Bobby Fischer and the lunatic fringe of anti-Semitism and 9/11 truthers
Bobby Fischer, who put chess on the mainstream map for a while back in the early 70s, has died at the age of 64.
Those of you too young to remember may find it odd that the nation was riveted by his televised chess match with Boris Spassky back in 1972. In fact, those of us plenty old enough to remember may find it odd, as well.
I didn’t share chess fever. But many watched, entranced by the static but tensely cerebral scene:
“It was Bobby Fischer who had, single-handedly, made the world recognize that chess on its highest level was as competitive as football, as thrilling as a duel to the death, as esthetically satisfying as a fine work of art, as intellectually demanding as any form of human activity,” wrote Harold C. Schonberg, who reported on the Reykjavik match for The New York Times, in his 1973 book, “Grandmasters of Chess.”
Well, I’m sure it is intellectually demanding. But for me it wasn’t all that thrilling. The intellect demanded is a very specialized and narrow one, and Fischer was a particularly specialized and narrow example of the genre. A child prodigy, he seemed to be obsessed with chess almost from the start, and his personality was noted as being odd and off-putting even among a group noted for eccentricity. As he aged, he only became more odd.
Why am I writing about Fischer? It struck me, as I read his obituary, that one particular form his oddity took used to seem much more odd than it does now. I refer to his paranoia and conspiracy theories about the Jews.
Yes, of course, during World War II such ideas motivated an entire country, and much of Europe as well. But in the early years of my lifetime the sort of virulent anti-Semitism practiced by the Nazis was highly discredited, and thought by many to be relegated to a weak and very small fringe element, probably never again to rise again. Those views now seem hopelessly naive.
Some time in the early 90s when I first read that Fischer had gone off the deep end, and that part of his lunacy involved vicious anti-Semitism, he seemed to be an extreme outlier. But now his views seem more common, if not commonplace:
On Sept. 11, 2001, [Fischer] told a radio talk-show host in Baguio, the Philippines, that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were ”wonderful news,” adding he was wishing for a scenario “where the country will be taken over by the military, they’ll close down all the synagogues, arrest all the Jews and secure hundreds of thousands of Jewish ringleaders.”
And then there’s this:
“I applaud the act [of 9/11]. The U.S. and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians, just slaughtering them for years….Nobody gave a shit. Now it’s coming back to the U.S. Fuck the U.S. I want to see the U.S. wiped out.”
You get the idea. In an interesting biographical detail, Fischer was raised by his Jewish (pacifist, and Leftist) mother after his German physicist father deserted the family and returned home when Fischer was but two years old. A therapist could have a field day with such information, but I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
What’s more important than Fischer’s unique biography is that viewpoints that once seemed the products of a demented but singular mind now read like standard boilerplate for extreme Leftist and Islamiscist causes. Such opinions have been mainstreamed to a certain extent, partly by the amplifying and unifying force of online communication.
How many people around the world believe that the Jews were warned about 9/11? How many believe that Jewish “cabals” (code word) are running the world?
Plenty, and some of them are not the least bit insane in the usual sense of the word.
In a related issue, the other day at the library I parked in back of a car that sported a bumper crop of bumper stickers, including the familiar ones about 9/11 and George Bush’s involvement. The man who stepped out of the car looked like the sort of person you’d want as your child’s Sunday School teacher—middle-aged, calm, intelligent, kind. Of course, I don’t really know—he could have been every bit as maniacal as Fischer, although probably not as gifted. But my guess is that he lives a quiet and otherwise sane-enough life, seeming to all intents and purposes to be a reasonable man.
This sort of paranoia and conspiracist thinking is not at all unusual among those who seem to be functioning otherwise at a fairly high level. For example, I first came across the 9/11-truthers long before the movement became well-known. Only about a year after 9/11 I was speaking to a friend (a therapist, by the way) when she casually mentioned that she thought the government—Bush included—knew about 9/11 beforehand and was implicated in it.
My reaction was, “You’ve got to be kidding!” But I found, to my horror, that she was deadly serious, and that she became more and more agitated as I tried to counter what she was saying.
This was the end of our friendship, which had never been a close one anyway. I didn’t have to do anything; it was she who stopped phoning me. In this case, I experienced the cessation of our friendship as a relief; I simply could not wrap my mind around the depth of her paranoia, distrust, and illogic.
This event shocked me at the time. It no longer does. Bobby Fischer may have once represented a fringe. But in the intervening years, that fringe has gotten larger and moved ever closer to the mainstream.
I believe I once saw Bobby Fischer in the hotel lobby in Reykjavik, during a 24 hour layover while flying back from Europe. It was the next to last day of the Fischer-Spassky contest. He was a nerdy little guy sitting by himself going over moves on a portable chess board. I looked at him; he stared back with annoyance and trace of hostility. I heard later from a friend he was involved with a very conservative evangelical church in southern California, run at the time by a guy named Herbert Armstrong, but even they kept him at arm’s length. Fischer may have been a brilliant chess player, but he was far from a complete human being. He was, in short, a genuine crank.
It’s easy to think that intelligence and sense are tightly bound, but it is not so. Many things, not least social surroundings and convention, will influence what people think to a greater degree than cold thought. I discovered that among my high school teachers. The good news was that a fair number of my teachers were straight thinkers, some of them combat veterans from WWII, and had few delusions. But there were enough of the other kind, and not only enthusiasts for the Russian revolution, to be discouraging. It’s one of the reasons I found the sciences more attractive than the humanities.
Fischer wasn’t too polite or gracious in his matches with Spass. Much of that came from his personality instabilities, and his intelligence simply made things worse. Crazy people are even more unstable when they are geniuses.
To come up with a chess analogy, Fischer’s comments about the Palestinians “striking back” is the same as player Black complaining that White took his knight because Black took two of White’s pawns. It was revenge by White on Black. In reality, White is going for checkmate and so is Black. Even if Black had done nothing offensive against White, White would still take all of black’s pieces if given a chance.
Even if the West had done nothing to offend or aggravate Arabs and Muslims, Muslims would still seek the destruction of Western civilization, for so long as the West exists, Shariah will not have won.
Fischer should stick to what he knows, which is not politics.
Its a moot point now Ymar.
The 9/11 Truthers are truly loony. However, I might point out that nearly every liberal I know thinks the same. I frequent a very liberal conferencing system based in San Francisco, and there are one or two 9/11 Truthers on there, and they’re roundly ridiculed by everyone else, their claims and arguments thoroughly debunked.
So yes, extremist views are out there, but I don’t think they’re about to take over the mainstream. They’re very fringe in liberal circles as well as conservative, your therapist friend notwithstanding.
Crazy conspiracy-theorists indeed. Unbelievably, there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam. What wackiness! It’s a good thing that sort of thinking doesn’t influence the political debate, especially when it comes to national security matters.
Sorry, but Truthism is mainstream Liberalism, AFAIK. Within my own family relatives generally steer clear of going off on the President. But they really have some strange bone to pick about a local shopping center development here that pays the taxes that contribute to my local schools. I vaguely think they find it not-eco-friendly like. Mind you, they’ve headed for the hlls years ago but goe apesh*t over anyone buying a cup of coffee at the place.
Liberalism = More and more *ssh#les telling fewer and fewer taxpayers what they must do in every aspect of their private lives.
Mitsu: you may find that few liberals are “truthers” but my experience is quite the reverse. Practically all my liberal friends and acquaintances are 9/11 conspiracy-mongers. To be sure, they often cloak it in code phrases like “will we ever know what really happened that day?
Sure we will, dipsticks: a bunch of fanatical Wahhabi terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent people. What else is there to know? It’s impossible not to come away with the impression that what they mean by “what really happened” is some kind of neocon/oil industry/dirty Jew conspiracy.
What’s really weird is how liberals can hold these beliefs even when their idols, like Bill Clinton, forthrightly deny them. (Bill’s strong denunciations of “truther” idiocy since 9/11 has gained him far more respect from me than anything he did in office.)
I’m not just talking about the stoner kids down at the coffeehouse, either. I’m talking about adults in their forties or older, who have real jobs and real lives, yet still can comfortably believe the President of the United States arranged mass murder of the citizens he’s sworn to protect in order to — well, they never really do explain why. Something about oil, maybe. Oil explains everything, apparently.
More and more I become convinced that liberalism should be recognized as a form of mental illness. It genuinely disrupts people’s ability to think coherently, relate to other people, and live a normal life.
>liberalism should be recognized as a form of mental illness
Trimegistus, from my perspective many views held by some right-wingers strike me as just as paranoid and absurd as those held by the 9/11 Truthers (this definitely does not include Neo here, but it certainly includes people who believe that the entire news media is a neo-Stalinist conspiracy to undermine conservativism, etc.)
I don’t know what sort of wackos you hang out with, but they’re certainly in the tiny minority. Clinton of course denounces the 9/11 Truthers for the same reason most liberals do: because they’re clearly wack jobs. Seriously, if most of the “liberals” you know are 9/11 Truthers, you really do need to get out more.
Xan:
“Unbelievably, there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam.”
Cant say I’ve ever ran into anyone who’ve ever expressed quite that. I have ran into quite a few people who’ve imagined that fanatical followers of very fundamentalist branches of that religion would like to see one or both outcomes come true and are willing to kill thousands of people in one morning for this same religion.
Can you believe that Xan? Actual Americans who believe this could well happen.
Almost as if it were radical Muslims or something that flew those planes into the World Trade Towers and not a Mosad plot done with the full knowledge of George Bush.
“It’s a good thing that sort of thinking doesn’t influence the political debate, especially when it comes to national security matters.”
Amen brother. Soon as you know it, we might want to shove democracy down somebody else’s throat.
>Xanthippas Says:
January 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Crazy conspiracy-theorists indeed. Unbelievably, there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam. What wackiness! It’s a good thing that sort of thinking doesn’t influence the political debate, especially when it comes to national security matters.
Who are these people who believe this?
I do believe yo’re just makign this up.
I’m one of the more vocal anti-Jihadists and I know certainly well that not EVERY Muslims is any one particular thing.. and those of us who have come to our anti-Jihad view have done so after years of research into this dark religion and we certainly know the distinctions between a religion and the way its followers implement it in the real world.
It’s people like you who show no evidence of actually understanding the first thing about Islam and yet so self-deluded-confidently think you can judge teh veracity of other people’s criticsm of it.
His Cold War victories on the chess board are legend.
His anti-Semitic lunacies at the end really ruin his legacy.
Fischer renounced U.S. citizenship and so his good cheer at 9/11 was simply more of what led up to his emigration.
As for anti-Semites, I’ll borrow a cold phrase from the U.S. Marines—Shoot, Shovel, Forget. (Close enough.)
Finally, to the good soul above who wondered if liberalism is a sign of mental disease….
Look up “Antisocial Personality Disorder” in the DSM for psychiatrists. You’d be absolutely amazed how many of the symptoms match what libs pump up every day.
Here’s the informal Wikipedia version….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder#Symptoms
oooh that’s a good one , quiller. I have to add that to my political list of disorders.. like malignant narcissist that Tammy Bruce describes.
We must admit that not only our bodies are vulnerable to infections, but our minds too. And some of these mental viruses are contagious enough to produce epidemics of insanity among susceptible individuals. Conspiracy theories is one of such viruses, antisemitism – another one, but they are very often combine to produce this specific syndrome that once had engulfed the whole German nation and now is widespread in Muslim communities around the globe. So no wonder there are epidemic bursts even among Anglo-Saxon population, previously rather immune to this crap.
Liberalism is not insanity as such, but it makes liberals susceptible to a lot of mental infections by destroing natural immunity against them – common sense, critical thinking, intellectual honesty and sceptical attitude to generalisations. These virtues are based on Biblical view on human nature, rather sceptical one, and when it is replaced by humanity-worship of modern liberalizm, this defence is breached.
Liberalism is the HIV of clear thinking
The root case of mental epidemics of XX century (national socialism, Communism, postmodernism, social utopism) is apostasy from Enlightenment: empirism, rationalism and belief in existence of objective truth which can be acknowledged by critical thinking. This belief still holds among scientists and engineers, but in humanities it almost completely lost. So the humanitarian intelligentzia, almost completely liberal, is the group of risk for these maladies.
I have to go with Xanthippas on this one.
I mean, like, it’s nuts, totally nuts to think that a world religion of over a billion people could ever morph into a threat against Western Society. I know plenty of Muslims and they are very nice people. They blend in so well wherever they are. Look at England or France. There must be something very compelling and welcoming about their religion that we would all benefit from understanding and appreciating – rememberhow readily Christians in the Middle East welcomed them when Mohammad and fellow missionaries began knocking on doors way back when. Heck, most of them even converted. Ask the Greeks. It’s not as if they got so popular by evangelizing the world at the point of a sword or anything. Sheesh! What paranoia!
Sure, their religious book exhorts them to kill, conquer or enslave the infidel, especially Jews, but it’s just a book, for God’s sake! The world has seen plenty of books written by rag-tag truthers in their time that never really amounted to much – you know, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, the Little Red Book. Are you BushChimpyHitlerBurton neo-cons really against free speech? That’s what it’s really all this about, isn’t it? I’m not a truther, by the way, although I think that they are right to be so afraid of our leaders – the real ones -don’t you? As far as the World Trade Towers are concerned, it was just some psycho goat herders in Afghanistan that got lucky. Never happen again! Nope, nope, nope! Never, never, never.
There, now that I’ve gotten all this off my chest, I will retire back to my little life and maybe listen to some quiet music and take a nap. Maybe I’ll smoke a joint to help me settle down, while I am at it, now that you neo-con paranoids have made me so upset. I refuse to live my life in fear, so let’s not have any more of this scary Voldemort talk, shall we?
Does anyone on this thread want to talk about Global Warmening? Now, that’s serious!
Sixty-four, short of the three score and ten, and short considerably of what people in developed societies routinely attain.
Angry man. Died young.
Danny Lemieux:
That was great.. I almost respond with a fury but I thought I should read your post a few more times to make sure I understood you and now I do.. Good job 🙂
We should learn from our mother nature to fights these bad guys criminals from Al-Qaeda and all sort of these criminals, let’s united and be like these buffalos, its so amazing video worth watching
Vince P
That was great.. I almost respond with a fury
So quite! “He understood”?
Hah…
Look to all your madness comments and racial view just vomiting stuff.
Do you know that words when it comes from your moth can’t be turned back to your mouth dud?
Truth: Yes it’s sad… Islam drives many people to madness. even those who aren’t Muslims.
Sorry Vince. I guess I left out the /sarc tag!
“Sergy says:
The root case of mental epidemics of XX century (national socialism, Communism, postmodernism, social utopism) is apostasy from Enlightenment: empirism, rationalism and belief in existence of objective truth which can be acknowledged by critical thinking. This belief still holds among scientists and engineers, but in humanities it almost completely lost. So the humanitarian intelligentzia, almost completely liberal, is the group of risk for these maladies.”
Sorry Sergy but if you are talking about the French version of the Enlightenment, it is no help since they were predominately an anti-Christian movement whose “reason” was not based on classic values or on empiracle evidence. For folks who wish to idolize those people, there is the small matter of the French revolution with the reign of terror where the “enlightened” ones put their views into practice. I understand that Karl Marx was a great admirer of their movement.
I assume by objective truth you mean empirical evidence. Empiracism separated from God works well with material objects and substances but has totally failed in the moral realm. If I can kill you and take your wife for my sex slave and take over your property with no consequences against me, what empirical evidence can you offer me to prevent me from doing it? Even the great one himself, Charles Darwin, believed that some races are more evolved than others and believed that genocide is a natural and inevitable consequence of the struggle for survival.
I meant Scottish philosophers like Hume, Gobbs and their school. They, of course, understood that in moral realm empirical approach would be too long and costly, so the revealed truth must be respected. The Founders clearly belonged to this school.
I must agree with Darwin on this: genocide is a natural and almost inevitable consequence of struggle for suvival. At least, 99% of its evolutionary history human tribes were at war with each other, often with genocidal intent. It took Christianity with its universalism and eradication of tribal culture to put end to it.
Declaration of Independence is full of direct or oblique citations from Locke and Hume, and Kantian philosophy with its moral absolutism was derived from the same sources. They are products of Puritan culture, combining the Bible with Scottish Enlightenment.
Neo–I wonder how many of those who dismiss the idea that Islam is an existential threat to all unbelievers have ever actually taken the time to read the three central documents of Islam–the Qur’an, the Hadiths (the words and deeds of the Prophet and his Companions), and the Sira (Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad) as opposed to taking the word of what Muslims or various “experts” and apologists have told them these documents contain? For those with eyes to see, it is truly a revelatory, awakening experience.
I recommend the inexpensive three volume paperback version of these documents that has recently been published by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, (cspipublishing.com) because, they have produced translations that are faithful to the originals but are rearranged, cross-referenced and written in newspaper level English–these documents are a lot easier to understand.
About loonatic opinion becoming mainstream: here’s a quote from a comment on a thread about Ron Paul:
“As for the Israeli lobby playing Congress like a cheap harmonica? When every big name Dem and Repub shows up to the AIPAC convention –when the U.S. gives billions to Israel –when Israel sells information and technology to china and russia — When Israel spies on us — when Cheney threatens Iran from the podium of a foreign lobbying group…well that cheap harmonica is hooked up to quite a wall of amplifiers, cuz us poor citizens can hear it clearly in the cheap seats of “representative” government”
This is not THE most outrageous comment among those even on the same thread, and the blog it appeared to be on is not radically leftist.
Global Warmening is the possible result of 1.4 billion people breathing heavily in unison for the express purpose of demonstrating their unity of purpose and crediblility of authority; The other 2.5+ billion people suddenly realize that they are the potential focus of said hot air; Their response is hyperventilating, which then raises the co2 level to unprecedented levels recorded in natural history; Additionally is the stink of 100 million + corpses, the result of deliberate genocidal murder in the name of certain related causes of similar dogmatic characteristic and origins; Said stink the cause of generally poorly disposed of, and semi-buried flesh, decaying over the last complete century of recorded history leads to resultant gases produced which cause the 2.5 billion to have memory, attention deficit, and vision problems resulting in the sometimes frenetic glossing over of the murder of the 1 billion plus, not to mention the smoke from burning automobiles in French suburbs, and the mental illness problems alluded to in the previous comments in this series today; They then argue about whether the rape of Darfur, or the second genocide of the Jews in approx. 60 years is a personal threat to themselves or of any significant moral issue, since it is all just part of the cycle of global warmening and that great chess game in the sky…
Good posting. The guy who said that there are conspiracy theories about Muslims was right as well. Some people can see a request for gender segregation during certain hours at a public swimming pool as an part of a larger attempt to take over the country and world.
The guy who said the problem is apostasy from the Enlightenment is probably wrong. How many average people were sold on scientific thinking in the first place? Probably not many.
Hilarious about the therapist. I’m sure some of them are rational. But arrogant seems like a more general term.
“….problems resulting in the sometimes frenetic glossing over of the murder of the 1 billion plus…”, was an inadvertant typo, but not a mistake, if you count the natural growth of populations in time…. related to something like culling, i believe it’s called….. imagine a world, where instead of the curent problems with mo’s hordes, the problem is that there was no genocide of the jews in the 40’s, and instead there are dozens of delicatessens (McGoldbergs) in every big city, instead of a dozen, and there are too many doctors, resulting in cheap health care, but expensive corned beef. We might be “just a pawn in their game”….
It’s been estimated that Muslims have killed 270 Million in Jihad or slavery.
And I’m not sure if there really needs to be a global Muslim conspiracy to convert everyone. They have people to do that for them, and those people are called “progressives”.
That’s why we have foot baths springing up at airports and universities and federally funded artwork depicting a cross in a jar of urine.
Dont thank a Moslem for that. Thank a liberal.
Who needs conspiracies when ideology does it much more effectively? Would you call hundreds of madrassas around the globe teaching jihad a conspiracy or something else? This makes no difference for me, their activity is a mortal treat to Western civilization in both cases.
For those who have looked at the recorded moves of his games, Fischer played astoishing brilliant chess and is recognized for revolutionizing the game and propelling it to unimagined popularity, still felt. That he was seriously flawed as a person was evident from the beinning, and he was quite “nuts” in any clinical sense. In a less agile mind, a less tortured personna, he might have become the harmless genius. But he was completely delusional and paranoid and self-hating in the deepest and most damaging way possible. It is sad that he received no treatment and it is sad that he will be equally remembered as a chess genius and as a completely distasteful and awful human being. Over the years, one could almost wonder (perhaps hope it true) if he had a physical/medical condition, a disease, an ailment, that could be treated and make him whole, just so the brilliance of his game could be appreciated untarnished. Such was not to be and his chess genius will forever be footnoted by his pathology.
Sergy said:
“I meant Scottish philosophers like Hume, Gobbs and their school. They, of course, understood that in moral realm empirical approach would be too long and costly, so the revealed truth must be respected. The Founders clearly belonged to this school.”
Good answer. Most people seem to think of the French version of the Enlightenment and forget the English and American versions which were much more positive.
I have struggled for years to dig to the depth of the psychologyof the conspiracy theorists since some people I knew used to belong to the John Birch society. Technically conspirasy buffs are not necessarily mentally ill since their theories are usually possible even if they are unlikely. However, people never develop conspiracy theories about people they love, only about those they already hate. Conspiracy theories give the holder the right to hate other people with righteous wrath since through their conspiracy theories they can attribute any level of evil to their enemies. Since conspiracies are always secret, by definition they require no proof so trying to argue facts with the individual is futile.
Holocaust deniers whether they are denying the Jewish Holocaust or the Turkish Holocaust or the one in Sudan happening now have an even more sinister goal. Their hatred is so deep they desire not only to exterminate their living enemies but to even deny the enemy dead a place in memory.
I suspect Fisher may well have suffered from a clinical illness.
I hesitate to respond to many of the comments above, however, since, unlike Neo’s writing, they are so far over the top as to rival the 9/11 Truther’s level of paranoia. Liberals are not mentally ill, they are not trying to convert the world to Islam, they do not reject reason or critical thinking. The idea that all liberals are somehow allied with our enemies is just as bizarre and crazy an idea as the idea that Bush ordered the attack on the WTC.
Go out and meet and talk to people on the other side, get to know them. You will be surprised to find they’re not as different from you as you think.
The difference in views that Mitsu refers to is resolved through war, sometimes even civil war. Given the human condition, such resolutions are never really permanent.
It’s not so much that they are “allies”, although many are, Mitsu, it is that they are in large-part enablers. I know them as many bloggers here know them because we count them among our friends and families. Heck, I belong to a very liberal (Episcopal) Church where I am surrounded by them.
How do Liberals (capital “L”) enable? Well, here’s just one example: thanks to the Liberal MSM and Liberal’s inability to make value judgments, I, as a Palestinian or any other international terrorist, would know that the best way to garner the sympathy of American Liberals today would be to mass slaughter (Al Qaeda, Palestinians) or starve women and children (Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il) and blame it on the perceived oppression that I have suffered from [fill in the blank – USA or Israel preferred] and I guarantee you that I would instantly have an advocacy group in the MSM and U.S. academia clamoring for my attention and begging the rest of the world to be more understanding. Liberals, in other words, have actively confused perpetrators with victims with a skewed world view that convinces them that we make the world a better place by identifying with the worst aspects of humanity.
Capice, Paisano?
Mitsu:
“Go out and meet and talk to people on the other side, get to know them. You will be surprised to find they’re not as different from you as you think.”
I like in the middle of a blue town in a blue county in a blue state. (Oregon). I do know them Mitsu. The city counsel here has passed two separate resolutions condemning the war in Iraq and demanding troop withdrawal and one resolution opposing the Patriot Act. We have a local hippie bar that has one wall covered in anti-war and Bush=Hitler pin-ups, (I call it the wall of tolerance and enlightenment). The local Guard Armory has had boots representing dead soldiers propped out on its side walk one Veterans Day and Ive actually had people tell me that we should loose more wars so that more people around the world will like us more.
Oh, yes. I know them Mitsu. Just the same as I know you.
live, not like.
PIMF
Mitsu: “Liberals are not mentally ill, they are not trying to convert the world to Islam, they do not reject reason or critical thinking.”
True, they don’t reject reason or critical thinking, they simply bypass it in a smugly perverse attempt to avoid reality and responsibility. When the innocents of Darfur are history, the liberals will blame Bush for not doing anything of substance about it, while today the manchurian candidate (our now probable next POTUS) has championed the islamist who has agreed to institute sharia in kenya, and the liberal msm conspicuously avoids that topic. That’s how the world works now, and all the while the msm avoids the truth teller John Bolton like the plague. In the coming election blacks will vote for the manchurian candidate because he’s black, the young because he’s young, and the liberals because they are as shallow as the platitudes of “change” and “hope” which most makes them grin like their candidate. It looks more and more like a sucker game every day. You’re right Mitsu, about Bobby Fischer’s “clinical illness”. He probably died young, from a pathological illness called hate, the kind of which is personified in Darfur today, mass murder of innocents in a church burning in Kenya, and the obfuscation of how all of this is related, in significant part, to the liberal agenda by virtue of obfuscation and avoidance of reality. People focus on what they want to…..
Soon as you know it, we might want to shove democracy down somebody else’s throat.
As we are doing in Iraq?
I know plenty of Muslims and they are very nice people.
I sincerely doubt you know even a single Muslim all that well. And if I’m wrong, I would like you to discuss with them your claim that the Koran exhorts them to kill and convert everyone. After you’ve done that, please let us know what your Muslim “friend” thought of that.
One final note for the evening. Sorry, my last sentence in my last post was very poorly constructed, should have read “…. the obfuscation of how all of this is related, in significant part, to the liberal agenda of obfuscation and avoidance of reality. People focus on what they want to…..”
Second (this makes me very sad because I trusted GW and Condi), the liberals would be right about Bush not doing enough for the innocents of Darfur, instead he has chosen to spend his time engaged in a cheap political ploy, as the champion for hamas lite…. Along with Condi’s take on Abbas as a regular Reverend Martin Luther King… yeah right, more like a Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Welcome to the fools game….
Cant say I’ve ever ran into anyone who’ve ever expressed quite that.
No? It seems to be quite a popular perception on the right side of the aisle. For example:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2100
I would say Daniel Pipes is fairly prominent. (So no Vince, I’m not just “making this up.”)
If you haven’t run into anyone who thinks such (especially if you’re a frequent visitor of this blog) then you seriously are not paying attention. In fact, Y is halfway there:
Even if the West had done nothing to offend or aggravate Arabs and Muslims, Muslims would still seek the destruction of Western civilization, for so long as the West exists, Shariah will not have won.
Xanthippas Says: “blah, blah…”
It’s clearly in the Koran and well documented history…. My definitely last comment of the nite dedicated to the memory of Oriana Fallaci!
Every time I’ve asked somone to do that , I never get a response.
Xan:
You said the following line which I disputed , perhaps i wasn’t clear about which part of it I disagreed with:
>Crazy conspiracy-theorists indeed. Unbelievably, there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam.
I dispute your assertion that those who state that Muslims want to established Sharia law here apply that view to ***ALL*** Muslims.
No thinks that EVERY Muslim in the USA is here for that mission.
It was that blanket assertion that there’s a subset of Jihad-watchers who paranoidistically think that every muslim is in on it.
Instead what I see is a subset of Americans who believe that NOT A SINGLE Muslim is working towards that goal and they think that anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist/islamophobe/bigot/paranoid/homophobe.. ops, i was on a roll
“Second (this makes me very sad because I trusted GW and Condi), ”
I second that betrayal.
X: … there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam.
And later says that Daniel Pipes is a “prominent” example of that subset. But, for the record, here’s what Pipes actually said:
Which is different enough that it’s unlikely X didn’t know it, and from which, therefore, I think we can safely conclude that X is simply a liar. (Maybe he fancies himself some sort of propagandist — if only he could find anyone who didn’t think he was anything but an obsessive little troll.)
Xan on the question of shoving democracy down some bodies throat:
“As we are doing in Iraq?”
Yes Xan. As we are doing in Iraq. This is what you are opposed to. Because to you, democracy is something you shove down peoples throats.
At one time, the existence of injustice and inequality were rallying cries for the American left. In fact, it was cited as the real reason behind the violence in the Middle East. If democracy is to be seen as something shoved down peoples throats, Id love for Xan to identify the superior alternative.
“It’s easy to think that intelligence and sense are tightly bound, but it is not so.”
The root of the word ‘rationalize’ is rational for a reason. You can use logic and rational thought to justify quite a range of things that ‘common’ sense might advise against.
“I sincerely doubt you know even a single Muslim all that well. And if I’m wrong, I would like you to discuss with them your claim that the Koran exhorts them to kill and convert everyone. After you’ve done that, please let us know what your Muslim “friend” thought of that.”
Well, Xan- since I’ve actually had that conversation some time ago, I’ll answer you. It’s not that most Muslims think they, personally, should pick up arms and go full jihad on their neighbors- they don’t, generally. They do think that the Koran justifies the actions of the jihadists (at least in many cases, particularly where it involves Israel), and that they have no moral standing to speak against those actions in any absolute sense. Sure, they concede that it’s not nice, that it might be bad for public perception, but wrong in the eyes of Allah? Not so quick to answer that one. So called ‘moderate’ Muslims are, like the leftists mentioned previously, enablers. You’re right in that they are decent enough folk, they just won’t stand up for what you and I think is right any more than they’ll stand up for jihad.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Unfortunately, all too common.
How many Muslims have you really talked to, Xan?
By the way, before you have that conversation, it’s good to make sure they know you well enough to know where you’re coming from, and that you respect them and their beliefs (at least as they practice them). You don’t want to put them in too uncomfortable a position without knowing what you’re doing. In other words, don’t make it accusatory, just inquiry. Oh, and read between the lines- it’s a cultural thing- they don’t do the full up front and honest American bit so much.
“I sincerely doubt you know even a single Muslim all that well. And if I’m wrong, I would like you to discuss with them your claim that the Koran exhorts them to kill and convert everyone. After you’ve done that, please let us know what your Muslim “friend” thought of that.”
Actually, it’s hard to add much to Douglas’ response, but here goes. I don’t blame individuals for the cultures and religions in which they were born. Most Muslims I know are Muslims “by identity”, rather than theology. Most with whom I have spoken about the Koran don’t know what’s in the Koran other than vaguely. Not all that different that most professed Christians and Jews, wouldn’t you say?
So, I do make those distinctions between those Muslims I consider “good human beings” and those “theological” Muslims that advocate and pursue what I consider to be an abomination.
Here’s an interest challenge for you – I have a “Muslim” friend from Pakistan, who married a South American Catholic, raised his kids in both traditions, and whose daughter married a Jew. I know him as a good man who feels totally blessed by God. Just how would you go about classifying such a person? I call it a wonderfully American story of how our society can actually reconcile the unreconcilable.
So, Xanth, please don’t deny good people of all faiths their essential humanity. However, don’t lose sight of what is right and what is wrong, either.
Oh…and have you seen “Kite Runner?”. It might help cut through a lot of prejudices based upon misconception.
There is something called inculcation and loyalty…. ” Someone who said: …forgive them for they know not what they do.” The message needs to be sent, loud and clear, that shariah can never, ever become the law of the land in this republic, regardless of the vote count. There is far more to the game than the issue of “democracy”, beware of the manchurian candidate….
>reason
From my point of view, and the point of view of most liberals, conservatives appear to be the ones who are rejecting reason and critical thinking. Note that as I’ve often stated I frequently agree with conservative views, but more often with liberal. I think that we are engaged in a serious struggle with Islamist extremists who want to attack and kill as many of us as possible. However, what those of you who claim to “know” liberals (but apparently don’t seem to actually talk with them, as you clearly don’t know why they think what they do), the majority of them agree with me on this. We all think we’re in a very serious struggle with very dangerous people.
There are leftists (who need to be distinguished from liberals) who tend to explain away everything that Palestinian terrorists do, who remind me of people who used to excuse the USSR for everything it did. But liberals are not leftists, by and large. Liberals were opposed to the USSR and its totalitarian tactics. I do admit they didn’t sufficiently express their opposition, however. I had many friends who protested South African apartheid (which was heinous as well) but didn’t protest the Soviet Afghanistan war (which I felt was also a crime). They said it wasn’t that they thought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was good, but that it was not our business to protest what the enemy does, but it did more good to protest what we did. It made some sense but still struck me as somewhat one-sided.
But to bring us back to the present: the reason I and most liberals oppose the Iraq war is not because we want the enemy to win: it is because we think the war is a weak response to a serious threat, and it endangers our national security. You’re welcome to believe that we’re wrong about this — but just because I and others think Bush is hurting our national security and you think he is helping it by invading Iraq doesn’t mean that we don’t agree with you that national security is paramount. Only far leftists would disagree that our national security isn’t one of the most important things.
You guys are confusing a disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy.
Mitsu,
You do a lot of assuming for us on what we think on any particular issue. You also do a fair amount of whining. A few posts above your last one and your painting all of us conservatives as paranoid and irrational as it concerns the entire Muslim religion. Now you want to complain that we confuse disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy. It seems as though this is the first time you’ve actually talked to conservatives.
No. not all Muslim’s are fundamentalist and there are differing degrees of liberals. Good enough?
Im sure you’ll turn right around now, and visit Daily Kos and admonish those guys for any unfair comments the posters there might level at their “Rethuglican”, “wingnut” comments. Probably not.
As far as the Iraq war goes, you have to be reminded, (and very often), that we are there on the consent of 30 Democrat law makers including H. Clinton and John Edwards. At least until the polling numbers turned.
Whats done is done. We are there now. Hussien is gone. What replaces Hussein? Surely something.
If it isnt going to be a major source of irritation for you, we’d like to shove democracy down the throats of the people of Iraq. We feel accomplishing this goes much farther towards fighting terrorism than lofting the odd cruise missile now and then.
If you disagree and feel we should abandon our efforts, please explain how a withdrawal now helps fight terrorism.
Harry 9000:
“If democracy is to be seen as something shoved down peoples throats, Id love for Xan to identify the superior alternative.”
Individual Responsibility… we are all sovereign beings. Leave that area… WMD’s, the given reason, was false. The honorable thing to do is acknowledge our mistakes, and leave. Saving face is foolhardy.
Then, establish an open hand of friendship to the Muslim world by withdrawing our might from their lands. We must respect the just-war cause.
Be not afraid.
—terrorism will always have to be dealt with. Social conditioning, which is what we are attempting to do via democracy, ALWAYS ends bad and NEVER works. See prohibition…
Mitsu Says: You guys are confusing a disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy.
The liberal (democratic party in particular) agenda isn’t about national security, it’s about their political agenda at any given time … to reiterate the “game”: How many high profile, and which democrats, for 10 years prior to 2003 were clearly implicating saddam’s regime in everything from wmd to international terrorism. They also, with full knowledge (which they now dishonestly deny having) provided the votes in congress which provided the ultimate congressional authority for the war. There is a whole body of incontrovertible information and evidence which made that stance a very credible and responsible position. When they discerned a political advantage to changing that position, they didn’t hesitate to undermine the war, regardless of the consequences. The democrats have long had a way of obfuscating their true positions, policies and history, after the fact, from the civil war, to the kkk, to Vietnam, to Iraq today….
You guys are confusing a disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy.
That’s because you think disagreement about policy never leads to advocacy for the enemy even indirectly.
It’s too inconsistent with your preconceptions for you to grasp.
the reason I and most liberals oppose the Iraq war is not because we want the enemy to win:
The enemy doesn’t care if you want him to win; the enemy cares about you helping him to win. Nothing else matters. You think such a thing does not matter because you refuse to think it’s a problem you should be trying to solve. That’s tough luck for you, but your problems shouldn’t apply to the rest of us.
but just because I and others think Bush is hurting our national security
Just because your people are leaking national secrets, telling lies, misleading the American people, and conducting side deals with dictators, doesn’t mean you are hurting our national security? Get some of that pragmatism in a bottle you have, Mitsu.
conservatives appear to be the ones who are rejecting reason and critical thinking.
That’s probably because Leftists and fake liberals are on a different wavelength when it comes to “thinking”.
When a person can hold two different contradictory beliefs, at once, in their head, I do believe their thinking occupies a higher frequency and different wavelength than those whose thinking can’t provide that feature.
The fact that it appears like fake liberals are talking about the same things as some conservatives, such as “liberty” and “humanity”, the truth is that fake liberalism is 90 degrees out of phase. This is for the few instances that that fake liberals and classical liberals are trying to communicate.
There are leftists (who need to be distinguished from liberals
Most liberals are fake liberals, when most Leftists are just power hungry, cynical, and cruel.
It is a pyramid of useful idiotry. The Soviets use Leftists as useful idiots and the Left uses fake liberals as useful idiots, like Kos against Democrat candidates. When the Soviets disappear, the Islamic Jihad slots in at the top since there is a vacancy.
You won’t accept this fundamental view of metaphysics, Mitsu. That’s your problem right there, you need not look anywhere else.
Liberals were opposed to the USSR and its totalitarian tactics.
They “were” opposed to the USSR, because now they are people like Neo. They switched sides like Reagan and Zell did. That means all the “liberals” you are talking about now, are really fake liberals and a lot of conservatives are classical liberals.
All the fake liberals were for totalitarianism and they remained this way. The people you were talking about in the Cold War were classical liberals, real liberals, that the Left and the Democrats kicked out like they kicked out Lieberman. Do you still seriously expect your delusion here to sort of work on us?
Only far leftists would disagree that our national security isn’t one of the most important things.
Is that why Global Warming is cropping up everywhere? That’s a national security issue, isn’t it?
wasn’t that they thought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was good, but that it was not our business to protest what the enemy does, but it did more good to protest what we did. It made some sense but still struck me as somewhat one-sided.
That’s a useful idiot right there. Is he a liberal? No. Is he a fake liberal? Yes. So if you won’t accept this bit of metaphysics, Mitsu, it doesn’t matter what you argue concerning what the motives of “liberals” are. Since your “liberals” are a fantasy construction, overlaid upon the fakes.
In most of the disagreements you have presented, Mitsu, your concerns were not with real human loss and gains but with the argument on what the color red looks like. Most of the argument on your side is based on your preconceptions, nothing else.
So that’s why it all comes down to, in the end, about what you perceive to be the intentions of “liberals” and how this is supposed to make us wrong and you right. It won’t do that, Mitsu, since it is not an objective analysis simply because you believe it is true.
Well considering that Democrats OPPOSE EVERYTHING being done to fight it, I can’t see how it could be said that the Lefts take the war seriously.
1 – They don’t even acknowledge there is one
2 – To the extent they do, they frame in terms of it being American-caused thus the solution is American-based
3 – They offer NOT ONE strategy to fight it
4 – They are objectively assisting the enemy
Mechael Says: “Then, establish an open hand of friendship to the Muslim world by withdrawing our might from their lands.”
You are a fool…. I as a dhimmi can never extend an open hand of friendship, except for a narrow definition of diplomacy. Their lands? There are more cultures and religions than moslems on that 20% of the earth’s surface that they claim as “their” lands. At the very least, those “minorities” deserve equal rights to a tee… you people live in a completely different dimension of ethics and morality…..
Individual Responsibility… we are all sovereign beings.
So why aren’t children and teenagers allowed by law to take individual responsibility for themselves?
The truth is that you just don’t get it. People are not all sovereign beings. Some people are slaves, and some people continue to want to be slaves.
How do you expect to deal with humanity’s problems when your idea of humanity is fake and ridiculous, Mitsu?
The honorable thing to do is acknowledge our mistakes, and leave.
Honor implies that you have a personal responsibility that will be held to account depending on what happens with the object of honor. Nothing bad was going to happen to you or the Left if the US pulled out of Iraq and your actions ended up with a bunch of people killed.
Honor is not something you can throw out there as if it actually applies to armchair generals and behind the scenes puppet masters.
Then, establish an open hand of friendship to the Muslim world by withdrawing our might from their lands. We must respect the just-war cause.
There is nothing just about wars that you support, Mitsu. In fact, it’s hard for you to support any wars, except after the fact, given your isolationism and paleo-conservatism.
Social conditioning, which is what we are attempting to do via democracy, ALWAYS ends bad and NEVER works.
Social conditioning like what paleo-conservatives and Leftist crusaders do with indoctrination and prohibition, of course does not war. What classical liberals, who you call neo-conservatives, are doing is called building the Band of Brothers bond through American warfare.
I wouldn’t trust your people to social condition a dog, Mitsu. Your people are too incompetent, malicious, and just bunglers in all.
It was warfare that freed the slaves and make them see that they could be something more than just plows in a cotton farm. It was war that made the US military desegregate 10 years before the Civil Rights Act, because it was war that created the reality of black and white equality, not laws. Blacks fought for their rights and equality, and they got it in the military first.
You want to try your own pet theory about how if we pull federal force and might out of the South, that things will be all right since the Civil War is now over. Wrong then and wrong for the Middle East. It took decades for race relations to resolve themselves because the Democrats regained the South through terrorism, lynchings, and voter intimidation of black Republicans.
That may be fine for you since it already happened and people already paid the cost, but I’m not going to pay the cost for your mistakes in the Middle East, Mitsu. That makes us even, since neither are you.
If you disagree and feel we should abandon our efforts, please explain how a withdrawal now helps fight terrorism
Mitsu is not talking about the now. He is talking about hypotheticals, what would have happened IF his pet theories were implemented. The same thing he did about the surge and how if Mitsu and his general could armchair things, they would have done better than Petraeus by a mile.
Such are useless. Not just that, but it is Mitsu wasting his energies and ours on what Mitsu is interested in, not what actually concerns real people in America and Iraq.
“It is a pyramid of useful idiotry.”
Cool line! Incidentally, I really appreciate people like Mitsu here, she (I presume) definitely inspires a lot of commentary and thinking. I once tried to take that role at Yellow Times (called something like that), a classic far left blog, but it was an absurd situation, like Mechael, we apparently live in a completely different place in cognitive space….
p.s. Must have something to do with Neo tasting that apple way back when in genesis….
Mechal says
The arrogance of the Leftist knows no bound. You can tell they make no effort to evaulate the consequeneces of their proposals.
This guy thinks that we can just get up and leave Iraq before it’s secure… thereby leaving Iraqis as they are being slaughtered, dragging in Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Sunnis and Shiias to conflict..
Meanwhile we just whistle out of there and turn back and shake Mr. Muslim’s hand saying “Friends?”
What in the ever-living Christ makes you think that those people will EVER want any dealings with you again? Other than perhaps to kill you?
What world are you living in that you think you can just go in and out of countries.. leave them in barabirty and there is no consequence from this? That the very people you leave in peril behind will just act as if nothing ever happened!
My God. please.. tell me you dont vote.
” Social conditioning, which is what we are attempting to do via democracy, ALWAYS ends bad and NEVER works. See prohibition…”
Ah yes. I’ve forgotten about how pohibition brought down democracy in the United States.
Mitsu, would it be safe to say that guy is a liberal?
The interesting analogy with prohibition is that you can’t get people to stop drinking alcohol by making it illegal and forcing people to stop. They will just take it underground in speakeasies and then organized crime pops up to fill the demand for liquids.
This is a great analogy for how Mitsu thinks he can outlaw (intervention) warfare by the US through pulling out troops and “admitting mistakes’ and suddenly wars will stop because MItsu has stopped war. No, he hasn’t.
For a change of topic, people can go here if they are tired of arguing with Mitsu.
Link
You won’t hear that coming from Mitsu, I guarantee you.
the reason I and most liberals oppose the Iraq war is not because we want the enemy to win: it is because we think the war is a weak response to a serious threat, and it endangers our national security.
Okaaaaay…. It’s not like the liberals suggested an alternative response.
What would have been a ‘strong response’ which doesn’t endanger our national security?
You guys are confusing a disagreement about policy with an advocacy of the enemy.
Maybe, Mitsu, maybe.
By the same token, however, consider the possibility that hard-core leftist agitators (no names here, X) are taking advantage of your basic goodness and, frankly, naivete, to enlist you on their side for their own purposes.
Consider that to advance their own anti-democratic and anti-capitalist agenda maybe some are cloaking their advocacy of the enemies of this country as a disagreement about policy.
I held beliefs similar to yours, but my first few months in Berkeley decades ago changed my mind.
Sally, perhaps you can explain to us all how-reading that exact quote-he is not saying that he believes that there are Muslims who desire to undermine and conquer America. If you’ll note, the title of his post is “The Islamic States of America.” Yes, please explain. I’ll wait.
Allow me to be presumptious and answer before her:
X, you said,
“there is even an entire subset of Americans who believe that all Muslims not only possess the desire, but the actual ability to conquer our country and force us all to convert to Islam.”
Sally said:
And [x] later says that Daniel Pipes is a “prominent” example of that subset. But, for the record, here’s what Pipes actually said:
“The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people–many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin–who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam.”
Sally concludes:
“Which is different enough that it’s unlikely X didn’t know it, and from which, therefore, I think we can safely conclude that X is simply a liar.”
In other words Sally is saying your after-the-fact finding of the Daneil Pipes article does not support your initial statement that some folks in the US bedlieve that ALL Muslims are terrorists and that ALL Muslims have the means to overthrow the society.
That is not what Daniel Pipe’s article says. Read it again.
By the way, Xan, I have news for you. Everyone would like to see the world move more into the image they have in their heads as the ideal. Or put another way, everyone wants to conquer the world.
For Muslims, it’s a world where the religious and civil are synonymous, and all is under the dar al Islam, and so all will be blissfully peaceful.
Likewise, as a Catholic, I’d like to see the world eventually all convert to Christianity, preferable Catholic or at least Episcopalian. Since I think it’s the one true religion (at least for me) of course I think it’s best for the world as a whole as well.
For contemporary Liberals, it would be a (mythological) place where everyone believes something unique, and everyone gets along, and submits to the will of the state which is somehow miraculously benificent.
The difference being, I, and pretty much all Catholics don’t believe it would be right to make the government force others to abide by our beliefs, nor would we kill others by suicide bomb or force others to convert at gunpoint, nor would any think it was somehow acceptable if someone else did it. Unfortunately, you can’t say the same for the Muslim world.
“Soon as you know it, we might want to shove democracy down somebody else’s throat.
As we are doing in Iraq?”
It seems, Western allies after WWI did just that in Germany. Was this bad?
I meant, after WWII. But after WWI they did it, too.
I recall being an avid OK chess player when Fischer was battling Spassky and the (mostly Russian) Chess Grandmasters.
Until Bobby, a huge number of tournament games ended in a draw — both sides too cautious to risk anything for a win. Bobby pushed for tournaments to be scored on games won. This is now the norm, but wasn’t when he played in Iceland.
“They came to the town of Sveti Stefan, a resort off the coast of Montenegro, 110 km from the civil war in Bosnia, 200 km from besieged Sarajevo. Fischer played despite United Nations sanctions against Yugoslavia and a warning from the United States Treasury Department, which threatened him with severe penalties for playing.”
The 1992 rematch.
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/92fs$$.htm
Ah, but Sergy, democracy is only good for the white people. The brown people are culturaly unable to adopt to it.
Honest. People have made that argument.
I was a tornament chess player in those days, but nothing like Bobby Fisher. And I’ll leave the 9/11 truther thing alone after saying “they hate us for our freedom” is every bit as paranoid as anything out of Bobby Fisher’s mouth. Did you forget to mention that Bobby Fisher himself was a Jew? Don’t blame you. It doesn’t fit into your paranoiaic theme in this article. neocons have that kind of paraniod reaction when they hear the truth. Especially when it comes from a genius not concerned about being politically correct like Bobby Fisher.
Bob D: In addition to your faulty reasoning, you display faulty reading comprehension. Note the following sentence in my post:
In an interesting biographical detail, Fischer was raised by his Jewish (pacifist, and Leftist) mother after his German physicist father deserted the family and returned home when Fischer was but two years old.
Bob D:
“neocons have that kind of paraniod reaction when they hear the truth. Especially when it comes from a genius not concerned about being politically correct like Bobby Fisher.”
Which “truth” is it that Fischer spoke of Bob? This one?
“Fuck the U.S. I want to see the U.S. wiped out.”
Seeing that Fischer obviously has his US adherents, maybe it isnt too unreasonable for us to be paranoid.
Pingback:סקס בספריה, ל××•×ž× ×•×ª בסרביה וה×× ×™×© גן ל×× ×•×›×™×•×ª
911 was an inside job.There were no planes.There
are mountain ranges of evidence to back these
statements and none that prove the Official conspiracy theory.
I wonder if Fischer knew the truth about 911.It appears the CIA got rid of him as they do with Thought Criminals.
It doesn’t fit into your paranoiaic theme in this article
Bob D and Fischer really are making chess players look like mental patients.
“911 was an inside job.There were no planes.There are mountain ranges of evidence to back these statements and none that prove the Official conspiracy theory.”
Hey Baghdad Bob, whats this?
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/4994/911rtrs468x683wn1.jpg
Try this again.
http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=911rtrs468x683nb4.jpg
OK, looks like the only thing being suppressed here is my ability to upload either an image or an URL for one. Never mind.
X: Sally, perhaps you can explain to us all how-reading that exact quote-he is not saying that he believes that there are Muslims who desire to undermine and conquer America. If you’ll note, the title of his post is “The Islamic States of America.” Yes, please explain. I’ll wait.
Well, nice that you’ll wait, X, but it would have better still if you’d tried to think in the first place, or even just read what I said. Let’s see if we can say this in a way that even you — or, if not you, a 6 year old — could understand: he IS saying that there are muslims who desire to undermine and conquer America — got that? And so am I. And so, for that matter, does everyone able to read or listen. I.e., nobody other than the most deranged and ridiculous fanatics would try to deny that there are such muslims.
What he did NOT say, on the other hand, is that all muslims desire to undermine and conquer America, which is what you said he said. A “substantial body of people”, “many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin”, is just that — substantial. But to interpret it as meaning “all” is either a deliberate distortion of what Pipes actually said — i.e., a lie — or it’s simple stupidity. Take your pick.
I’ve outlined what I think would have been a more robust response to 9/11 elsewhere — I don’t really want to get into a long debate about that as well, since we already discussed it and it was quite involved. However, in brief I believe that we should have focused on Afghanistan and should now be more fully focused on the problem of “safe havens” in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Sally and others have derided me for focusing on Al Qaeda, we disagree about how important this is. I think the Iraq strategy was hugely costly and poorly executed, and the neocons were naive to think (as they did prior to the war) that it would be relatively easy to topple Saddam and install a pro-American democratic republic in Iraq. I would agree that if it HAD been easy to do so, it might have been worth it (despite the many other arguments against this approach), but I just think it was naive to think it was going to be easy to do it at the time we did it and particularly in the way we did it.
This is as I’ve said also something that Obama has in particular been pushing.
I do agree that too quick withdrawal now would likely be a mistake, despite my opposition to the original invasion. We can’t undo the invasion so we have to deal with what we have done.
Mitsu:
“This is as I’ve said also something that Obama has in particular been pushing.”
Obama is pushing for the withdrawal of our troops. This seems to be at odds with your view that a withdrawal now “would likely be a mistake”.
Being successful in Iraq fight terrorism is far more significant than capturing/killing OBL. If you dont wish to dwell on the past, then stop doing so and get on our side.
Sally and others have derided me for focusing on Al Qaeda, we disagree about how important this is.
You aren’t focused on Al Qaeda at all. Your statement is just untrue. If you were focused on Al Qaeda, you would be very positive over the counter-insurgency lessons learned in Iraq against AQ, that defeated AQ.
What you are focused on is Afghanistan, or specifically any place you decide to focus on. It has nothing to do with the threat of Al Qaeda, Mitsu.
I think the Iraq strategy was hugely costly and poorly executed
The reason why you think so is simple. Iraq wasn’t Afghanistan, thus people were wasting resources in a place you didn’t want to focus on.
I would agree that if it HAD been easy to do so, it might have been worth it
Easy things in warfare are worthwhile? You lack a certain tactical flexibility, Mitsu.
Everything worthwhile in war was hard, Mitsu. Stop trying to make things out to be a stroll in the mall.
This is as I’ve said also something that Obama has in particular been pushing.
And you’re pushing Obama because Obama is focused on the same 20/20 hindsight second guessing campaign that you are focused on, Mitsu.
We can’t undo the invasion so we have to deal with what we have done.
We want to fight a war. You want to win a conflict about getting resources focused on where you want them focused. Yes, we do have to deal with the things you have done, and you have to deal with the things our side has done. But let’s not fabricate the illusion that those that supported fighting terrorists in Iraq did the same thing as your side did, Mitsu.
You didn’t decide or support the decision to invade Iraq, Mitsu. So how do you expect to deal with things “you have done” that you haven’t?
Get rid of the doubletalk, and things get clearer.
This seems to be at odds with your view that a withdrawal now “would likely be a mistake”.
Mitsu was talking about a quick withdraw. So long as the withdrawal looks “slow” or fits the judgement of Mitsu, he won’t have a problem with it. In the end, it depends upon whether you trust Mitsu’s judgement, Harry, on whether a withdrawal is “too quick” or not.
In re: Zhombre’s comment at the top, Fischer was a big guy, 6’2″, 190 lbs., and he was a fitness fanatic back when he was playing. The guy Zhombre saw in the airport was probably not him.
I played chess very seriously for a number of years, and I have at least an inkling of how very brightly Fischer’s star shone on the board. But, as the psychiatrist said when interviewed on TV about Fischer in 1992, “As a chessplayer he’s a genius. As a political theorist he’s a schmuck!”. Poor Bobby.