Point of Clarification
Note regarding my last post:
Despite the perhaps a bit vituperative tone of the last entry, I would like to point out that it is not aimed at every person who dislikes the idea of datamining on phone records.
There are some people who honestly would prefer to accept a greater risk of terrorist attack on the United States rather than give up certain civil liberties as they interpret them. This is a value judgement. I do not agree with it, but there are points to made for and against that viewpoint in reasoned debate.
What I despise, have contempt for, and find myself incapable of communicating with, are the damned two-faced hypocrites in the media and the Democratic Party, as well as their supporters. These people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want absolute security from terrorism, and blame George Bush if they can't have it. But if the Administration takes measures to increase security, well that is an infringement of their rights and they blame George Bush again. You cannot have it both ways. A willingness to overlook this logical inconsistency is the symptom of a weak mind so disabled with party loyalty and hobbled by a crap educational system that no longer teaches basic logic or critical thinking.
Despite the perhaps a bit vituperative tone of the last entry, I would like to point out that it is not aimed at every person who dislikes the idea of datamining on phone records.
There are some people who honestly would prefer to accept a greater risk of terrorist attack on the United States rather than give up certain civil liberties as they interpret them. This is a value judgement. I do not agree with it, but there are points to made for and against that viewpoint in reasoned debate.
What I despise, have contempt for, and find myself incapable of communicating with, are the damned two-faced hypocrites in the media and the Democratic Party, as well as their supporters. These people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want absolute security from terrorism, and blame George Bush if they can't have it. But if the Administration takes measures to increase security, well that is an infringement of their rights and they blame George Bush again. You cannot have it both ways. A willingness to overlook this logical inconsistency is the symptom of a weak mind so disabled with party loyalty and hobbled by a crap educational system that no longer teaches basic logic or critical thinking.
posted by Just A Decurion at 8/12/2006 03:43:00 PM
9 Comments:
Thank you, dear. :-)
You make a good point.
One of the more effective terrorist strategies is to provoke a free society to destroy itself by turning into a police state.
I wonder whether you are building a "damned two-faced hypocrite" straw man so you have something to despise.
Anyway, absolute security from terrorism does not exist.
One can (and in fact, I do) blame the Bush administration for DOING SOMETHING that greatly, and unnecessarily, increased the threat of terrorism (e.g. you making a nuisance of yourself on my taxpayer's money to the locals in Iraq, not Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia),
and for taking measures that try to bypass constitutional safeguards to protect individuals' liberty ... rights like due process and habeas corpus are tedious if you want to get things done in a hurry, but they exist for a good reason, namely, to prevent wrong things from getting done.
The most egregious (I hestitate to say, because sometimes what looks like stupidity should actually be attributed to malice) mistake of the Bush administration was the decision to interpret a crime on an unprecedented scale, but still a crime, as an act of war, and to create a reality that matches the misinterpretation (namely, an attack on a nation state that had nothing to do with the crime) afterwards.
Considering we'be both served in Iraq, please be careful calling us nuisances. I for one, get a bit pissed off when I think about some of the stuff I saw, went through and had to do, being dismissed as "being nuisances."
I had old men and women and girls come up to me and try and thank me for being there, and while I may not agree with what happened to get us into Iraq and what's happening now, to dismiss the military personnel in Iraq as "being nuisances" is unecessary, and demeaning to our service.
I happen to be one of the people John is addressing in this post, since I believe that we have to accept a certain level of danger to enjoy the liberty we hold so dear.
Well, let's put aside for now my suspicion that an attitude that leads to expressions like "A lonely castrorum in the midst of the Barbarians" doesn't necessarily endear you to those called barbarians (never mind that there may be good reasons to use the expression).
You've been in Iraq and probably got all kinds of different receptions from all kinds of different people.
Do you think that a significant part of the people in Iraq consider the US forces a nuisance or not?
I am careful not to quote some of the characterizations of US occupation troops in Iraq that I've heard, but simply can't imagine that John's sense of decency would allow him to fit ... but, from what I've read from him so far, I can imagine that John would, occasionally, make a nuisance of himself :->
Jen,
cMad is a troll. He's been attempting to bait me for literally years. I first ran into him on the mailing list that Ryan Gill came from as well.
He's German, and is morally convinced that any defense of your country's interests is tatmount to Nazism. Ignore him.
My darling,
Thank you for the information. I will consider the source from now on.
Love you.
CMAD is a German, but lives in California. He is one smart SOB with an advanced degree in mathematics (IIRC). He and I have been jousting for many years on A.B.T-C, and have actually developed a sort of friendship. If he ever gets into Dallas, I will gladly buy him dinner and fill him full of adult beverages.
That being said, situational ethics are his only ethics. He is anti-religious and like many Europeans, specifically anti-Christian. He (like many liberals) is very bitter internally, and can not fathom anyone or anything else. He is very, very afraid of faith and the people of faith.
He has most Monty Python scripts memorized, as well as Hitchikers' Guide to the Galaxy. He can be quite funny. I've often thought he would make a fine lumberjack.
I will not say to ignore him, but to pray for him, as I do. God can reach into his heart and melt his hardness. I pray that He does.
If you re-read his posts, you will see the fear in his words. Words represent thoughts, thoughts are driven by emotion. So I pray that God will calm his fears.
In fact, thats a good prayer for this country. Yes, Islamic terrorism is upon us. One of these days, more American civilians will die. Our people have to succeed 100% of the time, they only have to succeed once. The odds are in their favor. So rather than fear these people, or the ones who support them (directly or politically, like CMAD), I pray for them. And I pray for this country, that God will calm the fears of all of us. You and John join me in that prayer, will you?
cmad said: One of the more effective terrorist strategies is to provoke a free society to destroy itself by turning into a police state
I've heard that before, but are there any examples from history? Or is it just a hypothesis with no data?
Post a Comment
<< Home