Say Anything Blog

I’m afraid you miss the point--badly.

Like it or not, we’re in a battle to win hearts and minds.  Invading people’s homes--without cause--isn’t going to win you friends under any circumstance.  But when you go out of your way to humiliate people, chances are darn good you’ve crossed that line from just pissing them off to where they might be open to more actively opposing you.

As for us doing a “good job over there"--right now, we’re losing and losing badly.  Colin Powell has said so and I’d suggest he knows a bit more on the subject than the lobbyists from Powerline.  You may also wish to check out this recent analysis which isn’t altogether much different from past analyses.

The point for this Muslim is that the Koran was physically defiled in his home by being placed with the “offensive” materials.  It was the height of humiliation for this man that he did not stop it.  The Koran is Holy, the physical copy he had was, not just the ideas behind it.  The soldiers, if indeed they did this, could not have insulted the man more if they had stripped him naked in public.  Our troops should realize that desecration of the Koran in this manner is a sure way to lose the hearts of the Muslim.

Like it or not, we’re in a battle to win hearts and minds. Invading people’s homes–without cause–isn’t going to win you friends under any circumstance.

But we do have cause.  We’re looking for the terrorists who are blowing people up.  Seems like a good enough reason to me.

As for us doing a “good job over there�–right now, we’re losing and losing badly. Colin Powell has said so

I’d like to know where Colin Powell has said that we’re losing.

The point for this Muslim is that the Koran was physically defiled in his home by being placed with the �offensive� materials.

The guy already had the Koran in the room with the nudie magazines, which were also his.  You’re going to blame the troops for this man sinning against his own religion?

C’mon.  He was the one looking at the porn.  If there’s anybody he should be upset with it should be himself.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Come on, Rob.

Read the story.

They humiliated the guy, and did so unnecessarily. By all means, go into people’s houses and look for weapons - but forcing a man (however pathetic he may be) to place the pornography on his bed, surrounding the Koran, is totally unnecessary, and certainly is not any way to go about winning people over to the American cause.

It was his porno he had in his own house.  If he’s upset about the Koran being around porn maybe he should take a look at how he’s living his life instead of trying to blame America and its soldiers for it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But we do have cause. We’re looking for the terrorists who are blowing people up. Seems like a good enough reason to me.

So, if there are burglaries in your neighborhood, you wouldn’t mind if the police forced entrance into your home and had a look around?

Of course, there’s a larger point here. While most Iraqis hated Saddam, most also hate the notion of being occupied by a foreign power.  At War College, they teach an insurgency can be sustained virtually indefinitely if as little as 20% of the population provides tacit support. Tacit support--not active support.  Would you care to enlighten as to how these actions are helping to end the insurgency?

I’d like to know where Colin Powell has said that we’re losing.

Newsweek:

But the truth is, neither party is fully reckoning with the reality of Iraq—which is that the insurgents, by most accounts, are winning. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged this privately to friends in recent weeks, NEWSWEEK has learned.

More recently, the Financial Times said:

“According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr. Bush recently asked [Secretary of State Colin] Powell for his view on the progress of the war. ‘We’re losing,’ Mr. Powell was quoted as saying. Mr. Freeman said Mr. Bush then asked the secretary of state to leave.” ‘

Hmm.

Imagine this scenario.

A devout Christian male, who is a bit lonely and can’t get a girlfriend, finds himself forced to resort to pornography to satisfy his ‘urges’.

A bunch of soldiers burst into his house, discover this pornography, and then force him to arrange it, crudely, around his statues of the Virgin Mary and Jesus being crucified.

That would be totally unacceptable - unless, of course, the soldiers’ mission was to humiliate this particular individual (it isn’t).

The mere fact that there was pornography in the house does not excuse the way the soldiers acted. You should therefore respond to my points about the unacceptability of their behaviour, rather than pass the buck by playing up the apparent contradiction between the presence of religious iconography and pornography under the same roof.

1. The only testimony we have regarding the soldiers and their behavior is that of a man who is obviously unbalanced (beating on his mother after the soldiers left?) and embarrassed by the fact that his porn stash was found.  Neighbors confirm that soldiers were in the area “raiding” homes, but the porn story comes only from this apparenlty deranged man.  Based on that alone I’m not willing to take this accusation all that seriously.
2. It is easy to imagine the soldiers placing the items they found in the room on the bed as they found them.  The fact that the Koran and the porn ended up int he same spot isn’t all that significant.
3. I find it hard to feel sorry for a man who owns pornography and is upset by the placement of that pornography near his Koran.  I mean, its his porn.  If the soldiers chuckled at it...well that’s a little rude but certainly not worthy of his response.
4. I find it a little funny that no one has saw fit to criticize this man for beating on his mother after the soldiers left.

Really, if this is the worst behavior the Washington Post can find I think its an indication that our soldiers are doing pretty good.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So, if there are burglaries in your neighborhood, you wouldn’t mind if the police forced entrance into your home and had a look around?

Clearly we’re talking about two different situations.  There are no suicide bombers or terrorists in my neighborhood killing me and my countrymen.  Iraq is under martial law for the time being for some very good reasons.

While most Iraqis hated Saddam, most also hate the notion of being occupied by a foreign power.

Yet we’ve seen consistent support for the upcoming elections in poll after poll (search for “Iraq Poll” on my sidebar).  The majority of Iraqi’s want democracy and want their own government.  They understand that American forces are bringing that to them.  Every report we’ve heard coming from the soldiers themselves have indicated that the Iraqis are with us.  In fact, the Iraqis are being blown up by the terrorists along with the Americans.  Why on earth would they be with the terrorists and not us?  I don’t see where your unfounded assertions disprove that.

And your quotes from former Sec. Powell are interesting, but I’m not willing to put a whole lot of stock into things not said by him publicly.  Perhaps they’re indiciative of his feelings about Iraq, but if he’s not saying them publicly I’m not taking them seriously.  There is simply too much room for the comments to be misconstrued.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

When you find yourself in a hole, you should quit digging.

Quoting InstaCracker doesn’t help your case; the fact is the security situation in Iraq is so poor that it’s unsafe for reporters to venture out and report on all that “good news” that InstaCracker believes is coming out of Iraq.

Pretending elections are some sort of magic bullet is equally foolish.

And your quotes from former Sec. Powell are interesting, but I’m not willing to put a whole lot of stock into things not said by him publicly.

I see.  But you apparently have little problem placing a great deal of stock into the words of two paid lobbyists from Powerline and a fourth-rate law professor?  None of whom have any military experience?

Again, you’re free to discount Powell’s beliefs but at least what he is saying is consistent with our own military intelligence analyses of the situation.  Other military think tanks in the US and abroad paint a very bleak picture as well.

In fact, Rob, here’s a challenge: find an analysis on Iraq from a credible military or foreign policy group which is optimistic.

Jadegold and Mark -

You’re right, we are trying to persuade Iraqis to accept a free and open society. We should make efforts to avoid offending them. However notice how easily this man was offended.

Remember, we do NOT know exactly why this man was so offended. I doubt he is certain why either. I doubt it was entirely because of the way the Koran was placed next to the girlie mags. I believe it is a combination of exposing his “shameful” behaviour to his mother and foreign infidels and placing the sacred Koran next to the swimsuit issues. Notice how emotionally fragile he is.

Moreover, notice how quickly he displaces his humiliation into physical abuse of his mother and demonization of Americans (and inexplicably, Jews). Clearly there is some complex psychology at work here.

Mark -

I imagine that happens more often than one would think. Authorities search the home of Americans every day. Most Americans are Christian. If you threw a Bible into a pile of swinsuit magazines I doubt all but the most unhinged Christians would freak out.

Continue imagining your scenario. Imagine the man beats his mother and refuses her offer of medication based on irrational Muslim-hatred. How would the press react to that?

Remember that desite American being an overwhelmingly Christian nation we tolerate and accept a great deal of blasphemy and explicit mockery of Christianity. Ever seen South Park where Jesus has a talk-show? Life of Brian? God has appeared on the Simpsons on several occasions. How about Marilyn Manson or the Dead Kennedys? Not exactly Christian friendly groups.

I agree that the soldiers should not make an effort to humiliate the man. But their actions do not justify mother-beating Jew-hatred.

One thing that bothers me is the fact that many liberals expect the Iraqis to have the same rights in a time of war as we do in a time of peace.  Its not possible or practical.  War isn’t civil, but if this is the worst scenario I don’t see much of a problem

This man had no choice.

He most certainly had the choice not to have girly mags in his home, which violates his religion.

It’s about the fact we’re not winning the battle for hearts and minds.

Can you really be sure of that.  Sure there may be insurgensts, but let’s keep in mind that many of them aren’t even Iraqis.

The point is that we’re in the middle of a war.  The elections probably won’t solve the problem, but regardless we’re in here for the long-haul.  I personally don’t believe in the war, but I support it.

Rant Wraith: As I’m sure you’re aware, you have the choice not to watch South Park or to turn the channel or not to patronize films or stage productions that may offend you.

This man had no choice. His home was entered under the threat of violence and the troops took extra care to offend him.

I’m sure you see the difference.

Once more, this story isn’t about girly mags or people who beat their mothers.  It’s about the fact we’re not winning the battle for hearts and minds.  And because of this inability we will fail and more troops will pay unacceptable prices.

He most certainly had the choice not to have girly mags in his home, which violates his religion.

You seem to be arguing that part of our mission in Iraq is to enforce the principles of Islam.  That’s a new rationale I’m confident isn’t shared by the Pentagon.

Can you really be sure of that. Sure there may be insurgensts, but let’s keep in mind that many of them aren’t even Iraqis.

Many of them are Iraqis but it’s an irrelevant point.  As I noted earlier, our War Colleges teach insurgencies can be sustained indefinitely with as little as 20% of the population lending tacit support.  Tacit support doesn’t mean people going out and planting an IED or taking a potshot at a US troop--it’s that support where people refuse to identify or report insurgent activity.  It’s a willingness to ignore or overlook insurgent activities.

Do you think this guy is going to be keen on helping Iraqi/US authorities after being humiliated?  Not likely.

Of course, it is quite likely that this fellow now has a good reason to more actively support insurgent activities.

That’s not what Andrew is saying. What he is saying is that perhaps this man should place the blame for violating his religion on himself instead of the troops.

Again, why are US troops taking it upon themselves to point out how this man might have violated his religion?

Given the mental imbalance displayed in the article I’m not sure he would have helped us anyway.

Whether or not he’s imbalanced is up to an MD. But the fact remains we’ve ensured his non-support.  Your task is to tell us why this is a good thing.

You seem to be arguing that part of our mission in Iraq is to enforce the principles of Islam. That’s a new rationale I’m confident isn’t shared by the Pentagon.

That’s not what Andrew is saying.  What he is saying is that perhaps this man should place the blame for violating his religion on himself instead of the troops.

our War Colleges teach insurgencies can be sustained indefinitely with as little as 20% of the population lending tacit support.

Can be sustained.  Doesn’t neccessarily mean they will be sustained.

And if the do persevere, what’s your answer?  Cut and run so that we alienate 100% of the population?  I think that’s a poor choice.

Do you think this guy is going to be keen on helping Iraqi/US authorities after being humiliated? Not likely.

Given the mental imbalance displayed in the article I’m not sure he would have helped us anyway.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Wouldn’t you like to hear from the soldiers involved before you talk about how they humiliated this man?

Ok, I’ll play.  Can you imagine a scenario where it would be a good or correct course of action for US troops to gather up his girly mags, laugh at him, and then deliberately place his Koran with the girly mags?

I’m trying to understand what good is accomplished by such actions.

"I agree that the soldiers should not make an effort to humiliate the man. But their actions do not justify mother-beating Jew-hatred.”

Precisely. I can agree with this argument.

But I would suggest that the behaviour of this man (ownership of porn, slapping of mother, fairly visceral anger) is an entirely separate issue from whether the soldiers acted properly, and so I see no reason why it should even be raised in a discussion of the behaviour of the soldiers. The troops were not to know that he would subsequently go on to act as he did when they entered his house - so to present the guy’s actions as some kind of justification is either a diversionary tactic, or an absurdly fallacious post hoc rationalisation.

If the soldiers acted as suggested, they acted badly, and nothing will alter that fact.

Of course, I accept that it is open to question whether we have an accurate account of what happened. But I would point out the following.

If soldiers had entered my house, and had discovered an embarrassing stash of porn while they quite properly searched my house, without making an issue of the porn, the last thing I would do is raise the subject with the international press! I would just keep quiet and go back to whacking off.

My point is that the soldiers must clearly have done something to inflame the guy, enough for him to overcome his shame, humiliation and embarrassment to go and speak to foreign journalists.

Again, why are US troops taking it upon themselves to point out how this man might have violated his religion?

The only side of the story we have in this case is this man, who is cleary a little off his rocker.  Wouldn’t you like to hear from the soldiers involved before you talk about how they humiliated this man?

Whether or not he’s imbalanced is up to an MD. But the fact remains we’ve ensured his non-support. Your task is to tell us why this is a good thing.

If they did humiliate him it is most certainly not a good thing.  Nobody has said it was.  But the question is, again, wouldn’t you like to hear the troop’s side to this story before you go on criticizing them?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Wouldn’t you like to hear from the soldiers involved before you talk about how they humiliated this man?

Ok, I’ll play.  Can you imagine a scenario where it would be a good or correct course of action for US troops to gather up his girly mags, laugh at him, and then deliberately place his Koran with the girly mags?

I’m trying to understand what good is accomplished by such actions.

Again, why are US troops taking it upon themselves to point out how this man might have violated his religion?

The only side of the story we have in this case is this man, who is cleary a little off his rocker.  Wouldn’t you like to hear from the soldiers involved before you talk about how they humiliated this man?

Whether or not he’s imbalanced is up to an MD. But the fact remains we’ve ensured his non-support. Your task is to tell us why this is a good thing.

If they did humiliate him it is most certainly not a good thing.  Nobody has said it was.  But the question is, again, wouldn’t you like to hear the troop’s side to this story before you go on criticizing them?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"My point is that the soldiers must clearly have done something to inflame the guy, enough for him to overcome his shame, humiliation and embarrassment to go and speak to foreign journalists.”

Then the real problem is not understanding the culture of the middle east.  If you try and compare America to Iraq, you will just make Iraqis look like insane people, because their religion often dominates their entire way of life.  There is just no getting around the whole Islam thing when talking about muslims.  Except maybe the Iraq the Model guys, I’m not 100% sure on that tho, I am just assuming because I don’t actually read their site much.

On that note I say that finding the swimsuit magazines was hardly a reason to flip out over anything.  Being intruded on in your home by people you hate with an irrational passion, that would be a more likely cause.  I am glad he had his mom there to batter so that he wouldn’t feel compelled to equip a bomb belt and kill a dozen random people.

I am also glad that I do not have to rely on the wapo or other msm outlets for all my Iraq information.

You don’t believe the man’s behavior reflects on his credibility, especially seeing as how he’s the only one we have to rely on for the story?

Let’s talk about credibility. If I’m some unbalanced nut who just wants to vent about the US to reporters--I think I’d make up a story that didn’t involve my collection of girly mags and the Koran.

But I would suggest that the behaviour of this man (ownership of porn, slapping of mother, fairly visceral anger) is an entirely separate issue from whether the soldiers acted properly, and so I see no reason why it should even be raised in a discussion of the behaviour of the soldiers.

You don’t believe the man’s behavior reflects on his credibility, especially seeing as how he’s the only one we have to rely on for the story?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Josh,
You seem to suggest that because I feel the person in question was subjected to humiliating and unnecessary treatment, I ‘don’t understand the culture of the middle east’.

Thankfully you are on hand to give me some helpful tips on improving that understanding.

Lesson 1) ‘people you hate with an irrational passion’.

All Iraqis hate Americans, no questions asked, no evidence required. Gotcha.

Lesson 2) ‘I am glad he had his mom there to batter so that he wouldn’t feel compelled to equip a bomb belt and kill a dozen random people.’

All Iraqis teeter on the edge of strapping themselves with explosives and blowing themselves up. The slightest aggravation could set them off, unless their servile mother is around to be the passive recipient of their latent US-hatred.

Lesson 3) ‘There is just no getting around the whole Islam thing when talking about muslims.’

All Muslims are fundamentalists.

Thanks Josh. If only all the US soldiers in Iraq had as balanced and non-patronising a view of the citizens of that country as yours, all our problems would be solved.

Rob -
That is a valid point, and I will respond to it below.

My objection was to the way that it has been spun to take the heat off the soldiers - as in, ‘look how crazy this guy is, why are we focusing on US troops when this guy has been hitting his mother’. We should examine what the troops did, plain and simple.

Now your point.

First off, ownership of pornography is simply not a reason for doubting his credibility. If it was, then I think we would be forced to doubt the credibility of pretty much every man out there. Bringing it up is something of a red herring (and probably quite hypocritical).

That leaves us with the mother-beating. Disgraceful behaviour, I will admit. But first off, the man was angry. That does not excuse his behaviour, but at least partially explains it.

Secondly, and more importantly, the only reason we know about this is because the mother and son have come forward together to tell their story. They could quite easily have left these rather unpleasant details about his character out, if their sole motive was to impugn US forces.

Why didn’t they?

First off, ownership of pornography is simply not a reason for doubting his credibility.

I’m not saying that his possession of porn, by itself, is enough to discredit him.  I’m saying that his overall reaction to a relatively minor situation is very much enough to discredit him to all but those who are looking for a reason to jump on the troops anyway.

They could quite easily have left these rather unpleasant details about his character out, if their sole motive was to impugn US forces.

Why didn’t they?

My guess is that the details came out from the neighbors and, when confronted with it, the man admitted that he did it.

But really, I’m not willing to accept any of this, up to and including any wrong-doing by the soldiers, until somebody finds out which soldiers were there and gets their side of the story.  The fact that this wasn’t done is blatantly yellow journalism.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Jadegold says, “Once more, this story isn’t about girly mags or people who beat their mothers. It’s about the fact we’re not winning the battle for hearts and minds.”

Oh no!  We’re not winning the “hearts and minds” of men who beat their mothers!  What’s the world coming to?  Hahaha...get real Jadegold.

And your “InstaCracker” comment Jadegold?  Mature.