Letters to the Editor
-
Go ask Alice
Hi Alice,
I certainly hope I'm not mis-reading you as badly as you are mis-reading me.
I suspect the source of your bile is the misunderstanding exemplified by this, from your last post: "You used Iran as your example of state sponsored terrorism, which is an uninformed choice that I can only guess you made based on having imbibed Giulianish propaganda"; you then run down this rathole quite a long ways.
I chose Iran since I think it is an example of precisely the kind of deception Guliani is using, i.e. is no threat to us as a national threat. I chose Iran because I think it is not a threat. I chose Iran to deliberately confuse the hell out of you - well, not really but I did succeed there.
In any case, I'm not arguing Rahmat's point that the idea Islamofascism is a ruse used by fear-mongerers, nor am I arguing that Islamic nations pose a true threat to the West. I'm arguing that Rahmat hates Americans and justifies terrorism, and that one need not defend Rahmat and his fellow bigots in order to denounce Guilani's deceptions.
Golden Boy
PS I stand by my definition of terrorism. The Republicans are using the term in quite a different sense, but since subtle arguments seem beyond you I think I'll hold my fire for now.
-
how do you arrive at the judgment that Rahmat hates the west,
from Rahm's comments on this forum?
Bile filled minds want to know
-
Rahmat and friends
Rahmat's comments:
"What makes a 'terrorist' is nothing more than your interference in other peoples' business. It is your policies, stupid." - I addressed this early, but note how terrorism is defined as the fault of its victims - nice.
"We are about to see the implosion of the other behemoth [USA]. The signs of its decay are everywhere, not least in its impending financial ruin..new candidates are already waiting in the wings to replace these obsolete ones." - Rahmat would love to the US implode, and has some clear candidates in mind to replace it. Somehow I think a Chinese or Russian hyperpower would not be a pleasant scenario, but for the Rahmats of the world it may well be.
On different threads:
"I am amazed by writers like professor Juan Cole who continue to parrot the official version of the events of 9/11 while overwhelming evidence point to other directions. In fact, what is already known by informed and educated individuals are so clear and logical that it is strange the improbable or impossible chain of events continue to be taken as 'sacro saint'. All that is needed is for someone in the inner circle of the planning, with a conscience, to come forward and confess" - Aha, we discover that Rahmat is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist! Perhaps the Jews did it, or the CIA, right Rahmat?
"How would the U.S. feel if there suddenly was peace all over the world with no threat of terrorism and there would be no demand for its weapons?" - Bitter words from a hate-filled cynic.
Draw your own conclusions, folks.
-
Puer aurum- you rely on your projected hate
Rahmat wrote nothing that indicated hatred; rather, he cited history, plus observations of patterns of behavior, with which you agreed, btw. You brushed those aside: "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up." You returned to your projected pre-conclusion: Rahmat hates the West or hates America or is vicious or is bigoted or or or. You've bought into "Islamofascism." It's a vile bile in the soul; 21st century anti-Semitism. Parse it out, Puer.
When you've come to the point where you can analyse based on reason rather than emotion, give us a call, y'hear?
-
Islamic supremacist
And your point is? What religion out there does not believe that it is the sole path to salvation? Are you saying Christians accept that they are #2 in the world? Jews understand they are secondary to Christians? What is so different about a Muslim believing his religion is the only right one? Is it so different from Christians believing that all who don't accept Christ as their savior will perish?
As for "Islamic terrorism", the mere use of this term by someone running for president removes him completely from my list. Might as well ignore everything else that comes out of his mouth. I'm a numbers person, and it is clearly possible to still have hope about the future of "civilization" when you see that out of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, the number of Muslims following a violent backlash movement against the US is only a couple of thousand, or .00000000...oh, never mind.
However, the number of people in the Muslim world who don't agree with the United States' big-stick policies might be higher. For that matter, you don't have to be Muslim to disagree with Bush (see domestic approval ratings), and you don't have to be white and Christian to agree with him. I actually think the irony here is that the American Muslim community in the U.S. endorsed Bush over Gore.
Anyway, I'm sure everyone's heard this before, so it won't make a bit of a difference to American supremacists, but it bears repeating:
The policies of the United States' government are the reason for extremism. Cases in point (a short list):
-Propping up Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator, against his own people.
-Then invading his country (unilaterally), toppling him, and settling down comfortably for, oh a good two or three decades, not to mention profiting from Muslim-owned resources, i.e. oil and from 'restoration projects' restoring infrastructure they themselves destroyed (I don't know if anyone else finds this as funny as I do).
-Botching up even their own plans, leading to an explosion of an 'insurgency' (read Muslims trying to reclaim Muslim-owned land and resources).
-Blindly supporting Israel (the more powerful of the two sides) while completely ignoring the rights of Palestinian Muslims, leading to another 'insurgency'.
-Sitting on the largest nuclear arsenal mankind has ever seen while simultaneously telling Iran it has no right to develop nuclear weapons (also while threatening 'military action').
-Now propping up another military dictator in Pakistan against his own people while civilians riot in the streets, leading, no doubt, to another 'insurgency'.
I would go on, but I think I've made my point (not that it matters).