All It Takes Is Some Broken Bones, Internal Bleeding, and an Abject Apology
Who says Iraqis don’t have true freedom of speech? They most certainly do — as long as they are willing to be beaten in custody, accept that their family members will be threatened with violent physical retribution, and — most important — publicly apologize for having committed such a “big ugly act” and beg forgiveness for having offended Dear Father Leader.
An Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush has publicly apologised and asked the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to forgive him, Iraqi officials said today.
Muntazer al-Zaidi said in a letter that his “big ugly act cannot be excused,” said Yasin Majeed, Maliki’s media adviser.
In a plea for clemency, Zaidi added: “I remember in the summer of 2005, I interviewed your excellency and you told me, ‘Come in, this is your house.’ And so I appeal to your fatherly feelings to forgive me.”
73 Responses to “All It Takes Is Some Broken Bones, Internal Bleeding, and an Abject Apology”
Got something to say?
Donate to CFLF
Blogroll
Pennsylvania Blogs
The Liberal Media
Blogging Liberally
Advertising
Comments From Left Field is a member of...
Memeorandum
Archives
- 2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2004: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2003: J F M A M J J A S O N D
Blog Stuff
You are leaping to hysterical conclusions.
al Zaidi is unlikely to have acted in a moment of emotion which was prompted by a Bush statement. al Zaidi is likely to have planned his actions a few minutes ahead of time.
al Zaidi’s brother is likely an America hater who understands the propaganda value of a lie. Why do you bestow legitimacy upon him?
We don’t know if al Zaidi has been injured at all.
We certainly don’t know if he has been tortured. He could be taking a hard and frightened look at the maximum 15 year sentence which can be assessed for his actions. Or, he could be being tortured. Either way, we do not know at this time.
If he is injured, the injuries could’ve been caused by exuberant security personnel who arrested him.
We can be confident of this: al Zaidi is not 1) in the Green Zone and 2) being tortured. At least that part of the linked article is contradictory.
al Zaidi is unlikely to have acted in a moment of emotion which was prompted by a Bush statement. al Zaidi is likely to have planned his actions a few minutes ahead of time.
What does that have to do with anything?
al Zaidi’s brother is likely an America hater who understands the propaganda value of a lie. Why do you bestow legitimacy upon him?
Because hating America, in Iraq, is a legitimate position.
We don’t know if al Zaidi has been injured at all.
No, we don’t know that for sure, but two of his brothers reported that he was, after they had spoken with him, and those reports should not be dismissed out of hand.
We certainly don’t know if he has been tortured. He could be taking a hard and frightened look at the maximum 15 year sentence which can be assessed for his actions. Or, he could be being tortured. Either way, we do not know at this time.
Yes, and that is why reports that he has been tortured have gotten people’s attention. If you have some kind of larger point here, by all means let us know what that point is.
If he is injured, the injuries could’ve been caused by exuberant security personnel who arrested him.
I know what exuberant means. I have never known it to result in a broken arm, broken ribs, and internal bleeding.
We can be confident of this: al Zaidi is not 1) in the Green Zone and 2) being tortured. At least that part of the linked article is contradictory.
Why is it contradictory?
Oh, so if you post a blog I don’t like, I’m free to drive to your house and beat the piss out of you with my shoes? Since when? I’m all for the First Amendment. Nothing lights my fire quite like an intelligent discussion about a controversial topic. However, when you start aiming and releasing projectiles, with the intent to do harm, you step far outside the cushion of the First amendment, and into felony assault.
Show me some concrete evidence of his mistreatment. Right now, all I have heard is heresay and speculation about his condition. And even so, if he is bleeding from the eyes, and dying on the cold floor of a jail cell, who’s to say how it happened? Jail is a rough place. Hell, I went to visit a cousin in jail once, and left with a bloody nose, can’t imagine what it’s like to actually be IN there.
As a personal favor, consider it my X-mas gift, tone it down some, would you? Always hearing complaints about the right-wing conspiracy nuts…..the left side is just as zealous. And when you go off on hysterical speculations like this, you make us all look crazy, fyi.
If he is injured, the injuries could’ve been caused by exuberant security personnel who arrested him.
I know what exuberant means. I have never known it to result in a broken arm, broken ribs, and internal bleeding.
Would you prefer “over-enthusiastic”? Are you quibbling about a descriptor? Or do you want examples? i.e
Chicago 1968
Police arrests at various times and places across the world including in the U.S.A. during the last 50 years.
We can be confident of this: al Zaidi is not 1) in the Green Zone and 2) being tortured. At least that part of the linked article is contradictory.
Why is it contradictory?
You are inferring it is highly likely al Zaidi has been tortured. Your linked Guardian article says:
My point: if he’s in the Green Zone, he’s under American control and is therefore not being tortured.
An interjection: I have doubts about the veracity of the various voices who claim American torture, and whom you have many times written about, and whom you suspect have told the truth. Many such voices are trained to lie. Our enemies are conducting a propaganda war. It is the only war they have an actual chance of winning. When they claim torture and mistreatment, that is somewhat equivalent to launching a missile against freedom and human rights, and in service of despotism and totalitarianism. The propaganda missile is the only missile they are capable of launching. The propaganda missile is effective, and you help along it’s effectiveness via credulously repeating thinly supported charges. We obviously hugely disagree in this area. I know your opinion, as I’ve read many of your posts on this subject.
Now, here’s my point:
Lets pretend I believed all that horse manure about Americans torturing prisoners were true. I still would not believe Americans would torture al Zaidi, b/c there is no intelligence value available from al Zaidi. He’s a bozo. He’s a laughable buffoon. He’s Al Sharpton back in the Tawana Brawley days. Even if Americans were torturing bastards, we would not torture him merely to procure an “apology”. Not our style. Even if we were horrible bastards, we wouldn’t be that type of bastards. And we’re not going to torture him in retribution.
Now, maybe the Iraqis are torturing him in order to obtain an “apology.” If I saw credible reporting about this, I would have little trouble believing it was highly likely to have occurred. But Americans are highly unlikely to be torturing him. If he’s in the Green Zone, as the Guardian link claims, he’s not being tortured. He was in the Green Zone when he was arrested. It could easily be the case that security roughed him up during and immediately after arrest, and he hasn’t left the Green Zone since the incident. We just haven’t had, to this point, credible reportage. His brothers are not credible.
You are leaping to hysterical conclusions.
That’s coming from gcotharn? LOL. Who the fuck invited him back here?
However, when you start aiming and releasing projectiles, with the intent to do harm, you step far outside the cushion of the First amendment, and into felony assault.
Oh yeah, uh huh. Sure. And tossing shoes is so much worse then illegally starting a war that kills at least 100,000 people.
God, you people are so fucking dumb. How do you even even with yourselves when you’re this goddamn fucking stupid?
tas, you increasingly favor ad hominem over reason. No one’s feelings are hurt by your flying limp noodles. No one is swayed. You are merely teaching persons who read your comments to not take you seriously. Tammy Bruce says the left’s infatuation with ad hominem and political correctness is causing the left to become dulled; is causing the left to lose it’s ability to argue sharply, coherently and convincingly. Use it or lose it. Perhaps you should end your self imposed celibacy.
As long as we’re handing out suggestions here, perhaps you should go fuck yourself, tharnbag. You aren’t wroth having an intelligent discussion with because you’re a fucking idiot.
tas, you’re kind of irony-challenged, huh?
As a personal favor, consider it my X-mas gift, tone it down some, would you?
Uh, the last time I checked, you did not own, run, or write for this blog, Alisha. You are free, as anyone else is, to comment on posts here, but don’t tell me or anyone else who writes here to “tone it down.” No one’s forcing you to come here, and no one’s keeping you from starting your own blog. And no one who does write here is going to “tone it down” for you.
You want irony challenged, fuckface? Try this shoe on for size: You’re defending a president whose actions killed hundreds of thousands against an attacker armed with a pair of shoes.
Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick. Don’t fuck with me, asshole.
Would you prefer “over-enthusiastic”? Are you quibbling about a descriptor? Or do you want examples? i.e
Chicago 1968
Police arrests at various times and places across the world including in the U.S.A. during the last 50 years.
And you’re using those as examples of how al-Zaidi maybe wasn’t beaten up?
My point: if he’s in the Green Zone, he’s under American control and is therefore not being tortured.
Surely you’re not suggesting that people are not tortured in U.S. custody? Have you heard of Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib? Bagram? Camp Cropper? (which is where al-Zaidi was reportedly taken after his arrest, btw). Do the names John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Jim Haynes, Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington, uh, Pres. Bush, ring a bell? Are you aware that Congress is considering appointing a special prosecutor to gather evidence for war crimes prosecutions?
Oh, wait. I just went back and read that further garbage you wrote about it’s all a lie that detainees in U.S. custody were tortured. All I can say is that a person would need to be willfully blind to make such a statement. Even Dick Cheney just boasted on air that he had authorized waterboarding — which is torture. And that’s by far not the full extent of the Bush torture program. Your jabber about prisoners being “trained to lie” is simply the most ignorant thing I’ve heard anyone say in a long time. We are long, long, long past the time when anyone could make such a claim and not be laughed out of town. Let me say it in the form of an understatement that could qualify as the biggest understatement in a decade: It’s not just prisoners saying the U.S. has tortured. It’s been documented in every way possible. There are literally thousands of pages of witness statements, expert testimony, government officials who have witnessed torture, investigative journalists who have researched, interviewed, confirmed, and established the reality of torture — as well as the fact it hasn’t worked, because it never has, in all of recorded history. Jane Mayer, Philippe Sands, Darius Rejali, David Rose in Vanity Fair, current issue, Seymour Hersh, Scott Horton, Jonathan Turley, reams of other legal scholars. I could go on and on. There just isn’t any reasonable doubt anymore. The Bush administration authorized and committed torture. You can continue to spin these ridiculous fictions about why the established reality is not true, but that only puts you on the same level as all the other apologists for torture throughout the centuries. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last.
And btw, al-Zaidi having no intelligence value means nothing. The vast majority of prisoners in U.S. custody who were tortured either had no intelligence value at all, or did not have the knowledge or connections that U.S. officials were convinced they had. Read the Vanity Fair article for more on this. And anyway, I wrote about it here. Furthermore, do you really think Americans involved in this darkness needed “intelligence value” to torture someone? Tell that to the families of Habibullah and Dilawar, two Afghans who were brutally, savagely tortured and beaten to death (yeah, meaning they died) at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. Neither man had any intelligence value. They were entirely innocent, unarmed civilians who were turned over to American authorities for money and murdered, for no reason but the amusement of their murderers. Both of them died in early December, 2002, within days of each other, and each died only days after they were taken into custody. And just in case you were wondering, this story was first broken by Tim Golden of the New York Times, based on a copy the Times obtained of the 2,000-page confidential file that was part of the U.S. Army’s investigation of the murders. Oh, and btw, not one of those killers saw the inside of a prison — other than the one where they tortured and murdered two innocent Afghans.
I didn’t mean to make this so long, but you seriously need to wake up from your Rip van Winkle.
Kathy,
Is it your contention the American high command sanctions torture of prisoners (such as al Zaidi) who are known to have little or no intelligence value?
Or, is it your contention that such torture (of prisoners such as al Zaidi who are known to have no intelligence value) is instead sanctioned/ordered by middle or lower command, and the reason is that American middle or lower command simply enjoys the brutality?
Or, is it your contention that such torture is carried out by rogue elements who are acting on their own authority and who simply enjoy the brutality?
tas,
You and I are not going to agree about anything having to do with Iraq.
However, what is this: “Don’t fuck with me, asshole” ? Precious. “Don’t fuck with me, asshole” … or what (?) will you do? The suspense is killing me.
Kathy,
I delineate between police type brutality and torture. Police brutality is certainly detestable. Torture is more insidious. Torture is a more serious allegation. If you had eliminated torture from your allegations, then I would not have characterized your allegations as hysterical assumptions made well before the facts are known.
However, what is this: “Don’t fuck with me, asshole” ? Precious. “Don’t fuck with me, asshole” … or what (?) will you do?
Or I’ll toss my shoe straight up your ass.
I delineate between police type brutality and torture.
So do I, but reports are that al-Zaidi received both. You dismissed al-Zaidi’s reported injuries as possibly just the result of “exuberant personnel” who injured him while he was being arrested. I am saying that it would be unusual, to say the least, if even an “exuberant” arrest resulted in such injuries.
Is it your contention the American high command sanctions torture of prisoners (such as al Zaidi) who are known to have little or no intelligence value?
Or, is it your contention that such torture (of prisoners such as al Zaidi who are known to have no intelligence value) is instead sanctioned/ordered by middle or lower command, and the reason is that American middle or lower command simply enjoys the brutality?
Or, is it your contention that such torture is carried out by rogue elements who are acting on their own authority and who simply enjoy the brutality?
These questions miss the point and reveal a stunning level of ignorance about an issue on which a massive body of evidence has existed for years (most notably, from the high-ranking government officials involved in it, themselves) and indeed continues to grow.
Yes, there has been plenty of brutality motivated by sadistic enjoyment rather than any intention to gain actionable intelligence (i.e., the Bagram atrocities), and yes, many if not most of the human rights abuses in general have been carried out by relatively low-level personnel.
However, these abuses have been taking place in a much larger context. That context is the intentional design, by the most senior officials in the Bush administration, of an interrogation program in which techniques defined by numerous domestic and international protocols as torture or cruel, inhuman, humiliating, and degrading treatment were authorized for use on detainees in U.S. custody. Worse, these techniques were approved — and the concept itself of physically and psychologically coercive interrogations (aka torture) was embraced — without even the most cursory research or investigation into their effectiveness. Nobody asked the simple question: Does torture work? Does it result in usable, actionable information? As a result, huge amounts of time have been spent tracking down false leads gained through torture, then going back and torturing the prisoners who “lied” some more to get “the truth.” Which most of these detainees did not have, because they were not who their tormentors thought they were in the first place (not just in the sense of mistaken identity; also in the sense that the C.I.A. routinely arrested people whose ties to specific terrorist plans or terrorist leaders or organization were extremely tenuous or tangential. These people simply did not have the information their interrogators were convinced they had). It’s not that Americans tortured detainees knowing they had little or no intelligence value. It’s much worse than that. Americans were torturing people they *thought* were involved at high levels who in most cases either were the equivalent of the janitor who mops the floors or the receptionist who greets visitors at the front desk, or who were not involved in terrorism at all (i.e., Maher Arar).
And, making everything still worse, the actual interrogations were carried out by people who had little or no training in how to conduct interrogations. And the Bush officials who created “lists of authorized techniques” and the lawyers who twisted and perverted existing law on torture (or what they call “robust” or “coercive” or “tough and safe and legal and necessary” interrogation techniques) did not provide any guidance to these much lower-ranking personnel on how to implement them. Meaning: Although any intentional infliction of extreme pain and suffering, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, on prisoners is prohibited in both U.S. and international law, the harmful effects of specific tortures can be greatly increased if they are used in combination, and/or for lengthy periods of time. I’m not going to go into details about this — there is tons of information on this on the Internet and elsewhere, and I’ve already given you more basic instruction on this issue than it should be necessary to give an adult person after almost eight years of the Bush 43 presidency.
None of the above is “my contention,” gcotharn. It’s what happened, and as I’ve said ad infinitum, there is an embarrassingly large body of evidence — much of it from government documents, directly) to back that up.
tas,
Then the entire cycle will repeat. I’m quite certain my security personnel will react with enthusiasm, your brother will report to the world that you are injured while in my custody, you will face legal difficulties, you will issue an apology for your action, Kathy will blog you’ve been tortured into apologizing to me, Alisha will comment that Kathy is making a hysterical assumption, then tas jr. will tell Alisha “God, you people are so fucking dumb. How do you even even with yourselves when you’re this goddamn fucking stupid? Go fuck yourself, Lishbag. You are a fucking idiot”. The rest of us will be left to wonder “What does ‘even even’ mean?” Alisha will point out that you are irony challenged, and you will be so incensed that you will issue a “Don’t fuck with me, asshole” proclamation, while holding a menacing shoe in your hand.
And matttbastard’s future progeny will once again offer the following (unsolicited) advice to those who should, by now, know better:
DNFTT.
If this were solely my blog, I’d cut out the flaming and just place all further comments from gcotharn under threat of deletion.
I would second that (obviosuly, since I’ve already banned GC from my posts
)
Kathy,
I appreciate your views re torture. I appreciate your humane concerns for those who are incarcerated and vulnerable.
My point about al Zaidi is that we do not have credible reporting about him at this time. At the time you wrote the headline and text of this post, we had conflicting reports which amounted to little more than rumor and gossip. We also had his brother(s), whom we ought not have imbued with much credibility.
Best I can figure, you speculate that either:
1) Iraqis tortured al Zaidi into apologizing, or
2) An American command atmosphere which condoned torture resulted in mid or lower level American personnel torturing al Zaidi into confessing.
In this specific instance – especially in this instance, due to al Zaidi’s notoriety – #2 is not credible. It supposes an out of control Green Zone atmosphere to such extent that a high profile prisoner would be dropped out of sight and tortured into confessing. Highly, highly unlikely. Unlikely enough that enthusiastically promoting it’s likelihood amounts to hysteria.
I know people who currently work in the Green Zone, and I know other people who have worked in the Green Zone. I’ve heard personal descriptions: the Green Zone is a highly professional atmosphere. It has to be. Everyone’s life is on the line. Lack of professionalism will get people killed. The Green Zone is not Animal House.
I do understand and acknowledge your opinion that al Zaidi might easily have been dropped out of sight and tortured inside a command atmosphere which emanates from Cheney’s office and which implicitly encourages torture. We simply disagree – and we especially disagree in the instance of the high profile al Zaidi’s possibly being held and tortured in the high profile and professional atmosphere inside the Green Zone.
We will not resolve these disagreements. We simply must respectfully acknowledge each others opinions.
mattbastard,
You are an intellectual coward. You not only announced you would delete my future comments – which was fine and fair enough, as it’s your blog – but you then retroactively deleted a comment I had previously posted. This was not fine. This was cowardice, pure and simple. It’s obvious you did this so as to obscure your own lack of logic in that blogpost. You were unwilling to stand exposed in front of your friends as a fallible human. You were unwilling to allow your shallow logic to be exposed. I let it go at the time. But, since you’ve come back here to falsely claim some laughable mantle of virtue, it’s appropriate to plainly point to your cowardice and deceptiveness.
tas,
re “flaming”
When I have commented on this blog, I’ve been almost heroically polite in the face of semi-constant adolescent sniping. I absolutely reject your accusation.
I’ve learned that many of you guys cannot even lightly defend or justify what you write in your blogposts. I’ve learned many of you guys don’t want to discuss all aspects of your ideas. And thats fine and proper – it’s your blog. I’ve no quibble with your desires. I don’t comment on your blogposts anymore.
And I barely comment on Kathy’s posts anymore, though I’ve jumped back into these couple of recent posts. And I’ve enjoyed the give and take with Kathy. She has guts. More guts than you guys. She shames you in that department.
And you guys can’t resist jumping in with the adolescent sniping. And why? Are you looking for attention? Do you think you are clever and witty? Fuck you and shove it up your ass, et al et al, you are so dumb I don’t know how you make it through life – you consider this clever and witty? Do you consider this brave, or somehow virtuous and courageous? And then you, tas, come with this “flamer” accusation. Take a good, long look at what happens on this blog, then ask yourself: Who’s flaming who?
rolling eyes
You’re head’s barely above water here, tharnbag. The reason why nobody likes you is because you reject all empirical evidence thrown at you, thus framing arguments in terms of your own biases. And you do it all the time. Even in this thread, as Kathy as painstakingly pointed to the mountains of objective evidence she’s commenting about, you ignore all of it.
Then you whine when people don’t like you.
It’s unintelligent biased morons like you who ruin comment threads for a whole blog. Who the fuck would want to have a discussion here when jackoffs like you kill all discussion with your hairsplitting arguments which only reveal your ignorance of reality?
I thought I made it a thousand times clear the last time you were around that you’re not welcome back. I can’t speak for Kathy, but it has reached the point where, like mattt’s posts, your comments will be deleted from my posts, too.
I highly suggest that you gain some critical fucking thinking skills before pushing the rest of us. Or just don’t come back — I’d be much happier with the latter.
Well, there goes one tharnbag comment into the bitbucket. Sorry Kathy, I know it’s your post and not mine but the comment was directed to me, if that’s any consolation.
And matttbastard’s future progeny will once again offer the following (unsolicited) advice to those who should, by now, know better:
DNFTT.
Gcotharn is not a troll. He is a well-meaning guy who happens to be very badly informed and infected with far right ideology.
A troll is like the guy (AJ, I think?) who called me a piece of crap, or the ones who basically just curse you out and mouth off and scream at you without making any actual arguments at all. Gcotharn’s arguments are shallow, ideologically influenced, and uninformed, but he does attempt to argue points — he’s just very bad at it.
If this were solely my blog, I’d cut out the flaming and just place all further comments from gcotharn under threat of deletion.
Hey, you guys, look at it this way: He’s giving me a chance to work off my anger at what my government has been doing in my name (and with my money). That’s gotta be worth something.
Well, there goes one tharnbag comment into the bitbucket. Sorry Kathy, I know it’s your post and not mine but the comment was directed to me, if that’s any consolation.
Oh, just saw this after posting the last. That’s fine, tas. You have every right to delete a comment directed to you, if it offends you. No worries.
mattbastard,
You are an intellectual coward. You not only announced you would delete my future comments – which was fine and fair enough, as it’s your blog – but you then retroactively deleted a comment I had previously posted. This was not fine. This was cowardice, pure and simple. It’s obvious you did this so as to obscure your own lack of logic in that blogpost. You were unwilling to stand exposed in front of your friends as a fallible human. You were unwilling to allow your shallow logic to be exposed. I let it go at the time. But, since you’ve come back here to falsely claim some laughable mantle of virtue, it’s appropriate to plainly point to your cowardice and deceptiveness.
Shorter gcotharn: “My butt still hurts.”
Last tidbit, helpfully served up by the clean-cut God-fearing boys from Motley Crue.
(Please, make sure to try the cheese before you make your departure. Nicely compliments teh whine.)
Thank you, Kathy. That is a fair way to criticize me. It maintains focus on the issues.
tas, You criticize and then delete my response to the criticism? This is also cowardly. And small. Really small.
MB: WHY do you imagine your weak insults ever mattered to me? I left you to your own life until you chased me here and laughably laid claim to some imagined high ground.
Best I can figure, you speculate that either:
1) Iraqis tortured al Zaidi into apologizing, or
2) An American command atmosphere which condoned torture resulted in mid or lower level American personnel torturing al Zaidi into confessing.
In this specific instance – especially in this instance, due to al Zaidi’s notoriety – #2 is not credible. It supposes an out of control Green Zone atmosphere to such extent that a high profile prisoner would be dropped out of sight and tortured into confessing. Highly, highly unlikely. Unlikely enough that enthusiastically promoting it’s likelihood amounts to hysteria.
This, of course, assumes that everyone in the Green Zone — or every member of the U.S. military in Iraq in general — understands their own self-interest. And that is glaringly, obviously, not the case. If it were the case, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib could not have happened; Blackwater contractors would never have been allowed to act like Jesse James in the Wild, Wild West; no Iraqis would ever have been abused or mistreated in U.S. custody (aside from Abu Ghraib; there are other detention centers). If Americans in Iraq understood their own self-interest, that monstrous huge U.S. embassy would not have been built while at least 25% of Iraqis are unemployed and a much higher percentage than that lack potable drinking water, or adequate medical care, or even homes. In fact, if Americans in Iraq understood their own self-interest, the Green Zone would not exist. It’s a blatant living metaphor for the U.S. occupation, and Iraqis rightfully resent it terribly.
This is not to say that there are no decent, honorable American military personnel in the Green Zone and Iraq in general who DO understood the connection between their behavior and their own safety — but it’s by no means true that all do.
We also had his brother(s), whom we ought not have imbued with much credibility.
Why is that?
The reason why nobody likes you is because you reject all empirical evidence thrown at you, thus framing arguments in terms of your own biases. And you do it all the time.
Tas wrote this, and he has a point. I don’t dislike you, but I do want to emphasize the part of the above from “… you reject all empirical evidence…” on. He is right. You do cling to your biases in the face of mountains of empirical evidence, a lot.
Kathy: It’s not a factor of offense, he’s just fucking stupid. Tharnbag can call me a coward all he wants — trolls have this sense of entitlement to my time, like I’m supposed to argue with them otherwise I’m a “coward” or yadda yadda — but as far as having morons like this fester in comments go, I believe a cancer analogy is appropriate. Trolls have a negative effect on the blog itself, changing the tenor of comments to drive away comments who might actually have something to say. So personally, I’m all for deleting all of his comments.
Taking your last first:
1. Empirical evidence.
I don’t ignore the evidence. I either believe the evidence is thin, or I believe (based on info gleaned from other sources) the “evidence” is simply lies. I have to let some of your assertions about evidence go by, b/c presenting counter evidence would simply take too long and take up too much space.
The right and the left should be able to agree about facts and circumstances which underlie issues – yet frequently do not. The right has their underlying “facts”, and the left has their underlying “facts”, and the two fact sets are very different from each other. It’s a terrible thing which could rend our nation into pieces. I worry about this a lot. As an example: if you and I agreed on the facts which underlie various contentious issues, we would pretty often agree on the proper remedies. Often you are offering a remedy for your set of facts/circumstances, and I am offering a remedy for my set of facts/circumstances, and we are not even really conversing about the same thing.
2. Believing al Zaidi’s brothers
al Zaidi hates America in Iraq. al Zaidi performed a stunt for propaganda purposes. Aren’t his brothers likely to feel the same way, and to tell lies in service of their agenda? Absent credible corraboration, it’s grain of salt time re his brothers. Look, there’s a strong chance al Zaidi does have a broken arm and broken ribs, or whatever it is. But I’m willing to wait for credible reports on this. And I think it’s irresponsible to logically leap from possible injuries – which possibly came from agitated security personnel – and to then jump out and enthusiastically allege al Zaidi was tortured into apologizing. My opinion, anyway. It’s too soon, and there are still too many unknowns, to make such allegation.
3. Iraq
I’ve fastidiously avoided discussing Iraq with you, b/c we will agree on very little, and there is little point in us going into it. This is an area where you have done extensive reading/research, and I have done extensive reading/research, and it is as if we are researching happenings on two different planets, b/c our two sets of “facts” do not match up.
I will certainly grant you that some American personnel consciously and consistently refuse to follow procedures and orders, and some American personnel are sadistic and ought not be wearing our uniform. I assert the military and the Executive and all reasonable civilians knew this would be the case before we invaded Iraq. Such is, to some extent, unavoidable.
One more point about Green Zone torture:
you don’t conduct torture in a vacuum. Torture requires more than one person. Other people know it’s happening – and others would especially know it’s happening in the Green Zone. For one thing, you would have to take a healthy prisoner from his cell, then return an injured prisoner. I know a bunch of military guys. Some of them would have no problem with breaking ribs to get crucial info, some of them would have a big problem with that. All of them would have a big problem with breaking ribs to obtain a horse manure confession. That’s not the way Americans normally operate. It’s antithetical to our mores. If black interrogators broke al Zaidis ribs to obtain a horse manure confession, there would be guards and other personnel around who would rat them out. There just would be. Normal soldiers believe they are fighting for a noble cause. They will not idly stand by and watch ignoble travesties occur.
Studies show there is a psychological group think thing that happens in isolated torture or abuse situations. Abu Ghraib and U.S. Penetentiaries are instances of such isolated torture/abuse group think occurring. However, 1) the Green Zone is NOT an isolated area where group think like this would occur, and 2) even at Abu Ghraib, it was an ordinary American soldier who blew the whistle. He would not stand by and quietly watch ignoble actions occur.
Anyway, I’m pretty confident you disagree, but, based on all my reading, and my talking with military friends, and my life experience, this is how I see it.
Kathy: It’s not a factor of offense, he’s just fucking stupid
I prefer to think he’s ignorant, because ignorance can be corrected. If he’s stupid, there’s no hope.
I’m on the other side — I pretty much think he’s done. No hope.
Torture requires more than one person. Other people know it’s happening – and others would especially know it’s happening in the Green Zone.
1. Camp Cropper is not in the Green Zone.
2. Another BBC article just reported today that the judge hearing al-Zaidi’s case said that al-Zaidi’s physical appearance suggested he had been beaten.
3. I think you are putting too fine a point on al-Zaidi in particular, to the exclusion of the torture issue in general. No one’s saying with certitude that al-Zaidi was tortured — only that there were reports of such — AND of being beaten up — and that such reports have some credibility because both Iraqi and American authorities have beaten and abused prisoners in the larger context of the so-called “war against terror.” Continuing to go on about this one person and only this one person, and trying to “prove” that this one person was not beaten or tortured, is your way of avoiding the larger issue, but I’m not going to let you get away with it any longer.
All of them would have a big problem with breaking ribs to obtain a horse manure confession.
And with that statement you just ignored everything I wrote on this subject in my long comments which I actually spent time researching, thinking out, and writing. It’s as if I never wrote it.
If black interrogators broke al Zaidis ribs to obtain a horse manure confession, there would be guards and other personnel around who would rat them out.
Black interrogators? Excuse me? Black interrogators???
And I guess that “rat them out” ethic explains why Joseph Darby had to be spirited out of Iraq on almost no notice to protect him from being murdered. You are so incredibly simple-minded in your blind hero worship — not even naive, it’s worse than that — that it beggars belief.
al Zaidi hates America in Iraq.
So do the vast majority of Iraqis. As you would know if you’d been awake for the past five years or even if you had turned on your tv set or read a newspaper in the past three days. Or maybe you just closed your eyes and stopped up your ears when you came to the parts you didn’t like. Al-Zaidi is different from most Iraqis in that he had the opportunity to confront Bush face to face, in person. But among 25 million Iraqis, I assure you there were plenty who wished they could have done it, too.
Studies show there is a psychological group think thing that happens in isolated torture or abuse situations. Abu Ghraib and U.S. Penetentiaries are instances of such isolated torture/abuse group think occurring. However, 1) the Green Zone is NOT an isolated area where group think like this would occur, and 2) even at Abu Ghraib, it was an ordinary American soldier who blew the whistle. He would not stand by and quietly watch ignoble actions occur.
LOL! I hadn’t even seen this line of yours about Joseph Darby when I wrote what I wrote above.
And there was group think, but it was throughout the entire Bush administration on this issue. Anyone who was not inclined to share in that group think didn’t last long in their jobs.
I will certainly grant you that some American personnel consciously and consistently refuse to follow procedures and orders, and some American personnel are sadistic and ought not be wearing our uniform. I assert the military and the Executive and all reasonable civilians knew this would be the case before we invaded Iraq. Such is, to some extent, unavoidable.
Ah, the trusty “just a few bad apples” meme. Again, it’s just not true. “American personnel” were not refusing to follow procedures and orders. Brutal interrogation tactics that are, in fact, and always have been, defined as torture in both U.S. and international law, WERE procedure and orders. The only American personnel who refused to follow that procedure and those orders were the relatively few who refused to do interrogations that way, and/or who decided to speak out and/or resign. Torture was planned, formalized, and approved at the very highest levels of the Bush administration: meaning, Bush himself, Dick Cheney, and David Addington, as the three most culpable. And after them, Jim Haynes, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, and Jay Bybee. The memos and other documentary evidence speaks for itself, gcotharn. Deny it all you want, and I know you will, but you are wrong. Just as wrong as if you were to insist to me that the earth is flat. It’s just not arguable.
al Zaidi performed a stunt for propaganda purposes.
No, he was not. Al-Zaidi was acting, as far as I could see, out of overwhelming emotions of rage and hatred. Those are not pretty emotions, obviously. But when you’ve seen and experienced what al-Zaidi and millions of other Iraqis have seen and experienced, it’s understandable. And given al-Zaidi’s specific words when he threw the shoes, it’s also fairly clear that he saw Pres. Bush’s coming back to Iraq a month before he leaves office, and standing there boasting about how free Iraq is, as an insufferable attempt to rub Iraqis’ suffering in their faces. I can see how unbearable that would feel, if I were Iraqi, Of course, if you don’t, can’t, or won’t acknowledge the harm done to Iraqis by the U.S. invasion and occupation, then of course you would consider it propaganda. But by the same token, Iraqis who hear Pres. Bush say that he has liberated 50 million people probably would call that propaganda.
I’m on the other side — I pretty much think he’s done. No hope.
LOL, Tas. You may be right. You probably are. Maybe it’s just me, just the fact I’m so stubborn.
I’m not trying to prove al Zaidi was not tortured. We kind of got sidetracked. My point was that you jumped the gun – credible reports were not yet out. As an example of dearth of credible reportage, I pointed to your assumption of torture, yet the Guardian reported al Zaidi was in the Green Zone, which meant he was under American control, and which – to me – means he was/is not being tortured – as Americans in the Green Zone are not going to torture a high profile prisoner in order to procure an apology. And away we went. I respect your feelings about torture. I never intended this thread to be about torture and Iraq. I never desired to discuss that. My point was you were making assumptions before credible reporting had been seen.
If your claim about al Zaidi acting out of overwhelming rage and hatred is correct, then my point about his brothers remains valid: they are good candidates to feel the same way as al Zaid; they are good candidates to lie in service of their cause. I would bet al Zaidi was detestably beaten while in custody, and I would bet al Zaidi does have broken bones. But I’m not conferring credibility upon his brother’s claims. I will wait for more credible sources.
If your claim about al Zaidi acting out of overwhelming rage and hatred is correct, then my point about his brothers remains valid: they are good candidates to feel the same way as al Zaid; they are good candidates to lie in service of their cause.
Okay, then in fairness the rage and hatred that Americans feel toward the 9/11 terrorists and everyone who supported them or whom Americans think supported them makes them good candidates to lie in service of their “cause.” And also in fairness, but on the other end of the emotion spectrum, the devotion that American personnel in the Green Zone feel toward the U.S. military and the perceived nobility of their cause makes them good candidates to lie for their cause.
Israelis who feel rage and hatred toward Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism or supported them makes them good candidates to lie for their cause. And as well, the rage and hatred Palestinians feel for the Israeli occupation, which for 40 years has caused them unremitting suffering, makes them good candidates to lie for their cause. Emigres from the former Soviet Union who feel rage and hatred toward the government that persecuted them are good candidates to lie for their cause.
And on and on.
First:
All those people you mentioned in those examples are good candidates to lie in service of their cause. All human beings lie. I’m skeptical of everyone’s claims. I’m especially skeptical of everyone’s claims when credible investigative reporting has been light to nonexistent, as it has been in the case of al Zaidi’s brothers, and in the case of al Zaidi’s injuries and treatment.
Second:
There hasn’t been enough reporting on “al Zaidi’s brothers” to distinguish them from excitable yokels who make up stories, or even to distinguish them from imposters. Why would I invest potential hysterical yokels or brazen imposters with any credibility? As more reporting comes in, I will potentially invest the brothers with more credibility.
Third:
Are you probing to see if I believe Arabs/Persians tell lies more often than Westerners? Are you interested in asserting that such opinion has no basis in reason and fact, and thus equates to unreasonable prejudice, if not actual racism?
Are you probing to see if I believe Arabs/Persians tell lies more often than Westerners?
LOL, no. I’m probing to see if you believe that anti-American feeling among Iraqis is irrational and unjustified, therefore making the integrity of any Iraqi who expresses anger toward the U.S. suspect by definition. Because that’s what you appear to be suggesting, and I find it odd, because, objectively, there is nothing irrational or unjustified about the anger Iraqis feel toward the U.S. at all. It would be much more odd if Iraqis felt any other way. So I don’t understand why it is that you doubt the veracity of an Iraqi based on the fact that he hates George W. Bush or the United States in general.
I prefer to say I’m withholding judgment about the veracity of the al Zaidis!
If you want to further express your opinions about Iraq, I will read them. Just as with torture, I don’t want to squabble with you about Iraq. We have things we agree about vis a vis Iraq, yet we will not be able to agree about everything. At the very most basic level: we disagree about what constitutes the threat the U.S. is facing. This means all other discussion about Iraq is useless.
Because I trust you to keep in mind that you and I disagree about the threat we face, and that therefore our discussing Iraq is useless(b/c we are discussing remedies to two different problems), therefore I will go ahead and answer your queries. This is just me explaining my thinking to you. I’m not trying to persuade you. This is mere exposition:
I’m probing to see if you believe that anti-American feeling among Iraqis is irrational and unjustified
“Unjustified”? Yes. “Irrational” is not the way I would say it.
therefore making the integrity of any Iraqi who expresses anger toward the U.S. suspect by definition.
“Integrity” is also not the way I would say it. It is reasonable for Iraqis to be angry at mistaken and wrongful U.S. actions. However, if an Iraqi says “I hate the U.S.”, then I am suspicious the Iraqi also hates democracy, human rights, and the current Iraqi government. I am extra cautious about the veracity of that Iraqi’s statements and actions.
objectively, there is nothing irrational or unjustified about the anger Iraqis feel toward the U.S. at all.
Agreed, in the case of U.S. mistaken and wrongful actions. Disagree in the instance of saying “I hate the U.S.”
I don’t understand why it is that you doubt the veracity of an Iraqi based on the fact that he hates George W. Bush or the United States in general.
I prefer to say I am extra cautious. That Iraqi’s statements might be true, but I am extra cautious. I am concerned that Iraqi has an agenda which – if successfully implemented – would worsen things for Iraq, the U.S., and the world.
It is reasonable for Iraqis to be angry at mistaken and wrongful U.S. actions.
Whose definition of “mistaken and wrongful U.S. actions” is legitimate in your view? Yours, or Iraqis’?
However, if an Iraqi says “I hate the U.S.”, then I am suspicious the Iraqi also hates democracy, human rights, and the current Iraqi government.
That’s because you believe the U.S. invasion of Iraq has brought democracy and human rights to Iraq. And because you believe the current Iraqi government is the correct one for Iraq to have (which kind of flies in the face of the democracy concept, but hey—).
But what if Iraqis hate the U.S. because American actions, in their view, have been the exact opposite of democratic or respectful of human rights? The U.S., in most parts of the world today, is regarded more as a violator of human rights than as an upholder of human rights. You say they’re wrong. But it’s not your opinion that matters.
What if most Iraqis hate the al-Maliki government because they view it as a puppet of the U.S. government and don’t feel it has any legitimacy? Maybe Iraqis want a government that is responsive to their needs and wishes (which is what a democracy is, in part) and don’t feel they have that, and feel that the U.S. is the reason they don’t have that? What if they hate Americans because Americans insist on telling them what they feel, or should feel, and it’s not what they actually feel?
Just as with torture, I don’t want to squabble with you about Iraq. We have things we agree about vis a vis Iraq, yet we will not be able to agree about everything. At the very most basic level: we disagree about what constitutes the threat the U.S. is facing. This means all other discussion about Iraq is useless.
Yes, but keep in mind that I didn’t initiate this discussion. Keep in mind, further, that I have never initiated any discussion with you. I recognize that that’s the nature of the poster/commenter relationship, but that said, it’s not me who needs to be reminded that we agree on virtually nothing regarding Iraq or human rights, and most likely never will. I already know that.
Once again, don’t think of this as me trying to persuade you. Think of this as an anthropological study of the American Right. You are Margaret Mead studying a (fascinating?) culture of fools.
But what if Iraqis hate the U.S. because American actions, in their view, have been the exact opposite of democratic or respectful of human rights?
Saddam was a cruel despot. His sons were budding cruel despots. Imperfect democracy is better.
Human Rights: Going forward from this moment, Iraqis will enjoy far more human rights than they would have under Saddam.
What if most Iraqis hate the al-Maliki government because they view it as a puppet of the U.S. government and don’t feel it has any legitimacy?
Patience. Future elections are coming. They never had a chance to vote Saddam out.
Maybe Iraqis want a government that is responsive to their needs and wishes (which is what a democracy is, in part) and don’t feel they have that, and feel that the U.S. is the reason they don’t have that?
Patience. Future elections are coming. The U.S.A. is going(as we promised we would).
What if they hate Americans because Americans insist on telling them what they feel, or should feel, and it’s not what they actually feel?
“Americans are preachy arrogant bastards” is not a reason to oppose democracy, human rights, and the legally elected Iraqi Government.
we agree on virtually nothing regarding Iraq or human rights
We agree on some things. We just don’t agree on everything. We perceive different threats, which informs our disagreements on both Iraq and on human rights.
Guardian writes more about al Zaidi: anon policeman alleges he was beaten all the way from press conference to penal cell, including being pistol whipped; al Zaidi preplanned shoe throwing stunt, running home to change into Iraqi made shoes, anon Doctor saw al Zaidi and is quoted:
Brother suspects letter of apology is a fake; suspects al Zaidi might be killed by an angry citizen when he gets out of prison, and therefore will need protection.
Nothing in article indicates Americans ever had custody of al Zaidi.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/iraq-journalist-shoe
Think of this as an anthropological study of the American Right. You are Margaret Mead studying a (fascinating?) culture of fools.
Uh-huh. I’m impressed that you’ve heard of Margaret Mead.
Saddam was a cruel despot. His sons were budding cruel despots. Imperfect democracy is better.
That’s patronizing.You talk like a textbook for a political science class here, or like you’re moderating a debate for the local high school or college in Any Town, USA. Who are YOU to tell Iraqis what’s better for them or not better for them?
Patience. Future elections are coming. They never had a chance to vote Saddam out.
More condescension. It’s easy to counsel patience to Iraqis when you are an American living in peace and safety with all your loved ones around you, and all the electricity, air conditioning, food, clothing, and medicine you can stand.
“Americans are preachy arrogant bastards” is not a reason to oppose democracy, human rights, and the legally elected Iraqi Government.
Iraqis don’t oppose democracy or human rights. They haven’t been given democracy or human rights. The U.S. itself under Bush has become one of the worst human rights violators in the world. And the Iraqi government was not “legally elected.” It was installed by the Bush administration. And that’s how most Iraqis see it.
Having said all this, it is not for you to decide for Iraqis what is reasonable for them to oppose or to support. Iraq is not your country. It’s not America’s country. But I will say that no better proof exists for the proposition that Iraq is NOT a sovereign democracy than the fact that you clearly feel that as an American it IS your place to define reasonable and unreasonable for Iraqis and to decide for them that they don’t have the right or the reason to oppose what is allegedly their own government (although of course it isn’t).
Iraqis have every right to democratically oppose the Maliki government – and my answers made that extremely clear.
I don’t understand what you expect to happen in Iraq. If Americans are running a puppet government, Iraqis can vote that government out in the 2009 Election. What do you recommend, and how would your recommendations play out differently for Iraqis in the short and medium term?
If Americans are running a puppet government, Iraqis can vote that government out in the 2009 Election.
I am just stunned. Speechless. Really. I don’t know what to say to this.
What do you recommend, and how would your recommendations play out differently for Iraqis in the short and medium term?
I recommend that the Obama administration adhere to the SOFA just signed by the U.S. and Iraq. That will put the U.S. military out of all Iraqi cities and towns by June 2009, and out of Iraq in total by 2012. In fact, he should speed up that end date, to his campaign-promised date of 18 months.
I am just stunned. Speechless. Really. I don’t know what to say to this.
Way back when, during my teenager years when I started hanging out on the message boards of geek BBSes, I would leave messages with just “hehehehe” in reply to something I thought was funny. The commenters there pulled me aside, so to speak, and told me never to leave a message without substance. Since then I’ve stuck to their advice.
Mostly.
But in this case, read this line from you just makes me LOL. So.. Hehehehee!
I do not understand what you want done which is not currently being done. I do not understand why the things you want done will make any difference to the Iraqis who are currently frustrated with conditions in their nation.
To the question “What do you suggest be done differently in Iraq?”, you give two answers:
1. Continue what’s being done, i.e. follow the SOFA which is currently in place.
How is this different from my suggestion to be patient and to democratically oppose the Maliki government? What else could be done which would not cause a new set of possibly serious problems for Iraq?
2. Speed the SOFA withdrawals.
What different results would occur which would not occur via following the SOFA withdrawals as scheduled? How might the Iraqi Government and people be positively or negatively affected by speeding the SOFA withdrawals?
I am familiar with the state of play in Iraq. It should be easy to explain your ideas to me. I’ve endeavored to plainly and politely respond to your queries. Given the abuse you’ve subsequently heaped on me, I think it fair that you come out from behind “I’m speechless” and explain yourself.
It should be easy to explain your ideas to me.
Easy is not the point. Waste of my time is the point. I’ve already wasted too much of that on someone who just ignores my well-supported points and continues to ask stupid questions or ask for a response to stupid statements.
This:
“If Americans are running a puppet government, Iraqis can vote that government out in the 2009 Election.”
is a stupid statement.
I owe you nothing.
Gcotharn,
I’ll give you a hint. It’s about critical thinking skills. This:
“If Americans are running a puppet government, Iraqis can vote that government out in the 2009 Election.”
reveals an appalling lack of critical thinking skills. I can’t give you those if you don’t have them.
This is why I’m all for telling him to fuck off and threatening to delete his comments immediately. I mean, I could argue with him (and have in the past, unfortunately) to come to exactly the same conclusion. He’s just a waste of time.
You asked for solutions, gleefully ripped those solutions, then offered nothing better.
You asked: what are solutions for w,x,y,z problems which Iraqis have? I politely and concisely proffered best solutions I could think of. You ripped me, i.e. condescending, pretentious, arrogant, presumptuous, too stupid to respond to. Then you offer as solutions: nothing. w,x,y,z remain: you offer no solutions. You offer only complaints and criticism directed at me. This is no way to converse. This is not even conversation. Conversation is equitable give and take. This is some type of manipulation which offers some type of payoff or satisfaction for you.
If I may interject here.. Well, not like anyone can stop me.
Tharnbag, when you base conversation points off fantasy — like Iraqi’s having enough democracy to throw Americans out of their country — there’s really no place to move conversation forward from there. You are so detached from reality that it’s not funny. Of course, if I, or Kathy, or anybody else make this point, you’ll retort with, “You ripped me, i.e. condescending, pretentious, arrogant, presumptuous, too stupid to respond to. Then you offer as solutions: nothing. w,x,y,z remain: you offer no solutions. You offer only complaints and criticism directed at me,” and blah blah blah. But it’s reality. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, you have to have an intelligent, reality-based point of view — something which you continually lack. As you’ve thoroughly displayed in this comment thread (and umpteen other comment threads on this blog).
Trying to “converse” with someone whose points are false isn’t a conversation at all. That’s why you can’t have actual conversations. Compendre?
First, I’ve reread the later part of this thread, and I think my last comment might have been unfair. Kathy was not submitting Iraqi problems to be solved. Rather, she was trying to justify why Iraqis might legitimately say “I hate America.”
My response to that is: Iraqis should consider the big picture before saying “I hate America.” Their future is brighter now than it was under Saddam. Perspective = relief from emotional hatred.
I think we all understand each other’s opinions on this subject at this point.
Second, re tas comment
Iraq cannot throw America out, and I never said it could.
Third: the puppet government thing
Puppet government is a nuanced term. There are puppet governments and then there are PUPPET GOVERNMENTS. I thought you were talking about a puppet government.
Uh, tharnbag? “If Americans are running a puppet government, Iraqis can vote that government out in the 2009 Election.”
And you wonder why people can’t hold conversations with you.
Trying to “converse” with someone whose points are false isn’t a conversation at all.
For me, the frustration is not so much that his points are false. I can deal with that by demonstrating, with substantive information and facts, why his points are false. But then I would expect him to take those points into consideration when he next responds. But he doesn’t. He acts like the points haven’t even been made, and keeps repeating the same falsehoods and distortions without providing any additional information or evidence that takes into consideration the information *I* have just provided. In short, his replies do not move the conversation forward. They just keep the wheels spinning in the mud and moving nowhere.
That’s what drives me crazy.
Yeah, the guy’s been doing this since he started commenting here. He’s like a GOP talking point machine. There’s really no conversing with him because he will not recognize any empirical evidence — especially if it doesn’t fit into his narrow world view.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m all for avoiding this run around and just outright deleting his comments.
He’s been given a few months to clean up his act but he’s obviously not going to change, so I don’t see any point in allowing him to leave comments on here anymore. He’ll only end up driving potential decent commenters away.
In other words, he is trolling. Because he is a troll–a wordy, so-passive-aggressively-civil-it-makes-your-fucking-teeth-itch-like-a-heroin-addict-3-days-straight troll, but a troll none the less. In fact, the next time one of my non-net-addicted friends asks me to describe a ‘troll’ or ‘trolling’, I will link them to this comment.
Seriously, though — anyone who spews specious treacle like this:
Puppet government is a nuanced term. There are puppet governments and then there are PUPPET GOVERNMENTS. I thought you were talking about a puppet government.
Is not worth wasting energy, time and precious sanity on. All you are doing is validating his ego, and encouraging him to continue manipulating you into tendering a response (attention: the air that trolls breathe, food to nourish their pathetic, empty lives).
Do. Not. Feed.
Much of what you claim is “proven”, is not, yet you are attached to the idea that it is proven. I try to steer clear of those areas in which you are attached to your opinions. There is no sense in discussing those issues. I try to move by that, and focus on areas where we might have a chance, however slim, of finding agreement.
Some examples:
I agree with some of your narrative about torture. However, torture sometimes does provide valuable information. To say it has never, ever worked is to delude yourself. Would it benefit you and I to argue this point? It would not. I should avoid this subject.
“Puppet government” is manure. Is there any possibility whatsoever that you would be persuaded by reason on this point? There is not. I should avoid it.
This is why it seems to you that I ignore your “evidence” and “proof”. I’m trying to move past it, b/c we will never agree in those areas.
OTOH, I thought there was a slim chance you would be persuaded about this:
America is an imperfect yet definite force for democracy and human rights in Iraq.
I figured I might broach that a bit, since you were asking questions in that area, and were probing my opinions. I figured it would be the decent thing to respond to your queries. Didn’t work out so well.
MB, you may have already figured this out, and it may be part of what you detest, but: the polite thing is not an act. It’s not some type of suck up, it’s not some type of strategy, and it’s not an indicator of timidity or weakness. It is me doing my best to be open to God’s love, and to think and write as best I can in these comments. Criticize accordingly. In my best moments I am way imperfect. Yet, know this is genuinely how I am – except during the recurring moments when I close my heart to God and act worse.
Also, know that eternal life is available to you. God loves you at all times, no matter the circumstance. He is with you always.
Note: I am against torture, except in the most horrific ticking clock situation. POTUS should make the individual, specific call in such a rare and horrifying situation.
All you are doing is validating his ego, and encouraging him to continue manipulating you into tendering a response
You’re right, but I’d rather just discipline myself to ignore his comments than delete them. I just don’t like to delete comments unless they are truly over the line (i.e., threatening, racist, homophobic, etc.).
I’m just not going to respond anymore after it’s clear there’s no point.
Would anybody mind if I left his comments as is but made some creative new handles for him? Like changing his name to “ROCK HARD AND TROLLING!” or “MORE STUPIDITY FROM FUCKFACE!!” ? I used to do that with trolls at Loaded Mouth — got rid of them quick. Heh.
Though this still ranks as the all time funniest way to creatively deal with trolls.
Would anybody mind if I left his comments as is but made some creative new handles for him?
You know MY answer to that, tas.
You’re ecstatic, right? Heh.
MB, you may have already figured this out, and it may be part of what you detest, but: the polite thing is not an act. It’s not some type of suck up, it’s not some type of strategy, and it’s not an indicator of timidity or weakness. It is me doing my best to be open to God’s love, and to think and write as best I can in these comments. Criticize accordingly. In my best moments I am way imperfect. Yet, know this is genuinely how I am – except during the recurring moments when I close my heart to God and act worse.
Also, know that eternal life is available to you. God loves you at all times, no matter the circumstance. He is with you always.
When is ‘turn the other cheek’ analogous to ‘kiss my ass’? *points up*
Words fail.
Anyway, back to ignoring.
mattt, that was my thought exactly.