Comments on y-intercept blog: The Propaganda Front

Perhaps the Turkish Parliament should pass a resol...

2007-10-18T08:38:00.000-06:00

Perhaps the Turkish Parliament should pass a resolution condemning the United States genocide of the Native American peoples. As they say, "walk a mile in the other man's shoes".

It may be inaccurate to refer to Saddam Hussein's mass killings as genocides, but the primary incidents that could qualify are the Halabja poison gas attack on the Kurds in 1988 (under Reagan), and the suppression of the Shia rebellion immediately following the first Gulf War (under Bush). I'm afraid neither can be blamed on Clinton or Gore.

You are correct about the Rwandan genocide, I'll grant you that, but unlike the current administration, under Clinton the Vice-President was not running the show.

Most genocides in the last century have arisen from ethnic conflict: Armenia, the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, etc. None were caused by political or economic extremism, nor would any progressive suggest an extremist solution. The best way to avoid future genocides is obviously to reduce ethnic and religious tensions and promote a respect for diversity. Unfortunately conservatives have historically exploited ethnic difference to gain political advantage.

The function of the Congress is not to define term...

2007-10-17T14:28:00.000-06:00

The function of the Congress is not to define terminology for historical events. Unfortunately the term genocide is very politicized and even the original international definition was watered down to omit elimination of political dissidents to satisfy Stalin.

Rather than argue about the proper term to assign to horrific situations like that in Darfur, Congo, or Iraq, the Congress would be well advised to encourage the President to engage in active diplomacy to halt the bloodshed before it rises to a level were the word genocide is appropriate.

I would agree with Wikipedia that "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism." I think the term Islamo-fascism is an oversimplification and is more designed to demonize Islam than to provide any understanding.

The government and media have done their best to insure that we do not examine the question "Why do they hate us?" or barring that, to short-circuit the answer to something as silly as "because of our freedom". IMHO, the problem is not so much with Islam, or even with fundamentalist Islam, but with a small group that intends to use Islam to justify and gain support for their terrorist activities.

I appreciate your thoughts.

2007-10-15T08:27:00.000-06:00

I appreciate your thoughts.

Figuring out how to recognize and respond to atroc...

2007-10-12T14:53:00.000-06:00

Figuring out how to recognize and respond to atrocities is one of the most difficult challenges faced by the international community.

Al Qaeda was in Sudan before Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, the "Islamo-fascists" are looking at Sudan and trying to figure out how to get away with genocides in other areas.

For that matter, Saddam Hussein managed to genocide about 180,000 of his own people during the time that the 2007 Nobel Peace Laureate was vice president.

The flagellation that you refer to is the politicizing of past wrongs.

The left wants to condemn an atrocity that occurred a century ago because the descendants of this group are at present an ally, but they downplay the genocides of Hussein and in Sudan. Nobel must be rolling in his grave. They give a peace price to a man who was part of an administration that blindly turned its back on the Rwandans and gave tacit approval to a genocide of the Tutsi.

There is not a pat answer to preventing genocide as the evil will always adapt itself. Every thought system can be radicalized and pushed to the extent that it results in atrocity.

In the Western/Christian tradition, every virtue has a corresponding vice. The vice occurs when you push any one idea to its extreme. (Logically, when you push a virtue to an extreme, you get a paradox and the evil flows from that paradox).

I think the conservative mindset has it right. We need to study the atrocities of the past and to recognize that they are often the result of pushing a virtue to an extreme.

The progressives have it wrong. Progressives tend to think that you can counter the wrongs of the past by pushing ideas to extremes.

"Contrary to what Tom Lantos may think, the cur...

2007-10-12T14:03:00.000-06:00
"Contrary to what Tom Lantos may think, the current government in Turkey has very little influence on the Ottoman Turks of a 100 years ago." That statement is a gem.

So, what do you think of the endless efforts to get people today to flaggelate themselves to make penance for ills wrought by past generations? Does it help current society realize and solidify the unacceptability of those acts, or is it merely a method of keeping people in their place?