It’s Official
Russell Shaw has retreated into the space that Oscar Wilde described: "Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow". Mr. Shaw has amply - very amply indeed - proved how very, very shallow he is.
It strikes me as more than a little ironic that some self-regarded patriotic conservatives would somehow interpret my analytical, "what woud (sic) happen if" I Hope And Pray We Don't Get Hit Again BUT…post as a call for the enemies of America who hit us on 9/11/01 and cost the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent people to hit us again.
Not only because I wish for the death of no one, but because many of these same people are among the first to agree with Ann Coulter that for speaking out against the way the war on terror has been conducted since they lost their husbands, some of the 9/11 widows are "harpies."
By the way, see my post about that whole sorry escapade here.
I also find it ironic that these are many of the same readers who would question judging the morality of the political consequences of the losses of more Americans when they are among the first to rationalize the loss of more than 2,000 troops in a war waged predominantly against a nation who, unlike Bin Laden's hosts in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Then again, I guess some of those readers are among those who still think Saddam was involved in 9/11.
But on the broader scale, some critics may fail to realize that for millions of Americans, terrorism is a frequent presence. Not the terrorism of a shoe-bomber, or of trumped up orange alerts based on intercepts of guys shouting "Jihad" in an Internet chat room, but the real psychological and economic terrorism often visited on Americans in the guise of:
Oh, do please go on and read Mr. Shaw's bathos-filled explanation of what real terrorism is to him. The insincerity of his sincerity will overcome you. He's obviously trying to sell a city or two. As to his "defense" of his previous garbage:
1) I don't agree with Ann Coulter and have criticized her.
2) I don't rationalize the war in Iraq as he describes it. I simply think it needed to be done.
His rationalization of what constitutes terrorism cheapens any real debate about any of the subjects he raises. His "calculus" is morally reprehensible and his "justification" makes him look like what he is: very serious, and very, very shallow.
Very shallow.
Blogosphere, Left Wing | Gaius August 27, 2006
Other Links to this Post
-
Alabama Liberation Front — August 28, 2006 @ 5:11 am
-
UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Russel Shaw Defines Domestic Terrorism — August 28, 2006 @ 11:54 am
By Roland Hesz, August 28, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
“2) I don’t rationalize the war in Iraq as he describes it. I simply think it needed to be done.”
Still have not seen any reason, except for the WMDs that was there but was not there but then was there or maybe not, and the now denied allegiance that Hussein stood behind 9/11 - which was clearly articulated then, but is denied now, as “we have never said he was connected”.
Was needed? Maybe. After all, even weapons have their lifespan, and bombs should not be wasted rusting on the shelves.
Deposing a dictator is a noble goal, of course, but then, if a nation can’t get rid of his dictators on its own, that nation will fall under the rule of another dictator soon - just look at Afghanistan.
[As sidenote: Since Katherine Harris showed us, that state and church should be the same, we know that a taliban-like rule if to be desired, and not to be fought against. ]