Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
A serious question.
Are you Bucky1?
And I'll have to concur w/ More's thesis (apocryphal or not), that "silence gives consent".
I suppose that if Glenn were to support massacres and coverups, that would be his business. But if the US government supports the same, that is my business as well as his and yours. But I guess you do not mind as long as the US government selects carefully which evil dictators it supports.
No. But I did use his computer and I did help him after he could not type very well. The drama queen loves to make little digs, especially when I am posting on anti-war topics.
I mentioned to him a few days ago that if he did not stop we could play it his way --- after all, I have been patient and let him take all those personal attacks without answer.
A question for you. Why is it that some here want to disrupt the conversation about the topic at hand (whatever Glenn has posted) and then pretend that they did not?
Back on page 1 of this thread New Deal Democrat posted about all those people who had voted for George W. Bush twice. I did not post specifically to him because I thought that my point might be of general interest to Glenn's subtext, which seems to me to be that the NYT has lied on behalf of the Bush Administration (well, not exactly on behalf, but one wonders whom they are lying for) and that people have been fooled into supporting aggression which they might not otherwise support.
If Glenn believes that my post about the lack of education in critical thinking is entirely irrelevant to his post, he may certainly tell me so.
You say you supported Obama over Kucinich because Kucinich had no chance of being elected. In the end, I supported Obama as well, although I still am quite uncertain just exactly what he stands for given some of his lack of specificity, lack of a long trail of voting on federal issues, and the problems which I mentioned with his shifting position on FISA.
Now, just why are you trying to silence me, given the fact that I am on topic and have accused you of nothing. Was there some part of my post in which I did not make clear my disdain for folks who voted for Obama on faith rather than facts? Did I specifically accuse you of anything? Why would I have a particular interest in how you voted? If you made a considered compromise to which applied your mind and not your emotions, I don't care how you voted.
In other words, if the shoe I have mentioned doesn't fit you, why are you trying to shove your foot in it?
(Let me also add that I wrote my post before I cam to the end of this thread and have nothing to do with any current eruption.)
...and I generally try not to trouble myself about what motivates whomever to do whatever.
This is GG's place, but I don't think I'd be too out of line if I said that certain behaviors which can absolutely be considered to lower the general level of discourse are no good for anybody.
Petty personal squabbles are simply disruptive, and they are, fundamentally, an affront to everybody who comes in here looking for a reasonable discussion.
I think shartstain22% is a fucking abomination. But I don't attack it personally on every thread, regardless of the fact that I find its leavings personally repulsive.
You'd think Glenn having to step in and ask you politely, on numerous occasions if I recall correctly, to tone it down, would sink in eventually.
Just in case people are interested, I had put up the URLs for the Times of India and The Hindu yesterday on the previous thread, nobody responded. So be it, I was otherwise occupied yesterday too. No excuse for ignoring them today, if you want to expound, though.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
http://www.hinduonnet.com/
http://www.telegraphindia.com/section/frontpage/index.jsp
I do read the Hindustani Times still, but I only read it before because they got their web page working well when The Telegraph was crashing and The Times was misdirecting. It's a truly great source of information, and you should swear by everything it says -- as long as the information you seek is National Enquirer level gossip on Bollywood stars or Cricket players.
If you go read there, you find out, as per what Dileep Padgaonkar was saying, that there are a lot of rational steps being taken: Manmohan Singh and L.K. Advani did go together to visit and console at the hospitals, as he mentioned. Anyone who knows everything and more about the situation knew that last night, no? And the Coast Guard was out looking for, and by midnight PST was reporting had found the boat it was looking for, and by early this morning Singh and Zardari and Gillani had together agreed that Pacha (the ISI Chief) would go to India to participate in the investigation and would be enjoined to share intelligence with India, as Prime Minister Singh had demanded.
As for predictions, the minute it became obvious that General Kayani was not going to throw elections and had the ISI in his sights for a purge, it was also obvious that there was going to be trouble, it didn't matter whether or not the government was civilian. Should have been obvious as the ISI spawned terrorist groups all moved to Waziristan over the last year and consolidated, that all the tactics were going to get a lot more "professional" and the terrorism was going to get very nasty.
Another prediction that should have been easy to make on Wednesday was that with elections coming up, there'd be someone in the BJP that'd try to do something political. Gee, it's so unexpected that the bile is right on schedule out of Narendra Modi, isn't it? As if the RSS was never involved in a goddamn thing. And conveniently, we can forget that Pakistan wasn't implicated in Assam, and that the blame for the New Delhi bombings isn't really falling that way either.
We have a very blatant (and not really questioned by Pakistanis) assault on Mumbai by a group in Pakistan, and all evidence is pointing to Lashkar-e-Taiba, and has been for a day and a half now, including possible "admissions" from captured terrorists. Let's not pretend that it all comes of having civilian governments in Pakistan. Or that everybody should abandon all delving into root causes and cry havoc. In case anyone's interested, that isn't a proposal for stopping the problem. What would you like them to do? Dump the civilian government? Pull troops out of the FATA to patrol Karachi looking for Lashkar terrorists? Or maybe India should follow Modi and his RSS off the violence cliff and start a war? Lob a few Agni's into Islamabad and show 'em what a bomb really looks like?
By the way, I've been finding BBC to be actually worse than American media on this, tons of consulting "experts" who have standard formulae for all terrorist events in South Asia that they use like Procrustean beds to fit this attack into. All sitting in Britain, and all inexcusably behind on the news, given that they can read Indian primary source journalism just as easily as anyone else can on their computers. And I found Dileep Padgaonkar's article too lacking in dates and times for projecting at the American audience, although it was well thought out. Americans in general don't know that some of what he is citing goes back 20 or more years, and isn't new with Bush's war on terror.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
