freecounterpoint: Time to Eat Crow, Pepe

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Time to Eat Crow, Pepe

30 comments:

The Darkroom said...: You're getting a woody from the fact that the US doesn't systematically condone dictators ?

My point was that the US supports democracy when it suits its interests (as in this example), and is unconcerned when it doesn't (Khazakhstan).; 9/28/2006 4:03 PM
The Darkroom said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/28/2006 4:28 PM
Mr roT said...: Previously I think you asserted that Thailand was not art of the WOT and so its democracy didn't matter.
Which is it?; 9/28/2006 4:30 PM
The Darkroom said...: I have no recollection of stating such an absurdity (by this i do not mean that I am unable to do so) - could you refresh my memory ?; 9/28/2006 4:33 PM
Mr roT said...: Perhaps I got you wrong, but in this post you link to an article of Baker's in the Post about Bush's ideals clashing with reality in Thailand. This because the WH didn't have an immediate response to the military takeover. This slow response was interpreted as approval of the coup. Your comments after that post seem to back up what I have asserted.

I may have misquoted you here above too. When I wrote 'democracy doesn't matter' I meant of course,'...to the Bush Admin.'; 9/28/2006 4:58 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Pepe, the way you support dictatorships when you find a "convergence of interests' [namely, those which aid in the cause of bashing 'Ricains], such as Castro's, and deplore others, such as Khazakhstans, when there is divergence?
As for having "no recollection of stating usch an absurdity", just dig back to those discussions we had before you first ran from your own private Maginot line, back early this summer, and your famous scoffing at the notion that what Islam did outside of the context of your beloved European theatre had any import in this war.
Really, stop trying to get others to do your spade work for you, get off that gilded mare you ride, and do some honest research for a change [in this case it should be easy. It is after all Pepe himself Pepe is being asked to reasearch].; 9/28/2006 5:52 PM
The Darkroom said...: aa - you are caricaturing my summer statements to make your point. I was simply trying to focus the debate on the threat of islam to western civ. This is not equivalent to discounting its impact on the rest of the world. My argument is and always has been that militant islam is a mere annoyance in the west. You can distort this all you want to help better serve your line of argumentation (like stating that I support castro in your last post), but it has no bearing with reality.

I submit again that your argument is limited to drawing a caricature which you then proceed to bash. There is little intellectual honesty there.; 9/28/2006 6:15 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Oh, so now you lie. Caricature? If simply giving back precisely what you gave us is "Caricature" then you decide why you choose to so Caricature yourself. Never mind, of course, why this summer you did not make the caveats you are offering now.
The one thing you were very very clear on was that the rest of the world simply didn't not matter, did not enter your thinking, in this conflict. To you, it was merely the local front that mattered....And then you ran, of course.
If by that is what you mean by "intellectual honesty", then it says much on what you mean by honesty, or intellect.; 9/28/2006 6:22 PM
Mr roT said...: to those discussions we had before you first ran from your own private Maginot line, back early this summer Why this gratuitous abuse, AA?; 9/28/2006 6:23 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: As for stating that you support Castro, again it is your words I have to go by. If you do not support Castro, and for example would enjoy his being deposed and the cuban regime dismantled to be replaced by a functioning democracy, then why do you make it your consistent point to state otherwise?
As I said before, it is your words , repeated and repeated, which are the measure, on these posts, of what you believe. If think that unfair, you have always the option of actually writing what you really do believe. It is not my job to scry the sincere from the hoax, particularly if you make no attempt to differentiate between them in style or frequency of mention.; 9/28/2006 6:26 PM
The Darkroom said...: aa - you are choosing to understand what you want to understand in order to satisfy your urge at liberal-bashing. why don't you relax, pick up yoga or smoke a joint instead of distorting my statements?; 9/28/2006 6:27 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: The 'abuse" is not gratuitous, JJ. And if a Maginot Line line is 'abuse", then we are all most abused here.
A point of contention then was precisely Pepe's unwillingness to spell out what he was for, and to seek to evade responsibility for arguments and statements he had made. Particularly galling in that the whole shebang started with Pepe pressing on and on that we did not dare to accept his challenge to an argument on the WOT and Islam. I was pressed into it reluctantly, as you know, but did think that Pepe intended a serious discussion [why? because he said so]. Only to get the now expected "argument" as a mixture of rhetoric on the joys of pain to'Ricains and a constant wishing to redefine events or situations to allow the refusal to admit one is wrong. So when we listed a vast list of examples of the variety and centrality of organizations within Islam which support attacks and terror on unbelievers, Pepe says "what? Those are not Al Qaeda. The WOT is AlQaeda contra nous." [By the way, after his prodigal return, he now claims he was merely joshing. Oh, so why not make that clear many months before? Why mock the counterclaim if in fact Pepe accepted it? Simply, at that time the claim was insisted on]. When, after Pepe asserted that Islamicists had done nothing significant since 911, I presented a very long list of Islamicists doing many many significant things, from Australia and Phillipinnes all the way over, continuously , to every corner of Africa. His response , famously, being to shrug his exasperated shoulders and ask what the hell does that have to do with the WOT?
As to his claim that he discounts its threat to Western civilization, but admits its threat elsewhere. Perhaps he does. But at that time, after my trying to remind him that global success for Islamicists does not bode well at all for the survival of western civization [the analogy being with how Constantinople was fucked once it ceased caring about maintaining its influence over further reaches, and simply equated the danger of Islam with the immediate presence of an army before its gates] and to remind him that Europe was being rapidly Islamicized and just how did he expect an Islamic Europe to put much concern in the preservation of "Western Civilization"? He simply mocked the very idea that, in this game, the World has relevance. If he admits, now, that it is serious elsewhere, there is no sign at all tha the cares about it.
Which bring us back to the running motif/line about "Versailles", wherein the lords of Europe can dream of their perpetual golden era in blissful refusal to see that, outside, the world is getting ready to smash them.
But, Hey, JJ, as I said to AI, France is Pepe's land. Let him smile long in the future arising for it. But Europe is not just his land, it is also mine, and yours, and AI's [MFT, do you feel Swedish enough to joint this gang?]. And I will not join Pepe in his delusion that Europe need merely pose, perhaps even preen, and Islam will return to its cute role as background for bad erotic French movies.
Perhaps Pepe asks "what army of Islam could conquer the mighty French one? Or the proud German one?" The answer, if French and Germans cared to fight, and knew what they stood for, is no current one , for sure. What Pepe does not ask, certainly, is why would an army of Islam have to conquer France if France simply shuffles off demographically into the Ummah. Then the army of France will be as much a loyal ally of "Western Civilization" as is the Army of Lebanon.
But that obvious fact means looking at the changes effected over a few decades, a generation or two, and that sort of prevision is just no fun, it seems. Pepe wants the enemy to show its colors in big angry armies, with at most a 5 year plan to be guided by. When it is a civilizational assault, one carried out by an alternative civilization that has shown such resilience of purpose over a millenium and a half, and one that does not measure success by the models of the Brilliant and Radiant future, then the likes of Pepe seem flummoxed that anyone could consider that a serious threat.....[Just as, no doubt, in 14th Century Constantinople, he would have been bemused by all those "Cassandras' predicting the worst after the fall of Anatolia and control of the straits of Bosphorus to the energized Ottoman power. ]

Look, JJ. If fighting ridicule and disdain with ridicule and disdain is "abuse", I'll cease and desist. That is, I will simply let you all contend with Pepe. He wishes to offer you the same "courtesy" of what passes for honest intellectualism in his eyes, it is up to you to decide if that "courtesy" should be repaid in kind.
Enjoy.; 9/28/2006 7:03 PM
Mr roT said...: I looked over those summer posts. I think Pepe was sincerely opining that Islam is not a serious threat to the West and I didn't see much convincing argumentation to the contrary. I did see a fair amount of overheated diatribe.

At the beginning of all this here I expressed a preference (not a commandment) that calm rationality prevail here. The reason I wish it restored is that without members here of varying viewpoints this becomes a conservative echo chamber. And without calm argumentation, minority members split or I have to take their side opposing the screaming mob. I think MFT has felt this urge too, reading his posts specifically inviting Pepe to talk.
I think also that Pepe's occasional irony and even dishonesty are more entertaining than fierce name-calling polemic.
AI has repeatedly brought 'Frenchy' and 'Birkenstock' into his arguments with Pepe also while Pepe has only once (to my knowledge) put his Frenchness up on the board as a (culinary) virtue.

So what is all that for?

Let's ask that the rule be one of symmetry then, if it pleases you. Here above I was careful to confront Pepe with his own words. He has not answered my demand for a clarification precisely because you have brought in extraneous stuff (not quoting him or citing him). Let the man answer the question whether this news article does or does not disprove his claim.

If you want, you make a precise claim as to his support for Castro, Stalin, Mao, Petain, or whoever, but back it up with a link to his words.

Shouting him down is no decent behavior for a democrat and you and Pepe are good men.; 9/28/2006 7:27 PM
Mr roT said...: Here is the big argument if we wish to rehash it.; 9/28/2006 7:41 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: JJ, he sincerely expressed his thought that Islam is no threat to the west, [on the lines of "how could their armies beat our armies",as referred to above]. He also expressed his unconcern and disbelief that it mattered what happened to the rest of the world. Those "diatribes" you refer to where bloody long listings of events, places, and involved groups, which were part of this global "effort". Which were answered by exactly what counterevidence? By what evidence did Pepe argue so vehemently as to how this was all irrelevant to the West? Nowhere, JJ, nowhere.
As for your assertion that it is not Pepe's responsibility to recall what Pepe said, or to make reasonably clear what is jest versus what is sincere, that is more than a bit wee comical. If I think I am being misquoted, or have something attributed to me I do not recall, then I go through my previous posts to check. But ask that of Pepe is to fail my calling as a gentleman? Whoo boy.
Finally, before play Judge Roy Bean, do make a point of understanding the difference between what I, or AI, labelled a Pepe stance, and how Pepe labelled it for himself. "Versailles", "Petain" [or Vichy] were our characterisations of his stances. Not, obviously, his self described characterisation.
On the other hand, I stand by my assertion that now Pepe is playing coy with his current assertion that he did not mean [by questioning the relevance of the world outside the west ] that he considered the question of the world outside the west irrelevant. Nor his wonderment as to why we bothered bringing it up, with any consideration that it was not worthy of being brought up. Of course, if you care to reread, his reduction of the nature of the war we face to being simply
'alqaeda", and the context in which he tries to slip this in, is there for you to see.
As for Castro, read what Pepe has had to say about him.
Rational, and gentleman, are good things to be, if the one on the other hand is offering that approach to a discussion. But it is weird, to be polite, for you to consider that a one-way obligation on my part.
As I said, if Maginot line was a line too far, then chalking up all the things that have been said about 'Ricains and their soldiers, French and their lack theoreof, Bush, Clinton, Jesus and Mohammed, were safely within that line? Right.
To reiterate, I'll cease and desist. He and Thee can interlocutate untroubled to your heart's content. Let's see how rational gentlemen do their dance.; 9/28/2006 8:31 PM
Mr roT said...: As for your assertion that it is not Pepe's responsibility to recall what Pepe said

Where did I assert this, AA?; 9/28/2006 8:53 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: You said it was OUR responsibility to [not rely on memory, my addition] track down the specific quote background of Pepe. I track my own. I had expected that much from Pepe. You said:
"If you want to make a precise claim as to his support for Castro.....back it up with a link to his words".
So we cannot trust our memory's as to, for example, his support for Castro [recall his comments on Ricains support for thugs like Pinochet], but must search all of free counterpoint for the day, often buried in comment sections, where the issue arose. Fine. But Pepe can simply deny he meant what he said, or how he said it, or why he said it, and not bother with one shred of recapturing of his quotes?
And, since you like to play that game, find me the quote, for example, where I ever said that Pepe said he liked or admired Petain? I described him as Petain. Up front, and no bones about it, and no need to say "hey, before I admit squat, prove it". But I never said Pepe so described himself. That may not be gentlemanly, but it is honest.
Now find me that quote.; 9/28/2006 9:04 PM
The Darkroom said...: aa - these are your assertions: in the civilized world the burden of backing them up is on you. So either you point us to where I indicated that islam-induced misery in the third world is fine/not a problem/a good thing/nonexistent/fun/something to look forward to/ or whatever you like to extrapolate from my attempt at focusing the discussion on the threat to western civ, or you'll just have to accept my claim that I stated no such thing.

Since you will be unable to find any such assertion on my part without distortions that would conveniently add to your propensity at liberal-bashing binges, let me say this once again for the record: the threat of islam to western civilization, as it is today, is minuscule when compared to that of former enemies such as the warsaw pact, and rather small by any measure, except perhaps economical.; 9/28/2006 10:34 PM
Mr roT said...: I am loath to gang up on anyone or see it done.

Let me point out here and now that what I found most appealing in Pepe's 'argument' (or better 'proposal') back in that July thread is that the terrorism issue might be handled better exclusively with special forces/special ops. I have heard from SO Vietnam vets that that deal went south exactly when they brought in the regulars and this may not be so different after all.

I am not convinced, though. I do think that a vociferous support of democracy in the muslim world is exactly what the US needs to project, deposing dictators when necessary and acting with prejudice usually.

I am thankful to Israel precisely for their knocking out Saddam's nuke plant while Chirac was selling them parts. The Arabs should be thankful too, and I have read that many are. And these are not quislings either. They fear rightly that Saddam with a nuke would be worse than any number of Sauds.

If at first Pepe seemed flip or imprecise in his formulations (e.g. stating opposition to the US when what he meant, perhaps obviously, as one who has brought his family here to live, is that he opposes US policy as it could endanger his children and their future) I noticed in that July thread that he was precise in his discussion and deemed Islamic extremism a threat--though not a threat like Mao with nukes.

That is a matter of opinion no matter how many examples AA and AI trot out from the history of Byzantium and of Vichy.

A million examples doesn't make a proof and a convincing argument doesn't contain invective.; 9/28/2006 11:21 PM
Tecumseh said...: AI has repeatedly brought 'Frenchy' and 'Birkenstock' into his arguments

Hey, hey, hey -- what's wrong with calling someone "Frenchy"? After all, I'm semi-French myself, so I perhaps I'm spitting in my own face when I say that, non?

As for invoking Birkenstock sandals -- well, if anyone is thin-skinned enough to take offense at that, well, sorry, if I can take being called Attilla the Hun or yahoo redneck, or whatever, that ad-literam description of your central-casting Alan Alda type seems rather innocuous to me.

Finally, I'm glad to see that JJ had the patience to read through some (or most) of those tirades from the dog days of summer. But when it comes to his Monday-morning quarterbacking, i'm rather underwhelmed. Have another Stone IPA, and try again, but shorter this time -- too much loggorhea can obscure what you're trying to say. What was that, again?; 9/29/2006 2:29 AM
Mr roT said...: To be civil.; 9/29/2006 7:34 AM
Tecumseh said...: Amen to that.; 9/29/2006 11:02 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Pepe, I had promised JJ to cease and desist. But, as you simply took that as one last opportunity to play the disingenuous roue let me repeat a little from before. I said that you had shown that you did not consider whatever Islam did outside of the european context as a problem because it simply was not the european context. As evinced by your huge "so what?" reaction to the long list of things done in the last few decades in the name of Islam around the world. Now you claim that you do think it is a problem? Or simply an irrelevant problem because non-europe is, amazingly enough, non-europe? Wasn't that precisely the hub of the issue, that you wished to consider the danger, potential or otherwise, of Islam Militant only as measurable by the ability to project successfully military power against Europe. Whereas I asked you to consider as fulsomely important both its ability to violently attack globally conjoined with the islamicization of europe's citizenry?
You, repeatedly, derided the efforts of Islam Militant as mere "Al Qaeda", and your informed response to everything else [the acts worldwide, and its accompanying successes, of IM, the transformation of europe by islamic immigration, the mainstream nature within Islam of the support for the current assaults against Dar el Harb] was to simply state, with no argument why, no empirical evidence pointed to, irrelevancy [as in the first], "oh my" ratherisms as to the second, and complete and utter silence as to the third.
Now, for whatever reason, you wish to claim that by "Al qaeda" you did not mean Al qaeda, or were merely joshing, or?. and you wish to assert that your then clear insouciance as to what is outside Versailles was, what, not genuine insouciance? That you do indeed care about IMs advance around the world? If so, then why was there no evidence of that before, muchacho? [yes, I use "Versailles" to denote your stance that one should limit one's concern to your notion of the "west". You did not use the word Versailles. I did. And I use "muchacho' because if Petain or Maginot LIne or Frenchie or Birkenstock can drive you into a frenzy of injury, imagine what Muchacho could do. Let the experiment begin. Whaddya gonna do, call me "cracker", or "redneck", or "whitehater", or 'fascist" yet again? Ooooh, the civil agony of it all]
As for your claim that you have a right, divine no doubt, to do no grunge work, refer to no evidence of previous discussion, in no way relate your current "this is what I said" to your past "this is what I say", that it is the obligation of those you oppose to bring all to court, well that is indeed Versaillian, even Birkenstockian.
But your wish, Lord, is my command.; 9/29/2006 3:09 PM
The Darkroom said...: aa - I think you need ot let go, but for the last time:

I did once use "AQ" as shorthand for islam militant. I realize it was very wrong and that you have been deeply hurt by my poor choice of vocabulary, but it is now time to move on.

I don't know how to say what i have repeated a dozen times now - that the statements I have made about radicalism were focused on western nations. I do not disagree that it is more of an issue elsewhere.

As for your claim that you have a right, divine no doubt, to do no grunge work, refer to no evidence of previous discussion, in no way relate your current "this is what I said" to your past "this is what I say", that it is the obligation of those you oppose to bring all to court, well that is indeed Versaillian, even Birkenstockian.
aa- i do not wish to burden you with logic, but it is going to be difficult for me to produce the passage where I did not state what you say I stated without your replying that well, it was in another comment.; 9/29/2006 3:33 PM
Mr roT said...: Thank you boys, for fighting about something instead of about nothing or about something with a slew of ad hominems.
Pepe, I will search out everything you haven't said and put it together in a post.
AA, you can rest assured that though he doesn't say some idiotic things, he certainly thinks all of them.
He is from Europe after all.
AI, as to your judging people thin-skinned about some things, I suggest you stay away from sharp edges yourself. Like the butterknife.; 9/29/2006 4:26 PM
Tecumseh said...: I can handle the butterknife. My bigger problems are with incandescent pokes in the eye.

As to this thread, I guess it has had a certain therapeutical value. Methinks the discussion would be far more productive if we could all repair now and then to the corner bar, and cool off with a pint or five. What would you say is a good brew for such purposes -- or indeed, would that lead to an even more heated argument?; 9/29/2006 9:56 PM
The Darkroom said...: I am enjoying Newcastle more and more. I used to drink Sam Adams, and then go home, neglect my wife & beat my kids. Not any more.
There's also guiness of course.; 9/29/2006 10:20 PM
Mr roT said...: You all should be castrated. Stone IPA and Fuller's ESB are all that's worth drinking from barley and hops.; 9/29/2006 11:55 PM
Tecumseh said...: I tried Newcastle, but it didn't really speak to me -- kind of bitter. Lately, I've been tasting California and Oregon brews -- not bad, but not in the Stone IPA category, either.; 9/30/2006 1:28 AM
The Darkroom said...: shit - we can't even find a beer to agree on. this is not a good start.
Off for a canoeing trip in David Duke county. Talk to you Monday.; 9/30/2006 9:46 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)