The Demonization of the Opposition

Please don't mistake a strong position for "rage." I feel no rage regarding these issues, only strong concern.

I should have stuck with the word "dehumanizing" in my posts. In saying they make demons of themselves by their own acts, you are missing my point. Many people would agree with the statement, "So what if we look on one perp as less than human -- after all a wild dog needs to be put down." When I feel outrage, I feel the same way. But the problem with this stance is that we humans are great generalists. We don't just look on one perp as less than human -- we generalize to looking down on "them" as less than human. We do it, and our enemy does it.

When "they" can look on "us" as less than human, it lets "them" commit atrocities with ease -- like dragging our soldiers' mutilated corpses through the streets. Unfortunately, the same applies to us as another group of flawed human beings fully capable of the same atrocious acts if the conditions are right for it. Look at what happened at the My Lai massacre in Vietnam if you don't believe me. That massacre was commited by good old American boys -- not monsters. I'm saying, "Let's not go there again ourselves." If we treat our enemies humanely, our allies trust us and our enemies have a damn hard time justifying their acts. If we don't, the reverse is true.

You say we don't go to war without cause, but we did. We went to war unprovoked in the belief that that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. These allegations have proved to be based solely on false intelligence. Nearly the entire world warned us what would happen if we went into Iraq and they have been proven right -- the entire region of the world is more destabilized now due to our ill-conceived and ill-timed efforts and we are continuing to lose credibility in the eyes of the world -- that makes it a much more dangerous place for us. The question now is how do we fix it.

You say I've glossed over the fact that the military had already "taken care of it'" before we even knew of the prison abuse scandal. That is a lie and I resent it. As it hasn't even come up in our discussions before now, how could I possibly have glossed it over? What I've repeated here are the conditions that I and many others believe set the stage for such abuses, specifically, the administration's efforts to deny Geneva convention protection to the detainees in Guantanamo, the discussions and resulting belief that they could get around war crimes prosecution in regards to the treatment of those prisoners, the statement by Rumsfeld that we weren't getting intelligence fast enough from the prisoners in Iraq and the subsequent sending of CIA interrogators from Gitmo -- all these things (I've repeatedly repeated) contributed to an atmosphere in which some thought it was o.k. to torture prisoners.

Let me be clear -- I'm glad that the military took care of it because it lets me know that the general atmosphere of "anything goes" that was engendered by the administration isn't endemic in the military. But I'm also glad we were told about it because I'm convinced that open protest does more to prevent further abuses than secretly taking care of it can.

You've pointed out that the prisoners were "High Value Targets" and not innocents. I'm not sure why you think this is an important distinction. It doesn't counter the validity of what I've said about how we dehumanize others, or what the effects are when that happens.

I'm glad we agree that the Geneva convention rules protect our troops. However, your statement that sticking to it can hurt us if our enemy doesn't follow the rules is only true if our military is incredibly stupid -- which it is not. Our enemy can disobey the rules, kill us, and face war crimes prosecution later. Or he can follow the rules, kill us, and avoid war crimes prosecution. It is only those who feel above the law and justified in committing acts of atrocity who fail to see the advantage of following the rules of war. You've gi

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oddly, I think my discussion problems with you and others (Jasonzz, Finn, Wulfhawk, Drakon) is that while you all think that you're realists, in fact you're idealists (in the philosophical sense). You use words like "life" "liberty", "freedom" and "capitalism" as if they pointed to some ideal thing that is only imperfectly reflected in the "real" world. In other words the definition becomes the thing, and the actuality isn't real. But definitions (except mathematical ones) always have fuzzy edges and gray areas. To point out what I mean, please try to define for me what you mean by "LIFE".

---

Thank you, SignyM. I tried to make a similar point earlier but I wasn't nearly as successful or as eloquent.

Drakon, rereading my previous post I will admit that in several instances I misunderstood you. I jumped to conclusions; saw what I thought was implied in your remarks and argued against that, which I think confused you. I'm sorry. It's not surprising to me, therefore, that you have misunderstood some of what I had to say as well.

Seriously, Drakon, for instance, I didn't mean to call anyone names with the term "extremist." I simply meant it literally. A total ban on abortion, across the board legalization of firearms, and a hard-line commitment to only lowering taxes, in my view, are definitively "extreme," as in "there ain't nothing beyond that." See what I mean? There's nothing more anti-abortion than a total ban. The most condemning thing I intended in using the word "extremist" for was to imply that the temporary political imbalance created by the neocons and their extreme views did not define reality. That reality was probably somewhere closer to the middle.

But getting back to your sense of "realism" and the subject of this thread. The most difficult aspect of your opinions for me to deal with is not that they are at variance with my own (though they surely are), but more importantly, that your basic assumptions about the reality of our situation, indeed assumptions about reality itself, are so at odds with mine that I wonder if meaningful discussion is even possible.

You talk a lot about being bombed or killed or our enemies taking over America. I think this is a real fear of yours. You're afraid of dying, and you're willing to put up with an awful lot of abridgements of your rights if it means that your life is spared. That's your profit and loss assessment.

I'd feel exactly the same if my life were as threatened as you feel yours is. But, I'm not afraid of dying. I feel no more or less afraid of dying since 9/11 than I did before. And I don't believe that America is in any real danger from terrorists. America will not be defeated this way. Yes, terrorist may strike at any time, but that has always been true and it cannot be stopped - where there's a will, there's a way. Thankfully, like serial murder and death cults, there are not a lot of people in the world who are really up for it.

In your reality, the "War on Terror" is necessary to safeguard your life and country. You seem to believe that there's a chance that a group of Islamic terrorist could somehow take over the United States. You imply that if we don't let Bush wage this war however he sees fit, they will conquer us.

For me, the attack on the WTC was a criminal act, not an act of war. There is no nation or dictator or ideology responsible for that crime. No attack on any nation or dictator or ideology will be effective against terrorism. The criminals are responsible for the crime. In my reality, the "War on Terror" is just rhetoric, not unlike the "War on Drugs." It's just talk.

You can't wage war on drugs because the drug culture is a spontaneous outgrowth of the larger culture. Get rid of one drug, another will appear. As long as there are people willing to do drugs, there will be people willing to profit from it.

Terrorism is similarly culturally based. Destroy Al Quaida and another torrorist organization will take its place. Terrorism is a sp

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

HK Cavalier- Glad you liked the post. It's not "as if" we're speaking different languages- we ARE speaking different languages! Drakon's word usage implies some immutable pure concept with crystalline edges. I remember thinking exactly the same way, until someone challenged me to define "cup"... what IS the difference between cup, bowl, mug, and glass?


Drakon-

I'm not being a nitpicker when I ask for your definitions of "life", "people", and "freedom". Here is a real-life example: "People in my country don't do laundry."

So when you say "people are free" - HOWEVER you define freedom- I don't think you mean everyone. Saddam is in jail, as are many others. Are they people? What you mean is that SOME people are free. Or maybe you mean that detainees aren't people? I don't know- you tell me.

And then there is that word "freedom". Do you mean "without constraint"? Constrained by what? The law? Fear? Poverty? Gravity?

So you see, unless you explain to me what you mean when you say "people", "life", "free", I really DON'T know what you mean!

Drakon, Soupcatcher- I think the question is not whether the ends justify the means, it's whether the ends justify ANY AND ALL means. Drakon's ends- freedom, security, liberty, whatever- are still undefined. Until I know what the ends are, I won't know whether the means are justified, or even likely to be effective.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

To SignyM:

I think you are right in your assessment. Polarization involves splitting issues into black vs. white (as defined both by extremes and ideals). I prefer more concrete facts, myself, rather than rhetoric.

Wash: "Oh my God! Who's flying this thing!?! Oh, right -- that would be me..."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
SignyM,

Your insight is brilliant. I'm still considering that nobody (Drakon et al) is so consistently evasive unless it is purposeful. But maybe you are right and the more charitable, and meaningful, explanation is there is such a pervasive blind-spot in their thinking they CAN'T get the obvious. Even when it's put plain in front of them ...

In any case, while a 'same to you !' reply to this post wouldn't surprise me, I don't think you will get any reply to yours. Which is too bad, b/c as little as I fathom your interest in dissecting issues with them, you seem like an honest person who sincerely means the invitation.
Aside from that, I think you posed a basic and important question.

---

Aren't you being just a litte uncharitable here? Or are you just all paranoid and crotchety from space dementia?

Wash: 'Oh my God! Who's flying this thing?!? Oh, right -- that would be me..."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Terrorism is similarly culturally based. Destroy Al Quaida and another torrorist organization will take its place. Terrorism is a spontaneous reaction to political hopelessness. As long as there are enemies who are unassailable through any other means, some few will resort to terrorism.

---

Wow! A voice of reason in a political arena -- I am impressed, gratified and heartened.

"Oh, my God! Who's flying this thing?!? Oh, right -- that would be me..."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WickD:
Michael Moore (a demonizer himself) is currently getting demonized. Richard Clarke was demonized when his book was published. John Edwards was being demonized by the Bush campaign within hours of his selection being announced. Demonization of the Clintons has been a going on for more than a decade.

---

I see a big difference in substance between these examples and what the left is doing to the President. Do you call any negative comment demonization? I don't.

We can go back to the classic Bush=Hitler comment propogated by some on the left, over the objections of some here, who see it (rightly) as a minority view that reflects badly on the left as a whole. Besides being a self refuting comment, it is a rather vague attempt at saying that Bush is evil, without identifying exactly what evil is, or providing any evidence to support the declaration.

What is being said about Moore is that he is factually inaccurate, sloppy, and internally contradicting himself with his various claims. It has been said he hates America, and from many of his public comments, I can see how many folks would see those statements by him as implying a hatred of this country. You don't call people you love stupid and ignorant. Even if you are sure they won't hear it.

The problem as I see it is there IS no debate. The left is even inconsistent with itself, and this is something that is the most infuriating to me. I keep reading their stuff about how they are for the liberation of the little guy. Yet they would appear to keep Saddam in power, or see Iraq decend into civil war, rather than have that country and its people liberated, and set up a functioning democracy.

[That is the way it looks. I know some will be offended by that comment but look guys, I am just telling you what I see here. Follow your own 'arguments' out. If it was wrong to go into Iraq and remove Saddam in power, that is functionally saying the same thing that Saddam should still be ruling and terrorizing Iraq.]

What we get from the left are charges, claims, but nothing in the way of evidence or even the attempt at proof. They do not argue well, or really much at all. Politically, this is pretty damaging for them.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Oops. I let things get sort of back-logged. This is going to be scattered and dis-jointed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Signym
Soupcatcher, I'm glad you liked my post. But, soemwhere along the line I falied to make the leap that went from "idealism" to "ends versus means".

I have a couple of thoughts, neither may be reflecting the connection that you made. This first is

a) The "ends" are definitional absolutes (like "freedom") that are unaffected by, and justify, any "means".

---

Yeah. The connection isn’t as solid to me now, in retrospect. But your first thought is basically where I was going by jumping to the ends versus means. You have phrased it nicely by calling the ends definitional absolutes to an idealist. I almost equate an idealist with a zealot in that they both refuse to acknowledge context and process and are all about the product. I am probably attaching a negative value to the term idealist that isn’t included in the strict definition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon
Funny, I don't think Washington, or Jefferson would have agreed with you. This nation was founded in revolution, and I don't think you can call that democratic. There was a lot of support for the British at the time, but their opinions were overridden. Whether that was by a majority, or simply an elect few, that is more an issue for historians. The fact remains we did not vote the British out, we kicked them out, by force.

---

You raise a good point that the founding of our country was achieved through means that would be illegal under our laws today. But, I don’t buy that what is happening in Iraq is similar at all to our Revolution. A revolution is different from a liberation (or invasion, depending on your point of view). In the Iraq case, we were an outside agent coming in to the country to remove the government and aid in the creation of a new one. So one of the assumptions is that our system works, and works so well that we want them to use it, and we feel that their country would be better off if they switched to our system of government. But it’s a poor sales job to go about changing over their country to be more like ours by putting their people through things that would be illegal back here.

Basically, where I’m going with this is that I don’t believe the original purpose in invading Iraq was to establish democracy (the current claim of the administration). I do believe that our goal was to remove Hussein from power. And that’s it. There was no thought beyond that. And it doesn’t have anything to do with 9/11. And all I’m trying to show is that if we were really serious about establishing democracy in Iraq we should probably be going about things a bit differently.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon
If freedom means the freedom to get blowed up, well, I'll pass.
…
But if the choice is getting through the airport line slower, or getting blowed up, well I have to go for the former over the latter.

---

You are very good at picking examples. If all that was happening was longer lines at the airport, of course I wouldn’t be objecting. Flying is a choice and by choosing to fly I also accept whatever hoops I have to jump through. If I don’t want to jump through the hoops, I should just drive or take the train. But what has happened in this country since 9/11 is that now law enforcement agencies can enter your home while you are at work and search and they never have to notify you (they still need a search warrant, but the magic words “enemy combatant” are a blank check), your library records can be pulled and they never have to notify you, you can be held without counsel, you can be held without being charged. That’s a bit different to me than longer lines at the airport. Patriot Act II, which has not been passed yet and hopefully never will, will allow the removal of citizenship.

I was going to write why I disagree with you on the nature of the threat from terrorist attacks, but HKCavalier did a great job, so I’ll just include the quote.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Honey:
We don't just look on one perp as less than human -- we generalize to looking down on "them" as less than human. We do it, and our enemy does it.

---

What makes a person "less than human" in your mind? To me, its the willingness to slaughter other folks, just because they are different, without regard as to whether they are a threat or not. Its feeding folks into plastics shredders feet first, because they disagree with your politics, or perhaps have verbally insulted you. Or cutting a man's head off, simply for being a Jew. You want to talk about Abu Ghraib, and yet the very victims of that "atrocity" are guilty of far, far worse.

That is why it is so hard for me to give a damn. That and the fact that the military has already started dealing with it, long before you ever heard about it.

You want to compare this to My Lai, and look, that is a farcical comparison. People were machine gunned, murdered in large numbers at My Lai. Not had their genitals laughed at. Not hooked up to fake electrocution devises and had the crap scared out of them. Actually murdered. If Abu Ghraib is this war's My Lai, then I would hope even you would see it as a marked improvement. And if you can't, if you see it "just as bad", well, I am at a loss for words.

Quote:

---

If we treat our enemies humanely, our allies trust us and our enemies have a damn hard time justifying their acts. If we don't, the reverse is true.

---

Well, while you are concentrating on Abu Ghraib, most American soldiers are rebuilding water treatment plants, schools, hospitals, repairing oil pipelines. Cleaning up after the war, rebuilding the country after the war, and 30 years of Saddam's neglect. You ignore the context and scope, and wonder why I have a hard time taking any of it seriously.

Quote:

---

You say we don't go to war without cause, but we did. We went to war unprovoked in the belief that that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

---

This touches on something I find the most maddening of all. WMDs were only one reason for the war. And for all those legal scolars out there, there is also the matter of the 17 UN resolutions Saddam was in violation of. There were his ties to groups like Ansar al Islam, Abu Nidal, and others including Al Qaeda.

And here is the thing that gets me more than anything. Saddam was murdering, raping, and robbing his own people. You keep wanting to tell me this is a bad thing. And I would agree wholehearted. But you don't seem to care about that. You guys are supposed to care more about that than we do. Yet you seem perfectly happy to let Saddam go on with all that, fill the mass graves, bribe the UN, get rich off the blood of the Iraqi people.

There were multiple reasons for going after Saddam. Even if he had nothing to do with any of this, he was still unfinished business from the first Gulf War. We still had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, to protect it from Saddam's greed.

[One thing that is never touched on, but not surprisingly, is that Usama's first demand was we remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. But they were there because of Saddam, because of the "no fly zones". By removing Saddam, that removes the reason for our troops to be there, and in essence we give Usama what he wants. Just not quite the way he wanted it.]

There were several reasons that the administration could not go into at the time, although others had brought them up. "Swamp draining" referred to dealing with the "root causes" issues. Not the "everything the US did bad," meme which is again, pretty weak compared to other nations. But the fact that dictatorial regimes need terrorism to focus their people's anger outward, instead of the source of their real problems, the regime itself.

And there is "flypaper" meaning by having the US in Iraq, it attracts terrorists there. Or you think Zarqawi is just vacationing in Iraq. Read his stuff, his statements. They know that democracy and freedom is their death knell. And I would pr

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME