Whenever I visit this lovely blog, I usually run into someone - a "leftist," if you will - who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities - the left and terrorists - seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.
Thinking humility (or not actively butt-raping the rest of the world) is a positive quality in a benevolent superpower doesn't make you a terrorist, Greg, any more than enjoying a self-satisfied orgy of (necessarily temporary) military and economic superiority makes you a patriot. It's got to do with what we see as positives and negatives of the United States and what our responses to them are. As long as no one's supporting killing anyone, terrorism has nothing to do with it. You're also totally conflating ideologies here- liberals think America shouldn't treat other countries like dirt, terrorists think America shouldn't treat them like dirt. We can play this game too, Greg. You know who thought Holy War was just spiffy? The Catholic Church! Shall we start printing out copies of Pope Benedict wearing a
But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, "dissent is patriotic," and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.
No, that's an infantile strawman. While you can argue that tough love indicates a stronger level of commitment to a certain set of ideals (presumably by criticizing when an organization, govt., etc deviates from them), saying that either mindless cheerleading or constant carping is indicative of "more love" is a no-winner. By the same token, though, we've heard plenty of suggestions from the right that "my country right or wrong" indicates a stronger degree of patriotism- and you don't seem to be refuting that.
And let's not forget the fact that critique of the US government, policies, or leadership, especially the Commander-in-Chief is far from limited to a single party. Clinton much? Jimmy Carter?
What is a patriotic terrorist?
It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy's success against said country.
How do you define "enjoy"? How wide is the spectrum between, "give sexual favors to troops" and "give sexual favors to terrorists?" What about someone who thinks we shouldn't be there and hopes we get out soon, or hopes we stop killing innocent civilians? Who are you classifying as the enemy?
It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism
Because no right-winger does...
while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow up innocent people.
Such as? Aside from, "that Bush is a bastard", or "we shouldn't be invading all these countries", or, "what did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again"?
Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention
That's the basic premise of politics today- "you're all stupid, only I have the answer, vote for me and give me money." Sometimes if we're lucky there's a sex tape involved.
- and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention.
When did Rosie O'Donnell or Sean Penn say anything close to that? Oh, and is Jerry Falwell ringing a bell? No?
Hey, I bet you've probably wondered why Al Qaeda hasn't struck in the US since 9/11. They don't have to. It has its own offshoot franchise here at work already. Patriotic Terrorists.
Think about how much both groups have in common!
You're a gigantic idiot, Greg, but I'll play. Um, is the first one "beards"?
-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures. It does not matter to either group that the withdrawal from Iraq will make post-Vietnam look like an afternoon at Ikea shopping for a Hoggbo innerspring mattress.
You're trying too hard on these jokes, Greg. Besides, everyone knows it's all about the waterbed or Sealy. You know who liked innerspring? Saddam. He kept one filled with innersprings, and another with baby teeth of Kurds. True story. Anyway the issue is much less cheap political points like whether Bush is laughable (we've already answered that question), and leaving Iraq has no bearing on the monstrosity or lack thereof of the war. Furthermore, at this point there seems to be a strong likelihood that the country is going to explode whether we're there or not. Seeing as how this civil war is looking inevitable, and there doesn't seem to be much that we're presently able (or will be able in future) to keep it restrained, exactly what is being gained from staying there now? The people making political points off this war are the ones attempting to keep it going for reasons unknown, likely even to them. The U.S. govt. getting a wake-up call that war isn't something to be screwed around with is probably a pretty high goal on the anti-war groups' lists, but I think they'd settle for getting our soldiers out of there as soon as possible. Funny, Greg, I'm not seeing the connection to Al Qaeda- maybe it's because none of the Anti-War people are advocating killing people.
-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off is music to their ears. It proves that you can't offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you've got terrorists standing in your way. And that's great news for everyone who believes in checks and balances between the haves and the have nots! (Note: "haves" means the US. "Have nots" means those who hate the US)
No, schmuckles, it's possible to "offer" (impose?) democracy on troubled countries, the issue is how brutal and totalitarian you're willing to be about it. The pipe dream was sold by people like Cheney and Rumsfeld who duped people into thinking this would be an easy process and that the Iraqis wouldn't see us as part of the problem (which we quickly became through our own bumbling). While there may be some vindication in the Anti-War movement in being proven right, you're going to have to try harder to demonstrate that the majority of the Anti-war crowd is pro-terrorism (as opposed to the pro-War crowd, who quite openly celebrates military victories, regardless of how many casualties). And again, we have the counter-argument being offered by your comrades that somehow staying in an occupied country is particularly noble- yeah, let's congratulate ourselves for giving the Iraqis democracy, even if it kills them (and us).
Also, haves and have-nots? When did this become about economics? Nice try sneaking that one in. If you think that the have-nots and the countries that hate the US are one in the same, you should really read more. As far as political checks-and-balances, I don't see what's wrong in the one superpower in the world not using its influence to get away with whatever it wants- including flouting international treaties and laws. The question is whether the US wants to be part of the planet or secede. You seem to be on the secession, might-makes-right-regardless team. I wonder if you'll be as gung-ho about this when we're eclipsed by China, Russia and India.
-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.
I had to google this guy to figure out who you were talking about. That's how relevant he is to my thought process, Greg. You're really slipping. Anyway, God forbid people be able to multi-task and, you know, condemn multiple things simultaneously. I wonder, if I ask you if the Holocaust was bad OR if stealing your kidney is bad, will your brain self-destruct? And once it does, can I have your kidney? And there's a legitimate argument to be made that abuses made by US or allied troops are morally/ideologically serious, even if not as physically or psychologically harmful as Saddam, because it demonstrates the depth to which our own people can descend, and the degree to which merely being on "our team" doesn't necessarily mean you can't also be a sadistic bastard. You know, really troubling questions like that. But you'd rather make Ed Begley jokes.
-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it's power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals - and that makes being a patriotic terrorist loads of fun!
I don't see the conflicts with any of these beliefs. They may not all be entirely factual (you could argue a fair amount of evidence in support though), but there's no contradiction between what you WANT to do and what you're ABLE to do- for instance, take us bringing a stable democracy to Iraq.
If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women's rights, porn - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
What do you mean by "tolerating"? You mean, "not wanting to invade?" There are people in the US that condemn the things I claim I'm for; simply because they exist and are a potential threat to me doesn't mean I want to kill them all.
If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
Again, the terms- what is "tolerating suicide bombers"? As for genocide, remind me what the administration's done for Darfur lately? And funny, the right seems to be staying pretty quiet on this issue- surely it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Left is talking about it, RIGHT? I mean, only political terrorist leftists would be so low as to play politics with people's lives, right Greg? You idiot.
The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who've taken the extra step - choosing to actually die for their beliefs - rather than simply talking about them at Spago. If Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and their ilk had real cojones, they'd all be wearing cute black vests - but stuffed with more than dog-eared copies of Deterring Democracy.
Got that? You can believe strongly about whatever you want, as long as it involves nothing critical about your own country (Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, etc.) As soon as you do that, you're equivalent to a would-be weenie suicide bomber. Man, it sure is lucky Greg's line in the sand is so pristine and clear- how else would we be able to figure out if we should start making suicide belts?
Following Greg's logic we're all a bunch of patriotic terrorists in relation to England. I always knew there was something about Washington I didn't like. Damn sleeper.
No comments:
Post a Comment