TheAgitator.com
Andy McCarthy Cheers on the Commies
Tuesday, July 7th, 2009Over at The Corner, National Review’s Andy McCarthy sees the Uighur uprising in China as vindication of the Bush administration’s detainment of several Uighur Muslims in Guantanamo:
Hard to Believe the Lovable Uighurs Could Be Involved in Terrorism . . .
even though the ones we were holding at Gitmo were trained in al-Qaeda-affiliated camps.
The Wall Street Journal (as flagged in the NRO web briefing) reports on rioting in China by Uighur “students” that has left scores dead and hundreds wounded. The “students,” described elsewhere in the story as from a “predominantly Muslim ethnic group[, which has] long chafed at restrictions on their civil liberties and religious practices imposed by a Chinese government fearful of political dissent,” expressed their dissent by torching cars and buses, as well as — according to accounts of some witnesses to state-controlled media — rampaging “with big knives stabbing people” on the street.
No reason for non-Muslims in Bermuda, Palau, or the United States to worry, though. The lovable Uighurs are merely trying to address “economic and social discrimination.” Once they get social justice, I’m sure they’ll stop.
There was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist regime, you could count on National Review to side with the rabble-rousers fighting for political freedom, not the commies. But I guess that was pre-September 11. Now it’s apparently all about siding with whoever is killing Muslims.
McCarthy might want to look over this FBI report (PDF, via Obsidian Wings) about the Uighurs at Gitmo, whom even the Bush administration conceded were captured by mistake and never posed a threat to the United States.
The Uighurs are moderate Muslims who occupied East Turkestan, which was taken over by the Chinese and renamed the Xinjiang province of China. The Uighurs were offered land in Afghanistan in order to gather personnel opposing Chinese oppression. They were often inspired by Radio Free Asia, which [redacted] was often a broadcaster for. The Uighurs considered themselves to be fighting for democracy, and they idolized the United States. Although the Uighurs are Muslim their agenda did not appear to include Islamic radicalism. They claimed to have no political connection to Islamic terrorists or the Taliban. However, their camp in Afghanistan was bombed, and they fled to Pakistan. The Uighurs were captured by the Pakistanis, with half being transferred to US custody, and half being remanded directly to Chinese officials. It was alleged that the Uighurs who were transferred directly to the Chinese were immediately executed. At the time of my TDY, US officials were considering whether to return the Uighurs to the Chinese, possibly to gain support for anticipated US action in the Middle East.
McCarthy might also want to read this account of the Uighurs plight since China seized what was then called East Turkistan a half-century ago, although it was admittedly written for some crazy left-wing rag:
My homeland has been under Chinese Communist rule for the past 56 years. Uyghurs, like Buddhists in Tibet, are forbidden to pray or speak freely. When Western reporters talk about how China’s political situation is improving alongside rapid economic growth, I know they have not visited East Turkistan. Where I grew up, people today are still being executed for speaking out against injustice. East Turkistan is the only province in the People’s Republic of China where people are still being executed for political reasons. Of course, China no longer labels us “counter-revolutionaries” or “American running dogs.” Now Beijing calls us terrorists, hoping to legitimize their oppression by describing it as part of China’s war on terror.
…and what happened to them after September 11:
…the government seized the opportunity to advance its campaign to assimilate forcefully Uyghurs into the Chinese culture. Uyghur books were burned, and now we Uyghurs can no longer speak our language in universities (and an increasing number of high schools). It is hard to describe to someone who lives in a free society, particularly in America, which has never been occupied, how it feels not to be able to own and speak your language.
Our freedom to practice religion has turned into a privilege regulated by the CCP. Chinese officials recently bragged that three million births in East Turkistan were avoided, meaning that that unborn Uyghur children have been forcibly aborted. In short, the Chinese Communist Party’s assault on the existence of the Uyghur nation has been intensified under the banner of China’s own war on terror. Uyghurs who peacefully oppose this injustice are labeled as terrorists. Many who escaped to neighboring countries like Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were returned to China and executed. Uyghurs want peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights, including the right to be Muslim.
If the Uighur students are indeed “rampaging ‘with big knives stabbing people’ on the street,” that’s a regrettable form of protest. It’s amusing, though, to see a National Review contributor quote a communist country’s state-controlled media account of anti-government protests in order to make his point.
Ouch. I haven’t seen someone owned that hard in a long time!
I truly do not think it is about Left and Right Republican or Democrat or whatever. It is about getting power and holding on to power and supporting others in power so you dont lose yours.
Oh, it’s not entirely unprecedented.
[...] Radley Balko who points to Andy McCarthy’s latest piece in the National Review: The Wall Street Journal [...]
On the bright side, this gives Obama a chance to speak up for an actual dictatorial regime instead of tin horns like ahmadinejad and zelaya.
These people see the world simply:
Terrorism > Communism
People have forgotten how utterly horrific communism really is. Terrorism has killed thousands of people, communism has killed tens of millions. There’s simply no real comparison.
“communism has killed tens of millions. There’s simply no real comparison.” Hmmm, and am sure I read on LRC that GOVERNMENTS (The State), including so-called ‘Democrazies’ actually killed around 200,000,000 civilians in the 20th century. China is fucked, the USA ditto & your little ally, Australia as well. Because they are GOVERNMENTS and The State only takes prisoners if you are worth more alive than dead!
You really must be in a make believe land like ‘Oz’, Greg …. no one has come close to killing as many people as Socialism/Communism …. the Nazis even only killed about 1/5 as many people in the 20th century. I don’t know how you can roll all the types of government together like that.
This is interesting and all, but no comment on Honduras saying ‘F*ck that’ to their (wannabe) socialist dictator trying to take over (ala Chavez) and Obama/the UN/etc all calling it a ‘coup’ (the media calling it a coup is ignoring that it was all legal)? As if you needed any more proof of Obama’s (or the UN’s for that matter) socialist leanings ….
James D | July 8th, 2009 at 1:04 am
…As if you needed any more proof of Obama’s (or the UN’s for that matter) socialist leanings ….
You don’t know much about the left of the political spectrum if you think Obama has socialist leanings.
This is interesting and all, but no comment on Honduras saying ‘F*ck that’ to their (wannabe) socialist dictator trying to take over (ala Chavez) and Obama/the UN/etc all calling it a ‘coup’ (the media calling it a coup is ignoring that it was all legal)?
I don’t support the guy, but if they hadn’t forced him to leave the country, and simply arrested and tried him, it would have been legal. But they chose to put him on a plane at gunpoint, a process not described in their constitution. So it was far from legal.
The “political spectrum” lost touch with reality in the 19th century. As a tool for making comparisons, it falls apart whenever pressed too far. Any metric which separates Stalin from Hitler by the widest margin possible makes no sense whatsoever. Those two madmen were identical in every way that counts.
Barak Obama is a socialist. He’s also a Mussolini-style fascist. If you find that contradictory, you don’t know much about history, and you’re just regurgitating anti-thought.
Nice “There was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist regime, you could count on National Review to side with the rabble-rousers fighting for political freedom, not the commies.”
Sounds like an interesting article to do someday-the evolution of conservatism
They gave him a choice: leave or be tried. He chose to leave, now in typical leftist fashion, he has come back to rally the mob and bring about the revolution. They should just try him and throw him in the deepest, darkest hole they can find. Knowing the cave structures in Central America and the Yucatan, that shouldn’t be that hard.
Michael, #6… It’s rare to find anybody who views communism that way, and I find it strange. I have read that Stalin actually starved more civilians than he sent soldiers to their deaths. Yet, that’s not viewed as criminal.
James, how can NOT think Obama has Social tendencies. The man is France personified! He wants to tax us to death and run everything. What is NOT socialist about Obama. I’ll brace myself for the Messiah Cool aid drinkers who think he can do no wrong.
Ooops, that last post was for “OLD”, not James.
Obama doesn’t “have socialist tendencies”, he is a socialist.
I highly recommend reading McCarthy columns and whatnot over the past few years. The man has pretty clearly lost his mind since 9/11. He doesn’t doubt for a second that every muslim is a terrorist, and vice versa. That said, anyone who thinks that Guantanamo does, or ever did, house the “worst of the worst,” given that 2/3 have been released, 50-100 more have been determined to be innocent, and 90% of the habeas decisions so far have gone against the government, is either a liar, or has gone mad.
These is a well-settled technical term for people like this: “useful idiot.”
Calling Obama “a socialist” is about as accurate as calling George W. Bush “a small-government conservative”.
Just because Fox News says something, doesn’t make it true.
Characterizing Obama as “a corporatist (with disturbing facist tendencies)” would be much closer to the truth.
Look folks, words have to mean something. A “socialist” is someone who believes (according to Merriam-Webster) in “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Taking over a car company and supporting single-payer health care (both of which I disagree with), does not make one a “socialist.”
Thalience is 100% correct.
They gave him a choice: leave or be tried. He chose to leave…
At gunpoint, mind you. And again, if that’s not a process in their Constitution, it was illegal.
‘old’ … No, you just don’t realize that your a socialist then.
Les, Thalience …. “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ….”.
And who here (even in the comments sections) has EVER tried to call George W. Bush a “small government conservative”?! The amount of ridiculous hatred for Fox News around here makes a lot of the comments seemed pretty idiotic … especially considering the amount of bias for the media in general towards liberals/democrats.
There isn’t a process by which pornography is considered speech in our constitution, but I don’t see any libertarians or liberals complaining about it being “absorbed into the 1st amendment illegally.”
Abbreviated Radley: McCarthy is an ignorant jackass.
Shocking….shocking.
Well…a darker interpretation is that McCarthy views the State as the appropriate decision maker in all things and when people rise up and say no its always a bad thing. In other words, McCarthy is not a conservative but a Statist and Authoritarian. Wouldn’t be the first time a “conservative” slipped down the slope, so to speak.
I like the bit about how the Uighurs “idolized” the United States. Somehow, after Bush 2 and Guantanamo, I doubt that’s true anymore.
Starting any sentence with, “(Name of right-wing nutjob) might want to read…” is probably a futile proposition.
,” expressed their dissent by torching cars and buses, as well as — according to accounts of some witnesses to state-controlled media — rampaging “with big knives stabbing people” on the street.
You would think that the words “state-controlled media” would be a…
Wait for it…
Red flag.
Thalience wrote: “Characterizing Obama as “a corporatist (with disturbing facist tendencies)” ”
Fascist? That’d require quite a bit more rabid nationalism than Obama has exhibited. Hell, Obama can’t satisfy the wingnuts’ demands for more jingoistic chauvinism.
As for corporatism, I doubt he would have sought ownership stakes in companies under better economic circumstances, and some of the ownership stakes were established in the prior administration.
McCarthy was one time a noted red baiter.
Now he’s a Red China-boosting red stater.
“Since Muslims attacked us,
The Chinese can practice
Oppression; so chill out, Guantanamo haters!”
http://benjamintheass.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-things-change.html
It should be noted that some of the greatest backers of Bin Loudin was the American Right and the CIA-before communism went belly up.
And once again, we learn that conservatives haven’t a clue as to the definition of the word “socialism”.
Andrew however, is just a nut and we should all be relieved he is no longer employed by the federal government.
Cheer on the commies dude!
From a cold war veteran. You know, the one that really did involve weapons of mass destruction.
I think I’ll invest in the company that manufactures depends. Despite this economy you guys prove it’s a sure win.
Since the Uighers are oppressive communist terrorists, why should anyone take their side?
Ah Davebo, leave it to a liberal to try to redefine everything in their own world-view only.
Not everyone who opposes an oppressive regime is a freedom fighter. If that was the case liberty wouldn’t be so rare. Sadly history shows that most people who oppose an oppressor want to be the new oppressor.
Better research would have shown you that the Uighurs (in Gitmo and China) favor a religious oppression. But I guess to some libertarians that’s just an alternative life-style.
“McCarthy might want to look over … ” “McCarthy might also want to read … ”
I doubt it.
[...] be easily appended under his name to any discussion of world affairs with a simple keystroke macro. Rodney Balko: There was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist [...]
In addition to his strange faith in communist propaganda, McCarthy is blatantly racist. He claims that (alleged) actions by some Uighurs proves that other Uighers (who are, technically, different people) are dangerous. His logic is that people’s character is completely defined by their ethnicity. Odd then that he has so much in common with his fellow McCarthy, Joe, and so little in common with Eugene.
[...] The National Review, in two separate instances, refuses to support anybody but Americans fighting [...]
Of course, for most American right-wingers anti-communism was never really about a principled stand against the economic problems with state ownership or the atrocities committed by the various communist states. That was just a palatable cover for the real agenda. It has always been about demonizing an enemy to forge a consensus around the explosive bloating of the war-state, cover for oppressive policies here at home and a leg up on political opponents.
Our paranoid movement has found a new enemy, so we don’t need the old one any more. The actual damage done by said enemy is irrelevant, all that matters is that they can be made to look very, very scary to a critical mass of US voters.
After the breakup of the soviet union, quieting of the cold war and finally 9/11 it’s much easier to demonize muslims than communists. “Look, WTC go Boom, Muslims bad” is a much simpler sell than requiring people to understand a modicum of economics and political theory.
But this is all Libertarianism 101, right?
Right?
Ownership means having the power to use your property as you see fit. If the government dictates what kinds of cars you will produce, what you will pay in salaries, what health care benefits you will offer, and redistributes stock value from investors to unions, please explain to me how that amounts to actual ownership.
If you paid for a car and had the title, then the mayor came along and told you when and where you could drive, whom you needed to transport (or even if you would be the driver), where you could buy gas, to whom you could sell it and for how much, would you still consider yourself to be the owner of the car?
So-called private ownership under fascist governments is a farce. It’s just another variation of socialism. And, arguments to the contrary always devolve into the dictionary citations. Like:
Socialism, communism, Marxism, social democrats, fascists, national socialists … they are all variations on the same collectivist core, and quibbling over dictionary definitions is an exercise in futility. Just ask yourself whether you’re free to work, buy, sell, and use as you think best (respecting the rights of others, of course). If the government says no, and the excuse is that the people, the fatherland, the motherland, the poor, the community, the herd, or the hive need the product of your efforts or creativity more than you do, then it doesn’t matter how it’s dressed up. Calling any of those socialism is accurate.
Wow, so “[t]aking over a car company” is not “collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production”? How do you figure?
The single-payer health care is a scam. You take choices out of the market. Then, you chip away at incentives to use non-government insurance. Companies must make a profit, while the government can run deep in the red. So the government can pay stupidly high prices for services and set the cost to the consumer at stupidly low prices. Non-government insurance can’t compete and whithers away.
[...] Meanwhile, National Review’s Andy McCarthy seems to have decided that since Uighurs are Muslims, violent Communist Party crackdowns must be a good thing. [...]
“… seems to have decided that since Uighurs are Muslims …”
… or at least that some Uighurs are jihadists! Imagine that! Some Muslims actually believe in violent jihad. Oh, but that’s modern China; they can’t believe in 7th century values. They must be libertarians fighting the state. Sure, that’s the picture.
Sometimes there are no good sides. Too bad Reagan didn’t understand that in Afghanistan. The last 8 years wouldn’t have happened and we could have avoided wars in two hell holes.
It is hard to describe to someone who lives in a free society, particularly in America, which has never been occupied, how it feels not to be able to own and speak your language.
Well, he could ask the Crow or the Navajo…