Suckage

by Henry Farrell on May 5, 2004

“Max Sawicky”:http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000395.html is right – Ted Rall sucks. And he sucks even more than usual in this “hysterical diatribe”:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/uclicktext/20040504/cm_ucru/anarmyofscum, charmingly entitled “An Army of Scum (Or, We’re Looking For a Few Good Homosexual Rapists).”

According to Rall, the US army is equivalent to the SS.

bq. Now it’s official: American troops occupying Iraq (news – web sites) have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS. Like the Germans during World War II, they cordon off and bomb civilian villages to retaliate for guerilla attacks on their convoys. Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America’s victims disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers. The U.S. military is short just one item to achieve moral parity with the Nazis: gas chambers.

You don’t have to be an apologist for Abu Ghraib to recognize this as nonsense. Even if it turns out that there are systematic abuses in US interrogation of prisoners, there’s no comparison between the US army and Hussein’s crowd, let alone the SS. I imagine that the shrill and obnoxious tone of Rall’s recent writing is not entirely unconnected to the fact that he has a book coming out this week. He’s the Ann Coulter of the left – a shameless self-publicist trying to build a career out of moral superiority, cheap shots and relentless, vicious stereotyping. To be avoided at all costs, in other words.

{ 106 comments }

1

Keith 05.05.04 at 3:10 am

From the Taguba report, via Josh Marshall

“Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.”

I see the BBC are reporting that at least two murders are among the 25 deaths in captivity.

2

a 05.05.04 at 3:25 am

That was a pretty harsh thing to say about Ann Coulter.

3

lastmanstanding 05.05.04 at 3:28 am

The US army in its rampage across the Middle East to destroy Islam is not so different from the German army rampaging across Europe to get rid of the dreaded Slavs. Slavs and Muslims…inferior peoples who need to be dominated. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

4

asg 05.05.04 at 3:29 am

One word for Henry — bravo.

5

Henry 05.05.04 at 3:42 am

Keith – yeah – but it’s not 11 million murdered by a long shot. There’s ample reason for harsh criticism of the US army and administration – but assertions of moral equivalence between the US army and the SS are both stupid and deeply offensive. I reckon “Jim Henley”:http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2004_05_02.html#005306 puts it in precisely the right perspective – he pulls no punches, but doesn’t resort to stupid Nazi-comparison tricks.

bq. Yet. I’ll keep saying this. My question is not “Are we as bad as Saddam’s Iraq?” but “Are we getting more like it or less like it?” We might never get as bad as Saddam’s Iraq or even squalid old Egypt, second-largest recipient of US aid in the world before Iraqi reconstruction began. But we can be much better than those countries and yet a disgrace to ourselves.

6

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 4:44 am

Yeah, I’m with you. What we’re hearing from Iraq is nauseating, horrifying, and there’d better be something a hell of a lot worse than mere discharges that come of it. Prison sentences–long ones. Upper level people fired. I’m really, really upset by this.

But comparing it to the freaking Nazi death camps, or even Saddam’s large-scale mayhem…well, that diminishes the horrors of both.

You’re right that Ted Rall is the Ann Coulter of the left. I just wish that she had as small of an actual audience as he does.

7

Michael 05.05.04 at 4:49 am

I think it’s really dangerous for liberals to talk like this, i.e., to give into Coulter-like impulses. The right wing has too much of a media advange, and we can’t afford this kind of clap-trap. What if Sean Hannity got his hands on this column? He’d say something like, “Comparing the US military to Nazis. This is the sort of tactic that the left employs.” And a million people watching Fox News would say to themselves, “those damn leftists and their lack of patriotism.” The next day, Rush Limbaugh would spend an hour making a connection between Stalin, Pol Pot, John Kerry and Ted Rall. He’d have many outraged listeners call in and bemoan the state of the Democratic party. And then they’d say something bad about Hillary Clinton being a lesbian or something.

In short, such commentary and comparisons give fodder to the right-wing media machine. I’m not a huge fan of the military, but to think that someone would put in print the sentence “Our military is structurally corrupt” without any evidence is a move that is beneath someone with a committment to truth.

I agree. We should not condone such diatribes.

8

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 4:53 am

Additionally, for those that shouldn’t but nevertheless need to be reminded of the near incommensurability of the SS horrors (but, also, some context they might not have about the regular Army’s relationship with the Holocaust), please see this excerpt about the SS Einsatzgruppen from Richard Rhodes’s book, “Masters of Death“.

9

Willie Mink 05.05.04 at 5:06 am

That’s the strongest I’ve seen from Rall, who I usually like. His cartoons are especialy on the mark, much more biting where bites are needed than the rest of the lapdogs. The opening is over the top, but did you read the rest? Most of it’s hard to refute, and, Michael, it’s true that he doesn’t cite extensive evidence of structural corruption, but he does quote others who certainly should be in the know:

Seymour Hersh, who has read the army’s internal report, quotes Major General Antonio Taguba as saying that U.S.-committed atrocities are “systemic, endemic throughout the command structure…[The soldier-torturers] were being told what to do and told it was OK.” . . .Some soldiers, like Sergeant Ivan Frederick II, “questioned some of the things I saw,” such as “leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door.” But when he discussed these abuses with his superiors, he says they brushed him off: “This is how military intelligence wants it done.”

Sounds structurally corrupt to me.

10

Lance Boyle 05.05.04 at 5:40 am

Henry-
The SS as you use it is a complete agency, a known quantity. It did what it did, it was stopped before it achieved world dominance, before it could finish the work it began and rewrite its own history; and because it was stopped it became “the SS” as an historical identity.
So we speak about it as a finished thing.
The thing the US military is in Iraq is in its beginning stages, it is not finished, and it has not been stopped.
To say that the comparison is inadequate, and its use morally reckless, is one thing; but saying it’s inappropriate because there is a numerical imbalance in body counts is hopelessly naive, and speaks of timidity and denial.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world, it’s a militant faith, and it is becoming an increasingly radicalized militant faith.
There are men directing the deployment of the US military, and its private military “contractors”, who are prepared to neutralize millions of those radicalized Muslims – should they find it necessary – globally, thoroughly, finally.
The intrigue and immorality at work in Iraq is not a localized phenomenon. This is Holy War. Not much different than racial purification in its disregard for its victims.
It has barely begun to reveal itself for the nightmare it will become.
Comparing the American military in Iraq today with the German SS in Poland in 1939 may be far more accurate. Certainly it’s accurate enough for political debate.
And I would think that people who are genuinely appalled by the monstrous inhumanity of what the SS became would be more concerned with recognizing the signs of similar movements before they assume equivalence, before it takes a World War to stop them.

11

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 5:53 am

Comparing the American military in Iraq today with the German SS in Poland in 1939 may be far more accurate. Certainly it’s accurate enough for political debate.“—Lance

Then read my link and see if you can actually compare the two. Because that’s what it’s about. And you’re flat out wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

12

asshole 05.05.04 at 5:55 am

The Ann Coulters of the world are possible because of the unique market for conservative trash talk that has been built up over the years. You know, Clear Channel, Fox, Sinclair. There is no such network on the liberal side. We all know this, right. Ted Rall knows this. So your attribution of Coulter-like motives to him is unsound. Notwithstanding some over the top stuff, Ted Rall has done some good work. He was really in his element in the run up to the war and was a real truth-teller among his cowardly peers. Not all of his work is bad.

13

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 6:01 am

Yeah, it’s Ukraine in ’41, but that’s close enough. I can go earlier and back into Poland if you want. There were mass killings right from the beginning. Comparing the US military in Iraq to the SS is absurd and morally derelict. Not because what has happened in Iraq isn’t horrifying and possibly/probably punishable as war crimes; but because the equation vastly diminishes the true horror of the SS.

14

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 6:02 am

Yeah, it’s Ukraine in ’41, but that’s close enough. I can go earlier and back into Poland if you want. There were mass killings right from the beginning. Comparing the US military in Iraq to the SS is absurd and morally derelict. Not because what has happened in Iraq isn’t horrifying and possibly/probably punishable as war crimes; but because the equation vastly diminishes the true horror of the SS.

15

lastmanstanding 05.05.04 at 6:19 am

_”There are over a billion Muslims in the world, it’s a militant faith, and it is becoming an increasingly radicalized militant faith.”_

You are right this is Holy War, though I disagree with your wording above, a better one would be: _it’s a very conservative faith, and it is becoming an increasingly militant one as well_.

Islam is quite often an intolerant faith. However, I think you’d be hard-pushed to demonstrate that historically Islam is any more militant than Christianity (please educate me otherwise). Christians started the Crusades (and eventually lost due to, among other things, corruption). Christians foisted Israel upon a land which was predominantly Islamic, and millions of fundamentalist Christians in the USA continue to fund Israel and its nuclear arsenal today.

The desire to rescue Jerusalem from the Muslims that propelled the crusades lies behind the support many fundamentalists have for supporting the state of Israel today. Maybe someone can explain why the crusades collapsed, and explain how many years we have to go before we lose interest in the current crusade.

I have no doubt AT ALL that modern Islamic militancy is a good deal less extreme than any militancy you would experience in Christian countries if they were run by Muslims from other countries. Look at Northern Ireland for example, where the (majority) “occupying force” have roots that go back 300 years.

16

Jack 05.05.04 at 7:53 am

No doubt when viewed with a cool head Mr. Rall’s description is inaccurate and exagerated. Possibly it gives fuel to people who want to dissmiss more sober criticisms.

Even so refusing to entertain any comparison between Saddam and ourselves does no favours to the search for truth and understanding.

Firstly since the occupation began even sainted English troops have been rounding people up in the middle of the night, talking to them in a foreign language and driving them off to unknown destinations at gunpoint with bags over their heads. This was on television even last summer.

The recently photographed episodes may be to some extent edge cases but they were clearly not just an excess of zeal on the part of a few pressurised squaddies, they had institutional support and may even have been a vital part of our intelligence gathering operations. Some attempt to achieve the same end, if not necessarily by the same means, may even have been necessary because of the uncertain situation. We already have evidence from Bagram airbase where even the US military thinks at least two murders have taken place in custody. We really have no idea how many Iraqi’s we have killed in order to save them.

It is worth remembering that in 1941 the SS had not killed all that many people and much of their cruellest behaviour outside of the concentration camps was expedient, handling of insurgents in Yugoslavia for example.

However the real point is not that we are actually the same as the SS but that we dehumanise those who we seek to supplant and refuse to acknowledge that we are at the top of a slippery slope and that those who have slid to the bottom may have been responding to the same temptations that we are.

Blackening the devil’s name by confusing the mass graves that resulted from the civil wars that we fomented with the regimes everyday appaling but different in scale brutality does not help assess the dangers we face. Saddam faced the same problems of restive Shi’ites, Al Qaeda insurgents and our response must provide some kind of benchmark for his behaviour.

Really it is very dangerous for us to refuse to believe that it is even possible for us to be guilty of crimes of the sort that Saddam and the SS were. It is also very dangerous to argue that a long as we’ve killed less than 11 million people. Judgements need to be finer than that and we need to recognise that success must be judged against a much more demanding yardstick. Really we will be much better off if we have a sense of national original sin, of the gap between our intentions and our actions. Refusing to entertain even relatively extreme comparisons only serves to perpetuate our innocence and to obscure the real nature of the hazards we face.

The effect of Coulter and Limbaugh is to expand the envelope of what is regarded as reasonable. If this only happens at one end of the spectrum, the balance struck might not be in the middle. It is not very long ago that any criticism of the war needed an excuse. That something like Rall’s latest can be published on Yahoo is sign of something not necessarily bad and in effect lowers the opening bid of the critics of the war. Given that I can’t help but feel that this hostility to Rall is a little odd.

17

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 8:39 am

It is worth remembering that in 1941 the SS had not killed all that many people and much of their cruellest behaviour outside of the concentration camps was expedient, handling of insurgents in Yugoslavia for example.“—Jack

Read my damn link. Some regular military units, the forerunners of the Einsatzgruppen, and the Einsatzgruppen were carrying out mass executions from the moment the push into the East began. The Einsatzgruppen may have killed as many as 1.5 million people in Eastern Europe and Russia, all before the final solution, all outside the context of the death or concentration camps, many of those from the beginning of the war.

The progression was that regular army troops were tasked with this sort of thing initially in Poland and then in the push east, but they balked at it, the Einsatzgruppen was established and then expanded to do this sort of thing, they got hard to control and had morale problems, and so the death camps were built and operated. The Einsatzgruppen protoyped many of the extermination techniques, starting with crude carbon monoxide gassing to save bullets.

Not only were there examples of genocidal atrocities from nearly the very beginning, but there was a whole ideological structure and explicit, public discussion of such drastic measures at the core of the Third Reich. This is simply not comparable to the US’s occupation of Iraq.

What it might be more rationally comparable to would be something like the recent Baltic atrocities. Not directly, but perhaps in the terms you and others are using, that is, what we’re seeing are the seeds of something that might become like that.

But not the Holocaust. And I’m certianly not arguing this point because I think Americans aren’t capable of something like the Holocaust. I do, in fact. But this isn’t it.

18

des 05.05.04 at 8:52 am

What it might be more rationally comparable to would be something like the recent Baltic atrocities.

This disgraceful nonsense is absolutely typical of the fallacious geographical equivalence of the so-called “left”!

(I think you might mean “Balkan atrocities”.)

19

Lance Boyle 05.05.04 at 9:02 am

Keith-
Yes. Yes it’s not the same; probably yes, even in 1939, in Poland, what the SS were doing was worse than anything the US is doing now in Iraq.
Numerically, and in that cold insectile viciousness that’s so much more repugnant than animal heat, the Nazis were far worse.
But it’s not absurd to compare them, that’s a very poor word choice.
And the argument isn’t really about whether this is worse or equal.
It’s about what this is.
It’s about whether it smells the same, and it does.
I have to stress this again, we are not looking at a completed act or set of actions, we are not looking at an attempt at genocide that was thwarted; we are looking at despicable inhuman acts, that continue even as the world makes its varying accomodations with these images and what they imply.

20

Keith M Ellis 05.05.04 at 9:27 am

Oops! I don’t usually make that sort of mistake. Honest. :)

21

Jack 05.05.04 at 9:29 am

Keith; Ok this was happening earlier than I thought. I knew that the Nazis were particularly brutal in teh east but I thought more Basra road than this kind of thing. So make that May 1941 or 1940 in that case. It is also the case that we do not have a genocidal intent.

Now read my post. I don’t claim that we are the same as the Nazis. I just don’t want to pretend that we are not even beginning to make the same compromises. We are on the same slippery slope even if we are still near the top. The grinning GI has clearly crossed some important boundaries and it isn’t clear what is left. Just imagine if we were in Syria and Iran and things were going badly and some LGF readers were near the levers of power.

22

felixrayman 05.05.04 at 9:50 am

So it has come to this.

The justification of the US invasion of Iraq was once that Iraq possessed WMD that were a threat to the US. And that justification was discarded.

Then the justification became the lack of freedom for Iraqis under Saddam, and the brutality of Saddam’s regime.

Now, apparently, there is still no freedom for Iraqis living under US occupation, they can (and are) held for months in prison with no charges filed and no due process whatsoever.

And the justification that is now given for the continued US occupation of Iraq is that people detained without charges for months at a time in prison in Iraq are now slightly less likely to be raped, tortured and murdered under US occupation than under the rule of Saddam.

That’s just pathetic.

23

Matthew 05.05.04 at 10:11 am

Generally I’m amazed at Rall’s perceptions and the way he puts things across. Bush as a macho military general?? He seems to have the worst take on everything everytime I check on him. Outrage is good, but this misguided?

24

Nabakov 05.05.04 at 12:13 pm

If yer looking for analogies, I’d be more concerned about Iraq sliding into another Phillipines circa turn of the 19/20th centuries.

Remember the Maine? The Huks sure do.

25

Jack 05.05.04 at 12:49 pm

Who are the Huks?

26

Steve 05.05.04 at 2:23 pm

Lastmandstanding-
I believe you are wrong about the Crusades. In particular, I believe it was a defensive action on the part of Christian Europe, rather than an offensive action. Your own post illustrates why I believe this.

“Christians started the Crusades (and eventually lost due to, among other things, corruption). …
The desire to rescue Jerusalem from the Muslims that propelled the crusades lies behind the support many fundamentalists have for supporting the state of Israel today.”

Given that Jerusalem was the holy city and source of Christianity, and was thereafter conquered by Muslims (I presume Turkey, though I don’t know), wouldn’t Christian Europe’s attempt to retake it be a response to aggression rather than an aggressive act in itself? (Example: if Christian Europe seized Istanbul, and Muslim armies from Persia came to its aid, would those Muslim armies be acting aggressively, or responding to aggression?)? I know very little about the Crusades, and would be happy to be proven wrong, but on the face of it, your characterization of Christian Europe as the aggressor seems to me to be wrong. Christian Europe could have chosen to respond to aggression or to ignore it, of course. But to characterize that response as aggressive doesn’t seem right.

Steve

27

Rajeev Advani 05.05.04 at 2:44 pm

But not the Holocaust. And I’m certianly not arguing this point because I think Americans aren’t capable of something like the Holocaust. I do, in fact. But this isn’t it.

Keith, I’m a bit taken aback by this qualifier, given that the army itself was investigating prison abuse in Iraq before the media caught on — self-correcting behavior. Surely that self-correcting morality would kick in before the US started constructing gas chambers, and surely the entire American public (minus a sector or two) would rise up in outrage if anything of the sort was attempted.

I can, emphatically, state that America is entirely incapable of producing a Holocaust. The US can’t even hole up terrorists at Guantanamo without a public outcry, much less start a process of gassing them. These constraints are powerful and good.

28

Richard Bellamy 05.05.04 at 2:45 pm

Just wondering if Rall’s subtitle isn’t intrinsically homophobic in the assumption that “homosexual rapists” are somehow worse than their heterosexual counterparts. Why not just say “rapists”, since the people are accused of both?

Critizing Rall from the Left (and Coulter from the Right),
RB

29

Doug 05.05.04 at 2:46 pm

When we see a lot of apologies from the right for Rush et al. popularizing the word “feminazi,” and with it a casual equivalence between feminism and Nazism, let me know. When we hear moderate Republicans denouncing the trash on right-wing talk radio, let me know. When the Chamber of Commerce calls out Coulter, Hannity, and all the other running dogs, let me know. Then maybe I’ll spare a harsh word or two for Rall.

30

Charles 05.05.04 at 2:48 pm

Keith M Ellis,

Thanks for reminding us what Nazi horrors were really like.

My grandfather was one of the first U.S. soldiers to enter the Ohrdruf concentration camp (a subcamp of Buchenwald) in April 1945 and he wrote my grandmother that no barbarism he had witnessed in war or life could ever compare. A lifelong socialist (but ardent anti-Communist), he repeated that assertion before he died two years ago. A simple search for “Ohrdruf” on Google will turn up many photographs, and Ohrdruf was one of the “milder” camps in the Nazi system. Glib comparisons between the Abu Ghraib abuses and Nazi horrors are deeply insulting and discredit legitimate opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq.

31

Jeremy Osner 05.05.04 at 3:31 pm

The fact that Jerusalem is a holy city of Christianity does not make a European attempt to conquer that city defensive. Jerusalem had not been under western European control since the great schism (1054? — a few hundred years earlier) — there was no military/defensive alliance between the Vatican (under whose aegis the Crusades were mounted) and Constantinople.

32

Steve 05.05.04 at 4:02 pm

The East-West Schism split the Christian Church into the Western (Catholic) Church and the Eastern (Orthodox) Church. So if the Schism defined ‘control’ of Jerusalem, then it must have left Jerusalem under control of the Orthodox (but still Christian) Church. That doesn’t answer how Jerusalem came under the control of Muslims (presumably by conquest), and doesn’t rule out the possibility that the Western (Catholic) Church was trying to regain Jerusalem from the Muslims for Christianity.
Again, I don’t know that history at all. But the history that you and lastmanstanding have both mentioned make it entirely reasonable to think that the Crusades were, if not defensive, then at least a reaction to Islamic external aggression by Western Europe.

Steve

33

bull 05.05.04 at 4:10 pm

Hey Doug, I would probably qualify as a moderate republican in your eyes. I usually vote Rep but sometimes vote Dem. I find the term “feminazi” offensive, not to mention silly. I’m appalled by “the trash on right-wing talk radio.” So how about it? Can you “spare a harsh word or two for Rall”?

34

Rajeev Advani 05.05.04 at 4:42 pm

Doug, there is no shortage of Republicans who find Rush and Coulter not only counter-productive but vile and repugnant. Even if there were not, shouldn’t your own desire to be a free-thinker — if you harbor such a desire — motivate condemnation of Rall? It is not the right’s duty to police the right or the left’s to police the left — it is something we all must do. When those on the left criticize Rall they are not arming and aiding the right; what they are doing is adding to the left’s credibility.

35

Jack 05.05.04 at 5:52 pm

Steve I think that the catholic church would have fought different battles if their motives were defensive in a simple way. For instance, fighting somewhere adjacent to western christian territory perhaps. There was not much brotherhood with the orthodox church, on one crusade they sacked Constantinople on the way.

They might have been practising pre-emptive defense of course

36

Doug 05.05.04 at 6:21 pm

Whoa, at least one-and-a-half moderate Republicans! Y’know, you can probably apply for protection under the Endangered Species Act? Hurry, though, your fellow party members are hard at work to make sure that won’t be worth much. So how does it feel to have pulled the lever for a party whose leaders have brought the US from $500 bn in surplus to $500 bn in debt? How does it feel to have (or have had) Tom DeLay, Trent Lott and GW Bush as the party’s public faces?

Or how about this quote from Amb. Joe Wilson, reflecting on the differences between his Republican heritage and the folks running the show now:

“If you’re fiscally responsible, this is not your party. If you believe in a moderate foreign policy characterized by alliances, free trade and the ability to operate in an international environment, this is not your party. If you believe in limited federal government, this is not your party. If you believe that the government should stay out of your bedroom, this is very definitely not your party. In fact, I would argue that unless you believe in the American imperium, imposed on the world by force, or unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, this is not your party.”
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/03/wilson/print.html)

Oh yeah, Rall’s comparison is pretty dumb.

So, how about it, bull and possibly rajeev, see much chance of a moderate Republican getting power any time in the next decade? Gotta love that Club for Growth, using the Pennsylvania primary to send a message to moderates that they’re not welcome in the GOP. The future of Republican moderation is so bright, I gotta wear shades.

Anyway, I’m, like, delighted that y’all are appalled and all of that by Rush & Ann & Sean & the rest. So what are we responsible moderates going to do about the millions of dittoheads out there? I’m gonna start by contributing to Kerry. How about you?

37

Steve 05.05.04 at 6:55 pm

Jack-
I still don’t get it, and I’ll make it simple. Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christianity, is conquered by Muslims. A Christian Church starts a Crusade to free it. The Christian Church is the aggressor?

Steve

38

roger 05.05.04 at 6:57 pm

“He’s the Ann Coulter of the left – a shameless self-publicist trying to build a career out of moral superiority, cheap shots and relentless, vicious stereotyping. To be avoided at all costs, in other words.”

Rall, and Coulter, are often wrong on matters of fact and morals. But the fatwa of interior exile for both of them is –well, fatuous. I thought the NR was extremely silly for dropping Coulter when she said she wanted to bomb all the Middle East after 9/11 — especially as they have gone on to adopt her attitude, and exploit the sales power of her books. Rall is frothing in the claim that the SS and the America’s cornpone sadists are just alike. But his job is to froth. Meanwhile, the ever so establishment Annie Applebaum in the WP makes the same comparison — but does it with table manners.
Somehow, I doubt either are going to be cast into utter darkness by the CT presidium. As Stalin once said, how many battalions does CT have?

Nice try, though, at reviving the Vatican index.

39

Jack 05.05.04 at 7:12 pm

I can’t see that Rall is any worse than say Instapundit who is at least one circle of hell higher than Coulter and Limbaugh. His comparison with the Nazis is clearly qualified.

He may be wrong but why the ad hominem? More time explaining what is wrong with the comparison woud be better than calling him a self publicist of all things. The Coulter thing is clearly excessive too, he at least has a serious crime to point at.

In any ase it is probably wrong to think that even an excessive screed like this discredits the left in any circles that would ever give them credit. There is no evidence that Bush’s chances have been hurt by the existence of Limbaugh or Coulter. The fact that he thought he could get away with it should be taken as a sign that public opinion is now open to doubt in a way unthinkable a year ago.

40

JRC 05.05.04 at 7:37 pm

Steve–

Here’s what you’re missing. The Muslims had held Jerusalem since Caliph Omar conquered it in 637. The first crusade was in 1099. That’s a 462 year delay before a Christian nation took “defensive action.”

By way of contrast, the United States has existed for only 228 years, and yet, I suspect that were the UK to send a bunch of troops over to retake New York, few would percieve it as a “defensive action.”

Furthermore, if anyone has an ‘original claim’ on Jerusalem, it would have to be the Jews, not any Christian nation. Further, more furthermore, since when does the religion of the nation count? It wasn’t precisely the former inhabitants who took Jerusalem, it was the Germans (in the person of Godfrey de Bouillon), who, Christianity notwithstanding, had fuck all for reasonable claims to legitimacy. Of course, 0n July 15, after taking Jerusalem, the Crusaders slaughtered quite a few Muslims and Jews, further putting the lie to any sort of “original ownership” argument.

I mean, if it’s religion that’s the issue, it would be a “defensive” action for Egypt to invade Afghanistan while Iran invades Iraq, right? Two Islamic countries in the hands of a Christian power . . . two Islamic nations invade . . . sounds mighty defensive to me.

—JRC

41

Steve 05.05.04 at 8:20 pm

JRC-
That’s exactly the kind of facts I was looking for-I said I didn’t know the history of the Crusades, you have informed me, and I now accept your/lastmanstanding/jack’s explanation.

But… “Further, more furthermore, since when does the religion of the nation count?” uhm… during the Crusades?

Steve

42

Steve 05.05.04 at 8:37 pm

AH HAH! Not so fast. I forgot the basic rule of research: Google over blog.

“Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted…The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1091 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes…”

Apparently, the Crusades were not a response to Muslim domination of Jerusalem-they were a response to specifically Turkish expansion (and domination of Jerusalem). Also note that Constantinople asked Rome for help. Furthermore, note that the threat of the Turkish empire to ‘all of Christendom’ was not an exaggeration. The Turkish empire went on to conquer southeastern Europe and besiege Vienna.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

Steve

43

Another Damned Medievalist 05.05.04 at 8:42 pm

Ahem. (this is nice — I can start with something not aout the Nazis). JRC — wrong Muslims.

Here’s a nutshell version of “causes of the 1st Crusade.” I’m not going to go into much detail, but …

Yes, there was a schism between the Roman and orthodox churches — it had hit its worst point in 1054 with pope and patriarch excommunicating each other.

The Byzantine Empire was not at its best. After some successes against the Bulgars (think Basil the Bulgar Slayer) and northward expansion and conversions in the Balkans, the imperial family (I’m pretty sure with a dynastic change, too, to the Komnenoi) had alienated many of the nobles by granting lands and offices to favourites, especially in the eastern parts of the Empire. They also impose really heavy taxes that trickle down to farmers.

The (Sunni) Muslim Seljuk Turks invade, sometimes welcomed by the overtaxed farmers and some alienated nobles, because they see the invaders as means to break the yoke of Byzantine rule. Turks annihilate Byzantine forces at Manzikert in 1071.

Later that year, the Turks take Jerusalem from the Fatimid Caliphate (they’re Shi’a, if you care).

The Byzantine Enpire (there’s still some left around Constantinople) spends the next 13 or so years regrouping and rebuilding its military. Turkish forces, focused more on acquisition of territory than conquering any particular culture, continue to take over large chunks of Syria and Asia Minor.

Meanwhile, back in Western Europe … Urban II is Pope. The papacy has been fighting with the secular rulers for oh, about the last 30 years (not to say that there weren’t conflicts before, but I’m talking about the Investiture Crisis). Concurrently, there have been many monastic reform movements (some internal, some funded by members of the laity) going on.

When the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Comnenus (yes, I just Latinized — sue me), gets hold of the pope and asks for help against those pesky Turks, implying a mending of the schism at exchange, Urban sees an opportunity to strengthen Christendom and also relieve some of the social tensions that existed in Europe — it was a relatively peaceful place at the time, and there seemed to have been more than a few younger sons of the warrior nobility hanging about at loose ends with little prospect of inheritance, generally causing trouble.

Add to that spurious letters sent to members of the nobility (like one purportedly from the Byz. Emp to the Count of Flanders) enumerating the dreadful human rights violations (ok, looting, pillaging, and raping of good Christian women, children, and young boys) by the Turks, and a general indulgence for those who were willing to go, and Urban didn’t have much trouble persuading people that a crusade was a good idea.

BTW — the Orthodox and Roman churches are still split, and the fact that those Byzantines were Christian didn’t prevent Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade from sacking Constantinople in 1204.

Also BTW — comparing Abu Ghraib to any actions committed by the SS or Saddam Hussein is just plain silly, historically speaking. It’s a false comparison that lessens the horrers of the latter two, while raising the former to a level it hasn’t achieved — at least, until such time as it’s proven that there was a plan for this to happen from the top down with an ultimate goal of genocide.

44

Another Damned Medievalist 05.05.04 at 8:46 pm

Really. That was a nutshell. Don’t ask for the detailed version.

45

Rajeev Advani 05.05.04 at 8:57 pm

Doug, I’ve never pulled the lever for the Republican party, but I can safely say that, in terms of foreign policy, a moderate Republican — steeped in realpolitik — is the last creature I would want in office.

I would have preferred a hawkish Democrat, perhaps a John Edwards type character. Lacking that, I’m still searching for the next best thing, still waiting for Kerry to show his cards come election season.

46

Sebastian 05.05.04 at 9:16 pm

Although if you want a detailed version, I’m partial to volume one of Steven Runciman’s History of the Crusades, his unresolved homoerotic issues with Bohemond de Hauteville notwithstanding.

47

Jack 05.05.04 at 9:20 pm

Of course complaining that a comparison between our rececnt behaviour and Saddam or Hitler is silly because it diminshes the horror of the later two is also an implicit equation of Sadam and Hitler which is also silly for the same reasons. Of course it is still true and an actual criticism of the article.

48

Doug 05.05.04 at 9:22 pm

Rajeev, I was careful to note that you hadn’t said you were with the Rs, so I’m happy to here you’re over here where the waters are warm, everyone’s love life is great, the land flows with milk and honey etc etc etc. “If you’re not against us, you’re…” but you know the rest.

I greatly enjoyed Walter Russell Mead’s Special Providence, especially its discussion of why classical European realpolitik is the approach to foreign policy that’s probably least suited to America’s political culture. Which does in a lot of the wannabes on the right side of the aisle.

49

lastmanstanding 05.05.04 at 9:55 pm

The question is … Were the Crusades a “defensive action”?

_”I believe you are wrong about the Crusades. In particular, I believe it was a defensive action on the part of Christian Europe, rather than an offensive action. Your own post illustrates why I believe this.”_ (steve’s post)

Steve-
It depends on your point of view, and I don’t think there is a right answer. Personally I do not mind what faith are the people who live in Jerusalem as I do not live there, so anyone who asked for me to pay for or participate in an attack on the city would not get my support. If I choose visit the city then I might have a slight preference that the rulers do not bar the visit, in which case I might be better off if the rulers are not Muslim, as fundamentalist Muslims might prevent the visit.

However, should Muslim rulers prevent such a visit, I am not prepared to vote for a government on any kind of “rescue” mission. Of course, some Christians might say that they have a “right” of pilgrimmage to the Holy Land, and are willing to enforce that right.

I don’t care enough about it. Most Christians don’t live in the Holy Land, and never visit it, and whether they have access to it does not affect them.

Are you saying that personally you are prepared to fund efforts to keep the pilgrimmage route open?

If so, I can see why you regard the Crusades as a defensive action. If not, are you are still defending the rights of other “foreigners” to dictate the administration of the Holy Land. It concerns me that this sort of thinking will lead to continued violence and misery, a theme which is at the heart of the New Testament.

50

DocGf 05.05.04 at 10:35 pm

Steve,

You’ve already gotten some pretty good overviews of the history of the Crusades. But to add another piece of the puzzle, the words and actions of the Crusaders make it rather difficult to call the Crusades a “defensive” action, unless you would also define the Spanish conquests of Mexico and Peru as “defensive.”

In all three cases, religious fervor was a cover for greed, rapine, and slaughter on a vast scale. These conquests yielded huge amounts of treasure, and in all three cases, the Europeans waging the campaigns eventually fell into internal squabbling and started killing each other over the loot. And, mostly as an afterthought, they tried to convert to Christianity anyone in the area that still survived their calamitous arrival onto the local scene.

51

Rajeev Advani 05.05.04 at 11:58 pm

Doug: Special Providence was a great book; I found I identify most with the Wilsonian movement he describes there.

Interestingly enough, I saw a lecture by Walter Russel Mead on the eve of the Iraq war, where he tried to categorize the war’s proponents and detractors using his 4-school logic. He noted that the general public was motivated by a mixture of Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism, a need to crush an anti-American leader while spreading democracy. He then cited a Hamiltonian division on the war: temporarily destabilizing the economy vs. securing geopolitical oil interests, and concluded that the only school categorically opposed to the war was the Jeffersonians.

The analysis seemed a bit academically contrived at times, but it was somewhat interesting. He admitted, though, that he spends far too much time trying to see things through his 4-school lens.

52

Another Damned Medievalist 05.06.04 at 12:44 am

Actually, part of my point was that there were plenty of reasons that the average Christian joining in at least the first Crusade would see his actions as defending Christendom from the heathen. From the Muslim point of view, I think one could argue the flip-side; the Holy Land needed to be protected from the infidel. The arguments for either side exist. What makes it difficult is that, like any other war, there are often many factors at play. Still, it’s hard for me to believe that even the most cynical of crusaders in the First Crusade did not have the justification of defending Christendom somewhere in his head — even if he were more interested in such practical things as conquest and indulgence.
One of the things that perhaps makes the Muslim side seem more coherent is that Islam is supposed to transcend culture and ethnicity. We tend to think of the Crusades as being against the Muslims, although those Muslims were largely Arabs and Turks — and Saladin was a Kurd, AFAIK. It’s just that we westerners are far less familiar with the internecine struggles in the Islamic world of the time. After all — The Fatimids got to where they were largely through violence, and the Seljuks conquered much of their territory. Later, the Ottoman Turks didn’t let being Turks or Muslims keep them from extending their territorial grasp.

53

Arthur D. Hlavaty 05.06.04 at 1:08 am

Ted Rall thinks as well as he draws, he said viciously. He also expresses himself as well:

“Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America’s victims disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers.”

54

Die Laughing 05.06.04 at 3:24 am

Yesterday, Americans tricked out like the SS invaded human rights offices in Iraq and shot dead, two sheiks, arrested others and put their heads in black bags and took them away to be tortured.

The Shiites are screaming about this so we are now BOMBING THEM TONIGHT. How many women and children will die in Najaf tonight? How many????

Think we are not Nazis???????

We ARE Nazis. Complete, total Nazis. God bless America and Sieg Heil!

55

tombo 05.06.04 at 7:20 am

Before anyone continues with this asinine SS comparison he should educate himself on the basics of the strategy, tactics, MO and legal framework of the SS as applied to the Russian front. From my in-laws experience and from numerous accounts of the course of the war by Alan Clark and others, here are the key points:

SS Strategy: conquest and enslavement of the slavic races, followed by settlement of affected territories by the German volk (lebensraum policy). Where exactly are the plans for enslavement of Iraqis and settlement of Iraq by Americans?

SS and Wehrmacht Tactics: The directive given by the German high command in late ’41 was that the SS and Wehrmacht would not be supplied from Germany but would live off the land in Russia. This meant that all food stocks and livestock–already scarce in famine-struck Russia– would be used by the Germans. This caused many thousands of Russians to starve–my mother-in-law was born during this period and barely survived.

SS MO and Legal Framework: the German high command suspended all rule of law governing their soldiers’ activities in Russia. This meant that rape, torture and murder of civilians would not be punishable in any German courts martial, giving a green light to the rape, torture and murder of many hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians. In their turn, the Red Army raped many hundreds of thousands of German women during their vicious rampage westward three years later.

Please stop making these ignorant, facile and inaccurate comparisons.

You are insulting my wife’s family and millions of others who suffered unspeakable cruelties at the hands of the SS. There is absolutely no comparison between German fascist savagery and those Americans and Iraqis who are struggling to defeat fascism in Iraq today.

Sincerely,

Tombo

56

Keith M Ellis 05.06.04 at 7:52 am

No, there’s not. That doesn’t mean that what we’re learning about in Iraq isn’t horrifying, nauseating, and intolerable. And there is more, much more, to come.

57

eduardo 05.06.04 at 8:38 am

“…Now read my post. I don’t claim that we are the same as the Nazis. I just don’t want to pretend that we are not even beginning to make the same compromises…” (from Jack’s post above)

Jack, you refer to “compromises”? Was that what the Nazis did when they ‘slipped’ into their various genocides? What did they compromise with? Some set of supposedly stringent ethical standards that they maintained partly intact?

No. Compromise is what WE do, both in the best and worst senses. Compromise of both kinds is what democratic societies do. The Nazis had completely warped standards, and their problem was that they did NOT compromise enough. They followed their ‘pure’ and extreme designs all too often to the letter.

The very fact that this weblog dialogue is permitted to go on and express dissent belies the rough equations many are making here between Nazis and Americans, comparisons that elide the large differences between imperial democracy and a fascist state.

Our imperial democracy may suck in many ways, and there is room for endless criticism of and improvement in the way we do things, at home and in Iraq, but let’s remember that Nazi atrocities weren’t broadcast and debated all over the Third Reich the way the atrocities of some of our soldiers in Iraq are currently being trumpeted all over our televisions and weblogs.

This greater freedom of communication and criticism contains atrocities and malfeasance within boundaries that did not exist for the Nazis and that do not exist for other dictatorial governments. Admittedly the difference between democracy and dictatorship, with regard to atrocious behavior, is a difference of degree, but a real difference there is.

Imperfect democracy may not be SO much better than other forms of government, but it’s that critical inch of difference that we should not underrate. Humanity progresses for the most part by inches over centuries and millenia. It would seem rather spoiled and unthankful of us, and/or historically parochial, if we failed to recognize and credit the systemic progress that even our very imperfect democracy represents over other, dictatorial forms of government, however slight that progress may be. If you want to justify getting us out of Iraq, such justification does not require eliding fundamental distinctions between social systems.

In fact you may be weakening the effectiveness and persuasiveness of your own criticisms of what we are doing in Iraq. Basing such criticisms on an injudicious, hyperbolic conflation of kinds of social system might stir up crowds easily affected by such hyperbole, but whether it will be more useful to your cause than simply stating the bare case is questionable. Probably most Americans would be more moved by a cooler, less hyperbolic and sensational kind of criticism, because the great majority of Americans know very well that our imperfections, as serious as they are, don’t make us equivalent to Nazis.

But it is easier to speak in such exaggerated terms and try to get a lot of bang out of your words that way, easier than to do the hard work of pragmatic, moderate study and persuasion based on concrete, knotty details.

58

pepi 05.06.04 at 10:21 am

I’m with Henry too. It is bad enough that some used torture methods on prisoners. It is even worse to have comparisons to the Baathists or the SS (!!!) pop up automatically as a consequence of that. The SS. No less. Are these people stupid or just ignorant?

When did anyone hear Saddam or Hitler expose the crimes and open prosecution and apologise? Or conversely, where are Bush’s orders to torture and kill all prisoners? Where was that going on elsewhere?

Plus, it’s not the first time individual members of the US military or group of members commit such crimes. That’s not to say they “just happen”. They should not even be conceivable. Or be dismissed. Or mimimised. It’s sick, and no amount of mindless pro-war pro-Bush patriotism can counter that.

But please, anyone subscribing to the Ted Rall idiocy, THINK. Study. Read. Learn. Do something with your brain. If you think you can bring up nazi parallels that easy, you’ve got to be thinking of something else than REAL nazism. It is so depressing when people do that. 70 years later, you’d think everyone knew what they’re talking about when they mention the SS.

59

Jack 05.06.04 at 1:10 pm

I haven’t seen anyone here subscribing to Ted Rall’s point of view. I certainly didn’t say that. I do think that the tone of the original post is needlessly disrespectful while failing to pin down what is actually wrong with what Mr. Rall said.

If his crime is drawing a qualified parallel between our recent behaviour and that of the second or third worst mass murderer in human history I would expect fewer easy elisions between Saddam and Hitler. As it was he described exactly what parallels he was drawing and which, admitttedly major, ones he was not. As far as I can see most of his detractors are saying “what about the death camps?” and of course he explicitly removed them. I hope noone here thinks that the death camps were the only bad thing about the Nazis.

As for compromises I can see the confusion but feel it arises from a somewhat uncharitable reading. Let me describe it this way. There are a whole range of outcomes that would in some sense be better than non-intervention. At one end there is an intervention that removes Saddam from power causing widespread celebrations and welcome at the same time as recovering from the country a stack of atomic bombs. At the other, and only in a limited sense with which I do not agree, if one less Iraqi dies than would have under the Saddam regime. Now obviously we are not going to get the good result so the question is what trade offs are we going to make? How much ignorance are we willing to trade for not torturing people? How many of our own soldiers are we willing to risk to avoid accidentaly killing an innocent Iraqi? How many Iraqis are we willing to kill to ensure that we are satisfied with the outcome?

The incidents that have recently come to light were committed in cold blood and seem to have been part of an organised trade off. This was happening at Bagram and people seem to have been hired specifically for the task. The most charitable reasoning about this is that someone thinks that the insight gained as a result outweighs the costs. That is a compromise that I am not willing to make especially because I cannot imagine what somebody smiling like the ninny in the photos would not do. It is especially worrying given some views that are expressed most clearly at places like LGF but which lead even reasonable people to suggest horrendous solutions to, for example, the Palestinian problem when they despair.

I think a comparison with, for example, the behaviour of the Nazis in Yugoslavia stil comes out in our favour by a real and important margin but in terms of our suspension of the rule of law and brutality is not a complete waste of time because we are showing signs of losing the same inhibitions and are certainly subject to similar pressures.

Another comparison that is being ruled out in the same breath here is the one with Saddam. This I cannot accept at all given our spendthrift ways with Iraqi lives. Saddam faced the same problems managing Wahabi and AQ sunnis, various Shi’ite factions, the Kurds and foreign meddling, not least in the instigation of the civil war after our first invasion. He certainly responded brutally but, faces with similar challenges show signs of doing the same.

In conclusion I think we would be better served by a concise but accurate response to what Ral actually said rather than personal scorn and widespread destruction of strawmen.

60

Alice 05.06.04 at 1:33 pm

This year two friends of mine who lost families in the Holocaust died. I’m piling on here but, for the love of God, let’s put the Nazi comparison on the shelf people. Think of it this way: every time that comparison is made a vote goes to Bush. And yes, an interesting point, Femi-Nazi is used by some on the right as nutty as Rall. I also think that’s stupid, but with regards to women’s rights, the left should pat themselves on the back because on women’s issues it is the right that has moved more towards center, because smart people on the left have not let up. So Femi-Nazi stupidity aside, conservative women are feeling more liberated than ever (the men too!). I’m encouraged to hear people from the left condemning Rall’s stupidity, clumsiness, and cruelty. The left needs to clean house to win some of that middle third back or, I fear, you can kiss your party goodbye or at least brace yourself for many more years of Republican presidencies. I know that’s extreme, but that’s how I feel. Cleaning house does not mean becoming more conservative. It just means coming up with a vision for the party that is focused, fresh, and not based on conspiracy theories and hatred of soldier-types. Conspiracy theories are for 80s Reaganites.

61

Kyle 05.06.04 at 1:37 pm

Pepi,

70 years later, you’d think everyone knew what they’re talking about when they mention the SS.

Sadly–very sadly–they don’t. I’m convinced that most of the people currently borrowing “SS” (or “Hitler” or “Nazis”) epithets to fling at the U.S. or British troops in Iraq, and their leaders in Washington and London (not to mention the American and British people in general), truly have not read the literature or seen the photographic evidence of the Nazi period. How can rational, sentient human beings who have read or looked at what Keith Ellis and others have cited above make comparisons between Abu Ghraib and the SS?

I was against the war in Iraq. Not because I didn’t think Saddam and his brutal regime worth eliminating, but because I feared that there was no coherent plan for what to replace it with. That fear has now been realized. And the engineers of the war deserve all the criticism they are getting.

But nothing pains me more deeply than to see political parasites like Ted Rall and his ilk abuse references to the SS.

Are these people stupid or just ignorant?

I lean toward the latter explanation, Pepi. They think they know what the SS represents but they really haven’t done their homework. And if they have, then they are not simply “stupid”; they are are malicious. And dangerous. Very dangerous.

62

roger 05.06.04 at 2:27 pm

Actually, the problem with Rall’s comparison of the Abu Ghraib tortures with the SS isn’t that it dishonors the holocaust, or that it is anti-American — rather, it is that it distracts from the real comparison, which should be to standard abuses endemic in the American prison system. Gainer, we now know through the NY Times, was a guard at a Pennsylvania prison in which the guards apparently did worse things than they did in Iraq. Any scanning of news about the vast American prison system — we do have the largest prison population in the world — would quickly spot parallels. In California, last year, two kids hung themselves, not being able to take conditions in the Youth camps that required cages for kids, forced them to take mind altering drugs, chained them and beat them, etc. Meanwhile, in another California prison, the guards organized “gladiatorial” battles among prisoners, some of whom died — and in still another prison, the guards formed their own gang, the Green Wall, and encouraged some prisoners to attack other prisoners. In the Maryland system from which other of the Abu Ghraib guards were taken, in the nineties, there was a huge scandal involving sex slavery, as guards ‘divvied up” female prisoners.
It is often said that Saddam turned Iraq into a huge prison — which seems to be true. But it, to say the least, an exaggeration to claim some absolute contrast to a country that routinely processes a million prisoners per year.

63

wtb 05.06.04 at 2:52 pm

Well said, Henry. I’ll remind you that I’ve said before you were the classiest of the Crooked Timberites. At the time I meant to compliment you on your witty invective but now I can add that you’re stand-up guy as well.

64

Kurt 05.06.04 at 4:28 pm

He may be wrong but why the ad hominem? More time explaining what is wrong with the comparison woud be better than calling him a self publicist of all things. The Coulter thing is clearly excessive too, he at least has a serious crime to point at.

Good lord. Hijacking passenger planes and flying them into the WTC isn’t a “serious crime”?

65

tombo 05.06.04 at 4:30 pm

Nice post, Henry. There are indeed wicked and vicious crimes occurring every day in our prison system (and probably in every nation’s prison around the world with the probably exception of most Scandinavian countries).

The key point to this discussion, though, is the source of the cruelty and its relationship to the overall merits of the war in Iraq. The cruelty and barbarism of shown by a handful of our troops did not reflect US policy. It was not directed by senior US officials. It is not condoned, and it is being punished.

It therefore is false and outrageous to apply to these contemptible actions such serious terms as “fascist” or “SS” or “nazi”–all of which refer specifically to policies, directions, and a modus operandi that were founded squarely on racism and a love of violence for violence’s sake.

All decent Americans condemn these acts and demand answers, accountability, punishment and reform. But the nazi and SS comparisons are contemptible as well. They demean not only our soldiers’ sacrifices and struggle but the great suffering of millions of Iraqis at the hands of true fascists, Saddam’s Ba’ath Party.

If you wish to bring back Democrats like myself in November, then spare us these disgusting moral equivalence notions. You people don’t know what fascism truly means.

66

Jack 05.06.04 at 4:49 pm

Who thinks that the democrats get a vote every time somoene uses the word Feminazi?

Really wouldn’t a better line be “Rall violates Godwin’s law and some of his other work demonstrates the need for more legislation of a similar nature”.

I’m amazed at how many people are giving the Hitler Saddam comparisons a free ride, especially under the circumstances.

67

tolsen 05.06.04 at 5:02 pm

Can I blow off some steam here?

What’s up with the constant SS/Nazi references? Can’t anyone think of any other genocidal campaign to use in an analogy for once? The Mongols killed 20-40 Million people….with FREAKING SWORDS AND ARROWS!! The Chin Dynasty killed millions through executions and forced labor. Tamerlane killed millions more and built pyrmids out of the skulls of the dead. Let’s not even COUNT the number of bodies (Jewish, Native American, Cathar, Hussite…) piled up by the Catholic church through the ages. In short, I am sick and tired of the nazi’s hogging all the attention. Let’s give some credit to these other mass murderers too!

68

Jack 05.06.04 at 5:03 pm

Kurt: “Good lord. Hijacking passenger planes and flying them into the WTC isn’t a “serious crime”?”

Well, I suppose Coulter does add that to the list of things that liberals are to blame for but I don’t really think it counts. Are you trying to say she has a point?

69

Alice 05.06.04 at 5:05 pm

Jack: Yes, I think the Dems get a boost when people on the right use the term Femi-Nazi, no doubt. It certainly pisses me off and I’m an undecided voter. Extremists scare people into wondering whether or not the extremist view is the norm or the exception. It goes for both parties. Are you underestimating conservative-leaning women with that question? I know plenty of die hard conservative women who voted for democrats because of feminist issues, for a fact.

70

Jack 05.06.04 at 5:07 pm

Tolsen, you’re forgetting Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao and the smaller best in class types like the Intere Hamwe and smallpox blankets. Hey, what about the Middle Passage?

71

tombo 05.06.04 at 5:13 pm

And I’m a liberal Democrat who supported Clinton’s war in Iraq, Clinton’s regime change policy, and Bush’s war to overthrow Saddam.

I’m saddened by the capture of my party by those who believe such nonsense as “Saddam [was] not the enemy, Bush is”, or that overthrowing the Taliban was simply about “oil” or “greed”, or that the French-Russian policy in Iraq was motivated by international law concerns instead of a desire to maintain their most lucrative middle eastern client.

Until I see evidence that this sort of moral blindness has been replaced by a normal ability to make intelligent distinctions and a willingness to strive for a tough and bipartisan foreign policy, I’ll have no choice but to vote for the other party.

72

Jack 05.06.04 at 5:15 pm

Alice: I’m sure that women vote against the republicans on feminist grounds but I imagine most don’t mistake Bob Dole for Rush Limbaugh. If the GOP could gain votes by dissociating themselve from the use of the word feminazi I don’t think we would find Karl Rove standing on principal on that one.

73

Jack 05.06.04 at 5:32 pm

Tombo: Can you think of an elected democrat that actually says that?

You’re nor really putting up much of a struggle are you?

74

Alice 05.06.04 at 5:47 pm

Jack: Remember how close the last election was? 9-11 is why I think we’re going to see Bush get elected again.
Tolsen: Yeah! Let’s pick on the Mongols for a change. Those pesky Mongols. I’ve never trusted them.
Tombo: I feel your pain. And I think I would be physically ill if I voted for Bush. But I am undecided despite the nausea. Please dear God give me someone to vote for!

75

Jack 05.06.04 at 6:14 pm

Now look what you’ve done!

“tedrallish” has now become a snark ont this board and aimed at mild mannered bob mcmanus too.

you see one moment of righteous indignation and a hwole row of people switch off their minds.

To proclaim some kind of moral equivalence between Ted Rall and Coulter or Limbaugh is grotesque and serves only to diminish understanding of the wrongness of Anne Coulter

76

pepi 05.06.04 at 6:31 pm

kyle: I’m more or less in the same position too. I do not abscribe the worst motives to the “operation” in Iraq, I can even see some sense in the basic, larger goal, but I can’t see a coherent plan either. Unconvinced, lots of doubts. Listening to Bush is depressing. But so is listening to the Bush-Hitler, soldier-idiot, torturer-SS folks.

I don’t think they’re dangerous, it’s just that kind of discourse, beside being very insulting to the victims of nazism and their descendants and their memory which belongs to everyone, and to history itself, to fact, to reality… and that is no small thing…, adds nothing and detracts a lot from the debate on the war, terrorism, etc.

It also provides an easy straw man to dismiss any criticism – just like Rall & co. equate the torturers and sickos with all of the military, the mindless pro-war types equate all of the anti-war with the Ted Rall’s… and so the opinions of millions of people who are actually reasonably in doubt without needing SS parallels for that get easily dismissed.

It’s so tiring. Everything is so extremised when in reality it’s not. When are we ever going to get a decent public debate? If there was ever such a thing…

77

tombo 05.06.04 at 6:32 pm

Jack,

Ted Kennedy and Bob Byrd have made ludicrous, disgraceful, and frankly, defeatist attacks on Bush–even though both supported Clinton’s regime change policy and Clinton’s war on Saddam’s regime in 1999! Kerry changes his tune almost daily, depending on whether his last adviser was (choose one) Dick Holbrooke, Bob Shrum, Sandy Berger, far-left Israelis, far-right Israelis, French diplomats, Sam Huntington, Ivo Daalder, Dennis Ross….

Kerry’s already said he opposed a war he supported and that he supported a war he opposed; that he’s a war hero even though he and his comrades were war criminals; that we need to embrace the French and Germans and also support 100% Ariel Sharon. Kerry is a joke. Nader will easily pull away 5-10% of registered Democratic voters. This is the logical result of a party that is in danger of losing its moral bearings and that lacks any coherent, intelligent strategic approach to our foreign policy challenges.

Until he and leading Dems develop the above, Kerry should simply say, I support the President on Iraq. Now let’s talk about health care and working Americans….

78

pepi 05.06.04 at 6:33 pm

torturer-SS – sorry, that was meant as, those who equate all of the army to the torturers and therefore to the SS….

79

noonneimportant 05.06.04 at 6:58 pm

The implication is made in this discussion that self-censorship should operate. This is because it might be helping the Republicans. How shameful for a blog inspired by Kant!

Nothing can save the Republicans now (unless Bush stands down). Ordinary conservatives now know they have been repeatedly lied too. Even staunch reactionaries resent being misled by greedy opportunists.
Over 100Bn (120Bn?) spent on a pointless war – maybe 500 dollars per person.

80

Kragen Sitaker 05.06.04 at 7:32 pm

It’s true that the SS were killing thousands of people and burying them in mass graves even in the early years of the Nazi expansion, especially in the East. Unfortunately, it seems the US army did the same thing in 2002 and 2003 in Afghanistan.

81

Kyle 05.06.04 at 8:35 pm

I don’t think they’re dangerous, it’s just that kind of discourse, beside being very insulting to the victims of nazism and their descendants and their memory which belongs to everyone, and to history itself, to fact, to reality… and that is no small thing

Pepi, it is precisely because of this history, that they are dangerous. The hijacking of history, of what truly happened in 1933-45, is a great crime. Whether committed by those who would deny it entirely or those who would debase it for glib political debate. It is the latter who facilitate the former.

82

Kyle 05.06.04 at 8:35 pm

I don’t think they’re dangerous, it’s just that kind of discourse, beside being very insulting to the victims of nazism and their descendants and their memory which belongs to everyone, and to history itself, to fact, to reality… and that is no small thing

Pepi, it is precisely because of this history, that they are dangerous. The hijacking of history, of what truly happened in 1933-45, is a great crime. Whether committed by those who would deny it entirely or those who would debase it for glib political debate. It is the latter who facilitate the former.

83

Kurt 05.06.04 at 8:54 pm

Kurt: “Good lord. Hijacking passenger planes and flying them into the WTC isn’t a “serious crime”?”

Well, I suppose Coulter does add that to the list of things that liberals are to blame for but I don’t really think it counts. Are you trying to say she has a point?

I know very little about Coulter, other than her “kill them & convert them to Christianity” comments and her subsequent firing from NR. I think it’s safe to say that she’s best known for that episode.

Given that, it’s absolutely preposterous to try to distinguish her from Rall by saying “The Coulter thing is clearly excessive too, [Rall] at least has a serious crime to point at.”

84

Jack 05.06.04 at 9:05 pm

Kurt is it your ignorance of coulter that makes it absolutely preposterous to distiguish Coulter from Rall or because what Rall said is equivalent to suggesting that we should kill muslims and (then?) convert them to Christianity? Did you read Rall’s article?

Coulter I think came to fame for her book High Crimes and Misdemeanours: The case against Bill Clinton.

85

Jack 05.06.04 at 9:12 pm

Tombo, if Kerry is a joke what does that make Bush?
In any case did even Kennedy, who is hardly mainstream, say what you were complaining about Democrats saying? What exactly was disgraceful?
Do you remember what Bush was like on foreign policy before he was elected? He knows where Pakistan is now at least.
Are you really applying the same standard to your judgement of Kerry that you are to our judgement of Bush?

86

Kurt 05.06.04 at 9:16 pm

Christ, jack, would you please read what I’m saying before you respond? Or not respond at all? I’ll try again.

Given that, it’s absolutely preposterous to try to distinguish her from Rall BY SAYING “THE COULTER THING IS CLEARLY EXCESSIVE, AT LEAST [RALL] HAS A SERIOUS CRIME TO POINT AT.”

HERE’S MY POINT, JACK. COULTER HAD A SERIOUS CRIME TO POINT AT ALSO.

Apologies to the rest of you.

87

Jack 05.06.04 at 9:56 pm

Kurt, apologies for reading your response too literally but I find it surprising that you feel so strongly about something you profess to know so little about.

Because once Coulter said something related to 9/11 I can’t say that it is silly to complain about a comparison of this article with somebody who says that voting for Bill Clinton is an act of treason? If we are going to be generous in our readings you might observe that I first make the statement that the Coulter statement is unfair and then give one reason why which serves as an example not the whole case and I think of the idea of Clinton as being a major criminal as a contrast. Now if you actually have grounds for rejecting my claim that it is unfair to equate Rall’s article with Coulter, for example wanting to kill all the leaders and convert them to christianity I would be glad to hear them. You have a reason for asserting that don’t you?

88

Kurt 05.06.04 at 10:22 pm

If we are going to be generous in our readings you might observe that I first make the statement that the Coulter statement is unfair and then give one reason why which serves as an example not the whole case and I think of the idea of Clinton as being a major criminal as a contrast.

It was a very poor reason. No, Coulter doesn’t *always* respond to serious crimes but then maybe someone can remind me of the serious crimes perpetrated by Pat Tillman or the 9/11 widows.

Now if you actually have grounds for rejecting my claim that it is unfair to equate Rall’s article with Coulter

Sigh. Please read my previous response, several times if necessary, to see what claim I was rejecting. As to the larger question of whether Rall or Coulter is worse, I don’t care. They’re both worthless; I’m not intersted in measuring specific degrees of worthlessness.

89

tombo 05.06.04 at 10:31 pm

Jack,

Kennedy’s charge that Bush’s Iraq war was “cooked up in Texas” was as laughable as it was despicable. All of the Texas-based oil majors are on record (check out their Congressional testimony) as urging the Clinton and the Bush administrations to DO BUSINESS WITH SADDAM, not overthrow his regime. Whether in San Francisco (Chevron) or Texas or Paris or Moscow, the oil lobby’s preferred policy was to strike deals with Saddam. This is simple, documented, obvious fact.

“Blood for oil” describes the policies of those governments that aided and abetted Saddam’s manipulation of sanctions to cause the deaths of thousands of Iraqis in order to win multi-billion $ oil contracts for their oil companies (TotalFinaElf, W. Qurna oilfields, Nov 2002; LUKoil, multiple contracts worth several $B, late 1990s onward).

Second, if the Iraq war was “cooked up,” then the cooks included those Clinton administration officials who 1) identified Saddam’s regime as behind the transfer of chemical weapons to African production facilities in the late 1990s; 2) urged that regime change in Iraq be signed into law; 3) planned and supervised the carpet bombing of Baghdad for over 72 hours straight in 1999.

Let me make it simple for you: Bush continued Clinton’s war. He ended the cruel failure that was the sanctions regime and made good on the US determination–initiated by CLINTON– to overthorw Saddam’s regime. This is why neither Bill nor Hillary has attacked the war.

If Kennedy did not oppose the Clintonites on their war against Saddam, or their intelligence conclusions, or their official policies, then he has no right to be outraged at Bush’s war. He could have honorably criticized the conduct of that war, or questioned some of the premises behind it, as Biden and Lugar have done. But to impugn the motives of Bush and those famous Texas oilmen, Paul Wolfowitz, Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis, with such an absurd attack, is beneath all honor.

PS – come to Texas sometime and talk to leading oil execs. No one here considers Cheney an oilman. He’s a politician. The politicians who are most indebted to the oil companies are to be found in the Kremlin and Elysee Palace.

90

Jack 05.07.04 at 12:09 am

kurt that’s a lot of steam for something you are not interested in and don’t know much about.

If you don’t care who is more worthless you could have saved everyone a lot of time and energy by not intervening in a debate about who is more worthless.

91

Jack 05.07.04 at 12:39 am

Tombo, interesting post and not that much i find to take exception to.

I quite agree with the implication of your post that the war was not any kind of simple extension of the oil industry’s wishes.

Another fine point I wish saw more daylight is the horribleness of the sanction regime. One of the best things I have seen on a blog was someone who thought that the debate about the war had people on the wrong side. Cynical realists should have been for continuing containment and sanctions while liberals concerned for the fate of Iraqis should have been for any action that could end the cruelty of sanctions.

I agree therefore that Kennedy implies too much and I agree that could be pretty hard to take, especially if it comes a bit close to home. However I maintain that he is still somewhat more reasonable than some of the protest poster assertions you complained of earlier. Also that much of the more simple minded sloganising is the result of inarticulacy (sp?). And just to cap it all that Kennedy, what I conceeded above aside, might have had a point in so far as the war in Iraq was conceived before even 9/11 and sold on anything that would work.

There is a kind of compliment in suggesting that the current mess is the result of a conspiracy rather than a cock-up.

92

Jack 05.07.04 at 2:11 am

Kurt, just to get this straight, there is no point drawing a distinction between Coulter because he is as bad as her because he can’t draw a distinction between one set of torturers and another?

93

tombo 05.07.04 at 2:48 am

Jack, I appreciate your obvious attempt to be civil and gracious, but Kennedy has embarrassed himself and his (my) party. Forget the Texas aspect (I only recently moved here, for work mainly). As stupid as that is– and I’m always amused at northern liberals’ ignorance of the fact that race relations are far better in the benighted south than in those riot-prone redneck citadels of NYC nad Boston–, what bothers me about Kennedy’s rants is the complete failure to consider the Clinton administration’s efforts and sincerity in all this.

Were Clinton and his men guilty of a conspiracy? A hoax? Was he a war criminal for carpet-bombing Baghdad? Did they falsify intelligence estimates when they concluded (Dick Clarke even notes this in his book!) that Saddam was in league with Osama and was furnishing chemical weapons to AQ cells in East Africa?

All of the above must be concluded if Kennedy’s rants are correct. But of course they’re phony, based on nothing but bile and bitterness and a childlike sulk that the 21st century is not, as everyone foolishly wished, a golden age of mutlilateralist harmony and peace.

Regardless who occupies the White House, several facts are apparent to any rational, unsentimental observer: First, we’ll be attacked by AQ and similar islamist fascist groups no matter how nice we make with arabs or how hard we try– and Clinton worked literally around the clock to achieve this– to bring peace to Israel-Palestine. Second, the “West” is finished because most Europeans will always view us as rivals, not allies. (Think Microsoft and Apple.) Third, the truly crucial region for us in this century is Asia, specifically India and China, about which Kennedy and the other apoplectics have nothing intelligent to say.

For all the above reasons, I know that electing Kerry would not in the slightest improve the situation in any of those three realms. Kerry’s cast himself as Sharon’s best pal: say goodbye to cozy multilateralism with the Euros! No matter what he tells the world, a President Kerry would inevitably have to continue to carry the fight to AQ, and the Ba’athists in Iraq and in Syria, and to the fundamentalist shi’a in Iran, and eventually to the Wahabbis in Saudi. As to Asia, Kerry doesn’t know what the f*** he’s talking about regarding outsourcing or trade or economics generally.

Would CLinton’s syrupy sweet talk have been preferred to Bush/Rusmfeld’s brutal honesty? For keeping a lid on Euro hostility, certainly. For winning friends in the muslim world, absolutely not. Clinton could not command the Pentagon and persuade the Chiefs to take the fight to Osama. As a result Osama scorned the US as a paper tiger and perpetrated repeated, devastating attacks on us and our embassies, ships, soldiers, citizens and others around the world. In Israel-Pal, all of Clinton’s tireless efforts came to naught because of Arafat.

In sum I don’t hold any illusions that the world will be a nicer place if Bush is replaced. And I have plenty of reason to believe that Kerry will make a tough situation far worse. Sorry, but No Zapaterismo for this nation. Not our style.

94

ad 05.07.04 at 7:43 am

_”we’ll be attacked by AQ and similar islamist fascist groups no matter how nice we make with arabs or how hard we try”_

If you read the AQ literature carefully, you will find that AQ will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel.

In this respect, Bush or Kerry, we are not being given a choice of withdrawal.

95

pepi 05.07.04 at 10:37 am

Pepi, it is precisely because of this history, that they are dangerous. The hijacking of history, of what truly happened in 1933-45, is a great crime. Whether committed by those who would deny it entirely or those who would debase it for glib political debate. It is the latter who facilitate the former.

kyle: I completely agree. I guess I was trying to make a distinction in “dangerousness” based on relevance, impact, influence of the person expressing that kind of mentality. Then again, anything that gets into a public/media debate has influence so it carries a danger of propagating.

And on that note… at the opposite end of the spectrum from Rall (Kurt: if it’s any consolation, I think your point was clear enough, and I didn’t read any implied defense of Coulter in it), here’s what some of the apologists for Abu Ghraib have to say:

it was not torture, just a fraternity prank

it was not torture, just something that was over the line, and anyway, the Arabs do much worse

it was not torture, just something to make juvenile and unfunny jokes about

it was torture, but torture is not such a big deal when you could be killed by terrorists any day

Granted, that that sort of sentiment would emanate from Limbaugh or LGF is not suprising, but that the latter item should come from the Chicago Sun Times is rather depressing.

Even more than Ted Rall’s stuff. Actually, no, I can’t decide which attitude is more sickening and idiotic. And dangerous. Such great times we live in, such great choices…

96

Alice 05.07.04 at 2:00 pm

Good discussion.
tombo: A lot of what you have said makes sense to me and is pushing me a bit towards Bush, I must say. I agree particularly with what you said about AQ. To my mind they should be treated like criminals. No bargains. No discussions. They are an incurably irrational bunch who have forsaken this life for another- to me, the scariest thing a human can do. I have heard nothing from the Kerry camp that makes me think he would handle things any better than Bush on the issue of defense and terrorism. Environment-Kerry. Gay rights-Kerry. Busting corporate thieves-Kerry (I think.) Sep. of church and state-Kerry. Budget balancing-neither, right? So, I’m still confused. I want to see a VP candidate.

97

tombo 05.07.04 at 3:11 pm

Ad,

“If you read the AQ literature carefully, you will find that AQ will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel.”

You obviously have not read the “AQ literature.” Osama over the years has not mentioned Israel and has been chided repeaetdly by his fellow Arabs for failing to do so. More importantly, Osama’s only SPECIFIC demand– aside from the restoration of the medieval caliphate– was for US troops to exit the muslim holy soil of Saudi Arabia.

Interestingly, the US (quietly, in its run-up to the Iraq War) did precisely that! The US central Command has been moved to Qatar! Which is why, of course, Osama thereupon declared a truce with us…

98

tombo 05.07.04 at 4:43 pm

The Limbaugh stupidity and brutality linked to in the previous post explains clearly why I’m not a Republican. Many so-called “patriots” are not decent; likewise for the so-called “progressives” who cannot discern the real fascists in Iraq, Syria, Saudi, and Afghanistan.

Limbaugh and Rall are nothing more than haters on the make. A pox on both their houses

99

ad 05.07.04 at 7:50 pm

Tombo-
re: _You obviously have not read the “AQ literature.” Osama over the years has not mentioned Israel …_

Let us look at pretty typical AQ literature and decide whether Israel is mentioned:

http://www.doublestandards.org/alqa.html

“To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him. God is great, may pride be with Islam.”

(ie: what is required is:
1. Security in Palestine
2. Exit from the “land of Muhammed”.)

“Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins and we don’t hear condemnation or a fatwa from the rulers. In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine – in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don’t hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb.”

(ie: Israel is oppressing the Palestinians)

It really could not be any clearer.

100

Donald Johnson 05.08.04 at 3:31 am

Yeah, Rall is an idiot. That was hardly worth the energy to type.

More important, though, is this whole Godwin’s law thing. I’ve broken it myself on occasion, but in hindsight I can see I was showing a deplorable lack of American pride. If one wants to criticize the latest American atrocity with an overstated analogy, why should one import an example from German history? There are plenty of good, honest American crimes against humanity in the history books, on scales large and small. Then, when someone points out that current atrocity X really isn’t as bad as past atrocity Y, we can be spared the subtle self-congratulatory pats on the back that come with the realization that Abu Ghraib isn’t even remotely comparable to what our enemy Nazi Germany did at Auschwitz. Instead, we can engage in the more fruitful historical comparison of current American crimes with past ones. Some of those approach Nazi-level evil, (though not quantitatively) in my opinion and probably the opinions of the victims, if they could be resurrected and asked about it.. So in the future, if people follow my advice, we can say “You moral imbecile, how could you compare the torture of Iraqis to the bounties placed on Indian scalps in California?” For further information people could be directed to that museum of great American crimes in Washington D.C. Or wherever.

Too bad this thread is dead. I’ll have to trot out this suggestion next time the inevitable dreary Godwin’s law discussion comes up again.

101

pepi 05.08.04 at 10:48 am

donald johnson, that was rather impressive… and no argument with any of it.

one of the things that most bothered me as I was watching Rumsfeld being heard in Senate and Congress yesterday was his (and his supporters’) refrain along the lines of “yeah but at least we’ve got a free press, a working system of justice, investigations, and sanctions and punishment for violations and crimes! doesn’t that make us a great country”. And I thought those things were supposed to be the _basic_ requirements for qualifying as a democracy at all, and one with functioning and transparent institutions, as opposed to a tyrannical and corrupt system. I thought what can make a democracy _great_ in that sense must necessarily belong to a much higher level of standards than the basic ones. How naive of me.

I don’t think the intent of Henry’s post was to use that game of degrees though, or provide any apology of the “at least we’re not as bad” kind.

102

Kyle 05.08.04 at 7:29 pm

In case anyone’s still reading this and wondered how low Ted Rall could sink, here’s an answer:

http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/04/12/

Notice, especially, the last panel in which Daniel Pearl’s widow is trying to pick up a guy who’s “thinking about opening a synagogue in Baghdad”, probably Rall’s made-for-Iraq version of the Protocols!

103

tombo 05.09.04 at 3:09 am

Ad,

Osama never mentioned Israel in his manifestos or rants prior to a year ago. Which is why, again, throughout the last decade, his fellow Saudis and other jihadists rebuked him for his inattention to the Palestinian cause.

Other targets of convenience added for PR effect in recent months include Kofi Annan. Osama just placed a bounty on Annan’s head.

Are you seriously going to argue that Osama’s recent change of tack in targeting Kofi, like his sudden conversion to the Palestinian cause, is anything more than tactical desperation?

What next–a bounty on Chirac? On Michael Moore’s fat head for dissing the House of Saud?

104

Ad 05.09.04 at 5:41 am

Tombo-
If you check the previous post I made with the link to the May 1998 interview, you will see that you are incorrect. To establish this would take less than 10 minutes of your time.
Your comments contain blatant inaccuracy in the face of the evidence and is developing into a pattern. Please check your facts before making statements, otherwise your comments add nothing to the discussion.

So my original post stands which was:

_If you read the AQ literature carefully, you will find that AQ will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel._

_In this respect, Bush or Kerry, we are not being given a choice of withdrawal._

105

big jake 05.11.04 at 9:10 pm

I am so sick of hearing these islamist cry because the US is not nice to them. You dune coons will always loose because you are ismaels kids. By by poor shits

106

lostdunecoon 05.11.04 at 9:15 pm

The arab culture needs to be detroyed by all means and their women smell of camel shit

Comments on this entry are closed.