Thursday, July 07, 2005

Frank Gaffney's "Logic"

Let's read this article, and summarize Gaffney's main points (so as to avoid lots of copying and pasting, each point is numbered as they were in his article):

First, this terrorist bombing proves that the Iraq War is necessary to prevent future terrorist bombings; even though we do not yet know who was responsible and what effect the war in Iraq has had on them. We do know, however, that without the war on Iraq, we would have had many more bombings like this and they would have been much worse, because... er... I said so.

Second, the fact that we are not a police state makes it easier to attack us. Furthermore, the terrorists attack us because we ae not a police state, even though, again, we do not yet know who is behind the bombing or what there agenda is. So cutailing civil liberties would likely make it easier to fight the enemy, but would also constitute appeasement.

Third, public transportation is an easy target for terrorists. [Actually, this is a simple statement of fact, so I can't really make fun of this one].

Fourth, we need to encourage civilians to be more alert. [This could be a bad thing or a good thing, depending on whether we are talking about spying on each other's personal affairs, or whether we are talking about notifying police if you see a Middle Eastern-looking man muttering "time to kill the infidels," and not worrying about "racial profiling.]

Fifth, the G-8 summit is stupid, although in the wake of terrorits attacks we need to keep buggering on to avoid giving them a propaganda victory. Our main concern should be attacking Iran and Syria. [Partly right on this, partly wrong.]

Sixth, these attacks prove how inmportant it is to conquer the Middle East and to fight Islamic terrorists, even though we don't know yet who committed these atrocities and whether or not they had state sponsorship. That terrorism exists is enough reason to conquer the Middle East.

Finally, this attack proves the need to discourage Israel from giving in to Palestinian demands, even though the untrained observer may not see what these attacks had to do with the situation in Israel. [I'm not saying that he's wrong that giving in to the POalestinians is a bad policy, but I fail to see it as immediately related to this attack.]

That is all.

No comments: