Letters to the Editor
-
@Golden Boy
Pantanal, go ahead and say what you really want to say - you agree with Ward Churchill. I dare you.
Dude, just lay out whatever contradiction in Ward Churchill's opinion you see, quit dangling it like bait. No one but you cares, but let's have it out so we don't have to watch you wiggle it around all day.
I dare you.
-
so frightened they think Bush has submitted to Shariah norms....
Our “civilization warriors” have worked themselves up into such a frenzy that they perceive almost anything as evidence of how close we are to the imposition of “Sharia Law” in the U.S. – including how our cowardly Commander Guy has backed down in the face of Islam, speaking in hushed, “politically correct” terms required by that Islamofascist-loving Karen Hughes. Seriously.
Here’s Diana West from her “Just Shut Up” column in The Jewish World Review:
Or, to put it more elegantly, as did Daniel Pipes: "The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order."
The question is, Will we retain our free speech about Islam? Speaking at the United Nations this week, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf asked the international community to ban the "defamation of Islam" — a rendition of "shut up" that's a constant refrain at the UN — but it looks like mum's already the word. Just read through George W. Bush's address to the world body. "Islamic fascists" are out. "Extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear" are in.
We probably have presidential pal and roving ambassador Karen Hughes to thank for Mr. Bush's discreet-to-the-point-of-incomprehensible talk. "Diplomats say that Muslims hear [the phrase "Islamic fascists"] as an attack on their religion, thereby validating the extremists' false charge that the United States is at war with Islam," writes Morton Kondracke, explaining Mrs. Hughes' semantic sentiments, which he says have put the kibosh on administration straight talk.
So, according to Pipes, if we don’t insult all Muslims (instead of just the radical, extremist ones) then we giving in to the “Islamic Fascists” and losing the war for our civilization.
Got that? If we don’t insult all Muslims, then criticism of Muslims is “prohibited” and free speech no longer exists.
In Daniel Pipes’ world, Bush should’ve referred to Sattar Abu Risha (the head of the Anbar Salvation Council who he credited for ushering in the “bottom-up reconciliation” in Anbar) as an “Islamic Fascist.”
Yup, I’m sure that would’ve helped.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0906/west092606.php3
-
Golden boy
I've never heard of Ward Churchill and have no idea why you keep bringing his name up. However, based on the idiotic drivel you have posted on this thread, I'm certain that anything he has to say would be preferable to your tedious nonsense.
-
Anti-Muslim rhetoric is counterproductive, not to mention a dead-end
Glenn,
Your point is well taken and well substantiated. I furthermore think that, while Muslim-baiting is not a new phenomenon, it continues to gain momentum and play a larger and larger role mainstream political ideology and policy. Only recently I had as a response to a post on another blog arguing that the helicopter on the embassy roof moment in Iraq is inevitable that I should be prepared to put my wife in a burka and take my daughters out of school. As much as I wanted to, I couldn't detect any sarcasm. So, this is not going away and left unchecked will only become more diabolical.
I do think though that it would behoove you to develop this line of argument by incorporating more than an assessment of its plausibility. For instance, it would appear that we are, at least notionally, trying to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world- to convince them that America is not their persecutor, is not at war with Islam, and that advocating violent terrorism against her citizenry or interests is not legitimate jihad, i.e. justifiable or honorable armed struggle, but rather murder. That message is directly contradicted by what any Muslim with an internet connection could easily deduce, i.e. read or have translated, is the pervasive view of one of two major political parties in this country. Is it not obvious that this cuts the legs out from under any moderate in the community trying to make such an argument- that it ultimately makes us less safe?
More topically, we are less-notionally trying to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims that are Iraqi, and Jerry Falwell 'Muhammad is a terrorist' type rhetoric hugely undermines that effort. Should we really be surprised that Iraqis have zero confidence or trust in Americans- or, more to the point, consider us a mortal enemy- when, in addition to coveting their oil ministry and providing fraudulent pretexts for invasion the political rhetoric of the Commander in Chief's own party amounts to 'Muslims are Evil murderous what-have-yous', i.e. threats that need to be taken care of? The capacity for cognitive dissonance amongst these types borders on telekinesis.
Of course the best reason why we cannot afford to entertain such rhetoric does not regard its plausibility, effect on diplomacy, logical merit or lack thereof, but rather its implication. If Muslims really are a 'special case' of human beings, i.e. impossible to reason or negotiate with, impossible to trust, particularly given to intolerance and violence- assuming all of that can be demonstrated by anecdote and grainy video, then what are we to do? We can't possibly sit back and allow them to kill us right? We have to defend ourselves, don't we...? Speaking of, Golden Boy, if you'd like to discuss paradoxes, I suggest you start there.
-
GoldenBoy--
Will you be offended if I start a drinking game for your posts?
Oh wait. I don't care if you're offended. Never mind. I think the first rule will be to drink every time you offer up a new straw man (Ward Churchill, for example) when the first one gets knocked down.
The second rule will be to drink every time someone smacks you down and you ignore it.
The third rule...oh, who cares? I'll be plastered by then.