Support NeoGAF

[fart]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/29.html#a4230

I don't normally latch onto quotes like this, but I'm actually a little shocked after hearing this from someone who is generally regarded as being bright but a tad complicitous.

Excerpt shamelessly stolen from the SAF (video at the link)

In a PBS Newshour interview, Jim Lehrer and Condi Rice had this exchange.

quote:
Lehrer: "What about the additional element here that...increasingly, terrorist experts and Muslim experts are saying that the combination of Iraq and other foreign policy decisions by the United States are actually creating more terrorists everyday than they are eliminating?"

Rice: "When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists? The terrorists on September 11th, attacked the United States. We weren't in Iraq. We weren't even in Afghanistan...on September 11th. They've attacked in places that have no forces in either place. They've attacked all over the world. They've attacked in Morocco, and in Bali, and in Egypt, and in London, and in Madrid. When are we gonna stop making excuses for the terrorists and saying that somebody's making them do it? No, these are simply evil people who want to kill. And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle, to say that this is about some kind of grievance. This isn't about some kind of grievance, this is about an effort to destroy, rather than to build. And until everybody in the world calls it by name, the evil that it is, stops making excuses for them, then we're going to have a problem. And I hope that after the bombings of innocent people in London, innocent people in Sharm al-Sheikh, innocent children in Iraq, that people will call this by name and stop making excuses for these people. No one is making them do it. They're doing it because they want to create chaos and undermine our way of life."

I also find the false half smile/attempted smirk on her face quite disturbing.

I think there are a lot of things that need to be said about this, and I especially think that, as a constituency, we should not let our government put forward either quotes or concepts like this in an official and serious capacity (honestly I think one of Bush's most alarming traits is that his goofy ineptitude distracts from his overwhelming corruption). However, there is a lot that should be said about this.

And, on a lighter note...

Q: How many telemarketers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Wouldn't a more relevant question be "How many pounds of cocaine has Bush snorted?"

- - - -

A doctor, a lawyer, and an accountant all die and go to heaven on the same day. When they get to the Pearly Gates, they are greeted by St. Peter. St. Peter says, "Scott McClellan is a lying sack of shit and I'd tell him so myself if he weren't going straight to hell when he dies."

- - - -

cont. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2005/7/21alexander.html

 

[Freestyler]

Uh, did I miss something?

That first bit you quoted is exactly the kinda thing we need. It's totally true and I don't see the problem with it?

 

[refreshZ]

I essentially agree with her.

I believe no matter what the root cause or beliefs might have been once upon a time in a person's life the indoctrination and brainwashing that occurs which promotes them to become suicide bombers/terrorists moves them into the realm of 'evil'. No one and I mean NO ONE can watch what happened at Beslan and say that these Islamic fundamentalists were justifiably 'fighting for a cause'. No amount of oppression can justify the needless deliberate slaughter of children. And that's just one example.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I think her quote's fairly accurate, carefully noting the difference between Islamic religion and Islamic terrorists who follow a different doctrine altogether. Terrorists' actions shouldn't be legitimized. We need to understand why people become terrorists but we also can't make the mistake of sympathizing with mass murderers who are willing to end their lives, innocent lives, and scar their religion, all for a twisted cause.

 

[fart]

The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

I shouldn't be surprised at the response, but I am.

 

[DaMan121]

I think her quote's fairly accurate, carefully noting the difference between Islamic religion and Islamic terrorists who follow a different doctrine altogether. Terrorists' actions shouldn't be legitimized. We need to understand why people become terrorists but we also can't make the mistake of sympathizing with mass murderers who are willing to end their lives, innocent lives, and scar their religion, all for a twisted cause.

Yep. You cant ignore the fact that most of them are highly educated as well. Do we have to stop them? Sure, but simple minded slogans and thinking will not help.

 

[Chrono]

I essentially agree with her.

I believe no matter what the root cause or beliefs might have been once upon a time in a person's life the indoctrination and brainwashing that occurs which promotes them to become suicide bombers/terrorists moves them into the realm of 'evil'. No one and I mean NO ONE can watch what happened at Beslan and say that these Islamic fundamentalists were justifiably 'fighting for a cause'. No amount of oppression can justify the needless deliberate slaughter of children. And that's just one example.

Its funny how terrorist are viewed here as either completely evil or poor people who got carried away in fighting oppression or whatever. Some hardcore isalmist ARE like that 'evil' stereotype. Any oppression Muslims suffers is an excuse to spread their hate. They hate the western/non-muslim way of life and teach their kids (or brainwash, whatver). They're actually must more entrenched in muslim cultures than you think - even in 'westernized' countries the school textbooks read like a bin laden speech (the whole intolerance culture is insane over there - forget about fanatics and non-fanatics in that matter).

Other terrorist are normal people who grow up and DO feel sympathy for the Palestinians or Chechnya’s and because of that get drawn in by the extremist and end up doing what they do. Some might end up buying the 'islam for the world' idea and mix everything in one big 'us vs. them' holy war - much easier to hate that way. In that sense American policy does affect extremism. Why only America is blamed is mostly imo because of the first type of extremist I mentioned and how the fight for Palestinians gets mixed with western way of life corrupting islam and whatever you can throw in there. It also happens to be the biggest country in the world and the symbol for everything western. Also, by singling out the U.S. you create some allusion that your problem is very specific and not just ‘lets wipe the infidels off the planet.’

People who support terrorist are a whole different matter. In some cases it is black and white, with some being in one side completely. In most cases you can find every possible shade of grey.

I don't know what rice knows, but just because she made a stupid statement doesn't mean the exact opposite must be the 'truth.'

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Yep. You cant ignore the fact that most of them are highly educated as well. Do we have to stop them? Sure, but simple minded slogans and thinking will not help.

Out of curiosity, where does the fact that "most of them are highly educated" come from?

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Rice's lack of nuanced perspective is unfortunate, if not a surprise. The Bush administration is not interested in Al-Qaeda's ideological roots/grievances because they conflict with their vested financial interests.

 

[Zeo]

Rice's lack of nuanced perspective is unfortunate, if not a surprise. The Bush administration is not interested in Al-Qaeda's ideological roots/grievances because they conflict with their vested financial interests.

Well, I was waiting for this thread to turn stupid.

 

[refreshZ]

I shouldn't be surprised at the response, but I am.

I would not get so hung up on the word "evil". Evil is relative. I understand in my own Western-flavoured way what drives fundamentalism and creates the 'types' that Chrono describes. But thats a long, long way from being any kind of apologist. To me, the Islamic fundamentalist indescriminantly targets and kills entirely innocent civilians with a view to installing their idealogy upon us or at the very least highlight and attempt to change elements of our foreign policy. This is a stupid, wreckless, pointless and from our perspective an almost wholly 'evil' path to follow.

Do you agree that if we were to give in to the terrorists demands (say, withdraw from Iraq) then all we do is strengthen their position and give them free reign to dictate how we run our lives (simpy put, if they have a problem with any other policy in the future, they'll start blowing up buses, planes, trains knowing that we've set a precedent and there's a good chance we'll give in)? This is the path of true folly. And one we should avoid at all costs.

 

[Deku]

Rice makes a perfectly good point.

The apologizing for terroism has to stop. It's getting old, it's easy to do, and its intellectually lazy to just blame the west and close the book.

I'm not saying the west can be excused for the things it has done wrong, but apologizing for terrorists is pretty much the same propaganda rationalization the Japanese government used to sell its war to my grandparents.

#1 The west are imperialists enslaving Asians
#2 We as Asians must kick out the British and American oppressors and free the people of Asia
#3 The attack on Pearl Harbor and invasion of East Asia is an act Self-defense

Of course killing 'inferior Asians' is just collateral damage and the fact that not all Asians agree with the fact that the Japanese opressors will replace the Americans and the English is easily ignored.

Sound familiar? I thought so too. Replace Asia with Muslims and Pearl Harbor with 9-11 and you have the Apologist's Guide to Apologizing for Osama Bin Laden.

Al-Quaeda has killed thousands of Muslims in the name of their fight against the west. They wish to replace dictatorial regimes in their home country with equally if not more oppressive and destructive Islamic states like the Taleban. This is all the same territory Japan covered.

I wonder what lessons people really took out of World War II, because it seems like even the left is too busy sniping at Bush and wallowing in their own victimization complexes and indignance for oppression to see the big picture.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Killing of any sort, but especially attacks against civilians, requires an inherent dehumanization that makes me agree with Condaleeza Rice. I would not extend that kind of quote towards insurgents attacking the US military, or attacks on military targets in other places; however attacking civilians is as she described.

 

[MC Safety]

Rice makes a perfectly good point.

The apologizing for terroism has to stop. It's getting old, it's easy to do, and its intellectually lazy to just blame the west and close the book.

FYI Fart, if you'd actually thought about what Rice was saying, you shouldn't be surprised at the reaction you got. I think your knee jerk reaction to disagree with her got the best of you.

I agree.

And it probably wasn't what was said as much as who said it ....

 

[Ruzbeh]

I wonder what lessons people really took out of World War II, because it seems like even the left is too busy sniping at Bush and wallowing in their own victimization complexes and indignance for oppression to see the big picture.

Wtf? I agree with what you said except the last part. Bush is still wrong. And so are the terrorists. And so are a lot of lefties, I guess.

 

[cvxfreak]

I agree with Rice when she says that people need to stop justifying the terrorists' actions.

But are people really making excuses for them in the sense that it ends up being OK? No, I honestly don't think so and any famous people saying so have to be in the minority. I think what's going on here is that people realize, "hey the U.S. pissed these people off and now they're out to get their revenge and its a vicious cycle of revenge and so forth." Rice is clearly trying to get people to not see that her government has made mistakes by attacking her own accusers. And she does a good job.

So she gets no points in my book for the quote because I feel she's right on a superficial, generic level.

EDIT: I think I should elaborate my point. Rice is right, but there's way more at work here than simply people making excuses for one another. If anything, she's actually being a bit of a hypocrite because she's really making her own excuse for why her administration's being criticised, her excuse being that others make excuses for terrorists in a bid to derail attention from her administration's criticism. Circular logic, heh. It's quite subtle, but it's there.

So as I said earlier, she's right on a very flat, superficial level i.e. anyone can say it.

 

[Shinobi]

I agree with Rice when she says that people need to stop justifying the terrorists' actions.

But are people really making excuses for them in the sense that it ends up being OK? No, I honestly don't think so and any famous people saying so have to be in the minority. I think what's going on here is that people realize, "hey the U.S. pissed these people off and now they're out to get their revenge and its a vicious cycle of revenge and so forth." Rice is clearly trying to get people to not see that her government has made mistakes by attacking her own accusers. And she does a good job.

So she gets no points in my book for the quote because I feel she's right on a superficial, generic level.

EDIT: I think I should elaborate my point. Rice is right, but there's way more at work here than simply people making excuses for one another. If anything, she's actually being a bit of a hypocrite because she's really making her own excuse for why her administration's being criticised, her excuse being that others make excuses for terrorists in a bid to derail attention from her administration's criticism. Circular logic, heh. It's quite subtle, but it's there.

So as I said earlier, she's right on a very flat, superficial level i.e. anyone can say it.

Bang on.

 

[Azih]

We need to understand why people become terrorists

Which is of course exactly what Rice is actively discouraging.

Look finding out the reasons for how terrorists are created is critical and necessary. This is *not* the same thing as justifying them. But that is precisely what Rice and this administration are saying when they espouse their lousy comic book philosophy of world politics and state that any other view of what's happening is dangerous and should stop.

 

[xabre]

This isn't about some kind of grievance, this is about an effort to destroy, rather than to build. And until everybody in the world calls it by name, the evil that it is, stops making excuses for them, then we're going to have a problem.

This is a flat out stupid comment for two reasons -

1. A group of people, no matter how uncivilised you may consider them to be, don't just wake up one morning and decide to embark of a campaign of terrorist aggression against a particular society without a reason. Rice notes they didn't have troops in Afghanistan or Iraq at the time of 9/11...well no, but you sure had plenty of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, you've supported Israel for decades militarily and financially and you're responsible for the 'westernisation' of traditional Islamic countries. So saying there is no grounds, and that it has nothing to do with grievance is plain bullshit. It has everything to do with grievance.

2. Exploring the grievances of terrorist groups is in no way, not now and not ever, a justification for their actions, full stop. Exploring the root causes of terrorism is to actually stand up, show a bit of backbone and ask questions of oneself. What have we done wrong? How have we contributed to the current situation? What are the real root causes? Where does the animosity come from and why does it run so deep? The trouble people like Rice and her steeple in tow, is all they want to do is simplify the matter as much as possible. According to such people a thorough analysis of terrorism is to label them 'evil' and...well that's about all we're supposed to really do. And while it is perfectly correct is call terrorists morally bankrupt, how is the situation helped by repeating it ad nauseum? how is it beneficial to anyone? What has been done to remedy the situation? Sweet fuck all.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Rice: "When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists?

Nobody is making excuses though. They are giving reasons that THEY use to fuel their hate. If Joe Blow decided to drive at 150 mph to work because somebody held him up in line at walmart and he was late, but he hits another car and kills them on the way there, does that make it walmart's fault? Is that an excuse for him to do it? No. It's the reason he was going so fast, but nobody in their right mind will tell you it's an excuse.

The terrorists on September 11th, attacked the United States. We weren't in Iraq. We weren't even in Afghanistan...on September 11th. They've attacked in places that have no forces in either place. They've attacked all over the world. They've attacked in Morocco, and in Bali, and in Egypt, and in London, and in Madrid. When are we gonna stop making excuses for the terrorists and saying that somebody's making them do it?

NObody is saying we're MAKING them do it. Like I already pointed out, we are giving them reasons. We are not forcing their hand. I don't think there are many people out there that would tell you what the terrorists are doing is not sick and twisted, but you're stupid if you don't think america's actions influence what they do.

No, these are simply evil people who want to kill. And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle, to say that this is about some kind of grievance. This isn't about some kind of grievance, this is about an effort to destroy, rather than to build. And until everybody in the world calls it by name, the evil that it is, stops making excuses for them, then we're going to have a problem. And I hope that after the bombings of innocent people in London, innocent people in Sharm al-Sheikh, innocent children in Iraq, that people will call this by name and stop making excuses for these people. No one is making them do it. They're doing it because they want to create chaos and undermine our way of life."

This I more or less agree with, again, except for the making them do it part. The only problem is they think we are just as evil as we think they are. That puts us at a bit of an impass. Obviously I do think what they are doing is evil, but I feel it's more due to a twisted ideology than them being "evil people", per se. I also don't see how outright calling them all evil is going to make them hate you any less, or do anything to help this war. I hate polarizing statements such as this as it's almost never that simple.

 

[Shinobi]

This is a flat out stupid comment for two reasons -

1. A group of people, no matter how uncivilised you may consider them to be, don't just wake up one morning and decide to embark of a campaign of terrorist aggression against a particular society without a reason. Rice notes they didn't have troops in Afghanistan or Iraq at the time of 9/11...well no, but you sure had plenty of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, you've supported Israel for decades militarily and financially and you're responsible for the 'westernisation' of traditional Islamic countries. So saying there is no grounds, and that it has nothing to do with grievance is plain bullshit. It has everything to do with grievance.

2. Exploring the grievances of terrorist groups is in no way, not now and not ever, a justification for their actions, full stop. Exploring the root causes of terrorism is to actually stand up, show a bit of backbone and ask questions of oneself. What have we done wrong? How have we contributed to the current situation? What are the real root causes? Where does the animosity come from and why does it run so deep? The trouble people like Rice and her steeple in tow, is all they want to do is simplify the matter as much as possible. According to such people a through analysis of terrorism is to label them 'evil' and...well that's about all we're supposed to really do. And while it is perfectly correct is call terrorists morally bankrupt, how is the situation helped by repeating it ad nauseum? What has been done to remedy the situation? Sweet fuck all.

The response has been to bomb up any country they don't like, which is oh so different from the way of the extremists.

It's amusing to me how people like Rice are trying to make 9/11 the starting point of all of this, as if (A) terrorism was nothing but a rumour before that date, and (B) anything the US or other like-minded countries have done the previous 40 years has had NOTHING to do with this. It's a nice attempt on their part, and they'll fool the ignorant, the naive and the fucking stupid the more they keep repeating it. But you won't see me buying their bill of goods.

If people want the simplified summation of this mess, then here it is. ALL sides involved in this anarchy are fucked in the head. There are no white hats to be found ANYWHERE. And until ALL sides look at themselves in the fucking mirror and see that, and attempt to solve these issues in ways that don't involve bombs dentonated from bodies and Stealth fighters, this bullshit is going to continue until (A) the rest of eternity, or (B) at least one side is ENTIRELY wiped out.

 

[Instigator]

Condi is evil.

 

[xabre]

If people want the simplified summation of this mess, then here it is. ALL sides involved in this anarchy are fucked in the head. There are no white hats to be found ANYWHERE. And until ALL sides look at themselves in the fucking mirror and see that, and attempt to solve these issues in ways that don't involve bombs dentonated from bodies and Stealth fighters, this bullshit is going to continue until (A) the rest of eternity, or (B) at least one side is ENTIRELY wiped out.

Yep that's the way I look at things. Everyone is fucked.

So the Americans, or the British, or the French or a myriad of other 'noble western democratic governments' don't commit your Islamic-esque variety of terrorism against other countries, they've still got a long and proud history of supporting governments and groups that do; backing their little dictatorships and supporting their little coups. And the Islamic extremists are a bunch of fanatical nut jobs that only see violence against innocent people as an answer to their problems.

 

[Gruco]

My biggest problem is the sense of equivalence she's creating.

Q: Have our actions caused any terrorist activity?
A: No, because September 11 took place before Iraq!

It's still the absolutely flatly silly outlook that "terrorist" represent a single homogenous group that can be accurately described in one simple comment.

To paraphase Richard Clarke, there are the crazies who run around killing people, there are the people who think the crazies go too far but sympathize with their goals, and there are the people disguested with what the crazies do. We need to kill group 1, stop group 2 from becomming group 1, and stop group 3 from becomming group 2. Which is still a pretty watered down analysis, but Condi seems to think that recognizing this point is the same thing as creating excuses for terrorists. And I desperately hope this is just something that tests well on TV, rather than something anyone actually actively believes. But who the fuck can tell anymore.

 

[Guileless]

I found an interesting op-ed in The Observer by Nick Cohen about the people blaming Blair for the London bombings. And fart, why go through the trouble of creating a thread based on your outratge without giving us a rationale for why you disagree with the statements in the first place?

"I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them.

But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot...Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC.

Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comm...1525172,00.html
(Posted in earlier thread but more relevant to this discussion.)

 

[Lemurnator]

There was a very interesting show on on demand National Geographic about female suicide bombers, I think any of you who have that service should catch that show not just for the female suicide bomber aspect of it, but for how it describes the terrorist mentallity of the palistinian people by for one, asking the families of "martyrs" who are celebrated and given that name not for fighting for their religion but rather for killing Isralies. Posters of martyrs are littered through the streets in houses and on billboards. It does a good job of explaining why those people do what they do though.

Watch it.

 

[ToyMachine228]

Her words are a little wonky there, but essentially, she is sort of right. A lot of people just want to kill an American...And they're guaranteed a spot in heaven. That's what they've been told at least.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

My biggest problem is the sense of equivalence she's creating.

Q: Have our actions caused any terrorist activity?
A: No, because September 11 took place before Iraq!

It's still the absolutely flatly silly outlook that "terrorist" represent a single homogenous group that can be accurately described in one simple comment.

Just the sort of response I was going to make, so quoted for truth.


Q: Isn't scratching that poison ivy rash spreading it to places it wasn't before?
A: The rash was there before I started scratching, so my constant scratching clearly isn't an exacerbating factor.

 

[Incognito]

Condaleeza "I'm such a great story" Rice is not as smart as Bush would lead you to believe and should have been fired after the 9/11 tragedies.

 

[junkwaffle]

Lehrer: "What about the additional element here that...increasingly, terrorist experts and Muslim experts are saying that the combination of Iraq and other foreign policy decisions by the United States are actually creating more terrorists everyday than they are eliminating?"

Rice: "When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists? The terrorists on September 11th, attacked the United States. We weren't in Iraq. ...

Huh?

 

[HokieJoe]

This is a flat out stupid comment for two reasons -

1. A group of people, no matter how uncivilised you may consider them to be, don't just wake up one morning and decide to embark of a campaign of terrorist aggression against a particular society without a reason. Rice notes they didn't have troops in Afghanistan or Iraq at the time of 9/11...well no, but you sure had plenty of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, you've supported Israel for decades militarily and financially and you're responsible for the 'westernisation' of traditional Islamic countries. So saying there is no grounds, and that it has nothing to do with grievance is plain bullshit. It has everything to do with grievance.

2. Exploring the grievances of terrorist groups is in no way, not now and not ever, a justification for their actions, full stop. Exploring the root causes of terrorism is to actually stand up, show a bit of backbone and ask questions of oneself. What have we done wrong? How have we contributed to the current situation? What are the real root causes? Where does the animosity come from and why does it run so deep? The trouble people like Rice and her steeple in tow, is all they want to do is simplify the matter as much as possible. According to such people a thorough analysis of terrorism is to label them 'evil' and...well that's about all we're supposed to really do. And while it is perfectly correct is call terrorists morally bankrupt, how is the situation helped by repeating it ad nauseum? how is it beneficial to anyone? What has been done to remedy the situation? Sweet fuck all.

*Sigh*

Can we at least admit that even if, they have reasons, that they can still be fvcked up? Hitler, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, etc., had their reasons.
That doesn't make them any less evil or justified in their actions.

 

[Guileless]

Can we at least admit that even if, they have reasons, that they can still be fvcked up?

How long have you been around here? Anyone who disagrees with President Bush for any reason about anything is automatically presumed to be correct. This rule extends back to President Clinton, but only on foreign policy. And if you wonder aloud why someone like Milosevic should get the benefit of the doubt, all you'll get is some smug remarks about how naive you are and somebody will wander in with an "IAWTP" or "clap" reply to the most over-the-top anti-Bush rant and that's the end of it.

 

[Shinobi]

Heh, as it continues...

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

The question was about Iraq and it being a breeding ground for terroists. Rice going off on some "excuse" bs is just dodging the question. We weren't attacked by Saddam or anyone from Iraq.

She just didn't want to admit that the invasion has become fuel for terroism. America packing up and leaving Iraq isn't giving into the terrorist, its giving into what the American people want.

 

[Miburou]

When did studying the motives behind terrorism mean apologizing for them?

 

[Mandark]

It's really obvious why Condi Rice is wrong, here.

There are, generally speaking, root causes for terrorism/suicide bombing which can be studied, should be studied, and have been studied. If you are against people blowing themselves up in this manner, it behooves you to recognize the causes and try to prevent them.

And let me Willco up my main point here: FIGURING OUT WHAT MAKES SOMEONE A TERRORIST, AND WHAT POLICIES WILL CREATE FEWER TERRORISTS, IS NOT THE SAME AS MORALLY ACQUITTING A TERRORIST.


PS, on GAF's liberality. Yeah, GAF is very liberal, much more so than it was two years ago, and the "why does X hate freedom?" responses are annoying.

But as GAF's liberals have become more numerous and vocal, its conservatives have become big girls' blouses, spending more time whining that they're in the minority rather than trying to defend increasingly indefensible positions.

Compare the number of posters who complained about my "Put up or shut up" thread to the number who actually entered the thread and destroyed my apparently flimsy argument.

PPS That Observer piece is silly and easily spoofable:

I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Islamism and the Middle East. Externalizing enemies and waving a flag is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with neo-imperialism done in your name, the easy solution is to blame inherently evil foreigners.

But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, comes from enemies of the West - and naturally irrational ones to boot...realpolitik stops being an ideology intent on protecting military and economic interests abroad, abetting undemocratic client states, and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a worldwide fight for freedom, on par with WW2 and the Marshall Plan.

Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are a red-stater or a blue-stater, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that you've been paying for an amoral foreign policy, which, like European imperialism before it, horribly pisses off the natives. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows.

The point is not that my spoof makes a better argument than the original article. The point is that the original article not an actual policy argument. It's an assertion, followed by some voodoo mind-reading of the people who disagree with the author. There are tons of things written this way, and they all suck.

PPPS I think the most disingenuous part of Dr. Rice's statement is that 9/11 happened when we weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq. When she knows damn well that most of the assholes who did that were Saudi, and that yes, we were in Saudi Arabia at the time.

She's putting party loyalty ahead of having a rational, open discussion about terrorism, and that is not going to help solve our problems. It's a little bit scary, actually.

 

[whytemyke]

I think for her to dumb down the idea of 'terrorism' to something as simple as 'these people want us dead' is pretty sad, especially from somebody as proclaimed as she is in the scholastic corners of the country. To try to come out and outright say "They're just evil" is really doing a disservice to academia.

The fact of the matter is that terrorism is as much a paradigm as superpower politics are, and to discourage one from studying it and trying to understand it is pretty pathetic. You wouldn't tell someone that "American government is really just a bunch of evil people trying to civilly take power," so why would you try to dumb down terrorism to such a level?

 

[APF]

When did studying the motives behind terrorism mean apologizing for them?

When apologizing for terrorist actions became "studying the motives" behind them.

It's interesting; in free, liberal societies there is a clear difference between how we analyze domestic terrorism vs foreign/extra-national terrorist acts. For domestic terrorism, when we "study the motives" we do so in an almost academic way, if at all. The purpose of that study is to focus on the failures of society in "creating" the terrorist: neglectful parenting; media violence; inadequate gun control; secularism. We don't use it as a means to put-forward the terrorist's agenda. We don't say, "maybe we should reexamine our abortion policies;" or, "maybe the White Supremacist had a point about going back to Africa;" or, "maybe we should restructure society to give psychopaths a national platform from which to speak-and-act, so they don't indulge their insanity By Other Means." Or at least if one were to do so, they do it knowing full-well how much they would have to carefully tiptoe around the innocent dead, upon whose bodies they were advancing their political agenda.

[EDIT: all these responses, calling Rice out for supposedly having a simplistic understanding of international terrorism, are really IMO reiterating how services such as the one linked in the top post just add static to the political discourse by interjecting stupid gotcha moments that are inherently decontextualized from the entire dynamic of the interview/etc]

 

[fart]

dry heaving...

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

When apologizing for terrorist actions became "studying the motives" behind them.

When was this, though? I don't see people studying the situation and saying "Maybe we are infidels" or "Maybe Taliban rule is best", it's more like people looking at the facts and saying "Whatever we're doing doesn't seem to be working as intended"

 

[demon]

When apologizing for terrorist actions became "studying the motives" behind them.

What a crock of fuckin shit.

 

[APF]

When was this, though? I don't see people studying the situation and saying "Maybe we are infidels" or "Maybe Taliban rule is best", it's more like people looking at the facts and saying "Whatever we're doing doesn't seem to be working as intended"

That's the point; they're not saying, "we should live under a Taliban-like rule." What many folks are doing, however, is taking positions that they have long held, and using terrorist attacks as a means to say, "I told you so." My point is that one should be able to argue against policy w/o using terrorist attacks as leverage to do so.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

That's the point; they're not saying, "we should live under a Taliban-like rule." What many folks are doing, however, is taking positions that they have long held, and using terrorist attacks as a means to say, "I told you so." My point is that one should be able to argue against policy w/o using terrorist attacks as leverage to do so.

And they very often do. The problem is not the people that are arguing against policy though. The problem is in the practice of pushing agenda's and foreign policy that seems to take little to no heed of the psychological effects it has on the countires it invades.

Are we directly causing the terrorism against us, no. However our policy is easy to twist(and some would say doesn't even need to be twisted...although with that I would disagree) in such a way that we appear as evil. This idea of america as an overly military oppresor gets pushed onto impressionable young minds during their more formative years by those that already harbor hate against us. They see us in the streets, and hear about how overly terrible and ruthless we are. The children usually can't find the disconnect between what they see and hear, even if what they see is not particularly damning. They learn that america is an oppresor and hates islam. By ignoring any attempts to understand this problem, and looking at it in such a polar view as if the white house is saying "we are doing the right thing 100%. If you disagree, you support the terrorists", we do nothing to stop this breeding ground we're creating.

In a sense, I feel that by fighting modern terrorism the way in which we are, we are opening the door for a younger and larger generation of terrorists 10 or 20 years down the road.

And before anyone asks, no I don't think the problem lies entirely in the younger generations, and no I'm not about to offer a fix-all solution. What I can tell you, however, is that if we are going to win this war on terror or struggle against extremism or fight against radicalism or whatever this weeks branding of it is, it will NOT be through these binary views on what is at the route of it all.

 

[Shinobi]

You wouldn't tell someone that "American government is really just a bunch of evil people trying to civilly take power," so why would you try to dumb down terrorism to such a level?

Shoot, I've probably said that on more then a few occassions. And I'll be saying it even more now to counter Condi's speech, just out of spite!

That's the point; they're not saying, "we should live under a Taliban-like rule." What many folks are doing, however, is taking positions that they have long held, and using terrorist attacks as a means to say, "I told you so." My point is that one should be able to argue against policy w/o using terrorist attacks as leverage to do so.

Er, tell me why I shouldn't use something that I and anyone with a fucking clue predicted would occur three years ago to help make a point, when Bush, Cheany, Rummy and co. are using the same attacks to validate their own agendas? What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

There's a simple and frankly completely selfish reason why I didn't want Iraq to be invaded in the manner it was. I knew the volatility that would obviously be created would only lead to more attacks both there and abroad, with Iraq being used as a primary reason. This is something a grade schooler couldv'e figured out with a half hour and a few links via Google. Apparantely, far brighter people thought otherwise.

Now that it's all coming to pass (with far more to come), I choose not to say "I told you so", because frankly it's too obvious and sounds borderline snarky. But don't tell me I don't have the right to say it...it isn't my fault I was right.

 

[videogamer]

When apologizing for terrorist actions became "studying the motives" behind them.

It's interesting; in free, liberal societies there is a clear difference between how we analyze domestic terrorism vs foreign/extra-national terrorist acts. For domestic terrorism, when we "study the motives" we do so in an almost academic way, if at all. The purpose of that study is to focus on the failures of society in "creating" the terrorist: neglectful parenting; media violence; inadequate gun control; secularism. We don't use it as a means to put-forward the terrorist's agenda. We don't say, "maybe we should reexamine our abortion policies;" or, "maybe the White Supremacist had a point about going back to Africa;" or, "maybe we should restructure society to give psychopaths a national platform from which to speak-and-act, so they don't indulge their insanity By Other Means." Or at least if one were to do so, they do it knowing full-well how much they would have to carefully tiptoe around the innocent dead, upon whose bodies they were advancing their political agenda.

[EDIT: all these responses, calling Rice out for supposedly having a simplistic understanding of international terrorism, are really IMO reiterating how services such as the one linked in the top post just add static to the political discourse by interjecting stupid gotcha moments that are inherently decontextualized from the entire dynamic of the interview/etc]

What would the context of the interview add to the quote above?

 

[APF]

The problem is in the practice of pushing agenda's and foreign policy that seems to take little to no heed of the psychological effects it has on the countires it invades.

That's a meaningless phrase. How does the "psychological effects" on Iraqis translate into Pakistani suicide bombers? Very poorly. There is a whole scope of ideology and cause that do not equate to the simplistic formulations many people want to assert.

Are we directly causing the terrorism against us, no.

That's the point!

However our policy is easy to twist [...] This idea of america as an overly military oppresor gets pushed onto impressionable young minds during their more formative years by those that already harbor hate against us. They see us in the streets, and hear about how overly terrible and ruthless we are. The children usually can't find the disconnect between what they see and hear, even if what they see is not particularly damning. They learn that america is an oppresor and hates islam.

I agree; the above is closer to the "root causes" than anything else offered so far in this thread.

Now that it's all coming to pass (with far more to come), I choose not to say "I told you so", because frankly it's too obvious and sounds borderline snarky. But don't tell me I don't have the right to say it...it isn't my fault I was right.

I see. So you will also be sympathetic with people who say "I told you so" the next time a doctor is assassinated by a fundamentalist fucktard, because it's obvious he wouldn't have died if it weren't for our abortion policy?

What would the context of the interview add to the quote above?

The reason why she made that particular point at that particular point in time.

 

[goomba]

Does anyone actually think London would still have been bombed had they not strongly helped America with their "war on terrorism"?

Or Spain for that matter?.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

That's a meaningless phrase. How does the "psychological effects" on Iraqis translate into Pakistani suicide bombers? Very poorly. There is a whole scope of ideology and cause that do not equate to the simplistic formulations many people want to assert.

I mean the psychological effects (as in impressions left by our actions). They extend far beyond the borders of Iraq. Pakistani madrassas see what we do, and unfortunately preaching how we are the devil and are trying to kill islam becomes their lesson plan. The point I'm trying to make(and I think you already picked up on in my last paragraph of my previous post) is that our military action is aimed at cutting of terrorists at the head by taking out their leaders and stuff like that. The most lasting and effective way would be some sort of means of starving the routes of what it needs to keep growing. We may not kill of those alive as quickly in the process, but the route problem is then being adressed As far as the concerns of future generations and steps toward global stability, this should be goal #1.

 

[HokieJoe]

Does anyone actually think London would still have been bombed had they not strongly helped America with their "war on terrorism"?

Or Spain for that matter?.

Honestly, the geopolitical landscape is way to dynamic to be making such simple assertions IMO.

That said, I'm sure that it has done nothing to mitigate the liklihood of such a thing. However, they hit us on 9/11, what's to say that Britain wouldn't have been hit just the same, at some time in the future, for some nefarious reason that only a suicide bomber could justify?

The point is, if they're willing to hit the US in such a spectacular fashion, why is anyone else immune?

 

[videogamer]

The reason why she made that particular point at that particular point in time.

1. What part of the rest of the interview tells us why she said that at that time.
2. Is this something exclusive to the interview or is this information readily seen by casual watching of the Bush administration?
3. So, why do you think she said it?

However, they hit us on 9/11, what's to say that Britain wouldn't have been hit just the same, at some time in the future, for some nefarious reason that only a suicide bomber could justify?

Britain probably should have been attacked back then too, since the West is viewed as, well, bad... with the US as the head Satan.

The point is, if they're willing to hit the US in such a spectacular fashion, why is anyone else immune?

I don't think he's talking in immunity, but chances of having a terrorist attack. Being involved in Iraq helps. Relatively porous borders help. Negative image with terrorists help. Seriously, do you expect Vietnam or North Korea to be attacked by terrorists (Muslim fundamentalist kind) anytime soon?