Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,
Insomnia
insomnia

A few sharp kicks in their little green balls...

Once more, a popular rightwing weblog is on the warpath.. in this case, one called Little Green Footballs. Someone posted an inane, insulting comment about their creator on a forum over at Indymedia, and now they're screaming "Sue the liberal press! Hell... sue Reuters, since the person who made the post impersonated them and Reuters let them do it!"

Not much concern for reality or the law, however. Specifically, they need to pay attention to Section 230, which protects online forums from this kind of crap. (There's some interesting case precident on this matter that explains it further -- and it's a good thing it's out there too, or we could pretty much forget about weblogs if it weren't there.)

Also, the owner of LGF is making a stink about semantics, trying to find the infamous "liberal media bias". It's funny that the selfsame Repugnicants who criticize liberals for saying the word imminent are the same ones parsing media reports, upset when the world media doesn't use the same catchphrases as the Israelis do. They are throwing hissy fits at phrases like "insurgents" and "occupation authority" and are upset when the enemy is depicted as "bold" or "daring". Nevermind that FoxNews used similar verbiage to describe a really fubar situation.

Obviously, the enemy are "murderers" or "terrorists" or "Saddam loyalists" or "deadenders". They are assassins. We, however, use "tactical operations" and "pinpoint aggression" to mop up pockets of (insert dehumanising descriptive). Wolfowitz even called them criminals and losers yesterday.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe we in the US don't do a good enough job at dehumanizing others. I, for one, don't think that's the case, however. Apparently, it's not enough to think for yourself anymore. You've got to be carefully taught. Well trained civvies make good soldiers.

Oh... and I agree. Bush never said imminent. He didn't need to. Instead, he misled the world by talking about how Saddam was trying to acquire uranium and use aluminum piping to refine fuel for nukes, but he never said "imminent". You see, if there was a wealth of credible evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, then it might have been justifiable to attack them. However, if Bush's goal was to mislead the American people and drag them into an illegal, unauthorized war against a country which wasn't even remotely close to being an imminent threat... well, he certainly succeeded. There was, admittedly, nothing imminent about it.

Don't you love it when they make your point for you?! ;->
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment