At his arraignment at Gitmo on Thursday, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed described what drives his jihad:
"I consider all American constitution" evil, he said, because it permits "same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad," he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. "Do you understand?"
Meanwhile, Dan Blatt over at Gay Patriot reports a story ignored by U.S. mainstream and gay media:
At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.
I could find no reference to this beating on any of the [U.S.] gay news web-sites I checked....
Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said..."This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen's Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike.... Either they will win, or we will win."
Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.
54 Comments for “The Real Culture War”
posted by Rob on
If the Dutch people actually woke up from this nightmare, Geert Wilders would be the next prime minister. Send them back to the land of sands.
posted by Rob on
ONTH, Bruce Bawyer’s blog hasn’t reported this story yet, and he’s one of the most authoritative figure of the subject.
posted by q on
i cant believe this man is talking about gay marriage nuts
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Some of us in America are learning a hard and terrible lesson about allowing those who refuse to respect and assimilate into our culture.
That is, that despite WANTING to be in a Western culture that’s diverse, there are some people who don’t WANT to be a part of it in the most fundamental sense and still want to impose their barbaric ideals on their ADOPTED country.
Here in Los Angeles, CA…we are getting a great deal of this same attitude from members of Hispanic countries.
Our enabling Spanish bi lingual access, and breaking federal laws for banks and other institutions to accomodate a particular class of people, OTHERS will feel short shrift and demand the same accomodation without accountability that no American citizen can demand.
The Dutch are being strangled on their own generosity, as we Americans are.
And their citizens are being assaulted or killed outright, as Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker was.
Muslims are offended by MUCH that is at the core of Western culture and freedom.
They know it’s like that before they show up.
So WHY accomodate their obvious anger at their new surroundings?
WHY accomodate their lack of respecting the lives and liberties of others?
These Muslim fundamentalists were not dragged to their adopted country.
Same goes for the illegal immigrants here in America. They exercised their free will. Yet, they limit that free will to learning the language of America, adjusting to our standards of citizenship.
And our state and federal governments let them get away with it.
There are such outrageous demands made of some countries to ours, that I’ve had to wonder if Chertoff and our President were caught in bed with dead boys or lives goats.
And our state of CA is paying a terrible price. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we cannot handle the sheer NUMBERS of people, let alone those that come into one of America’s most expensive cities with extraordinary needs.
Dutch citizens are at risk, and not one of their lives is worth accomodating this attitude from a non assimilating element.
We are also at risk every day, and our elected leaders ignore it.
In fact, they are more willing to accomodate illegal aliens they cannot account for than, gay citizens they CAN who have contributed much in campaign funds and pledges of support.
I wonder about that too.
Gay citizens anywhere are the ‘devil’ you do know, as opposed to illegal aliens, or Muslim fundamentalists who plot to hurt citizens they don’t like or respect (the devil you don’t).
Yeah, I said it.
I see the adverse affects on where I live. I don’t just perceive or imagine it. It’s seriously real, and very dangerous. Not just for those here illegally, but it makes everyone suspect and distrustful of those they THINK aren’t legally citizens.
That’s chaos, and with chaos follows anarchy.
Why our elected public servants are committing official treason is what we should be asking THEM.
posted by Richard on
How is racism going to fight homophobia? Or Vice versa? It will not.
Beating some one up should be a serious crime. Hopefully the people who committed the crime are put away for a very long time.
Does that mean that all Muslim people should be treated like criminals? No. Does this mean that multi-culturalism is bad? No.
BTW, it is rather stupid to suggest that gay people should respond to the homophobia of the, mostly white, GOP with tea. But, when that homophobia comes from people of color or another political party, we should lock and load.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
BTW, it is rather stupid to suggest that gay people should respond to the homophobia of the, mostly white, GOP with tea. But, when that homophobia comes from people of color or another political party, we should lock and load.
Richard, again, we’ve demonstrated over and over that the gay definition of “homophobia” is based, not on action, but on party affiliation.
The reason Republicans don’t bother with liberal gays is because the Republicans know full well that gays will make excuses for the same behavior and worse that they castigate them for doing when it’s their Democrat Party “allies”. It is not behavior that has anything to do with action; therefore, they see no need to change it.
Conversely, the Democrats know that they can support Farrakhan and others without penalty, since gays and lesbians will always rationalize it.
posted by Bobby on
Richard, Islam doesn’t have the “love the sinner, hate doctrine” of Christianity. That christian doctrine probably stops most christians from becoming gay bashers. Islam however is a religion of war, it was founded by war, it expanded by war. While christianity has evolved from their days as inquisitors, crusaders and puritans, Islam has not had such an evolution.
Frankly, I don’t know what advice to give gays in Amsterdam. Their country doesn’t allow people to carry guns, they have no death penalty, they prosecute “hate speech” against muslims. They have created the seeds for their own destruction.
“Our enabling Spanish bi lingual access, and breaking federal laws for banks and other institutions to accomodate a particular class of people,”
—Well, I don’t agree with that I used to work in hispanic advertising, and one of my clients was a bank. The reason for bilingual lines is because there are millions of unbanked hispanics and the banks want a piece of the action. And no federal laws were broken, any bank can decide how many forms of ID to accept. Multicultural advertising has always existed, in Los Angeles they also have korean newspapers and TV stations.
I don’t however believe in bilingual education, and I do believe that English should be the official language.
And frankly, hispanics are nothing like muslims. While I don’t support illegal immigration, I would rather deal with mexicans than radical muslims. In fact, even the radical hispanics from La Raza don’t go around commiting hate crimes.
What scares me is that Obama comes from a muslim background, even if he isn’t a muslim himself. If he becomes president, I hope he doesn’t follow in the footsteps of those european countries that treat muslims like special people while putting their own citizens in jail for speaking against them.
posted by Rob on
While christianity has evolved from their days as inquisitors, crusaders and puritans, Islam has not had such an evolution.
Two things: Primo, while the Inquision was horrific, the Crusades were a backlash against the cancer that was eating away the Christian Byzantine Empire. Secundo, I strongly doubt that Islam can go through such an evolution, since its foundation is rotten to the core. So-called ‘moderate’ muslims either have their heads in the sand, or are masquerading (taqqiyah). Either way, most of them are antigay.
What scares me is that Obama comes from a muslim background, even if he isn’t a muslim himself. If he becomes president, I hope he doesn’t follow in the footsteps of those european countries that treat muslims like special people while putting their own citizens in jail for speaking against them.
Bobby, Obama’s father was actually an atheist who didn’t care for religion at all. There’s no real muslim background, and in fact I wouldn’t surprised if Obama himself was atheist.
BTW, I want to applaud the Constitutional Court of Turkey for reinstating the ban on the headscarf at Turkish public universities. The AK party overstepped its bounds. Too bad those idiots at the EU won’t see it that way.
posted by tavdy on
“I strongly doubt that Islam can go through such an evolution, since its foundation is rotten to the core.” – Rob
I disagree. Like all religions, Islam is easily corrupted and abused, as has happened with Wahhabism (the form followed by Al Quaeda). But that doesn’t mean the faith is entirely inherently evil or wrong – this is true even of elements such as the much-reviled Shariah law, elements of which have been introduced to Western criminal justice systems only within the last century or so.
That doesn’t mean that Islam is always right – but neither should it be assumed always to be wrong either. I think Islam can – and will – go through just such a transformation. In fact Turkey’s government is heavily involved in a project that will see a radical reinterpretation of the Hadith, a key part of Islamic scripture. The consequences could be comparable to the Reformation in scope and effect, essentially splitting Sunni Islam into Wahhabist and Historicist camps.
“BTW, I want to applaud the Constitutional Court of Turkey for reinstating the ban on the headscarf at Turkish public universities. The AK party overstepped its bounds. Too bad those idiots at the EU won’t see it that way.” – Rob
I think you’ll find that there’s a divide between the EU’s citizens and the EU’s politicians on that point – and many citizens will support the move. Islamophobia is growing fast here, and politicians acquiescing to Islamist demands is only fuelling the fire.
Ironically, the AKP are actually better for LGBT people in Turkey than the CHP, their centre-left opponents, as most of the rights LGBT people have in Turkey have been put in place as part of the AKP’s program to join the EU. The CHP are nationalists, uninterested in pushing Turkey’s EU membership application, and would overturn all those laws if it benefited them domestically.
posted by Richard on
More double standards and misinformation from gay partisans.
I believe that homophobia is wrong no matter the race, color, creed, ethnicity, class, sex or politics of the speaker. Other people seem to believe something else.
When Republicans support homophobia, gay Republicans claim it shouuld be greated with tea and a friendly chat. When it involves Democrats or people of color, gay Republicans take a much harsher tone.
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
Islam has its fringe wackos, just like every other religious or political organization or group.
I suspect that most gay bashers in America are Christian. Does that mean that Christians should be treated as criminals? No. Same principle applies.
The obvious answers for Amsterdam is to deport immigrants — irrespective of their race, color, creed — who are convicted for serious violent crimes.
Amsterdam is generally a peaceful, safe and tolerant place to live and is decades ahead of the United States when it comes to gay rights.
Anyone who grows up in the United States and goes through the public school system — and watches tv — will learn American-English.
Although only learning English is not enough to compete in the global economy.
BTW, Obama is not a Muslim and did not come from a Muslim ‘background’. More lies.
European Nations do not treat ‘Muslims’ like special people — other then the obvious fact that Muslims often cannot become citizens.
At any rate, laws come from elected governments and most European nations have a much freer and fairer electoral system then ours.
posted by Richard on
Responding to homophobia with racism is stupid. It is based on a silly notion that prejudice and intolerance are wrong when directed at me, but not the fellow behind the tree.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, Obama’s father was actually an atheist who didn’t care for religion at all. There’s no real muslim background, and in fact I wouldn’t surprised if Obama himself was atheist”
—His name is Barrack Hussein Obama, not Kunta Kinte, his grandfather was a muslim, he’s from an Indonesian background which is 90% muslim. So don’t tell me he’s not of muslim background. That’s like saying that John F. Kennedy is not of Irish background! Dude, come on!
“I want to applaud the Constitutional Court of Turkey for reinstating the ban on the headscarf at Turkish public universities.”
—How is that different from banning men from dressing like women? That’s a free speech/freedom of religion issue. The turks are crazy. I want to fight radical Islam, not tell women how to dress.
“I suspect that most gay bashers in America are Christian. Does that mean that Christians should be treated as criminals? No. Same principle applies.”
—It’s not the same. A lot of gay bashers in America are not religious. The Mathew Sheppard killers for example were not heavily involved in the mormon church, they drank beer, had sex, and took drugs, clear violations of mormonism. However, all muslim gay bashers are religious, all of them think they’re doing the will of Allah. And the will of Allah is to destroy any “sinners” they encounter.
“Amsterdam is generally a peaceful, safe and tolerant place to live and is decades ahead of the United States when it comes to gay rights.”
—It’s not a peaceful country anymore! These are not isolated incidents, this is becoming common. For god sakes, getting attacked in broad dailight in front of everyone? When was the last time Bruce Villanch was beaten up in Hollywood Squares?
Where is your outrage? This was a fashion show, the gay friendliest place for a gay man in the world, and now even there a queer can’t be safe?
“At any rate, laws come from elected governments and most European nations have a much freer and fairer electoral system then ours.”
—That’s not true, Brigitte Bardot got fined $25,000 for saying that the muslims are destroying France. You call that freedom? The muslims can say anything they want about anyone, but you rarely hear of them facing hate speech charges. This is how multiculturalism works, whites and christians are treated like shit while everyone else gets treated better. The irony is that muslims don’t just hate christians, they also hate gays. It’s too bad evangelicals and gays don’t get along, otherwise we could join forces and fight the muslim menace together! At thevery least, I hope gays in Amsterdam retaliate.
posted by jeff on
My question is where was the audience in all this? No one can say that no one was there. Did the guys in the audience sit back and scream? In cases like this we must stand up and fight no matter the cost, no matter that one’s pretty face might get messed with. Too many people think gay men are timid and weak and that empowers punks to bash and abuse. Hey men stand up, fight back, never again!
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi Richard, sorry…no, not anyone who watches American tv will learn American English.
Especially if you don’t want to and you are accomodated in your first language without EVER HAVING to learn English.
And it’s how illegal immigrants by that very definition are responding to established laws, responsibility and accountability.
That’s not responding to homophobia with racism, that’s responding to disrepect for our laws, ESPECIALLY from our appointed and elected officials to uphold and enforce them.
We…are…at…war.
With a stealthy enemy that used our generous openness that only took n19 people to murder 3,000 in a single morning.
And there are thousands a year killed exponentially by people who are here illegally.
And other criminal aspects like identity theft, destruction of credit and tax history also happen because of this CRIMINAL element.
Multi culturalism is very different from DEFERRING our own principles and culture to those who don’t respect their adopted one.
When a GOVERNMENT’S cultural standards are mocked, destroyed, changes language and isn’t enforced, then that’s the signal a NATION is in trouble.
American culture, it’s core identity and it’s evolution is nothing to be ashamed of or requires accomodating an incursion of anyone ELSE’S cultural standards. Starting with Muslim intolerance of Western values that lead to violence and anarchy.
It is THEY who travel to the Netherlands, presumably, for freedom.
If they want to maintain their cultural standards of subjugating women, not allowing criticism or images of their prophets then they don’t have to live where the culture is DUTCH.
Even in America we’re at risk of imploding because our language is being usurped by accomodating almost exclusively Spanish.
As if Latin Countries and America has no boundaries, or as if Spanish speakers are the only ones who should be accomodated more than any others whose first language is something else.
We have GANG wars on our streets in Los Angeles that rival any war zone elsewhere. And the price is too high for our nation’s leaders to ignore.
And I wonder what it would take to make them to do the duty they are compelled to.
Like a bullet into President Bush from an illegal alien?
Other Americans have suffered such a fate and he doesn’t seem to care.
So I almost hope it happens to HIM, then and maybe ONLY then will we start showing hostile nations and cultures we are serious about preserving our standards of government, immigration and cultural integrity.
posted by Rob on
I disagree. Like all religions, Islam is easily corrupted and abused, as has happened with Wahhabism (the form followed by Al Quaeda). But that doesn’t mean the faith is entirely inherently evil or wrong – this is true even of elements such as the much-reviled Shariah law, elements of which have been introduced to Western criminal justice systems only within the last century or so.
That doesn’t mean that Islam is always right – but neither should it be assumed always to be wrong either. I think Islam can – and will – go through just such a transformation. In fact Turkey’s government is heavily involved in a project that will see a radical reinterpretation of the Hadith, a key part of Islamic scripture. The consequences could be comparable to the Reformation in scope and effect, essentially splitting Sunni Islam into Wahhabist and Historicist camps.
Tavdy, the problem isn’t just with wahhabism. The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t wahhabist, yet they’re extreme. You have to understand the Qur’an and the authoritative Hadiths in order to understand what I mean. Yes there are messages of peace and harmony, but these came from the Meccan period, at an early time of Mohammed’s life when he was vulnurable to the Quraish and had no power. When he gained power and wealth his true colors showed, and he actually abrogated those passages of peace with the nonbelivers. There’s just no way you can get around this fact without delusion or ripping out a good chunk of the Qur’an, and tossing the Hadiths.
Ironically, the AKP are actually better for LGBT people in Turkey than the CHP, their centre-left opponents, as most of the rights LGBT people have in Turkey have been put in place as part of the AKP’s program to join the EU. The CHP are nationalists, uninterested in pushing Turkey’s EU membership application, and would overturn all those laws if it benefited them domestically.
Right, after Poland and Latvia got into the EU, things were merry for LGBT people there. The AKP has no interest in supportng the rights of LGBTs, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they make a 180 turn on some of these rights.
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
Obama is not a Muslim. Your continued attempt to depict him as being so is both false, misleading, uncivil and incredibly racist.
It does apply. Just about every single reported gay bashing against gay people in the United States has come from — mostly — young men raised or adhering to “traditional” Christian beliefs. Yet, it would be wrong to treat all Christians as criminals.
Just as it would be wrong to treat all Muslims as criminals.
“Where is your outrage?”
I refuse to use a bias motivated crime as an excuse to promote racism, prejudice or intolerance.
Yeah, Bobby many aspects of the western European electoral process are freer and fairer then our own.
What many European nations lack, until fairly recently, is a written down Bill of Rights.
Brigitte Bardot is free to vote, to run for public office, and to create her own political organizations.
If she does not like a particular law, she is in much better position to change it, in light of how elections operate in many European nations.
“The muslims can say anything they want about anyone, but you rarely hear of them facing hate speech charges.”
The limits of free speech are set by the laws of each nation. Muslims are not above the law, nor should they be below it.
The fact that some one in the media decides what to report, does mean that what they do not report never happen.
“I hope gays in Amsterdam retaliate.”
So, gay people should commit bias motivated crimes against anyone who they think is Muslim or Arab? Sounds an awful lot like communism or fascism to me.
Yeah, if a person is raised in the United States (with our education and pop culture) they will read/write/speak American English as good as the general population — of a similar class.
A private business may chose to provide services in more then one language as a marketing tool.
Certain government services may do so depending on the demographics of the local population.
posted by Richard on
Turkey has had to make important progress in human rights laws — including gay rights — as a pre condition to joining the European Union.
Public opinion is still hostile, but certain legal rights have been awarded.
posted by jason on
“Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.”
Are you responding to a specific argument made by a specific person, Stephen, or are you arguing your own straw man? Pitiful.
posted by Jordan on
So WHY accomodate their obvious anger at their new surroundings?
WHY accomodate their lack of respecting the lives and liberties of others?
What else are we supposed to do? Corral Muslims around the U.S. and deport them? Do the same for Hispanics? How can you easily separate the wheat from the chaff? I get that we’re enabling people by having dual-language phone support, but short of making English the United States’ official language (it’s not, currently), how can we easily separate the peaceable, democracy-loving Muslims/Hispanics from those who aren’t?
posted by Bobby on
“Yet, it would be wrong to treat all Christians as criminals.”
—Gay bashing wasn’t a problem in europe until muslims started immigrating in large waves and had unhappy children. You’re acting like heterosexuals that have unsafe sex because only gays can get AIDS, or so they think. You cannot deny that Islam is centuries behind christianity when it comes to social progress. Islam doesn’t tolerate sin, get that through your head!
“Brigitte Bardot is free to vote, to run for public office, and to create her own political organizations. If she does not like a particular law, she is in much better position to change it, in light of how elections operate in many European nations.”
—It is your beloved system of european elections that has allowed legislators to act like fascist thugs and create laws that deny people of their freedoms. But I suspect you like seeing people like Ms. Bardot being fined for her free speech. There are many liberals here in America who want to do the same to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reilly, Sean Hannity and other thought-crime criminals. Luckily, the first amendment still means something in this country, I don’t know for how long though.
“So, gay people should commit bias motivated crimes against anyone who they think is Muslim or Arab? Sounds an awful lot like communism or fascism to me.”
—Communism would involve sending them to a siberian labor camp. Fascism to a concentration camp. Gays in amsterdam should form patrols, look for muslim gay bashers and beat them up. I believe in giving your enemy a taste of his own medicine. Why not? Let them feel what is like to be bashed. Let the muslims know that their actions have consequences. That their hatred breeds more hatred. There are reports about gays in Amsterdam that no longer hold hands in public. In France religious jews can’t even wear yarmulkes because of the goddamm muslim attackers. It’s happening all over europe, where a minority of islamic fanatics get to intimidate the majority. How dare do a bunch of immigrants intimidate the natives in their own country? Those bastards should be happy to be living in europe, if they don’t like it, they should return to their own countries and leave our western civilizations alone.
I don’t mind tolerating intolerance when it comes to hateful websites, neo-nazi rallies, homophobic preachers, PETA people, but I will never tolerate violence. Your freedom ends where my nose begins! If the muslims attack us, we must retaliate!
posted by Rob on
Bobby:
—His name is Barrack Hussein Obama, not Kunta Kinte, his grandfather was a muslim, he’s from an Indonesian background which is 90% muslim. So don’t tell me he’s not of muslim background. That’s like saying that John F. Kennedy is not of Irish background! Dude, come on!
So what? It’s an arabic name that existed before Islam. And he was raised in an rather educated and enlightened family. His muslim ancestors had no real bearing on his upbrining.
—How is that different from banning men from dressing like women? That’s a free speech/freedom of religion issue. The turks are crazy. I want to fight radical Islam, not tell women how to dress.
In the state Turkey is in right now, extreme measures are required to protect secular values against islamism. Unlike the EU, the Turks knows how to handle islamists, and they have very low tolerance for their BS. They pretty much know that the hijab is a political symbol.
posted by Richard on
Gay bashing has ALWAYS been a problem in Europe. Heck, it has probably always been a problem everywhere.
We seem to have a clear difference of opinion. That is Ok. I want to punish people who do illegal acts and you want to punish people because you dislike their racial, ethnic or religious or political background.
The influx of immigrates is certainly a factor, but not the only won. France has a large African-Muslim population, whose youth are unahppy (because of police harassment and unemployment) but tend to be as secular as the general population.
I hate to burst your bubble, but first generation immigrants have always caused some problems and benifits for their new nation and have always struggled to assimiliate.
But, their children and grandchildren become much more American or Dutch or French given the proper public education and treatment.
If some one beats someone up, then they should be punished in accrdence with the law. If someone does not like a law, then they should try to change it as a voter and or candidate.
You are clearly bias against all Muslims, so why should I or anyone else believe what you say about the faith? Furthermore I have actually lived in the Muslim world, and among Muslim immigrants and studied the religion.
European elections are not perfect, no nation is, but (1) their ballot access laws are generally less harsh then the US. (2) many use soem form or p.r. which reproduces a more accurate result.
The point of having regular free and fair elections, is not that legislators will not enact bad or unjust laws. But that laws can come or go, be modified or abolished through peaceful means; i.e. voting, candidacy and political orgs.
Outside political rights, European governments have only recently come under restrictions in terms of protecting civil liberties and or rights as a European Union member.
When people start to bring action in the EU court, member nations will have to be more careful about freedom of speech issues.
Have you actually read this Dutch law that you dislike? Do you know why it was proposed or how popular it might be? It might have a religious exemption for hate speech.
It is odd that you can speak of freedom, while totally ignoring the lack of political freedom in the United States.
How our elections operate is a big reason why things get screwy in the US.
I would support the American version of hate speech laws. Which is that they are constitutional if the speaker is doing more then just being rude, crude, obnixious or vile.
What the actor said should be publically condemed. Although he big complaint was that Muslims are not vegetarians and kill animals to eat. However, it would not be a criminal matter in the US, or it would not withstand a legal challenge.
Yet, Holland is not the United States. They have their own laws, rules, regulations and — as a EU member — oversight. Our First Amendment means little to them, unless they chose — through the politicla process — to adopt it.
Authoritarian governments — left and right wing alike — often create and or use scaepgoats. Spreading hate and fear against a certain unpopular class of people in order to seize power by first going after ‘those people’.
Authoritarian governmetns often have little use for equal protection or due process of the law. They certainly have little use for regular, free and fair elections.
The KKK, more of a right-wing militia, often created its own gangs to take the law into their own hands and ‘watch’ certain people; blacks, Jews, gays, women, etc.
You are suggesting a very similar thing.
You suggest that people take the law into their own hands. Decide who lives or who dies. Become the judge, jury and executioner. What you are suggesting is very much an authoritarian pipe dream.
posted by Doug on
“Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.”
What a straw man argument.
posted by Doug on
I am through commenting on this site. Waste of time.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Returning to the topic of the thread, I think Stephen hit the proverbial nail on the head… again.
The issue is that America’s 7 year battle with radical Islamic terrorists is not a battle that America’s farLeft cares to embrace and the farLeft isn’t interested in continuing that battle because they think we’re the ones who are at fault and 9-11 deaths were just “chickens coming home to roost” for America… thank you Rev Wright.
When Stephen accurately describes BarryO’s alternate reality foreign policy “plan” as sitting down to tea with these terrorists, BarryO is confirming the farLeft’s indictment of America as being the one who deserves the blame. BarryO’s just doing what his base wants him to do… Blame America First, Beg the World for Forgiveness, Appease our Enemies at all Cost. Toss in some support for the UN, a Bono CD and some reference to worldwide healthcare insurance plans and we’ve got a BarryO rally.
The mainstream gay media continues to be mired in their self-appointed role of being a critic of all-things-Bush and keeping the gay vote locked up on the Democrat Plantation. If they were to criticize America’s enemies or really discuss the worldwide threat to gays in other countries, they’d have to embrace Bush’s wisdom in confronting Islamic radical terrorists on their own soil.
And that, I think, would make their heads implode.
posted by Paul on
Methinks Richard is a dhimmi-fied appeaser of Islam. He should read Bruce Bawer’s book, “While Europe Slept”.
I wholeheartedly agree with Bobby. Gays in Western Europe should learn self-defence in response to the upswing in gay-bashing which seems to correlate with the upswing in local Muslim populations, and the appeasing dhimmi attitude spreading throughout Western Civilization and catalyzed by political correctness peddled by progressive
posted by Bobby on
Rob,
“In the state Turkey is in right now, extreme measures are required to protect secular values against islamism. Unlike the EU, the Turks knows how to handle islamists, and they have very low tolerance for their BS. They pretty much know that the hijab is a political symbol.”
—The hijab is not a political symbol, it’s an interpretation of Islam. Different muslim women dress in different ways, and Turkey has no business telling them how to dress anymore just like I can’t tell a man not to dress like a woman.
The turks handling of Islamism is the equivalent of sacrificing freedom to protect freedom. It is an embarrassment. Since when are women with hijabs a threat to society? That’s like being afraid of drag queens or men with cowboy hats. It’s the fashion police taken to ridiculous extremes.
And frankly, gays in Amsterdam are not getting beaten by women in hijabs, they’re getting beaten by young men, who are probably dressed like you an me.
You and Richard both dismiss Muslim gay bashing pointing out to Christian gay bashing. But you fail to realize that lately, all the gay bashes are Muslim. And while the european governments fight neo-nazis left and right, putting them in jail for the “crime” of wearing a swastika, they ignore Muslim extremism.
So gays in Holland have a choice. They can stop holding hands in public, they can avoid gay bars, they can become “straight-acting,” go back into the closet, live in fear, or they can
prepare to fight back.
posted by Richard on
Most Americans — who claim to be a part of the political left or right — have little interest in fighting, let alone winning, the war on terrorism.
Most Americans simply do not understand the region, its culture, its people or its history. They are very eager to replace facts and solutions with partisanship and prejudice.
How American liberals and conservatives, many of them, have responded to two current wars is an example of this.
The fact that some conservatives would like to pretend that they are somehow in touch with reality, on this issue, is just cute. They are not.
American has been fighting and supporting Islamic fundamentalists (both verbal and militant) for decades and will probably continue to do so.
I say this as an American who has actually served by county, in uniform, and done quite a bit of work and research in the region.
The gay press, much like the straight press, and much like the general population (in both parties) simply has a very wrong and self-destructive view about the region and what needs to be done and how.
First generation immigrations have, throughout history, caused plenty of pain and pleasure. Their children and grandchildren can assimilate given the proper treatment and education.
I have read Bawer’s books, and many other like it. I enjoyed his ‘Place At The Table’ but found this one to be dealing with a serious issue; immigration through a rather racist manner.
Most people who beat up, rob or commit other violent crimes against gay people are young men, oftentimes influenced by religious fundametnalism or reactionary politics.
I do not dismiss gay-bashings or any type of bias motivated crime. However, the fact that a Muslim youth beats up gay people does not mean that all Muslims or all youth should be treated as criminals.
posted by Bobby on
“Most Americans — who claim to be a part of the political left or right — have little interest in fighting, let alone winning, the war on terrorism.”
—Most have forgotten about 9/11, nor do they realize that we are winning the war on terrorism.
“It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That’s 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK — or a landmark building, for that matter.”
http://www.anncoulter.com
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“Most Americans — who claim to be a part of the political left or right — have little interest in fighting, let alone winning, the war on terrorism.”
I agree that most Americans who claim to be part of the political left have little interest in fighting the WOT. I think their bannerBoy in BarryO nicely complies with the appeasing Left.
It’s kind of stupid, though, to suggest that conservatives or center-right politicals types aren’t interested in winning the WOT or the war in Iraq… for 7 yrs those people have nearly destroyed their standing with the general public and the majority of world opinion for the very reason that confronting evil, fighting the WOT is vital to the long term interests of the Free World. They have literally hazarded their political fortunes to stand up for what’s right, what’s decent, what’s appropriate rather than follow the flatulent winds of public opinion polling.
To even contend that they (political center-right types) “… have little interest in fighting, let alone winning, the war on terrorism” is lunacy, ignores the treasure and natl talent lost over the last 7 yrs and is, frankly, ridiculous on its face.
Heck, I’m a moderate to progressive GOPer and I know the fight in the WOT is more important even than when the GOP ended the Cold War in triumph and not in shame like Prez JimmineyCricket (D) was leading us.
posted by Pat on
I agree that most Americans who claim to be part of the political left have little interest in fighting the WOT.
MichiganMatt, I’m not so sure how true that is. I believe there is quite a bit of interest. But in their (and my) view, right or wrong, Bush has done an AWFUL job so far. In fact, it appears to me that doing nothing would have been better than what we’re doing now. No, I’m not suggesting we do nothing, but I am suggested that other strategies must be explored.
It’s kind of stupid, though, to suggest that conservatives or center-right politicals types aren’t interested in winning the WOT or the war in Iraq.
I agree that conservatives are interested in winning the WOT. However, I disagree with the approach. The strategy seems too much like a schoolyard fight, “oh, if we get out now, the terrorists are going to think (blah, blah, blah).” We’re not dealing with schoolyard kids. Heck, we’re not dealing with conventional enemies that we’ve had in the past.
I think their bannerBoy in BarryO nicely complies with the appeasing Left.
One of the justifications for continuing the same losing strategy is to use the words “appease” and “Chamberlain.” Obama may, in fact, be an appeaser for all I know. But just because he wants to talk to Iran? Then I suppose Rice is also an appeaser. Chamberlain’s problem wasn’t that he talked to Hitler. It was that he gave him the store and everything else with it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The strategy seems too much like a schoolyard fight, “oh, if we get out now, the terrorists are going to think (blah, blah, blah).”
That would be because they specifically said so.
Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.
After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …
By the way, that interview was conducted in 1998, right at the height of the Obama-esque “don’t fight, just leave, because it will upset the terrorists if we fight” attitude in American diplomacy.
For Obama and leftist Democrats, their world began on September 12, 2001. The only thing they know is opposition to Bush. They are convinced that everything Bush does is wrong.
For those of us with historical perspective who are not blinded by hate of Bush, what we see in Obama’s beliefs is the same thing that created, nurtured, and sustained bin Laden and the terrorist ideology in the first place.
posted by Pat on
That would be because they specifically said so.
Because bin Laden said so? Now that’s a credible source.
By the way, that interview was conducted in 1998, right at the height of the Obama-esque “don’t fight, just leave, because it will upset the terrorists if we fight” attitude in American diplomacy.
Also interesting, is that our previous excursion in Afghanistan (in the 80s, when we were helping the Taliban stave off Soviet aggression), we inadvertantly helped bin Laden build his little terrorist empire.
The only thing they know is opposition to Bush. They are convinced that everything Bush does is wrong.
Unfortunately, Bush usually doesn’t disappoint.
For those of us with historical perspective who are not blinded by hate of Bush, what we see in Obama’s beliefs is the same thing that created, nurtured, and sustained bin Laden and the terrorist ideology in the first place.
As I mentioned above, we saw what really created, nurtured, and sustained bin Laden. Further, I don’t believe everything that bin Laden says, and we shouldn’t base our policy on what he says. Too bad Chamberlain also believed Hitler as well. Bin Laden and Hitler are probably two people we shouldn’t believe.
I get your point about blind Bush hatred. Whether one likes or dislikes Bush, one can see his administration’s strategy was an utter failure. I can’t speak for others. All I can say is that this utter failure does not equate to a belief that we have to appease the terrorists. Just that we have to find a better strategy dealing with and eradicating this scum.
posted by RIchard on
Again, gay partisans would rather play partisan politics, then fight, let alone win, the war on terrorism.
If you can get beyond the partisan spin and lies, then you will see the truth. Something few Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives want to do.
The Republican Party and the conservatives have had the opportunity to pretty much do whatever they wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What did they do? Gave Afghanistan to a group of fueding (poppy growing) warlords.
Failed to locate Osama Bid Laden or take out his terrorist group.
They gave Iraq to, depending on who wins the nasty ethnic, religious and political civil war, Sunni or Shiite Islamic fundamentalists.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because bin Laden said so? Now that’s a credible source.
Why not? After all, he was believed when he bragged that action against him was just adding to the number of jihadists.
Also interesting, is that our previous excursion in Afghanistan (in the 80s, when we were helping the Taliban stave off Soviet aggression), we inadvertantly helped bin Laden build his little terrorist empire.
Given the ten-plus year gap between the end of the Eighties and the year 2001, what exactly was going on while bin Laden was constructing and maintaining said empire, quite unmolested by any US surveillance or form?
Furthermore, there’s a lesson in that; insurgent terrorist groups only can survive against a large, well-organized army when they have outside help. Otherwise, they’re tracked down and destroyed, as almost happened to the mujahadeen.
Thus, US policy towards terrorists has been simple; choke off their supplies from other countries as much as possible, and then hunt them down and destroy them.
posted by Pat on
Why not? After all, he was believed when he bragged that action against him was just adding to the number of jihadists.
Okay, I’m convinced. Bin Laden is a credible source. (rolls eyes)
Given the ten-plus year gap between the end of the Eighties and the year 2001, what exactly was going on while bin Laden was constructing and maintaining said empire, quite unmolested by any US surveillance or form?
Yeah, I would like to know what was going on for 20 years myself. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton dropped the ball leading up to this. And now Bush II is following their leads.
Furthermore, there’s a lesson in that; insurgent terrorist groups only can survive against a large, well-organized army when they have outside help. Otherwise, they’re tracked down and destroyed, as almost happened to the mujahadeen.
If only that were true.
Thus, US policy towards terrorists has been simple; choke off their supplies from other countries as much as possible, and then hunt them down and destroy them.
Simple, maybe. Too bad it hasn’t worked. Sure, a lot of terrorists have been caught. Now there’s only a whole lot more to get.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat responds: “But in their (and my) view, right or wrong, Bush has done an AWFUL job so far. In fact, it appears to me that doing nothing would have been better than what we’re doing now. No, I’m not suggesting we do nothing, but I am suggested that other strategies must be explored.”
Pat, I couldn’t disagree more with your assessment of Bush’s strategy –which was endorsed and supported by the UN, by 137 separate funding votes in Congress -29 of which have been in the last 2 years of Democrat-control of Congress.
If you think Iraq today is a failure, you’re benchmark needs adjustment. If you think winning in Afghanistan, sending the taliban into exile, driving UBL into the mountain deserts of Pakistan, freeing the women of Afghan from repressive male domination are all pinpoints of failure… well, you are suffering from plain old Bush Derangement Syndrome.
If you think Libya’s Colonel Mohamar Khadafi would have disbanned his nuclear quest and retreated from the terrorist networks if we had stayed out of Iraq, you got a reality problem.
Sorry, I don’t think Bush has been a failure. 7 yrs without an attack; countless attacks thwarted; terrorists killed and financing networks disrupted across the globe… nawh, the Left thinks that all amounts to failure because the Left hasn’t had all that tax money to spend on their special pet projects and, frankly, to seize power they have to undercut the troops, the mission and undermine America’s presence on the world stage… no wonder the French and Hamas and binLaden want BarryO and the Democrats to win.
Pat, you’re as wrong as they are on this issue. Dead wrong.
posted by Pat on
which was endorsed and supported by the UN, by 137 separate funding votes in Congress -29 of which have been in the last 2 years of Democrat-control of Congress.
Yes, I believe the Dems were on this issue when they first supported it. As for the UN, I have no idea what they really supported.
If you think winning in Afghanistan, sending the taliban into exile, driving UBL into the mountain deserts of Pakistan, freeing the women of Afghan from repressive male domination are all pinpoints of failure
The jury is still out as to whether Afghanistan has been a success.
no wonder the French and Hamas and binLaden want BarryO and the Democrats to win.
Again, I don’t care who bin Laden, Hamas, or even the French wants to win the election. That’s completely and totally irrelevant.
Pat, you’re as wrong as they are on this issue. Dead wrong.
Maybe so. I’ve been wrong before. And since both parties are reluctant or unable to find real strategies to combat terrorism, I hope I am wrong.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, I’m not sure it’s possible to get you to appreciate that if groups like Hamas or the French WANT, DESIRE, NEED BarryO to win in Nov, what those kind of endorsements mean for America. Those people see strength for their interests in weakness of American leadership & resolve; that’s why they dislike Bush 43. It isn’t “irrelevant” to American voters, the Free World or even to terrorist groups… ok, so it’s irrelevant to you. Your error.
As for the success in Bush’s strategy for addressing the terrorist threats to America, I left off the untoward impact on southeast asian terrorist groups that have suffered under Bush’s “failed” policies… in Clinton’s 2nd term, indonesian and SE asian terrorist groups were fast becoming a dominant threat in that region of the world… today, almost entirely because of Bush’s decisive actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and at home, that area of the world is NOT a credible threat to Americans, American interests or westerners abroad.
You may not think Afghanistan is a success, but I think Bush’s decision to hand the conflict off to NATO was a supremely brilliant masterstroke. And despite the anti-American rooters on the farLeft who want America to fail there, Afghanistan and Iraq are much better today than they were before Bush announced his Bush Doctrine and put it into force. Far, far better and even those on the farLeft can’t hold that grudge or demerit against GWB.
Threatening agents of terror who step onto the world stage have to believe that American leaders mean to do what they say… and 8 yrs of Clinton did nothing but undercut the strength and resolve built by Reagan + Bush 41 after the disasterous, miscalculating, completely inept JimmineyCricket hour into American Darkness and Malaise.
Just like Clinton, BarryO is poised to take us right back to a 2nd Carter term. He is as dangerous to our long term world interests as SlickWilly… and we’re still paying the price for allowing ChiComs to infiltrate American intelligence and proprietary commerce… a hallmark failure of the Clinton Administration.
posted by Pat on
Pat, I’m not sure it’s possible to get you to appreciate that if groups like Hamas or the French WANT, DESIRE, NEED BarryO to win in Nov, what those kind of endorsements mean for America. Those people see strength for their interests in weakness of American leadership & resolve; that’s why they dislike Bush 43. It isn’t “irrelevant” to American voters, the Free World or even to terrorist groups… ok, so it’s irrelevant to you. Your error.
MichiganMatt, the reason why I believe it is irrelevant is that we, the voters, our government, etc., should be deciding things based on what we believe is the right thing, as opposed to playing “opposite game” or some other schoolyard game with terrorists. If Obama is dangerous for America as you believe he is, I respect your opinion. But it should have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS on what scum like bin Laden says. ZERO.
Terrorists are lunatics, but they’re not always stupid. How do you know that they’re saying they want Obama as President thinking that we would say, “Oh, gee, bin Laden et al want Obama to be President, so without much thought, I better vote for McCain.”? I’m sure sometimes they spout out what they really think. But sometimes they don’t. I’m almost positive my recollection is correct (but unfortunately, I couldn’t find a link) that in 1980 Iran said they hoped Reagan would defeat Carter for President.
You may not think Afghanistan is a success, but I think Bush’s decision to hand the conflict off to NATO was a supremely brilliant masterstroke. And despite the anti-American rooters on the farLeft who want America to fail there, Afghanistan and Iraq are much better today than they were before Bush announced his Bush Doctrine and put it into force. Far, far better and even those on the farLeft can’t hold that grudge or demerit against GWB.
In many ways, Iraq and Afghanistan are better off than they were before, especially Afghanistan. But even Afghanistan seems to be backtracking a little. In any case, we won’t know whether Iraq or Afghanistan is a success until most of our troops (and others) are out of there for a couple of years, and see what happens. And at that point, we can assess whether the level of success was worth it, or if our resources should have been used elsewhere and/or in other ways to more effectively fight terrorism.
posted by Pat on
MichiganMatt, one more thing I forgot to write in my last post.
Suppose, say in a couple of months, bin Laden et al, start singing a different tune, and then say they want McCain to be president. Are you saying that you will believe their supposed change of heart, and vote for Obama?
I suspect that you came to your conclusions regardless of what bin Laden, Hamas, and the French said.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, easy there studmuffin. You wrote “I’m almost positive my recollection is correct (but unfortunately, I couldn’t find a link) that in 1980 Iran said they hoped Reagan would defeat Carter for President.”
No. Iran’s ruling elite feared Reagan (just like some of us moderates within the GOP feared him) because they believed the media-made perception of RR as a trigger-happy, kick ass first President. That’s why, just within hours of RR being sworn in, Iran wisely announced the release of the hostages… and, as we all know now in the lead up to that historic moment, Iran’s back channel contacts tried to get RR’s incoming Administration to give Iran more time to “arrange” the release and the message back to Iran via Sweden via the WH via RR was that that wasn’t good enough to prevent…. Iran’s ruling elite got the idea and the hostages were on the way home within 24 hours of Reagan’s 1st Presidential gala.
No, Pat, Iran’s ruling elite wanted Carter reelected because of two reasons: 1) he was easily cowed by Iran and that was abundantly clear by the facts on the ground and 2) JimmineyCricket helped put the ruling elite Iranian Islamo-fascists into power in the first place by playing a WH coward when the Shah needed us most.
Iran wanted RR elected? LOL! Not even howieDean’s recollection would be credible with that whopper.
On your point about success & backtracks… keep in mind, Pat, it’s war. It’s chaos. It’s not a linear progression from point A to B… no matter what you hear on KeithOlbermann’s or JonStewart’s show… to apply a different standard is to ignore the reality of war or the value of progress. And, for many on the Left in the Democrat Party, playing fast with that notion and claiming setbacks are proof of failure or failed policies is unAmerican.
Neither bin Laden, Hamas or the French are going to endorse McCain… they’ve tipped their hand for the softer, weaker candidate in the race… one much like JimmyCarter… the one they know they can manipulate to their advantage.
You say it doesn’t matter to you and shouldn’t matter to American voters? Wrong. I’m not pulling the lever because they want BarryO… I’m pulling the lever because I want someone who can stand toe2toe and not flinch or offer tea and biscuits and $100 million to the terrorists for having be subject to American colonial excess.
We tried JimmyCarter. He don’t work. And neither would have the Mondales, Dukakis, Gores or Kerrys… BillClinton and JFK proved that weak men rule weakly.
posted by Pat on
Neither bin Laden, Hamas or the French are going to endorse McCain… they’ve tipped their hand for the softer, weaker candidate in the race… one much like JimmyCarter… the one they know they can manipulate to their advantage.
MichiganMatt, you say it doesn’t matter to you and shouldn’t matter to American voters? Wrong. I’m not pulling the lever because they want BarryO… I’m pulling the lever because I want someone who can stand toe2toe and not flinch or offer tea and biscuits and $100 million to the terrorists for having be subject to American colonial excess.
I have no doubt that you believe that bin Laden et al are not going to change their endorsements. But what if, they actually did? I doubt under those circumstances you are going to change your mind about McCain being a better choice for president while Obama would be a poor choice.
And let me clarify a point. First, I still contend that it is irrelevant what bin Laden et al say. I do believe it is more relevant what they actually believe (and even then, it doesn’t always reflect reality). They don’t always tip their hand. They didn’t call Bush up and say that they were going to fly planes into buildings on 9/11/01.
At least I did see that you didn’t make your choice based on what bin Laden et al have said.
Pat, easy there studmuffin. You wrote “I’m almost positive my recollection is correct (but unfortunately, I couldn’t find a link) that in 1980 Iran said they hoped Reagan would defeat Carter for President.”
No. Iran’s ruling elite feared Reagan (just like some of us moderates within the GOP feared him) because they believed the media-made perception of RR as a trigger-happy, kick ass first President.
Thanks. This may have been the first time I was called a studmuffin. Look, I’ve NEVER said that Iran did not fear Reagan, as I’m sure they did. I still stand by my recollection. Maybe Iran was playing opposite game, that they wanted Reagan elected so that we would vote for Carter. Anyway, at least with terrorism, Reagan eventually showed he wasn’t any more effective than Carter, Clinton, and the Bushes.
We tried JimmyCarter. He don’t work. And neither would have the Mondales, Dukakis, Gores or Kerrys… BillClinton and JFK proved that weak men rule weakly.
And in my view, you can add Bush II to the list of weak presidents.
posted by Richard on
Iran and the Reagan campaign were having talks about letting the hostages go, after the 1980 election.
The Iranians were upset that the Carter Admin had given aid to the dying reformist Shah and been making big speeches about human rights. Thus they felt that they could do business with Reagan.
Reagan carried little about human rights,
and was content to support oppressive regimes as long as they were publically anti-Communist.
posted by Pat on
Iran and the Reagan campaign were having talks about letting the hostages go, after the 1980 election.
Do you have a link? I’ve heard that as well, but well after 1980. It sure would be consistent with the way the Reagan Adminstration dealt with terrorists and rogue governments. We saw that the Tower Commission conclude that Reagan traded arms for hostages and dealt with Hezbollah by invading Grenada. So, none of our presidents since and including Carter have been awful in dealing with terrorists.
posted by Pat on
Should be “each” instead of “none” in the last sentence.
posted by Richard on
It is basic common knowledge. History can be a dangerous thing, when it is taught without respect to prejudice or political correctness.
Prior to 9/11 the Bush Administration all but ignored the Clinton Administratiomns constant comments about terrorists — Osama Bid Laden included -.
When it happend the first internal push was to ignore Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and go into Iraq.
posted by Jared on
*forehead smack*
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jared… LOL! Yeah, those incredible insights of Richard’s are real stunning sometimes.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat offers: “Anyway, at least with terrorism, Reagan eventually showed he wasn’t any more effective than Carter, Clinton, and the Bushes.”
You know, politicians must simply loathe those citizens who never, ever give credit to them for the work that they accomplish… RR’s promise to “restore America’s might and leadership on the Free World’s stage” directly led to the collapse of Russia, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the return of the Carter hostages and the freedom of the Polish, German, Hungarian, Slavic, et al nations…
I guess to you, Pat, that just wasn’t good enough. I guess to you, Pat, those dictators and evil empires weren’t “terrorists” to the Free World…
You really need to inform those opinions, Pat… or at least stop long enough to give credit –grudgingly in your case– where credit is due.
Compared to Carter, RR was positively brilliant in dealing with the hostage takers, many of the terrorist groups and Bush 43’s Doctrine of taking the fight to the terrorists’ home bases & countries that harbor them has kept America safe for nearly 7 years… something Carter nor Clinton can NOT contend… nor anything in Obama’s sparse record of accomplishments can point to.
Gheesh, no wonder leaders get fed up with America’s fickle assessments of their efforts… it must seem to them that it’s “we’re with you as long as it doesn’t hurt, doesn’t require us to do anything but wave a flag or wear a pin, please get x,y or z done before the next commercial break.”
posted by Pat on
You really need to inform those opinions, Pat… or at least stop long enough to give credit –grudgingly in your case– where credit is due.
MichiganMatt, we were talking about terrorism, not about the dismantling of the Soviet Union.
Compared to Carter, RR was positively brilliant in dealing with the hostage takers,
I guess we’ll agree to disagree then.
Bush 43’s Doctrine of taking the fight to the terrorists’ home bases & countries that harbor them has kept America safe for nearly 7 years…
I get it. You think Bush II has been effective with terrorism. I don’t. Terrorists love the game that Bush II is playing. They thrive on it. But I do agree with you regarding Obama. I don’t see any evidence that he’ll be any better than the last five presidents on terrorism.
posted by Richard on
Gay Republicans want to traet Reagan was a god, gay Democrats want to treat him as the devil. It looks like the gay Independent will, again, explain the reality.
Reagan was following, at its core, the Truman (a progressive Democrats) foreign policy when it came to the Soviet Union.
His major dissent was when it came to the question of human rights.
Carter felt that the United States had a duty to advance human rights globally, and that this was connected to many of our foreign policy goals. Clinton did so as well.
Reagan did not really care too much about human rights. This came back to bite us in the rear, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq and parts of Latin America.
He opposed Communism and wanted to stop it from spreading, as did most Democrats and Republicans, but felt it was perfectly acceptable to back very right-wing quasi-fascist militias and groups.
The Iranian leaders liked Reagan, because he was not Carter — who had given aid to the reformist shah –. He got the hostages freed simply because he had not had any direct dealings with the Shah.
Most of the credit for the fall of the Berlin wall and the rise of human rights in Poland, Germany and Russia can be tied to key individuals within these nations, and the fact that by the 1980s, Soviet Russia was, basically, broke.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“It looks like the gay Independent will, again, explain the reality.”
Yeah, now who would that be, Richard? Certainly not you hiding under the gayDemocrat covers?
I literally laughed out when I read you think RR was following the “Truman foreign policy” line toward the Russians. Really now? What exactly was that policy? Give everything to the Russians and hope they don’t get mad at us? The Free World lost almost ALL of Eastern Europe under Truman… and ten of millions of Europeans suffered death after the war was over thanks to Stalin and the Russians re-settlement plans.-helped out by a war-weary and politically moribund HarryTruman. Some progressive policy there… what the heck, they’re only eastern Europeans anyway… unwashed, ignorant, backward folk. Good one, Richard.
As for your silly “reading” of history, Carter actually actively undercut the Shah and let him hang out to dry on the whacky-Democrat “HumanRightsIsEVERYthing” rope. He didn’t ever, ever help the Shah -what revisionist crap are you smoking? Carter even tried blocking the Shah’s exile stop in Egypt… Carter denied him access to the US. You are such a tool, Richard… I can’t believe you even think this stuff up with a str8 face. Even the Democrats’ girl with the mic at the time, Barb-wa-walters said the US (and Carter) acted irresponsibly and immorally toward the Shah and his family. Check out her best seller… you’ll actually learn what happened from someone who had a first row seat at the political butchering of the Shah by Carter.
And as for the nonsense about credit goes to others for the demise of Communism… well, that is just pure revisionism without a net. Three people brought about the demise of the Soviet Union… RR, the Pope and Margaret Thatcher.
I think one of the talkRadio pundits was discussing this very point just on today’s airwaves… the context was that some widely subscribed junior high history book had rewritten history to indicate that the Fall of the Iron Curtain was attributable to Gorbachev alone… and the talkRadio host noted that this was the newest spin coming out of liberal Democrat LaLa land.
I guess your “independent” mask comes off once again, Richard. Maybe not like you intended, though.