I Guess They Do Support Terrorism
One can always count on Jim Fetzer to provide idiotic quotes on any of his radio appearances. We have been arguing whether the CTs support the terrorists. Well, now I guess we find out who they think the terrorists are. From today's show, during a discussion of the current events in Israel and Lebanon, at the 36:53 mark:
Maybe even acknowledge that there are situations in which terrorism may be the only recourse. Witness the colonists fighting the Revolutionary War against the British. If we weren’t able to resort to terrorist actions we could never have defeated them.
OK, I am a bit of a history buff. Could anyone please explain to me how we defeated the British through the mass use of terror. Were there some cart bombings I never heard about?
posted by James B. @ 8:54 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
OK, I am a bit of a history buff. Could anyone please explain to me how we defeated the British through the mass use of terror. Were there some cart bombings I never heard about?
Pick up the Professors sometime. You'll see several members of academia making the exact same analogy.
I mean the analogy is totally apt, besides the patriots not wantonly killing civilians to get your way.
Moral equivalence, though, has become a virus on the campus.
Got any books for those of us that heard Horowitz makes no sense?
Do you believe everything you hear?
LOL! First time I read it I thought, why is he saying "cart bombings" instead of "car bombings".
Apparently I don't believe Horowitz' BS.
Well lucky for you the book is sourced. Oh doesn't that stink he doesn't just pull stuff out of his ass?
Yes,
I would certainly love to hear how the Colonial militias killed British civilians.
I must have missed that day in History class.
Jesus Christ, it was the killing of civilians by the Redcoats (is it PC to say Redcoats?) in the Boston Massacre that was one of the precursors to the declaration of independance.
The closest thing to terrorism was probably the Boston tea party.
When Hamas, Hizbullah, or Al Qaeda start "attacking" us by dumping tea into the harbor, I'll start accepting their grievances as valid.
And a little OT, but not to much:
Sign a virtual IDF Shell:
http://tonasrallahwithlove.blogspot.com/"
There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism. Insurgents in Iraq aren't considered terrorist because they attack US convoys and then hide, but because they blow up mosques, drop mortars on markets, and behead journalists.
The idea that the colonials defeated the British with militiamen hiding behind every rock and tree is largely a myth anyway. The militias were pretty much militarily ineffective. The continental Army itself was pretty much useless. Washington's great accomplishment was that he was able to keep everything from collapsing long enough to get them into shape.
Eventually, largely with European help, particularly the French, they were able to train and equip an effective force. In fact when the British finally surrendered, it wasn't due to some guerilla action, it was when their 8,000 troops at Yorktown were surrounded by over twice as many American and French troops supported by the French Navy.
James is correct, the guerilla warfare of the colonials is largely exagerrated (with exceptions like Francis Marion, who is one of the fathers of the tactic). When there were battles, they tended to go the absolutely ridiculous route of the Napoleonic line fashion, and the Americans almost always lost.
The fact is that their country was invaded and they are waging a war to drive out those invaders
A majority of the insurgents are not Iraqis. Most of these people are waging a war to install an Islamist theocracy.
I don't remember which person it was but one of the leaders of the American revolutionaries admitted after the fact that the Boston massacre was indeed provoked.
The Bostonians did throw things at the British, I'm sure that pissed them off.
I know your sic throwing a fit right now over that
Good, you know I don't like bull[crap] artists. (Though I do like his exposing My Lai.)
To believe that such an insurgency would last so long based primarily on foreign volunteers is ludicrous anyway. Nice try though.
Emphasis mine.
Have you ever heard of Chechyna?
I see, Seymour Hersh is a "bull-crap artist" because he revealed some facts that are inconvenient to your narrow worldview.
He said Americans raped little boys. Then he said that sometimes he fudges what he says. Are we to just believe him because he says so? And YOU of all people should be saying facts inconvenient to anyone. You pretend the Soviet Union was the "good guys" in the Cold War and that America was the aggressor, when that couldn't be further from the truth. On almost every thing you take the stance that shows America in the poorest light, when I have no such qualms.
After 1996 when Wahabbist started to arrive, the insurgency went downhill. The state of the insurgency in the past few years, with the exception of a few very tragic attacks, has died down greatly and the insurgents have not been able to achieve strategic victories of any sort.
The most famous events in the war were by the faction of Islamists. The theatre and school massacres being the two best examples.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Where did Seymour Hersh say EITHER of those things, and how does that relate to the fact that he obtained the information we are discussing
Check the Wikipedia page on him.
Also your comments about Chechnya reveal more ignorance I am afraid. These two terrorist attacks, while very public and terrible in nature- do not represent success for the Chechen insurgency. In fact it represents their failure to affect the strategic situation in the area in dispute.
How is it ignorant? It brought the most attention to Chechnya, which is the point of these attacks. Why do people in the West continue supporting Palestine when they purposely target people in discos and pizza parlors or school busses?
Their insurgency has been plummeting downhill ever since the Wahhabist showed up on the scene: Khattab was killed, and I recently read that Basayev has also been killed recently.
Yes, the Russians nailed him (thank goodness). Even before the Islamists came on the scene, they were going downhill, that's WHY the Islamists (and the influx of foreign fighters) came. The Chechens were pissed about a pro-Moscow regime being installed.
Well I'm gonna do something you didn't do when you were shown up with your "America being the Cold War aggressor" nonsense - I was wrong.
Funny you use the idiotic "omg liberal officers" - since I'm a classical liberal.
I honestly don't care if they're foreigners or not (since the foreigners are the ones who are blowing up car bombs to kill civilians). A majority of Iraqis think that the overthrow of Saddam was a positive. In the Arab world liberation is something to be celebrated, but occupation is not.
Just admit that this insurgency is Iraqi and clearly enjoys some measure of popular support- both passive and active.
Do you even read polls? Most Iraqis don't like the American occupation - but most say the overthrow of Saddam was a positive. Now who's ignoring facts based on their preconceived notions. I said nothing of the Arab world at large.
And still, you cling to the fantasy of NATO being the offensive force. The Warsaw Pact alone proves my point. The Berlin Airlift proves my point. The Korean War proves my point.
When did they undermine a sovereign government
Err the Soviets had a history of suppressing democratic movements in Eastern Europe. Are you for real?
Oh, and the Cuban Missle Crisis was nothing.
Jp, revisionist history is the realm of people like Killtown, don't fall in the trap.
CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS? Are you insane? Did you hear of something called the Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuba was a tiny country that was, and to some extent still is- facing the military might of the only regional superpower at the time. Plus the US had put its nukes in Turkey already.
Oh man they wanted to overthrow an auotcratic regime? Say it isn't so! Kennedy obviously didn't put much into it, he pulled his support in the air and the invaders were trounced.
And what does it matter who had the nukes first? Nobody was worried nuclear war was gonna start with the Turkish deployment. The Soviets had been the imperial power up till then (remember they controlled Eastern Europe, completely against WW2 decisions).
Even the slavishly simplistic and pro-American Complete Idiot's Guide to North Korea admits these facts to a large extent.
Oh no, it's "pro-American"! (All Idiot's Guides are simplistic, by the way, hence the name.) South Korea was a shit country for a long time, but compared to the North it was and still is a paradise. Not to mention the North invaded the South, ergo American intervention being a defensive measure.
However- the amount of military intervention is still far eclipsed by that of the West- primarily in support of military juntas and colonial regimes.
I know you've heard of the Cominform.
The problem is, JP follows the moral equivalance model of geo-politics. To him it doesn't matter whether you're a fascist dictator or a democraticaly elected president, you have the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to international conduct. In fact, being a dictator or a mass murderer runs in your advantage because he can explain your actions away by saying they were expected, while focusing on the fact that the US president was caught jaywalking.
As far as Iraq is concerned, JP I would absolutely LOVE to hear your ideas for how to deal with the situation. I could use a good laugh.
Post a Comment
<< Home