Yellow Elephants

If you're expecting this post to be concerning the "chickenhawk" argument, then just skip on by.  Truthfully, I've never liked that line of thinking  and I've never used the argument.   (Sorry, Craig, but I think you misunderstand what the chickenhawk argument is about.  It isn't about authority, it's about hypocrisy.)   I don't expect people who bitch about crime to all become cops, and I don't expect those who cheer-lead for war to all strap on the boots.

What I do expect is that America be the Home of the Brave.  Lately, it seems to be anything but that.  Our elected leaders have called for a War On Terror, and many of my fellow citizens have been remiss in answering the call ... by siding with the enemy.  Oh yes, they'll tell you loudly and harshly how we should fight this war, and how those rascally elitist liberals are undercutting the effort by just not being afraid enough.  But read it again ... War On Terror.  The enemy is terror, so why are these fools so terrified?

But no, you might say; the enemy isn't 'terror', it's terrorists.  Okay, I'll give you that.  Then the war becomes something else.  Now that we have an object to struggle against (instead of a abstract concept or simple noun), then it becomes even clearer how so very many are siding with the enemy.  What we have us here is a war of domination, of instantiating our will over the will of the enemy.  If we were at war with the Chinese, and you offered aid and assistance to their aims, you would be a traitor; you would have sided with the enemy.  The domination desired by terrorists is obviously to terrorize the enemy, which, in case you're not paying attention, would be US.  How do you aid that will?  By being terrified.

No matter how I would try, I couldn't put it better than Bruce Schneier already has.  The money quote is this:

I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Repeat that to yourself a few hundred times.  "The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act."  Sadly, many (if not most) of the Republican party's staunchest supporters are exactly aiding and abetting the aims of the enemy.

I won't kid you, and wouldn't even if I could; this pisses me off.  That is precisely what upset me about the outrageous fecal matter vomited by DuToit in the post below.  It would be easy to think that I was responding to his level of hate for "evil" Democrats.  No.  What set me off was his level of fear.  He fears the illusion that those who have little control over this fight are more dangerous than those he clearly sees as incompetent to fight it.  He fears those things that threaten his stereotypes.  He fears the very strawmen that he himself built.

Personally, I wouldn't care one whit what he fears ... except that he fears me.  He possibly wouldn't, in a face to face show-down, but it's easier for him to fear me as part of a group, a class which must surely invoke terror and manipulate for control.  Those are the actions of the weak, the racist, the eliminationists, the terrified, and dare I say it ... prey.  Those are the actions that aid and abet the enemy.

What is sadder even still, is that he's not alone.  He runs with an entire online cadre of fearful terror-enablers who want you quivering-scared well beyond the rational threat; they want you afraid of your fellow countrymen.  They want you afraid of words, handy labels they can slap on any who might disagree with their terror.  "Liberals", Democrats", Cut-and Runners" ... in other words, people who realize that we're wasting time and money when we should be taking care of our kids, our economy, ourselves.  And these shivering fear junkies run with a well-heeled pundit class, and all are fed fresh terror-mush by the party of spook, now with extra !BOO!.  Of course, that would be the party in control, the party of incompetence, the Republican party.

I wouldn't give that half a thought, if it weren't so truly ingrained in their strategy.  Their recent actions prove that it is.  And who do they want you frightened of now?  What are they going to assist the terrorists with today?  Bloggers.  Liberal bloggers.  Ya' know, I'm not sure which is more enragingly pathetic, the effort to do so, or the quivering toddlers who actually buy into this crap.  Yes, Markos is the face of evil.  And taking pathetic to a whole new level, they want you to fear anyone that has anything to do with Markos.  They won't tell you why.  Read the page.  They don't want you to think about it ... they want you afraid of anyone who disagrees with them that they will keep you safe in your terror state.  They want you afraid of those who aren't afraid.

I'd love to be able to laugh at this stuff, but sometimes it just ain't funny to me.  Fear is a normal human reaction, one which we ignore at our own peril.  But terror is a tool, and rarely do those upon whom it is used actually realize that they are the nail on the receiving end of the hammer's blow.  They see themselves as holding things together against tempestuous forces, when in fact, they only hold a seam of their master's choosing.  With people like DuToit and Malkin and the AssMissile running the show, I fear for my country.  It's no longer the home of the Brave; its the home of the obediently faux-tough.

So, to get to the real point of this post, this is what I want to know:  You people like Kim DuToit, and Eric Coobs, and the Conrad Burns and John Sinruds and all the other tough guys'n'gals out there who think that 'liberals' are traitors/evil/an abomination, when are you actually gonna grow a pair and do somethin' about it?  Most of you freely admit that you've drawn your battle-lines in the straw left over from the fear-objects you make.  So why not do something about it?  You've taken up words to help the enemy, and gosh we're all so afraid now.  What's stopping you from taking the next step?  (Democrats, liberals) We're evil, right?  So stop us.  Quit cowering and prove how morally righteous you are.  The enemy says "BE TERRIFIED" and you are.  So pick up your arms and fight the side you've chosen.  Quit fricking bloviating and actually prove that you care about what your stances defend.

OR ... you can shut the **** up for once and realize that many of us want the same thing you do;  we want to win.  Most of us in this country disagree with the way the incompetent boobs in our government have prosecuted this war, and our governance.  So, instead of being afraid, how about we change things a little, give the Democratic new-blood a chance, and if they piss on us, we can piss on them right back.  All it takes is a little bit of courage.  Do you, any of you, have that?

No, I didn't think so.

Schneier ends:

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that. And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote security theater that wastes money and doesn't make us any safer.

Terror is a drug, and there's a whole lot of addicts in this country right now.

Comments

[cece]

AMEN! Dang, I think I need ciggie . . .
;)

[Shane Mason]

Wow, well said and thank you for saying it. My wife has often said that we haven't seen another 911 strike not because of increased security, but becuase they did their job. Strike once and cause the entire country to change directions. Their mission was accomplished, we are now a divided nation, half ruled by fear the other half battling the fear mongers.

[GeeGuy]

Wulfgar, other than the fact that we are supposed to "actually prove that you care about what your stances defend," what do we do in the War on Terror..or terrorists, or whatever? I mean, I read Schneier's piece earlier today before you even linked to it, and I certainly understand his point. It is a valid one, depending how far one takes it.

But then, I think what you are saying is that the GOP is overly focused on fear, no doubt in your mind as a means of controlling the populace. And, by focusing on fear, they play into the hands of the terrorists. Check, I gotcha. I may not agree, but it's a legitimate point.

I'm not so sure, though, how it translates into Eric Coobs, Conrad Burns, et. al., being challenged to do something. What should they do to prove their mettle?

And, finally, the absence of fear in order to defeat the terror aspect of terrorism is dependent, at least to some degree, on the absence of risk. In other words, if we assume a certain level of risk of injury of one's family by a terrorist attack, does it not follow, then, that some level of fear is likewise justified?

[Wulfgar]

Eric claims that 'liberals' want failure in the war on terror. Conrad claims that we must be vigilant against Islamic extremists (without ever once defining how). Conrad claims that they 'want to kill us for our freedoms', a direct lie if one accepts the all too rational thesis of Schneier. Yes, both are complicit in promoting terror.

And, you neglect the fact that many on the Republicant side of the isle are attempting (in almost desperation) to show that Democrats are the party of helping !!!terror!!!. No. If they believe thier own rhetoric (which obviously they don't) then they should be willing to take action. They won't. They are afraid to the point of terror. And that is exactly what Atta wanted. He is laughing in Hell at the weakness we now display.

Yes, there is risk; and we should be afraid. But terrified to the point of stupid over-reaction against our own people or our values (freedoms)? Not bloody likely. Unless the terrorists have won, which is the very point of the last two posts here.

[moorcat]

"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance, and depression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame?" (snip) "but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myraid of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you"

(quote taken from 'V for Vendetta')

Sometimes art Does imitate life....

Moorcat

[Eric Coobs]

Thanks for the blurb.

The choice is simple.

Either choose to win, or choose to not win.

By winning, I'll remind you what the objective is, which is to topple Saddam Hussein, have free elections in a democracy, and then get the Iraqi police/military up to strength so they can do the job of policing themselves. Then our job is done, and we go home. We 'win'.

If we choose to cut & run, because we don't have the intestinal fortitude to stick it out, we don't 'win'.

And, finally, YES, the national Democrats yearn for failures in Iraq hoping for political advantage. May I remind you, that it was last year that the Democrats introduced a draft bill. After it was defeated they called it a stunt, but it wasn't. It was pure politics.

[moorcat]

Eric,

What you fail to grasp is that those objectives are not only not obtainable, they ignore the basic history and sociology of the region. Only an idiot would actually believe that we could "force" peace in Iraq. They have centuries upon centuries of war/civil war/religious upheaval and there is no way that it is going to change simply because we have our military there. This "war" is unwinnable. Had we gone in to conquer Iraq, that would have been acheivable but what we are trying to do now is in direct conflict with the reality of the situation in the Middle East. Are you truly blind enough to think that we can actually dictate to the various sects of Iraq how to come into the 21st century? If you are, you are dumber than even I think you are...

Worse, the basic ideas behind us entering into this conflict were based on a series of lies told to us by the current administration...

1) Saddam had (as in currently had) weapons of mass destruction. WRONG... There is absolutely NO evidence that Saddam had those weapons when we entered into this conflict.

2) Saddam (and Iraq) played a part in the 9/11 attack. Once again, pure bullshit fostered by our government to use fear to gain support not only for a war that we didn't want/need but to retain control during an election cycle.

You are truly deluding yourself if you think the situation is anything else. Then again, you can lead a horse to water...

Face it, the only ones benefiting from this conflict are the current administration (they get to use 'War Powers' authority to bypass the constitution) and thier puppet corporations like Halburton who are profiting from the vast government handouts (our tax money at work)

Moorcat

[Craig]

I don't expect people who bitch about crime to all become cops, and I don't expect those who cheer-lead for war to all strap on the boots.

[. . .]

So pick up your arms and fight the side you've chosen. Quit fricking bloviating and actually prove that you care about what your stances defend.

Alrighty, then.

[Wulfgar]

I'm certain that you'd admit, Craig, there is a significant difference between requesting others to grow a spine, and actually *expecting* that they will.

[Craig]

I freely admit that.

I also freely admit trying to twist your tail. :)

[Shane C. Mason]

And, finally, YES, the national Democrats yearn for failures in Iraq hoping for political advantage.

Eric,

I hate to play the same game as you, it makes me feel a little dirty. However, it can be said that the Republicans hope for attacks so that they can play the tough guy and rattle their swords.

Look at how they jumped all over the recent Brittish incident. They hoped out loud that it would give rise to a resurgence in republican support.

[grannyinsanity]

Excellent post old chap.

[Markt]

I see wars in which heavily armed forces attempt to subdue lightly armed forces. Both sides of these conflicts attempt to terrorize the other, one by use a sophisticated weaponry and without regard to its effect on civilian populations, the other using light weaponry to achieve the same effect. Delivery methods for bombs differ slightly - one side uses jet aircraft and guided missiles, the other uses human bodies. The only difference there is the likelihood that the terrorist delivering the payload will return home alive.

Both sides are terrorists. Both sides exclude themselves by means of self-serving definitions of terrorism. What the Israelis are doing to the Lebanese and Palestinians at Gaza is terrorism. What the US did to Iraq in 1991 and 2003 was terrorism.

All one need to is step back and look objectively at the conflicts. Then it becomes clear who is the terrorist: Us. And them.

[Rocky Smith]

I couldn't disagree more.