Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

"The People Who Want Us Dead? They Aint Swedes"
The other day, I posted "Do You Think Jewish Orthodontists Will Be Rioting In The Streets?" about Iran's lame finalists in the Holocaust cartoon contest, and some commenters said or intimated that my take on Islam is racist. For example:

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it seems like you're painting with a rather broad brush -- using words like "barbarism" and "uncivilized" without any qualification. I'm assuming you're not talking about Muslims or Arabs generally ...

I'd agree that the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were barbarians. They also happened to be Muslim. But obviously there are terrorists of every religious stripe.

I commented back:

No, there aren't terrorists of every religious stripe. There are a handful of Jewish, Christian, and other nutjobs (Eric Randolph, Tim McVeigh, etc.), but there are many, many Muslims who want anybody who's a non-Muslim dead. Read the newspaper and you might hear of a few. (Concept of Jihad mean anything to you?) And when you're in Manhattan, drop by the huge hole across from Century 21 where a vast mass murder took place -- in the name of Allah.

As Lena pointed out, Muslim countries are, for the most part, backward, horrible places, especially if you're a woman or a homosexual, or both. Toss the quaint multi-culti fantasies and join the real world.

PS For the record, I'm about as unracist as it gets (in fact, I find it completely uncivilized and primitive that people care about skin color or, say, how somebody else gets sexual pleasure), but what I am, when it comes to mass murderers, is realistic.

The people who want us dead? They ain't Swedes.

Another commenter wrote:

"For the record, I'm about as unracist as it gets"

???! Get real. Your take on Muslims is systematically dismissive, hateful and racist. Very Ann Coulter-ish, and disconcertig coming from someone as smart as you.

Sorry to be so direct, but I couldn't let this pass.

The truth is, Ann Coulter says horrible things for notoriety and money. Pretty stupid things, too. Does she truly believe them? The lady went to law school. Probably not.

I say what I believe. I don't think all Arabs are evil. This would be stupid and irrational. (Of course, all people who believe in god -- Jews, Christians, and Muslims -- are irrational, but they all aren't evil.) But, as far as my other beliefs on Islam go, I'm pretty much right there with the words of Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the Al-Arabiya news channel, who wrote this article that appeared in the pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, and later in the UK Telegraph (excerpted below):

'Innocent religion is now a message of hate' (Filed: 05/09/2004)

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.

For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realise the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realisation and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.

Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Sheikh - the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric - and hear him recite his "fatwa" about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious Sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians.

This ailing Sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians.

How could this Sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country?

berg-paint.jpg
photo of Nick Berg taken near the Washington D.C. Beltway

How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?

In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or Leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives.

At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life.

Then came the Neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry.

Does this make Rahman al-Rashed the Arab Ann Coulter?

Posted by aalkon at September 12, 2006 11:16 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1671

Comments

Nick Berg? Wasn't that thing a hoax?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477

Posted by: Hasan at September 12, 2006 6:15 AM

Yeah, just like the moon landings.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 12, 2006 6:49 AM

"almost all terrorists are Muslims."

There's mostly heterosexual men, too. Perhaps our warriors on terror should implement a large-scale sex change program and compulsory subscriptions to Martha Stewart Living.

Posted by: Lena at September 12, 2006 6:56 AM

what I find tragic about our culture is the way that political correctness has obscured the reality of the actual war we face. Visit any one of the many internet sites with footage of interviews with muslim children; its nothing short of horrifying.

"Raquel, how old are you?"
"Three"
"...And are you a muslim?"
"yes"
"whats your favorite color?"
"purple"
"what do you think of the jews?"
"they are pigs and hogs who should die."

Children as young as three are exemplifying the fact that these people are immersed in a culture and media possessed by Jihad.

how many people are aware that "death to america" has become an obligatory prayer recitation in extreme muslim countries?

The conversation needs to be directed away from "why, why do they hate us?" and focus more on the fact that the threat is imminent and a generation of hate is breeding and growing.

Posted by: Jake at September 12, 2006 7:34 AM

"There's mostly heterosexual men, too. Perhaps our warriors on terror should implement a large-scale sex change program and compulsory subscriptions to Martha Stewart Living."


Hey Lena, I'm willing for a shilling. If getting in touch with their feminine sides will stop the terrorists from being a threat, that's a certifable "Good Thing(TM)." I'll take being terrorized by vidallia onion finger sandwiches over a hijacked aircraft any day of the week.

Posted by: Bill at September 12, 2006 8:50 AM

And for the record, even if you do think all Muslims are evil, it wouldn't be racist, because Muslims aren't of one race. It's interesting how the people who make this accustation often think Iranians and Pakistanis are Arabs.

I think "racism" has now joined "fascism" as a term completely stripped of all meaning.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher at September 12, 2006 9:04 AM

This is why I think the idea of profiling at the airport and in other arenas is overvalued as a method of protection. It won't be long before there are Swedish looking Muslims. If not already.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 12, 2006 9:52 AM

As the poster of the original quote, let me respond to a few points (apologies on the long post):

First, I certainly don’t disagree that one of the biggest threats to U.S. security comes from Muslim extremists. No argument from me there.

Second, my comment about terrorists being of every religious stripe was meant in a more global and strictly factual sense – it’s more addressed to your “barbarism” claim than being an attempt to deny that we’re under threat from Muslim extremists. Just off the top of my head, the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka have been known to perpetrate many terrorist acts ... some might call their entire war a terrorist act (like the insurgents in Iraq?). There’s the Basques, the IRA, various rebel groups throughout Latin America. But of course there’s also Chechens, Kurds, Muslim rebels in the Philippines and so on.

I have no doubt that Muslims and Arabs make up the largest portion of the people we term “terrorists” today. My only point is that this is a particularity of history, time and place. I simply do not see some trait inherent in Islam (or, god forbid, Arab ethnicity) that makes Arab Muslims predisposed to terrorism.

Also, I don’t have the statistics, but I’m sure that there have been years where the US has seen more abortion-clinic attacks (by fundamentalist Christians doing their acts “in the name of god”) than killings by Muslim extremists. We haven’t seen an attack by Muslim extremists since 9/11/2001. Now, we could get into a lengthy discussion about what defines a “terrorist act.” Doctor-killers certainly qualify in my book. Radical environmentalists? Sure, even if they deliberately avoid injury to human life. Or do we want to talk solely about “mass terrorism” like 9/11?

Lastly, my question about traveling to Muslim or Arab countries wasn’t about having “multi-culti” fantasies. I’m not suggesting we all hold hands and sing the Barney song. If there’s one thing I hope we can agree on, it’s that seeing things for yourself can be valuable. Although many aspects of “Muslim countries” are “backward and horrible” (in your words), this is far from being the whole story.

I’ve encountered more hospitality and warmth – from random strangers – in places like Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, than in any other region of the world. I also had rocks thrown at me by children in an Amman slum. I met a few nut jobs whose political ideas match those of the three-year-old children Jake describes in his post. I met Syrians who thought the Golan Heights issue was stupid; I met others who were willing to die for it. And so on. These observations aren’t multi-cult fantasies. They are the “real world.”

In describing “Muslim countries” as “backward, horrible places” you’re reducing a complex situation into a neat little cliche that perpetrates the basest stereotypes. That’s fine if you simply don’t want to think about the issues; not so fine if you want actually understand what’s going on in the world.

Posted by: jv at September 12, 2006 10:04 AM

As the poster of the original quote, let me respond to a few points (apologies on the long post):

First, I certainly don’t disagree that one of the biggest threats to U.S. security comes from Muslim extremists. No argument from me there.

Second, my comment about terrorists being of every religious stripe was meant in a more global and strictly factual sense – it’s more addressed to your “barbarism” claim than being an attempt to deny that we’re under threat from Muslim extremists. Just off the top of my head, the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka have been known to perpetrate many terrorist acts ... some might call their entire war a terrorist act (like the insurgents in Iraq?). There’s the Basques, the IRA, various rebel groups throughout Latin America. But of course there’s also Chechens, Kurds, Muslim rebels in the Philippines and so on.

I have no doubt that Muslims and Arabs make up the largest portion of the people we term “terrorists” today. My only point is that this is a particularity of history, time and place. I simply do not see some trait inherent in Islam (or, god forbid, Arab ethnicity) that makes Arab Muslims predisposed to terrorism.

Also, I don’t have the statistics, but I’m sure that there have been years where the US has seen more abortion-clinic attacks (by fundamentalist Christians doing their acts “in the name of god”) than killings by Muslim extremists. We haven’t seen an attack by Muslim extremists since 9/11/2001. Now, we could get into a lengthy discussion about what defines a “terrorist act.” Doctor-killers certainly qualify in my book. Radical environmentalists? Sure, even if they deliberately avoid injury to human life. Or do we want to talk solely about “mass terrorism” like 9/11?

Lastly, my question about traveling to Muslim or Arab countries wasn’t about having “multi-culti” fantasies. I’m not suggesting we all hold hands and sing the Barney song. If there’s one thing I hope we can agree on, it’s that seeing things for yourself can be valuable. Although many aspects of “Muslim countries” are “backward and horrible” (in your words), this is far from being the whole story.

I’ve encountered more hospitality and warmth – from random strangers – in places like Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, than in any other region of the world. I also had rocks thrown at me by children in an Amman slum. I met a few nut jobs whose political ideas match those of the three-year-old children Jake describes in his post. I met Syrians who thought the Golan Heights issue was stupid; I met others who were willing to die for it. And so on. These observations aren’t multi-cult fantasies. They are the “real world.”

In describing “Muslim countries” as “backward, horrible places” you’re reducing a complex situation into a neat little cliche that perpetrates the basest stereotypes. That’s fine if you simply don’t want to think about the issues; not so fine if you want actually understand what’s going on in the world.

Posted by: jv at September 12, 2006 10:04 AM
Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)


Is Johnny Walker Lindh typical of the sort of white guy who falls in with facist islam? If so, we have little to fear from him. He was too incompetent to fit in *anywhere."

> our warriors on terror should implement
> a large-scale sex change program

That's overstretch. Let's just drain those energies through the usual means. They say Shakira has a new album out and a series of videos on MTV.

> I simply do not see some trait
> inherent in Islam (or, god
> forbid, Arab ethnicity) that
> makes Arab Muslims predisposed
> to terrorism.

Naive. The problem with the Koran isn't the violence, it's the way it claims authority over every corner and transaction in life. They've got a proscription for every encounter. Most religions slow down after offering a list of principles. Furthermore, there are distincly Arab fascinations with blood, face and sexuality that limit their ability to operate in modern realms of education, science and finance. They've kept themselves stupid for centuries. In recent decades, we've helped keep the lid on as well. Now it's time for everyone to get with the program: Modernity can take no prisoners.

> My only point is that this is a
> particularity of history, time
> and place.

As is the context in which we plan to make war on them. If they pull their shit together, we'll back off.

> We haven’t seen an attack
> by Muslim extremists since
> 9/11/2001

Your God Damn right we haven't... Not in the United States. Unless you count Seattle. And LAX. And...

> Now, we could get into a
> lengthy discussion

Quibbling with wordplay is teenage nihilism. Paragraphs like that offer nothing but the threat of endless conversation.

> this is far from being
> the whole story

Again a of boring chatter. It may not be the whole story, but it's enough that we can move forward. If nations keep themselves "backwards and horrible" such that they eventually produce intrusive figures like Osama and Mohamed Atta, we'll have to take steps.

Posted by: Crid at September 12, 2006 11:02 AM

Aw shit... So sorry Amy and her readers. Worked late last night, not enough coffee

Posted by: Crid at September 12, 2006 11:04 AM

"They say Shakira has a new album out and a series of videos on MTV."

Shakira is a total babe. Now, if only she would keep her pretty little mouth closed (except when it's wrapped about my 6-inch clit).

Posted by: Lena at September 12, 2006 11:45 AM

> The problem with the Koran isn't the violence,
> it's the way it claims authority over every
> corner and transaction in life.

This is a trait shared by most religions, some to a greater extent than others.

> Furthermore, there are distincly Arab
> fascinations with blood, face and sexuality
> that limit their >ability to operate in modern
> realms of education, science and finance.
> They've kept themselves >stupid for centuries.
The analysis in these sentences is so thoughtful that I’m at a loss to respond.

> Quibbling with wordplay is teenage nihilism.
> Paragraphs like that offer nothing but the
> threat of endless conversation.

Teenage nihilism? That’s cute.

Seriously, though, do you have a concise, precise definition of terrorism? Does it require mass killing? Does it include the acts of one person acting alone? Do those incidents in Seattle and LAX count? Does it matter if the group is fighting for statehood? Do the Tamil Tigers count? The East Timorese? The American revolutionaries? I’m not pretending I have the answers, here. Just wondering ...

Posted by: jv at September 12, 2006 12:53 PM

> some to a greater extent
> than others.

Right, and some extend too far. We have boundaries. You seem to argue that because there are ranges and gradations and spectra, we can have no security or forward motion. This is not true.

> do you have a concise, precise
> definition of terrorism?

Do I need one? This is not some orderly, legalistic transaction. This is about the progress of the human project, and it's the messiest nightmare the cosmos has ever known.

But I know who I want to win. Is that what you're asking?

Posted by: Crid at September 12, 2006 1:18 PM

"Al-Qaeda's deputy leader has warned that Israel and Arab Gulf states will be the next targets for Islamic militancy. Ayman al-Zawahiri made the threat in a new video broadcast by Arabic TV channels." - BBC, 11-Sep-2006


Does anyone else see this as a sign that Al-Qaeda is weakening? Used to be the whole world, now they can only play in their own back yard.

Posted by: Norman at September 12, 2006 1:51 PM

This reminds me of the scene in Apocalypse Now when the helicopters come in and machine gun / RPG the hell out of a village, and a young VietCong woman destroys an American helicopter with a grenade, and Robert Duvall calls "them" "fucking savages".

Of the 1.3 billion Muslims, what percentage are terrorists? What percentage hate the Jews to the point of wanting them wiped out, I wonder? I bet that percentage is really low. This has more to do with basic human nature than with the religion.

And without having at least read and studied the Koran, I am not sure anyone here is a credible expert on the subject. Can we see some credentials?

Also, the goings on in Iraq have nothing to do with the so called "global war on terrorism". Unfortunately for him, Nick Berg was a legitimate propaganda target. He was a member of a society that bombed and then occupied another society. He was there for money, as are thousands of other private contractors. Do you expect we as Americans would treat an occupying workforce on our shores differently? All we have to do is look back at our own civil war to know that once the dogs of war are loosed, roving gangs will perform any imaginable act, and the violence feeds upon itself. Rape, beheadings, lynchings, desecrating corpses - nothing new under the sun there.

Most of those 3 year olds who are being taught to hate America are going to grow up, and bombing the hell out of their neighborhoods will only cement what they were taught about us. I wonder how much goodwill and security the $314 billion spent in Iraq would have bought America had it been spent by say, Dr Martin Luther King....

Posted by: eric at September 12, 2006 2:02 PM

It's people like you, with your theses, who drive other people to such a state of desperation that they'll tie explosives around their waist. Do you have ANY idea what it means to be driven to the point where you'll take your own life?! No, you obviously don't. And don't give me that crap about being naive -- I claim way more knowledge of the world than you do. The last thing this world needs is clueless hate-mongers like you. I'm outta here.

Posted by: LA Frog at September 12, 2006 2:54 PM

I've been known to disagree with Crid in the past, but it's hard to argue with this point:

If they pull their shit together, we'll back off.

Reminds me of a quotation from Golda Maeir (or some contemporary of hers) that goes something like "If the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace. If the Israelis lay down theirs, there will be no Israel."

To large extent, the ball is in the Muslim world's court, so to speak. It's irrelevant if there are only a few peope who want to destroy Israel and the West if those few wield all the power. If if this vast, reasonable majority continues to empower radical fundamentalists that reflect the worst of their religion and society, and support both materially and culturally people who think that mass murder of innocents from other cultures is the way into Allah's graces, then they will suffer for it in countless ways. It's high time they got with the program and worked to fix this.

Posted by: justin case at September 12, 2006 3:08 PM

Exactly Justin! Your point is now being debated by the Lebanese people, who aren't as happy with Hizbollah as they were a few weeks ago.

But we sure don't help the moderate Muslim community out with "shock and awe". Maybe we should start holding our fundamentalist leaders to higher standards as well.

Posted by: eric at September 12, 2006 3:30 PM

> now they can only play
> in their own back yard.

Exactly. Friends, pour a summer lemonade, kick your shoes off, put your feet up and *imagine* how Israel would respond to an Al-Qaeda attack. Just imagine.

> Robert Duvall calls
> "them" "fucking savages".

"Excellent" use of quotation "marks" to distance yourself, as the "writer," from obnoxious "rhetoric" which you take onanistic "pleasure" in "citing." Dimwitted, mild-souled "feminists" like to do that with imagery from 1950's "television" shows, especially sitcoms starring "actor" Robert Young.

But it's only a movie, y'know?

> I bet that percentage is
> really low.

Were you Israeli, you'd be less eager to gamble.

> This has more to do with
> basic human nature than
> with the religion.

That's true. You should comment here more often.

> Can we see some
> credentials?

Amy does that one too: 'I haven't seen the term papers from grad students yet...'

> goings on in Iraq have
> nothing to do with the
> so called "global war
> on terrorism".

They do now, babe.

> Nick Berg was a legitimate
> propaganda target.

That's a repellant and inexcusable thing to say, and you should be ashamed.

> roving gangs will perform
> any imaginable act... Rape,
> beheadings, lynchings....

What demented strata of your fantasy life is being exposed here?

> I claim way more knowledge
> of the world than you do

Presumably you meant "than you *have*", but we can't even tell who your comment was addressed to.

> I'm outta here.

No! Wait! Without you we're nothing!

Posted by: Crid at September 12, 2006 4:58 PM

stratum

sorry

Posted by: Crid at September 12, 2006 5:00 PM

"Do you have ANY idea what it means to be driven to the point where you'll take your own life?!"

No. But I wish you'd get driven to that point, Froggy Frogg.

Posted by: Lena at September 12, 2006 6:32 PM

Geez Crid- you are losing when you start nit-picking punctuation and acting superior.
I was not an English major, and the use of quotation marks was a best attempt. Possesive apostrophes throw me too. I wasn't trying to distance myself from the remark. The point which you glossed over is that while we have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, it's ok because we had a reason. Somewhere.

Ashamed? Quit being a pussy. War is all about killing people, whether we do it or they do. We are just better at inflicting the losses and far worse at accepting them. Nick Berg helped put Zarqawi on the map, so there was a propaganda value to his horrible murder. I am not saying I am happy about it, or wished Mr Berg or his family any harm ever, but he knew he was taking a huge risk being in a war zone. That's why they pay so well.

You are correct that it is a repellant thing to say. It is equally repellant the way we went into Iraq, and more repellant that we do not have the will or moral fortitude to put more troops in to secure the country we helped drive into chaos. But somehow we excuse ourselves from this, while still calling them barbarians. War is full of repellant things.

The roving gangs remark was to compare their chaos to our own history. There are about 20 major militias running around Iraq, and there is no centralized command, much like during our own civil war.

By the way Crid- please explain what Iraq has to do with global terrorism... what did they have to do with Tokyo (oops- no Mulsims in that one), Bali, Madrid, New York, London, the Pentagon, etc? I was under the impression they were all pretty much just killing US and themselves.

(I did get a chuckle out of the "without you we are nothing" line...)

Also, a family member of mine stationed in Afghanistan is looking for quality used kid's clothing, shoes, sandals and such. If anyone is interested in donating please email me and I will get directions to you...

Posted by: eric at September 12, 2006 6:39 PM

"This is about the progress of the human project, and it's the messiest nightmare the cosmos has ever known."

Ooh, Crid, I just get tingles up my spine when you talk like that! It's like JFK meets Carl Sagan.

Posted by: Lena at September 12, 2006 7:48 PM

Eric, don't sweat it. Crid wasn't an English major either.

"Your God Damn right"
"Again a of boring chatter"

To review, Crid:

1. Your = Possessive form
2. You're = You are
3. You are = a goddamn idiot

Posted by: jv at September 12, 2006 8:05 PM

Eric --

Please email me the information for sending children's clothing to Afghanistan. I'll get my Irish Catholic mother on task right away! My email is lenazoid@yahoo.com.

The Leaner Weener

Posted by: Lena at September 12, 2006 8:16 PM

> and acting superior.

But I really am superior!

> while we have killed tens
> of thousands of innocent
> civilians

Some important points:

1. Bullshit.

2. Thousands have been killed, but we aren't killing them. If you want to fault our policy, first fault our history of enabling the Talibans and Saddams as they terrorized those populations for generations. And acknowledge that to most in the antiwar left, those were the good old dayz.

3. Most of the innocent Iraqis who've died have been killed by other Iraqis, and by mobsters from surrounding nations. America ripped the lid off an oppressive regime, and a lot of ugly tensions were released. But those tensions were always there... This goes back to #2. There was plenty of sectarian hatred under Saddam, too. But in his decades, people were more worried that he was going to feed their children into plastic shredders than that their Sunni (or whatever) neighbors were going to pick a fight.

It would be a grand gesture of your gratitude to western civ --and almost erotically fulfilling for me personally-- if you'd spend some time thinking about what we should do to actively relieve those tensions. Maybe scratch something out on a cocktail napkin and get back to us over the weekend. But don't pretend that things were better under Saddam (whom we either supported or installed), or that we were less responsible for the horror.

And BTW, your next assignment will be the inner cities of the American Midwest. Can't wait.

> repellant that we do
> not have the will or
> moral fortitude to put
> more troops in

It's impossible to read that seriously... As if you and your fellow travelers could argue for a stronger American force there. It's just not in your heart, you're lying, and everyone knows.

> War is all about killing
> people, whether we do it
> or they do.

Precisely wrong. Which people get killed is the pivotal difference.

> what Iraq has to do
> with global terrorism

We've covered this, Eric. Here's the quintessential condensed outline in freeze-dried shorthand: Dictator/warmonger/international outlaw, oil, psycho sons, geography, torture, weapons development/weapons trafficking, terror, environmental monstrosity, terrorist haven, religious distortions, oil again, corruption, mass graves. And oil. 'K? 'K.

> or wished Mr Berg or his
> family any harm ever

You should explain your wording to them personally.

The more I read Amy's initial post, the gladder I am she's the one who wrote it. She seems implicitly aware that her reflexive distrust of faiths like mainstream Christianity has been tainted by wackjobs, just as the whole world now fears for Muslim well-being because of extremists. Furthermore, she seems to understand that we should hunt Al Qaeda with the same instruments we bring to the chase of fanatics who shoot abortionists and detonate nail bombs at sports events: We literally hound them. With dogs. Hungry ones. Same standard across the board.

> like JFK meets Carl Sagan.

I own a brown corduroy sports coat, but never nailed Marilyn.

> 3. You are = a goddamn idiot

JV, that comment got published in a hurry, and I feel just awful. But we can tell your feelings have been hurt, and we appreciate that you're going through a time of thoughtful reconsideration. No English, but I got a CompLit minor with Film Studies emphasis, which permitted studying Chaplin for credit.

Posted by: Crid at September 12, 2006 8:38 PM

Crid, I was just about ready to go to bed in tears. Then I read your post. Thanks.

I feel a lot better knowing that I pissed you off ...

Night-night.

Posted by: jv at September 12, 2006 9:22 PM

Guys are weird, even if they're smart.

Posted by: Lena at September 12, 2006 9:43 PM

"Guys are weird, even if they're smart."

It's because we were raised by women.

Posted by: Hasan at September 13, 2006 6:11 AM

"Guys are weird, even if they're smart."

It's because we were raised by women.

Posted by: Hasan at September 13, 2006 6:13 AM

"Guys are weird, even if they're smart."

It's because we were raised by women.

Posted by: Hasan at September 13, 2006 6:15 AM

For fucks sake Crid, could you please post longer comments?

Posted by: Rob at September 13, 2006 8:14 AM

Hasan? Are you an Iranian women-hating Islamofascist terrorist pig?

Posted by: Lena at September 13, 2006 8:15 AM

Nope. I'm a George Bush-hating Americathiest elitist pool player. And you started it, nyea:P

Amy, sorry 'bout the quadruple post, clean-up in aisle 3?

Posted by: Hasan at September 13, 2006 9:02 AM

Glad to meet you, Hasan. Stay elitist!

Posted by: Lena at September 13, 2006 10:32 AM

The pleasure is mine, Lena!:)

Posted by: Hasan at September 13, 2006 10:48 AM

Some important points:

2. Thousands have been killed, but we aren't killing them. If you want to fault our policy, first fault our history of enabling the Talibans and Saddams as they terrorized those populations for generations. And acknowledge that to most in the antiwar left, those were the good old dayz.


As i recall it has usually been republican administations which have enabled terrorists and dictators. And this curent administration doesnt sem to have aproblem with repressive regimes so long as theydont interfere with US interests.

And as for your claims of weapons manufacturing, got and news reports of WMD's? fleets of areil drones capable of striking america?
Here is a question for you - Currently there is more electricity availbe in Iraq then beore our invasion, at least that is what the administration clims.

So if there is more electricity now then when Saddam ruled, and the eletricity we are producing now isnt enough for the green zone to have power 24 hours a day, let alone any other regions of the country - where was Sadam getting the power to run weapons labs, where are the wepons labs, and where did the power lines connecting these labs to the power grid magically disapear to?

Posted by: lujlp at September 15, 2006 2:24 PM

> it has usually been republican
> administations which have
> enabled terrorists and
> dictators.

Like, wow.

> as theydont interfere
> with US interests.

Well, America comes first in my book. What happens to Iraq's oil has global implications.

> got and news reports of
> WMD's?

http://tinyurl.com/zdr67

> fleets of areil drones
> capable of striking
> america?

Was that ever a concern for anyone?

> where was Sadam getting
> the power to run weapons
> labs, where are the
> wepons labs,

http://tinyurl.com/ktt9g

Posted by: Crid at September 15, 2006 10:22 PM

Seriously? I ask for proof of a Iraqi weapon fabrication program and you provide a link to a report on the discovery of 500 mutions which date back to the Iraq-Iran war and are nearly 20 years old, if not older?

And given president dumbass menioned a fleet of unmaned ariel drone capable of striking america I would supposed that it was indeed a concern for someone.

And your statment "What happens to Iraq's oil has global implications."

That right there is the reason for the invasion, had the sanctions been lifted and Saddam traded his oil in Euros it would have constituted a finacial threat to the dictators we dont feel like invading and by proxy to our economy. No WMD, no nukes, no crap about human rights.

To borrow a common phrase ' It's all about the Benjamins '

Posted by: lujlp at September 16, 2006 12:28 AM

> the discovery of 500
> mutions

How many did you want to see? What exactly is the industrial capacity that would have satisfied people? Listen, you got me here: During the buildup to the war, I didn't listen to too much talk about WMD. Democrats and Republicans had been warning of the confrontation for years. The other arguments for invading were so convincing that WMD weren't of interest, and even_in_that_hour, it seemed likely that Bush & Co. were goosing the numbers a bit. No one else was listening either.

Except when fear of Saddam's WMDs was a reason to oppose the invasion. If you recall, we spent three tearful weeks worrying that our children were going to be poisoned in the dessert. But I never heard anyone express *personal* fear about Saddam's WMD, certainly nothing about aerial drones. Bush overreached, absolutely. But nobody on the left cared until, in retrospect, it appeared to be a political liability. (And as of the 2004 election, it wasn't.)

It remains the case that under international law, Saddam was compelled to account for his weapons. He declined, and in fact responded with mockery. The UN didn't care enought about their own rules to act on the violation. Bush did.

> had the sanctions been
> lifted and Saddam traded
> his oil in Euros

With the corruption of the oil-for-food program --the biggest financial scandal of all time-- wasn't that happening anyway?

> no crap about human
> rights

Cynic.

> To borrow a common phrase
> ' It's all about the Benjamins'

OK, it's not cynicism, it's naivete that's looped 'round to the other side of the screen, like the rocketship in the old Asteroids video game. You get too many of your principles from US and John Lennon songs.

Posted by: Crid at September 16, 2006 9:47 AM

Goddamit, one more. This argument is so teenage!

For christ sakes, three years ago we completed the invasion. One year ago our domestic oil production and processing capacity was seriously wounded by natural disaster. This year we have problems with pipelines in Alaska. The price of gas is down this month, but the summertime driving is mostly over, too. And yesterday in the Times we read that it costs $100,000 to fuel a bomber for a typical sortie, so feverish exploration of fuel alternatives continues.

If "It's all about the oy-iiiillllll," then where the fuck is it? Don't give me shadowy teenage fears of white men in suits stashing it away in the boardroom. If we went in for the oil, how come we don't have it yet?

Posted by: Crid at September 16, 2006 9:52 AM

It wasnt about making the oil flow, its about creating a bottle nwck so that supply is diminished and it costs more to buy.

The end result is more money.

Personally I see no problem with making money, but it has gotten to the point where it is not about doing business anymore, it is about unending all consuming greed. No purpose other than to hoard money for the sake of hording money.

Posted by: lujlp at September 16, 2006 1:53 PM

> The end result is more money.

Everyone on the surface of the planet is complaining about prices, but that dyslexic Texan was clever enough to squeeze the pump even more... On behalf of his is college drinking buddies... And then get re-elected! He's a genius, I tell ya, an evil genius!

Do you do other conspriracies? There were no planes on 9/11, and the Towers fell because of bombs cleverly placed by a secret Jewish cabal. Jack fell to a single bullet from the grassy knoll because Bobby'd had Marilyn killed the year before, and Exner was worried enought to complain to Sam G. FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen, but said to hell with it. Paul is dead; underworld types did Cobain.

> it is about unending all
> consuming greed.

It's a cryin' shame! The human heart is a dark place.

Posted by: Crid at September 16, 2006 2:32 PM

God site. Thanks!

Posted by: Mike Stranger at March 12, 2007 7:00 AM

God site. Thanks!

Posted by: Mike Stranger at March 12, 2007 7:03 AM

Leave a comment