Catfish and Cod
Monday, July 28, 2003
Ding dong, the boys are dead.
(Catch of the day)
The general air of satisfaction around the blogosphere needs no additional echo. They're dead, and good riddance. But why does the Left consider that bad?
Consider this enlightening discussion with co-workers. I pulled up one of the portal sites to do a websearch, and noted a story titled, "Was the killing of the Hussein brothers legal?"
Legal? Legal? The incident was initially conducted as a house search, no different from any we've done in Iraq for months now. We were fired upon, and fired back until the snipers were dead. We were not at all certain, until we actually got to their bodies, that Uday and Qusay were among the defenders. (We hoped, but we didn't know.)
Whatever the Left may say, this was a legal war according to the Constitution, authorized by Congress and conducted by the President. The legality under UNSCR 1483 is debatable, but it's not at all clear that it was illegal under the UN Charter. As to the Geneva Convention, the rules regarding occupation and treatment of prisoners have been rigidly adhered to. See for yourself.
So we didn't break any rules regarding the war. (The war support was gained on dubious grounds, I agree; but it was agreed to nonetheless.) And as long as a war exists, shooting people that shoot back at you is perfectly legal. (In fact, shooting first is generally considered a sufficient declaration of war, whether or not one existed before.)
But that doesn't matter to the Left. I said to my lovely co-worker, "Who could think it wasn't legal?"
She said, "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. Who can tell?"
I was astounded. Well, in propaganda, I said, that can be true. But terrorism is usually defined as attacking innocent civilians for political purposes. Can't we agree on an objective definition of terror?
"So things like terrorism and patriotism are complete social constructs? No reality to them at all?"
She nodded, and another co-worker nearby agreed.
Since terrorism is a social construct, with no real meaning to them, anyone can be a terrorist, or a patriot. Which means that those two words have no deep meaning to my co-workers: they're simply synonyms for "fighters I oppose" and "fighters I support". That's how the Left can call Bush a terrorist and consider Hamas and Ba'athists patriots: they're not using the same dictionary I am.
Now all I have to figure out is why anti-Americanism is a virtue to the Left. More on that later.