TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9668
7 Comments
Paul Milenkovic wrote:
Part of the problem is that even people on the Left have, how to put it, what may be charitably (towards Western Leftists) be regarded as a patronizing attitude towards the Arab and Persian peoples of the Middle East.
When we had to fight the Germans, well, the Germans were The Germans, a Great Power in their day, leaders in industry, engineering, sciences, scholarship, military affairs, and so on. There is a sense that the Jihadists don't rise to the level of being Germans in their capability of putting up an organized fight.
If anything, the US may have went into WW-II greatly underestimating Japan on account of various racial prejudices and condensensions, but as to the wartime Germans, they were ascribed to being evil but not beneath us in terms of their warfighting powers in any way.
The Germans had this view of the Russians. Forgetting about Napolean, the view was that they were fighting, well, Russians. Perhaps the parallel is weak, but the notion that Slavic people would mount serious resistance to a mechanized German army was like the more recent notion that Arab armies could stand up to the Israeli army.
From talking to liberal friends, I get the feeling that taking Al Qaeda, other Jihadists, the Iranians seriously as an existential threat is regarded as the worst kind of warmongering and excuse making for some form of American imperial bullying, because the people who believe that do not believe those elements to constitute any serious sort of threat beyond a kind of criminal justice law enforcement approach to terrorism, and I am of the opinion that there is some cultural condensension backing up that belief.
Even the Left-liberal belief that the Israelis are bullys stems from the belief that the Israeli Army is invincible against any Arab foe and that the terrorism Israeli suffers from constitutes mere pin pricks compared to what the Israelis have or could inflict. We saw two years ago in Lebanon evidence that this is a myth, but myths die hard in popular opinion.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
A very good piece, I hope it reaches far and wide.
Quoting: "Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith."
I recognize myself there despite however much I rationally recognize it as a blatant lie and that the truth is the opposite: there isn't a single human that (if given the means) isn't capable of the worst terrors imaginable and then some. I'm convinced those who say otherwise either don't know what to look for/recognize, aren't bright or experienced enough to connect the dots, or are simply lying. I mean no offense by that and I think it's understandable (after all I do it myself to some degree).
Those are also reasons why one should have limited governments and why those who avoid the above truths/notions seldom get that and instead seek refuge in greater degrees of communitarianism of all sorts and shades.
Paul that's a great comment on how deep-rooted racism plays a significant role, particularly on the left but not only there (some paleoconservatives and libertarians come to mind).
Voice of Reason wrote:
Is this the same Ledeen who was used by Iranian agents?
Is this the same Ledeen who was used by Iranian agents?
Is this the same pseudonymous idiot who has nothing substantive to say about the content of the editorial, but is pathetically reduced to an ad hominem attack on the author?
Anonymous wrote:
Is this the same pseudonymous idiot who has nothing substantive to say about the content of the editorial, but is pathetically reduced to an ad hominem attack on the author?
You should look up the definition of 'ad hominem'. I didn't call him a name -- I asked a question related to an article, which I linked to, that questions the intelligence sources Ledeen drew on in the run-up to the war. It's the same guy, right?
Rand Simberg wrote:
Voice of Idiocy wrote:
You should look up the definition of 'ad hominem'.
I am quite aware of the definition of that phrase. It seems, though, that you are not.
I didn't call him a name.
Ad hominem is not about "calling names."
I asked a question related to an article, which I linked to, that questions the intelligence sources Ledeen drew on in the run-up to the war.
You asked a question that had nothing whatsoever to do with the article. You asked a question that was an attack on the man who wrote the article.
Most of us are not as idiotic and illogical (and unfamiliar with the meaning of the Latin phrase "ad hominem") as you are.
Once again, you demonstrate that you are unable to actually provide a substantive response to the article. Few of us are surprised.
Karl Hallowell wrote:
I don't buy a lot of what's been said in this thread. While Ledeen has genuine credentials in this area (having studied the rise to power of the Italian fascists), we need to keep in mind that it wasn't the words or ideas of dictators like Hitler or Mussolini that caused problems, but their actions. Last I checked, dictators as a group are infamous for their duplicity. They know how to lie and generally are pretty good at it.
With someone like Hitler, who routinely issued contradictory statements (especially his prewar strategy of outrageous speeches on a Friday followed by apologetic "this is what he really meant" corrections on Monday), it would have been hard if not impossible just from listening to his speeches to understand where he or Germany were going. Instead, one should have looked at the military buildup, the numerous invasions, and his treaties with other similarly aggressive states like the USSR, Japan, and Italy to see more of the true state of things.
Ledeen is advising us to listen to the words of Iranian leaders rather than their actions. I believe that is as foolish now as it was in the 20's and 30's. Sure, words contain clues to the thinking process. But why are we supposed to think that Iran is going to scrub Israel off the face of the Earth rather than play nice in the Middle East? Words aren't helping you there.
At some point, you need to look at what's really going on rather than depend on what someone, who lies all the time, said. Maybe they really buy what they say or maybe it made for convenient politics.
Finally, what are we supposed to do when someone says something inflamatory? Start a war on trashtalk? If they aren't harming US citizens or interests, I really don't see the point to the concern.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on June 7, 2008 2:33 PM.
Part of the problem is that even people on the Left have, how to put it, what may be charitably (towards Western Leftists) be regarded as a patronizing attitude towards the Arab and Persian peoples of the Middle East.
When we had to fight the Germans, well, the Germans were The Germans, a Great Power in their day, leaders in industry, engineering, sciences, scholarship, military affairs, and so on. There is a sense that the Jihadists don't rise to the level of being Germans in their capability of putting up an organized fight.
If anything, the US may have went into WW-II greatly underestimating Japan on account of various racial prejudices and condensensions, but as to the wartime Germans, they were ascribed to being evil but not beneath us in terms of their warfighting powers in any way.
The Germans had this view of the Russians. Forgetting about Napolean, the view was that they were fighting, well, Russians. Perhaps the parallel is weak, but the notion that Slavic people would mount serious resistance to a mechanized German army was like the more recent notion that Arab armies could stand up to the Israeli army.
From talking to liberal friends, I get the feeling that taking Al Qaeda, other Jihadists, the Iranians seriously as an existential threat is regarded as the worst kind of warmongering and excuse making for some form of American imperial bullying, because the people who believe that do not believe those elements to constitute any serious sort of threat beyond a kind of criminal justice law enforcement approach to terrorism, and I am of the opinion that there is some cultural condensension backing up that belief.
Even the Left-liberal belief that the Israelis are bullys stems from the belief that the Israeli Army is invincible against any Arab foe and that the terrorism Israeli suffers from constitutes mere pin pricks compared to what the Israelis have or could inflict. We saw two years ago in Lebanon evidence that this is a myth, but myths die hard in popular opinion.
A very good piece, I hope it reaches far and wide.
Quoting:
"Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith."
I recognize myself there despite however much I rationally recognize it as a blatant lie and that the truth is the opposite: there isn't a single human that (if given the means) isn't capable of the worst terrors imaginable and then some. I'm convinced those who say otherwise either don't know what to look for/recognize, aren't bright or experienced enough to connect the dots, or are simply lying. I mean no offense by that and I think it's understandable (after all I do it myself to some degree).
Those are also reasons why one should have limited governments and why those who avoid the above truths/notions seldom get that and instead seek refuge in greater degrees of communitarianism of all sorts and shades.
Paul that's a great comment on how deep-rooted racism plays a significant role, particularly on the left but not only there (some paleoconservatives and libertarians come to mind).
Is this the same Ledeen who was used by Iranian agents?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/40080.html
Voice of Idiocy wrote:
Is this the same Ledeen who was used by Iranian agents?
Is this the same pseudonymous idiot who has nothing substantive to say about the content of the editorial, but is pathetically reduced to an ad hominem attack on the author?
Is this the same pseudonymous idiot who has nothing substantive to say about the content of the editorial, but is pathetically reduced to an ad hominem attack on the author?
You should look up the definition of 'ad hominem'. I didn't call him a name -- I asked a question related to an article, which I linked to, that questions the intelligence sources Ledeen drew on in the run-up to the war. It's the same guy, right?
Voice of Idiocy wrote:
You should look up the definition of 'ad hominem'.
I am quite aware of the definition of that phrase. It seems, though, that you are not.
I didn't call him a name.
Ad hominem is not about "calling names."
I asked a question related to an article, which I linked to, that questions the intelligence sources Ledeen drew on in the run-up to the war.
You asked a question that had nothing whatsoever to do with the article. You asked a question that was an attack on the man who wrote the article.
Most of us are not as idiotic and illogical (and unfamiliar with the meaning of the Latin phrase "ad hominem") as you are.
Once again, you demonstrate that you are unable to actually provide a substantive response to the article. Few of us are surprised.
I don't buy a lot of what's been said in this thread. While Ledeen has genuine credentials in this area (having studied the rise to power of the Italian fascists), we need to keep in mind that it wasn't the words or ideas of dictators like Hitler or Mussolini that caused problems, but their actions. Last I checked, dictators as a group are infamous for their duplicity. They know how to lie and generally are pretty good at it.
With someone like Hitler, who routinely issued contradictory statements (especially his prewar strategy of outrageous speeches on a Friday followed by apologetic "this is what he really meant" corrections on Monday), it would have been hard if not impossible just from listening to his speeches to understand where he or Germany were going. Instead, one should have looked at the military buildup, the numerous invasions, and his treaties with other similarly aggressive states like the USSR, Japan, and Italy to see more of the true state of things.
Ledeen is advising us to listen to the words of Iranian leaders rather than their actions. I believe that is as foolish now as it was in the 20's and 30's. Sure, words contain clues to the thinking process. But why are we supposed to think that Iran is going to scrub Israel off the face of the Earth rather than play nice in the Middle East? Words aren't helping you there.
At some point, you need to look at what's really going on rather than depend on what someone, who lies all the time, said. Maybe they really buy what they say or maybe it made for convenient politics.
Finally, what are we supposed to do when someone says something inflamatory? Start a war on trashtalk? If they aren't harming US citizens or interests, I really don't see the point to the concern.