Foreign Policy

David Brooks Wonders Why Those Muslims Are So Violent and Hateful

|

Glenn Greenwald contemplates David Brooks' latest, and is amazed:

here's a person who is constantly advocating and justifying the killing, bombing, and slaughtering of Muslims, including well over 100,000 innocent civilians.  And yet today he writes a column saying:  Look over there at those radical Muslims; can you believe how degraded and inhumane they are?  In fact, he says, "they"—those Muslims over there— "don't see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so."  That's from the same person who cheerleads for the endless deaths of Muslims and destruction of the Muslim world while thinking that it makes him strong, resolute, Churchillian, righteous and noble—exactly that which he accuses "fringe Muslims" of doing.

A piece I wrote back in 2003 on why being pro-war means never having to say you're sorry.

NEXT: "No, We Just Meant Electric Cars Were Vital to Our Future in that You Wouldn't Give Us $12 Billion Unless We Promised Them"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Man, if there’s anyone out there who’d make me like David Brooks a little, that’s Glenn Greenwald. Brooks does not cheerlead for deaths of Muslims or destruction of the Muslim world. It might be very satisfying for Greenwald or Doherty to believe that their domestic political opponents, who supported the war in Iraq, think that way — but they don’t. If you want to make a strong case, don’t fight straw men.

    1. If you want to make a strong case, don’t fight straw men.

      That would reduce Greenwald’s word count by 90%, rendering him merely tedious.

      1. justifying the killing, bombing, and slaughtering of…innocent civilians

        Brooks advocates the slaughter of civilians? I did not know that.

  2. I learned long ago that two wrongs don’t make a right. Greenwald and Brooks are both assholes, arguing over who smells the most.

  3. Brooks pretty clearly refers to a “clear minority” of “fringe muslims”.

    Greenwald is taking him way out of context in this clip.

    1. Invading two nation states (which may soon increment to three) just to get at a clear minority of fringe seems like vast overkill.

      1. The Iraq war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We can argue about whether or not it was worth our trouble, but it’s hardly unjustified.

        The Afghanistan war started when their leadership aided and abetted a large attack on the US. If we’re not willing to go to war against nations that overtly attack us, then what are we, Belgium?

      2. This may be true but has no bearing on my point.

  4. What total bullshit from Greenwald that is repeated by Doherty.

    Either one of you fuckbags want to tell me what war was declared against Muslims?

    Saddam Hussein was a complete and total butcher of Muslims. He lined them up like bowling pins and then bowled them over and shredded them in his personal shredder.

    Hussein has killed more Muslims in recent history than anyone else.

    Greenwald and Doherty’s comments is like saying that Greenwald and Doherty support Hussein so much because they like jacking off to so many Muslims dying at his hands.

    Are both of you fuckers really that stupid? I want a yes or no answer.

    1. And, last time I checked, the US armed Saddam and helped bring him to power in Iraq, and actively encouraged him to attack and terrorize the Iranians with weapons of mass destruction, which we provided.

      Of course, prodding two countries into a mutually destructive war in which a million people died was for the best, since the Iranian government is evil and undemocratic. But wait… they had a democratic government, but the CIA toppled it and imposed an incompetent and brutal monarchy on the Iranians. (Because the greedy bastards wanted to renegotiate their oil contracts with BP (then Anglo-Persian).

      My point is that there is a great deal of blood on the hands of the US government in the Muslim world. The guilt is greater even than that of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Ladin, since they are partially responsible for both, and others.

      Brooks (though less guilty than many others in the media) provides ideological cover for the ongoing bloodshed in the Middle East. And before you all attack me, yes Greenwald’s attack is an oversimplification of Brooks’ position.

      1. actively encouraged him to attack and terrorize the Iranians with weapons of mass destruction, which we provided.

        This bullshit again. We didn’t provide Saddam with either chemical or biological weapons.

        A) Chemical precursors were illegally smuggled out of the US, until the customs service caught them

        B) A few biological samples of anthrax were sent to Iraq under educational auspices – which were apparantly never used to make bio weapons anyway.

        1. Does it really matter if the weapons we sold Hussein were “mass destruction” kinds? And after Hussein did gas his people, we continued to sell him weapons and attempts at “punishing” him by not selling him weapons, were thwarted by the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

          Also, the rest of 2999’s post was spot on.

          1. Hey that’s the same logic Bush used.
            ‘Does it really matter if the we found were “mass destruction” kinds?’

          2. Actually we only sold him a couple of traffic helicopters and gave him some agricultural loan guarentees, which he used to buy soviet weapons.

      2. (Because the greedy bastards wanted to renegotiate their oil contracts with BP (then Anglo-Persian).

        “Renegotiate” Isn’t that just a longer way of saying reneg?

      3. We didn’t arm Saddam. His air force didn’t fly our planes, his navy didn’t sail our ships, his army didn’t drive our tanks or fire our rifles and artillery. It was Russian, French and German. This is a retarded leftist myth that has been debunked countless times.

      4. This classless trope has been debunked so many times that those trotting it out are either lying or totally clueless. The US provided less than 2% of the total armaments purchased by Iraq in the 1980s.

        After the agonizing humiliation of the Iranian hostage crises, I’m surprised that we didn’t go in their ourselves. Instead, the US mostly treated Saddam like the vermin he was – helping him *just* enough to prevent the Iranians from overrunning Iraq. Do guys like “2999”, Doherty and Greenwald offer up any credit? Do they rightly point out the crass profiteering of the French or the cynical arms trade of the Russians? No – they blame the US. What bulls*&t.

        1. “go in *THERE* ourselves…” sorry – typing while pissed isn’t good for spelling.

      5. “It’s too bad both sides can’t lose” to paraphrase Kissinger

    2. I hope that reference to Hussein’s “personal shredder” was only meant metaphorically. Because after the invasion, we found exactly zero confirmation of those lurid pre-war stories about “industrial shredders” used to slaughter political prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. (We didn’t actually get positive confirmation that those stories were lies, like we did about the stories of Kuwaiti babies taken out of incubators and left to die, but they sound like they came from the same book of tall tales.)

  5. Is it even up for debate that Muslims don’t exactly have a high regard for their co-relgionists lives as long as its a Muslim doing the killing? Did Arabs shed any tears while millions of their brothers in Iraq died in Saddam’s attempt to conquer Iran? Were there any peace marches in the 80s Middle East calling for Saddam to end the war?

    1. But the Left and some Muslims sure got upset when we went in to stop him and to sop the gang in Afghanistan.

  6. Agree with the previous posters. I’m telling you, the reflexive “anti-war” fetish in the libertarian camp is a continuing weakness that repels so many people who would otherwise be attracted to your ideals. Stupid comments such as this one are paradigmatic of that tendency.

    1. How is it reflecting libertarian ideas to be at constant war with trillions being taken from the public to fund it?

      Much of that money is being used on welfare projects in Iraq and Afghanistan to “nation build”. Why should people who are against government welfare money being used to nation build in the USA be in favor of it in Iraq and Afghanistan?

      And of course even if we manage to control Iraq and Afghanistan it will not end terrorism since you can plan terrorism at your kitchen table and as we saw on 9/11 the terrorists were living in the USA for years and they came not from Iraq or Afghanistan but mostly Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Just like most the foreign terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are also from Saudi Arabia and Egypt which are the US governments “friends”

    2. Anti-war is the least of the problems for the Libertarian movement. Iraq has been unpopular for years now and a majority now believe Afghanistan is not worth continuing. Tell the poll respondents that Afghanistan is a 20 year project at best and support would likely plummet some more.

      Libertarianism is repellent to most people because it is seen as Republican Lite. At least 2/3 of Reason’s content is geared towards them at this point. When an actual libertarian like Greenwalt is cited, the mostly neo-conservative, pro-Iraq and presumably anti-civil liberties readership strongly opposes.

      1. Greenwald is an “actual libertarian”?? Really?

        And no, I don’t think that the problem with Libertarianism is that it is “Republican Lite.” The problem is that the Left (primarily) has successfully painted it as the province of pimply white boys who don’t care if Granma is thrown out on the street when Social Security is abolished. That is, it is seen as irresponsible and unwilling to face up to the facts of the modern world. And this is a shame because Liberty largely *created* those things that we consider best about the modern world.

        1. Well, the perception is that it is Republican Lite, and there is more truth to the perception. Unless libertarians are willing to get tough on the banks and Wall St., stop “bailouts”, quit persecuting unnecessary wars, get tough on the Federal Reserve, quit printing money like they have been to create inflation which is a tax on the poor…

          ..then yes, scaling back and/or removing welfare programs (usually a large libertarian emphasis) will screw a lot of people. It’s basically the GW Bush take more or less on the economy. The Fed and the aggressive wars are taboo to even mention for Reason “libertarians” that voted W Bush both times if not McCain!

          1. Tell me Adam, what colors the sky in this world you live in, where libertarians ignore the bailouts and the Fed.

    3. Libertarians aren’t anti-war, and are certainly not pacifist. They’re against adventurous wars overseas that have the sole purpose of strengthening the state and its cronies. The Iraq and Afghan adventures meet those criteria pretty well. I think libertarians are stronger advocates of personal defense than most Republicans. The short version – libertarians fight their own wars, neocons hire people to fight for them.

      1. Good point! I might quibble with the “sole purpose” as I think that the team that started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t see it that way (especially Afghanistan).

        Also, they rode – to a large extent – public sentiment to “get someone” to avenge 9/11. But the end result certainly has gone beyond anything that a Libertarian would’ve wanted.

      2. Well, then, they ought to be for Iraq and Afghanistan, since neither of those wars fit your bullshit criteria at all, you lying bitch.

    4. True or false: The U.S. should not have invaded Iraq in 2003.

      Obviously the strict “anti-war” types are often wrong in their assessments, but they got that one right.

      1. False. “Anti-war” types aren’t just mistaken, they’re lying pieces of shit and traitors who have the blood of Saddam’s victims on their hands.

      2. Restate that as 1991 and you have a point.

        2003, not so much.

      3. Restate that as 1991 and you have a point.

        2003, not so much.

  7. Greenwald is attacking a strawman here. Brooks is not saying that “those Muslims over there” think that. He’s saying that a small “fringe” strain think that, which I would think is beyond doubt. There are fringe figures that say that, and it doesn’t take many lone idiots listening to them for one guy to snap.

    Greenwald’s argument has as much intellectual honesty as the pro-war argument saying that Greenwald and Doherty wanted Saddam to torture Iraqis.

  8. Sheesh, the pro-war people might be wrong, but they don’t
    “cheerlead[] for the endless deaths of Muslims and destruction of the Muslim world” any more than Greenwald and Doherty enjoy seeing Muslims suffer under dictators, think that Muslims are too stupid and primitive to enjoy civil liberties, or any of the other ridiculous assertions that could be thrown around.

    Most people on both sides make their arguments in good faith, even if most of them assume bad faith in the other side.

  9. I’ll take Greenwald’s opinion over Brooks’ any day. At least Greenwald makes pretty serious attempts to be intellectually honest. I may not agree with him on a lot of things, but he’s earned my respect. Brooks…no.

    1. At least Greenwald makes pretty serious attempts to be intellectually honest.

      Rrrrright.

      1. Looks like the right wing fringe misread Greenwald’s post. He was criticizing the MSM and not the wingnut blogs, as Greenwald noted in the update to his post.

        1. Looks like you’ve missed out on his last several years of strawman arguments, smears, and sockpuppet rallies.

        2. He wasn’t criticizing Glenn Reynolds and Allahpundit; he was just telling lies to malign them.

    2. At least Greenwald makes pretty serious attempts to be intellectually honest.

      Not if you look at whole sentences and paragraphs, rather than individual words and characters.

  10. we’ll be hated even if we somehow end the wars – we were hated before the wars, regardless…

    1. I wonder why those crazy Muslims hate us!!!!

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan2.html

      1. So what to do about it? They’re going to hate us no matter what.

      2. Anybody who cites Loo Crock of Shit from Hell as if that were a credible source is an idiot.

  11. Not to excuse the killings – though if it were going to happen to anyone, why shouldn’t it have happened to military personnel anyways? Isn’t that what they kind of signed up for? – but when you treat people like dogs for so long, it’s no surprise when they bite.

    What do Americans expect? The longer they continue to justify and prolong their occupations, the more prevalent these freak actions will become. The choice is America’s alone. If you want to occupy the Middle East you must accept these consequences. If these consequences are too harsh, then there’s a simple solution – leave.

    1. Not to excuse the killings – though if it were going to happen to anyone, why shouldn’t it have happened to military personnel anyways? Isn’t that what they kind of signed up for?

      In the same spirit: No offense, but you’re a fucking idiot.

      1. no, no, you are.

        1. Please don’t take this personally, but you’re the intellectually bankrupt self-copulator, not me.

    2. “not to excuse the killings”…but please indulge me while I excuse them. You are sick, frankly. I can’t even imagine the color of the sky in your world. If Hasan had been on Opus Dei Catholic and had targeted abortion doctors, would you be like, “well, you treat people like dogs…it is no surprise when they bite.” I doubt it.

    3. Isn’t that what they kind of signed up for? – but when you treat people like dogs for so long, it’s no surprise when they bite.

      I’m not sending my next dog to medical school.No officer commission for you Spot!

    4. Right, that’s why there are never any Sunni attacks on Shi’ite mosques. If those evil Shi’ites would just stop preaching their blasphemy, they wouldn’t bring these attacks on themselves.

    5. So…people join the military out of a desire to get gunned down, defenseless as they prepare to deploy? I *never knew that.* You are truly opening up my eyes, here Niccolo!

      /sarcasm

      Most Americans do NOT think of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as “occupiers.” The purpose is to try to stabilize the security situation so that a reasonable, democratically-elected government can arise and take control. I mean, seriously, for all of its flaws (including, perhaps, a fatal flaw in the very idea that we can do this) what kind of “occupation” demands elections?

      Finally, why are you so quick to blame America for all of the “civilian deaths” when nearly all of them happen – directly or indirectly – at the hands of the jihadis? Is the American soldier at fault for handing out chocolate to children when the Jihadi detonates nearby, killing them all? Why the hell isn’t the Jihadi at fault in your twisted view of the world?

      1. That’s just the way we blood-stained “anti-war [as long as a Republican is in power]” types are.

  12. And the far-right blogosphere sees Brooks as having “moderate” views on these issues…

    1. Anything to the right of Fidel Castro is the “far-right” to you.

  13. Well, Brian just tipped his hand that he’s an unserious person. Glenn Greenwald? Really??? You can’t find any other source to make your case. (perhaps you should disclose that your wife works for an anti-war organization.) This is a great data point for why the ‘libertarian moment’ has come and left.

    1. He always was. Are you telling me there was a “libertarian moment” somewhere back there? I guess I must have nodded off just then.

  14. We killed a lot more than 100K German, Japanese, Italian, Korean, and Vietnamese civilians, but no one from those countries has ever run amok in America like Malik Hassan did. The US government’s not to blame for Hassan’s actions, nor are those of us who support US defense against Islamo-Fascism. Those who misrepresent all such defense as a violation of the rights of innocent Muslims do bear some of the blame, however, as their PC BS about Islamophobia prevented Hassan’s threats from being taken seriously.

    (BTW, it’s no accident that “run amok” refers to a specifically Muslim tradition of mass public killings like Hassan’s.)

    Meanwhile, the USA didn’t arm Saddam, nor help him into power. The Soviets armed Saddam, which is why his fighters were Migs, his tanks were T-72s, and his rifles were kalashnikovs. The USA armed Israel, which is why Israel’s fighters are F-16s and its rifles are M-16s. (The Israelis make their own tanks, something that was evidently beyond Saddam’s regime.) China, France, and Germany all gave more weapons aid to Saddam than the USA.

    1. Amok is a Malay word regarding furious elephants.

    2. It’s also used for the situation where one guy goes nuts and starts killing people, like Cho, Hasan, or the Columbine killers, but that’s not a specifically Muslim phenomenon.

      1. Soon to be adopted by the Virginia Tech Cross Country team.

  15. The mistake in wondering how Moslems can be so hateful and violent – that is, this tiny minority of Moslems (yeah, right) – is not seeing that, according to their position, it’s perfectly rational to kill the people they regard as the aggressor against their peoples and territories. We can argue about the rightness or wrongness of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but clearly most Moslems regard these wars as attacks on their own. And some are willing act according to this belief (while millions of other cheer them on, at least in their hearts and minds).

    Meanwhile, dumb and naive Americans like Dennis Miller keep wondering when all the good moderate Moslems are going to stand up and oppose the crazy violent fringe Moslems. The answer: they aren’t, because most of them agree with the fanatics.

    1. You spelled Muslims wrrong. I hope they use a sharpened sword when reasoning with you, rather than the dull ones they show the tourists 🙂

      1. I bet you’re one of those people who think we should never say Bombay instead of Mumbai.

        1. I have never ordered a Mumbai Martini. What are they like?

    2. People forget, 1% of, say, 2,000,000,000 people is 20,000,000 people. Now, if Islam had, say, two billion adherents, and, say, six percent of them were gung-ho for terrorism, that would be about a hundred and twenty million people eager to blow themselves up in the middle of a crowded shopping mall.

      It doesn’t take any massive majority or even plurality of radicals to do a lot of evil. A minority of radicals mixed in with a majority of passive approvers and minority of moderates is more than sufficient to bring you the likes of 9/11, the Bali Bombings, 7/7, etc, etc, etc.

  16. Like you mizers give two shits about violence against Muslims. You’re just unhappy that it involves your tax dollars. It’s similar to how you use Israel as a convenient scapegoat because money is being spent on that alliance as well. The whole Jew thing doesn’t sit well with your paleo strain anyway.

    Even Ron Paul learned how to play that card to galvanize his base. It’s the same old story, and it’s a distinct conservative trait as well. It’s a sales pitch.

    Libertarianism sounds like something a shrewd business man would come up with.

    Libertarian initiatives are tied to little more than the bottom line, just like your ever shifting stance on open borders has more to do with a steady supply of cheap labor, than it does with any kind of interest in poverty stricken Mexicans.

    1. Gee!! I didn’t realize that I missed the libertarian catechism class where we were taught what to think about money and cheap labor. I guess I’m just a bad libertarian. I had always thought the charm of libertarianism was that diversity of ideas.

    2. Hey mind-reading troll, how many fingers am I currently holding up, and which one is it?

    3. Which site have you been reading? Our resident liberal MNG is the fanatical anti-Israel poster, and the libertarian regulars are generally on it’s side.

  17. Remember, folks, Mohammedanism IS NOT A RELIGION!! It’s an ideology of evil, started through the hallucinations of a sex-crazed whack-job desert nomad with delusions of grandeur and seized upon by subsequent generations of pre-scientific savages.

    1. How does that make it “NOT A RELIGION!!”?

  18. Here’s a tip: the day you compare accidental deaths of innocent people in a war to deaths of unarmed people intentionally killed by a nutjob on a suicide mission is the day you’ve truly lost all perspective. Shitty posts like this are part of the reason I couldn’t read this blog for a few years.

    Unless you are an actual pacifist such a comparison really doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

    And seriously, why do I keep seeing Glenn Greenwald quoted here? I know he talks tough on civil liberties, but didn’t this guy lose his credibility when his army of sock puppets were discovered?

    1. There was nothing accidental about the decision to invade Iraq. From that point forward no deaths are accidents.

      1. There was nothing accidental about the decision not to defend Poland and Czechoslovakia from Hitler. Every death from that point forward is therefore on the hands of British pacifists and isolationists.

        Sauce, goose, gander, all that stuff.

  19. Nothing brings out the Rush Limbaugh “libertarians” like a post about Iraq.

    1. For many of the right leaning ones libertarianism is just a dress they put on over their conservatism. Because you know a government action spending billions and billions of dollars costing thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of foreign lives to nation build is so libertarian!

      1. Conservatarians. Kind of like the liberaltarians who agree with all the ACLU stuff, but love the 16th amendment, and government program that “help” people.

    2. Nothing brings out the treasonous blame-America-first “libertarian” dipsticks like a post about a homegrown jihadi and psychopath of the sort they’ve been trying so hard to convince us are innocent, cuddly widdle teddy bears.

      1. The argument that certain people are harmless and cuddly is a far cry from the argument that, whatever their ideology, the US is not justified in killing them indiscriminately.

        At least from the traitorous America-hating perspective.

  20. Greenwalds point seems to be simple: Brooks calls out the people as murderers when the actions Brooks called for strongly and cheerleads has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

    I agree the deaths of a nutjob targeting civilians and war deaths, even civilian ones, are not really morally comparable. But when you have hundreds of thousands in the latter case it begins to become a more interesting point…

  21. Anyway, NPR this morning is discussing whether Nidal Hasan is “insane” because of his constant proselytizing for Islam. This brings up the tantalizing question: are religious fanatics nuts? Or only Islamic religious fanatics? Are born-again Christians exempt? Discuss.

    1. No, he was not “insane” in any legally meaningful sense of the word. He was evil, first and foremost. If the insanity of evil excuses anybody’s actions, we’ll just have to shut down the courts and fire every last authority, because 100% of humanity is afflicted with evil.

      Your question applies to Communists and atheists too, by the way: they are not necessarily “insane” just because they proselytize for their evil religions either. (Yes, atheism and its more radical offshoot Communism are also religions, just as zero and the square root of negative one are legitimately known as numbers.)

  22. Wait, who killed the 100,000 innocent civilians? Was it the American soldiers wearing suicide vests and going into crowded marketplaces, mosques, etc.? Was it part of America’s rules of engagement to target civilians?

    Ohhhhh, wait, it was Muslim terrorists who did that. America is blamed for failing to stop it. Of course, America did create a situation where muslim fanatics were able to take advantage, but it was the fanatics who targeted the civilians.

    1. Abdul
      Many, many thousands were killed by the pre-occupation bombings and sanctions.

      1. Something that Saddam could have stopped at ANY TIME HE CHOSE simply by complying with his sworn word in the agreement that ended the Gulf War. Again, why is the US responsible for ANY of these deaths? Why is Saddam not widely vilified for using them – even encouraging them – for the propaganda value that they provided to his sick regime? Why are you parroting the propaganda of a lethal thug under the guise of the “Libertarian position?”

        1. Again, why is the US responsible for ANY of these deaths?

          They were American bombs dropped from American planes by American pilots. It ain’t rocket surgery.

          Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        2. So it’s OK to hold Iraqi civilians hostage for Saddam’s good behavior?

    2. And then there’s collateral damage…And then the whole idea that once we took over we were at least in part for the consequences we set in motion, even the ones we fight against (“you break it you bought it”)

      1. Collateral damage in this war was far less than in previous wars due to techological advances. The vast majority of the 100,000 victims greenwald mentions were the result of muslim fanatics intentionally targeting them, not the result of collateral damage.

        The idea that UN economic sanctions killed anyone is tenuous at best. After all, who incurred the sanctions (hint–first name Saddam) and who decided how the resources would be allocated between luxiorious palaces and basic needs (hint–see first hint)? Before the war, people said the sanctions killed “probably … 170,000 children.” The war ended the sanctions, and according to Greenwald, only killed 100,000 civilians.

        By this logic, the US war saved 70,000 kids by ending the sanctions. You’re welcome, Iraq!

        1. Greenwald being both retarded and dishonest, blames all civilian deaths, even those that resulted for terrorist acts committed by the other side, on the US.

          When you think about it, Greenwald is probably the most racist Muslim hater in the media today. He doesn’t even consider them human beings capable of moral accountability. He sees the deaths resulting from the terror of our enemies as no different than if we had let loose killer animals on the civilian population. In reality, Greenwald is just a soft white supremicist who cannot accept that any brown person could be worthy of being held accountable for their actions the same way a white person is.

    3. You make a good point but a lot of people have been killed accidently by american bombs.
      Even if there was a good intention you are still dead.
      I dont think it should be mixed up with suicide bombers killing their fellow muslims or scum like Nidal Hasan but it shouldn’t just be ignored.

      1. Those who use this as a justification for molly-coddling Islamofascist terrorists like Hasan, however, should be locked up in the same padded cell as Glenn Greenwald.

  23. The folks on NPR can’t use the word bad or wicked (actually, that’s good in an objective news sourse, I don’t want my news source telling me who is bad and wicked or good), so they have to understand this guy in terms of insane. He was in a wicked, backwards ideology. To the extent an educated person who knows better falls for that then he is insane…

  24. Who cares what David Brooks has to say? And furthermore, who cares about a bunch of nutcases using religion as justification for murder? I wouldn’t give two shits if someone nuked the whole area. So I guess being an Atheist means never having to say you’re sorry.

    1. It is not a religion, remember. It is an ideology manufactured out of whole cloth to support conquest and domination.

      1. Like Christianity?

        1. Um…no. Christianity may have been *used* in that way at various points (at least before the Reformation paved the way for people to read the Bible themselves) but it is historically incorrect (screamingly so) to say that Jesus’ message was “manufactured out of whole cloth to support conquest and domination.” Seriously, what part of “the meek shall inherit the earth” don’t you get?

  25. Glen Greenwald is the most dishonest nasty writer on the web not named Andrew Sullivan. The only thing he has over Sullivan is that at least Greenwald doesn’t obsess over OBGYN records.

    I can’t believe Reason would site to that article approvingly. Reason really hits a new low. First, no one has advocated the whole sale slaughter of Muslims. Only a lying piece of human garbage like Greenwald would try to claim that anyone did. By Greenwald’s logic, he, by objecting to the Iraq war, has advocated the oppression and enslavement of millions of Iraqis. Had it been up to Greenwald, Saddam would still be in power and killing 10,000 people a month and the place would still be a totalitarian hell hole. Now, does that mean Greenwald supports Saddam? Of course not. But Saddam being in power would be a bi product of his views being implemented just like the deaths of Muslim civilians is a bi product of going to war. To say that either side wanted the byproducts instead of looking at them as a necessary evil and the best of a set of bad choices is totally disingenuous. Greenwald knows that. He is not very bright but he is bright enough to know that. He is just a nasty piece of shit mediocrity who manages to have a career by lying and slandering people to the approval of nitwits like Doherty.

    Fuck you Doherty for posting this. If Reason had any standards, you would be out on your ass right now.

    1. Saddam being in power would be a bi product

      Bi product, eh? those South Park guys knew more about Saddam then I realized.

      1. yeah yeah yeah. For the record, I once told the infamous Joe Boyle that if I, by supporting the war, supported the killing of civilians, he, by objecting to it, supported Saddam being in power. He went totally apeshit and demanded an apology. The fact that both charges were totally unfair and disengenuous went completely over his head.

        To quote Doherty, “being against the war means never having to have any logical consistency.”

        1. The joke is about bi-sexuality.

    2. Would Republicans say that Obama is destroying the American economy, even if that isn’t his deliberate modus operandi though? It seems like the same thing as saying he is killing civilians over there. Sure it isn’t the intent, but the naked truth is it is still happening.

      1. But the naked truth is also that if you hadn’t gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be killing and oppressing millions. Sure, anti war advocates don’t intend for him to stay, but would still be happening if they had their way.

        Either argument is totally disengenius. The reasonable position of either side is that their choice is the best of a set of bad options. If the anti-war people could have avoided war and toppled Saddam they would have. It just wasn’t an option on the table. In the same way, if the pro war people could have gotten rid of Saddam without a single civilian casualty, they would have. But, again that was not an option. To say that either side wants or endorses the downsides to their positions, is just sophistry.

        1. That still takes some jumping to conclusions. Is Saddam still at large in 2009 if were’nt for USA? You can’t conclusively say what would happen in alternate histories with a volatile region like this.

          “Millions” is an exaggeration as far as how many he actually killed. US/UN sanctions onthe other hand did more to their population.

          1. There is no reason to believe Saddam wouldn’t still be in power. Further, the reason why the UN sanctions killed so many people is because Saddam stole all of the humanitarian aide and used it for his own purposes and let his people starve.

            And millions is not an exageration. He started and was responsible for the worst war since 1945. He gassed 150,000 kurds during the intefala. He had a huge prison network. They found mass graves all over that country.

            1. The *worst* war since 1945? I’m not sure how you say that about a war that may have cost 800,000 Iranian lives and 300,000 Iraqi lives, when the Vietnam war cost 1.6 million South Vietnamese civilian lives, plus 1.2 million NVA/VC lives, plus 220,000 ARVN lives, plus 58,000 U.S. military lives. (Oh yeah, there were an estimated 2.5 million civilian deaths in the Korean war, too.)

              1. Korea was definitely worse. I am not sure about Vietnam. you are right it wasn’t the worst since 45. Although a million casualties is nothing to sneeze at.

    3. Reason really hits an new old low.

  26. I would like to say that I do not indiscriminately cheer-lead the death of muslims. There is a very narrow and particular brand of muslims whose death I cheerlead. That cowardly cocksucker that ran over his daughter in Phoenix who then ran,…..I’d pay money for a 24 network that would show some pissed off female American veterans hunt that guy down and do as they pleased. Make it sporty, give him 24 hours head start. Oh, I know, make him wear a big T-shirt with Mohammed on the front and back with a big bullseye right in the forehead.

    1. Sometimes I even cheer-lead Muslims for killing certain people… like that guy the Saudis beheaded and crucified for raping and murdering five little boys.

  27. MNG :Many, many thousands were killed by the pre-occupation bombings and sanctions.

    Yes , those sanctions, that the U.S. unilateraly imposed? Or was it with the multilateral help of the ‘great’ U.N., who told the U.S. to stop and just leave the poor sadaam alone after we had liberated Kuwait. The ‘great’ U.N. who came up with the idea that sanctions would be preferable to disposing the poor Sadaam, the sanctions that groups such as Amnesty International used to beat the U.S. over the head with , accusing us of ‘killing’ 1000’s of children every day/month/year, don’t remember what their exact scare ‘fact’ was. The sanctions enacted by the U.N. to help create the bastardized oil-for-food scandal that scum like Benon Sevan, Kofi Annan and son, Ken Livingston make millions that could/should have really helped the poor and young in Iraq.
    But it is the always only the U.S. that is evil and acts in greedy self-serving manner according to the likes of MNG.

  28. The USA shouldn’t be acting at all. What business do you the have w/ Iran or Kuwait or Israel? The Louisiana Purchase never would have come about if you fucking morons were at the voice of reason.

  29. The sanctions on Saddamite Iraq didn’t kill anyone in Iraqi Kurdistan. Funny how that worked. Somehow, the exact same sanctions that allegedly caused all sorts of excess deaths in the rest of Iraq didn’t have the same lethal effect in the part of Iraq outside Saddam’s control.

  30. At least I got you twits talking about something other than taxes.

  31. hogwash. about the iraq war we went in for oil. that was our main objective. nothing more, it was just covered by the media and the government’s sugar coating. i know guys who were over there and they said we’re pipelining the oil out before anyone was even thinking about new government being established over the country. we set up base on an oil field cause once we have a base established it’s american soil.someone in a high place recently said “you want to take advantage of a crisis and use it to your advantage”. now, that’s not an exact quote, but it works. it’s one of Obama’s guy’s that said it. be blind by foolish politics. true americans would demand for these poiticians to hold true to their words and promises and not buy into the propaganda of elections. if you can’t depend on a man’s word the man is useless, a liar. period. politicians who lie to get into office are useless too. if they’ll do that they’ll do anything.

  32. hogwash. about the iraq war we went in for oil. that was our main objective. nothing more, it was just covered by the media and the government’s sugar coating. i know guys who were over there and they said we’re pipelining the oil out before anyone was even thinking about new government being established over the country. we set up base on an oil field cause once we have a base established it’s american soil.someone in a high place recently said “you want to take advantage of a crisis and use it to your advantage”. now, that’s not an exact quote, but it works. it’s one of Obama’s guy’s that said it. be blind by foolish politics. true americans would demand for these poiticians to hold true to their words and promises and not buy into the propaganda of elections. if you can’t depend on a man’s word the man is useless, a liar. period. politicians who lie to get into office are useless too. if they’ll do that they’ll do anything.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.