Why do folks find it necessary to go after the truth teller, and not respond to the points made in the argument presented? Attacking the messenger is always the easy approach when the argument is not easily refuted. Knowing what we know about these folks and their beliefs, and we know what we know from observing their behavior, and listening to all of their destruction and killing talk (mixed in with "yes, we are peaceful" -type propaganda), why is it wrong or inaccurate to describe such people and such belief systems as wrong and bad?
The situation of our world post 9-11 is self-evident. It doesn't take a leftist academic propagandist to confuse the matter, though they do try and try.
Political correctness describing Islam as a "peaceful religion" cannot be anything but propaganda, as the adherents of that religion have demonstrated by their own actions that they are not at all peaceful. The Koran itself spells out the appalling horrors that adherents are enjoined to commit in the course of being "good" muslims. Only yesterday in Iraq an imprisoned Imam said that he didn't support the hostage takers of women who were trying to get him released through her captivity. He said that it was against Islam (but the kidnapping and beheading men, of course, isn't against Islam). This is perhaps one of three of four times since 9-11 that I have heard any Muslim leader "condemn" the violence, murder and raping of "the faithful".
What I am doing (and I don't understand why it gets folks all up in a tizzy), is to write about what has happened, and what people have said or not said. Folks who cannot, and do not want to, accept the truth will do their best, I think, to disparage the truth tellers. That is the way that humanity has always responded to challenging and difficult situations. Some will tell the truth, some will listen and accept it, and many others will resist it, and fight against it, because it's simply too difficult and painful to accept.
How can you argue with me when these fanatics murdered over 3000 innocent fellow Americans on 9-11? Where were the moderate Muslims on 9/12? They were silent, just as they are now. Why this is the case is up to you to determine. Their purpose in keeping silent only mean one of two things, as there aren't any other options: 1. They agree with the tactics of the killers; 2. they are concerned about retaliation if they speak out against the killers. Islam is certainly known for being intolerant of those who criticize the religion or its leaders. Remember Salman Rushdie? Satanic Verses wasn't a very good book, but he certainly didn't deserve to die for it. And, all of the apologists came out to support that fatwa--from British Trevor-Roper to Edward Said to Yusef Islam.
How can you defend a movement of any kind, a religion of any kind that murders and rapes (yes, rapes,
www.sundaymirror.co.uk/tm_objectid=...nifed-babies--they-raped-girls-name_page.html ) 100s of school children in Russia; imply that I'm some type of propagandist when I write of these lunatics sending their children to blow up innocent bus riders on their way to work in Israel; why impugn my education or understanding when I write of these murderers who cut our fellow Americans' heads off then proudly post images of their crimes to the internet? I am just the truth teller here.
I am horrified and appalled that my countrymen are obsessed with health care, increasing minimum wage, public school funding and the like when our very existence is at stake. How is it that so many people cannot see that the world changed fundamentally on 9-11? If we had not gone into Afghanistan and/or Iraq we would now have the same horrors that Israel has to deal with it, but on a much greater scale.
If our people had been this divided during WWII and Roosevelt hadn't been the great leader that he was, we would have lost that war.
Shame on. . .
. . .the democratic party for being so partisan and self-seeking while our soldiers fight for our freedoms overseas.
. . .the democratic party for foisting a failed ultra-left Senator upon us, someone who cares so little for his role as representative of his constituents that he misses over 50% of the Senate votes.
. . .the democratic party for sowing poor morale in our soldiers who do their duty bravely and courageously.
. . .the democratic party for undermining our war effort by agreeing with Kofi Annan and his failed UN that our legitimate measures of self-defense are illegal because he did not give his blessing to the action.
. . .the democratic party for foisting Bill and Hillary Clinton upon us as the leaders of their party, caring only for their self-aggrandizement.
. . .the democratic party for foisting Jimmy Carter upon us and his call for an international review of Florida's upcoming election, implying strongly that we are unable to run an election in the United States, and only an international body can lend legitimacy to our electoral process.
. . .on the democratic party for sending John Kerry's sister to Australia to undermine the government of an active ally during time of war.
. . .John Kerry for criticising our allies during time of war.
. . .John Kerry for his assertions that only the UN can be the arbiter of legitimacy in International affairs of self- defense.
. . .John Kerry for minimizing the sacrifices of our allies during time of war.
. . .John Kerry for maligning the character and capabilities of a sitting president during time of war only for his own political gain, and to the delight of our enemies.
. . .John Kerry for his hypocrisy and Clinton-esque spineless poll-driven campaign.
. . .the democrats for not listening to and following their rational center as represented by Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
. . .the democrats for their stridency and vitriol as represented by the new and apparently unbalanced Al Gore.
. . .the democrats for their incomprehensible support of non-supportive allies like France and Germany whose Euro-power agendas no longer mirror our own.
. . .the democrats for implying that Iraq is better off under tyranny.
. . .John Kerry for saying that he would send troops to Sudan for a humanitarian mission but would require UN approval and a Global test for any action that we take internationally in our own defense.
. . .John Kerry for confusing the people by building his campaign upon his Vietnam War service rather than upon the issues of the day.
. . .John Kerry for believing that the people would be blinkered by his Vietnam service and forget about his lackluster no-show on-going Senate "career".
. . .John Kerry for allowing his wife to bring bad language and public insult into the campaign.
Obviously, this is an incomplete list of shame.
Perhaps y'all ought to answer these points and not wonder about my qualifications to make them. No answer I give you will be acceptable. Though I have indeed traveled extensively, this premise that one must have spent much time among murderers is beside the point. Are Holocaust survivors or members of the SS the only ones able to understand and draw conclusions regarding Nazi Germany? Are elite Communist Party members vacationing in their dachas--better yet-- those less fortunate that survived the Gulags the only ones to understand communism? If I was at D-Day does that mean I understand Nazism or WW11 or Hitlerism, or the rise of fascism in Europe or the failure of the German people, or the holocaust, or any other component? No--all it means is that I know about my small part in D-Day, which was the largest invasion in human history; people spend their entire lives studying those several days around D-day, and never get finished in the study.
The flaw on the Republican side is that Bush is not a great debater, not one to think quickly on his feet. He is not the great speechmaker that Clinton was. He is not a Rhodes Scholar either. But Clinton was, and his historical record will be a footnote of shame in comparison to the volumes written about Bush, and the Bush doctrine of active self-defense.
There is too much at stake in this election for me to remain silent. Kerry is the wrong man at the wrong time, in the wrong place. The man and the hour have not met, and never will. I will enjoy watching Kerry, Edwards, and Kennedy squirm in their Senate seats, those few times that they will be in attendance, with Cheney back on the dais, and Bush back in the Oval Office.
There is too much at stake. The democratic party must reform itself, and the United States must defend itself.
Have a nice day.
I can't wait to hear how it doesn't take
