Terrorists multiplying? In Iraq?
September 27th, 2006 by Atomictumor
I know everybody important’s already talked about it, and that I should keep my fool mouth shut, but how the hell is a report indicating that the war in Iraq is actually increasing terrorism a suprise?
Anybody suprised by this news, or even amazed by this news, needs to just stop paying attention. Thank you, your services are no longer required in this republic. Take your consolatory purple kool aid and line up outside the door.
Its obvious that the war on terror involving Iraq is dumb. Its not working. If, as a 9 yr old boy, I grew up in a country overrun by another country for reasons unknown, hearing all the worst news possible about the situation, it wouldn’t take much for me to start thinking about picking up a gun too, and spend the next 20 years or so trying to kill as many people as possible. Hell, its just like that movie Red Dawn, just without communists. And a 500 yr old cultural history of warfare.
So whats next? How do you get people who have nothing to lose to stop trying to kill you?
Well, there are two choices. Appease them, or ethnically cleanse them. You can’t sign a “Treaty of Versailles” with unorganized factions of guerrila fighters.
Historically speaking, these kinds of conflicts are resolved by smiting the town, killing the men, and selling the women into slavery. At least that’s what Alexander found useful at Thebes, and they sure shut up.
Thing is, we’ve had an Enlightenment and about a century or two of humanistic learning that separates us from those people. Doing that would be barbaric, and I think a large part of the population are not interested in murdering innocents, no matter how many of our innocents get murdered.
So, the logical answer, as I see it, is to appease them. Convince that to the guys in power, tho…
September 27th, 2006 at 9:33 am
“Appease” is freighted with a historical meaning that is inappropriate here. In the sense used to describe Neville Chamberlain, it was allowing Hitler a certain amount of conquest. In this case, what you are calling “appeasement” is just ending our occupation of a country we invaded.
Words are important.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:58 am
I don’t think leaving the country would appease them, and I’m purposely not providing an answer as to what would.
Furthermore, Joel, I’m not sure what you’ve been eating lately, but words are words.
Words:
A word is a unit of language that carries meaning and consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or less tightly together.
Appease
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM
2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY
3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles
synonym see PACIFY
If you choose to apply personal, historical, symbolization to words used in context that I don’t, frankly, its your concern. I think anybody reading the post is going to understand exactly what I’m talking about.
Furtherfurthermore, I don’t see why you posted that. Is that pertaining to the context of what I was writing? Are you adding value, or an argument against what I was saying? If so, I missed it, because it was veiled by your rather unendearing tendancy of late to be pedantic.
Lemme know.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am
I do not think that appeasement is possible. At this point, the question of whether going into Iraq was right or wrong is moot; to withdraw before stabilizing the country would only make matters worse. The reason that terrorism is increasing in Iraq is because that’s were Americans are (within easy reach). Should we withdraw, they would take their attacks to wherever we might be.
I’m sure I’ll get my lunch eaten for this one, but we’re dealing with a people who were cursed back in Genesis when Abraham’s bastard son Ishmael was born to Hagar, and I’m not at all sure that we have the ability to resolve the problem.
Go ahead, before it gets cold.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
AT, all you need to do is read some of the conservative weblogs to know that I’m not being pedantic here. You can pretend that the word “appeasement” has no other connotation than what is found in the dictionary, but that won’t change the fact that for most Americans who know their WWII history, this words is specifically and unavoidably linked to Neville Chamberlain.
And likewise you are wonderfully naive about words in general. Ask any arab what Bush was talking about when he used the word “crusade” to describe the US adventure in the ME. He will not merely refer to the dictionary definition of the word. He will also refer to the butchery of Arabs practiced by European invaders during the middle ages.
No good writer chooses his words in ignorance of all its connotations.
WRT Iraq, matters are getting worse anyway.
The reason that terrorism is increasing in Iraq is because Iraq is in a civil war with cycles of revenge killing. Should we withdraw, the attacks will stay in Iraq, because that’s were the Iraqis are.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
All this talk about stablizing the country… Where is it getting us? The longer we stay there, the more (according to this study) violence increases. So how is staying there longer going to decrease the violence if violence increases the longer we’re there?
Sounds cyclical to me. The longer we occupy the country and are made to look like (or are) the bad guy, the more impressionable kids over there come to hate us and devote themselves to fighting the white devils. We might have the most honorable intentions (however, I’m very doubtful of that) by being there, I don’t think they understand those intentions. They have a completely different way of life than us, and as such, have different values and a different sense of honor. Even our good intentions are being spun in a way that makes them seem evil.
And every time a shit-for-brains soldier on our side does something stupid like murdering innocent civilians, or posing with naked prisoners, it paints all our troops in that light and sets our stabilizing and peace-keeping mission back a few years.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“And every time a shit-for-brains soldier on our side does something stupid . . . “
Indeed. And this is an inevitable consequence of wars. It will certainly get worse with American troops, as the standards are being lowered, more shit-for-brains soldiers are being recruited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=18e0e7dce2b8c8d3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs
September 27th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Joel, you’re so right about everything ever, and I humble myself to your transcendent and awesome semantic knowledge. If only I, in my petulant naivity could somehow penetrate this veil of strung together consonates, perhaps I would be worthy of the supreme honor of your praises. You made me cry a little in realizing that I, like Mongol, am just pawn in great game of life.
More importantly, Netmom, while I dunno about the historical accuracy of curses (I do know a thing or two about bastard children), I tend to agree with the essence of what you’re saying, in that its a wasps nest thats done been stirred up for the past 600 odd years.
What I think would really kinda work is about two or three generations to themselves. While this may not fly in our global economy, particuarly with that texas tea underneath them, it seems like a societal time-out would give em time to either sort out their own problems however they may, or swallow their pride.
Again, tho, thats a little impossible. I agree that an immediate pull out would probably be bad, but I don’t really know that it’d be any worse than the continous presence of America. The place is going to go to hell quick as soon as we leave, and it’ll take a few years for a strong enough leader to get up and take control.
That leader will talk smack about America, I predict.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Cute, AT. Cute, but not very clever, and rather beneath you, I think.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I thought it was cute….
Edit:
I also liked “transcendent and awesome semantic knowledge”. Come on. When’s the last time you were referred to thusly?Â
Clever indeed…
September 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I’ll give it points for erudition, too.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
It’s really hard to know what really seperates us from “those people.” For all I know the reason Iraq is a breeding ground is due to terrorists having litters of 6-9 pups and able to reproduce at a rate that makes rabbits take a step back and say is overkill.
I was never a conspiracy theorist until Bush stole the election.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
WRT whether we should stay or go in Iraq, it looks like a majority of Iraqis want us to leave:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
September 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Joel, don’t know if you’ve ever been there, but I’ve been reading this for a year or so now. As with most things, I can be skeptical as to its authenticity (although I’ve never seen anybody cast doubt on it), but at face value, its a blog kept by a very articulate young woman in Baghdad, which gives a great insight into the lives of people there.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Does the color of Kool-Aid matter?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
AT, I’m familiar with riverbend, but rarely stop by there. She is sometimes quoted by some blogs that I do read regularly.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Meice, I guess not, but the purple is tastier.
Joel, everytime that website goes a few months (as it has now) without an update, I wonder whats happening. And I try to avoid Anne Frank references.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Gotta be tough blogging from a war zone.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
While you’re waiting for riverbend, AT, you should be checking out “Informed Comment”:
http://www.juancole.com/
He doesn’t do Old Testament Hebrew scriptural interpretations of current events , but he’s fluent in Arabic and Farsi.