In response to my recent quote of an OpinionJournal post, some people questioned whether there really are a substantial number of Western commentators who defend the Iraqi insurgents, or at least justify their actions as being a supposed campaign for self-determination, allegedly justifiable rage at Western misbehavior, and so on. I think this is a good opportunity to collect examples of such people, to show that they do exist, and are worth criticizing.
If you have some such worthies in mind, please post the following in the comments:
The name and brief description of the person (e.g., columnist for this or that newspaper, official in this or that prominent organization).
An exact quote in which they defend the insurgents or seek to justify their actions.
The URL of the article where the quote can be found. Please refer to original sources, rather than copies of the sources on other sites, copies of copies, and so on. (If you have LEXIS access and found the article there, but the article is not available online, include the name of the newspaper, magazine, or broadcast, the date, and the name of the article.)
Please also
Stick with quotes that are pretty unambiguous — no need to dilute the clear stuff with questionable material.
Stick with journalists, officials, or at least famous people; avoid comments by unknown people on others' blogs.
Check the thread before posting, to avoid duplication.
Many thanks — this should be a useful resource for people who want to respond to questions about whether such people actually exist. (For a sample of where I've done this once before on another topic, see my page on calls for total bans of handguns or all guns, which I posted in response to the common argument that supposedly "no one is talking about banning guns, so your slippery slope concerns are just paranoia.")
Related Posts (on one page):
- Westerners Who Support and Justify the Iraqi Resistance:
- Witch-Hunts:
- Statements Justifying the Bad Guys:
- Don't Let False Imputations of Bad Motives Stop Legitimate Arguments:
- Supporters of the Iraqi "Resistance":
- Defending the Bad Guys?:
- People Who Falsely Claim That Their Opponents Support the Bad Guys:
- Westerners Who Defend the Iraqi Insurgents:
- Murder of Steven Vincent:
If I offer the opinion that World War II was an outgrowth of German nationalist sentiment following what they saw as humiliation from the Treaty of Versailles, that does not mean I am siding with the Germans!
Michael Moore, his website.
Always a fan of low-hanging fruit...
(Even if you think an explanation would be exculpatory if true, it doesn't mean the author is excusing.)
Clare Short - Former British Cabinet Minister
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1302671,00.html
Ken Livingstone - Mayor of London
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm
The rule is "Justify their actions as being a supposed campaign for self-determination"
There is no question that Moore (who is pretty damn far to the left) said that it was a campaign for self-determination. However, you have offered no evidence that he is justifying it as opposed to stating what he believes will occur. Merely calling it a revolution is insufficient.
Moore may well believe that it is justified, but that post by itself doesn't prove it.
I guess that means Volokh concedes that the original WSJ position was indefensible.
My challenge is to show us quotes from Americans who say they want the the insurgents to win.
Predicting that the insurgents will win (a la Michael Moore) doesn't count. There's a difference between predicting defeat and saying that defeat would be good.
Saying that some of the insurgents have some legitimate beefs doesn't count. As Steve points out, the Germans had legitimate beefs about the end of WWI, but saying that is a far cry from saying that the Nazi's were right.
The only statements that should count are ones that express the hope that Americans will die or that the insurgents will prevail.
Also I question the motive behind this whole discussion. Are we arguing that understanding the motives of an insurgent constitutes support for said insurgent, thereby making the writer or speaker unAmerican,a traitor, etc? If so let's stop the slide down the slippery slope to McCarthyism right now.
On another occasion, Smith said on TLE: "blocading somebody else's borders and letting upwards of half a million kids die for lack of medicine and proper nutrition, invading two countries that never did anything to America, and murdering tens of thousands of pregnant women and ten-year-old goatherds can hardly be considered acts of self- defense"
Also:
May 23rd, 2004 TLE editorial, when Smith said, "it was people I called "Europanoids" (to include Americans) who initiated force in the Middle East"
and:
May 9th, 2004 TLE editorial when Smith said that, "Americans and Europeans are the aggressors in this conflict, and what happened in New York on September 11, 2001, was an act of long-delayed retaliation."
The former I don't think Moore's comments fit into, the latter they do.
In The Fog of War the documentary about Robert S. McNamara, McNamara lists his eleven lessons learned, the first is "Empathize with your enemy."
It is useful to justify their actions because to defeat our enemies we need to understand where they are coming from, and obviously they don't think their actions are unjustified or they wouldn't do them.
By your logic, unless the person says, "I think the insurgents are justified and want them to win," you will refuse to accept it as evidence. Moore did not merely "predict" they would win -- which concededly would not satisfy the original critiera. He denied they were insurgents or terrorists, described them as "resisting occupation," and labeled them "Minutemen." (He might as well have said "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.") If you don't think that's justifying or defending them, then I think you're guilty of willful blindness.
Therefore, quotes which do not use such qualifiers such Members of the insurgancy claim... or Mr. Minister asserted...
Come guys, its well known that insinuation bias is a very powerful tool. Juxtaposition of factual unbiased information does not make for a neutral unbiased journalistic piece.
That said, the phrase, "I think this is a good opportunity to collect examples of such people, to show that they do exist, and are worth criticizing." is disturbing. Give me names, quotes and sources? Nothing stifles open debate like a witchhunt.
By your logic, unless the person says, "I think the insurgents are justified and want them to win," you will refuse to accept it as evidence.
Well, the proposition is that there are lots of people who do say exactly that, so that seems not an unreasonable criterion.
Give me names, quotes and sources? Nothing stifles open debate like a witchhunt.
It may well be a productive exercise if the hunt fails to turn up any witches.
Justin, the debate is over whether there are examples of people taking a particular position. It's not over the position itself.
But that's okay, as McCarthy tought professor Volokh (whose admiration as a man of intellect has simply just died the last 2 days. For such an unassuming man this is just bewildering vitrol for a man who I hope eerything is right with his personal life because I would normally think such hateful crap is reserved for those who hastily speak out of thoughtless anger), if you can't beat your enemies' logic, start a witchhunt. If the witchhunt turns up no witches, expand the definition of witch at will.
No. It seems to me that the proposition was quite the opposite: the group involved, while "substantial" is not large. Eugene expressly states: "Fortunately, the group being criticized is not a vast group."
I humbly suggest that some history would help here. During the conflict in Nicaragua, a good number of liberals and leftists explicitly supported the Sandanistas against the contras. Whether they were right or wrong, politically/morally to do so is an other issue, but fortunately that's not relevant here. The point is, it wasn't hard to find lots of folks who did explicitly say, "we want the Sandanistas to win, and the U.S-backed contras to lose." Also, during the Viet Nam war, there were some easy-to-find factions of the anti-war movement who explicitly described the North Vietnamese cause as a just campaign for self-determination and hoped at various levels for a communist victory. And to be fair and balanced, there were some relatively prominent right-wingers around the time of World War II who were quite sympathetic to Hitler.
Comparatively speaking, there is practically nothing along those lines going on in the U.S. today. I wouldn't be shocked if somebody found a quote by Chomsky or from some exceedingly tiny radical group. But the interesting story in this war is the *absence* among the anti-war forces of any even arguably significant voices sympathizing with the "other side" against the U.S. Of course, if you believe the WSJ, Bill O'Reilly, etc., even opposing the war is "borderline treasonous," undermining the morale of the troops, etc., but that's another issue too.
Full quote: "These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.
"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4744685.stm
Moore still doesn't quite get you where you want to go. You can take a few steps from his argument to the point of saying that it would be good for the terrorists to win, but you have to take those steps--his words don't get you there on their own.
His position seems to be that American troops are being killed needlessly and they should come home now.
On the positive side, I can say without reservation that Moore is as fair and reasonable as the other contributors to the WSJ editorial pages.
Nicolas DeGenova, Columbia University Professor:
"the only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the US military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."
I now intend to post on Crooked Timber's thread the responses that generalized therefrom.
Pretty horrific, but he is still advocating attacks on the military. That s legitimate "Minuteman" behavior, even if we oppose it for obvious reasons. Still doesn't tie in to the Vincent murder.
The problem is that he may have been using it in the sense that the iraqis will see the positive connotation, not that we are supposed to see it. I can have an analysis that says "the insurgency is going to be seen as the worthy cause and will win" that doesn't see that as a good thing.
Wouldn't we?”
Ted Tall, "Got Empathy?", August 2, 2005 (and in a similar vein in numerous other columns)
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20050802
I disagree with your analysis of the use of "Minutemen." As you know, the Minutemen were guerrila fighters (by the standards of the day). They also, eventually, won. These are two things that Moore could easily find to be in common with the Iraqi fighters. There is insufficient evidence to back up the assertion that this phrase necessarily means that he was suggesting that they are "justified," and that was the parameter set by Volokh.
He also called them revolutionaries, rather than insurgents or terrorists. However, I would remind you of the following: Revolutionaries are merely those terrorists and insurgents that win.
So, does Moore actually believe that they are justified? Maybe. But this quote, taken out of context, without supporting evidence, is simply not enough to prove it.
I am not a big fan of Moore, and I personally believe that the war in Iraq can be justified on more than one grounds. However, the request was for unambiguous evidence.
On the other hand, I devoutly hope that Iraq does not end up governed by the kind of people who indiscriminately car bomb the Iraqi civilian population. Such factions are definitely in some sense members of the current "insurgency", but they are also not the only members. Unfortunately, it is counterproductive on every level for the U.S. to try to attain this goal through military occupation and force, since I would argue it is in fact our military occupation that has led to these factions having such power within Iraq currently.
The vagueness of terms like "the insurgency" and "winning" makes this whole thing just an exercise in propagandizing against your opponents.
Why don't you find one of those "numerous other columns" that better fits the bill?
I think the staggering silence here, and the telltale goalpost-moving, demonstrates the point. Though I'll check back later to see which other traitors have been identified.
[Moore's] position seems to be that American troops are being killed needlessly and they should come home now.
Indeed, that is a major point of Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11.
"Stick with journalists, officials, or at least famous people; avoid comments by unknown people on others' blogs."
The quote Weinstein gave us to includes: "Americans, we tell ourselves, would never resort to that kind of terrorism--not even to free ourselves from occupation. Wouldn't we?"
Ted Tall is justifying the terrorists actions by implying that we would do the same thing if we were in their shoes.
If the U.S. were occupied you really don't think that the fringe elements that produced the Oklahoma City Bombings and the half dozen clinic bombings wouldn't turn terrorist?
Suppose Texas were occupied by France who came in to set up universal health care. You think they'd be happy about it?
Michael Moore says, "First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things?" He is clearly saying, "Here is what they really are," not "Here is how the some may view it."
He then proceeds with a litany of "This is not a GOOD/NEUTRAL American thing. This is a BAD American thing."
This is followed by "This is not a NEUTRAL/BAD Iraqi thing. This is a MINUTEMAN Iraqi thing."
There clear, obvious intent of the piece is to say "This is a GOOD Iraqi thing."
For those of you who took the SATs:
Those are not CONTRACTORS in Iraq. . . They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE.
Halliburton is not a COMPANY doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not TERRORISTS. They are ZERQUERTS.
1. Pick the best answer. ZERQUERTS is not an English word, but we can imply from the context that ZERQUERTS are:
a. Bad things.
b. Things who may be admired by some, but hated by others.
c. Good things.
d. A neutral term for terrorists.
e. Not enough information.
If you did not answer C, your college career may be in jeopardy.
It's interesting to see how far to the fringes people have to go for examples. As others have pointed out, in previous conflicts (Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador), many prominent Americans actively hoped that "our" side would lose.
Given how far out of the liberal mainstream you have to go to find people who want the U.S. to lose, this may be a good example of the exceptions proving the rule.
This is almost like the Scrappleface post: Liberal sues for slander after being quoted.
Okay. Here are some more from Rall:
"Iraq's natural resources are being raped. Its people are being murdered. Yet it's the patriotic Iraqi resistance, which is trying to stop these outrages by throwing out the perpetrators of an illegal war of aggression, that the Bush Administration dares call "terrorists."
Time to Get Real in Iraq, August 26, 2003
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20030826
"In this vein we must also take action against our own Iraqi citizens who choose to collaborate with the enemy. Bush wants to put an "Iraqi face" on the occupation. If we allow the Americans to corrupt our friends and neighbors by turning them into puppet policemen and sellouts, our independence will be lost forever. If someone you know is considering taking a job with the Americans, tell him that he is engaging in treason and encourage him to seek honest work instead. If he refuses, you must kill him as a warning to other weak-minded individuals."
Why We Fight: Iraq From the Other Side [written in the voice of an Iraqi insurgent], November 11, 2003
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20031111
I should note that my initial quotation from Rall does not do his "Got Empathy?" column justice - the column is an unabashed defense of attacks by Iraqi insurgents on what Rall calls "traitors," but because much of it is written as an analogy to an imagined occupation of the US, it is difficult to capture the point in a single quote.
Goalpost moving aside, I don't think there is any doubt that Ted Rall is a defender of the Iraqi insurgents, and all of their tactics to boot. I think he would embrace such a label.
"But I understand the anger and the demand for action, and it's not good enough for the world to say state violence is OK and non-state violence is not OK.
"The American public fought against British colonialism with violence, the Free French fought against German occupation with violence, the Palestinian people are entitled to resist occupation, I mean, it's in international law (and) the Iraqi people are entitled (to resist occupation)."
She also says: "I think the killing of civilians is always wrong . . . but I think the cause is just."
link
I would say that, of course, I don't want the U.S. to lose, but I don't know that anybody knows what winning is, or how to do it. I want fewer people to experience what Cindy Sheehan experienced, as well as the families of the 5 members of the PA national guard killed recently. And for the U.S. to maintain at least some leverage in the middle east and moral authority throughout the rest of the world. Not to mention, reducing exposure to terrorist attacks. All of which add up for withdrawal. This is something that many people on all sides of the political spectrum feel, so approbation of the insurgency plays zero role.
The page culling together the calls for banning guns refutes Professor Volokh's point more than it helps, I think, as does this thread. The comments all came primarily from people with no real power, discussing what they -- and nobody else -- saw as the endgame. I am viscerally opposed to gun possession, but I wouldn't go any further than banning concealed or assault weapons.
I'm sure American soldiers are shaking in their boots knowing this is the extent of their political opposition in the West.
As to Michael Moore, you all still need to take more steps than just reading his words when you argue that he wants the U.S. to lose.
I think this is more of a "snipe hunt" than a "witch hunt."
On the other hand if one defines victory in Iraq as the creation of a stable government, hopefully working toward democratic principles, and supported by the majority of the members of the diverse groups of Iraq, then the insurgents are the enemy and the question becomes "Who is in the best position to fight them, the Iraqis, or us?" Which is why the nationalism as motivation issue arises. Of course the stable sort of democratic, well-supported government might be a fantasy, but it is an outcome leftists are more likely to wish for than the kind of government the insurgents would put together.
Either way there isn't any reason for someone on the left to view the insurgents positively.
So I guess the right wing assumption that there are lots of insurgent-loving leftists out there wishing for US defeat is wrong, huh? Apology coming ?
There is, of course, a fringe that exists, and I doubt anyone denies it. There is a fringe on the other side, for example, those who advocate solving the problem of terrorism through systematic genocide of Arabs, perhaps including a nuclear attack on the Middle East. For some reason, though, no one suggests that it would be a "useful resource" to identify the members of that other fringe.
It seems to me, if we are going to start making a list of those who espouse anti-American sentiments, there's no reason to impose an ideological litmus test. Let's make a list of those who advocate the murder of innocent Arabs; that's surely not an American value to stand for. Let's make a list of those who support the internment of US citizens based solely on their racial origin. Let's make a list of those who defend or justify the use of torture by Americans. Or are these viewpoints not "unamerican" enough to warrant condemnation?
This is a non-point, or rather the original point of the OpinionJournal piece that Mr. Volokh posted. To the extent that there are people rooting for terrorists and extremists in Iraq, those people should be condemned.
Mr. Volokh's selection criteria for quotes is doing the discussion a disfavor since it's limited only to people whose status and position are based primarily on not echoing the sentiments of the segment of the population that holds those attitudes, and whose support they rely on.
Proof positive would be the British muslims (and British citizens) who recently carried out the London bombings. I think its safe to say that they're rooting for the Iraqi insurgents, and certainly they should be condemned.
http://abutamam.blogspot.com/
http://www.freewebs.com/alqamarsite/iraqiresistance.html
more America haters!
yet another link here
yet another link
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1738080.php
more people that hate America
http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-iraq
more people that hate America
http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2005/aug/aug6-0.html
more people that hate America
more Insurgency lovers
http://qc.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/817.php
wow they hate America
yet even more people that hate America
yet another link
http://www.vegsource.com/talk/flame/messages/1004299.html
more Iraqi insurgency sympathy
You wouldn't dump an unannotated string cite like this into a memo, would you?
1 doesn't work.
1 Al-Jazeera report of a group (only two are actually mentioned) of Brazilians protesting in favor of the insurgents.
1 Op-Ed in a Brown University paper by '06 Liz Sperber.
3 obscure blogs by westerners: (Greg's Kables, The World According to Nils, World Prout Assembly)
2 links to people posting on ABC's Online Forums
1 collection of quotes of unknown relevance posted on the message board of APFN (American Patriot Friends Network)
2 more obscure (Islamic?) blogs
1 column by Michael Hasty.
We all know Michael Hasty, right?
I don't think any of these satisfy:
"Stick with journalists, officials, or at least famous people; avoid comments by unknown people on others' blogs."
Everyone else: Very impressed with the people you have come up with --- the only one I have ever heard of is Michael Moore. I find Crooked Timber's thread much better and actually picking off wingnuts one by one. Is volokh doing his best glenn reynolds impression here?
Really, check out the entire interview at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1063309.htm
But here's a taste.
TONY JONES: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?
JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets.
They're illegally occupying a country.
And I would have thought from an Iraqi's point of view they are legitimate targets, they'd have to be, sure.
TONY JONES: So Australian troops you would regard in Iraq as legitimate targets?
JOHN PILGER: Excuse me but, really, that's an unbecoming question.
I've just said that any foreign occupier of a country, military occupier, be they Germans in France, Americans in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, wherever, the Americans in Latin America, I would have thought, from the point of view of the local people - and as I mentioned, be they Australians in Australia - if Australia had been invaded and occupied by the Japanese, then the occupying forces, from the point of view of the people of that country, are legitimate targets."
I'd love to see some of these guys sit down with a box full of Lord Haw-Haw recordings.
The reason we know that any halfway-to-reasonable thing Lord Haw-Haw might have said was actually meant to be an expression of support for the Nazis is that Lord Haw-Haw was actually working for the Nazis.
So your analogy breaks down a bit there.
It seems to me that this shows exactly what Eugene said: that the group of such people is NOT vast, although it is not completely insubstantial either. And it is not the same as the broader group of Iraq War opponents.
Do you consider the situation in Iraq to be a "revolution"? Do you think Twain would've? I don't, but feel free to make the case.
Elliott D.:
Detestable as I think Pilger is, that particular quote doesn't tell us he WANTS the Iraq "resistance" to succeed, or for US troops to die, or what have you -- just that he thinks Iraqis would consider themselves occupied by a foreign invader, and that those who are occupied always consider their resistance justified.
I think that's a sloppy and often incorrect view, but it's not what Eugene's looking for, either.
Time for Prof. Volokh to step in and supply us with the examples he already had in his possession.
Your argument defeats itself on two distinct grounds.
1. The obvious and easy way - Nobody said that Moore definitely did not have such an opinion, merely that the quote alone was inadequate. By introducing further context, you concede the point that the quote alone was inadequate to qualify as unambiguous.
2. Your own SAT example reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Your question is what is the "BEST" answer. Fair point. But by calling it the BEST answer, you admit that other answers may be correct. Because the request was for unambiguous quotes, showing that one answer is superior and more likely to be true is insufficient.
For what it's worth, the comment at the end was simply uncalled for.
Additionally, although I do not claim to know Moore's private beliefs, I find your analysis to be a bit sloppy. It appears to start from the premise that Moore does in fact support the Iraqis. A revolutionary is not a "good" thing; it is in fact an entirely neutral concept - look it up. As I have said, one person's revolutionary is another person's terrorist or insurgent. Referring to them as Minutemen may or may not attempt to say it is a good thing; he could easily be making an analogy to the manner in which the American Revolution took place and succeeded. The context allows for this by the statement immediately following, "they will win."
Moore did not call them "revolutionaries," he called them Minutemen. Some have called him stupid; I disagree. I think he's pretty smart, and chooses words understanding their meaning. "Minutemen" is not a neutral concept - look it up. You're struggling awfully hard to avoid the clear meaning of what he said: He supports them, and wants them to win.
You're struggling awfully hard to impute an incendiary opinion to someone who is not shy about expressing himself at length on any subject that comes to his mind.
by Thomas Harding, defence correspondent of indybay.org:
"Iraqi freedom fighters killed nine occupation war criminals by shooting down RAF Hercules with 'ageing anti-aircraft gun.'"
http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2005/aug/aug6-0.html
Dr. Elias Akleh of the Arabic Media Information Network:
"Resistance is led by Iraqi freedom fighters, while terrorism is orchestrated and carried out by American Special Forces and their death squads. "
"The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy." --Ramsey Clark [Former U.S. Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson]
"The cold war provided the perfect excuse for Western governments to plunder and exploit the Third World in the name of freedom; to rig its elections, bribe its politicians, appoint its tyrants and, by every sophisticated means of persuasion and interference, stunt the emergence of young democracies in the name of democracy." -- John le Carre', The Nation magazine, April 9, 2001, p11
Attorney and convicted felon Lynn Stewart:"I don't think it's quite fair to say right-wing, because they are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination, and allow people who are under the heel of a corrupt and terrifying Egypt—where thousands of people are in prison, and torture and executions are, according to Amnesty International and Middle East Watch, commonplace—to do what they need to do to throw off that oppression. To denigrate them as right-wing, I don't think is proper. My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries, such as occurs in Iran, to liberate."
(And the Ramsey Clark quote, as evidence in the present context, is woefully inadequate.)
A.S. said:
It seems to me that this shows exactly what Eugene said: that the group of such people is NOT vast, although it is not completely insubstantial either.
Actually, it seems to me that this group is NOT vast AND completely insubstantial.
Eugene's looking for "[a]n exact quote in which they defend the insurgents or seek to justify their actions."
Pilger is justifying their actions.
At least Eugene's right on one thing: this will be a great resource to point the next goof ball who pulls out the old "liberals want the terrorists to win" canard.
I'll say this one more time: compare this pathetically meager collection of quotes to things said during other significant U.S. military actions, and you'll see that the interesting story here is how very, very few people are actively rooting for the "other side."
And even granting that Michael Moore used the term "Minutemen" which is usually given a positive connotation in U.S. political discourse, does anybody really think that he thinks that the Islamic religious extremist insurgents in Iraq are "good guys," given Moore's liberal-left politics?
Right now its a group attracting fringe hate elements on the border.
Talk about non-sequiturs. The last one is particularly bizarre, since it's pretty much the very line that the neo cons themselves use.
The post I was responding to most recently was not yours, but instead someone else who indirectly stated that on two distinct occasions, Moore said that the Iraqi (fill in the blank) were not some bad thing, but were instead some good American thing. Seeing only "Minutemen," I assumed that this person must have meant by using the term "They are the revolution," he was referring to this implicit use of the term revolutionary.
Also, minutemen is not a neutral concept? Wasn't the term coined to refer to those men ready to fight on a minute's notice? Facially neutral. Implication is of the American Revolution, obviously. However, isn't it equally true that the Iraqi (fill in the blanks) are ready to fight at a minute's notice? That they engage in guerilla warfare? That Moore clearly believes they will win, regardless of whether he wants them to?
Again, the request was for something unambiguous, i.e. something which "having or exhibiting a single clearly defined meaning." By arguing that his use of a particular word is meant to invoke a particular meaning for a particular reason, you are essentially admitting that there are other possibilities, if less likely ones.
Now, I know some of my liberal friends believed that the plans for regime change in Iraq came early, but, sheesh.
Islam Online I originally saw this in a YahooNews article but it is no longer available.
She isn't journalist or official, of course, but she is a Westerner and was briefly famous.
Barcelona Tribunal says Iraq Resistance is Justified
Penultimate paragraph:
(Emphasis mine)
George W. Bush
President of the United States
Regardless of the President's intent, this statement is obkectively pro-insurgent. Our Commander-in-chief is clearly encouraging the enemy to attack: and, it seems, they have complied.
Do you admit yet that your hypothesis was wrong? And what gave you the impression that it could possibly be right? I'd think you would have known of at least a couple of examples BEFORE you posted the WSJ smear.
I don't qualify for the Volokh black list because I'm not well-known and thus am not worth the effort of a witchhunt, but I do hope the so-called insurgents win. I want our troops home today with no further casualties. I want an end to American militarism, adventurism and imperialism.
"I recently read your article and was more than apalled at what you have to say. As if those poor people and misguided fanatics would be here in America in droves if we had not mercilessly invaded Iraq. As if the concentration camps scattered by American Imperialists are ANY different from the ones erected by the German National Socialists, or Stalin. Here's some food for thought - If our own self-righteous government and leaders were on the receiving end of a full-blown hoax of a war, the invading army would not only have found tens of thousand of nuclear weapons aimed at every country on the globe, but Bush would look no different from Hussein as he was dragged away, mangy and bearded from his capitol, guilty of thousands of ruthless murders.and there is no denying that our "precision guided" missiles launched from the safe confines of our steel war machine have killed exponentially more women and children CIVILIANS in two years than Saddam ever did over the last 25 years. And have no doubt, although they may be practicing malicious and evil acts, you, WE are much more evil because we allow something much worse to propogate itself in our own country, under our own flag, in the guise of freedom and justice. And that is the idea that Iraq deserved to be invaded, to be occupied, all for lies - kind of like how Hitler iinvaded Poland, and the Germans went along with it why? Because he boldy told them all that Poland had invaded and attacked Germany first. And your friend George Galloway is absolutely right - Bush and Blair are the REAL mongers of terror... even if you choose not believe that they actually instigated both 9/11 and 7/7, they irrefutably have funded these "extremists" for decades, and don't even try to deny it.
You know, in a moment of pure outrage toward you who lack any humanitarian vein in your entire existence, I would have wished that you join your buddy Vincent, but I don't hate you - I pity you more than anyone else, and am endlessly frustrated by you and your cohorts' lack of a soul, and selective memory loss about what this country really stands for and that no amount of liberty should ever be sacrificed to allow the government to say "we are safer". the lie of the century, and deep down you all know it."
This thinking comes from somewhere. The writer is free to express it in our country without being subjected to arrest or violence. But it is not McCarthyism either to condemn it or to abhor the thoughts fervently expressed. Indeed, here's one veteran who has served his country overseas who condemns it and abhors the thoughts expressed. Anyone want to liken me to McCarthy?
Bring it on.
Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet)
I am not sure "Minutemen" has an unambiguous favorable connotation, like founding fathers.
The term as sued by Moore does indicate an effective force supported by its land base (the countryside) against some larger opposing force.
I take it as descriptive more than normative, as used by Moore.
Know thine enemy is always a good strategy - like Pershing subduing insurgents in the Philippines. Those who will not or cannot empathize (through 360 degrees) are the ones most likely to fail as leaders.
An anonynous person who got an NRO editor's e-mail address. Now there's a truly prominent person.
You can find anonymous internet screeds supporting almost any disgusting point of view (well, maybe not about Republicans who drink puppy blood, as I suggested above). The weakness of the posted examples in this thread proves that the WSJ smear was indeed just a smear.
The belief that there is any significant number of Americans who want the terrorists to win is just conservative mythology.
Perhaps you should tone down a bit. Mr. Volokh's hypothesis is that there are those that rhetorically defend the Iraqi Insurgents. That has been demonstrated very easily here, but it was pretty obvious before anyway. So perhaps this is banal, but so what? He is right.
As far as Mr. Volokh misconstruing the WSJ, that might make his point moot, but his point wouldn't be wrong.
But we need not go that far. Re-read Mr. Volokh's post. He was refering to some responses on this blog. He wasn't specific in who he was talking about, but it's clear he's just trying to show that some westerners do indeed support the insurgents in Iraq.
Though you likely could find the stuff in the comments too...
I of course made clear the reason I posted that email and acknowledged that I did not conform to the prominence requirement. You don't disagree that that letter expresses thoughts given wide credence by a significant number of antiwar Americans, do you?
A Susan Medea Benjamin assistant doesn't count for much, but Janeane Garofalo is slightly different.
Let me make it obvious that it would require a fleet of mini buses to seat those who side with the Iraqi resistance.
Each of the following people professors, journalists, public personalities, very clearly wish the Iraqi resistance to defeat the US. Please read the linked to source material.
ZNET
On the Forthcoming Election in Iraq
and
Reply to Alex Callinicos
Here
And there
Gilbert Achcar
(Gilbert Achcar lived in Lebanon for many years before moving to France where he teaches politics and international relations at the University of Paris. He's a frequent contributor to Le Monde Diplomatique and is the author of several books on contemporary politics.)
Quotes -
'There should be a clear-cut distinction between anti-occupation acts that are legitimate and acts by so-called "resistance" groups that are to be denounced.'
'Then, "presuming" rightly (isn't it clear enough in my quote above?) that I regard many type of armed activities against the occupiers and their armed auxiliaries as "legitimate," you ask me: "why then warn us at such length against supporting Zarqawi, when only the radical Islamist hard core and a few sectarian-leftist idiots would contemplate doing so?"'
Letter to Gilbert Achcar
Here
Professor Alex Callinicos
Quote -
'I’m sure you want to see the US defeated in Iraq as much as I do. But the way in which you polarize the argument between those who are for or against the elections and, in your discussion of the armed resistance, your focus on Zarqawi, is much too close to the dominant discourse in Washington and London.'
Counter Punch
The Right to Resist Occupation
The Anti-War Movement and the Iraqi Resistance
Here
Sharon Smith
Quote -
'The antiwar movement must not lose sight of the fact that its main enemy is at home--and any resistance to that enemy deserves our unconditional support.'
Democracy Now
Arundhati Roy On the Indian Elections, Her Support for the Iraqi Resistance &the Privatization of War
Here
Peace prize winner Arundhati Roy, acclaimed Indian author and activist. Her most recent book is The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile a collection of interviews by David Barsamian.
Quote -
'You know, we must understand that the resistance movement in Iraq is a resistance movement that all of us have to support, because it's our war, too. And it will not do for them to call people terrorists and thugs and all of that. That time is over now'
Globalise Resistance
Falluja and the Forging of the New Iraq
and
SPECTREZINE
haunting europe...
Milestone in the Global Struggle against Injustice and War
Here
And there
Walden Bello is Director of Focus on the Global South in Bangkok, a project of Chulalongkorn University's Social Research Institute, and Professor of Public Administration and Sociology at the University of the Philippines.
Quotes -
'Perhaps a major part of the reason is that a significant part of the international peace movement, particularly in Europe and the United States, hesitates to legitimize the Iraqi resistance. Who are they? Can we really support them? These questions have increasingly been flung at the advocates of an unconditional military and political withdrawal from Iraq.'
'But there is never any pretty movement for national liberation or independence. Many Western progressives were also repelled by some of the methods of the Mau Mau in Kenya, the FLN in Algeria, the NLF in Vietnam, and the Irish Republican Movement. National liberation movements, however, are not asking for ideological or political support. All they seek is international pressure for the withdrawal of an illegitimate occupying power so that internal forces can have the space to forge a truly national government. Surely on this limited program progressives throughout the world and the Iraqi resistance can unite.'
International Socialist Review
The Shape of the Iraqi Resistance
and
Iraqis Have the Right to Resist
Here
And there
PAUL D’AMATO
Quote -
'None of this should prevent us, however, from solidarizing with the overall aims of the disparate resistance groups—freeing Iraq from colonial domination.'
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Media Disinformation and the Nature of the Iraqi Resistance
Ghali Hassan
Quote -
'The Iraqi Resistance targets Iraqi collaborators, who side with the US led Occupation, because they are rightly considered to be "spies and traitors." (Incidentally, this pattern of executing "collaborators" was also followed by the French Resistance during World War II.)'
Counter Punch again.
The Resistance in Context
An Anatomy of the Resistance to the American Occupation in Iraq
By LAITH AL-SAUD
Here
Quote -
'The question we must ask ourselves is what happened to the illegitimacy of the occupation and the legitimate right to oppose it?'
Do Iraqis Have a Right to Resist?
Outside the Spectacle
By M. JUNAID ALAM
Here
'This decisive development demands an understanding of an occupied people's right to resist the occupier of their country, for the insurgency has been the main trigger for a renewed anti-war movement. While the anti-war protests and actions carried out prior to the invasion were inspiring, the movement lacked the political and theoretical coherency to survive the likely possibility that war would be carried out. Once the bombs started falling on Baghdad the movement dissipated.'
'Recognition of this basic truth is the foundation of all future anti-war progress. For any number of chauvinist justifications to strangle Iraq-and no small number have already been aired and accepted-can sounds sweet to an ear that is deaf to the inherent right of a people to fight for their own independence.'
But remember you could fit all the people who read ZNet and Counter Punch in a small mini bus. But TownHall is read by legions of conservatives.
Now as the funny but misguided Poor Man might say, My hand is tired and so am I. I am going to bed.
Eugene where is my prize?
Rocker Chrissie Hynde: hopes the United States loses if it goes to war with Iraq (”Bring it on! Give us what we deserve!”)
George Carlin: [interview question] You're known as a very liberal comic. Are you trying to change people's political views when you go out there? Do you have an underlying agenda?
A: No. First of all, I'm not liberal. I'm just about (being) anti-United States. I don't like the way this country operates.
Chess master Bobby Fisher in response to 9/11: "Yes this is all wonderful news, it is time that the f*cking Jews get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the US once and for all.
I was happy, could not really believe what has happened. I just cant be crying about the US , you know ..All the crimes the US is committing all over the world. This just shows, what goes around, that comes around even to the United States. Thats what happened tonight, what goes around comes around even to the United States."
Source: http://www.chesstheory.de/fisher12.html
1. A Columbia Professor
2. A rock and roll singer
3. A comedian
and
4. A schizophrenic
That beauty of an exact quote in which the quotee seeks to justify the insurgents' actions is from...
George W. Bush.
source
And frankly, since then, Prof. Volokh has shown that he is an intellectual fraud and a political hack. At least in this instance. Making outlandish claims and erecting strawmen used to be for the other contributors to this blog (JNV and TZ, I'm looking at you), but Prof. Volokh has sunk to his compatriots' low with this display. Asking his readers to scramble to back him up with evidence which Prof. Volokh himself obviously lacks is just further evidence of intellectual bankruptcy of Prof. Volokh.
Please make amends. You could still redeem yourself.
Usually on the web I see this error made by leftists (in the comments here, from Kevin Drum, etc.) toward folks like Eugene Volokh. This is probably an artifact of the sites I read; I also sometimes see it from, for example, the Power Line authors toward their opponents. Either way, it is useful only to drum up your own base. If yours is not a highly politicized, base-oriented readership, you are turning your readers away from both yourself and your argument.
Would this explanation did not apply to academia. I'll leave it to the professor-types to comment.
(And note that the Crooked Timber response completely ignores the substance of most of the objections raised here.)
A different last name doesn't make someone non-Western. For instance Ghali Hassan is a resident of Perth Amboy. I think a close inspection of the list would reveal that the majority are citizens of Western nations.
Much more importantly they all cater to Western audiences. The examples are from Western publications. Arundhati Roy might live in India but when she collects the Sydney Peace Prize, we can be pretty darn sure their is a substantial, if minority, audience in the West who agree with her peace loving sentiment that -
'You know, we must understand that the resistance movement in Iraq is a resistance movement that all of us have to support, because it's our war, too. And it will not do for them to call people terrorists and thugs and all of that. That time is over now'
the existence of just such a group is really the issue.
Again the group is far too large to fit into even a rhetorical mini bus.
Regardless, why don't we let this comment stand as a signal that it's now safe for Eugene to come out from under the bed?
And you refuse to concede that Republicans drink puppy blood with breakfast, despite all the equally strong evidence that's been presented.