, have for years been paying bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. Yet the Vice President is very close to the Saudi leadership, and they are an important ally of the US. Why the double standard? Why does this mean going to war with Iraq, but staying close to the Saudi leadership, which has textbooks that demonize Israel and whose repression goes beyond what Saddam was doing? Saddam was secular, the Saudis support Wahabi religious extremism.
This is called "deflection". Rather than admit he was wrong about Saddam not being engaged in violence or about Saddam being ruthless toward Isamic extremists, Erb brings up the Saudis and says, "They’re doing it too!". The existence of a double standard does not validate your point, Erb, so bringing it up is a worthless tactic.

Saddam himself may have been secular, but he had no trouble jumping into bed with Islamic extremists.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Steverino: You’re missing the point. You use Saddam’s payment to the families of suicide bombers to rationalize invasion. Yet the Saudis were doing it long before Saddam was, and they are our close allies. Clearly, this doesn’t defend the decision to go to war. The existence of the double standard does indeed validate my point, unless you are arguing we should invade Saudi Arabia too!

Harun: Japan was modern, industrialized, and had attempted democracy before. They had adopted many western modes of thinking, and thus were in a position for a transition. Yet from the 1940s to the 1990s their system was much like the old pre-WWII system: one party dominance, a close connection between business, banks, and bureaucracy. In some ways they are still in a transition to a true democracy. The crisis of the early 1990s forced the LDP to change, but it’s still not showing a lot of multiparty competition (Italy was similar, though the changes there in the early 90s has yielded a competitive democratic system).

Democracy requires compromise, ability to accept defeat, and a belief in the good of the country above party, ethnic group, or personal gain. Iraq is less able to move to democracy than Iran because they were part of the Ottoman empire (Iran was not), and then were followed by brutal authoritarian rule and a failed British attempt at occupation and colonialism (the Brits learned in the 20s and 30s what we’re learning now). Iran is a bit more like Turkey. Turkey was center of the Ottoman empire and had democratizing/reforming attempts, while the rest of the empire was ruled ruthlessly. Iran also had these attempts in the early 20th century. They are farther along the road.

India’s democracy is not true, in the sense that it’s persisted because the dominate parties had spread out government largesse in exchange for votes from the villages. Now that there is development, there is danger of ungovernability. India does give hope for a kind of democracy, but is by no means proof it can work everywhere — corruption, sectarian violence, and lack of compromise in a political culture (often the remnants of authoritarian regimes) works against it. European states had trouble implementing and making democracy work — they needed a couple of world wars to get everyone on board. China will not be a democracy any time soon, it’s political culture works against it. When it does reform, it will likely be slow and their style of democracy will be different than ours (which is OK — the West has a unique political culture). Lebanon’s fate attests to the fact that democracies are hard to maintain. Many European democracies found early attempts collapse, as did Japan and many third world states.

Democratization is hard. It’s not natural for nation-states, and not easy to maintain. There was too much optimism that if you get rid of the bad guys and set up a structure democracy will take. The Brits tried that with Nigeria in 1960, doing a lot to set up the new state, which would have oil wealth and a trained bureaucracy. Within seven years it was in civil war. You do have a point about aid to Africa though, it has created a dependency of the corrupt on western aid. I wouldn’t cut off all aid, but any aid given needs to be focused and there needs to be accountability.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Steverino: You’re missing the point. You use Saddam’s payment to the families of suicide bombers to rationalize invasion.
No, I didn’t, Erb. This is a gross distortion of what I posted, and you know it. You said that Hussein was not engaged in violence by 2003, and that he was ruthless to Islamic extremists. I used his payments to illustrate you were wrong on that point, NOT as a justification for invading Iraq.

Now is the time for you to eat humble pie and admit you were wrong. Instead, you have deliberately misrepresented my posts.

I’ll leave it to the audience to judge your tactics here.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Then you’re doubly wrong Steverino. Paying families of suicide victims does nothing at all to counter my point. My point was:

Saddam wasn’t engaging in anything like this level of violence by 2003, Saddam wasn’t even as repressive as the Saudi regime.


How on earth can paying families of suicide bombers be a counter to that point?

Time for you eat some humble pie Stevorino and admit you were wrong. ;-)

Of course, Bithead has to have the biggest helping. He said "remember the Kurds" when I said the level of violence was way, way down by 2003. He didn’t seem to realize that Saddam had lost his effort to control the Kurdish regions and the Kurds were essentially autonomous by that point. Enjoy your pie, guys!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Enjoy your pie, guys!"

My, my. That sounds suspiciously like gloating, but I know that such an unbecoming emotion could not possibly come from that cool, analytical, pragmatic, and objective mind.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Then you’re doubly wrong Steverino. Paying families of suicide victims does nothing at all to counter my point. My point was:

Saddam wasn’t engaging in anything like this level of violence by 2003, Saddam wasn’t even as repressive as the Saudi regime.

How on earth can paying families of suicide bombers be a counter to that point?
Rewarding families of those who commit violence is supporting violence. It is participating (my word...yours was "engaging") in violence as surely as if he’d given them the explosives. Once more, I call upon you to admit you were wrong on this point. Have some guts for a change.

I note that you have stopped talking about your assertion that Saddam was ruthless to Islamic extremists...almost like you’re pretending you never posted it.


Stop tapdancing, Erb. You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
By the way, Erb...please show were in this thread I said that Saddam paying families of suicide bombers was a reason to invade Iraq.

Hint: it’s not in here. You know it’s not in here. I wasn’t wrong on that count, so I couldn’t possibly be doubly wrong, as you claimed.

The more you talk, the stupider you look, Erb.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/

Do you deny that Saddam was ruthless against Islamic extremists in Iraq? Do you think that paying the families of suicide bombers somehow alters that fact? Sorry, you’re simpy wrong on this one Steverino. Saddam was ruthless against Islamic extremists which he saw as a threat to his power, which was based on a secular Bathist ideology. Even Osama Bin Laden wanted to lead a war to depose Saddam back in 1991. Do you know anything about Saddam’s rule, Steverino? Do you really not know how he treated Islamic extremists and fundamentalists?

Moreover, you claim I said Saddam was not participating in or engaging in violence in 2003. You know I didn’t say that. I said he was not engaging in near the level of violence in 2003 that he was earlier. Do you not see the difference in meaning between what I wrote and what you claim I said?

You not only altered my claim, but since my argument was that the invasion was a mistake, and you were arguing against me, it’s only logical to assume that you were arguing that the invasion was justified.

Face it, you only make yourself look silly by trying to play games and not admit both that:
1. Saddam was not engaged in anything close to the level of violence in 2003 that he had been earlier; and
2. Saddam was ruthless in his repression of Islamic fundamentalists and extremists.

You have countered neither of those points. If you think Saddam paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine somehow disproves either of those points, you need a lesson in logic.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Moreover, you claim I said Saddam was not participating in or engaging in violence in 2003. You know I didn’t say that. I said he was not engaging in near the level of violence in 2003 that he was earlier. Do you not see the difference in meaning between what I wrote and what you claim I said?
I see the difference, but it’s not much of a difference. It’s clear that Saddam was engaged in a great deal of violence against his own people and Israel, even up to 2003.
You not only altered my claim, but since my argument was that the invasion was a mistake, and you were arguing against me, it’s only logical to assume that you were arguing that the invasion was justified.
I wasn’t addressing your claim that the invasion was a mistake. I was addressing your claims about Hussein, and I was pretty clear about that. So, it’s not logical to assume I think the invasion was justified based on my arguments here. You might as well argue that my disagreement with you indicates I think people should drink motor oil.

So, your claim that I said Saddam’s payments to families of suicide bombers justified invasion is not supported by facts or logic.
Do you deny that Saddam was ruthless against Islamic extremists in Iraq?
Saddam was ruthless against his opponents in Iraq, no matter what their religious views were. He had no trouble working with Islamic extremists if it suited his purpose.

It’s clear you will not admit you are wrong, will not admit you deliberately mischaracterized my points, and are just painting yourself into a corner.

I’m done here.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I doubt Saddam really made much of a difference involving Israel. The suicide bombers were motivated by something other than the money the Saudis and Saddam might give their families. The violence against his own people wasn’t much different than a large number of authoritarian regimes by 2003, he was just a petty dictator. Ironically, much of the violence was directed at Islamic extremists and groups like al qaeda.

Where do you think I’m wrong, Steverino? Again, I had two points:
1. The level of violence was nowhere close in 2003 to what it had been earlier, he was de-fanged tiger by 2003.
2. Saddam was ruthless against Islamic extremists, they were among his main enemies.

You seem to be agreeing with both. If anything the only spot where I was wrong is in thinking you were arguing that the invasion was justified (though I assume you think it was justified, don’t you?) I’ll trust your claim that that is not what you were arguing.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"This is fundamentally so important that it has to be raised above partisanship, and people have to be willing to question their own positions and really listen to other points of view."
You know, if Professor Erb had no history here, this lucid appeal might just fly. Let me offer a translation based on Professor Erb;s past performance here:

"Accept me as an impartial arbiter. Don’t I make sense? If I can get you to do that, then despite what you know about me from past performance, I will be able to ply my nefarious trade and get you into the LN."

Doubt that? Do you doubt that this statement is propaganda? Let’s parse it:
"This is fundamentally so important…"
How can one argue that? So, you mentally start off giving him a point. That is the art in the Professor’s siren song.
"…it has to be raised above partisanship…"
Well, it doesn’t have to be, but anyone who is not an idiot will agree that it would be much better for us all to do so. Gee, another point for the Professor.
"…people have to be willing to question their own positions…"
Isn’t this just common sense? Yes, if stated as a generality. However, when one has done one’s thinking on a specific issue and the facts have not changed, questioning one’s position is a lack of commitment and fortitude. If one is presented with new facts or new assertions, then is the time to question one’s position. Encountering artful propaganda is no such occasion. We have just turned the corner into the propaganda portion of the Professor’s presentation. No points for this portion and a subtraction of the first two points based on the discovery that they were simply setups for the third and fourth points:
"…and really listen to other points of view."
Fine, if stated as a general rule. When tacked onto the prior portions of the Professor’s presentation…
In other words; whose point of view is the Professor interested in having you agree should be listened to? Yours by him or his by you?

Any questions?
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
"You have countered neither of those points. If you think Saddam paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine somehow disproves either of those points, you need a lesson in logic.
One more example of the Professor attempting to impose his framing on a commenter, refusing to respond to the framing of the commenter and deriding that commenter for not responding to the Professor’s slam dunk setup re-framing.

Disgusting.

 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider