The original article has been reposted in a couple of places and linked by Crooks and Liars among others. I’ve yet to see a neocon or one of their supporters actually explain the inconsistencies in the neocon position in a way that makes sense.
The most common answer is to yell “but look at what the Islamofascists do!” I grant the Islamofascists are nasty people. That still doesn’t explain or excuse the inconsistencies in the neocon position. It’s a strawman argument - arguing for something that has little or nothing to do with the original thesis and hoping no-one notices.
The second most common is the charge of anti-semitism. That is a strawman too. At no point have I argued that all neocons are Jewish or vice versa (although its a simple fact that some of one set also belong to the other, that’s also true of liberals and Jews, or Wiccans and neocons). I have, however, argued that no neocon would use their own published principles to say Israel should never have existed. That is simply and observably true and indicative of their own double-standards, not my fictional anti-semitism.
Get over it and argue to the point or admit the neocon movement has a fatal problem with consistency.
If neocon thinking can’t be even that internally coherent and logical (and I could have used the PKK in Iraq vs Turkey and Iran or Pakistani help for the Taliban and MeK in Afghanistan and India to point up their illogicality and favoritism) then why should anyone continue to take them seriously?
No comments:
Post a Comment