What most liberals can't seem to grasp

[jeskibuff]

Unfortunately, the article I'm linking to is rather lengthy, which means many people who need to read it and grasp the meaning of the words won't read it!. It is an excellent analysis of terrorist motivations entitled "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology"

Read it here: http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Read it twice (or even more)

Okay, for those too lazy to read the whole thing, here's the Cliff Notes version:

When confronted by a culturally exotic enemy, our first instinct is to understand such conduct in terms that are familiar to us in order to make sense of such strangeness, we must be able to reduce it to something that is not strange — something that is already known to us, something we know our way around. Others held...that the explanation of 9-11 was to be sought in what was called...the “root cause” of terrorism. Eliminate poverty, or economic imperialism, or global warming, and such acts of terrorism would cease.(think "Michael Mooron") This common identification of 9-11 as an act of war arises from a deeper unquestioned assumption...An act of violence on the magnitude of 9-11 can only have been intended to further some kind of political objective. Clausewitzian war, in short, is rational and instrumental. It is the attempt to bring about a new state of affairs through the artful combination of violence and the promise to cease violence if certain political objectives are met. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest...My friend...was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington...My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration...what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors...when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props..in his private psychodrama. the fantasist has already projected onto us the role that we are to play in his fantasy; no matter what we may be thinking of his recital, it never crosses his mind that we may be utterly failing to play the part expected of us But what happens when it is not an individual who is caught up in his fantasy world, but an entire group — a sect, or a people, or even a nation? This theme of reviving ancient glory is an important key to understanding fantasy ideologies, for it suggests that fantasy ideologies tend to be the domain of those groups that history has passed by or rejected — groups that feel that they are under attack from forces which, while more powerful perhaps than they are, are nonetheless inferior in terms of true virtue. For the Sorelian myth to achieve its effect it had to be presented as theater. It had to grab the spectators and make them feel a part of the spectacle. The Sorelian myth, in short, had to be embodied in a fantasy — a fantasy with which the “audience” could easily and instantly identify. In all fantasy ideologies, there is a point at which the make-believe becomes an end in itself. The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom — martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom. it is a mistake to try to fit such behavior into the mold created by our own categories and expectations. If you attack your enemy with an act of terror — especially one on the scale of 9-11 — you must be prepared to follow up on it immediately. The analogy here to time-honored military strategy is obvious: If you have vanquished your enemy on the field of battle, you must vigorously pursue him while he is in retreat, i.e., while he is still in a state of panic and confusion...This al Qaeda failed to do. And the question is: Why? it should be obvious that if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called “root” causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy Equally absurd...is the notion that we must review our own policies toward the Arab world — or the state of Israel — in order to find ways to make our enemies hate us less. There is no political policy we could take that would change the attitude of our enemies — short, perhaps, of a massive nationwide conversion to fundamentalist Islam. al Qaeda did not even claim to have made the attack in the first place! The U.S. and its allies were placed in the bizarre position of first having to prove who their enemy was — a difficulty that, by definition, does not occur in Clausewitzian war, where it is essential that the identity of the conflicting parties be known to each other, since otherwise the conflict would be pointless. we are fighting an enemy who has no strategic purpose in anything he does — whose actions have significance only in terms of his own fantasy ideology. we are at war with them, they are not at war with us — and, indeed, it would be an enormous improvement if they were. If they were at war with us, they would be compelled to start thinking realistically, in terms of objective factors such as overall strategic goals, war aims, and so forth. They would have to make a realistic, and not a fantasy-induced, assessment of the relative strength of us versus them...It matters not how much stronger or more powerful we are than they — what matters is that God will bring them victory. in al Qaeda’s collective fantasy there may exist the notion of an ultimate terror act...nothing comes closer to fulfilling this magical role than the detonation of a very unmagical nuclear device. That this would not destroy our society in one fell swoop is obvious to us; but it is not to our enemies, in whose eyes an act of this nature assumes a fantasy significance in addition to its sufficiently terrifying reality — the fantasy significance of providing al Qaeda with a vision of ultimate and decisive victory over the West. In the initial aftermath of 9-11, President Bush continually spoke of al Qaeda not as terrorists, but as “evildoers” — a term for which he was widely derided by those who found it offensively simple-minded and childish...Bush struck exactly the right note. The evildoer...is not motivated in his conduct by his wish to change the way other people act...other people exist in his eyes only as an opportunity to do evil: He doesn’t want to manipulate them for his selfish purpose; rather, his one and only purpose is to inflict evil on them Rather than interpreting 9-11 as if it were a Clausewitzian act of war, Bush instinctively saw it for what it was: the acting out of demented fantasy. When confronted with the enigma of 9-11 he was able to avoid the temptation of trying to interpret it in terms of our own familiar categories and traditions. Sound familiar, Bruno? The old "only tool is a hammer" issue? You do not make treaties with evildoers or try to adjust your conduct to make them like you. You do not try to see the world from the evildoers’ point of view. You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or reason with them. You try, on the contrary, to outwit them, to vanquish them, to kill them. the victims and targets of such fantasy ideologies so frequently refused to see them for what they were, interpreting them as something quite different — as normal politics, as reasonable aspirations

[bturk667]

Yeah, Bush's only tool is his hammer! I'm glad your finally starting to understand it!

Again, I have no problem with Bush and his war on terrorism. In fact I do not think that Democrats do. One thing you have to understand that the war with Iraq and the war on terrorism are two different issues all together! The sooner you and other Conservatives and Republicnas do so, the better!

Get it? I hope!

Lastly, this is just Lee Harris's opinion. You know what they say about opinions don't you? Before this article I never heard of Mr. Harris. Some of the things he writes about I do agree with, sorry, not all. If you do, I'm happy for you!

[Woochifer]

First off, your base assumption for this post is completely off target. What liberals do you know (aside from the imaginary ones that get trumped up on right-wing talk shows) that OPPOSE the war on terrorism? Most of the left-leaning people that I know, support U.S. efforts to take out Al Qaeda and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure. You say "most liberals" ... what source of information is telling you that most liberals oppose efforts to stop Al Qaeda? I've yet to see a poll that supports your assertion.

As bturk astutely points out, the war on terror and the Bush Administration's actions have been inconsistent at best, as exemplified by the diversion of resources away from the hunt for Al Qaeda targets and towards the Iraq war. In order to hunt for Saddam Hussein (a secularist who regarded Al Qaeda as a threat to his power), all of the ground teams on the trail of bin Laden got diverted to Iraq.

How is this a sign that "liberals can't seem to grasp" the threat that Al Qaeda poses, when it was the Bush Administration that effectively suspended the hunt for bin Laden in order to go after Saddam? Taking resources away from hunting down entities that have direct one-to-one connections to terrorist actions on American soil, and redirecting them towards a country that has spurious connections to Al Qaeda at best is hardly the way to fight a war on terror, regardless of what end of the political spectrum you're on. This has nothing to do with conservatives versus liberals -- it has everything to do with narrowly defined geopolitical ambitions taking priority over actions that have the better chance to keep America safe.

On the article itself, it presents some very persuasive points, but provides no context for what it all means in actual policy priorities and implementation actions. It's basically an academic think tank piece (written through the Hoover Institution, which does good work, but basically comes from a decidedly right-wing perspective), and even by these standards it's a thin piece of writing that outlines a lot of problems and not a whole lot of real world connection to what should actually be done.

[jeskibuff]

Yeah, Bush's only tool is his hammer! I'm glad your finally starting to understand it!What I'm understanding is that you have one or several of the following problems: an inability to comprehend what is read an inability to recognize a truth that lies outside of your sphere of beliefs the propensity to twist words around in order to make them mean what YOU want them to mean, NOT what the author intendedI'm putting my money on the last option. It's too bad you have to play these games in order to avoid obvious truths. When you play such games, don't you realize that you're really just damaging your own credibility and lessening the respect that people will give you?

I have no problem with Bush and his war on terrorism. In fact I do not think that Democrats do. One thing you have to understand that the war with Iraq and the war on terrorism are two different issues all together!Nope. Sorry. They're inextricably linked together and intertwined. We've tried to explain this many times before, but it doesn't do much good when you've got your hands over your ears while you scream "I'm not listening! I can't HEAR you!"

Lastly, this is just Lee Harris's opinion.Sorry. Wrong again. This is MORE than an opinion. It is THEORY! What's the difference? An opinion is a cursory judgment that is little more than a guess - a simple statement of belief. A theory is based on evaluation of evidence and precedent.

To my knowledge, no one has ever seen an electron. Yet billions of modern devices are engineered on what we BELIEVE to be electron theory. It is NOT just "an opinion"...it is a theory that has undergone much scrutiny and evaluation. It is describing something that we can only ascertain is true because all experience and behavior of electricity is consistent with electron theory. It may not be PERFECTLY accurate, but it's the best thing we've got.
Similarly, Lee Harris' theory on Islamic fantasy can be judged on many levels - the patterns of behavior and the comparison to similar types of people. No one can know EXACTLY what goes on in someone else's head, but we are all human and we certainly have no shortage of subjects to draw from in order to compare psychological profiles - we certainly have an abundance of cases of all sorts of deranged fanatics. Mr. Harris has used some of those profiles in illustrating his theory. I think he's hit the bullseye (and THAT'S MY opinion)! But you measure the validity of a theory by testing as many variants as you can muster against it. If it passes EACH test while other theories fail, you need to abandon reliance on the other theories and adopt the better one. The "Blame America First" people theorized that the terrorists don't like Western influence on their culture. That theory falls apart at first glance!

Some of the things he writes about I do agree with, sorry, not all.So will you tell us what you disagree with and the reasoning behind your analysis?

What liberals do you know (aside from the imaginary ones that get trumped up on right-wing talk shows) that OPPOSE the war on terrorism?Ever hear of Michael Mooron? He has stated on national TV (to Katie Couric, as I remember) that "there is no such thing as terrorism", that "9/11 was just one of those unfortunate things that happen every couple of years". Not a word-for-word quote, mind you, but find the exact words and you'll find they're close enough. If you don't believe in terrorism, how can you believe in a war on terrorism?

First off, your base assumption for this post is completely off target...Most of the left-leaning people that I know, support U.S. efforts to take out Al Qaeda and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure. You say "most liberals" ... what source of information is telling you that most liberals oppose efforts to stop Al Qaeda?You're reading more into that "base assumption" than is there. My assertion is that most liberals don't understand the motivations behind terrorists. They think the terrorists "want" something, like return of land lost in a war they started, or a change in U.S. policy. They think that if we find this elusive gift, we can just hand it over to Al-Qaeda or Hamas and they will cease their murderous ways. No, Wooch, I agree that many liberals want Al-Qaeda to be paid back for the 9/11 attacks and Osama brought to justice, but that will not win the "war on terror" by itself. If you subscribe to Harris' theories, you'd understand that the problem runs much deeper than just acquiring the leader of the pack.

As bturk astutely points out, the war on terror and the Bush Administration's actions have been inconsistent at best, as exemplified by the diversion of resources away from the hunt for Al Qaeda targets and towards the Iraq war.The Bush administration has been EXTREMELY consistent in this war. What you view as inconsistency is what you consider "the necessity" to concentrate all the forces on pursuing Osama. That wasn't priority, as the victory in Afghanistan left the command and control of his organization crippled. Plus, we really didn't totally give up on the search, as you imply. We looked to Iraq because that was a huge potential source for weapons. We were going after RESOURCES that the terrorists could get their hands on, not just the terrorists themselves. This is like taking the food source away from cockroaches instead of waiting in the dark, flipping on the light and stomping the roaches out one by one.

it's a thin piece of writing that outlines a lot of problems and not a whole lot of real world connection to what should actually be done.It is hardly a "thin piece" of writing. Understanding terrorists' motivations is KEY to making the proper responses.

[Woochifer]

Ever hear of Michael Mooron? He has stated on national TV (to Katie Couric, as I remember) that "there is no such thing as terrorism", that "9/11 was just one of those unfortunate things that happen every couple of years". Not a word-for-word quote, mind you, but find the exact words and you'll find they're close enough. If you don't believe in terrorism, how can you believe in a war on terrorism?

Never heard of anyone named Michael Mooron, but I have heard of Michael Moore. (I like to think that the people on this board are more mature than what you typically see on political message boards.) Moore is but one person, and I seriously doubt that within the proper context, the content of his quote is what you imply that it says. From stuff of his that I've read in the past, Moore focuses on victims of terror around the globe, not just the U.S., and in that context, 9/11 is indeed one of but many terrorist acts that have been perpetrated against innocent civilians over the years.


You're reading more into that "base assumption" than is there. My assertion is that most liberals don't understand the motivations behind terrorists. They think the terrorists "want" something, like return of land lost in a war they started, or a change in U.S. policy. They think that if we find this elusive gift, we can just hand it over to Al-Qaeda or Hamas and they will cease their murderous ways. No, Wooch, I agree that many liberals want Al-Qaeda to be paid back for the 9/11 attacks and Osama brought to justice, but that will not win the "war on terror" by itself. If you subscribe to Harris' theories, you'd understand that the problem runs much deeper than just acquiring the leader of the pack.

Actually, I think my base assumption is correct. You seem to think that liberals define terror in narrow terms, when in actuality I know I sure as hell don't. I believe in eliminating the root causes of terror, however I'm don't subscribe to the notion that waging a war on terror can be done if geopolitical considerations such as the PNAC statement of principles are taking precedence. Even a gadfly conservative like Pat Buchanan has said that the Bush Administration's war on terror has been used as an excuse to expand their doctrine of globalization. I'm well aware that the war on terror is not as simple as bringing bin Laden to justice, and none of my liberal friends are that naive either.

In order to wage a war on terror, it has to be done at an international level with cooperation from allies and free exchange of intelligence. Before the whole thing got bogged down into the pettiness before the Iraq war, France was providing ground level intelligence on Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. And now that the Bush Administration has bin Laden on their priority list once again, France is bringing the ground teams up to speed because they did not pull their search teams out of Afghanistan to go hunting for Saddam.

Also, you have to target the entire infrastructure for organizations that have us in their crosshairs -- that includes funding, personnel, resources, logistics, training, etc. And if you're going to do that, that means lighting a fire under countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who have had much tighter ties with Al Qaeda than Iraq ever did.


The Bush administration has been EXTREMELY consistent in this war. What you view as inconsistency is what you consider "the necessity" to concentrate all the forces on pursuing Osama. That wasn't priority, as the victory in Afghanistan left the command and control of his organization crippled. Plus, we really didn't totally give up on the search, as you imply. We looked to Iraq because that was a huge potential source for weapons. We were going after RESOURCES that the terrorists could get their hands on, not just the terrorists themselves. This is like taking the food source away from cockroaches instead of waiting in the dark, flipping on the light and stomping the roaches out one by one.

I hardly agree with that assessment. Where's the consistency of fighting a war on terror when you go to war with Iraq which had spurious connections with Al Qaeda at best, and handle Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 terrorists and most of the financial and organization support came from, with kid gloves? Pakistan has been a leading force in global nuclear proliferation, with some of the clients on that very "axis of evil" that Bush talked about, and the Administration's now handing billions of dollars in aid to them?

The so-called victory in Afghanistan just indicates that the Administration knows how to fight military campaigns, but does very little to keep the peace, as shown by the Taliban reforming and now reestablishing control over one-third of the country, and having a significant presence everywhere else in the country outside of Kabul. Like I said, it's a very dangerous place to fight a purported war on terror, while simultaneously having the targets filtered through the lens of geopolitical goals. I'm all for standing against terrorists, but I'm not for stretching our resources thin in that goal in order to go off on some diversionary nation building exercise and fighting wars of choice. Keep in mind that our $500 billion budget deficit does not even include the costs for occupying Iraq. And the soldiers who only recently came back from their extended tours of duty in Iraq are getting sent back there by the end of the year.

[bturk667]

You really make me laugh! The War with Iraq and the War on Terror are different; sorry you mind can not understand that! I play no games, however, the truth sometimes is hard to swallow, isn't it? Therefore, of course you can not hear me!

I do not need people respect or credibility, Bush, however, needs both. He does not have my respect - as it pertains to the Iraq war - or much credibility!

AGAIN, your wrong! It was Mr. Harris' opinion. Also, of course you think me wrong, because I do not agree with your opinion.

Sorry, I have never heard of Micheal Mooron, is he a friend of yours?

[bturk667]

Here is a reply to what I disagree with Mr. Harris, and on why, at least to a point.
First, for a change I will not talk about politics untyil the very end.

I disagree with Mr. Harris contention of the "Italians conquest of Ethiopia" as nothing more than a "prop."
See, if you look at the Roman Empire back to say the time of Constantine, hell even as far back to Cesar, you will see it change. Now Roman change in the type of empire it was. I am assuming you know what Constantine did. Now if you look at Ethiopia, and its relationship the that Roman Empire, you'll began to understand. Now, you do know the history of Ethiopia, don't you? Now if believe that Ethiopia to be the resting place of a particular - o.k. here is a clue - religious artifact, and the fact that there are 22,000 of these structures in Ethiopia; you might see this as a possibly reason as to why the Italians pick Ethiopia instead of another nothern African country to invade.

Again this is my opinion, or is it a theory? Based on your definition it could be a theory, or is it. No, probably not, I'll say it is just my opinion!

Now to the politics. Not only do I interpet what Mr. Harris wrote as nothing more than his OPINION, but I find it full of rhetroic!
Did you really believe, or ever think, that the 9/11 attack was a "Clausewitzian WAR?" As if "ISLAMIC TERRORISTS" would fight a war "as politics carried out by other means." I do find it interesting that Mr. Harris says:" For us the hijacking, like the Plalestinian 'suicide' bombongs, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique that is incidental to a large strategic purpose, a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap. IN SHORT, CLAUSEWITZIAN WAR CARRIED OUT BY OTHER MEANS - IN THIS CASE BY SUICIDE." However later he contrdicts himself by saying:"The fact that we are invovled with an enemy who is NOT engaged in Clausewitzian warfare has serious reprecussions on our policy." Well, which one is it? Is it a "Clausewitzian War" - which by the way he mentions at least six times when talking about 9/11 and Terrorist - or not?

Are we to believe his OPINION that Bush, "Rather than interpeting 9-11 as if it was a "Clausewitzian act of war" (there is that damn term!) Bush instinctively saw it for what it was: the acting out of demented fantasy. When confronted with the enigma of 9-11 (here is were I laughed so hard my side started to hurt!) he was able to avoid the temptastion of trying to interpet it in terms of our own familar categories and traditions. Instead of looking for an utterly mythical root cause for 9-11,or seeing it as a purposeful POLITICAL act on the "CLAUSEWITZIAN MODEL," (now it is a model? I thought it was a war?) he grasped its essential nature in one powerful metaphor, offering, in a sense, a kind of counter-fantasy to the American people, one that allowed them to grasp the horror of 9-11 without being misled by false analogies and misplaced metaphors." Come on, are you serious! How much smoke can one person blow up another mans @SS? What is Bush to this guy, a god? Where would Bush get the so called "instinct" to see this? What as governor of Texas? Do you really think Bush knows what a Clausewitzian War is? This has nothing to do with Bush's intelligence! Do you really buy this BU!!$HIT? If you do, then I feel sorry for you!

Mr. Harris thinks the we as a Nation did not know or understand what aTerrorist Attack was? That somehow thank goodness we had Bush to decipher this "Enigma." This is nothing more than a Bush @ss kisser giving his OPINION, nothing more and nothing less! I guess, however, you do not see this, sad, very sad! I know, I know, I'm wrong and of course your right, as well as Mr. Harris! My argument will have no merit, YADA YADA YADA!!!

Hey, let me know what you think about the Italians and the conquest of Ethiopia. I know I did not go into great deal. I figured a smart guy like you could find some facts and some research! I did not want to influence you to much! You know because I have "the propensity to twist words around in order to make them mean what I want them to mean." As if you do not! You make me laugh, and hard some times!

Have a super day; I hope without a Clausewitzian War!!!

[jeskibuff]

if you look at Ethiopia, and its relationship the that Roman Empire, you'll began to understand. Now, you do know the history of Ethiopia, don't you? Now if believe that Ethiopia to be the resting place of a particular - o.k. here is a clue - religious artifact, and the fact that there are 22,000 of these structures in Ethiopia; you might see this as a possibly reason as to why the Italians pick Ethiopia instead of another nothern African country to invade.I don't have the time to respond fully to your post at this time, but why don't you just state your case instead of dancing all around it? I certainly am not steeped in the history of Ethiopia, so wonder what you're talking about here. 22,000 rosary beads? Statues of St. Christopher? Did Mussolini want to corner the market on voodoo dolls? Was he successful? Seeing's how you're the expert on the subject, please educate the rest of us. Make your point...don't just allude to it!

Everything I find on the web or places like MS Encarta indicates that Mussolini's motivation was intended to promote the idea of a revived Roman Empire. We can all agree that Spielberg's movie trilogy was one of the greatest to come out of Hollywood, but aside from trying to use that as a historical document, can you find some credible accounts that say Mussolini (by himself or prodded on by Hitler) conquered Ethiopia with the primary intent to find this "secret weapon", one that would make an army invincible? I can't find any, but I haven't looked all that hard.

P.S. Would you mind putting a little more effort into proof-reading your posts? Your thoughts kind of bounce all over the place and your grammar isn't the best. It means that other people have to read and re-read your posts several times in order to try to divine what you're trying to say. I'll put the effort into doing so, but I'm certain that others won't bother. It's in YOUR best interests to try to communicate your ideas if you want people to see things from your perspective.

[Justlisten2]

It's a relative term, like fat, slow and smart. That's why these battles between the Henkels and McCoys drag on, because each side sees the other side as the evildoer. It's just a vicious cycle of hatred.

[bturk667]

Sorry, but my mind bounces around. If you have a hard time following the bouncing ball, sorry!

[bturk667]

P.S. My grammar isn't the best? Excuse, but too bad, I'm not writing a paper to be graded. No offense, but your not worth that kind of effort.

[jeskibuff]

Okay, Bruno. Time to take some time to digest your post, although I now remember why I didn't bother responding to it before. It's scatterbrained and you last posted with words like "No offense, but your not worth the effort." With comments like that, I shouldn't bother at all with responding to YOU, but as promised in another post (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=28289#post28289), I said I'd address this one. Plus, the effort to figure out what you're trying to communicate is too great. It shouldn't be up to me to divine what you're trying to say. But here goes, anyway...


For us the hijacking, like the Plalestinian 'suicide' bombongs, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique that is incidental to a large strategic purpose, a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap. IN SHORT, CLAUSEWITZIAN WAR CARRIED OUT BY OTHER MEANS - IN THIS CASE BY SUICIDE." However later he contrdicts himself by saying:"The fact that we are invovled with an enemy who is NOT engaged in Clausewitzian warfare has serious reprecussions on our policy." Well, which one is it? Is it a "Clausewitzian War" - which by the way he mentions at least six times when talking about 9/11 and Terrorist - or not?Your lack of reading comprehension is glaring here. Harris is NOT contradicting himself. Let's shorten that sentence to "For us the hijackings...are viewed...as...Clausewitzian war". He's not saying that it was an act of Clausewitzian war...he's saying that many people make the mistake of viewing it as if it were an act of Clausewitzian war. Some people (that's you!) even make the mistake of misinterpreting the explanation! :rolleyes: So just for clarity's sake, in case you STILL don't get it...he's saying that 9/11 WAS NOT an act of Clausewitzian war. GET IT NOW??? Sheeesh! And in the future, you may find the simple action of cut-and-paste will totally eliminate gross misspellings like "bombongs" and "Plalestinian". But I imagine to you, getting it right just "isn't worth the effort", right??


Bush instinctively saw it for what it was: the acting out of demented fantasy. When confronted with the enigma of 9-11 (here is were I laughed so hard my side started to hurt!) he was able to avoid the temptastion of trying to interpet it in terms of our own familar categories and traditions.We should laugh at YOUR stupidity so hard that it makes our sides hurt, but it's really just merely pathetic and more deserving of disdain.


Instead of looking for an utterly mythical root cause for 9-11,or seeing it as a purposeful POLITICAL act on the "CLAUSEWITZIAN MODEL," (now it is a model? I thought it was a war?) he grasped its essential natureDo I have to explain to you the difference between a model and an implementation of that model? I don't think I'm going to bother. This is basic stuff, Bruno. Go back to school!


What is Bush to this guy, a god? Where would Bush get the so called "instinct" to see this? What as governor of Texas? Do you really think Bush knows what a Clausewitzian War is? This has nothing to do with Bush's intelligence!Wherever Bush gets his instinct doesn't matter. It could be listening to his cabinet. It could be gut instinct and common sense. It could be divine guidance. It could be from reading Tarot cards, but I doubt it. THE FACT IS that Bush's response was RIGHT ON TARGET. You may think he's stupid, but in light of all the evidence, he appears to be the smart one, and you the stupid one!


Mr. Harris thinks the we as a Nation did not know or understand what aTerrorist Attack was? That somehow thank goodness we had Bush to decipher this "Enigma."Harris' article is a brilliantly written piece of analysis. It digs down deep into motivations of the terrorists that ring true when held up to intense scrutiny. The fact that YOU trip over so many of the points indicates that YOU are the one not only unable to "decipher this enigma", but unable to follow the path of thought he laid down so carefully to track.


You make me laugh, and hard some times!Well, that's good, because if I was as dumb as you are, I'd be pretty depressed! It's sad that you thought you had caught some kind of great inconsistency in Harris' words when in fact you just didn't bother with understanding what he was saying. This seems to be a common trait of liberals, but still you should be embarrassed by it!


Sorry, but my mind bounces around. If you have a hard time following the bouncing ball, sorry!Okay, then. I won't bother anymore trying to interpret your scatterbrained words.

[bturk667]

So now your a spelling Nazi? Yeah, me spleling is bad, but who ceras, I'm not hrer to dazzlele you with my speling, am I? So that is going to be your first line of defense; to point out my grammatical mistakes? OUCH!! No, I'm sorry, it was my reading comprehension.

"We should laugh at YOUR stupidity so hard [...} but it's really just a pathetic and more deserving of disdain."

This is were you start to get personal, WHY?

"You may think he's stupid, but in light of all the evidence, he appears to be the smart one, and you the stupid one." There you go calling me stupid again. "Well, that's good, because if I was as dumb as you are, I'd be pretty depressed!" Ouch, now that really hurts!

At least I do not personally attack you. This, to me, is the sign of a little man. No, I take that back, it is the sign of a boy!

Since you want to attack me personally, how about doing so in person? Show me your a real man, not a boy. I like to look in the eyes of the people who personally attack me!

Ball is in your court!

[jeskibuff]

So now your a spelling Nazi?Your spelling and grammar just make it difficult to understand what you're saying. It's your decision on whether or not you want to communicate better. Obviously, you don't care too much about that.


So that is going to be your first line of defense; to point out my grammatical mistakes? OUCH!! No, I'm sorry, it was my reading comprehension.Nope. The only way I can validly counter the points you're making is to first understand what it is you're trying to say. After I went through that trouble, it was clear that there wasn't much to your point to begin with. What a letdown. It was your lack of reading comprehension that caused you to have been mistaken in your assessment. Once I extracted your main point, there was no effort at all to strike down that point. So, I might agree with you...it's harder to understand what you're saying than it is to show you where you're wrong. Call it my "first line of defense". I wouldn't call it a defense at all...you offer absolutely no "offense".


This is were you start to get personal, WHY?Perhaps if you hadn't been so cocky, I would've gone easier on you. But you marched into that other thread as if I was ducking out of an argument. Your nasty attitude was evident a couple posts up where you say: "No offense, but your not worth that kind of effort." When I first read that, I decided that you're not worth responding to. I had forgotten about this thread and had proceeded onto greener pastures. When you baited me back to it and I spent the time to evaluate your words, it got me angry. First, there was your cocky attitude about Clausewitzian war that you made in the other thread, as if you were certain that I had a misperception. Second, there were your two above March 19th posts that indicated you weren't going to make any effort towards improving your communication. Third was the effort required to figure out what you were saying and fourth, once I figured it out, there was nothing there to begin with! WHAT A WASTE OF TIME!


At least I do not personally attack you. This, to me, is the sign of a little man. No, I take that back, it is the sign of a boy!Call it what you want. I call it my increasing intolerance of willing ignorance. You apparently don't really care too much about winnowing out any truth in what you evaluate. You're just interested in trying to pretend that your points are valid, despite the evidence to the contrary.


Since you want to attack me personally, how about doing so in person? Show me your a real man, not a boy. I like to look in the eyes of the people who personally attack me! Ball is in your court!Get a life, Bruno. Deep six the machismo act and just suck up the fact that you were wrong. That's the sign of true manhood, not the satisfaction of childishly throwing a temper tantrum on someone that has offended you.

[bturk667]

Okay Boy!

I have come across people like you who have to degrade people in order to make yourself feel superior. I do not know, maybe your mother did not breast feed you long enough. Maybe your were a bed wetter, maybe you were a paste eating pocket pertector wearing geek who got his ass kicked by the cool kids. Maybe you have a little and inadequate penis and somehow you have to make up for that fact! I am not sure, and I do not care.

Two things that I understand about you. One, know I know why you like Bush. You have about the same intelligence. Both of you TRY to make yourselves seem more intelligent than you really are. Second, you are a little boy without much class. I pitty you, and your tactics. I guess you have to compensate for your flaws any way you can, hey tiny? So the day you evovle into a MAN with class, let me know. Until then, keep trying. Sadly I think it will take you a long time.

P.S. You were wrong. However, that would be hard for a little boy like you to admitt wouldn't it?

Remember, when you grow let me know. I will be expecting that post in a few years. Until then, you know they have medication for penis problems!

[jeskibuff]

Oops! My mistake!

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "cocky" earlier.

It seems to have triggered your latent homosexuality and penis envy, and that certainly was not my intention!

Apparently you want to believe that somewhere in this vast world of ours, there is SOMEONE who has a smaller penis than you. Good luck in your quest!

If I were you, I'd just take some wild guesses on domain names to find what you're looking for. Here are a few suggestions:
http://www.HelpMeComeOutOfTheCloset.com
http://www.TheresGottaBeSomeoneSmallerThanMe.com
http://www.Pedophiles.com
http://www.HomosexualNirvana.com

That's a start, but it may give you a little kickstart to find what you're looking for.

And let me give you another tip, Bruno. If you're in an argument with an adversary, NEVER provide them with additional ammunition. It's like loading your enemy's cannon, then failing to step out from in front of the barrel while he lights the fuse! In general, it's NOT too smart! :rolleyes:

Case in point...

You say:

I have come across people like you who have to degrade people in order to make yourself feel superior.

Then in the very next sentence, you yourself proceed to "degrade people in order to make yourself feel superior". It would be funny if it weren't so ironically stupid and hypocritical of you.


Two things that I understand about you. One, know I know why you like Bush. You have about the same intelligence.And that intelligence is obviously FAR superior to yours. You're just too stupid to realize that you're stupid.


Both of you TRY to make yourselves seem more intelligent than you really are.And what do YOU know about intelligence? :p About as much as you know about nuclear physics, I imagine!


P.S. You were wrong. However, that would be hard for a little boy like you to admitt wouldn't it?Wrong about WHAT? Clausewitzian war? Nope. You were wrong about that, and apparently not man enough to admit it.


Remember, when you grow let me know. I will be expecting that post in a few years. Until then, you know they have medication for penis problems!I don't believe in that kind of snake oil, but apparently you do. Let me know what your results are, and if promising, I might try it. Every man would probably appreciate another inch or two, but in your case that sounds like it would be DOUBLE! In the meantime, you may want to hang out in gymnasium showers for the rare chance in finding someone who is smaller than you. :eek:

In the meantime, I'll let you have the last word here. You obviously can't stick to the subject matter and this has obviously turned into a pissing contest, thus, a waste of my time.

So, make your last comment a GOOD ONE, because I won't respond to it, unless of course it deals with the original topic!

[Keith from Canada]

I actually enjoyed that article and thought that it was very well written and very well researched. I found that the author rightly points out that too many people point to the "root causes" of terrorism (e.g. poverty, imperialism...aka the social conditions of the time) as being the only factors that they take into account when viewing what took place. I note that Chomsky is prone to doing just this in his analysis at times. However, the author then takes us into the realm of theory when he discusses the development of 'fantasy ideology' that led to the rise of Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy. I have no problem with this foray into theory however, the author completely ignores the social conditions that were present at the time when these historic examples came about. To claim that these societies and cultures simply manufactured a 'fantasy ideology' misses one of the fundamental questions that needs to be answered...what were the conditions that made the society ripe for these 'fantasies' to sink into the collective conscious?

In my opinion, had the author attempted to blend his analysis with a more thorough understanding of the social conditions surrounding his historic examples, he would have gone a long way towards grasping the 'Truth' surrounding how these events take place in human history. As it stands, his belief that our quest for "root causes" is somehow misplaced, led him to rejecting those questions and, in essence, he threw the baby out with the bathwater. To say that terrorists have created a "fantasy ideology" based on elements of their culture and religion is to state the obvious. It is clear to virtually anyone that looks at their belief system that they have adopted -- much like Hitler and the Germans had adopted -- a comprehension of 'Truth' that was of their own making.

The question and the quest must continue to be -- what were the precusors that openned the door for those beliefs? And, the more important question IMO is will bombing the people with those beliefs help, or will it simply open those doors wider?

Of course, that's just my opinion on the issue...

FYI -- thanks for the link, I really did enjoy the article...very nicely written!