Article

2005-07-10 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-07-10 01:15|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Wow. He must've duct-taped his head before he sat down to write this piece. Oh, and he prolly took half a bottle of aspirin, too, or maybe a month's supply of methadone.

*applause*

Regards his audience - who he correctly refers to as suffering from "the twin vices of wilful [sic] myopia and bad faith" and rather charitably describes their perverted mindset, against a solid wall of readily available facts, as "resolute dunderheadedness" -- I can only say that he's had an epiphany, but how many will listen? A few? Many? Hell, he's probably endangered his position at alG with this, unless he's now to become their token "conservative" - as they would stupidly define the term. Regardless, it was a brave and honorable act - and he did it publicly. Well done, Nick.

The desire to maintain a view, regardless of the overwhelming weight of contrary facts, is obviously a very powerful force. It is a direct challenge to both the intellect and integrity - and the number who fail to set aside their dreamworlds for reality is disturbing. We see them around and amongst us - those who will go to their graves still insisting, for example, that law enforcement is the right response to the Muzzy campaign for dominion or that America is a danger to anyone except those who seek her ruin - seeking a thousand shades of gray in which to hide their most cherished illusions. 'Tis the danger of mixing your world view with your personal identity, it seems. They seem dully unaware how foolish and shallow this reveals them to be. Nick is not such a fool, nor is he shallow. I worry that these self-deluded dolts, those who can't part with their "position", will take some or many of us down with them. Otherwise I'd happily let them stew and fall in their time. They define fuckwits, IMO. Willful fuckwits.

So, we have Nick Cohen, now, to add to Chris Hitchens and a few others - exemplary models of liberals with a brain, able to adapt as information and events burn through the fog - thus worthy of surviving, the brass to think autonomously and put aside the comfortable for the true, and the personal integrity to follow through publicly. Pretty good shit, there, gentlemen. Since I came from the feel-good zone, myself, awhile back I know it wasn't easy. Welcome, Nick. You and the others now threaten the lesser among your previous tribe - and your words will bring these trolls and fools and tools out in hateful force.

Posted by .com 2005-07-10 03:03|| 2005-07-10 03:03|| Front Page Top

#2 The only plausible excuse for 11 September was that it was a protest against America's support for Israel.

Guardian columnist gets a clue?

Posted by gromgoru 2005-07-10 04:24|| 2005-07-10 04:24|| Front Page Top

#3 It's an improvement but:

The only plausible excuse for 11 September was that it was a protest against America's support for Israel. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden's statements revealed that he was obsessed with the American troops defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein and had barely said a word about Palestine.

It appears that old habits die very hard.

Posted by AzCat 2005-07-10 04:51|| 2005-07-10 04:51|| Front Page Top

#4 I am tired of the pathetic excuse of 9/11 coming of injustice in the world and of Palestine being the only one in the world. Injustices far gretater there were in Afghanistan, in Soudan or in Kurdistan all perpetrated by the Arabs/Islamists. With that logic jets should have crashed on Mecca, Medina and Ryad.

9/11 wasn't causedc by injustice but by an ideology who sees Muslims in general, Arabs in particular and specially Arabians as HerrensVolk while the others are untermenschen and can be put to death whenever the herrensvolk need the space. Just like the Jews in the death camps but also like it would have happenned to Slavs if Hitler had won. That is why according to Bin Laden Palestine is a horrible crime, not having Arabs ruling the world is an abomination and that is why it is legitimate to treat Afghans (Muslims) ted as inferiors, that is why it is legitimate to gas Kurds (Muslims) whenever the HerrensVolk want their oil and that is why it is legitimate to rape, enslave and exterminate Black Soudanese be they Christian and animist like in the South or Muslims like in Darfur

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-07-10 05:27|| 2005-07-10 05:27|| Front Page Top

#5 I actually had hope for this dolt until I got to the "only plausible excuse." I'm trying to come up with a plausible excuse for that sentiment. I'll have to get back to you.

A clue? Nah. Half of a clue at best.

*golf clap*

Posted by Darth VAda 2005-07-10 07:50|| 2005-07-10 07:50|| Front Page Top

#6 I didn't read the "only plausible excuse" paragraph as some of you obviously have. It is the first of three paragraphs that first set up the deluded argument / point of view, and then demolishs it with the stark fact that follows in the rest of the paragraph. He does this with 9/11, Bali, and East Timor - sets up the cherished meme (the willful delusion), then destroys it with factual statements from the Islamist actors themselves that completely undercut the delusion, show it for what it is. He could have added others, but the three made his point quite well. If we listen to what the islamists actually say, self-delusion becomes non-operative.

I think he has come around. I think the 9/11 paragraph is being misread.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2005-07-10 08:31|| 2005-07-10 08:31|| Front Page Top

#7 a moment of clarity, but he can't let go. His whole sense of worth depends on the fact that he and his dinner party friends could see what the peasants could not. To let go means to give up his power and turn in his VIP pass. There is no wizard behind the curtain, he's just a smuck like all the others. He probably wrote the first half, and then after a good night's sleep, the moment wore off.

Still, I like this line as it means that this man no longer owns the day:
In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come

Posted by 2b 2005-07-10 08:35|| 2005-07-10 08:35|| Front Page Top

#8 Whiskey, you may be right. What this reminds me of is what it is like after the death of a loved one. That complete and total understanding of what is truly important in life, and an ability to see things in a clear light, free of petty grudges, money and other mortal cares.

It's life changing, but it quickly wears off as life gets back in the way. At the time, you think it will change the way you live your life, but in truth, you have to make a real effort to hang onto that moment of wisdom.

Posted by 2b 2005-07-10 08:47|| 2005-07-10 08:47|| Front Page Top

#9 My favorite paragraphs -

I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them.

and

There are many tasks in the coming days. Staying calm, helping the police and protecting Muslim communities from neo-Nazi attack are high among them. But the greatest is to resolve to see the world for what it is and remove the twin vices of wilful myopia and bad faith which have disfigured too much liberal thought for too long.

I think he's catchin' on.

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-10 09:21|| 2005-07-10 09:21|| Front Page Top

#10 I didn't read the "only plausible excuse" paragraph as some of you obviously have. It is the first of three paragraphs that first set up the deluded argument / point of view, and then demolishs it...

That's the way I read it, too. Unfortunately, the author's writing style invites misinterpretation.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-10 09:48|| 2005-07-10 09:48|| Front Page Top

#11 Mike, the synonyms for "plausible" that came to mind when I read it were "valid", or maybe "persuasive." It seemed more like he was critiquing the justification for the actions, not the actions themselves. After re-reading the comments of that waste of skin Stockhausen, I was not in a charitable frame of mind.

Posted by Darth VAda 2005-07-10 10:04|| 2005-07-10 10:04|| Front Page Top

#12 Dan Darling has a good followup to Cohen's article, here. RTWT, as they say...

Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-10 10:27|| 2005-07-10 10:27|| Front Page Top

#13 I no more care what the excuse was for 9/11 or 7/7 than I care what the excuse was for Pearl Harbor. A war of aggression is being waged against our countries and our culture by a homicidal sixth-century blood-feud culture that needs to be exterminated. If the Islamic communities in the west can not or will not rout out the festering barbarians among them, then they will all be damned.

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-10 10:56|| 2005-07-10 10:56|| Front Page Top

#14 notice the sense here is that he sorta sidesteps the pali terror. as if THAT terror and murder is ok...it's this OTHER terror and murder the left is wrong about.

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-07-10 14:17|| 2005-07-10 14:17|| Front Page Top

#15 Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out -- through U.S. foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership's "willful blindness" to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end "unqualified support" for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state "tyrannies."

He acknowledged such actions aren't likely soon, but said his longtime subject bin Laden will "make us bleed enough to get our attention." Ultimately, he said, "his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies."

Anybody care to explain to me the difference between Scheuer's idea of a "solution" and bin Laden's definition of victory?

Ummmm.....Scheuer's way is our way and...

Waitaminute, I think Dan is on to somehting!

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-10 15:21|| 2005-07-10 15:21|| Front Page Top

#16 #14 - I just realized this a few days ago. Israel's been fighting this war since 1948, but even after 1979, or 1993, or 2001, no one else realized the connection.

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-10 15:24|| 2005-07-10 15:24|| Front Page Top

#17 Israel has actually been fighting this war since the 1920's. But let's not quibble. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-10 22:42|| 2005-07-10 22:42|| Front Page Top

23:50 Scott R
23:46 KBK
23:45 11A5S
23:26 OldSpook
23:21 Ulease Flesing6590
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:46 trailing wife
22:44 Jarhead
22:42 trailing wife
22:40 trailing wife
22:32 trailing wife
22:29 Fred
22:24 Jarhead
22:19 Mrs. Davis
22:11 Jarhead
21:59 JosephMendiola
21:47 Super Hose
21:43 Super Hose
21:11 Neutron Tom
21:02 mac
20:59 mac
20:27 Alaska Paul
20:13 PlanetDan
20:12 Eric Jablow