By suggesting that we make common cause with traditional people around the world who share our abhorrence of liberal cultural excess, I am not “blaming America†or taking the side of the Muslims. It would be one thing if we were winning that war and didn’t need new ideas and new tactics. The reality, of course, is that we are not winning and we are desperately in need of both ideas and tactics. |
The only way to win, I suggest, is to create a new configuration of forces. We must give up on leftists in America and Europe who will never join our side and instead find common cause with the traditional Muslims who share many of our values and can actually help us defeat radical Islam. In fact, as the limits of our military strategy have shown, they are the only ones who can. |
The question is: Is D'Souza correct? He blames the political left for cultural excesses that contribute to the Muslim world believing itself to be under assault. And so, to make this brief, he says the political right should forget the liberals and make common cause with "traditional Muslims" who are closer in values to American conservatives. Is he right? If so, why?
Your inability to understand Europe and Islam has been raised to new and bold levels Sirs. Pride and ignorance are a powerful combination.
Apologies, that was a brash response. By all means, please explain why you agree with this gentleman.
When you have such radical elements of the left, such as Rosie O'Donnel, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, appearing to be the mainstream of leftist thought
and you have such an active policy in trying to give more rights to terrorists trying to kill us
Does it mean getting into bed with the radical conservative elements of Islam? It doesn't appear that's what the author is advocating. He seems to want to focus a coalition with like minded conservative and moderate elements of Islam
Anything to let the two groups see each other as people, not 'the other.'
QuoteAnything to let the two groups see each other as people, not 'the other.'
Do you really believe that? Do you practice it?
I'm not here in an ambassadorial role.
I don't believe in lying, so I won't whitewash the present administration's lies and bad actions. I'll call evil when I see it. I choose to think of you guys as misguided rather than evil. Easily led.
I don't believe in lying,
I don't believe in lying,
So, what would you call that whole "Republicans want women to die of cancer" thing?
QuoteI'm not here in an ambassadorial role.
of course you aren't. but why do you espouse diplomacy for others and not yourself.
Are you just talking the talk yet not walking the walk?
If I were in a diplomatic role, I would walk the walk and talk the talk. I'm not.
If I were in a diplomatic role, I would walk the walk and talk the talk. I'm not.
Al Gore has said very little with which I wholeheartedly agree but in his (second) concession speech he siad this: That which unites us is greater than that which divides us.
....................
I don't see debating as mediating, or having much to do with the duties required of an ambassador or a diplomat.
What is the place for intuitive decisions?
I think that a lot of important decisions are made by a lot of people with no real logic involved, hunches are played, gestalt's are felt , and distaste from subchontious reasoning is felt.
If one has a strong feeling that something is right or wrong , won't logic follow in the ruts that emotion leaves?
It's funny, Plane. I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:
It's funny, Plane. I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:
Just now? That is (IMO) one of the best Koontz books ever. Be sure to follow it with "Forever Odd."
She hadn't read the "Odd" trilogy. She has been too busy for quite a while (and lacked energy). But she just picked up all three of them (including "Brother Odd") and now she's got me hooked.
QuoteWhen you have such radical elements of the left, such as Rosie O'Donnel, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, appearing to be the mainstream of leftist thought
Two actors and a filmmaker? Seriously? It is interesting to note that you employ the same tactic as BT denounces in the previous post. Your definition of "radical" likely needs some work. In general, American "leftists" and American "rightists" are very close in overall thought.
Quoteand you have such an active policy in trying to give more rights to terrorists trying to kill us
Specific examples of "giving terrorists more rights to try to kill us?"
So you agree with his initial premise that the decline in American culture is the cause of the September 11 attacks?
You are a fierce debater (by your implied definition) until you are faced with something that logically challenges you. At that point you fall back on "I stand by what I said" because you have nothing more substantial than your own ego to support it. By this I do not mean that you are unintelligent - far from it. You may be intellectually lazy. It's hard to come up with good arguments with some of the excellent debaters here and elsewhere. That is unfortunate, but excusable - since the world does not revolve around our opinions and we all have real life responsibilities to attend to.
OTOH you may be an intellectual coward. You are so wrapped up in your own self-image as a liberal (or whatever image you have of yourself) that to admit you (and/or the many liberal sources you cite) are wrong would be intellectually traumatic. If that is the case, I urge you to try accepting that the core values you completely believe in may be wrong. It is liberating - and you do not necessarily have to conclude that they ARE wrong. Just accepting the possibility opens the mind and enables the learning process.
The Bush administration is not evil. It may be confused about moral priorities. It may be diplomatically inept. But it is not evil. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are evil. Hitler was evil. Bush is, at worst, a bad President .... At the very least, BT is correct in pointing out that encouraging such qualities in others while seeing no need of them in your own debate is at best hypocritical and at worst arrogant.
No. Our being the infidels, the supposed source of all evil, who dare to not embrace Islam as the true religion of peace, and instead support those zionist monkeys of Israel. That would be much closer to the cause of 911, than any decline in our culture. If anything, it's not a decline issue, it's an incline issue, an incline in how in such a short period of time became the lone superpower of the globe, while Islam, who once dominated this globe, decided not to join the 20th century, and watched their global influence get completely wiped out. They've got to blame someone.....so apparently it's us, and the Israelis
Odd. Islam has never "dominated the globe."
And us being the only superpower probably depends heavily on one's definition of what a "superpower" is, and if the term has ever really had any useful meaning at all.
As far as I recall, bin Laden did not use Israel much at all in his discussions of September 11. Most of his ire was directed at the United States having permanent military sites in Islamic countries.
You tend to focus quite a bit on Israel, much moreso than al-Qaeda actually has. Why is that?
It wasn't a global power back beginning in the 6th century, during the Caliphate and again during the Ottoman Empire? Ummm, ok, if you say so
I think most folks & historians will conclude that at this time, the U.S. is indeed the 1 big superpower, though Russia and China would be right behind us
Actually, yes the former (which incidently also debunks the notion that his actions were because of our support of Israel, so I thank you for that concession), and slighty out of context to the latter, as our being present as non-Muslims on Muslim land, is consistent with the twisted version of the Koran that militant Islam is using to justify their acts of targeting and killing non-muslims. So yes to the latter as well, but that it also fits the MO
Not really. I think that's just a misguided perception on your part. Israel's just part of the problem to Islamofascism. They simply get more public ire from the likes of their members, but in actuality, it's any non Muslim that's the problem
And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light, he can't plead the 5th.
I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.
You may well be right about the 5th and a pardon.
I post articles about the fact that a prosecutor wasn't able to discover what really happened because someone obstructed justice. That's wrong. When it concerns a CIA officer's cover being blown, I think it's important and I post about it. But the results of the trial itself I am pleased with.
No offense meant Sirs, but your knowledge of Islam and history don't exactly lend you to be an expert (or a reasonable amateur) at creating these theories.
I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.
I heard a lot of whining about money being spent on this and "no underlying crime" by Republicans, but I haven't heard Democrats who are unhappy about the results.
And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light, he can't plead the 5th.
Plane:
Yes, a CIA officer's cover was blown.
No, no one will be accused unless the prosecutor thinks he has enough evidence to prove his case.
Plane: Yes, a CIA officer's cover was blown.
I know what I was thinking about now: immunity. If someone gets immunity, they can't take the 5rh, or so I understand. But that doesn't pertain to Libby.
A fundie is a fundie is a fundie.
Had she been covert, there would have been a crime committed, and Armitage would have been indicted for it.. The fact is she had a desk job at the CIA, and "leaking" that information is no more a crime than leaking that I'm a Physical Therapist, working at a hospital.
Sirs: There was a crime committed. It was reported by the CIA to the DOJ. The investigation ensued.
Just because no one is charged for a crime does not mean that no crime was committed
---there may be lack of evidence to prove the person did it. But whoever leaked her name in the first place, it was a leak of a CIA officer.
Would you say that a murdered person wasn't dead because no one was ever charged with her murder?