Comments on: CT, Left exposed again

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:24:55 +0000

http://38.144.96.23/tacitus/archives/001155.html What’s the f*cking difference between this and dropping a two thousand pound bomb in the middle of Bahgdad the way we did a few days ago, the dead are dead and their bodies have definitly been desecrated. War is a bitch and you guys on the Right wanted it, now go and fight it. Posted by: Don_Quijote at November 24, 2003 12:22 AM What’s the f*cking difference between this and dropping a two thousand pound bomb in the middle of Bahgdad the way we did a few days ago…. You’re the voice of ignorance, Don Quijote. The 2,000-pound bomb strikes in Baghdad were against empty buildings, and the populace was warned well beforehand. Ludicrous tactics, but hardly immoral. And, might I add, we are not in the habit of mutilating Iraqi corpses. Next. Posted by: Tacitus at November 24, 2003 12:29 AM Tac, I don’t see how it’s any worse that this: We visit another family, several streets over. Twenty-two people live in this simple compound. During the attack that Saturday some gathered in the small open-air cubicle that is used for washing clothes. Raja Mizhir, 40, the mother of seven children, tried to shelter them when two small bombs blasted through the wall. It was about 11am. The holes in the wall show how one came in high, above their heads, and the other low, at shin level. Raja’s legs were hit and later, in hospital, both were amputated. She died on March 30 from, her death certificate states, “aggressive shelling”. Mapped: The lethal legacy of cluster bombs Documented Collateral Damage: Minimum 7898 maximum 9727 So who are the savages exactly? How many US civilians have the Iraqis ever killed? Posted by: Don_Quijote at November 24, 2003 01:16 AM Then by your standard, whether you realize it or not, all war is wrong. The Civil War was wrong. The Revolution was wrong. World War II was wrong. All because of “collateral damage.” Most people recognize “collateral damage” as a morally acceptable price of war. You may not, but I hope you understand the implication of that belief. Posted by: Tacitus at November 24, 2003 01:44 AM Tac, No one knows if any civilians were killed by those bombs in Downtown Bahgdad. I would be shocked if there was no collateral damage. As for just war theory, I know nothing about it but I know right and wrong and IMNSHO this war is WRONG. Posted by: Don_Quijote at November 24, 2003 01:41 AM Then by your standard, whether you realize it or not, all war is wrong. The Civil War was wrong. The Revolution was wrong. World War II was wrong. All because of “collateral damage.” Most people recognize “collateral damage” as a morally acceptable price of war. You may not, but I hope you understand the implication of that belief. Posted by: Tacitus at November 24, 2003 01:44 AM Tac, War is wrong, but occasionally a necessary evil, in this particular case it was not necessary. Iraq did not threathen the US nor did it have the ability to strike at the US (No Navy, No Air Force). In the Twentieth Century the US participated in numerous wars, but only one of those, WWII was just as far as I am concerned. Now, you people on the right wanted war, you ‘ve got it so quit bitching. Posted by: Don_Quijote at November 24, 2003 01:54 AM You’re not a lost cause, rilkefan. Quijote, on the other hand, would be better off in a preschool for moral idiots. “Quit bitching.” Good God. wellbasically can’t understand why corpse mutilation is abominable. I feel pity. Two things for you, Small Axe: 1) Can you really argue that the Tiger Force is anything but an outlyer—an exception to the rule—insofar as the modern American Army is concerned? Having actually been in the Army, I can assure you that such behavior is not generally condoned. 2) Yes, a society that tolerates public corpse mutilation is far sicker and more debased than one that forces it out of view. Posted by: Tacitus at November 24, 2003 02:08 AM In conclusion who gives a f*ck about collateral damage, but heaven forbid that any of my friends get hurt, after all they are far more important than the other 400+ dead Americans or the thousands of wounded & crippled Amwericans. Not to even discuss the Iraqi Body count that we are creating. And I am a moral Idiot? Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue. De La Rochefoucauld

By: Tacitus

Tacitus — Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:03:43 +0000

I guess I’ll have to work on spelling things out rather than letting the tone make the point. Yeah, lying misleads. Funny, that. Funny too that you still can't acknowledge that you used the quotes in an entirely dishonest way, instead droning on about....well, what, exactly? That qualifications don't qualify unless you agree that they do? That evidence isn't evidence unless you allow it to be so? Hey, maybe you are the gold standard of truth validity, Kieran -- but if you're going to build that case, you might want to stop, say, lying to make your points. It dims the aura of righteousness. Sniffing that truth is in your tone is an affectatious dodge. Try putting it in your words -- and in your use of others' words. Until then, you remain Kieran Healy, liar.

By: von

von — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:40:06 +0000

Oh lord, let’s not get all righteous and huffy about it. But that’s what I do best . . . .

By: Tacitus

Tacitus — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:58:28 +0000

Lots of people drone on about that, Don. You were just offensive and tiresome. But, whatever rationalization preserves the self-esteem…. And Tacitus was implying that there’s a substantial trend on the left of apology for communism when, as Sir Healy points out, there really isn’t. There isn’t? Heck, read the comments appended to the referenced thread for a regrettable surplus of contrary examples.

By: Joshua Scholar

Joshua Scholar — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:52:26 +0000

Andrew, ‘nebulous’ works. O.K. I think I understand what Conrad meant. Thanks.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:50:08 +0000

You were banned for being tiresome and disruptive, DQ. Which isn’t a crime in itself so long as you contribute something to the debate — but you didn’t. So off you went. You mean to say that I did not acknowledge your superior wisdom as to the virtues of never ending wars and observed that the right has far more in common with the fascist than you are willing to acknowledge.

By: Realish

Realish — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:25:49 +0000

Mr. Healy, simple fairness requires that you correct this error. Please do so. Your credibility depends on it. Oh lord, let’s not get all righteous and huffy about it. I doubt “Mr. Healy’s” “credibility” depends overmuch on this particular post (or on his blogging exploits in general), which was after all rather casual and impish in tone. And Tacitus was implying that there’s a substantial trend on the left of apology for communism, when, as Sir Healy points out, there really isn’t. They’re only blogs, y’all.

By: von

von — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:05:42 +0000

Tacitus’ phrase was clearly meant in reference to communism, and not the left as a whole, and Kieran should acknowledge as much and apologize. Absolutely agree. There were criticisms to be made of Tacitus’s piece, but Mr. Healy’s criticism depends upon a misrepresentation of what Tacitus wrote. I suspect that Mr. Healy’s misreading of Tacitus was unintentional. We all make mistakes, after all. But Mr. Healy’s failure to correct this misrepresentation is damning. Mr. Healy, simple fairness requires that you correct this error. Please do so. Your credibility depends on it.

By: Realish

Realish — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:03:51 +0000

Hey, I’d just like to draw attention back up to Timothy Burke’s thoughtful and interesting post (an exception to the whack-a-mole that this thread has become). Tacitus’ phrase was clearly meant in reference to communism, and not the left as a whole, and Kieran should acknowledge as much and apologize. Tacitus very rarely characterizes large groups with simplistic epithets (the exception, perhaps, being the Muslim faithful). However, his guest posters Bird Dog and Macallan do (I suspect it was one of their posts that got Kieran’s goat), in the worst sort of Instapundit way, and he does nothing to rein them in, and I think that’s a tragedy. And it’s also worth pointing out that Tac does not suppress comments, or commenters, that do not agree with him. His comment sections are one of the few places on the web where you can witness and participate in an open and vigorous debate between right and left (majority right, but not overwhelmingly so), with remarkably little invective or incivility. Most of the commenters drive me nuts, but at least people are talking over there, and that’s worth a lot.

By: Tacitus

Tacitus — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:13:38 +0000

Yeah, no one on my boards disagrees with me. No one! I will not tolerate it! Right. I think a quick read of my comments will put the lie to that. You were banned for being tiresome and disruptive, DQ. Which isn’t a crime in itself so long as you contribute something to the debate—but you didn’t. So off you went. By the way, where Kieran in all this? Shoddy of the boy, to say the least.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:51:51 +0000

Tacitus has a code which requires him to be controlled and formally civil, and he doesn’t rave and vent like a lot of the others, but his actual convictions are hard right.” [some material snipped] The reason Tacitus is so civil is that anyone who has the nerve of diagreeing with him and arguing about it gets banned. Think of Tacitus as the Hannity & Colmes of the web, if you disagree, disagree mildly & let me have the last word or be banned. I have been banned!

By: Peter Murphy

Peter Murphy — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:32:25 +0000

Josh Scholar, Crooked Timber is not taking SDB out of context. His exact words were: “Update: Crooked Timber thinks that white men don’t actually matter. (White women, on the other hand, do.)” His exact words. Such an unfair simplification deserves mockery, at least.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:11:04 +0000

Perhaps Conrad should have used ‘nebulous’ instead of ‘inchoate’. I was always of the opinion that they were synonyms, but my hasty dictionary research confirms josh scholar’s definition

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:40:03 +0000

Alene—you are correct. I should have followed a different Venn diagram. When I spoke of American anti-Communists being something pretty specific, I didn’t mean all American anti-Communists (which after all included most Americans) but the fervent anti-Communist movement. And segregationists and anti-union people routinely accused unionists and integrationists of being Communists. I think that we’re seeing a revival of that.

By: roger

roger — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:00:24 +0000

Racist, eh? I suppose he must be referring to Marx’s thoughts on the Jewish question. A founding document of that is, indeed, tainted with anti-semitism. Meanwhile, in the founding documents department, you have the American constitution, with its original guarantees of slavery, and its precision number for how much of a human being a slave counted for—a topic Gary Wills has just written a book about. So how about it—is American constitutionalism racist or what? … Or, hmmm—here’s an idea. Perhaps the Marx’s problem with Jews didn’t really go anywhere, either in his own thought or in his movement. Perhaps there was a large Jewish segment of the intelligentsia of Western Europe who became Marxists without even thinking about Marx’s essay, which was not exactly one of his most quoted works. Perhaps the racist attitudes that were common in the West were attacked, most intensely, by people on the left, in the spirit of the French Revolution’s declaration of rights. Perhaps, from the time of Jefferson to the Scottsborough boys to Goldwater’s famous vote against the Civil Rights act, the default position of American conservatives was to preserve an inherently unjust racial hierarchy. Just a wild thought.