I'm confused by the Admiral's claim that this was "not an act of desperation". Every terrorist act in Iraq has been labelled an act of desperation, and proof that we are winning. So this, an act of asymmetrical warfare, and not an AOD, must be worse for us. I guess the worst-case scenario, then, is that all radical Islamists in the world kill themselves, and when that happens the US will have completely lost the WOT.
Let's say this: If Rear Admiral Harry Harris wasn't some kind of America-hater hoping to lose the war on terror, he would committ acts of asymmetrical warfare against the Islamofascistsnazidemonextremists.
I could easily have imagined this story being published in the Onion.
committ. I don't stand by almost anything that could be inferred from reading the first sentence in 4. I don't think the Adm. should kill himself, I don't think he deserves to die for saying such things, and I don't think that consistency would require that he kill himself. I probably don't believe other things people might infer, but I'd have to know what those things are first.
Brilliant tactics. After running away more failed to lead to victory, the enemy took to killing themselves. That'll show us.... something.
I wish I could find a straight transcript of the Admiral's speech. Because it seems like the only non-insane thing he could be trying to say is 'These guys martyred themselves like suicide bombers, to draw publicity, not out of despair' without using the word 'martyrs' and while borrowing Bush's retarded speechwriters.
But, like, despair's a perfectly reasonable assumption three years in with no charges. Asymmetrical warfare?
Iraq is not at "war", not even a "civil war", because war's a big thing, and the level of violence there plainly does not amount to "war." When shi's and sunnis begin hanging themselves though, that's when we'll know when real war, civil war, has begun.
8: I imagine they're protesting the conditions about which our press corps manages to report, sometimes, when they're not getting pedicures. But it wouldn't surprise me if some of the motivation for the hunger strikes wasn't merely despair, but a (justified, imo) desire to stick it to the U.S. "If I'm going down anyway, I'm making sure the world knows about it and fuck you, too."
At the very least you should get trolls who understand the difference between "act of protest" and "act of war"; though I guess the official line is that there isn't one.
Nope. The colon didn't end the prior sentence, so the bullet points are still clauses within that sentence (and should probably end with semicolons, until the last one closes with a period.)
This is formal writing, of course. God knows what I've done on the blog.
LB is right, but I always think that those reaaaaaaallllly long "sentences" with bullet points and all that look godawful (I mean, really: a bullet point is not a kind of punctuation), so I rewrite whatever it is that I'm writing so that each bullet point is a sentence or a complete phrase, and capitalize.
Yeah, I was pretty sure it was going to look like that. B. is right, of course -- the right thing to do is ugly enough that you should write around it. Writing briefs I slip into condoning ugliness of that nature.
I like making lists complete with semicolons and commas: first, as B points out, bullet points aren't punctuation; second, the more semicolons the better; and third, really, I just like making lists.
I could easily have imagined this story being published in the Onion.
Nearly everything that's happened since Bush put an end to our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity might've been published by the Onion. I still read the news and feel as if I've stepped into some kind of parallel America. I've got a real bone to pick with those Onion guys.
I think they only feed them hummus through a stomach tube.
28: I get forbidden every now and then when I click on comment links from my RSS newsreader (Greatnews) and they (try to) open in Firefox (which is how I've set it up to avoid IE). Reloading generally brings up the comments page.
I'm glad you posted on this. I was going to but didn't have anything to say beyond a desire to punch Admiral whatsisface repeatedly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 1:22 PM
It's not as if I said much of substance myself.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 1:55 PM
I'm confused by the Admiral's claim that this was "not an act of desperation". Every terrorist act in Iraq has been labelled an act of desperation, and proof that we are winning. So this, an act of asymmetrical warfare, and not an AOD, must be worse for us. I guess the worst-case scenario, then, is that all radical Islamists in the world kill themselves, and when that happens the US will have completely lost the WOT.
Posted by DonBoy | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 2:01 PM
Let's say this: If Rear Admiral Harry Harris wasn't some kind of America-hater hoping to lose the war on terror, he would committ acts of asymmetrical warfare against the Islamofascistsnazidemonextremists.
I could easily have imagined this story being published in the Onion.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 2:16 PM
Over at my place I've got people arguing that Harris's comment is quite reasonable.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 2:28 PM
commit
t. I don't stand by almost anything that could be inferred from reading the first sentence in 4. I don't think the Adm. should kill himself, I don't think he deserves to die for saying such things, and I don't think that consistency would require that he kill himself. I probably don't believe other things people might infer, but I'd have to know what those things are first.Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 2:40 PM
Brilliant tactics. After running away more failed to lead to victory, the enemy took to killing themselves. That'll show us.... something.
I wish I could find a straight transcript of the Admiral's speech. Because it seems like the only non-insane thing he could be trying to say is 'These guys martyred themselves like suicide bombers, to draw publicity, not out of despair' without using the word 'martyrs' and while borrowing Bush's retarded speechwriters.
But, like, despair's a perfectly reasonable assumption three years in with no charges. Asymmetrical warfare?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 2:54 PM
They only did it to make Guantanamo look bad. Them and all those guys who keep refusing to eat their pilaf.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 2:57 PM
Iraq is not at "war", not even a "civil war", because war's a big thing, and the level of violence there plainly does not amount to "war." When shi's and sunnis begin hanging themselves though, that's when we'll know when real war, civil war, has begun.
(Sunni Leader: We cannot allow a suicide gap!)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 3:01 PM
8: I imagine they're protesting the conditions about which our press corps manages to report, sometimes, when they're not getting pedicures. But it wouldn't surprise me if some of the motivation for the hunger strikes wasn't merely despair, but a (justified, imo) desire to stick it to the U.S. "If I'm going down anyway, I'm making sure the world knows about it and fuck you, too."
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 3:05 PM
bphd, where do you find these people?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 3:10 PM
At the very least you should get trolls who understand the difference between "act of protest" and "act of war"; though I guess the official line is that there isn't one.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 3:12 PM
I dunno. Why do you think I hang out here so much?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 3:55 PM
Sounds like you should moderate your comment section more vigorously.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 4:21 PM
Them and all those guys who keep refusing to eat their pilaf.
They hate us for all the lemon chicken we give them.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 4:53 PM
A friend with no internet just called to ask me if you capitalize the beginning of bullet points that follow colons. Do you?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:21 PM
I don't.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:22 PM
Nope. The colon didn't end the prior sentence, so the bullet points are still clauses within that sentence (and should probably end with semicolons, until the last one closes with a period.)
This is formal writing, of course. God knows what I've done on the blog.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:37 PM
LB is right, but I always think that those reaaaaaaallllly long "sentences" with bullet points and all that look godawful (I mean, really: a bullet point is not a kind of punctuation), so I rewrite whatever it is that I'm writing so that each bullet point is a sentence or a complete phrase, and capitalize.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:40 PM
This is formal writing, of course. God knows what I've done on the blog.
Short-term memory.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:41 PM
Technical rule: no.
Practical rule: Yes, if I think there is any chance at all that my audience will get lost or give up in the middle of the sentence and miss the point.
(I write a lot of event-announcement e-mails for work.)
On 19: Agreed.
Posted by Witt | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:46 PM
Yeah, I was pretty sure it was going to look like that. B. is right, of course -- the right thing to do is ugly enough that you should write around it. Writing briefs I slip into condoning ugliness of that nature.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:47 PM
I like making lists complete with semicolons and commas: first, as B points out, bullet points aren't punctuation; second, the more semicolons the better; and third, really, I just like making lists.
No capitalization.
And most lemon chicken sucks.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:48 PM
Speaking of Guantanamo, anyone read the John Walker Lindh article in this month's Esquire?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 7:59 PM
I could easily have imagined this story being published in the Onion.
Nearly everything that's happened since Bush put an end to our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity might've been published by the Onion. I still read the news and feel as if I've stepped into some kind of parallel America. I've got a real bone to pick with those Onion guys.
I think they only feed them hummus through a stomach tube.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 8:20 PM
Why have my desires to read Unfogged comments become, occasionally, forbidden?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 8:32 PM
Also, is that Esquire article subscriber-only?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 8:34 PM
Why have my desires to read Unfogged comments become, occasionally, forbidden?
I guess that depends on what browser you use, what user agent it's sending, and whether or not it sends a referrer.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 8:36 PM
26 - Ben's testing some stuff to snuff the spammers.
27 - Yeah, subscriber only. Tried to find a link but couldn't. It was an odd article -- beyond sympathetic, more like a hagiography.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 8:41 PM
28: I get forbidden every now and then when I click on comment links from my RSS newsreader (Greatnews) and they (try to) open in Firefox (which is how I've set it up to avoid IE). Reloading generally brings up the comments page.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-11-06 8:44 PM
This article, like so many others since 2001, just leaves me wanting to scream 'Fuck' while repeatedly punching one of these mendacious pricks.
I'm repeatedly reminded of that Orwell line: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Posted by nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 12:26 AM
God knows what I've done on the blog.
Prove it!
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-12-06 12:50 AM