US Political Class Liquifies Before 9/11

On the anniversary of the terrorist attack against out democratic society by religious fanatics, the American political class liquified. It did so, led by our president, by using the slightest pretext to avoid the difficult matter of punishing a fascist dictator for massacring civilians with forbidden weapons. It’s bad for our collective soul. It will prove to be bad for our own security in the not-long run.

Most members of our political class appear to want to accomplish two things. First, they wish to forget that even if Assad delivered 100% of his chemical weapons, such delivery does not constitute the punishment promised and deserved. Let bygones be bygones, they say – 1,400 murdered by chemical weapons on one day; 100,000 by other means elsewhere, and who is counting?
And, in the immortal words of the former Secretary of State on another topic, “What difference does it make?”

Second they want to pretend that they don’t know what goes on in the yard of every tough school in the world. Bullies will try to pull off worse and worse brutalities until they become intimidated. The unopposed brutalities of one bully encourage others to go further. Some who had the potential but never acted on it will be encouraged by the impunity of others to become bullies themselves. The world is such a tough schoolyard, with bullies and potential bullies everywhere. Only, our schoolyard bullies don’t steal milk money, they massacre women and children from the air.

Many opponents of a military intervention in Syria (IN Syria) just pretend to be legalists. The legalists among opponents of a strike on Assad habitually demand international law promulgated by morally repulsive organizations such as the United Nations. This is just fig leaf however for their mindless, irresponsible pacifism. The fact is, they refuse to lift a finger when an existing international agreement – which should have force of law according to their own beliefs – is violated. Laws are behavior norms implemented by force. Anything less is a wish or a prayer to God; it’s not a law.

Our political class, apparently led by a president happy to escape the consequences of his own lack of foresight, pretends to believe that Assad is not a liar and that President Putin of Russia will tell the truth, just this time, for once. Yet, there is not one among them who would trust Putin to guard their bike for five minutes; there is not one who would not double lock his door if he saw Assad coming down the street.

Yet, yes, I am of those who think that the president of the United States must not go to war without some sort of congressional approval. President Obama is doing the right thing, the constitutional thing, in this respect. I also think his 9/10/13 speech was quite dignified given the trouble into which he put himself. But the damage was already done. A great deal, but an unknown deal, of the repugnance among conservatives to back the president on Syria comes from the fact that they don’t believe in his ability to conduct such important business. This lack of confidence did not emerge yesterday. Everyone with a brain must have noticed that he has not even fulfilled the very first promise he made his supporters (and which conservatives hated). That was to close Guantanamo prison.

All the same, I have to go way back in my memory to see such a hard, deliberate act of collective self-delusion as our political class timidity toward doing the morally and strategically obvious in this case. Shame on us!


About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to US Political Class Liquifies Before 9/11

  1. Terry Amburgey says:

    Let me get this straight; in the reality you live in, opposition to a military strike in Syria is led by President Obama?

    Btw, I believe you misquoted Ms. Clinton. I believe she said:
    “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

  2. I said no such thing.

    Like everyone else who has talked about it, I am left a little confused by Mr Obama’s dancing. At this point, I think he intended to hit Assad for a while. (I believe; I have said repeatedly, that it was the right thing to do.) Then, he realized he was about to suffer a highly visible defeat in Congress. Secretary Kerry saved his bacon in extremis and probably inadvertently. He did so by proposing a ridiculous, unworkable deal with the gangster Putin. The delivery of weapons of mass destruction into trustworthy Russian hands, on the surface, appears to save the President’s face. The deal saves faces also for others in our political class. I think it’s the most impressive demonstration of collective dishonesty and cowardice I have seen.

    I quoted Ms. Clinton correctly. Thanks you for confirming.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    “I said no such thing.”

    I see. Can you explain the meaning of the capitalized phrase in the second sentence of your post?

    “On the anniversary of the terrorist attack against out democratic society by religious fanatics, the American political class liquified. It did so, LED BY OUR PRESIDENT, by using the slightest pretext to avoid the difficult matter of punishing a fascist dictator for massacring civilians with forbidden weapons.”

    “I quoted Ms. Clinton correctly.”
    I’ll provide your quote, followed by my quote. You’ll see that they are not the same. One of them is not correct. You’re claiming that it is yours that is correct?

    “What difference does it make?”
    “What difference at this point does it make?”

  4. @Terry: Opposition to a strike on Assad is not led by our president except in the sense that he leads from behind. At this point, he could not lead a girl-scout outing.

    I should have used another word:”…It did so, accompanied, even followed, by our president….” Same shame.

    I quoted Ms. Clinton correctly from the only substantive matter that matters. She is a terrible person. I am grateful to Mr Obama for having spared us her as president.

    Dealing with you brings to mind a wonderful French phrase. It has to do with trying to engage in a manual sexual act on the person of a flea while wearing boxing gloves.

  5. JC Mullis says:

    One thing I find interesting is the apparent willingness to blame the entire >100,000 Casualties in Syria on the Syrian government (I agree they are bad guys but that doesn’t automatically make the rebels good guys). This obviously cannot be the case, yet it is presented by the media as a known truth. Interestingly, an article on the Huffington Post today gives the following breakdown:

    “The newest data, from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, find that of the more than 100,000 people who have died in the fighting, 21,850 have been rebel fighters and 45,478 have come from the pro-regime side (27,654 from the regular army and 17,824 from semi-official, pro-regime militias). The group also counted more than 40,000 civilians among the dead.”

    Clearly England was responsible for the 200,000 deaths in the US Revolution. But I wonder, was the Union or the Confederacy responsible for the 628,000 deaths in the Civil War? and I’ve no idea who should be considered responsible for the million plus deaths in the French Revolution. I think in each case its a matter of perspective and a most human tendency to blame the looser.

    My problem Is; I’ve not heard a compelling argument as to why the US government should choose one side over another in Syria. The current government is ran by a fascist dictator and the rebels are a divided group of former soldiers of the dictator, numerous tribal militias, and a large group of well trained religious zealots. The only reason I can see for picking the rebels is that the Russians are allied with President Assad’s government and institutional momentum puts us on opposing sides. Either way I don’t see a good outcome for the common man or woman in Syria.

    The easy choice would have been a quick and targeted personal attack on President Assad. We did something similar to this in 1986 when we bombed Qaddafi’s Palace. But President Obama hedged his bet and took to long, so it’s now too late for a quick attack. The President has already said we will not put boots on the ground in Syria. So we are left with a long drawn out political solution that in the end will place Syria directly in the control of Russia, regardless of who wins the Rebellion. FYI: The commander of the Free Syrian Army was on TV today complaining that the US is not giving them enough weapons to win the war. I doubt that the Assad government would make the same complaint about Russian Arms.

    • JC Mullins: I am guessing the media are simply sloppy and ill-informed because they are lazy, as usual. Assad forces did not kill 100,000 people in Syria. However, by responding (initially) to peaceful protests with guns the Syrian government created a situation where 100,000 dies of all cause.

      Here are three reasons to side against Assad:

      1 He gassed civilians in large numbers. That’s a real red line. (If you don’t believe it was he, that reason vanishes, of course.) It’s a moral red line as well as a legal red line. I think. Any advance in the acceptance of chemical weapons is a potential danger to the US although in a diffuse sense.

      2 There are secular democrats among the anti-Assad forces. The more we tarry, the fewer there will be with any credibility left.

      3 Syria, with its Mediterranean coastline, is an important asset to Iran. I think Iran is a threat to our friends in the Middle Easts. I think so because of past declarations by a previous Iranian administration. I believe that Iran is stealthily developing a nuclear bomb. I believe this based on a long-lasting agreement between experts. (It’s dangerous to believe on that basis but it’s the best I can do.) There is no reason to believe much of what any member of the Iranian political class says about this or about anything.

      Underlying your reticence seems to be the belief hat the US is not the policeman of the world. Isn’t it?

      • Dr J writes:

        However, by responding (initially) to peaceful protests with guns the Syrian government created a situation where 100,000 dies of all cause.

        This is not true. Nobody has any idea who started the violence. Are you really going to tell us that al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups are above using violence to achieve their ends?

      • Everybody but you knows how it started. Yes, Al Quaida uses violence. No doubt violent jhadists joined the revolt against the Syrian Bath. They did not start it according to the world’s press. As usual, Brandon, you have private, special sources of information open to no one else. Must be cool!

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        Clearly you’ve been duped. The Assad regime is a hotbed of warm humanitarians; the civil war is the result of a long-term conspiracy by the Bush & Obama administrations with it’s roots going back to 1991…

        BTW, the US has been secretly arming the rebels while Russia has not been providing arms to the regime. Brandon will provide you with the details.

        Along the same lines, your fears about Iran are the result of cultural misunderstandings. You probably thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was serious when he “…called Israel a cancerous tumor, a virus and an aberration that should be expunged from history.” He was just clowning around. The new president Hassan Rouhani recently talked about “a sore has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world for many years” but he surely wasn’t referring to Israel. As for ~30 years of ‘Death to the Great Satan’? Not a problem, Great Satan is Iranian jargon for ‘Best Friends Forever’.

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    “I quoted Ms. Clinton correctly from the only substantive matter that matters.”

    All those years in academia and you think it’s ok to put quotes around something that is an approximation of what someone said or wrote? A direct quote is:

    “A report of the exact words of an author or speaker. Unlike an indirect quotation, a direct quotation is placed inside quotation marks.”

    See how that works?

    @Jc Mullis
    “The only reason I can see for picking the rebels is that the Russians are allied with President Assad’s government and institutional momentum puts us on opposing sides.”

    Iran. The Syrian alliance with Iran is much worse for US interests than Syria’s relationship with Russia.

    • @Dr Amburgey:

      The Iranians are not a threat to the United States or its “interests” in the Middle East.

      Why do you keep insisting that they are? Did 1980 come back around for a second helping?

    • Terry: You are right and your correction is silly and a waste of good people’s time. If I had inserted a bracket into the quote with the words [ at this point] that would have solved your little schoolteacher’s problem and changed nothing of the meaning.

  7. Yep! The Islamic Republic of Iran is our friend and Assad is a reformer (Who was it who said that? It wasn’t one of Bush’s boys. It may well have been Sec. of State Clinton courageously attributing the opinion to some unnamed lawmakers )

  8. Drs A and J respectively,

    You have both done a brilliant – just brilliant! – job of setting up straw men to knock down.

    Clap. Clap. Clap.

    Nobody takes you guys seriously now, and this is all for the better. Let’s play a game! It’s called ‘guess who made the following prediction in October of 2011’:

    In two years time [October 2013 – bc], Tunisia, which did not get any help from the West, will be a functioning democracy with a ruling coalition of moderate Islamists in power.

    The Egyptian military will be promising the public that elections are just around the corner, and Libya will be in worse shape than it is today. Two years from today, Dr. J, you will be issuing an apology to me and making a donation to the charity of my choice.

    Since you are very good at avoiding the facts on the ground in the name of democratic progress, I think we should establish a measurement rubric by which to measure the progress of Libya. How about GDP (PPP) per capita as measured by the IMF?

    Go ahead you two. Go on. Take a wild guess.

    Now compare my clear-eyed account of how US imperialism affects the Middle East with the wild-eyed ravings of you two daisies. Dr J claims that the “world’s press” has documented the fact that Assad’s forces shot first. This should be easy enough to procure. I’ll be waiting for Dr J’s reading assignment.

    And Dr A’s sparkling charges against me go from – in order – defending the Assad regime as a humanitarian one to believing in conspiracy theories to claiming the Russians aren’t arming Syria. He then proceeds to directly quote Iranian demagogues and their threats against a rival regional power, as if that somehow connects the dots.

    Take a good look folks. This is what the advocates of bombing the Assad regime have come to. I’ll leave it up Dr J’s readers to figure out which side is morally and intellectually superior. Once you do that, you can read this article, which elaborates upon a smart, efficient and no-nonsense approach to the bloodshed in the Middle East.

    • Brandon: Why don’t you say clearly: “Here are the strawmen you (guys) set up.”

      Both Terry’s and my discourse are closer to the mainstream than is yours, I think. If that is right, you have to take on automatically the burden of explaining even what you think are basic, self-evident matters.

      I take the liberty to add that you will have trouble lifting the burden if you are unfamiliar with what is said in the major media, right and left. Those would include the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and, for better or worse, National Public Radio .

      • Dr J:

        You said the “world’s press” was unanimous on whether or not it knew the Assad regime used chemical weapons. That’s a pretty bold claim. I asked for some examples. You gave me the NYT, the WSJ and NPR.


        I don’t claim to know which side started the violence. Hence my caution. You on the other hand, seem to think that because three major American press organs – one of them government run – claims the Assad regime started the shooting that the world is in agreement on it.

        This highlights well the difference between a collectivist such as yourself and an individualist such as me: I don’t claim to know all the answers, nor do I make them up as I go along, so I am more cautious when it comes to advocating policies. You, on the other hand, seem to know everything.

        If your views are closer to the mainstream than my own (as if that’s a good thing to begin with) then why didn’t the United States bomb Syria?

      • Dr J:

        Do you have any evidence that the “world’s press” has documented the fact that the Assad regime started the shooting in 2011?

        What about the use of chemical weapons?

  9. Terry Amburgey says:

    In my opinion, you won your bet with Jacques. I want us to maintain the intergrity of blog bets; you have one with me atm that the deadly gas attack in Syria was launched by rebels not the Assad regime.

    You seem unhappy that I charged you with believing in conspiracy theories. The best way to avoid this is to not believe in conspiracy theories. In our recent discourse on your own fine blog

    you’ve argued that the US has secretly armed the Syrian rebels since the start of the civil war and the Russians have not recently armed the regime. If you’ve recently changed your mind I’d be delighted to hear it. For that matter I’d be glad to see you say “Not true! Of course the US was not arming the rebels and the Russians have always armed the Syrian regime!”

    • Dr A:

      You should actually try reading my argument instead of making one up for me and then proceeding to knock it down.

      The US is not “secretly arming” the rebels in Syria. The CIA is doing so overtly. You claim that when the CIA arms rebels it doesn’t actually mean Washington is arming the rebels. I merely turned your argument against you when you said that Russia was arming Syria. Russia is arming Syria through proxies, just as the US is doing. Yet by your own logic, Moscow is not actually arming Damascus.

      It would be nice if my argument was as shallow and naive as you make it out to be. Very nice indeed…

  10. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Brandon. You should also try reading your argument, your recollection seems a bit faulty. Reading mine would be a bonus.

    “You claim that when the CIA arms rebels it doesn’t actually mean Washington is arming the rebels.”

    No. I claim that when Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm the rebels it doesn’t actually mean Washington. Oddly enough Qatar and Saudi Arabia are not part of the U.S.

    “The US is not “secretly arming” the rebels in Syria. The CIA is doing so overtly.”

    Succinct and to the point, and easily verifiable. Prove it. You started a thread by arguing that the civil war has drug on because of arming the rebels. Document the US arming Syrian rebels in 2011, 2012 and early 2013.

    • Dr A:


      Again, it would be nice if my argument was as shallow and naive as you make it out to be. Very nice indeed.

      Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not legally allowed to arm the rebels because, you know, that is illegal. Enter the CIA.

      Why do I need to document the arming of “rebels in 2011, 2012 and early 2013” to prove that the civil unrest has dragged on due to US-led efforts?

      It’s my understanding that overt efforts at arming the rebels is recent due to the fact that the Assad regime was about to win. The West has been vocal in its support for the rebellion since it began. This is very different from arming it, which it only started to do once it became apparent that the Assad regime had the upper hand.

      You are trying too hard to call a ‘cat’ a ‘dog’ and, frankly, it shows.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        “Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not legally allowed to arm the rebels because, you know, that is illegal. Enter the CIA.”

        Lol. Who’s law we talking about here? Syrian law? Lol. Please explain this interesting situation of jurisprudence where Saudi Arabia Qatar can’t arm the rebels because it’s ‘illegal’ but it is ‘legal’ for the CIA to do it.

        Nonetheless it is gratifying for you morph from the civil war dragging on because the US armed the rebels to it dragging on ‘due to US-led efforts’; id est the Saudis and Qataris arming the rebels.

      • Dr A:

        Again, you are trying too hard to call a ‘cat’ a ‘dog.’

        International law prohibits states from arming rebels in other states. This norm is in place because the world is made up of states and, well, arming rebels in states goes against the whole principle of state sovereignty.

        The CIA is probably able to move arms and munitions around the world much better than the Saudi and Qatari governments. The CIA is, as we both know, very good at circumventing international law even when it does so overtly.

        US-led efforts at arming the rebels is still the US arming the rebels. When the US invaded and occupied Iraq (illegally, I might add) it did so with a coalition. In this sense it was a US-led operation. Does this mean that the US didn’t invade and occupy Iraq?

        Your pathetic attempts at making me look bad only goes to show just how desperate, murderous and arrogant your position is. The only question that remains is this: why support it? It has nothing to do with “national interest” or “humanitarian” issues, as I’ve already shown, so I am piqued as to why you desperately want to make the US look bad abroad.

  11. Terry Amburgey says:

    “International law prohibits states from arming rebels in other states.”

    This is progress. Please give us a cite so that we can read this law. I use the term ‘we’ in a very loose and generic way since Jacques is loath to read legal documents of any kind. Feel free to post relevant excerpts but I always like see the source material myself.

    • Please give us a cite so that we can read this law.

      I may do this, but first I think it’d be wise if you answer my question: why support such a desperate, murderous and arrogant position?

      I think it’s important that you answer my question first for two main reasons. 1) it’ll help keep us on topic and 2) arguing from ignorance – as you are doing – is a logical fallacy and one that I may not have enough time to correct.

  12. Terry Amburgey says:

    “…arguing from ignorance – as you are doing – is a logical fallacy…”
    Do tell. I must admit that I’m unusually prone to post hoc ergo propter hoc so I’m no stranger to the commision of a logical fallacy. Please delineate how I’ve committed argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    “…why support such a desperate, murderous and arrogant position?”

    I reject your premises. My position is neither desperate nor arrogant. It does involve violence so I won’t quibble about “murderous”. Air quotes intended.
    Drop all of your silly perjorative terms and ask me why I support my position if you truly want to stay on topic.

    • Alright, fair enough. Though I want it noted that more than a few straw men were set up to be burned in effigy on behalf of your position (desperation) and there has yet to be any effort made to consider alternative choices (arrogance).

      Why do you support bombing Syria? It will only weaken the US.

      The non-Islamists are just anti-Assad national socialists (which, if they were to gain power, will not prove to be in the US’s national interest). Arming them will only prolong the conflict (which contradicts the humanitarian option).

      The Europeans and former Europeans on this blog have no problem spending American money to bomb Muslim states. Don’t tell me that you Canadians want us put in our place, too!

      • A strange misunderstanding, Brandon. This is an adversarial process. You supply the alternative view. Then, we look at all views and decide which view is making the most sense, or if yet another view emerges.

        “The Europeans and former Europeans on this blog have no problem spending American money to bomb Muslim states.”

        This is a misleading statement that does not even have the merit of having a chance to mislead.

        The money argument? I have said repeatedly in other contexts, I can afford my share of any bombing of Assad and you can too. (And if you really can’t, I will pick up your tab.) This is not even of the order of beer money. It’s more like parking tickets. I suspect you are cynically playing the financial chord for the distracted and the busy who don’t have the time or the inclination to figure out that the expense is inconsequential.

        The terms “bombing a Muslim state” is also a calculated untruth. It’s calculated to inflame isolationists of all breeds. No one has proposed to bomb a Muslim state. There is not state in Syria now. That part of Syrian territory which is still under Assad’s control is explicitly not Muslim; it’s explicitly secular. Furthermore no one has proposed to bomb the country, which is what your wording suggests. What is being envisaged is the bombing of some Assad regime resources, especially those connected with gassing civilians . (I sure hope it includes command quarters but I don’t think it does because Obama is a wimp.)

        If this were 1944, you would oppose the Normandy landing on the ground that the US should not bomb another republic. (Yes, there was plenty of destruction of France.) I believe there were still American isolationists at that date – when most of the horrors of Nazism were known – holding that position.

        Of course, your short sentence also manages to be xenophobic: The Europeans and ex-Europeans are spending American money… N. S. ! This ex-European has been paying taxes in this country for fifty years. How about you, Brandon? This is distasteful.

        In his interpretation of all your wording, I am giving you the benefit of doubt. I am assuming that you selected your words, that you know what they mean. If you did not really select them, let us know.

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    My position has 2 parts. The first, and oldest, is that the US should have supported the anti-Assad people as soon as the situation in Syria moved from unrest to civil war. Military support as well as humanitarian support. I think early intervention would have prevented the development of significant Jihadi forces among the rebels. This predates many of the deaths in the civil war and springs from geo-political concerns. The short version is that I think it’s good for the US to break up the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon axis of action. I think it’s been inimical to US interests for decades. This is, of course, an area worthy of discourse.

    The second and much more recent one is that the US should’ve launched a military strike against the Assad regime as soon as they had solid intelligence that lethal chemical weapons were used. Cruise missiles and maybe the odd drone if any were available. Not only no-boots-on-the-ground but no-boots-in-the-air. Apparently chemical weapons themselves shouldn’t be targeted. Plenty of conventional military targets are there. If command & control centers have a few high ranking members of the regime in them so much the better. The short version here is that I think it’s crucial to take military action about chemical weapons in Syria to shut down chemical weapons in Syria AND prevent nuclear weapons in Iran. Economic sanctions have done well in Iran but I’m afraid not well enough. Again a topic worth talking about.

  14. An unusual display of rationality from you, Prof. Terry!

    Here is what seems to me to be the unspoken argument underlying your argument:

    They say, “The US is not the world’s policeman.”

    Yes it is. Every other current alternative is much worse.
    (I would change my mind tomorrow if the Finns and the Costa Ricans formed an alliance and volunteered to take over the job.)

    Orthodox libertarians just don’t want to admit the obvious on this. They use slogans when simple observation and straightforward analysis are needed.

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      I admit that I prefer the US as world policeman. However my primary concern is usually the interests of the US as opposed to a more diffuse ‘making the world a better place’.

      • Terry: I think you are using unfair innuendoes without even realizing it, as a matter of habit.

        It would have been much in the interest of the US if it had stopped the Japanese in China much before 1941. It would have saved hundreds of thousands of American life at little expense. In that role, the US would have served its own interests by acting as if it were the policeman of the world. Such action would also been “making the world a better place.” Incidentally, this is where the innuendo is: You are implicitly accusing people who hold views like mine of naivety (which is really a kind of stupidity past age 18).

  15. Terry Amburgey says:

    No innuendo intended. Making the world a better place is, indeed, good for the US. I’m just expressing national chauvinism by placing US interests in position of primacy.


    Dr J accuses me of being xenophobic while simultaneously stating that bombing Syria is not really bombing Syria. For good measure, anybody who disagrees with him is subconsciously a fascist.

    Dr A believes that bombing Syria places the US in a position of “primacy,” just like in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan.

    Both arguments have been thoroughly debunked theoretically and practically over and over again during the last fifteen years. And, of course, the American people have finally come around to their senses as well.

    When are you guys going to get together for your semi-annual “We Heart Trotsky” retreat?

  17. Terry Amburgey says:

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say “…that bombing Syria places the US in a position of “primacy,”…” Look at the post just above this one and you can rediscover what I DID say: “I’m just expressing national chauvinism by placing US interests in position of primacy.

    BTW you seem to have a lot of anger about Trotsky lately, what’s that all about? Been channeling your inner Stalin? 😉

    If you want some tasty vituperation against Trotsky check this out

    • Terry: I don’t think Muslims are responsible for the actions of other Muslims either. I am asking a question aloud about Islam. It’s an obvious question few others ask because of political correctness.
      I listen every day to National Public Radio. I have not caught on it yet a Muslim theologian’s comments on the various jihadist slaughters. Perhaps tomorrow.

      I wish you would provide a link. I asked for what you seem to have. I ASKED. I want to publicize it. I have said that I hope my perception is wrong. What else can I do besides pretend that what is isn’t?

      Your attempt to link me to the lynchers of the Indian professor is dishonorable. Fortunately it’s, also ineffective. It’s downright silly, in fact.

      I don’t know if you genuinely don’t understand my position on the massacre of African-Americans by African-Americans or if you misrepresent my position out of some misplaced rage. Some other day.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        Please provide a link to Christian leaders condemning the mob beating of a Sikh believing that he was a Muslim. Presumably there was a segment on NPR covering the condemnation.

      • Terry: Again, I am not sure whether you are putting us on or if you are really in the dark:

        Did the lynchers of the Sikh professor declare in any way that they were hurting their victim in the name of Christianity?

        Do you know of any case less than a hundred years old where Episcopalians bombed a Lutheran service?

        Your witty sally confused tow things:

        1 There is much anti-Arab feeling in this country because of 9/11 and because of other terrorist actions by Arabs. I don’t know of any hard evidence of Islamophobia.

        2 The American man-in-the street is ignorant, confuses one national group with another, Sikhs with Arabs because people like you and me do a piss-poor job. (Roughly, I refer to an American occupational group that votes 90% Democrat, a group that is one of the permanent backbones of the Democrat Party.)

        Again, I am only asking an obvious question about Islam because the castrated liberal media types don’t do it. It’s a long overdue question.

        PS Yesterday there were six hits on this blog from majority Muslim countries. Unfortunately, I don’t know if the essay of reference was actually read. There are such hits just about every day. No one ever picks up the challenge.

        Dear readers: One cause of Prof Terry’s obduracy is that professional intellectuals like him hate beyond almost anything finding themselves on the same belief page as truck drivers. It makes them feel diminished, small, ordinary.


  18. Terry Amburgey says:

    “I don’t know of any hard evidence of Islamophobia. ”
    Lol. I wish I were a wikipedia editor. I’d create a page on Willful Ignorance and have Jacques picture there. You’ve progressed far beyond simple confirmation bias.

    • Terry: I don’t even know any soft evidence of Islamophobia except in wet-dreams of after-lunch naps of aging professors at the faculty club.

      People don’t want prayers locations in their neighborhood because of traffic concerns. I know, I don’t want the damned Lutherans parking in from of my house for their despicable two-hour services.

      There are bigots in Virginia City? No kidding! Your reply makes my point. Even if your examples mattered, the difference in magnitude between what you cite and jihadist crimes would condemn you for not being serious.

  19. Terry Amburgey says:

    As I recall, the last time you were ranting about Muslim terrorists I asked for facts instead of numbers you pull out of……..thin air. For once pretend that facts actually matter and give us some. Here’s the best public source, the Global Terrorism Database

  20. Pingback: American Foreign Policy: Predictions, Assumptions and Falsehoods | Notes On Liberty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s