This comparison is totally misleading. The most blatant misdirection is that both your "mock" examples include single agents, while the real-life incident in Afghanistan involves, "Hundreds of inmates, some of them convicted al-Qaida and Taliban militants."

Additionally, you mock examples infer ridiculous conclusions not clearly implied by Norwegianity's comment on the incident. More broadly, neither of the conflicts you refer to in your mock examples have the same character as events in Afghanistan. Attempts to draw a comparison present moral or strategic parity between, for example, WWII and the war in Afghanistan as a given which is, again, misleading.

On balance it's very weak fisking that would, I imagine, only be interesting to someone who already shares your prejudices-- except, of course, as an example of weak fisking from an "overheated" rightyblog.

Oh I don't think it's very snarky at all. In fact, I look forward to Mitch's take on my lastest post which includes a link to a NY Times story about how Germany gave us Iraq's defense plans just before we invaded.

Apparently Rumsfeld's brightest and shiniest moment, the invasion itself, was greatly aided by one of our cheese-eating European allies.

: )

Joshua,

Long time no see!

"This comparison is totally misleading. The most blatant misdirection is that both your "mock" examples include single agents, while the real-life incident in Afghanistan involves, "Hundreds of inmates, some of them convicted al-Qaida and Taliban militants."

A distinction without a difference. One might reasonably assume that Taliban/AQ sympathizers would carry on their trade in prison. Does this invalidate the liberation of Afghanistan? Indeed, in and of itself does it *affect* the liberation of the nation?

It's a prison riot. Most of those thugs will die in prison, sooner or later.

"Additionally, you mock examples infer ridiculous conclusions not clearly implied by Norwegianity's comment on the incident."

Wege's comment implied that since AQ and Taliban hard-liners are rioting *in prison* (as opposed to "In the mountains, among their caches of guns, and among a populace whose sympathies they can try to win" - you do see the distinction, dont' you, Joshua?), the liberation of Afghanistan was either a joke or somehow invalid.

" More broadly, neither of the conflicts you refer to in your mock examples have the same character as events in Afghanistan."

Duh.

The post wasn't a dissertation on the characteristics of three conflicts; it spoke to the absurdity of assuming that a prison riot was anything more than a prison riot.

"Attempts to draw a comparison present moral or strategic parity between, for example, WWII and the war in Afghanistan as a given which is, again, misleading."

D'ya think? :-)

"On balance it's very weak fisking that would, I imagine, only be interesting to someone who already shares your prejudices-- except, of course, as an example of weak fisking from an "overheated" rightyblog. "

...says the author of a still-weaker attack based on a strawman (attacking arguments I'm not making) that would only be interesting to someone who wants to pedantically prove that everyone he disagrees with is a moron.

Wege,

"Apparently Rumsfeld's brightest and shiniest moment, the invasion itself, was greatly aided by one of our cheese-eating European allies."

The interesting part is this: There are elements in the CIA (among the high-ranking civil service bureaucracy, apparently, more than on the Operations side) that have been trying to sabotage Bush since the beginning. On the other hand, there are apparently pro-CDU, anti-SDP elements in the Bundesnachrichtendiest who bring the opposite motivation to the table. ]

THAT part I want to read more about.

The prison riot just shows we can't even brutalize the opposition into submission. I don't think there's any shortage of enemies along the border with Pakistan (on both sides of the "line").

I find it amusing that the invasion, arguably the only thing Rummy got right, was significantly aided by European intelligence.

The rest of this won't sort out until we have a new blue ribbon commission, one not stonewalled by the current administration. Then you'll have plenty to read about.

"the only thing Rummy got right"

other than, y'know, the whole "completely destroy any convention armed opposition in the longest opposed mechanized advance in world history, in three weeks flat" bit, you mean?

"The prison riot just shows we can't even brutalize the opposition into submission. "

Ah, those poor, brutalized AQ/Taliban thugs.

All that time lynching women must not have prepared them for life in captivity.

We should have lined 'em all up and machine gunned them all.

We should have lined 'em all up and machine gunned them all.

Um, we did. They were in boxcars at the time, but the result was pretty much the same. The ones who weren't shot died from heat exhaustion en route to the prison.

Hard cheese for all those wonderful folks the CIA trained to shoot down Russian helicopters.

"A distinction without a difference."

Balls; your mock examples are insignificant on the scale of the conflicts they refer to in part because of their scale-- one German in World War II, one gangster in the "three-generation-long war on organized crime." Obviously you can deny that you intended to imply that, but I think a reasonable person can infer that you'd be lying. Otherwise, why specify a single agent in both cases rather than setting the scale of your mock examples to fit the real event you're commenting on.

"Does this invalidate the liberation of Afghanistan?"

No. And I don't think Wege was implying that it did. That's your strawman.

"Wege's comment implied that since AQ and Taliban hard-liners are rioting *in prison* (as opposed to "In the mountains, among their caches of guns, and among a populace whose sympathies they can try to win" - you do see the distinction, dont' you, Joshua?), the liberation of Afghanistan was either a joke or somehow invalid."

Again-- I didn't infer that from the source material. That coalition forces-- and the politicians setting policy for them --have done many things badly is a point of fact, and one that I think a responsible critic should call attention to.

" it spoke to the absurdity of assuming that a prison riot was anything more than a prison riot."

A successful prison riot may reasonably be taken to imply, at a minimum, mismanagement. That doesn't invalidate the invasion, but it is worth noticing.

" ...says the author of a still-weaker attack based on a strawman (attacking arguments I'm not making) that would only be interesting to someone who wants to pedantically prove that everyone he disagrees with is a moron."

Gobble gobble gobble. Projecting much, Mitch?

" Obviously you can deny that you intended to imply that, but I think a reasonable person can infer that you'd be lying. "

No, you'd need to pretty gratuitously reject "reasonability" to call one a liar over that. My implication was both clear and has been explained; calling it a "lie" is tendentious.

"No. And I don't think Wege was implying that it did. That's your strawman."

The quote was "Isn't Afghanistan the war we've already won?", with an unstated "Hahahaha, of course we haven't."

"A successful prison riot may reasonably be taken to imply, at a minimum, mismanagement"

Then perhaps the Wege might have said "I thought things were being managed well in Afghanistan". He didn't. He addressed "the war".

"Gobble gobble gobble. Projecting much, Mitch?"

Vide that "Liar" bit.

Wow, Mitch. First PB, then good ol' Joshua comes back from the dead. You are a magnet for liberal jagoffs.

All you need now is for JB Doubtless to come back and call you a socialist, and you will be the meat in a dipshit sandwich.

"No, you'd need to pretty gratuitously reject "reasonability" to call one a liar over that. My implication was both clear and has been explained; calling it a 'lie' is tendentious."

Whatever Mitch.

"The quote was 'Isn't Afghanistan the war we've already won?', with an unstated 'Hahahaha, of course we haven't.'"

What a convenient double standard. When Josh criticizes Mitch because of an unspoken implication, Mitch accuses Josh of setting up a strawman and then insists strenuously that the inferred message was never implied; when Mitch criticizes Wege for something Wege didn't say, Mitch is just stating the obvious.

You then leap from the question of whether the war is won or not to a question of whether the war is valid, e.g. "the entire Allied war effort was invalidated."

So yeah, you're prone to setting up strawmen.

"Wow, Mitch. First PB, then good ol' Joshua comes back from the dead. You are a magnet for liberal jagoffs."

I stopped visiting this blog visits to Planet Mitch were ultimately unrewarding. Mitch is never wrong on Planet Mitch, which means he rarely bothers to come up with compelling arguments in debate because he doesn't have to; everything Mitch thinks is right on Planet Mitch, so Mitch doesn't have to do much thinking. I came back because I like to debate and I'm bored and though, "Well, here's a pretty clear-cut example of Mitch talking out his ass. I'll try debating this one with him and see if anything's changed."

Alas, evidently not.

But seriously, AK, does it ever occur to you to give poor Mitch a reach-around when you're burrowing up his ass? He sounds like he could use it and, frankly, coming up for air every so often might do you some good too.

"Whatever Mitch."

Ah, the old "Whatever" gambit. Hard to argue with that.

"What a convenient double standard. When Josh criticizes Mitch because of an unspoken implication,"

Which never existed. At no point did I say, write, imply, or think that the situations were fully equivalent. It had nothing to do with the post.

"Mitch accuses Josh of setting up a strawman and then insists strenuously that the inferred message was never implied; when Mitch criticizes Wege for something Wege didn't say, Mitch is just stating the obvious."

Wege said it!

"You then leap from the question of whether the war is won or not to a question of whether the war is valid, e.g. "the entire Allied war effort was invalidated."

"So yeah, you're prone to setting up strawmen."

Right. There's a HUGE difference between "won" and "valid" in the context of this conversation.

"I stopped visiting this blog visits to Planet Mitch were ultimately unrewarding. Mitch is never wrong on Planet Mitch..."

My heart bleeds for you.

"which means he rarely bothers to come up with compelling arguments in debate because he doesn't have to"

Er, refusing to realize you're handily beaten isnt' the same as "lack of compelling argument".

"I came back because I like to debate and I'm bored and though..."

Flatter yourself much? Look, J, I always enjoy your presence here in that you occasionally present the odd challenge - but you substitute arrogance and abuse for logic in wholesale lots; when you start getting beaten in a "debate", you *inevitably* respond by ratcheting up the scatology and abuse, which is funny, since I suspect you have no idea that it signals you're pretty much beaten. I doubt you realize it's a problem (considering how vocally you justify it)

"Alas, evidently not."

Yes, alas and forsooth, you've given me no reason to throw palm fronds in your path and agree with you.

Naturally, that's gotta be a defect on my part.

"But seriously, AK, does it ever occur to you to give poor Mitch a reach-around when you're burrowing up his ass? He sounds like he could use it and, frankly, coming up for air every so often might do you some good too."

You are a real class act.

No, really.

J: But seriously, AK, does it ever occur to you to give poor Mitch a reach-around when you're burrowing up his ass? He sounds like he could use it and, frankly, coming up for air every so often might do you some good too.

AK: Running low on hand lotion? Your little weewee getting chafed? Try spit. Since all you can fit on yours is your thumb and index finger, I know it's a challenge.

Damn, that's not a nice comment AK

Very good site! Enter in Alabama world!
alabama

zdwap cgxatspjr njclmf wjdkybfhu mjnewi wkaz oemtihaj

zdwap cgxatspjr njclmf wjdkybfhu mjnewi wkaz oemtihaj

zdwap cgxatspjr njclmf wjdkybfhu mjnewi wkaz oemtihaj

zdwap cgxatspjr njclmf wjdkybfhu mjnewi wkaz oemtihaj