Letters to the Editor
-
I'm with you
anonymous. The longer this goes on without impeachment proceedings, the darker the stain of blood on the hands of Bush supporters. They disgust and sicken me. Even the ones in my own family...
-
There is a nugget of truth in most lies
The goal of al-quaeda on 9/11 was to incite the U.S. to retaliate, or, even better, to overreact, thereby increasing anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the Muslim world and increasing the power of terrorist groups. Because of this administration's insularity and complete lack of understanding of world politics, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Iraq is a wonderful recruiting/training ground for terrorists, terrorist attacks are up worldwide, and we are hated in the Muslim world as never before.
So, what happens next? If Democrats win the White House, we will probably end the war in Iraq and start taking a more reasonable approach to political discourse with Muslim nations. This will not make terrorists happy. If the U.S. is seen as "reasonable", they are weakened. Their likely response will be to attack us again in order to force us to repeat the excesses of Iraq. Of course, even if the Republican overreactors stay in power, eventually the terrorists will gain enough power to attack the U.S. hard again. One way or another, we will be attacked again. Continuing to give the terrorists what they want is a delaying strategy that will only make the problem worse in the long run. But, in the Republican political mind, all they have to do is to keep the terrorists from attacking the U.S. again on their watch. If the terrorists attack during a Democratic presidency, the pundits who are so forgiving of Bush's inattention before 9/11 will suddenly pounce, blaming every death on the current (Democratic) occupant of the White House. If the timing is right, this could sweep the Republicans back into the White House and complete control of Congress.
-
Strategy lacking
Time passes and the democrats still do not have a direct and strong response to this sort of revisionism and fear mongering. People make these statements in speeches because they work and the call voters to action. Until democrats can make it appear more dire to vote republican, this tactic will work. If Gulliani makes it as the republican candidate his team's next move will be to "swift boat" his opponents and the media will down a few for "screaming" or whatever invented foible they expose.
Where is the strategy? Where is the direct challenge to these tactics?
-
This is smart
Democrats are so easy to head-fake. Giuliani says Democrats will play defense and then watch the Democrats fall all over themselves to promise to kick more arab ass than anyone else. Then lo and behold, Democrats are on the GOP talking points and the debate is right where neo-cons/the oligarchy/you fill in the blank want it.
-
re: jamartinjr
...it's going to happen again. The rubes in the flyover states are going to get scared of big bad "Islamofacism" and stick us with another loser.
FIrst of all the slurr "flyover states" belongs alongside racial epithets in terms of mature conversation. It is an ignorant, elitest term which just alienates people. Of course I am biased myself, residing at one of those bastions of ignornace in the Big Ten university system (where an awful lot of kids from the coasts seem to come).
As far as being concerned with "Islamofacism" what do the Islamist insurgencies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand, Sudan and Iraq mean to you? What about the politial radicalization of Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria and other Muslims countries? Just because Bush has abused and mishandled the threat of Islamic terrorism is now reason to dismiss its importance. Do be so dismissive of it is chilling in it ignorance.
-
Victoria L - Not helping the flyover states' reputation
As a flyover state product, I will point out that not all of us from the Midwest underestimate the threat of Judeo-Christian fascism and how that has helped inflame Islamofascism.
It has been alleged that followers of Islam were responsible for 9/11 (I say "alleged" as we have no trial, just BushCheney's word and a grainy video supposedly of Bin Laden bullshitting around the kitchen table). That took out 3,000 people.
Since then, the US has taken out who knows how many Arabs/Muslims - no one even counts those less-than-human dogs -- those "Islamofascists" -- but it's at least 100,000. Israel has taken out around 3,000 in the occupied territories and Lebanon. (And the body count from this Judeo-Christian tag team before 9/11 is also huge.)
Sure, both the US and Israel claim they were "protecting themselves." Well so was Germany before and during WWII -- according to Germany. So if you're going to tack fascism on the end of a religion, don't leave out other religions whose right-wing branches live out those values.
-
Victoria L
I am concerned about the violent islamic radical movement. I am also concerned about the violent Christian movement (Eric Rudolph, etc.). I don' lose sleep over either. More americans will die, directly or indirectly, of the lack of basic health care in the next 24 hours than will die in a terrorist attack in the next year (and I'm including those brave and loyal soldiers your people are using as human flypaper overseas as we speak.)
There will be other terrorist attacks. Some people are just no damn good and will do evil things to innocent people. What I really resent is the "pre-blame" strategy of the republicans who have done so much to bring us to where we are but wish no part of the blame for what is happening now, has happened in the past, or will happen in the future.
PS: I agree we shouldn't use terms like flyover state although why that is racist is a little unclear.
-
Terrorism in the US is a myth
It's a bullshit topic propped by demagogues for the benefit of frightened stupid soccermoms
-
meffert and Anonymous (coward?)
Your comments are typical of leftist with no response to the problematic aspects of Islam but ad hominem and moral equivocation arguments.
Did I say Chirstian and Jewish or even Hindu fundamentalism for that matter weren't problems in the world? The jamartinjr letter brought up "Islamofascism"; that was his exact choice of words . I merely responded to him by quoting it and focusing on the topic he brought up.
When you instantly bring up Israel, the Bush administraton and health care all you do is admit that Islam is so incompatible with liberal values that you can't offer one word in its defense and have no choice but to change the subject.
Like many at Salon you two demonstrate a really disturbing prejudice against anyone who breaks rank and voices criticism of Islam. We're supposed to be good little soldiers marching in unison against the all-encompassing evil of the Bush-Israeli axis?
Look at the way meffert refers to "your people" as if I were suddenly in league with the Bush adminisration and Anonymous implies without a shred of evidence that I hold racist views: "no one even counts those less-than-human dogs". Anonymous even brought up the Nazis in a rather dubious comparrison which is always a sign the debater is more about making an emotional appeal rather than offering evidence.
Finally meffert wrote: "PS: I agree we shouldn't use terms like flyover state although why that is racist is a little unclear."
meffert shows some inability to read and consider the actual content of my actual comment: "FIrst [sic] of all the slurr "flyover states" belongs alongside racial epithets in terms of mature conversation." Thus I merely stated that terms like "flyover states" ought to be seen as unacceptable as racist terms, because both blanketly characterize a person's ideological views based on arbitrary aspects. I did not say "flyover states" was racist and am astounded that I even have to explain that to someone.