Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Justification for the Iraq War #394

So i was driving home from class this morning and heard the most ridiculous thing ever.

You see, this guy claims we went to war with Iraq because (get this) we wanted to attack Saudi Arabia.

No, no! Really! He says that we wanted to make Saudi Arabia stop funding terrorists (as evidence he props up a couple of "Islamic Charities" that contributed probably $200,000 or less to terrorism total) but we didn't want to (ready for it?) embarass the Saudis. So we went to war with Iraq.

All the talk about WMD was just a noble lie, but really the war is and was an overwhelming, fantastic success (he claims) because Saudi Arabia has cracked down on those who would fund terrorists. Of course, he claims, nobody ever thought there were nuclear weapons in Iraq (and he makes his most sane comment here: you don't go to war intending to wipe out a nuclear power like we went to war in Iraq) but that "everyone" thought there were chemical weapons. So really, it's just unlucky for Bush and he really deserves our adulation, praise, and worship.

This was on Public Radio. The host was so stunned she was like "uhhh..." to everything he said. She never responded to any of it.

But wait! That's not all!

You see, Bush did absolutely 110% the right thing in response to the 9/11 attacks too! See, AQ really wanted to overthrow a Muslim government and set up some sort of fundamentalist Islamic state! (The Taliban, i guess, was just a figment of our imagination too? I mean, he's kind of got it... but seriously, here...)

So they were hoping America would not attack militarily and do like Clinton did most of all. (See, it's all Clinton's fault, yes?) But barring that they hoped the US would jump in and start fucking with the Islamic world. So, again, Bush did totally the right thing and was absolutely the best of the best, leader of the free world.

...
...
...
It's crazy-land out there.
But of course, he said it in a reasonable, moderate tone of voice. So nobody can question what he's saying at all. He can obviously speak nothing but the truth. Because he wasn't hyperventilating.




Okay. Enough of that.

I also smashed some face in Sociology this morning. We were talking about discrimination and suchlike. We watched this video called "Eye of the Storm" that was about this lesson a school teacher did shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. where she separated her class according to eye color. After that we talked about scapegoating and how people blame minorities for bad things that happen. The example the prof used was the Nazis.

I interjected that perhaps Falwell's comment about "9/11 was caused by the feminists and the queers" might be a better, more relevant example.

The room went silent for a few seconds, then the prof laughed nervously and said that yeah, that's probably true. But also, he said, it would be politically incorrect to discuss so we won't.

SMAAAAASH!

After class i discussed a little with him. It was okay. He mentioned we also were eyeing the Arabs and those who looked like Arabs a lot, too.




And now: the mandatory link-dump:

Please, please, please do not talk like this ever. Even if you have a point (as i think the author does). Just no. Re-frame it, find a new way. Just never say this:

...Only now we can refer to the red states as “anti-gay” states.


It might be true, but people hate being called bigots. Don't forget most of these red-states have a lot of Democratic voters in them.

And if you say that the various groups on The Right will throw a fucking fit. Just don't.

And then there's the "Democrat Party". Who're they, anyway? "Democrat Party"?

Q: Are you really sure that your bank isn't using secret software to steal $9.72 from your retirement account every week?

A: Yes, yes i am sure.

How Specter Can Save His Ass

Amusing, but somewhat bland. Let's try one more, then!

Where's Bush really going in his second term?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home