Why Don’t I Care About The War On Terror?

Because unlike John Walker Lindh, the man who did this

Five and a half years ago, you pointed a high-powered, scoped rifle through a window and calmly (by your own description) pulled the trigger. The .308 bullet plunged through Vicki Weaver’s right cheek, pulverized her teeth, severed her tongue, and exited through the left side of her neck, ripping out her carotid artery, leaving a three-inch exit wound, and just missing the tiny skull of 10-month old Elisheba Weaver. Bullet and skull fragments bore into Kevin Harris, causing lifelong pain and disability.

… is still walking free.

43 thoughts on “Why Don’t I Care About The War On Terror?”

  1. Because unlike John Walker Lindh, the man who did this…is still walking free.

    I was wondering Lopez, what is your answer to people like jsbolton who claim that under anarchy the various “protection agencies” or whatever they’re called will continually be at war with each other? Not that jsbolton doesn’t present other targets in his rhetoric to shoot at, but this seems to be an important point; government thugs like Horiuchi would certainly be gone, but what about potential “protection agency” thugs? Bolton seems pretty hung up about us advocating barbarism.

  2. I think Long’s answer was basically there isn’t any “final justice” now, so there’d be no reason to expect one in an anarchy.

    Much like the answer to the objection that someone might get all the guns and take over – “Dude, they already have“.

  3. Other than simply pointing to the fact that nations (entities who are in a state of anarchy relative to one another) aren’t continually in a state of 200-sided war with one another, my answer to that question is “I’ll take my chances”.

    Oh ok, thanks. I suppose one can’t ask for much more, since I can’t think of any anarchies in history off the top of my head and thus the status of a future anarchy would be uncertain. Along these same lines, I usually get puzzled when I hear someone talk about how people need to be subjugated, controlled, etc by the state in order to prevent chaos from taking over. It seems to me that if humans were so irrational as to be wont to live in perpetual chaos, we’d already be living in it, state or no.

    One last thing…another objection I recall is the problem of justice (I think Mr. Long mentioned this in his talk). For instance, how does the family of a murder victim get “final justice” in an anarchy, or justice at all (is it libertarian, for example, to round up suspects in a murder investigation, etc). I think Long’s answer was basically there isn’t any “final justice” now, so there’d be no reason to expect one in an anarchy.

  4. Stefan: I was wondering Lopez, what is your answer to people like jsbolton who claim that under anarchy the various “protection agencies” or whatever they’re called will continually be at war with each other?

    I’m not in the habit of forecasting conditions in Libertopia, anymore. Other than simply pointing to the fact that nations (entities who are in a state of anarchy relative to one another) aren’t continually in a state of 200-sided war with one another, my answer to that question is “I’ll take my chances”. See The World’s Most Direct Political Quiz.

    …but what about potential “protection agency” thugs?

    Would any “protection agency” have the power and attitude of the United States Government?

    Anonymous Dimwit: So because one criminal is free you don’t care if others walk about? How fucking dumb are you?

    Not so dumb that I consider Lindh to be a moral criminal of any sort. Now, how fucking dumb are you?

  5. How fucking dumb are you?
    Lopez responds: Not so dumb that I consider Lindh to be a moral criminal of any sort.

    Don’t any of you dumbshits know what an “accomplice” is?
    Don’t you even pay any fucking attention to the *subject matter*?

    Observers of the aborted trial rationally conclude that the reason Lindh’s defense plea-bargained to a position overly favorable to the prosecution was that they wished to keep Lindh’s own confessions to various crimes off the record (where, one presumes, they might lead a jury to throw the guillotine at him).

    Insane Islamic fanatics are, you may note, as a general practice not shy about openly bragging of their murderous exploits (e.g., the Bali bomber).

  6. Don’t any of you dumbshits know what an “accomplice” is?

    Accomplice to what, Mike?

    Don’t you even pay any fucking attention to the *subject matter*?

    According to this, Lindh pled guilty to “Providing services to the Taliban” and “Carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony”. Who did Lindh harm?

    …the reason Lindh’s defense plea-bargained to a position overly favorable to the prosecution was that…

    …There was absolutely no way whatsoever he’d have gotten less from a jury.

  7. John “My Brain Is Broken” Lopez: Lindh pled guilty to “Providing services to the Taliban” and “Carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony”. Who did Lindh harm?

    Who does a getaway driver “harm”?
    Who does a safehouse operator “harm”?
    Who did Terry Nichols “harm”
    Who has every SS kraut who never managed to bag a Yank “harmed”?
    Who has Osama bin Laden “harmed”?
    Who has Joseph Stalin “harmed”

    AFAIK, none of these people have ever personally slapped the face of a kitten, but they are all *accomplices* to crimes ranging from gross-missy to monstrous. The answer to your idiotically stoopid question is: “Lindh was an accomplice in harming everyone the Taliban was targeting.”

    Moronic imbeciles….how do you manage to get your shoes on in the morning?

  8. > I’m finding it’s more fun to say “dood” than “dude”.

    I’m finding it amazing that you don’t itch from all these fleas.

    Christ, John, of all this vicious, insane threads you’ve hosted, this is the worst.

    –GSS

  9. I’m finding it’s more fun to say “dood” than “dude”.

    Did you get the idea from that chat Kinsella had with Sapienza?

  10. “Much like the answer to the objection that someone might get all the guns and take over – “Dude, they already have”.”

    I’m finding it’s more fun to say “dood” than “dude”.

  11. “Not so dumb that I consider Lindh to be a moral criminal of any sort. ”

    I see. So the fact that he might have murdered innocent Afgans is not a moral issue? (And there is evidence the he did).

    Just dead “sand n*ggers,” eh? And who cares about “sand n*ggers” right to life, liberty and property says the “consistent” anti-war “libertarian.”

    Could it be that though he was part of a criminal band that was preying on innocents, he is NOT a moral criminal because he was fighting the eveel USA? Is that your position????

    “Now, how fucking dumb are you?”

    Now, how fucking dumb are you? You are either a racist collectivist or a fucking idiot. I bet a mixture of both.

  12. From what I gather, Lindh should have been treated as an enemy combatant.

    I think that category includes some who are moral criminals and some who are not. While I think Lindh is probably a fool I don’t know that he’s a moral criminal.

    It was wrong to bring Lindh here for a show trial, he doesn’t owe the US any more than any of the other combatants.

  13. “”Should have been” treated by *whom*?”

    By anyone making war on the Taliban.

    “That’s what they call “splitting hairs”.

    You’d have to split hairs to bring him here for a show trial.

    “But the Taliban wasn’t fighting a “just war”; it was imposing a brutal, Stalinist ideology of slavery.”

    As is so often the case I think it’s wise, just, and useful to make finer distinctions than you do about people on the wrong side of the ball.

  14. From what I gather, Lindh should have been treated…

    “Should have been” treated by *whom*?

    …as an enemy combatant.

    That’s what they call “splitting hairs”. There is no *intrinsic moral* difference between being an accomplice to murdering a wino for his shoes, and an accomplice to murdering Americans for, among other things forbidden by Shariah, erecting blogs containing imagery of scantily-clad women.

    The reason “enemy combatants” ordinarily get a pass is first, because there are too many of them to prosecute to any kind of justice removed from Roman solutions, and second, most contemporary “civilized” states have an unwritten “understanding” not to simply slaughter all the losers — i.e., entirely pragmatic reasons which have nothing to do with the *moral responsibility* a “soldier” incurs upon becoming an accomplice to the moral crimes of others.

    Lindh is probably a fool

    Stupidity does not absolve one for the responsibility of his actions.

    It was wrong to bring Lindh here for a show trial

    John? “Treason” is a bullshit non-crime that I have no use for. But the Taliban wasn’t fighting a “just war”; it was imposing a brutal, Stalinist ideology of slavery.

    he doesn’t owe the US any more than any of the other combatants.

    It, nor I, owe him anything either.

  15. “Anonymous Dimwit”: I see. So the fact that he might have murdered innocent Afgans…

    …Means nothing more than the fact that you might have murdered innocent Americans.

    Could it be that though he was part of a criminal band that was preying on innocents?

    “Could it be that Jessica Lynch was part of a criminal band that was preying on innocents”?

    MJS: The answer to your idiotically stoopid question is: “Lindh was an accomplice in harming everyone the Taliban was targeting.”

    Are you willing to put Jessica Lynch in the same bucket as Lindh?

  16. Collateral damage isn’t preying if you have a legitimate target and the Iraqi regime was a legitimate target.

    Iraq is now a total clusterfuck of course. There’s no excuse for staying after they got Saddam.

  17. You mean American innocents?

    Lynch was living off of American taxpayers, but I find it hard to say she was preying on them. I’m thinking more of the innocent Iraqi folks that have caught some American ordnance. I mean, Lynch’s paper-shuffling career was directly supporting that, right?

    I’m sure Schneider though, in the interests of consistency, will avow that the Iraqis ought to have cut her throat and left her for dead, her being a tax-sink on Americans and party to agression against innocents and all.

  18. “”Should have been” treated by *whom*?”
    JTK: By anyone making war on the Taliban.

    Your phrase “making war” implies (falsely) that the Taliban were the targets of initiated force (“war”) rather than the initiators of force themselves.

    “That’s what they call “splitting hairs”.
    JTK: You’d have to split hairs to bring him here for a show trial.

    Irrelevant to the question of whether or not Lindh was (Lopez)”a moral criminal of any sort”(/lopez). Do you or don’t you deduce that Lindh was a willing accomplice and collaborator in moral crimes (and, incidentally, that Lopez has rocks in his head)?

    “But the Taliban wasn’t fighting a “just war”; it was imposing a brutal, Stalinist ideology of slavery.”
    JTK: As is so often the case I think it’s wise, just, and useful to make finer distinctions than you do about people on the wrong side of the ball.

    “Useful” = pragmatism. If you have some “use” for the “fool[ish]” vicious animal named Lindh, adopt him as a guardian and assume full responsibility for your new pet. (This, of course, is exactly what the US Govt. has done, albeit that it sees fit to rob you and me to pay for the animal’s cage and feed.)

    “Wise”? I submit that it’s not “wise” to stand back and watch the face of the earth become covered with this creeping blight until Galt’s Microscopic Crevice is the last refuge and they’re beating down the door to claim that too, because one gets off one’s lazy, plush-bottomed pacifist *ass*.

    “Just”? Justice would have been Marines inspecting Lindh’s weapon and excuting him on the spot if the magazine were down so much as a single round.

  19. The Mike Schneider school of nation building?

    Knock it off, Kennedy; that’s not *me* spending a trillion dollars over there. I’m merely spelling out the strategy the Bush admin & Pentagon is employing.

    There was only one sane plan for war in Iraq.

    The “war” isn’t “in Iraq”. Iraq is merely a battlefield. The “war”, so to speak, is with The Great Shariah Dictatorship, spread from Morocco to Indonesia and currently genociding its way through Africa, whether you like it or not.

    The US taking and holding (via allied proxy) Iraq would be like Osama establishing Sharia in Illinois and Missouri — it definitely puts a crimp in their style.

  20. Iraq is now a total clusterfuck of course.

    Rubbish. A couple dozen people getting killed every day in a country bigger than Texas is not “a total clusterfuck”, despite what the lyin’ asshole pro-Kerry press is promoting.

    There’s no excuse for staying after they got Saddam.

    Look at a map: Iraq is smack in the middle of The Great Shariah Dictatorship — Iran east, Saudia Arabia south, Turkey north, Syria east. Developing an ally there will be devastating to the fanatics moral.

    Lopez: Lynch …

    Change the subject like a slithering weasel, why doncha? Not at all like an *honest* man, who’d have the common decency to admit that he was flat-out WRONG when you blorted “(I’m) not so dumb that I consider Lindh to be a moral criminal of any sort.”

    I’m sure Schneider though, in the interests of consistency, will avow that the Iraqis ought to have cut her throat and left her for dead, her being a tax-sink on Americans and party to agression against innocents and all.

    If Saddam’s troops possessed the moral footing to come to that sort of decision, then you might have a case. But you don’t.

  21. “Look at a map: Iraq is smack in the middle of The Great Shariah Dictatorship — Iran east, Saudia Arabia south, Turkey north, Syria east. Developing an ally there will be devastating to the fanatics moral.”

    The Mike Schneider school of nation building? What next?

    There was only one sane plan for war in Iraq.

  22. “Knock it off, Kennedy; that’s not *me* spending a trillion dollars over there. I’m merely spelling out the strategy the Bush admin & Pentagon is employing.”

    Approvingly, it sounded to me.

  23. *Somebody* has to flush the toilet.

    The mere fact that the government has declared a monopoly on the job doesn’t mean it no longer needs to be done.

  24. “So?”

    So stop pretending (or at least lending the appearance of pretension) that my being pleased with the fact that the toilet’s being flushed is equivalent to me being pleased with who’s doing the flushing, how they did it, or how much they paid themselves with loot to do it.

    That’s an equivocation fallacy — and a snide one at that.

  25. Mike:

    “Look at a map: Iraq is smack in the middle of The Great Shariah Dictatorship — Iran east, Saudia Arabia south, Turkey north, Syria east. Developing an ally there will be devastating to the fanatics moral.”

    Since when have Syria and Turkey been part of The Great Sharia Dictatorship? The Syrians do have some rather dodgy links with terrorist groups, but Assad and his Baathists are national socialists. As for the Turks, they have been secular since Ataturk.

  26. JTK: Iraq is now a total clusterfuck of course.

    MJS: Rubbish. A couple dozen people getting killed every day in a country bigger than Texas is not “a total clusterfuck”, despite what the lyin’ asshole pro-Kerry press is promoting.

    Clusterfuck. At this point Bush may as well be hosing down Iraq with American blood and treasure.

    “That’s an equivocation fallacy — and a snide one at that.”

    Lesson in manners: Priceless.

  27. “Not so dumb that I consider Lindh to be a moral criminal of any sort. ”

    you stupid fuck.

    privatized banditry is still fucking banditry.

    Lindh would slit the throat of a school-crossing guard and Lopez would cheer him on because the crossing-guard recieved a tax-funded paycheck.

    it just so happens i have several 7.62s ready for Lindh, Horiuchi AND anarho-bandits like John Lopez should they try it.

    BRING IT ON.

  28. Geek: “The Turkish government continues to suppress public expressions of Islam to a considerable degree”

    What “public expression” are you talking about?

    In any event, I gather it’s still inadvisable to walk through downtown Ankara wearing a yarmulke.

  29. Schneider prods me on my two statements that “Turkey have both routinely killed and imprisoned Islamists…” and then “Turkey is…becoming less repressive and less authoritarian under a moderate, democratically-elected Islamist government”, by saying ‘Your usage of “Islamist” is self-contradictory.’

    Actually not, although you’re right to prod me here. The issue is one of tense: Turkey has oscillated between more and less repressive over the years; and its willingness to kill off and imprison Islamists has changed over time. (As well as how radical an Islamist you had to be to be a likely victim; the currently governing party is an extremely mild form of Islamism, and has only gotten milder over time.)

    As for the thuggish nature of the Syrian regime (and, for that matter, of the Turkish regime–although it is far less thuggish and getting better at the moment), you won’t get much disagreement from me. But not all thugs are the same, and not all of them are natural allies. Whatever the faults of the Turkish regime, for example, the relationship between Islam and political society is very different from the way it is in Saudi Arabia or Iran. The Turkish government continues to suppress public expressions of Islam to a considerable degree (as it has since Attaturk); and, given this, and its close diplomatic and military connections with both the United States and Europe, it seems a bit odd to brush over these with the claim that “In any event, differing bark-patterns on individual trees within the forest of Islam are of considerably less importance than the fact that it’s still an Islamic forest with a vested DNA blueprint (the suras of the Qu’ran) in eventually smothering all non-Islamic vegetation.”

    Most of this, in any case, is a pretty peripheral issue.

    Stefan ventures a guess: ‘Just curious Rad Geek, but I’m guessing you radically disagree with Greg Swann on the “East vs. West” thing?’

    Well, I don’t so much disagree as I am inclined to say that people whose world-historical principles depend on some sort of opposition between “the West” and “the East” actually fail to give a coherent meaning to some of the terms that they are using. More on that can be found (in part in response to comments by Swann) in my comments at the end of Do Good Guys Use Newspeak?

  30. “As for the Turks, they have been secular since Ataturk.” Indeed. Syria and Turkey have both routinely killed and imprisoned Islamists–since the latter are a direct threat to their regimes. It’s unclear why Schneider doesn’t think more highly of them.

    For what it’s worth, let’s add to the record that Turkey is not a dictatorship, and that at the moment it is becoming less repressive and less authoritarian under a moderate, democratically-elected Islamist government. Which has a lot to do with the governing party’s opposition to military rule, and with the prospects of free trade and immigration within the E.U., and nothing at all to do with the U.S. blowing shit up.

  31. Schneider: ‘They’re “moslem states”, even if not Taliban-style cleric-run theocracies.’

    Both Turkey and Syria have secular, anti-Islamist governments. Islam is not the established religion, and they are governed under civil law, not shariah law. Turkey, unlike Syria, is not a dictatorship (whatever other flaws the Turkish state may have). Putting them into a group that you have dubbed “The Great Sharia Dictatorship” seems mistaken–in the case of Turkey, doubly so.

    If “moslem state” is supposed to merely indicate the fact that their population is majority Muslim, then it’s unclear what in the world that’s supposed to signify. Is Bosnia-Hercegovina part of this “Great Sharia Dictatorship” with which the United States government is allegedly at war? Is Dubai?

  32. Julius: Since when have Syria and Turkey been part of The Great Sharia Dictatorship?

    They’re “moslem states”, even if not Taliban-style cleric-run theocracies. Turkey is content to sit back and watch its sister states take care of the evil infidels, while Syria, as you note, takes an active if covert role.

    “That’s an equivocation fallacy — and a snide one at that.
    Kennedy: Lesson in manners: Priceless.

    It was a lesson is logic, not manners.

  33. A crossing guard might be under the magic evilness threshold

    I wonder where postal workers and immigrants displaying “warlike” behavior fit into this scheme…

  34. Lopez; you’re arguing that the toilet doesn’t need flushing because you don’t approve of the way the people who are pulling the handle have funded the operation.

    You’re wrong — the toilet needs flushing.

    Kennedy: Clusterfuck. At this point Bush may as well be hosing down Iraq with American blood…

    If an everage of 0.5 GI deaths per day of “war” (lower even than the Greneda operation) constitutes a “clusterfuck”, I think it’s safe to say the word has been effectively neutered into uselessness by you.

    and treasure.

    Not spending it on flushing the toilet doesn’t mean it’s going back into your pockets, John.

    The entire cost of the Sharia War merely means the The Great Ponzi Scheme will bust about a month earlier — that’s how neglible these sorts of things are now compared to the overall debt.

  35. it is becoming less repressive and less authoritarian under a moderate, democratically-elected Islamist government. Which has a lot to do with the governing party’s opposition to military rule, and with the prospects of free trade and immigration within the E.U., and nothing at all to do with the U.S. blowing shit up.

    Just curious Rad Geek, but I’m guessing you radically disagree with Greg Swann on the “East vs. West” thing?

  36. Geek: “Turkey have both routinely killed and imprisoned Islamists…”
    Geek, a paragraph later: “Turkey is…becoming less repressive and less authoritarian under a moderate, democratically-elected Islamist government”

    Your usage of “Islamist” is self-contradictory.

    In any event, differing bark-patterns on individual trees within the forest of Islam are of considerably less importance than the fact that it’s still an Islamic forest with a vested DNA blueprint (the suras of the Qu’ran) in eventually smothering all non-Islamic vegetation.

    As far as Turkey goes, they’re less stable now than they used to be, and Syra’s autocratic dictatorship is merely another Saddam-style thugocracy which, even if its radicals are oppressed every so often, gets an otherwise “faithful” bill of health from the fanatics determined to blow up all of Infideland. — Such less-than-pure strains of Islamic rule are easily tolerated so long as they are not allied with the Great Satan, and embraced if they provide refuges or other assistance (as Saddam did).

    The reason the new Iraq is likely to be a much more reliable ally to the USG than Turkey, et al, is because, like Israel, it will bear the stigma of being *created* by the Satanic Infidels, and will therefore always be under attack even after the last of US combat troops depart.

    (BTW, has anyone heard ANYTHING about the purported Iranian uprising a few days ago?)

  37. MJS: Change the subject like a slithering weasel, why doncha?

    MJS: If Saddam’s troops possessed the moral footing to come to that sort of decision, then you might have a case.

    Why don’t you make that decision, Schneider? Are you saying that you don’t possess the moral footing to do so? If you do possess the moral footing to do so, then I “have a case”, don’t I, and I’m not changing the subject, am I?

    AD: Lindh would slit the throat of a school-crossing guard and Lopez would cheer him on…

    Wouldn’t. Schneider would, though (Well, he might. Small-town mayor, certainly. A crossing guard might be under the magic evilness threshold).

    AD: BRING IT ON

    Capital letters work best sprinkled in the text, not all bunched up at the end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *