![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockOk I think I may have posted this too late for most folks to have read it, so I draw your attention again to the Poorman's strategy for defeating Islamic terror at its roots and democratizing the Arab Muslim world:
1. First, find an empty beer bottle.
2. Next, I want all Republicans and Republican media mouthpieces like yourself, Sully, to start telling everybody that this empty beer bottle is actually full of terror! When people question whether there is really any terror in the bottle, deride them as unserious, or as being terrorist sympathizers, traitors, anti-Semites, or whatever. When pressed to prove that the bottle is actually full of terror, admit that, well, maybe you can’t meet every nit-picky courtroom standard of proof on this, but terror can’t be defeated unless we understand about unknown unknowns and all that. I mean, maybe the bottle isn’t really 100% full of terror. But here’s the thing: CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THAT CHANCE!?!?!
3. Having identified where terror is, there is only one thing to do. Andrew Sullivan, I want you to eat that glass bottle.
4. Chew it up, real, real good. Shatter the glass with your teeth, and then grind the broken glass between your molars. Pay no mind to the pain as shards of glass tear open the soft tissues of your mouth - you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, after all. When people point and gasp at the blood and shredded flesh leaking from between your lips, explain (as best you can manage with your mangled tongue) that, no, it’s not as bad as he press makes out - in fact, it actually tastes really, really good, and in a little while you are going to eat a handful of rusty tacks (Syria) and that pile of red-hot coals (Iran). Because this is just the first step in a serious, brilliant, and amazingly far-sighted anti-terror, pro-democracy strategy.
5. Eventually, of course, people are going to realize that chewing on broken glass really isn’t particularly effective either as an anti-terror policy, or as a way of promoting democracy abroad. Actually, you’d have to be kind of a retard to think otherwise. So maybe you should stop now. But! you can point out To stop chewing this glass bottle would show weakness to the terrorists! It would send a signal that all the terrorists would have to do is stab our mouths with glass fragments and we would give into their demands! No, regardless of whether or not there was ever any terror in that bottle - and hindsight, I feel compelled to remind you, should not be mistaken for wisdom - it is now vitally important that you keep chewing until al-Qaeda disbands and every country in the world is peaceful and free. We must stay the course.
There. Now I’ve articulated a strategy every bit as coherent and likely to succeed as the Bush-Cheney-Sullivan strategy. (No accident: I admit that I found your work a source of great inspiration.) Also, it has the advantage of being orders of magnitude less expensive and less bloody than our current approach, and of having very little chance of backfiring, as the “create a beach-head for modernity and democracy in Iraq” is currently doing - and quite spectacularly, I might add. So, now I’ve put forth a completely facetious vision which - very conservatively - would be thousands of times more productive than yours. So I wonder: am I being serious enough for you yet?
1. First, find an empty beer bottle.
2. Next, I want all Republicans and Republican media mouthpieces like yourself, Sully, to start telling everybody that this empty beer bottle is actually full of terror! When people question whether there is really any terror in the bottle, deride them as unserious, or as being terrorist sympathizers, traitors, anti-Semites, or whatever. When pressed to prove that the bottle is actually full of terror, admit that, well, maybe you can’t meet every nit-picky courtroom standard of proof on this, but terror can’t be defeated unless we understand about unknown unknowns and all that. I mean, maybe the bottle isn’t really 100% full of terror. But here’s the thing: CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THAT CHANCE!?!?!
3. Having identified where terror is, there is only one thing to do. Andrew Sullivan, I want you to eat that glass bottle.
4. Chew it up, real, real good. Shatter the glass with your teeth, and then grind the broken glass between your molars. Pay no mind to the pain as shards of glass tear open the soft tissues of your mouth - you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, after all. When people point and gasp at the blood and shredded flesh leaking from between your lips, explain (as best you can manage with your mangled tongue) that, no, it’s not as bad as he press makes out - in fact, it actually tastes really, really good, and in a little while you are going to eat a handful of rusty tacks (Syria) and that pile of red-hot coals (Iran). Because this is just the first step in a serious, brilliant, and amazingly far-sighted anti-terror, pro-democracy strategy.
5. Eventually, of course, people are going to realize that chewing on broken glass really isn’t particularly effective either as an anti-terror policy, or as a way of promoting democracy abroad. Actually, you’d have to be kind of a retard to think otherwise. So maybe you should stop now. But! you can point out To stop chewing this glass bottle would show weakness to the terrorists! It would send a signal that all the terrorists would have to do is stab our mouths with glass fragments and we would give into their demands! No, regardless of whether or not there was ever any terror in that bottle - and hindsight, I feel compelled to remind you, should not be mistaken for wisdom - it is now vitally important that you keep chewing until al-Qaeda disbands and every country in the world is peaceful and free. We must stay the course.
There. Now I’ve articulated a strategy every bit as coherent and likely to succeed as the Bush-Cheney-Sullivan strategy. (No accident: I admit that I found your work a source of great inspiration.) Also, it has the advantage of being orders of magnitude less expensive and less bloody than our current approach, and of having very little chance of backfiring, as the “create a beach-head for modernity and democracy in Iraq” is currently doing - and quite spectacularly, I might add. So, now I’ve put forth a completely facetious vision which - very conservatively - would be thousands of times more productive than yours. So I wonder: am I being serious enough for you yet?
