Comments on: LGF: Like Flypaper to Sociopaths [1]

By: msg

msg — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:58:44 +0000

mc- “No one seems to bother about that question in Iraq itself…” The prospect of trying to forge a reply to a world-view so schizophrenically divorced from reality is too disheartening. At some point the diminishing returns of arguing this stop outweighing any possible benefit. You’ve heard me, and so have others; it’s enough. And I have no doubt that I’m the only person you’ve heard raise the issues I’ve raised. It’s in your favor that the same conditions are probably what caused you to publicly deliver an absurdity like the one quoted above. To continue this debate at this level would damage more than it would heal.

By: Detached Observer

Detached Observer — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:35:06 +0000

Bryant, You cited, for example, an NRO article. These are the very same people that claimed connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The piece was also written in 2002 —before the mistakes on Iraqi intelligence became apparent and when it was quite common for conservative magazines to make bold claims about terrorism and WMDs based on scant evidence. This is what the NRO piece does: It cites an unnamed US goverment official on the links between the various global terrorists groups. (Exactly the same type of “evidence” as used to be claimed for Iraqi WMDs). It cites a Red Cross worker saying that he found hundreds of bombs used by the PLO being exact replicas of the bombs used in Ireland. Hundreds? The Red Cross bomb expert never claimed that there was a training connection of anything of the sort. Most bombs used by Palestinians are pretty simple stuff; nothing for example that can be set off by a cell phone like in the Madrid bombings. Its hardly surprising that these things are built the same way in different countries. The reference to “hundreds” suggests to me that this is what is being talked about. The other two pieces you cited were not about connections with Islamic terrorism. About the larger issue of focus: motivation matters because it affects US interests in the issue. Local terrorist groups who are concerned with taking back the basque region of spain or columbia pose little to no threat the United States. Islamic groups like Al Qaeda, on the other hand, pose a pretty substantial one. Arguing that the United States should devote as much energy to the eta and farc as it does to Al Qaeda strikes me as more than a little strange.

By: Bryant

Bryant — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:22:13 +0000

All of these “links” are coming from the same people who claimed there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. … what? “Following the Israeli incursion into Jenin earlier this year, Paul Collinson, a British explosives expert working with the Red Cross, identified hundreds of explosive devices found there and noted that ‘the pipe bombs I found in Jenin are exact replicas of ones I found in Northern Ireland.’” That’s a Red Cross worker; the Red Cross is not typically seen as a neocon organization. “A more recent report, published in May by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, identified Hezbollah, Hamas, and a number of other Middle Eastern terrorist organizations as active in Colombia and the Triborder Region (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Venezuela).” That’s the Library of Congress, also not a typically neocon organization. My second link pulls together a lot of the information; it’s a piece published by the non-partisan Center for Defense Intelligence. The CDI often criticizes the US. In fact, they’ve published articles critical of the war in Iraq, like the one I just linked to. The eta will be satisfied if the basques are given independence; the Islamic radicals will never be satisfied until they’ve established another caliphate encompassing parts of the western world. Is it really so irrational to focus more on the latter and not so much on the former? Yeah, it is. Motive doesn’t much matter to the people who get killed. We shouldn’t ignore big threats because they’re limited to one geographic area. This “global” distinction doesn’t really have much meaning, I’m afraid, even if you were right in saying all the global terrorists are Muslims. The key metric is very simple: does group X have the ability to carry out its plans, and do those plans involve terrorism? “We didn’t focus on them because they only want their own country back” is faint comfort to the families of those who die in “non-global” terrorism.

By: Detached Observer

Detached Observer — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:53:44 +0000

Bryant, All of these “links” are coming from the same people who claimed there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They are highly tenuous at best. Its convenient to tie all the bad guys of the world together—but Islamic terrorism is fundamentally different from groups like the eta. The eta will be satisfied if the basques are given independence; the Islamic radicals will never be satisfied until they’ve established another caliphate encompassing parts of the western world. Is it really so irrational to focus more on the latter and not so much on the former?

By: mc

mc — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:12:54 +0000

msg – “If he is, there’s a question here that needs to be addressed, immediately.” Um, why? why would it matter if Bremer was a Jew? No one seems to bother about that question in Iraq itself, so, if your idea was they put a Jew there only to spite the Iraqis because Iraqis are supposed to hate Jews like all Arabs do, then please do show where that has been raised as issue other than by yourself. Seems to me those against the American presence are against the American presence full stop. Bremer being a part of that so whether he’s a Jew or not would be completely irrelevant, even to terrorists, let alone the ordinary Iraqi population – who maybe aren’t all the obsessive Jew-haters you imagine them to be? Some of them are even working with Bremer and co. to reorganise Iraq, you know that? You know they’re not all terrorists and kidnappers? or did you just want to line up one racist cliché after the other? if so, congratulations…

By: Bryant

Bryant — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:33:02 +0000

detached observer: there’s no such differentiation. Welcome to the global village. I refer you to this NRO article on the IRA’s part in training the PLO and the relationships between the IRA and FARC. Here’s another article discussing the same issues, and linking in the ETA. Here’s a Telegraph report on the ETA supplying the IRA with plastic explosives. This is the danger of believing in the LGF worldview. One becomes so obsessed with Islamic terror that one cannot see the other dangers in the world.

By: msg

msg — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:18:40 +0000

batterup- Well it’s not like I can’t be sarcastic, it’s more that we seem to be moving directly and rapidly toward nuclear holocaust, and that seems serious to me, inasmuch as it will probably bring about the extinction of the human race. But hey, there’s always Mars or something, right? Or maybe Venus. – It’s been pretty obvious for a while now that there’s more to the phrase “conspiracy theory” than just sensible irritation at paranoid monologists. The way it now describes its own negative seems almost intentional. There are no conspiracies right? Only bizarre suspicions without substance. “Conspiracy theory” means no conspiracy took place. That’s a fascinating trick, how that happened. – Putting Bremer under Kissinger’s blood-soaked wing is hardly a defense of his moral character, whatever it says about his participation in plots, non-existent or otherwise. I can’t think of a good sarcastic way to convey this so I’ll say it straight, I really don’t care about Bremer’s ancestry or religion. It’s his affinity to what’s bringing us closer by the day to the aforementioned nuclear fesitivities. Really. Really really really. Seriously really. But ok, in a sort of sarcastic vein, though it’s true, Tommy Franks? He of the drive to Baghdad? Yep. I could make a really long list of Jewish people that matter greatly to me, personally and culturally, (Lenny Bruce, George Steiner, Bob Dylan, a girl named Rosenthal…) but I don’t think it would register with you, I don’t think it matters, to you. What matters to me is I’m neither a racist anti-Semite, nor a knee-jerk liberal, nor a rabid conservative, nor a timid academic…let’s see, did I leave one out? Because that’s pretty much it for the acceptable positions isn’t it? Suggesting that Bremer’s where he is for reasons that go beyond his diplomatic qualifications is a kind of heresy, and can’t be permitted, can it? – Just to make it easier for you: I’m saying- 1. The US is in Iraq to benefit Israel. 2. Iraq has been intentionally destabilized. 3. Bremer was placed in his position intentionally, out of vindictive spite. Also, I’m working toward saying that this sociopathic manipulation bids fair to destroy us all, or maybe I already said that. – It is possible to hold these opinions and not be anti-Semitic, I know because here I am, holding them, and not being anti-Semitic. I’m sorry if that makes you unhappy.

By: Detached Observer

Detached Observer — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:25:17 +0000

Bryant, does the report you give contradict the fact that muslims make up a disproportionate share of global terrorists? the only relevant claim i see it making is that there were more incidents in latin america—which is not true if you count casualties instead of incidents, as the report shows in the introduction. i don’t see it addressing the religion issue anywhere…perhaps i overlooked? anyway, i said global terrorism. i specifically meant to exclude local groups like the eta, ira, or farc whose goals only pertain to their region.

By: batterup

batterup — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:15:59 +0000

And the idea that I have to insistently repeat my admiration for people like Naomi Klein and Seymour Hersh, and Krugman, and Chomsky, and many others, who are Jews Some of your “best friends”, are they? …I’ve publicly embarrassed myself to a degree that won’t permit any further participation in an open forum… Nah, don’t let pesky facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. He once worked under Henry Kissinger, didn’t he? Makes him an honorary Jew, at the very least!

By: msg

msg — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:43:15 +0000

The intensity this question produces, and the immediate invalidation of anyone asking it, means it doesn’t get asked. Except by someone willing to take the heat it engenders. My point’s only confirmed. And it’s a serious one, sincerely proffered. There’s no sarcasm here, not from me. And the idea that I have to insistently repeat my admiration for people like Naomi Klein and Seymour Hersh, and Krugman, and Chomsky, and many others, who are Jews, and who are actively opposing what’s happening, only confirms it more. The only possible acceptable response, certainly the only safe one, seems to be acquiescence, or silence. – Bremer either is or is not a Jew. It shouldn’t be hard to determine that. It wasn’t last summer. If he’s not, I’ve publicly embarrassed myself to a degree that won’t permit any further participation in an open forum on such a volatile topic. If he is, there’s a question here that needs to be addressed, immediately. Once it’s been asked by enough people who can’t be easily dismissed as irrational racists. – Nothing about the current situation in Iraq makes sense, morally or politically – not as democratic “liberation”, not even as a mercenary grab for resources. It seems like nothing more than a series of egregious blunders performed by dimwitted fools. Unless the true purpose was and is to destabilize the country, and keep it destabilized. Then it does make sense. Chilling, perfect sense.

By: Bryant

Bryant — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:56:44 +0000

"Islam seems to have a near-monopoly on global terror. A disproportionate share of terrorists are Muslims..." This turns out not to be true. You may be interested in reading the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002. I call your attention, in particular, to Appendix H.

By: batterup

batterup — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:21:12 +0000

MSG: Is Paul Bremer a Jew? It makes no difference to me… Of course not. No one would suspect that it would. But you know devious those people are… always masquerading as Christians. Take that Kerry chap, for example. And Bremer’s a “neocon”, right? Case closed.

By: velvet revolution

velvet revolution — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:41:45 +0000

Bring it into the light. Cleanse it with truth. Answer the questions. Is this guy for real? Is this the crowd Crooked Timber is now attracting?

By: Hal

Hal — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:12:52 +0000

Ok, MSG, other than vagues references to “senior Jew-Occupation figures” on neo-Nazi web sites, I can’t find any references (not even on Arab sites) to Paul Bremer being Jewish. But since you seem to have particularly sensitive antennae (or it just an acute sense of smell?) when it comes outing Jews, all of us at Crooked Timber would be grateful for the “truth”.

By: proAndCon

proAndCon — Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:41:53 +0000

LGF weren’t the only yellow slime to jump all over this. Dumb little Michele Catalano hopped on the bandwagon for a while, then deleted HER inflammatory post on her weblog when she was confronted about what was happening at Cramer’s site. Now Catalano seems to be having some sort of crisis involving “medication” and is blaming that for her behavior problems over the last several days. No word yet on what the brave Charlie Johnson’s excuse was, unless he was on the rag. Go figger. They all look like nutjob wingnuts from here. And it all backfired pretty severely on them.