Not funny at all.
Read this, if you wish. It may make you angry, or it may make you think. It makes sense to me, which makes me wonder what that says about me. On my monitor it's best viewed zoomed in to about 150% size.
This article gave me a new perspective on the mindset of the radical islamic terrorists. It's short, but insightful.
Come back tomorrow for humor or photos or my normal fare.
3 comments:
So ... the U.S. was too "compassionate" and that's why we're having so much trouble now, because the Islamic fundies didn't take us seriously enough. Riiight.
No, I'd say it has more to do with us looking like complete IDIOTS, by, among other things, invading a sovereign country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/1l; um, the ever-changing reasons for the war, like the embarrassing WMD thing - oh and speaking of the war on terror - virtually abandoning the war in Afghanistan, which had everything to do with 9/11, and allowing the Taliban to make a comeback there; and um, destroying the of goodwill we had from other nations after 9/11; not to mention going into ANY war ill prepared and without an exit plan; and um, ignoring a possible political solution from Iran BEFORE Ahmadenijad came to power; and um, refusing to even talk with other countries in the region; oh I take it back - we don't LOOK like idiots any more. We ARE idiots for allowing this to continue day after day - at this writing, 3,190 American troops dead. Yeah, I think all of these actions, and more, just might have given the Islamic fundies reason to not take us seriously.
Next.
I think the article makes some sense, and what Candace said makes a lot of sense. I have been wondering for a couple years now when the "war on terror" became the "mission to improve Iraq" and by the way, what happened to Osama? Are we just hoping he's dead? I supported the war on terror at first because I understood it to be an actual plan to wipe out a significant number of terrorists who posed a direct threat to the United States. Now I'm so disgusted I can hardly stand to even think about it. And the WMD thing was just embarrassing.
In a feeble attempt at a defense, let me just say that I didn't see the article as in any way justifying the war in Iraq.
What I thought was insightful in the article was the statement that Islam is a "works-based religion." I thought about that. Okay, Islam teaches (requires?) facing Mecca to pray several times each day at set times. The Haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty if not an obligation. And there are more requirements. Well, if all that be true (including spreading the faith with the sword, etc.), AND we find ourselves at war with such a group who wants to kill and terrorize us (NOT Iraq, necessarily, but the various Jihad groups who DO), THEN, as I thought the writer pointed out, an all-out, hellish, awful war is the only way to fight it.
I guess I was reminded of the horrible mess we created in Vietnam, with shifting targets, changing rules of engagement, "Take this hill," then, "Back up and give them the hill back," after 100 soldiers died to take it. I said then (and I was IN the military then!) if you’re going to fight a war, then fight to win!
That's why the article resonated with me. I did NOT see it as any kind of justification for us being in Iraq in the first place. Those "reasons," as Candace and others correctly point out, have all been repudiated. Well, except possibly that Saddam was a murderous tyrant, a la Hitler.
The writer says, “An American defeat will lead to wider war.” I would say rather that any perception of American weakness, not just ultimate defeat, will only lead to prolonged fighting against terrorism around the world and here in our own country.
That’s the end of my “defense,” regardless of any further rebuttal or comments. I’ll go back to writing funny captions on Carol’s bird photos.
John
Post a Comment