Le Monde said this. . .????

As you are all obviously (and quite rightly) looking up to me as the adult voice around here I suggest you all go to your rooms and stay there until you learn to play nicely.

"(a) pulling out before the job is done will be worse for European (and US) security than staying in"

Yes -- but it's a bit of a non-statement as nobody is suggesting pulling out and just leaving Iraq to fall into chaos.

Rather the suggestion is that the occupation should be internationalised as quickly as possible as the fact that it's seen predominantly as a US occupation is the biggest part of the Iraq problem that directly concerns terrorism. Now I am fairly sure you agree with this so I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the position of the Spanish government which was essentially to apply what little leverage they had into forcing the US to relinquish control. They are saying "Get the UN in by June 30 in or we are having no further part of this and will seek to apply pressue via a closer alliance with France and Germany than the US and UK" which is a long way from the sort of appeasment line that you (or at least the US right) seem to want to apply.

"(b) that the possibility of terrorism against European nations and the US will not be diminished by pulling out of Iraq"

The possibility of terrorism will be reduced in the long term by the US pulling out of Iraq (as it would be if the US would act as an "honest broker" in other mid-East issues). Again this is not the same as just upping and leaving next wedneday and nobody is suggesting it is.

"(c) that the risk of terrorism is manifest even in those countries that did not support US foreign policy"

If we assume for the moment that this particular element of US Foreign Policy (the invasion of Iraq) has increased the amount and risk of terrorism, then obviously supporting this is the wrong thing to do and a country should stop such support. That this risk might extend to countries that had always maintained that this behaviour was going to cause more not less terrorism just makes it worse.

"I am pretty sure, though, that permitting Iraq to fall into a state of Sunni or Shi-ite fundamentalist control [...] will do NOTHING to diminish the popular base of support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists"

The constitution needs to hold the country together and so has to accomodate and protext Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish elements but there is no reason to suppose that Iraq will not ultimately be a coutry largely ruled by Muslims of one variety of another. The main point is you -- or the US -- do not get to decide but the Iraqis do and, the chances are, you are not going to like it much.

"Perhaps, my view is that the BEST way to change this "popular base of support" for Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists is to support the establishment of liberal democratic ideals in the the region"

This is and always has been the fundamental flaw of the Neocon position: you can't just turn up and hold an election and switch on a button that says "Liberal Deomcracy" and expect to be asking them about joining NAFTA sometime next year. Quite apart from the absurdity of attacking somewhere to install democracy at the point of a gun, sustainable democracy is the product of advanced, stable, strong, wealthy societies -- unless you've willing to committ to 20+ years of intensive and costly nation building you can pretty much forget it.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
As you are all obviously (and quite rightly) looking up to me as the adult voice around here I suggest you all go to your rooms and stay there until you learn to play nicely.

---

I think I have played nicely. My posts have included some hyperbole, no doubt. And they do not contain the literal references to claims that BigMick would like them to. But Harvey and BigMick's posts have been WAY over the top in terms of personal insults and bullying.

As with Harvet and BigMick, I have tried to present my arguments and respond to other arguments with some sense of thier merits - and confined myself to reasoned analysis. On the other hand, the bulk of BigMick's last post consisted of the following sorts of gems:

"poorly thought out, barely researched, largely plagiarised, dismally argued and barely comprehensible bellicose cobblers"

and

"steaming pile of ordure"

etc.

And what is with all the accusations about me using bog words. I use the same sorts of words that BigMick uses (though I can't spell them). These are attacks designed to take the focus off of the arguments I'm making.

In any event, Mathhew seems to be able to respond to me in a reasonable way. courteous debate is the reason I opened this thread (or any threads, for that matter).

quote:

---

_"(a) pulling out before the job is done will be worse for European (and US) security than staying in"_

Yes -- but it's a bit of a non-statement as nobody is suggesting pulling out and just leaving Iraq to fall into chaos.

---

I agree with this up to a point. But what if there is no UN agreement on this matter? (possible, as I have said before, Bush has fucked up this post-war issue royally and seems disinclined to make nice with the UN). As you say, the bar for keeping Spain in Iraq is low. But with future attacks possible (or even likely) will the bar be raised? The question I had was if Bush remains obstinant on this matter, will Europe pull out of Iraq then?

quote:

---

Rather the suggestion is that the occupation should be internationalised as quickly as possible as the fact that it's seen predominantly as a US occupation is the biggest part of the Iraq problem that directly concerns terrorism. Now I am fairly sure you agree with this so I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the position of the Spanish government which was essentially to apply what little leverage they had into forcing the US to relinquish control.

---

As I have said, (and you rightly point out) I agree that UN support is essential. But the concerns I expressed above still apply. The concern is that changing an election based on a terrorist act sets a bad precident and emboldens rather than helps put down people bent on violence for political gain. I am sympathetic to the fact that the socialist party wanted out of Iraq from the very beginning. But despite that position, polls showed a different outcome to the election. It is to this issue that I am most concerned.

quote:

---

_"(b) that the possibility of terrorism against European nations and the US will not be diminished by pulling out of Iraq"_

The possibility of terrorism will be reduced in the long term by the US pulling out of Iraq (as it would be if the US would act as an "honest broker" in other mid-East issues). Again this is not the same as just upping and leaving next wedneday and nobody is suggesting it is.

---

Agreed. But as you say, this is a kind of "non-statement". Of course terrorism will be reduced as long as the US and Europe pulls out of Iraq after the job is done, and not before. But even in the absence of a UN resolution, staying in Iraq is either good for European security, or it is not. Whether Bush gives in on the UN issue does not change the fundamental equation of the importance of making Iraq work. In the event of a failure at the UN, Spain IS saying that they are leaving next "wednesday" (ie, June), no?

quote:

---

_"(c) that the risk of terrorism is manifest even in those countries that did not support US foreign policy"_

If we assume for the moment that this particular element of US Foreign Policy (the invasion of Iraq) has increased the amount and risk of terrorism, then obviously supporting this is the wrong thing to do and a country should stop such support. That this risk might extend to countries that had always maintained that this behaviour was going to cause more not less terrorism just makes it worse.

---

This doesn't answer the charge, though. I suggest that we cannot assume Iraq is the reason (or primary reason) for increased attacks if those attacks also hit countries that did not support Iraq. France and Turkey are counter-exmaples to the charge that new terrorism is primarily related to Iraq.

Morever, your statement goes too far. Afghanistan, many would argue, ALSO increases the risk of terrorism. Yet, nobody is suggesting that we pull out of there. I am sympathetic to the notion that we have not gotten afghanistan right (and this failure to fund and follow through makes additional terror more likely). But we are in (assuming a failure at the UN) a similar situation in Iraq.

quote:

---

_"I am pretty sure, though, that permitting Iraq to fall into a state of Sunni or Shi-ite fundamentalist control [...] will do NOTHING to diminish the popular base of support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists"_

The constitution needs to hold the country together and so has to accomodate and protext Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish elements but there is no reason to suppose that Iraq will not ultimately be a coutry largely ruled by Muslims of one variety of another. The main point is you -- or the US -- do not get to decide but the Iraqis do and, the chances are, you are not going to like it much.

[QUOTE]

Yes -- and while the US has a fundamential adisagreement with religion controlled states, I'm certain that we have come to grips with the fact that Sheria law will control some aspects of Iraq. I think this was inevitable. Still, the constitution (as far as it goes) established some basic elements of a liberal democracy. My concern is not an Islamic state, but a fundamentalist Islamic state like that in Afghanistan prior to the war, or worse, chaos, which will lead to nothing much better.

[QUOTE]
_"Perhaps, my view is that the BEST way to change this "popular base of support" for Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists is to support the establishment of liberal democratic ideals in the the region"_

This is and always has been the fundamental flaw of the Neocon position: you can't just turn up and hold an election and switch on a button that says "Liberal Deomcracy" and expect to be asking them about joining NAFTA sometime next year. Quite apart from the absurdity of attacking somewhere to install democracy at the point of a gun, sustainable democracy is the product of advanced, stable, strong, wealthy societies -- unless you've willing to committ to 20+ years of intensive and costly nation building you can pretty much forget it.

---

Of course there is a right way and a wrong way to do this sort of thing - and unfortunatly Bush is turning this thing into the wrong way. Still, the institutional pillars of Iraq are more "liberal" than they have been for decades. The interim consitution has real and genuine safeguards for human rights, voting rights, etc. And it's unfair to impune the concept simply by referring to it as "neo-conservative" (a term intended by those who use it accusingly to have its own sort of weight). The concept of liberal democratic reform used to be a "liberal" rather than conservative model. Civil rights in Iran, Tibett, etc. You see what I am getting at.

Further, Ruwanda and Kosovo represent more counter-examples of non "neocon" interventions based on traditional "liberal" democratic principles, both of which upon the UN was not consulted.

I recognize the difference between Kosovo and Iraq. We did NOT even go into Iraq under the guise of liberal democratic principles - although we try to support it on those grounds now after the fact (because of a failure to find WMD there).

I do NOT catagorically state the best way to these ends is, as you say, at the end of a gun. For instance, the best way for those sorts of reforms in Iran are probably better forms of benign support for moderates in government, reformers, etc.

Judd

With respect to BigMick, I'll concede that he has beaten me.

With respect to Harvey, I've set out my arguments as clearly as I know how to in my last post to you. You could respond to them in a courteous and reasoned way like Mathhew did, or you could continue your personal assault on me.

Judd

"The concern is that changing an election based on a terrorist act sets a bad precident"

Your country is rightly proud of and protective of its Constitution and the associated Freedoms enjoyed by its citizens. 9/11 was seen by many as an attack on those freedoms -- not least by yourself. Post-9/11 Bush promptly removed a chunk of them by signing the Patriot Act.

IIRC Bush also pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia -- another key al-Qaeda demand.

Ergo, by your logic, Bush is guilty of appeasement or, in some sense, giving in to terrorism.

"But despite that position, polls showed a different outcome to the election. It is to this issue that I am most concerned."

The bombing had an effect but it was actually the conduct of the government in response to the bobming that altered the election. And, more specifically, nothing changed actual voting intentions and by-and-large PP voters voted PP and Socialist voted Socialist despite the bombing and its aftermath.

What appears to have happened is that the events mobilised the Socialists' voter base (predominantly the largely apathetic young people) and produced a much larger than expected turnout (which is a good thing deomcracy-wise). This extra turnout is what ultimately defeated the incumbent government.

So I think your concern is unjustified.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:

Ergo, by your logic, Bush is guilty of appeasement or, in some sense, giving in to terrorism.

---

No, I don't believe this. Two reasons. First, I don't happen to think that Al Queda gives two shits about whether Americans have the freedoms we traditionally enjoy. Letting the government look at my library borrowing record does not translate to Bin laden high-fiving his #2 guy. The "goal" is to kill us - little more than that.

I have never bought into the oft-quote insistence that making "reasonable" limits on absolute freedom in the name of "security" means the "terrorists have won". To me (maybe I am wrong) blowing up a building full of people translates into a far greater victory for BL (and a far greater loss the US) than open-wire taps, etc. They're not sitting around a campfire in the hills of Pakistan burning copies of our constitution. As many on this thread have already said, I think basically they just want us dead.

To me, the notion that the patriot act means the terrorists have won rings with the same sort of truth as claiming that successful terrorist bombs in Iraq mean the terrorists are "getting desperate". Both are just spin.

As far as Saudi Arabia, you may be right. I'm the last to say that Bush has been a greater leader thus far.

In any event, I'm not happy with all the provisions in the Patriot act (god, what an awfull name - as if expressly designed to invoke images of beatdowns for not being patriotic enough). Still, I think there is a possible theoretical balance between security and civil rights - I don't profess to know what it is. My guess is that the Patriot act goes too far in some instances, and not far enough in others.

quote:

---

The bombing had an effect but it was actually the conduct of the government in response to the bobming that altered the election. And, more specifically, nothing changed actual voting intentions and by-and-large PP voters voted PP and Socialist voted Socialist despite the bombing and its aftermath.

---

I'm not sure I recognize a difference between people switching thier votes in response to a stimulus or merely deciding to vote in response to the stimulus. It seems to me the decision making behind those two decisions is about the same.

Still, I'm sympathetic to the notion that much of the greater turnout may come down to a perceived anger at the government for lying about the source of the blast. While I find that explanation in the papers convenient, in reality, I think it is a healthy dose of both.

In the end, however, I'm not sure it matters with respect to the prospects of future attacks. This is because the real reason for the switch in the election (let's assume you are 100% right) would pale in comparison with the perceived reasons held by Al Queda. For those who do the thinking for them, I don't think they are sitting around saying things like "well, yea, they are more likely to pull out of Iraq now, but that's only because the government lied to them". The issue with the elections (whatever their true motivation) either will or will not embolden terrorists to commit further acts. Even if I agree that the unexpected outcome was due to other factors, I can't ignore my sense that Al Queda feels pretty victorious (well, assuming it was them).


Judd

The point is that the simplistic and factually incorrect picture painted by the usual rightist commentators and media channels (which you seemed to be subscribing to even if you weren't) was simple case of Spain was going to have a right wing government, the terrorists attack, Spanish voters responded by voting in a government that was "soft on terrorism", therfore the Spanish were cowed by al-Qaeda and acts of terror and are appeasers. Much of what has been said in this vein conventiently ignores most of the facts and quickly arrives at unfounded conclusions which neatly match their own agendas.

We are just giving you a chance to distance yourself from such twaddle

Matthew

PS In much of this I am reminded of the old Onion headline "Congress Committee Finds Truth to 'have left wing bias'"

yes, but you are nitpicking now. It's certainly possible to disagree with me on many points. But it's not enough to simply refer to it as right-wing twaddle.

For instance, on the first page of this thread, Madrid wrote the following:

"In influencing the Spanish elections, Al-Qaida can be forgiven for concluding that it´s acts can have an effect in Europe, which means more than in Spain.

. . . European mentality may be forced to change. Until late last week, it was impossible to see a Spanish media report which did not refer to American security measures without also referring to a collective "psychosis" of the entire U.S. population. I suspect this may change. . ."

I quote Madrid here not because for its evidentiary value, but to suggest that my idea, while perhaps you don't agree with, are certainly arguable AND do not reflect only those opinions of "neo-conservatives".

You can go up and down all my posts and disagree with every one of them (though, your own posts suggest that you do not) and still not find reason to attack them as BigMick has done.

Judd

Justin said

quote:

---

I said that I was talking about taking political risks - not picking up a gun. Why do you ignore this?

---

I don’t recalling even asking you about this. Please show where I said this?
On that point, repeating ad nausea that you were talking about political risk does not answer the question that others have asked i.e. what political risk are you seeking from your choice of president. Whenever a neocon expresses a desire to see the leader of the country willing to stick his nuts in the fire and take political risks, most right-thinking people aren’t exactly anticipating a desire for radical Medicare or welfare to work reforms; they’re frightened. So what risks are talking about?

Justin said

quote:

---

Secondly, I explained clearly (I think) why judging the merits of ones arguments with reference to his risk of going to war or being killed in an attack is prejudicial. I said that such an argument is no better than the converse - i.e., one suggesting that a "dove" dislikes military conflict not out of a sense of principle, but because he is a coward.

---

This has nothing to do with anything and your converse doesn’t work. What Herm and I were saying is that as the people in the firing line, we’d be grateful if the person who never will be in the firing line, but whose continued vocal support for a failed anti-terrorism policy which has left our continent much worse off in terms of real and perceived threat, would kindly shut the hell up. What’s needed is a broad yet insightful and intelligent approach as outlined by Ludwig as opposed to your favoured hedge clippers. It’s not a difficult concept, just that the people most likely to suffer from your blunt approach, i.e. a lot of us and not you, want you to turn it down by about a hundred clicks or preferably turn it off before you get us or our neighbours killed. And this explains why the following assessment is completely wrong:
Justin said

quote:

---

I found Herm's argument "disgusting" because he suggests that I am not also effected by terrorism unless it actually happens to me - that I am incapable of the same measure of empathy that the "enlightened" appear to have.

---

Justin said

quote:

---

Secondly, I explained clearly (I think) why judging the merits of ones arguments with reference to his risk of going to war or being killed in an attack is prejudicial. I said that such an argument is no better than the converse - i.e., one suggesting that a "dove" dislikes military conflict not out of a sense of principle, but because he is a coward.

---

I have no idea what you’re talking about but as ever please refresh me. The last thread I recall comprised of this exchange:

Harvey said

quote:

---

quote:

Forget......sanctimonious waffle, he just supports any lame duck or nutter in order to appear "nice and reasonable".


Justin
Given that I clearly stated that I couldn't give a damn about Clare Short, which lame duck or nutter are you claiming I support and where is the basis?

---

Unsurprisingly you have thus far been unable to answer that accusation.

I doubt that coward is the converse of warmonger. We’re discussing the fight against terrorism and as the days pass and events unfold, I would defy anyone to say that the war in Iraq has contributed positively in any way in this respect. Arguably, it looks like this invasion and the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis has provided greater recruitment than AQ could ever have dreamt off, with Iraq being a magnet for anyone considering thing up arms in the cause of Islamic fundamentalism.

Justin said

quote:

---

I've nothing against doing something about the "popular base of support" for groups like Al Queda.

---

I think that the important word in this statement is “something”. My reading of Matthew’s words were that we need to remove the conditions which drive so many Muslims into the arms of militant groups. The West needs to move into Israel and knock heads together on both sides and take absolutely no shit until the people on the ground have a future to live for, pulling the rug out from under the militants and Israelis who want to keep grabbed land at any cost. The West needs to completely reassess its political and trading alliances with corrupt regimes. The US installed the Shah as dictator of Iran, overthrew democratically elected Arbenz in Guatemala, Vietnam, well enough said, installed Pinochet in Chile, backed military rulers in El Salvador, trained BL and gave him $3bn, gave Saddam $billions to arm up and attack Iran. The list and the roll call of the innocent dead are staggering. UK and France also have blood on their hands in this regard. No wonder it’s been so easy for the militants to recruit when the West has been seen to prop up and cannoodle with the most despicable regimes or warlords one minute and then next drop a ton of bombs, kill thousands of people and install a provisional authority of our choosing. My point is that this is the kind of introspection, along with diplomatic and armed force, that is such a vital part of any anti-terrorism policy and this is what I think Matthew and subsequent posts held to be crucial to any solution. Your statement:


I'm unwilling to entertain the notion that the asnwers can be found by looking introspectively

leads me to believe that your “something” is substantially entirely different to the intentions of Matthew and others. I may be interpreting Matthew’s words incorrectly and if I have, well I stand corrected but I doubt that I have.

Justin said

quote:

---

In any event, Matthew has also said the following on the first page of this thread:

"But of all the very good reasons for not getting involved not wanting to make oneself a target for terrorists sounds like the least persuasive and of course Al-Qaeda would have found some other reason to blow some people up somewhere. I suspect the prime motive in their operations is opportunity".

How exactly is this bit of analysis different from my own?

---

Again I’m quite happy to be corrected by the author, but I suspect that you are either being disingenuous or fail to understand what Matthew was saying. My understanding is that he’s saying that there were so many other strong, indisputable, morally defensible reasons for not invading Iraq that wanting to avoid being a target would be the most feeble of reasons. That’s the line taken by many posters here, but unless I’m mistaken, I did not believe this to be your view. I’m not aware that any country even hinted as this being a reason for not joining the invasion.

Skipping ahead to your final post, I think that at last we get to the nub of neocon thinking and the following quote explains the black and white analysis, the conviction that we are in no way to blame for any of the current Islamic discontent, the unshakeable belief that therefore the only way to cure it is to change utterly the face of the Islamic world, to force our values on it and to indiscriminately kill all who appear to stand in the way. The Christopher Hitchens quote that Bhoyo offered earlier will suffice as example of the mindset and insightful plan:

quote:

---

Christopher Hitchens wrote of ETA (and, by extension, al-Qaeda):

"The only response is a quiet, steady hatred and contempt, and a cold determination to outlast the perpetrators while remorselessly tracking them down."

---

So that’ll be for how many generations then?

Bigmick’s Sullivan quote summed it up well, but Justin’s concise and economic statement trumped it
Justin said

quote:

---

As many on this thread have already said, I think basically they just want us dead.

---

Two statements. “I think basically they just want us dead” is the most telling and explains why talk of a multi-stranded policy to counter terrorism is simply anathema to neocons. They simply do not want to hear the possibility that for these terrorists there may be a motivation borne out of circumstance, environment, history, poverty, inequity, persecution, subjugation by an oppressor or invader who may or may not be linked to the West. They so badly want to believe the terrorists are born or raised to want us dead or that some sort of uncontrollable DNA switch is thrown that makes people want us all dead. I can’t recall having that fear in the pit of stomach about Islamic militants blowing up trains and buildings during my teenage years at college. My father can’t recall this fear. It hasn’t been happening for ever. If they just want us dead then we really are screwed, and no amount of smart bombs, helicopter gunships and stealth aircraft are going to save us, but humanity and logic doesn’t support this view. The only rational explanation is that things have happened to places and peoples, changed irrevocably and heinous crimes have been committed in our name and still are. Sure we need to use force but these people are humans and we’ve all got the same basic drives and desires. I reckon we’ve got a good few years of bloody payback ahead of us but we’ve got to start looking now at righting wrongs and redressing balances if we’re to see the benefits anytime soon.

“As many on this thread have already said”- I could be wrong, but I didn’t notice this sentiment. More likely just wishful thinking and hoping that group think hysteria will carry this dark notion along, so that the more people believe that others believe, then more people are fooled into accepting the premise, if you know what I mean. This ain't an attack guy, just an observation, so don't get all sweaty on it.

For what seems like the 20th time, there’s the argument. It seems rather pointless to continue on in the hope of getting answers and luckily it seems that Matthew’s welcome mellow tones reemphasizing what everybody else has been telling you has tamed you somewhat and hey maybe a penny or two will drop.

PS Just noticed your last post.

quote:

---

You can go up and down all my posts and disagree with every one of them (though, your own posts suggest that you do not) and still not find reason to attack them as BigMick has done.

---

Doubtless bigmick can defend himself on this one, but I think you’ll find that once you start misquoting people, making claims and accusations which you cannot substantiate and refuse to answer questions, then the only way others have to get any satisfaction is to go through your points forensically, as bigmick and to a certain extent myself have done, and take you to task. Read bigmick’s last post about responsibility for your statements and you’ll understand.

[I decided to edit this post away. I had a bunch of stuff (Mathhew can tell you how full of neocon "repugnant bile" it was and generally non-responsive it was to Harvey's post) and I'll be satisfied with that.

This thread was going fine until BigMick's response to my first response to him. And then it stopped being civilized and principled. I'm not sure how the rest of you could have tolerated the "repugnant bile" for so long. It continued in a civil manner during the last page with reasoned arguments back and forth betweenn myself and Mathhew (even if he doesn't agree with me . But I think that's it.

One thing I can't quite figure out is why BigMick and Harvey continue to post about my posts if they have no hope that i will be able to respond satisfactorily.

Anyway, again, it;'s nothing but personal insults, blah blah. So, I'm done. ]

Judd

[This message was edited by Justin on Fri 19 March 2004 at 0:59.]

Harvey was closer to my meaning -- nobody, not least Spain, seems to is claiming that not being a target is a good reason to stay out of Iraq since there are a whole bunch of much better reasons to cite before you get to this one.

My point about AQ being motivated by opportunity was that even if Spain was to be so despicable as to decide its foreign policy on the basis of minimising its own risk, this approach would be nonsensical becuase AQ is so patently irrational and would still blow up Spain if the opportunity arose.

Indeed in the world of AQ the Southern half of Spain is still occupied Muslim territory stolen from the Moors somewhere around 1460 and the bunch of North African Muslims seemingly implicated in the Madrid bombings are almost certainly motivated to blow up Spain for reasons unrelated to Iraq, or Saudi or any other commonly cited AQ goals. Consequently Spain actually has little to gain by pulling out of Iraq or distancing itself from the US but htat's not really the point.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:

My point about AQ being motivated by opportunity was that even if Spain was to be so despicable as to decide its foreign policy on the basis of minimising its own risk, this approach would be nonsensical becuase AQ is so patently irrational and would still blow up Spain if the opportunity arose.

---

This is what i thought you meant with the statement. I wrote: "I'll stick to my original understanding of what I thought Mathhew was saying, which was that Iraq is not the prime motivator of Spain getting bombed."

If I suggested otherwise, I admit to missreading you.

[I had mentioned here that I looked forward to Harvey's response, but I have decided that I don't afterall. I've set my argumenst as best I know how. Rather than engage them on the merits (ie, saying something like "what you are suggesting is wrong, and here's why:. . ." his responses are nothing but "you neocon", "your posts are full of bile, swill, etc. etc." These are not arguments.]

Judd

[This message was edited by Justin on Fri 19 March 2004 at 0:49.]

According to AOL news, the group claiming responsibility for the Madrid atrocities have indeed called a truce with Spain starting with immediate effect to enable them to pull their troops out of Iraq. Whilst admitting that they deliberately altered the course of the elections in Spain, they have also apparently stated that they would do nothing to oust Bush from the Whitehouse for he is the biggest idiot they could ever wish for as US President

I would agree that GWB is an asset to Al Quada.



Regards,

Steve.

I repeat:

quote:

---

I think you’ll find that once you start misquoting people, making claims and accusations which you cannot substantiate and refuse to answer questions, then the only way others have to get any satisfaction is to go through your points forensically

---

You don't like being caught out in a series of lies and you can let off as many diversionary flares as you want about how people have buulied you and poured venom on your posts, but why don't you just grow up and answer even one of the many straightforward questions still outstanding or aplogize for one of the countless false statements that you have attributed to others.

Give us a break with this victim act. You can't be all things to all men and your attempt to convince us that you do actually share our sentiments is scuppered by your comments in this thread alone.

quote:

---

This is what i thought you meant with the statement. I wrote: "I'll stick to my original understanding of what I thought Mathhew was saying, which was that Iraq is not the prime motivator of Spain getting bombed."

If I suggested otherwise, I admit to missreading you.

---

Of course you suggested otherwise and continued to do so, in turn using your 'erroneous' interpretation to try and support your argument. Scarcely afirst time out for that device Justin. A bit of contrition for this and every other piece of groundless fiction and manipulation of the facts wouldn't go amiss.

Last thing. I suspect that I'm more tempestuous than Matthew, I note that you didn't try to stonewall Matthew and insult his intelligence and as I spend a lot of time bck and forth to see family in the US, I see first-hand how attitudes like yours have divided friends and neighbours and created a growing subset of US society who is stocking up and arming up for some notional Islamic armageddon. At the same time any breadth of vision, understanding, the ability to stand back and question the neocon speil is going down the tubes. That pisses me right off. So where I may describe your postings as "repugnant, divisive neocon bile" and Matthew refers to "right wing twaddle", I suspect that we are describing the same cancer. Again Matthew, I stand to be corrected, but I just thought somehow that Justin wrongly seemed to derive succour from your description and yet feigned horror at mine.

Until the next time.

Justin did seem to select part of my point in order that he might agree with me and ignored the fact that I said the bit he agreed with, whilst true, was pretty much an irrelevance. But I don't think he did this out of some dark malevolence as much as a final weak contribution to an argument he seemed to be losing.

As something of a veteran of these sorts of ding-dongs I have to say the Justin strikes me as, on the whole, more wrong than he is "evil" in quite the way you and BigMick seem to want paint him. In my experience its better to try to change the likes of Justin's mind than shame or insult him into submission. Often in my experience people arguing in this way seem more motivated by a desire to demonise and humiliate those who disagree than to change opinions and although there are lots of people on the right who have clearly crossed a line and deserve all the abuse they get I am not so sure Justin is such a person.

Cripes I appear to be turning into Kofi Annan. I think I'll nip off to www.freerepublic.com and accuse some Freepers of being part of a CIA/Zionist plot to take over the world

Matthew

Justin said

quote:

---

With respect to BigMick, I'll concede that he has beaten me.

---

Oh great shall we retire to the pavilion for a glass of Pimms? This isn’t a game of lawn bowls son.

This is a largely grown up debate about how we’re all contemplating getting blown to hell and how the decidedly distasteful views and dubiously motivated and largely pointless policies of you and your administration chums have turned a bad situation into a bloody catastrophic situation. So what exactly are you conceding?
justin said

quote:

---

This thread was going fine until BigMick's response to my first response to him.

---

Your first response to me contained groundless facts to try to back up your otherwise unsubstantiated arguments and a series of lies concerning statements I’d made and sentiments I’d expressed. That’s not a definition of “a thread going fine” that most people would recognize. Justin, IF YOU MAKE THINGS UP AND TELL LIES YOU WILL BE CAUGHT OUT AND CALLED TO BOOK. How did you expect me to react? I calmly and in a measured fashion asked you to answer the questions and provide evidence or retract and you failed, and continue to fail, singularly in each of these respects.

justin said

quote:

---

even if he doesn't agree with me

---

I’m genuinely intrigued. Does the winking eye mean that Matthew secretly agrees with your sentiments or that your position has been a role-play and that you share our view of the vacuity of the neocon cause? Matthew?

justin said

quote:

---

One thing I can't quite figure out is why BigMick and Harvey continue to post about my posts if they have no hope that I will be able to respond satisfactorily.

---

Read this, again.
bigmick said

quote:

---

I do feel utterly revolted at your opinions and fear that unchecked, belligerent, right wing ignorance is very dangerous and in no small part has been one of the catalysts that militant Islamic fundamentalism needed to get itself into the major leagues. With my work hat on, I always feel sad when the loudest and most aggressive person has the least of any worth to say and no notion how to say it.

---

It speaks for itself but I’ll spell it out. If loudly and repeatedly vocalised insidious views are left unchallenged and unchecked then people start to believe them to be fact. We’ve seen clearly how your arguments are almost completely devoid of supporting facts and how you’ve attributed words to people who never uttered these words. I can’t speak of other posters but where I to let you get away with this calumny then other forum members might scan the thread and assume wrongly that there was an iota of fact or substance in your argument. It’s a cosy club. The Nazis repeated lies about Jews and it stuck. Islamic fundamentalist repeat lies about the West and often it sticks. Your neocon mates aren’t completely stupid; they know that if they keep repeating lies about Islam, Palestine, WMDs, left wing appeasers, dovish old Europeans etc. then some of our less bright friends are going to say “yeah, maybe, huh, I just soiled myself, but yeah, kill Islamists, Saddam, yeah”. Working a treat in the heartland by all accounts. Report on the news from Shanksville this morning and the vox pop, containing some people who looked like they should have known better, revealed that they all reckoned that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, as justice for 9/11 and that now the world was a safer place! These people had a UA 747 crash land in their back yard brought down by sworn members of AQ, also of course sworn enemies of Iraq. No link whatsoever but the neocon trick has worked perfectly. So your ploy of repeating lies does obviously work but I for one will be here to call you on each and every unsubstantiated fact and lie.

justin said

quote:

---

You can go up and down all my posts and disagree with every one of them (though, your own posts suggest that you do not) and still not find reason to attack them as BigMick has done.

---

Harvey covered this above, thank you. I would be derelict in my duty and allowing you to get away with insulting our intelligence if I did not shine a bright light on your practices.

justin said [QUOTE]
Still, I'm sympathetic to the notion that much of the greater turnout may come down to a perceived anger at the government for lying about the source of the blast. While I find that explanation in the papers convenient, in reality, I think it is a healthy dose of both.
\
Reality check on the wordplay. There wasn’t a perceived anger, there was a real spontaneous anger; not contrived or manipulated by dark forces and dead hands. What do you mean you find the explanation convenient? Convenient to whom? Where is your evidence to suggest this was not the case? Events happen and they often change elections. As I said earlier, you claim to want democracy, well unlike the specious model that you’re happy to forcibly export to other countries, this is true democracy at work. Suck it up.

I too am glad that although you’re clearly still trying to twist words and meanings, your exchanges with Matthew have been measured and relatively calm in tone. As I mentioned however in my last post, you are fooling nobody by attempting to dress you sentiments up to mirror those held by most of us here. I can’t be bothered to requote from my own posts and those of others, suffice to say that there is a wealth of quotes from you showing that there is a vast, gaping chasm between your views and those of Matthew, myself and others. If you so much as ask I’ll be delighted to acquaint you with, what we refer to, as substantive proof. As Harvey said, it was noteworthy that you didn’t try to misrepresent or just make up Matthews sentiments. You spared him the insults you hurled at me in that you didn’t call him an appeaser or an apologist for Arab terrorists. It’s a tall order for you son, but here’s the key; give respect, earn respect and you’ll get respect.

Which reminds me. I politely asked you 11 questions, many of them pertaining to blatant misrepresentations and untruths. You have answered not one. If your concession means that you retract your statements and accusations, accept that you’ve made mistakes and agree to abandon your current dishonest modus operandi then have the guts and good grace to say as much. If not then there is no concession to accept and I refer you back to my earlier pithy but appropriate tool remark.

[This message was edited by bigmick on Fri 19 March 2004 at 13:14.]

[This message was edited by bigmick on Fri 19 March 2004 at 13:15.]

Matthew, you are of course correct in that Justin is probably more wrong than evil. Obviously, being wrong has never been a problem, but where the party who is wrong proceeds to concoct, fabricate, twist other pepole's words and then stonewall, then I for one can't stay silent. Yes, it's a bit hot and heavy but harsh breeches call for harsh measures. I can only hope that some penny drops soon in Justin's world and that he realizes thtsa one cannot hope to take liberties with truth, post in this manner and get away with it. Have a good weekend.