I’m not sure yet if I’ve just gotten the crap beaten out of me. If true, no doubt I will have to overcome a day or so of denial. Which is why I’m going to write about it now instead. It is hard work to “criticize and destroy” but I have been invited to give it a go. It will take some considerable time. I’m a patient man. You’ll have all lost interest by then but that’s ok.
You misunderestimate us Brad. We’re vindictive hawks, remember? Long knives=long memories.
At any rate, some of the folks at Rantburg did give me mine for characterizing them as racists and/or fascists. Some took objection, some provided explanations and/or clarifications (hell even justifications) while others merely mocked me. You know. And they keep disdaining my views (or those within the articles I posted) as leftist. Why the disdain?
We are a unique, diverse group of individual wo(men) whom, each according to his or her ability and needs, mocks, explains, or justifies based on our relative devotion to social and economic justice. See: just like a San Francisco Chronicle “reporter.” Does that explain my mockery of, and disdain for, progressives?
I must admit, however, that as I read their many comments, I most enjoyed it when they mocked me by quoting some little bit of style or rhetoric of mine. It makes me cringe at the same time but still with a smile. Plus there were some very reasonable challenges that I rise to the challenge of reasonable discourse. Fair. Needs to be done. As I’ve implied, some just might be more clever than I but that is no objection to giving it a go now is it?

You can read it all and enjoy it, agree with it, tell me what a lame ass leftist commie pinko I am, make fun of my name or even better, enter the fray at Rantburg (it really is a forum begging for contributions from all political stripes irrespective of the umpteen countries that are apparently already represented here).

Rantburg welcomes comments from all political stripes, and we have posters from umpteen countries. When you comment, be prepared to defend your arguments. If you can't, be prepared for mockery, derision, occasional flung fruit, or even to be ignored. Look at the logo: "Rantburg: Civil, Well-Reasoned Discourse". Look at the rest of it. Those two guys are not doing the foxtrot.

I repeat - the forum is worthy of some counter-discourses to the tendencies celebrated within.

That's because most of our commenters are pretty erudite, despite having a sense of humor. The dullards usually post once or twice and then leave because their widdle feewings are hurt. The trolls are dumped, but I'm always really slow to put them on the poop list. I keep expecting them to say something that makes sense. Many of our commenters and posters have been hanging around the site for a considerable part of its four year life, and there are a lot of "in" jokes. Occasionally, someone will even change an opinion.

... Oh yeah - always more to learn but here is a shot at it Steve (hope it sticks):

Hokay. 'Splain yourself, Lucy...

-the article claims Zarqawi is real but that his status, import, relevance etcetera was created, fabricated, exaggerated - by the US.

Bad start. We've been following Zark and his mob since before they started making the national news consistently. Rantburg is an overview kind of place, but Dan Darling has been tracking him in detail on Regnum Crucis and on Winds of Change, which are two of the most informative sites you can read. Zark is affiliated with both al-Qaeda and with al-Tawhid, which was originally set up to overthrow Jordan's monarchy. It was — and remains — active in Europe. Tawhid formed a part of Ansar al-Islam, which Zark stole away from Mullah Krekar. He's been a key player on the international terror front since at least 2001, and he's demonstrably a psychopath. The U.S. didn't make that up, fabricate it, conjure it out of thin air, or poop it. Go to Rantburg or go to Google and search on "Zarqawi" and then you'll know all about Zark.

-the article claims white phosphorous is also toxic not only incendiary and that the U.S. used this as an objection to its use by Saddam against the Kurds.

That'd be Kurdish civilians (he said, tiredly). The U.S. evacuated the civilians from Fallujah. You can look it up. When they assaulted the city, they went to fairly great lengths to avoid killing any of the few civilians who had remained as gophers for the terrs. You can look that up, too. WP is "toxic" in the same sense most explosives can be "toxic." Its effects are horrible to look upon, but so are the effects of HE and fragmentation rounds, just a different kind of horrible. Trust me on that. WP is not a chemical weapon unless you change the definition of "chemical weapon." I'm guessing you've never spent a lot of time around artillery. Bring the matter up at Donald Sensing's site. He can discuss it in detail.

-your comment on Israelis restraint is no doubt true but as to what the Palestinians would do - this is conjecture - that aside from what justification the Palestinians might have for resisting colonialization

It's not conjecture in the least. We have the statements from Hamas and, to only a somewhat lesser extent, from Islamic Jihad and Fatah. We have the words of Jerusalem's Grand Mufti. We also have the Paleostinians' deeds. "Resisting colonization" shouldn't, it seems to me, involve shooting five-year-olds in their beds. To my way of thinking it shouldn't involve booming buses or discos or hotels, either, but maybe that's just me.

-I agree that a war is going on and may continue for some time. I’m not as certain as the article that we are looking at 20 years.

My own guess is more on the order of ten years. I also think that when the other side collapses it will be a pretty rapid thing.

I disagree that the war is a war on terror.

I recommend you browse through the Rantburg Classix page. Have a look at Thugburg. Pick some of the more interesting names and see how many different organizations they're associated with.

The war is itself terror and terrorizing and so it cannot also be an attempt to stop what it is actually itself.

That argument makes no sense. Passivity will not protect us from terrorism, any more than it protected us from Fascism, Communism, or for that matter from Apaches or Algonquins or Powhattans. War does in fact bring terror, especially to those participating, but also to their families. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. It's ugly and messy. General Sherman termed it Hell. War is the physical clash between two opposing bodies, and it has been ever since it became necessary to build the first wall of Jericho in 8000 B.C. But as Clausewitz so famously pointed out, it's the logical extension of diplomacy. The terror orgs, starting with the Supreme Council of Global Jihad, through al-Qaeda, al-Tawhid, and all their associated organizations and Numbah Ones want to establish an Islamic caliphate stretching from Morocco to the Philippines. That's not conjecture; that's what they've said. That's the goal they're working toward. The eventual end is world domination, the kind of goal you find in cheap comic books. The fact that you have a hard time believing in it doesn't mean they they don't believe it, doesn't mean they're not working toward it. There's no diplomatic exchange with them; the possibility of that ended for our side when the planes hit the twin towers, and it never existed with them. I do wish Bush would state that the end of the war will require "unconditional surrender," though.

-.com is a smart guy but he called me a disservice so I’m not going to like him for a while.

Like him or not like him, that's your choice. He doesn't suffer fools gladly. Most of us don't. The only reason I haven't asked him to be a moderator is because as a commenter he can say many of the things I don't because I'm being polite as the site owner.

I have not been to hellholes but I do not believe that the places .com has gone to are hellholes.

You just negated the value of your opinion.

I hesitate to even attempt to add a comment to this great fisking, but here is the nub of it, I think. There is a tendency in our culture at the moment to not want to believe really bad things about other people and places. Understandable and sometimes a corrective to the narrowmindedness of past generations. But it is an extremely foolhardy position to take about ALL people in ALL places. The desire on the part of Islamacists to impose a worldwide Caliphate by force, if necessary, or by cowing westerners if possible is real - it is deadly - and it threatens every value that principled people on the left claim to hold dear. Equality of opportunity, freedom of religion, non-discrimination against gays, due process of law, individual rights ... the list goes on and on. Get clear about this: these are things the Islamacists HATE and are determined to destroy.

Not mostly. Mostly they are normal places with families, people working and just living, even if the conditions are not as sublime as you think them to be for all Americans.

I've been on the west bank. I've done business in the middle east. Excuse the bluntness but you haven't got a clue about 'normal'. And in this situation that is a dangerous kind of naivete on which to base foreign and defense policy or actions.

I haven't been to many of the places .com has been, starting with the Middle East — though I'd go back to Chiang Mai in a flash if I were just a little more single. But you can gain some of the flavor of conditions from reading the local press, which is the basis of Rantburg. Read the Arab News every day for some of the flavor of Soddy Arabia. Don't forget to read the Islam page. Read the Beirut Daily Star for a look at the Byzantine politix of a classic oligarchy. Then read the Pak Daily Times, one of the world's best news sites, for a look at "normal places with families" in Waziristan or Lahore or Karachi. If you have a real strong stomach, read the Bangla Daily Star for a peek at just how corrupt a society can become. And don't forget Asharq al-Aswat on a daily basis for the overall Arab flavor. Then your opinion will have some weight.

I’m sure .com has many insights to share and I look forward to reading his comments across the weeks and months along with the crowds celebration of his comments.

I think the point that you're trying to make is that the inhabitants of those hellholes are just as human as we are back in Baltimore or Omaha or Milpitas or Melbourne. That doesn't make them not hellholes. Having lived in a few pretty scuzzy places myself, I agree with that point — the humanity point. yes That's the entire motivation for Bush's determination to replace the current kleptocrats, dictators, satraps, pashas, Fearless Leaders, and suchlike riff-raff with "democracy," by which he means a system which will allow individual liberty for places, some of which, have been under the whip of the local holy men since the dawn of civilization. Bush, and all of us here that I know of, are operating under the assumption that "the natives" are just as deserving of human dignity as we are. Given the chance, they will eventually figure out how to handle their own affairs. We might not always like the way they decide to do that, but we've got lots of practice at beng disappointed, living next to Canada.