(Hat tip to Freedom Center Students)
Lost in the clamor over the pro-Hizbollah remarks of the UC San Diego student from the Muslim Students Association to David Horowitz a couple of weeks back was this question from another student. Enjoy as she attempts to lead Horowitz down the old "primrose path"....
I wonder if perhaps she is a transfer student from UC Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University) Community Studies Department.
There is good news, however; this young lady is speaker of the house material.
10 comments:
She's ignorant. He's not much better.
Were the Puritans religious nuts? Yes. Were they the founding fathers? No. So, her point on that is useless.
She does have somewhat of a point when it comes to the founding fathers and the Revolution. Had the British won, they would not be in the history books as heroes, they would be considered terrorists. (Cue PatriotUSA commenting and completely missing my point, accusing me of calling the Founding Fathers terrorists.)
There are some similarities, sure, but to equate them (Founding Fathers and Palestinian Terrorists) is to show that you don't know enough about either one.
I was leaning more on Horowitz's side, but then he had to go and call her a communist. Jiminey frikken' Christmas, can conservatives debate ANYTHING without showcasing their commie tourette's? What the hell does any of this have to do with communism?
I'm starting to think that the conservative definition of "communist" is "anybody who disagrees with us".
Yeah, communist is too strong except that there is a connection between the palestinian crowd and the extreme left (who up to 20 years ago would have probably called themselves communists.)
It's not too strong, Gary. It's a complete non-sequitur.
How come it took her so long to get her point across? Are you sure she's a college student or a third grade drop-out?
Storm'n, she's a prime example of the phrase "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." She has the faintest glimmer of a point, but she doesn't understand the whole picture, so her analogy fails.
Norm,
Neither. She's a student at UC Santa Cruz Community Studies Dept. (LOL)
The young lady doesn't belong in college. She can't even complete a sentence in English, or formulate a coherent thought.
David Horowitz barely manages to master decent grammar, but his thought process is full of randomly chosen epithets, sort of like an ex-New Left Mad Lib.
Lance said some of this, but I'm trying to parse why the conversation presented lacks any coherence at all:
The young lady starts by accepting condemnation of all guerilla warfare. I don't agree. Sometimes, in the face of overwhelming oppression, a carefully considered strategy of guerilla warfare is justified. Successful practitioners may disguise themselves as civilians part of the time, but they do not open fire from the midst of unarmed civilians, because protection of those same civilians is their founding purpose.
(I note that most of the "Palestinian guerillas" are notably careless of the lives of civilians, because ensuring the safety even of their own civilians is not a priority). Anyway, Horowitz mindlessly agrees with her, because she sounds mildly agreeable at that point.
Then, the young lady insinuates that our Founding Fathers were guerillas.
Horowitz misses his opportunity to point out that, if not in resplendent uniforms, the militia assembled in military ranks according to muster at Lexington and Concord, and in accordance with well established Anglo-Saxon military practice. That they pursued battle from behind rocks and trees does not make them irregulars, nor did they target or hide behind civilians.
Further, George Washington's first priority was to assemble a professional army, upon which most of the waging of the revolutionary war depended.
Horowitz responds with a non sequitir: the Founding Fathers were not religious fanatics. Guerillas may or may not be religious fanatics, but this is not directly relevant to whether guerilla warfare, per se, can ever be legitimate.
The young lady responds with another non sequitir: the Puritans WERE religious fanatics. By the time of the American Revolution, the Puritan faith had softened, and was in any case far from dominant in all colonies. The Quakers, once hanged in Massachusetts, had Pennsylvania to govern, and were generally respected. There were enough Episcopalians in Massachusetts to hold up their high church noses, even in Boston.
The Puritans DID engage in genocide, not against another faith, per se, but against the native inhabitants of New England. Neither party addressed this.
Horowitz's defense is, in short, extremely weak. He reacts to an ill-considered syllogism, instead of pointing out a more coherent perspective.
None of this sheds much light on the IDF sending troops down ropes to jump on a ship in international waters on a relief mission.
Horowitz, after all, comes from the same roots as the incoherent young lady. He used to be editor of Ramparts magazine. He was far from the most coherent or informative editor of Ramparts, which at times had some good coverage. I read it at the time.
Now, his moral compass has shifted, but his thought process hasn't. Instead of crying "fascist pig," he cries "communist," with no evidence he understands the meaning of either term. He indulges in the same sort of vague denial, without evidence of insight.
Incidentally, Lenin wouldn't even have recognized this young lady as a useful idiot. She doesn't rank that high. Lenin expected some intellectual rigor from his immediate associates.
As I've said before, Horowitz has made a career out of asking people to support him in the style he's become accustomed to, making speeches about "I was a crying idiot, pay me a fat speakers fee and buy my books to tell you all about what a fool I've been."
Siarlys,
To imply that the colonists were the same as terrorist is silly. George Washington was a general. It was a war of independence (I think that's what we call it, right?)
Beyond all the professorial discussion, I really question what relevance the Revolutionary War has to all this.
Siarlys Jenkins makes some good points.
- wejomerv
A bit of professorial discussion would have done Horowitz some good -- he might have put the ignorant young lady in her place, instead of flailing as incoherently as she was. I think we agree on the revolution -- it was neither terrorism nor guerilla warfare. But, one could make a case that Sam Adams and his Sons of Liberty engaged in some terroristic acts, tarring and feathering anyone who was not "hearty in the cause of liberty" etc. Do I disapprove? I'm not sure. I like the results, 200 years later. I didn't have the mischance to see any of my friends and neighbors ridden around on a rail until their sphincter split. Still, it wasn't Hamas, whatever it was.
Post a Comment