Scott Horton and his truly evil doppelganger

Confederate Yankee’s post about Scott Horton, the Harper’s columnist who claims (1) that neocon’s lie as much about the war as Scott Beauchamp did and (2) that the American military is exactly like the KGB, got me wondering who Scott Horton is. The Harper’s bio is brief and makes the man sound vaguely saint-like:

Scott Horton is a contributor to Harper’s Magazine and writes No Comment for this website.

A New York attorney known for his work in emerging markets and international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict, Horton lectures at Columbia Law School. A life-long human rights advocate, Scott served as counsel to Andrei Sakharov and Elena Bonner, among other activists in the former Soviet Union. He is a co-founder of the American University in Central Asia, and has been involved in some of the most significant foreign investment projects in the Central Eurasian region. Scott recently led a number of studies of abuse issues associated with the conduct of the war on terror for the New York City Bar Association, where he has chaired several committees, including, most recently, the Committee on International Law. He is also a member of the board of the National Institute of Military Justice, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, the EurasiaGroup and the American Branch of the International Law Association.

I also found it singularly uninformative, insofar as there’s little information about the world he and we live in today. Google turned up more stuff, some of it equally virtuous and antiseptic (this, for example), and some stuff so inflammatory that I finally realized that it couldn’t be the the same Scott Horton (attorney and human rights advocate) who writes for Harper’s. It’s apparently that the respected lawyer Scott Horton has a very bizarre doppelganger out there, someone who takes the lawyer Scott Horton’s splenetic bile and multiplies it by a scary factor of 10.

You see, what I found when I googled “Scott Horton” was something called “Stress : Scott Horton’s Blog.” The blog actually boasts 10 contributors, one of whom, in a creepy coincidence, is named “Scott Horton.”  This Scott Horton also hosts a series called Anti-War Radio, which is presented through MP3 downloads.

The entries by the other Scott Horton, the one who isn’t a respected lawyer writing for Harper’s, reveal a few things about the man:

He’s a Ron Paul supporter.

He subscribes to the notion that America caused the killing fields in Cambodia, not by pulling out, but by being there in the first place. Considering that the War at its early 1960s inception was to prevent Communism from taking over the entire Asian peninsula, I have my doubts about this argument. That is, one could equally well argue that our being there delayed the Communist takeover by a decade. However, that’s missing the point. Whether in Iraq or Vietnam, if one says that America created the conditions in which a genocide occurs, it seems to me that the morally right thing to do then is for America to stick around and prevent the massacre. It’s immoral just to shrug and say, “Sorry, we started it, but you’re on your own, boys.” Horton is just another one of those liberal still talking as if it’s 2003, and not dealing with the reality of 2007. Blame is not what’s needed here; appropriate future conduct is.

He’s annointed Guiliani as the fascist dictator to fill George Bush’s shoes, a point he illustrates with an atrocious Photoshop that takes an old picture of Hitler and Mussolini, and substitutes Giuliani’s head for Mussolini’s. (And if that’s not out-and-out bigotry, I don’t know what is.) Then, just to make sure we get the point, he says “Just think . . . One day this man’s headless corpse will be hung upside-down, beaten and burned by an angry mob.”

This venom-filled Scott Horton has good company on his blog.  Look at the stuff from his blog contributors:

Contributor Michael uploaded a replay of George Galloway’s commentary on last summer’s Israel/Hezbollah war, a war Michael describes thusly: “In the summer of 2006 Israel launched a ferocious bombing campaign against the country of Lebanon severely crippling it’s civilian infrastructure and killing and wounding thousands of it’s inhabitants. On two brodcasts British MP George Galloway visited southern Lebanon to survey, in his own words the carnage that had been wrought on the people of that area and Lebanon as a whole.”

Okay, sure, the war was controversial, especially with a little help from a criminally credulous or foully duplicitous media. But how about this contribution from vineyardsaker, who reveals himself to be a troofer, finding wisdom in Fisk’s latest effort at trying to appear marginally intelligent by questioning silly little things like facts and science? Please note how vineyardsaker tries to comfort himself for abandoning rationality by saying that “Fisk is definitely *not* a kook.” I guess that depends on how you define kook.

The latent anti-Semitism that appears in Michael’s post, coupled with the manifest irrationality in vineyardsaker’s post, comes to an ugly head in another vineyardsaker post, this one entitled “Let’s finally say it openly: Israel is a racist state which must be boycotted.” This would, of course, be the same Israel that is not only the sole full Democracy in the Middle East, but is also the only country in the Middle East that allows freedom of religion for all citizens and that, even though it is a religious state, gives full rights to its citizens of other religions (not to mention to Arabs whose brethren seek its demise). In this, it stands in stark contract to those presumably non-racist states surrounding it that ousted all the Jews (that would be every Arab state), that oust Christians (that would be Saudi Arabia), that discriminate against women (Saudi Arabia again leads the pack here), that discriminate against gays and lesbians (it’s a shame, but Iran just had to kill them), and that have no freedom of the press (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.).

I’m getting bored stating the obvious here, but apparently we need to keep stating these things because of people like vineyardsaker, who get the benefit of our First Amendment to spout their ludicrous, hate-filled ideas on blogs owned by a guy named Scott Horton. (Thank God it’s not the same Scott Horton who writes at Harper’s, one of the oldest magazines in America.)

It was creepy reading this wacko, vituperative, irrational blog belonging to someone who shares the same name as the reputable lawyer and internationalist, Scott Horton.

I did find a few weird nexuses between the two men.  For example, I found a transcript of an interview with someone who is possibly the Harper’s Scott Horton, since, like the Harper’s Scott Horton, he’s also a lawyer. It’s entitled “Lawyer Scott Horton: “Vice President Cheney is the Man Who Unleashed Torture and Promoted it Within Our Military and Our Intelligence Service.” Interestingly, the transcript shows some of the same intemperate language that keeps appearing in the blog – and it yet I found nothing to indicate that the venomous blogger Scott Horton is a lawyer.  There’s one other funny nexus between these two Scott Hortons, one a distinguished lawyer, the other an anti-Semitic libertarian.  The anti-Semitic libertarian hosted an underground radio station in Austin, Texas — and the distinguished lawyer lives in Austin, Texas. It’s a coincidence, but it’s a funny one for all that.

If there’s ever a doppelganger for me, I hope that it’s some nice lady who lives in the Midwest, attends church regularly, has a family, and votes Republican!

60 Responses

  1. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

    Some vile filth. Those that read it and believe it ultimately become corrupted in mind and heart.

    They sound so very reasonable. Unless you know the cost of their reasoning.

  2. […] am the evil one. digg_skin = ‘compact’; […]

  3. I don’t agree with much of what Scott Horton says, but I think a strong argument can be made that the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t have gained control of Cambodia if we hadn’t intervened in Viet Nam. The point is that there are unintended negative consequences (blowback). More examples include when we provided weapons for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

  4. PK, you’re sure right about the law of unintended consequences. As they used to say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I think, though, that the road back to Heaven is helped along, not by running away from the consequences you created, but by sticking around and doing the right thing. We didn’t do that in Vietnam, but we should in Iraq. These arguments are entirely separate from historic ruminations about whether we should have gotten into either way. The fact is that we did, and we now have to deal with present situations.

  5. Your blog seems so tepid. It puts me to sleep. Can you not come up with better invectives…?

    http://thestressblog.com

    is not tepid at all.

    Perhaps you would like to visit and comment some time, or call-in to the show? I’m sure you would receive a warm welcome.

  6. That is true Bookworm, but I think following the philosophy of non-intervention would have prevented many of our problems, including 9/11. It is the traditional American foreign policy and it is the foreign policy of the old right.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. –George Washington

    America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings….She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” – John Quincy Adams

    I deem one of the essential principles of our government to be peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…”- Thomas Jefferson

    The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Hostility in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. –George Washington

    So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest, and betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; –George Washington

  7. You should call into Scott’s show and explain why you are such a staunch supporter of a “democracy” that has ethnically cleansed most of its indigenous brown people, upholds the right of Jews the world over to settle in Palestinian’s land, which routinely violates their territorial sovereigntly [as well as that of Syria and Lebanon] and which keeps millions of Palestinians under a brutal martial law occupation.

    Better yet, why not spell out the case for Americans to give the lives of their children in a war with Iran.

  8. Thanks for your thoughtful response, PK. I’ll come back at you with a couple of other ones:

    “”All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

    “When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.” — Pastor Marin Niemoller

    “I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honour.” — Neville Chamberlain

    We don’t live in George Washington’s world — and keep in mind that even he was willing to take up arms, for 8 years yet, against what he perceived to be, not a difference of opinion, but a tyranny against freedom.

    If you haven’t already, you may want to watch Obsession, the movie. It explains using the Islamists’ own words that this is a war of their choosing not ours. If we decline to fight, we die, for they intend to kill us.

  9. Tex — you’re not only toothless, you’re ill-informed. Go away, read something useful instead of jihadist propaganda, and then when you have something to say, come back and talk to me with facts. For starters, you might read the article highlighted in my sidebar: “Big Lies : Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel”

  10. “For starters, you might read the article highlighted in my sidebar: “Big Lies : Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel””

    It’s hilarious to hear Zionists lamenting this rubbish about a Propaganda war being waged against them, when 90% of the media is entirely pro Israeli.

    The sad fact is that in todays information age, spin doesn’t work the way it used to. The greatest source of anti-Israel propaganda is Israel itself.

    Behave like a thug for long enough in front of enough witnesses, and it becomes impossible to deny.

  11. Shoulda looked further: The real nexus between the two Scott Horton’s is in the interviews Scott Horton has conducted with Scott Horton:

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/21/scott-horton/

    [audio src="http://weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/horton2.mp3" /]

    [audio src="http://weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/horton.mp3" /]

    Very good, informative stuff for inquiring minds.

    You DO have an inquiring mind, I trust.

  12. Scott Horton is the finest radio interviewer there is. No one is as informed and prepared as he is prior to an interview. He never talks over his guests, like so many of the more popular radio people do, left and right. His is one of the best resources if one desires cutting edge perspective on American empire. Where else can one hear Juan Cole, Andrew Bacevich, Doug Bandow, Michael Scheuer, Warren Richie? Horton’s libertarian outlook allows him to interview rightists, leftists, and centrists, without taking it personal when they offer ideas that he finds troubling. He seeks the truth on behalf of himself and his listeners. This is reflects a disinterested interest in liberty — the kind that was fairly typical at the founding of this country, and the kind that better minds of the last century — like Mencken and Nock — would have been proud to witness.

  13. Shingo, I pointed you to some genuine historic facts. You respond with insults. Not much of an intellectual debate there, as far as I can see.

    By the way, I’m going to put all future anti-Israel/anti-Zionist readers on notice here. This is my blog. You may leave comments if they are politely phrased. I will not accept violent, threatening or obscene comments, but will instead delete them at the first opportunity. Unless you offer actual facts and not blather, I will ignore your comments entirely, although others who come to my blog should feel free to respond, provided they abide by the same rules — no violent, threatening or obscene comments.

  14. Please make that “two Scott Hortons,” not “two Scott Horton’s.” I’m sure Lynne Truss reads your blog; I just hope she doesn’t make it to the Comments section.

  15. Interesting what you say, Bob. That doesn’t square, though, with the post he did likening Giuliani to Mussolini and predicting the former’s violent death. That is, I’m having problems reconciling the two personas.

  16. “Disinterested interest” — woops, I meant “disinterestedness.” It’s late.

    Bookworm needs to go on the guy’s show. Horton is also a gentleman who treats even the most tedious types with respect and Texas manners.

    God, it sounds like I worship the dude. I don’t. It’s just that when I discovered the his show, it blew me away at how casual, yet serious, it was. He kind of sounds like Chris Farley when he did that interview schtick on SNL — only, unlike Farley’s character, Horton knows his sh*t.

  17. “Tedious types.” Sorry, one last bit. By this, I don’t mean Bookworm, but had in mind a recent guest of his who was kind of a bore, yet really insightful. And Scott kept the interview interesting and on topic.

  18. I’ll definitely check out some of his shows, Bob. Your praise for his show is detailed and make it sounds like an intelligent, open-minded show. I’d probably have tried it out anyway, but I find it what you say especially intriguing considering how intemperate the companion blog is.

  19. “I will not accept violent, threatening or obscene comments”

    BW: You yourself were quick enough to throw the “anti-Semitic” flame (based on–what else?–criticism of the policies of the state of Israel). But no, criticism of Israel–even when done in the style of the Stress Blog–does not qualify as anti-Semitism.

    I recognize it’s your blog and all, and I’m a hale supporter of a blog-owner’s right to control the discourse, but it would be better to reserve the anti-Semitic tag for an actual anti-Semite. The civility you strive for on your site would, we can hope, ensue.

  20. Bookworm,

    Just because Israel gets criticized doesn’t mean that “we” adore the neighboring Arab states, either. I have met and enjoyed the company of many Israelis. The issue here is that Israel should KNOW better… and may of its individual citizens DO, as is evidenced by their free press and range of opinon that isn’t frequently seen in the USA.

    The bottom line is that it’s time to cut off the entire Middle East from the sore and inflamed and over-toothed nipple of the US taxpayer, and bring the troops home.

  21. Ah hah!

    In point of fact, Scott Horton the radio man interviews Scott Horton the human rights lawyer and activist! Tomorrow at 11 AM Central!

  22. Er, no. Excuse me. Not tomorrow but today. Tuesday.

  23. “Shingo, I pointed you to some genuine historic facts. You respond with insults. Not much of an intellectual debate there, as far as I can see.”

    Bookworm,

    While there is no disputing this is your blog, I am rather perplexed. What exactly was violent, threatening or obscene about my post? On the other hand, if I insulted you, I apologies.

    In any case, I am more than happy to argue the facts, except that your link “Big Lies : Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel” appears to be broken.

    I look forward to that link being fixed so that we can down to a constructive debate.

  24. Dear Bookworm,
    Thank you for advertising Scott’s excellent blog and radio shows. In your enthusiasm for his work you forgot to mention one possibility about Scott (and me): that we might not necessarily be Antisemitic at all. Why, we might be self-hating Jews!
    If you look at my blog (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/) and all the Gush Shalom or B’Tselem materials you might even suspect me an exiled Israeli a la Gilad Atzmon.
    So in the future, when you lack any reality based and logical argument, please cover your bases and remember that Antisemitic should always be used with “or Self-Hating Jew”. Then your ad-hominem is all-encompassing and you avoid the risk of looking silly when you find out that the presumed “Antisemite” is himself/herself a Jew.
    I invite you, and everybody else, to call in Scott every week day from 11am-1pm (Texas time) at 512 646 6446 to talk the The Man Himself.
    L’hitraot,
    Vineyardsaker

  25. Re # 23: Shingo, I didn’t say your comment was violent, threatening or obscene. If it had been, I would have deleted it. I just said that you opened forth with a bunch of canned conclusions which shut down any possibility of rational debate. I’ll find a fix for my broken link, of course.

  26. Don’t tell me about self-hating Jews, Vineyardsaker. I know about them and there’s nothing virtuous in announcing yourself to be one. Some of the worst anti-Semites in history, and those that have created the worst trouble for other Jews, have themselves been Jewish. It’s a sad pathology that, in the modern age, often finds its roots in the Jewish Karl Marx’s own aggressively anti-Semitic writings, many of which served as inspiration for Hitler. (And no, I’m not comparing you to Hitler. I’m just saying that bad ideas have a way of getting around and sticking to or cropping up from even the most unlikely people.)

  27. Dear Bookworm,
    I commend you for expanding the scope of your ad hominems to “self-hating Jews”. Now your bases are covered.
    Your insightful posts have generated a lively discussion on Scott’s blog: http://thestressblog.com/2007/08/27/heh-well-he-got-one-thing-right
    Thanks for your contribution!
    Vineyardsaker

  28. You Jew hating anti-Semites make me sick. You’ve all got a little treat coming from Yahweh, who promises to bless those that bless Israel, and curse those that curse her. Enjoy your after life!

  29. I like listening to Scott Horton. I think a fair criticism would be that, while he’s a great interviewer, unfortunately he doesn’t always have a guest, so sometimes he’s just ranting by himself and goes too far, and can sound like an extremist. Similarly, slinging “Anti-semite” at all critics of Israel is extreme and goes too far. Thank you for writing about Scott Horton. He is a bright young man who will be an important political activist and commentator for decades to come.

  30. Dear pacificus,

    First, let me apologize for nauseating you. Second, let me recommend this article to you (and to any other philosemitic paranoid): http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

    See – there is not such thing as “Antisemitism”. You can now relax, take a deep breath, drink some prune juice and have a super-wonderful day!

    Cheers!

    VS

  31. Hey Pacificus, why don’t you listen to Max Blumenthal, and what he has to say about the fetishization of Jews by the evangelical Israel Lobby: http://www.scotthortonshow.com/2007/07/30/antiwar-radio-max-blumenthal/

  32. To those of you who have commented about hating Israel not being the same as being an anti-Semite, let me try this argument on you:

    Even if one assumes, solely for the sake of argument, that Israel is every bit as bad as Israel haters say it is, none deny and most admit that the surrounding Arab nations are just as bad. The Israel haters, however, don’t call for these surrounding nations, nations that have expelled or murdered millions of Jews (and Christians) in the last 30-40 years, to change or self-destruct. This leads to the logical assumption that the Jewish State is not being given the same pass offered to its Arab neighbors, because it is a Jewish State. And from that, a logical conclusion is that the venom against Israel, a venom unique despite equally bad or much worse behavior from other nations near and far, is anti-Semitically motivated.

    And again, I’m still having trouble meshing the rational radio interviewer you all admire with the man who would do a post hoping for Rudy Giuliani to be murdered and strung up by his feet. Aside from being profoundly anti-Democratic, it’s also loathsome hope and image.

  33. UPDATE/MEDIA ALERT:

    “Distinguished lawyer” Scott Horton will be interviewed TODAY by “anti-Semitic libertarian,” “evil” Scott Horton, proprietor of the “wacko, vituperative, irrational” Stress blog:

    http://thestressblog.com/2007/08/28/the-show-87/

    Be sure to tune in 12 noon EST!

    It’ll be a real mind-bender, as the “internationalist” Scott dazzles the Scott with “ludicrous, hate-filled ideas” with his reserved, well-reasoned rhetoric and mellifluous tones.

    (I apologize if my language in this comment was not “politely phrased” enough.)

  34. Millions of Jews muredered by Arab nations in the last 30-40 years? Come on Bookworm. You can’t possibly believe that.

    And where’s your empathy for the Palestinian Christians (the world’s oldest Christian population) being ehtnically cleansed in the Nakba along with their Muslim brethren. The fact is that Palestinian Christians, Muslims, and Sephardic Jews lived peacefully in that region for 900 years before the Jewish Supremacist state was erected and the non-Jewish indigenous people were purged from the land.

  35. And what’s with your moral relativism Bookworm? What’s wrong is wrong and we as Americans are largely responsible for the mahem in Iraq – including a million fatalities, 2 million refugees, and more than 500,000 Iraqi children who died because of Bill Clinton’s sanction, a price that Madeline Albright says was worth it.

    Considering Israel’s dependence on American aid and its violation of the promises made during Carter’s Camp David Accords – where it promised not to expand its settlements in Palestinian territory from the 1,500 or so people present then to the 500,000+ who occupy that land today, we bear some level of indirect responsibility for Israel’s war crimes against the indigenous brown people of the middle east. The same can’t be said of Syria or Iran.

  36. Bookworm, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t stand up for what’s right. I support violent revolution to overthrow governments that become tyrannical. If we continue on the road to socialism in the US, eventually we may need another revolution here.

    I’m talking about the proper role of the US government. For example, should we have the New York City Police Department in Darfur trying to prevent genocide? Of course not, it isn’t their role. It shouldn’t be the role of the US government either. If you want to go to Darfur, go ahead. But, until the US is seriously threatened by Darfur, the US government should have nothing to do with it.

    Iraq only became an alleged threat because of our intervention. First, we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50’s. That led to the radical ayatollah taking over. We’ve been at odds with Iran ever since. We gave Saddam Hussein weapons to fight Iran. Then he used those weapons to invade Kuwait. Then we sought to disarm Saddam. In the meantime we’re irritating our former ally, Osama Bin Laden, by occupying the middle east, supporting Israel, and bombing Iraq and killing Muslims. So he attacks us. This is such a big mess that makes no sense. We don’t need to be there at all. The reason people over there are so mad at us is because we’ve been intervening in their part of the world for decades.

    Yes, there are radical muslims who want to take over the world, but that isn’t the main motivation for suicide bombers. Occupation is the main motivation for suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is a political statement designed to motivate the country to change policy. It is not a method for exterminating the non-muslim world. They bombed us because they wanted us out of the middle east. It never would have happened in the first place if we followed a policy of non-intervention.

    The biggest threat to radical muslims is not our guns, it is modern civilization. Things like the internet, movies, books, magazines, western fashions, economic prosperity. These are the things that will convert large numbers of people in the middle east to seek to live a western lifestyle and throw off the shackles of islamic fundamentalism.

  37. Please read what I write, Tex, not what you think I write. I wrote that millions were “expelled” or murdered. Here’s some information for you about Jewish treatment in Arab/Muslim lands, including murders and expulsions.

  38. Every Hillel foundation on every college campus has belabored the same points you are citing Bookworm. Take a look at the context in which this occured:
    “1948 Arab-Israeli War, the exodus of approximately 711,000 (UN estimate) Arab refugees (see the Palestinian Exodus), the creation of the state of Israel, and the independence of Arab countries from European control, conditions for Jews in the Arab world deteriorated. Over the next few decades, most would leave the Arab world….”

    This happened after the Nakba, not before. Besides, your own link states that only 900,000 Jews emigrated from Middle East countries, not MILLIONS.

  39. It’s hilarious to hear Zionists lamenting this rubbish about a Propaganda war being waged against them, when 90% of the media is entirely pro Israeli.

    This is what people say when they don’t know a thing about propaganda and psychological warfare, Book.

    To those of you who have commented about hating Israel not being the same as being an anti-Semite, let me try this argument on you:

    It is the same argument as when Canadians and Europeans say that they are anti-American but that they love Americans personally. Nobody said that psychosis had to be consistent, Book.

    They bombed us because they wanted us out of the middle east. It never would have happened in the first place if we followed a policy of non-intervention.

    The only way you can non-intervene is to destroy the US Constitution and be willing to plunge the world into another Dark Age.

    These are the things that will convert large numbers of people in the middle east to seek to live a western lifestyle and throw off the shackles of islamic fundamentalism.

    It is those very threats of conversion that the Arabs don’t want you on their land, PK. You think that so long as such movies and books and etc exist, that the Arabs will be fine so long as you aren’t physically near them? The suicide bombers, that you believe simply want the US out of Muslim lands, also see anyone converting from Islam as being punishable by death. You think they will refuse kill you because you’re doing the converting from overseas rather than next to their doors?

  40. Good link about Israel’s purging of Palestinian Christians:
    http://antiwar.com/cook/?articleid=10297

  41. Why would an anti-war position be against purging of Palestinians?

  42. Ymarsakar, you never give them a chance to leave us alone. If we stop interfering in their world and they will never back off, then yes we will be forced to deal with them. But why are you so opposed to giving them such an opportunity? It isn’t as if this war is saving American lives. We can always attack the middle east again if we want. In fact, we can obliterate the entire middle east in a day if want. These people pose no significant threat to us. The Russians had 40,000 nuclear weapons pointed at us and we’re concerned about these savages living in a cave?

    We should get out and let tensions and hostilities cool down. Let them worry about picking up the pieces in Iraq for the next decade. Hopefully, we can get ourselves off the top of their hit list for a while and over time radical fundamentalism will die down.

  43. For those of you who never heard of the Nakba here’s a good introduction:

    “Morris and other Israeli historians concluded that the Palestinians’ flight was—as the Arabs had long claimed—the result of a purposeful policy of Israeli forces, whose communiqués at the time spoke openly of “cleansing” or “purifying” the conquered Arab villages.

    According to Gen. Yigal Allon, in May 12, 1948, as his men approached each Arab town, they tossed in tracts with the message in Arabic, “if you don’t flee immediately, you will all be slaughtered, your daughters will be raped.” Those were not empty threats.

    “The reality,” writes Cypel in his newly published book,
    “Walled,” “is that the expulsion was desired, coordinated, and accomplished by systematic atrocities against, and killing of, civilians, with town properties razed on order (at first on a very unequal fashion from one area to another), and that nearly half of this expulsion was carried out even before the Arab states attacked Israel.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070721_israels_primal_myth_barrier_to_peace/

  44. But why are you so opposed to giving them such an opportunity?

    They wouldn’t take the opportunity even if folks offered them such. Based upon historical, Arafat didn’t take it as well. And what is true for Arafat is even more true for the more “stable”, so to speak, kingdoms of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    We can always attack the middle east again if we want.

    Military history has already showed, if common sense has not, that when you miss opportunities to end conflicts, those opportunities never come again. The basic freedom of action for the average Westerner is predicated upon having already won wars of liberation and wars for security. Such freedom of action is not present during or before a war. Regardless of whether you think the wars are here or we are before such wars, we surely cannot be said to be after wars that have decisvely concluded the fates of nations and peoples.

    It isn’t as if this war is saving American lives.

    You are no god. You cannot really say what an action will or will not cause, for you do not see with the eyes of a god. Humans are limited by probabilities, someone that is omniscient is not.

    These people pose no significant threat to us.

    Time progresses. Hitler and Stalin were no threat to Western Europe in 1937 or 1932. Communism was no threat to the world in 1917. People grow. They become more powerful. For where there is life, there is hope.

    In fact, we can obliterate the entire middle east in a day if want.

    You will never want to, until you lose the ability to. People want what they can’t have, and don’t want what they do have. Yes, we have the ability, and we don’t want to do it. When we lose the ability, that is when we will want it back.

    The Russians had 40,000 nuclear weapons pointed at us and we’re concerned about these savages living in a cave?

    Even the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan by the muj. Technically, they aren’t living in a cave. Or at least Saddam and the mullahs of Iran aren’t. Neither are the kings and princes of Saudi Arabia. It might be more accurate to say that the Arab elite live on the fruits of Western decadence, technology, and economic prosperity. Yet, self-destructive behaviors do exist for human beings.

    Let them worry about picking up the pieces in Iraq for the next decade.

    Have they picked up the pieces in Gaza when the Israelis left? Is Iran and Saudi Arabia really the models you want the Arabs to become when they have picked up the pieces? I wouldn’t prefer it, but I am not you.

  45. Comment by Toothless Texas Hick | August 28, 2007

    Regardless of what things he brings up, Book, take a look at things via deductive logic. You know how popular that is with me. If what T says is true, then what else must be true for Israel? What else must be true for Israel’s current situation? And if Israel’s current situation is not the same as T’s historical narrative, then why is that?

    Such questions bring the propaganda into perspective, because only with proper perspective, Book, can people pierce the veil of illusion.

  46. Ymarsakar,

    Arafat’s dispute with Israel is none of our business.

    You are the one playing god by saying they wouldn’t take an opportunity to leave us alone. You don’t know that. They recruit people by convincing them that we are trying to take over the muslim world, and we give them plenty of evidence to back up their claims. I’m willing to give the Arabs a chance to be reasonable.

    “Have they picked up the pieces in Gaza when the Israelis left?”

    I don’t lump the US and Israel together, so my response is: the situation in Gaza presents no problem to the US and it is therefore irrelevant to a US foregin policy discussion. Whatever problems they are having in Gaza are not our problems, and neither will Iraq’s problems be our problems after we leave.

    “Is Iran and Saudi Arabia really the models you want the Arabs to become when they have picked up the pieces?”

    I think if we make it clear to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq that we are not going to meddle in the Middle East, the people there will focus their attention on other problems, and they will increasingly forget about their greivances with us. Beyond that, I don’t care what those countries do.

  47. PK — regarding us leaving them alone and them leaving us alone, how to you factor 9/11 into the equation? If you believe, as I do and as the Islamists themselves proclaim, that it was the first major strike against the US in an act of global jihad, then it is they who are not leaving us alone. It is they who would like to dominate the world through a caliphate, and it is they who drew first blood on the way to this goal.

    Having said that, the fact that the Islamists are a hydra-headed monster integrated into societies the world over, means that it’s not easy to fight back. (And I’m assuming you don’t have a problem fighting back if someone goes after you with intent to kill.)

    Bush started with the “follow the money” approach to fighting back. Pre-War and post-War indicators are that Iraq funded terrorism, and that Iraq was amping up its weaponry to enlarge its scope for terrorism. That the last may have been exaggerated is as much Saddam’s fault as anyone else’s. If you’re going to build a nuclear Potemkin village, you can’t then be surprised if people believe that you have nuclear wealth.

    But by striking Iraq, Bush also went after a different heart of terrorism: Saudi Arabia. We can’t invade Saudi Arabia, because that would cut off the life blood of world oil supplies. We can breath heavily down their back, however, from a perch one country away. I’m not just saying this. I got this idea from better thinkers than I, such as Statfor, the global analysis organization. In other words, the Iraq War put pressure on both primary and secondary targets, targets that have funded and otherwise supported and disseminated propaganda and ideology for the hydra-headed Islamism that made the first strike against us.

    Of course, if you believe that each Islamist act of terrorism, whether in the US, Spain, Britain, Bali, Turkey, Beslan, Thailand, the Phillipines, the Sudan, Kenya, Israel, etc., results from randomly operating individual wackos, I can see where you might believe that it’s overreaching for the US to amount a concerted attack against nations that provide money, shelter and other practical as well as ideological support for these same wackos.

    That is, unless you and I can agree about the basic nature of the Islamists — individual wackos or national movement with specific state sponsors — it will be impossible for us to agree upon the respective benefits and burdens of possible US responses.

  48. Bookworm,

    Even after cursory look at “Big Lies : Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel”, it is easy to debunk most of the very weak and spurious arguments. They are predictable, recycled and contradicted by what we know today.

    Of course, the piece is very lengthy and thus a rebuttal would congest this blog. Even arguing off the top of my head, my arguments fill 4 pages. Is there an appropriate forum to post a reposeful to these argument?

  49. I’m sorry, Shingo, but I don’t know of any forum. I say this, not at all sarcastically, but you might want to start your own blog for the purpose.

  50. Fair enough Bookworm,

    It’s just inviting debate on such a controversial topic might is probably not tat practical.

    As for your 911 argument, you seem to believe that the history of our foreign policy somehow started in 2001. In fact, as far as the Middle East is concerned, it dates back to the better part of the last century. One need not be a mind reader to know what motivated the 911 attacks. Michael Sheur, the head of her Bin Laden unit at the CIA for a decade, lays it out very clearly.

    1. Our support for tyrannical regimes in the ME
    2. Our one sided support for Israel
    3. The presence of US military bases in the Gulf

    It is pretty rich for us to accuse others of aspiring to world domination when the Us has 737 declared military bases dotted throughout the world.

    Beyond that, our policies have gone from bad to insane. We are going after Iran, which has never attacked us, using Sunni Jihadist groups associate with Al Qaeda who have attacked us. Against Iran, we support the Jondalla Jhadists and the MEK Marxist – both terrorist groups. In Lebanon, we were supporting the Fatah al Islam group (via our friends in Saudi Arabia) to offset Hezbollah’s influence, until they turned around and bit us back. The reward courtiers that do support Al Qaeda while demonstrating aggression against those that are enemies of al Qaeda. Truly Orwellian.

    Our clueless leaders still want to believe that the enemies of our enemies are our friends, which is proving disastrous.

    Going into Iraq simply turned the place from a state that was hostile to Jihadists into a Jihadist finishing school. Every Intel report since the invasion has stated that.

  51. To Bookworm

    As usual the staunch supporters of the Neocon/Likud project in the Middle East, in you’re quest for the subjugation of its indigenous population has resorted to lies and slander. Israel is also not a democracy simply because if it were, it would not be built on an ethnic caste system whereas the people who live there and who are not Jewish are treated with disdain, denied housing and job opportunities. Israel has in reality 5 classes of people living in it’s boarders and occupied territories.
    1. The Ashkenazi Jews, who are the smallest minority in the population and who rule the government.
    2. The Eastern or Sephardic Jews, who came from the Muslim countries of Western Asia.
    3. The black or Falasha Jews, who were air lifted into Israel from
    Ethiopia almost 20 years ago.
    4. The Israeli Arabs, which I can already predict you’ll say are the most well treated and wealthy Arabs in the region and are content with their “Uncle Tom” stature.
    5. And lastly, the Palestinian Arabs, who have no property, no rights and are forced to live in squalor due to their misfortune of having been born on the land that a family from Brooklyn, N.Y. has claimed as it’s own. These people, like the Israeli Arabs, live under constant fear not knowing whether they could suddenly be captured or killed by the Israeli police, for they are always viewed as suspect.

    I assume you’re familiar with the right to return policy? Where people whose great grandfathers who have never even set foot in Israel can go and live there with a nice paycheck from the Israeli government? Courtesy of the American taxpayer?

    Zionists like yourself say you want peace but in actuality you really don’t. What you really want is for the Arabs to give up their remaining territory, crawling on their hands and knees off the Levant never to be seen or heard from again. But then you believe that if they don’t do this, Israel then has the right to murder them–men, women and children with in discrimination for disobeying the orders of the superior European, who is civilized and cultured whereas you believe the Arabs and the rest of the people in the region are not.
    Isn’t that what this really comes down to in your mind? That a Jewish European’s life is worth far more than an Arab’s life? That they are the only ones who truly deserve your so-called democracy and right to live? Some Zionists will at least admit they hate Arabs and Muslims and anyone who disagrees with the policies of Ariel Sharon. Why don’t you just come out of the closet and say it too? You most likely believe yourself to be a moral person and yet you link your site to people who call for the United States to re-institute interment camps based on a citizen’s ethnic persuasion. And you call me a racist? Shame on you.

  52. Bookworm, I would argue that we drew first blood with all of our past interventions (bombing Iraq, supporting Israel, occupying Saudi Arabia, supporting Iraq against Iran, etc.)

    I think the people who are serious about a global jihad would be a tiny and weakening minority without such interventions. With interventions, they can recruit en masse because we’re in their face.

  53. I don’t recall us occupying Saudi Arabia. I do recall the Saudi government authorizing us to use some of their territory temporarily in 1991. And as you may recall, they were resigned to having us there because the Arab world was desperate for Western intervention against Iraq, which had invaded meek little Kuwait. The whole Arab region was terrified by the threat Iraq was posing. In other words, as with the Muslims in the Balkans, we came in to help because they wanted our help.

    I can see where supporting Iraq against Iran might have irked the latter, but the fact is, the former had declared war against us in 1979, held our citizens hostage for 444 days, and had generally gone around the world trying to make Hell for us.

    I agree that nothing is simply. I also believe in moral absolutes. And the moral absolute is that radical Islamists are steeped in an ideology that has them zealously and in great numbers seeking their deaths, provided that they use that death to kill the wrong kinds of Muslims (whatever sect they’re not), Christians, Jews, Americans, Europeans, unveiled women, etc. If you do a thought experiment and remove Israel from the map, you’ll see that America will still have the same hate-filled ideology directed against it.

    Some victimizing yourself. It’s not all America’s fault. Even assuming historical missteps, the fact remains that radical Islam is a death cult ideology that seeks world domination through the violent deaths of the “wrong” kind of people.

  54. Arafat’s dispute with Israel is none of our business.

    If the history of the Middle East is none of our business, then everything the Arabs would claim is rightfully theirs would become indisputable. If it is not our business to figure out truth from lies in the Middle East arena of events, then how can you ask anyone to support the claims of Arabs to land and perks? People are not going to give up their money and property, that they have worked hard for, simply because you say that it is none of their business.

    You are the one playing god by saying they wouldn’t take an opportunity to leave us alone. You don’t know that.

    You don’t know, because you believe that the history of the MIddle East is none of your business to try and figure out. Of course they wouldn’t take an opportunity to leave us alone. Did they leave journalists, women, and children alone outside the Middle East? No, they did not. It is a matter of “if” they will or will not take the chance, it is a matter of “they have never taken a chance”. Thus inductive logic comes into play, not god logic.

    I’m willing to give the Arabs a chance to be reasonable.

    Go ahead, but you’re not the only one in your nation. Where do you get the right to tell other people what to do? The other people in your geographic area, the other people in the military that are in the Middle East, and the other people working in the Middle East. Why should they believe you just because you say you’re personally willing?

    I think if we make it clear to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq that we are not going to meddle in the Middle East, the people there will focus their attention on other problems, and they will increasingly forget about their greivances with us. Beyond that, I don’t care what those countries do.

    You don’t care what those countries do because you have better things to look at, correct? But the Arabs don’t have anything better to do. You think when they look at their lives being discriminated against on the world economic and military stage, that they will find better things to worry about than us? They might, if they were Israelis. They might find constructive things to do. But they aren’t Israelis nor are they in Israel, primarily. They can’t find anything positive to do or look forwards to. So that only leaves someone to blame for their problems. Someone like the rich and powerful Westerners.

    Do you think leaving alcoholics alone means that they will hurt only themselves? Do you think people living in desperation with nothing to hope for, will simply implode far away from you and yours? You obviously to some extent.

    Humans like to spread their own personal misery around. You can’t change.

    It is pretty rich for us to accuse others of aspiring to world domination when the Us has 737 declared military bases dotted throughout the world.

    Why then is the US military said to be stretched and overloaded with that many countries to derive tribute and extra recruits from?

    Going into Iraq simply turned the place from a state that was hostile to Jihadists into a Jihadist finishing school.

    And yet if the motivations for terrorist attacks are because of our support for tyrannical Saddam Hussein like regimes, why would terrorist attacks in Iraq increase when we no longer support such regimes?

    If Iraq was hostile to jihadists, then are you saying that dictators being the enemy of our enemy, the jihadists, were our allies against “jihadist finishing schools”?

    Zionists like yourself say you want peace but in actuality you really don’t.

    Of course, If Israel wanted peace, they would use their nukes and then request more from the US. Rinse and repeat and you will have peace eternal.

    That a Jewish European’s life is worth far more than an Arab’s life?

    The Arabs themselves believe this is true, for they exchanged hundreds and thousands of Palestinian prisoners for one or two Israeli hostages.

    As for Europeans, the ransom paid for them in the Middle East far exceeds the ransom demands of the United States for GitMo prisoners.

    That they are the only ones who truly deserve your so-called democracy and right to live?

    Please, au contraire. We do not want to live in a democracy, we want to live in a republic. A republic like the US.

    And as you may recall, they were resigned to having us there because the Arab world was desperate for Western intervention against Iraq, which had invaded meek little Kuwait.

    That doesn’t mean what you think it does, Book. Since other people could simply say that this is propting dictators and supporting Western Imperialism.

  55. I’m like Bob, I came across Scott’s interview show a few years ago. I don’t agree with everything, but I find it really informative. He has really good guests too, Scott Ritter is another big on Bob didn’t mention. Look through his “weekend interview show” and “Philip Dru” archives.

    He is really well researched, rarely argues with guests but is always polite and courteous even if he does. I agree, you should ring in the show, even if you never agree with him just see what he’s got to say.

    btw I’m an aussie so I’ve got no direct interest, but Ron Paul seems like the most decent man you could hope to get as a politician. Even if you don’t agree with all his policies he sounds like he’s honest. I reckon the rest of the world would breath easier with him as US president.

  56. Bookworm, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I love America, but I think we’ve lost our way. I believe the traditional American policy of non-intervention has been forgotten and replaced with a world-police philosophy. This has led to all of our foreign policy problems. With the mess we’ve created, it is difficult to go back, but we had better at some point.

  57. People choose their own paths, PK. You can’t choose it for them, regardless of what else you might wish.

    This has led to all of our foreign policy problems.

    Are you God to know what has led to all of our foreign policy problems? The One Source perhaps?

    With the mess we’ve created, it is difficult to go back, but we had better at some point.

    How do you know that the mess that you helped to create is connected to with other people’s actions and beliefs?

  58. I have to wonder about the integrity of the psyche of someone who claims that such elementary facts as related by Scott Horton are bogus.

    It really doesn’t matter if the operator of this particular blog parrots Wm F Buckley Jr in her claiming to have risen up from liberalism. Seeing the boolshyte that is “liberalism” (i.e. in common parlance, and not as the philosophy of liberty) is not a grand feat. It is not even worth mentioning.

    What IS worth mentioning is seeing that “conservatism” as practiced by the vast majority of GOP members at the Federal level is nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with the federal government being the handmaiden of large business interests. Perhaps some day one of you “conservatives” can ed-you-ma-kate me, in your own pseudo-prescient verbosity, on the subject of how it is that “business” is in itself a noble end, worthy of federal government subsidy.

    The self-contained and hermetically sealed world of the ideologue is one deserving of much pity. It matters not whether the ideologue in question is “right” or “left” wing, “centrist” or “radical,” Republican or Democrat. Partisanship and the pursuit of a false binary are the hallmarks of an immature intellect.

    No matter how many law and graduate degrees the ideologue possesses.

    So — best of luck with this partisan blogging, Bookworm. And please go pat yourself on the back for being such a predictable parrot of “enlightened conservatism” that you make Ronald Reagan look a genius.

  59. Vis, go tryout for narcissist of the year.

  60. I have looked over your blog a few times and I love it.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: