Tuesday, July 21, 2009

More harogate


harrogate has left a new comment on your post "harrogate claims but doesn't prove":

(I had written.) "Why no consistent "thundering" condemnation from the American media, or for that matter from politicans, Democratic as well as Republican?"

Well, we can disagree about how much coverage and attention should be given the domestic abuses of these regimes. But it really is in bad faith to explain it as a tacit approval, which you seem to be doing.


I haven’t limited what the Left can condemn to just domestic abuses. For example they could condemn Syria and Iran for attacking Israel via their surrogates. They could attack SA for funding schools in the US that teach hatred. They could condemn Pakistan for not running al Qaeda and the Taliban back into Afghanistan. Iran for sending fighters into Iraq. Etc., etc., etc…… It is a rich target environment.


I would say that the reason we don't see more rhetorical focus on these problems is that inevitably, for all the global dynamic of our world, our media and our politicians are STILL going to focus the most on what is happening here in this country.


Oh really? All I heard about for 7 years was how we shouldn’t be defending ourselves.


And, Jim, there is a capitalist reason for it as well. I'm sure you know this. I mean, consumers of media and voters writ large want most of the news and most of the rhetoric to be about things that are happening in this country, and that immediately affect their lives.


So that’s the reason MSNBC exists?


That being said, I think there is broad awareness and condemnation in America, across the political spectrum, of the human rights abuses thattake place in these Islamic regimes.


Then the President should be talking about that. We will either convince by talking or by killing.


On what to do about it all. You brought up Japan. But Japan, the NATION, had attacked us and declared war against us. While Islamic terrorists are indeed eager to commit violence against us and others today, the nationlesness of it makes things fundamentally different. A different proposition entirely to bomb the hell out of a Country like Iran or Saudi Arabia b/c we are repulsed by how their governments treat their own. I think I speak fo the majority when I say, I'm not remotely sanguine about going to war for such a reason.


If you let your enemy set the terms of the fight you will always lose. It is past time we told the Muslim world that if they harbor terrorists, knowingly or not, it is likely they will see more and more cruise missiles dropping out of the sky. That is what they will understand.

In the meantime we have this from bin Ladin himself in a 3/97 interview with Peter Arnett, then with CNN.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN:….. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.


In case you can’t figure that out he was saying 12 years ago. It was: “Don’t interfere with Muslims and Sharia law.”

harrogate again

harrogate has left a new comment on your post "harrogate claims but doesn't prove":

Just a point of clarification-, since you appear to be confused on this point: I was stating the lack of difference between Islamic terrorists and the man who killed Tiller. Political violence, insane religious righteousness in both cases.

Will chew on the rest of what you wrote. It is thoughtful. I appreciate your engagement.


Quit looking for equivalency. Tiller's killer was a nut operating by himself with no body of religious work, no centuries of analysis, etc. The radical Muslims are a natural extension of the fundamentals of Sharia law.

When you bring Tiller up you provide cover for the radical Muslims and those moderates who can't quite reach the point of disavowing them. The latter being understandable since doing so may get them hung, stoned or shot.

Plainer. There is absolutely no reason that the problems in the US should be discussed at the same time the many problems of the radical Muslims and the invasive immigration in to Europe is causing, and will soon cause in the US if we continue to let them come in.

harrogate claims but doesn't prove

harrogate has left a new comment on your post "A non-defense of the Left.":

For what it is worth, I am outraged over what radical Muslims are doing, both in terms of their general endorsement of political violence, and in terms of their abuses of women, gays, non-Muslims, and Muslims who are apparently not Muslim enough. And every person I know who votes Democratic feels the same way.

If that is true.... Why do I see no op eds from the Leftie Women of America??? Why do I read no thundering condemnations from the New York "All the information a terrorist needs" Times?? Now I know that is not y o u, but as a defender of the Left I would expect you be in the forefront of these fake Lefties lack of outrage.. (sarcasm alert...)

It's sort of like the Iran fiasco, the distinction I am drawing. I wonder how much god bluster from our politicians at these regimes, how these regimes treat their own people--how much good does that really do? Maybe the answer is grassroots outrage at such regimes, rather than Senators and Presidents "talking tough." We do not need more wars. If change is going to come from those regimes it is going to HAVE to come from inside them.

I have no idea, and neither do you, if Obama speaking out in support of the human rights of the protesters would help. And since he was too frightened of the Ali Whoosits he didn't until he became too frightened of American public opinion...

The Germans call him "The Mouse." And they have read him well.

Of course he had no problem defending a Leftie Wannabee President for Life in Honduras. My, my. What A Suprise!!!!!

And war has, and can, have positive effect. I refer you to The Cold War, in which thousands died defeating communism....WWII....Civil War.....American Revolution, etc., etc.

As for Israel, I mean, you could at least be as intellectually honest as Dennis Prager, a high profile right wing talker who routninely slams on Obama, but who also praised Obama for telling the Muslim world in Cairo that America unequivocally rejects the Holocaust denial, the political violence against Israelis, etc. Democratic politicans and their voters, like GOP politicans and their,s almost overwhelmingly condemn the virulent anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.

Obama makes one comment among his pandering and you think he deserves praise?? Why didn't he stress that Islam must change if it is to live in peace with others?

Could it be that it is because he was raised as a Muslim for his first 9 years and is conflicted over what Islam is all about??? Ask the typical Christian child of 9 and he will tell you all about "good things" but he will know nothing about the Reformation....

His raising has uniquely disqualified him to be President.

But the parties and their voters differ on what to do about it all. Bomb everyone? Not going to work in the end, though it might make some people rich in the process. The truth is there is no easy answer and I suspect you know it for all the stark talking points of the GOP on such issues.

There is no easy answer but if bombing is required, it should be used. Japan did not become a western styled democracy because we met with them. They changed because we made them change.

As for the differences between gays and womens' struggles here, versus their struggles in the Muslim world, of course it is Night and Day. I said as much in my comment. But the fact remains that many quarters of the mainstream Right continues to express outrage over the decriminalization of homosexuality. Forfget marriage for a second, we're talking outright criminal charges here. Rick Santorum, when the decision was handed down, said it was like legalizing bestiality. Horrible, horrible rhetoric for a 21st century American politician.

The facts remain that in the US we have a robust political debate. In Islamic theocracies you have robust hangings, stonings and honor killings. The Left's failure to publicly and continually condemn these actions and their lack of support for Israel proves my point.

The Left and Islam are birds of a feather.

Finally, the abortion issue. I was a little surprised, and a LOT saddened, at the deluge of support I saw on the Right blogosphere, for George Tiller's murder. And a deluge it was, especially from commenters. But Tiller's murder was an act of political violence, not a hair's breadth of difference between it and Muslim terrorist acts.

Got some links??

And you can see no difference between Tiller's actions and the radical Muslims? If you actually believe that there is no hope for you.

American social conservatism, again, no the whole, has not descended to near the depth of the Muslim extremist knuckledraggers. but that don't mean they should get a free pass for their divisive, inflammatory, and hateful rhetoric, their desire to jail people who they deem immoral.

If you want to condemn conservatives, have at them. But when you and the other Lefties continually react to criticism of the radical Muslims and the results of Sharia Law by attacking conservatives then you have placed yourself in the radical Muslim camp.

There is no law that says you have to defend the radical Muslims.

The facts are still as I posted. The Left sees Islamic theocracies differently because the theocracies govern the same way the Left wants to. The converted are joyfully happy to be told what to do and the remainder are attacked.

Posted by harrogate to Tall Cotton at July 21, 2009 11:29 AM