The American Taliban

Once upon a time, it was easy for the American Right to smear its opponents on the left -- they could simply equate them with the nation's communist enemies. It didn't matter that the American "left" (Democrats) had more in common with the Right than international communism, the smear was useful.

Now, however, our international enemy -- Islamic radicalism -- is actually the polar opposite of what liberals stand for -- their actions on women rights are deplorable, they insist on theocracy, they loooveee torture and the death penalty, they demand to control the culture (TV, movies, music), they rail against rampant sexuality, they seek to spread their ideology via force, and they have a well-defined black-and-white sense of truth.

Remind you of a certain American party?

That's why hysterical assertions by the wingers that liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win are so absurd. As absurd as it would've been to claim that Reagan wanted the Communists to win the Cold War. The Taliban/Al Qaida/Hezbollah/Jihadists of the world are the exact embodiment of evil in the liberal mind. They are everything we are against, and against everything we are for.

In fact, they are exactly what we see in the Republican Party as the GOP continues to consolidate power -- creeping theocracy, moralizing, us versus them, embrace of torture, the need to constantly declare jihad on someone, hysterics over football-game nipples, control over "decency" on the airwaves, lyrics censorship, hostility to women freedoms, curtaling of civil liberties, and so on.

So it's pretty obvious -- we don't love terrorists. We don't want them to win. For them to win would be to realize our greatest fears. The muslim terrorist is truly the anti-liberal. Like matter and anti-matter.

Republicans, on the other hand, hate the terrorists because they're Muslim. But aside from that, they've got far more in common than they'll ever admit to themselves.

And it's high time we started to make that connection more forcefully.

•  Completly agreed...

  But secondary, the right-wingers have NEVER been against terrorism as a tactic. They've always been that the ends justify the means. And you reap what you sow....

  That's almost just as important as what you said Kos.

  by Karmakin on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:08:54 AM PDT

  •  the link is real

    thanks kos, some of us have been saying that.

    both christian & islamic radicalism are extreme reactions to the radical changes occuring around them.  it's happened throughout history.  whenever great change occurs, the last dying scream of the status quo crowd is radicalism.

    today in both cases, their vehicle of choice is religion.

    whatever the case, the response is to change.  & some people welcome it.  some people hate it & that pretty much decides people's politics IMHO.

    fortunately for us, one thing that has been a constant is that change will happen & it will stomp your sorry butt if you get in its way.

    Don't want democracy?  Ok, we'll Magna Carta your butt!  Won't free the slaves?  Ok, you got a civil war.  (apologies for over-simplification)

    our goal is to make that change as quickly & painless as possible for us & to guide it to an orderly end instead of something violent.

    here's to hoping we all make it there!  :-)

    Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

    by krazypuppy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:58:48 AM PDT

    •  Clash of Ideologies, not Civilizations

      I've been saying this for a long time! You're exactly right.  Huntington was barking up the wrong tree - he had the right forest.  The extent to which the West is in conflict with radical Islamists is a reflection of the clash between fundamentalism and postmodern modes of thought - not Islam and Christianity.

      Because we have our own fundamentalists, our Operation Rescue, our Terry McVeighs and Unabombers; and Islam has its own "libruls."  This war is playing itself out in every culture.

      by furryjester on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:50:53 AM PDT

      •  Also

        It's also important to note that the wars between different cultures are mostly between the fundamentalists of those cultures and for reasons having to do with their different systems of beliefs.

        by rogun on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:06:39 PM PDT

    •  Conservatives, Fundamentalists face same problem

      Conservatives are secular and are applying mostly secular responses to modernization. Much of what they are resisting is government interference with business personnel policies, monopolies, cartels, and stock-and-bond  sales and government support of union organization. Forcing companies to pay for externalities (pollution and such) and injuries to workers are also things they resist.

      Fundamentalists are religious (both Christian and Muslim) and they, too, are attempting to resist  modernization. Their problem is that modern society and even the old mainstream religions have been moving religion out of its prior all-encompassing social roles and relegating it to forms of personal psychological support. The down-grading of the Bible as the central source of human education, the pressures to make government less amenable to religious interference, and the freeing of women (result of the "pill") and gays from penalties for their sexual "deviations" from the accepted religious standard. Their methods are to demand that their religion be accepted as superior to modern state structures and modern (read "Enlightenment") forms of thought. Note that they demand that they be given the role of moral arbiter to do this.

      In both cases they can agree that the real problem they face is government centralization and the government pressures to enforce social diversity and economic fairness. This is the direct result of Industrialization (which causes an increase in diversity) and Nationalism (which makes government a lot more important to the individual citizen without going through some intermediate organization like a church, city, company or local aristocrat or gentry.)

      You can see why they would be allies. Their mutual problem is rejection of modernism.

      by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:54:13 AM PDT

  •  Evil?

    "The Taliban/Al Qaida/Hezbollah/Jihadists of the world are the exact embodiment of evil in the liberal mind. They are everything we are against, and against everything we are for."
    While I completely agree...I think using the word "evil" is connotes the same kind of religious fervor we are against.  Evil vs. good is just like "black vs. white" in mind.  Just a thought....

    by jenhoward on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:31:57 AM PDT

    •  less semantics...

      more attacking

      by itsbenj on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:42:25 AM PDT

      •  I hear ya

        I hate when people get nitpicky and sematical about stuff...but in a clearly non-religious attack...it seems misplaced to use religious words....just my opinion though.

        by jenhoward on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:19:04 AM PDT

        •  not trying to pick on you

          at all or anything, i guess i don't hear "evil" and immediately think "religion"...

          by itsbenj on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:28:30 PM PDT

    •  No, they are evil

      They are resisting the rational application of fairness and support to the weakest members of society for their own advantage. They operate (like Satan) from Pride in their own superiority. That makes them as evil as Satan himself.

      by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:00:58 AM PDT

      •  Satan?

        C'mon...a little less religion...it sort of defeats the purpose of kos' point.

        by jenhoward on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:17:37 AM PDT

        •  some elements of religion...

          are universal, regardless of faith or even whether or not you have a faith or belief. The Golden Rule, for example. I'm agnostic, but I think a lot of Jesus's teachings are good words to live by.

          I think protesting the use of the word "evil" because of its "religious" connotation is being rather picky. I mean, I tend to agree with the B'Hai concept that "evil" is actually just the absence of good, rather than an entity unto itself.

          But I don't have a problem using the word "evil" to describe acts like piloting airliners into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. Or starting a war that kills tens of thousands (or more) of people, on false pretenses, for profiteering. Semantics, schemantics - it's a darn good word to use in certain situations.

          by snookybeh on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:47:25 AM PDT

        •  Evil is well described and defined

          It is Satanic. Satan is bad because of his pride.

          Those who act from pride are acting evilly.

          Don't avoid the truth merely because the Christians first described it. They aren't all wrong.

          by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:04:27 PM PDT

    •  Evil measured

      A professor of psychiatry,a Dr. Stone of Columbia University, has created a Depravity Scale with 22 degrees or gradients of evil. Starting from those killing in self defense to the most evil-psychopathic torture murderers with torture being their primary motive.

      by unluckylindy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:58:38 PM PDT

      •  Measurements can be useful

        So can simple summaries. M. Scott Peck in "People of the Lie" says evil is "unwillingness to bear the pain of self-examination."

        Sound familiar? This is what I saw too much of during my 9 years in the USAF: "Whatever we do is naturally correct and we will tolerate no dissent."

        by nuttymango on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:23:24 AM PDT

  •  Never Been Against Terrorism as a Tactic

    Oh' how right you are!

    And I'm not just referring to the psycho wingnut abortion clinic bombers or Timmothy McVeigh types.

    In fact, the prototype modern terrorist organization with its quasi-religious zeal, clandestine cell structure, fund raising capacity, political connection to upper classes while the lower class members carried out the killings, maimings and wholesale slaughter was created by American wingnuts.

    Few people have ever note this, but the KKK was America's great terror organization. Thousands of innocent women, children and grown men were executed by a homemade terrorist group that really only died out in the last generation. The Klan and a-Qaeda have more than just a few things in common of course, but both are based on a deep unhealthly hatred of liberalism, progress, freedom, and modernity.  

    by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:17:18 AM PDT

  •  true

    The USA has not been against terrorism (shock and awe, daisy cutter atomic bomb, internment etc are forms or terrorism)
    Its the terrorists (those who don't agree with the USA) that USa is against

    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:44:35 AM PDT

•  Part of the problem

  Is we hate the Republicans so much that we let them monopolize the "hate the taliban" stuff -- because to use it ourselves would be disingenuous.

  Listen, we hate fundamentalism. Let's compare Bush to Osama Bin Laden and kill two birds with one stone. After all, Osama only killed twice as many Americans as Bush did.

  by danthrax on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:09:33 AM PDT

  •  Bush doesnt even care about Bin Laden anymore

    Perhaps we can say its because they are simpatico?

    Imagine the argument with your winger colleague...

    "Well, maybe the reason Bush doenst give a shit about Bin Laden is because Bush admires him!" And then list the reasons above, etc...

    sure its extreme. But so are the wingers!

    by ablington on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

    •  Bin Laden

      is the boogeyman to scare the American "Children" with.  It's easier to keep us in line.  I her weren't for real (or isn't) the Bushistas would need to invent him for that purpose (if they haven't already).

      by Bulldawg on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:22:29 AM PDT

    •  Bush & Bin Laden are one and the same:

       1) They both believe they have God on their side.

      2.  They both have sent people to die on their behalf.

      3. They both have invaded other countries.

      4.  They both have used torture as means to an end.

      5. They both have killed thousands of civilans... men, women, and children.

      6.  They both have spent tens of millions of dollars "getting out their message."

      7.  They both believe that anyone who disagrees with them are either "unpatriotic" or "infidels."

      by Barbara H on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:31:47 AM PDT

      •  Hi Quick question...

        Can you link to the evidence presented by any Government agency, criminal justice or military, that Osama Bin Laden killed thousands of civilians?

        Is there evidence Osama uses torture as a means to an end?

        Which country did Bin Laden invade?

        I think it's much easier to justify your actions if you can say you are only fighting as dirty as your enemy.

        So much so it might be worthwhile to invent that very enemy.

        9/11 Investigation: 3 Years 0 Convictions
        

        by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:49:14 AM PDT

        •  well said

          Im not about to say Bin Laden is a nice guy , but as you say I havent seen proof that he tortured or invaded any countries.

          by ksecus on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:29:48 AM PDT

          •  Aside from the fact he is an out and out psycho

            and a mass murderer, and a repulsive reptile, Osama is the living, breathing, anthesis of all the Left stands against. A woman hating, book burning, absolutist, child killing fundie should seek no slack here.

            by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:23:50 AM PDT

          •  That's real good.

            Lets see, while attemting to kill Americans in Africa (the embassy bombings), he managed to kill 258 completely innocent Africans and injure and maim 5000 more.

            He infiltrated the Tabliban and was the driving force behind the deaths of tens of thousands of Afgans.

            He's hijacked one of the worlds major religions and brought it shame and discrace.

            How much proof do you want??????

            by Jerry C on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:15:00 PM PDT

        •  Osama Has Tacitly Admitted Complicity in 9-11

          Osama has lavishly praised, and at least tacitly admitted his involvement in, the acts of 9-11, which killed thousands of civilians.  Therefore, it is fair to say that Osama has killed thousands of civilians.

          by Marc in Oakland on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

          •  And in doing so invaded the US for such

            purposes (or at least his followers did).

            by glitterscale on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:32:54 AM PDT

          •  Tacitly=implied or infered..

            Since 9/11 Osama has only appeared on conveniently timed video or audio tapes.

            He hasn't held a press conference or done any interviews.

            You believe that it was/is him each time a government agency confirms a tape's authenticity.

            If there is proof why hasn't there been a trial in absentia?

            Surely that would have helped garner support and good PR world wide.

            Instead we're sold a myth and asked to accept that 9/11 was an act of war committed by a nebulous group located in oil rich or strategically important countries around the world.

            How can one forget the Osama myth stared way back when the US needed a Muslim super hero.

            Now the latest plot twist needs the super hero to turn super villain.

            A super villain that has a super secret hideout in a cave located somewhere north south east west of here.

            So super secret that no matter how hard the good guys try or how many countries they invade no one can find him.

            Back in the reality based community we are still waiting for the white paper Powell promised the world before invading Afghanistan. An invasion that toppled the American financed Taliban government and installed a former Unical oil executive as president. (Presumable to continue pipeline construction)

            Iraq....... (Never mind)

            How can we ever be on the "right side of history" when we won't insist history reflect truth and fact.

            The Democrats are parroting all the current foreign policy myths. They were falling all over themselves to disprove Cheney during the election when he taunted the American people.

             "If you elected Kerry he'll treat the next 9/11 as a crime not an act of war" (paraphrase)

            An international critic might conclude that the Democrats are only offering more bribes domestically to swallow the myths created by the military industrial complex than the republicans.

            by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:58:07 AM PDT

            •  What I hate about Moon-battery

              There is undercurrent David Horowitz-esque attempt to be "so outside the dominant political paradigm" that everything becomes de facto contra to the conventional wisdom.  

              The Western press writes ill of Stalin, therefore Stalin must be good.
              The capitalist press writes ill of Mugabe, therefore Mugabe must be good.
              Conventional thought in the West despises Osama for his crimes, therefore Osama must be innocent.

              But lo and behold, he is not innocent. He is a mass murderer whose list of crimes is long, whose atrocities are numerous, and whose political beliefs vile. F*ck al-Qaeda!
              

              by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:14:56 PM PDT

              •  There you go..

                Do you Feel better after saying F%%K Al-Qaeda?

                Let me see if I follow your argument.

                Because Stalin and Mugabe are villains Osama is guilty?

                I wouldn't want to live in a country that doesn't have to prove your guilt before it dishes out the punishment.

                I'm not comfortable with faith based justice.
                

                by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:44:43 PM PDT

                •  No

                  I am saying certain things are so obvious they don't need to be debated with too much sophisticated nuance. Feel free to hang out with Osama's boys in the outback for a few days. (Robert Pelton Young did in 1994 with some fascinating results.)I promise you -- you won't come back alive!

                  by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:13:18 PM PDT

                  •  Is that so..

                    We'll, either you are saying that Mr. Young possess some unique skill or training (perhaps an agent as 'some say') or you are being insulting.

                    I haven't proclaimed any feelings for Osama whatsoever in this thread.

                    I have simply stated that he has not been proven guilty of anything.

                    The Bush family and the military industrial complex have a long history of lies, double cross and covert ops yet you are willing to believe in their phantoms.

                    As long as you keep shooting at ghosts Bushco will keep creating them.

                    by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:47:09 PM PDT

                    •  By that logic

                      You can neither prove nor justify this statement either. What has Bush been 'proven; guilty of in a court of law?  "The Bush family and the military industrial complex have a long history of lies, double cross and covert ops yet you are willing to believe in their phantoms."

                      And btw: 3,000 dead at the WZC, 200 diplomats and civilians dead in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, the murder of hundreds of peaceful Spanish train-riding passengers, the murder of journalists, the beheading of hostages, all make for one hell of a phantom.

                      by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:00:46 PM PDT

                      •  Well while you are busy fighting Bush's wars

                        They rest of the world will be acting on the facts as they have discovered them.

                        The size of the coalition decreases daily.

                        The American people are becoming ostracized from the civilized world for their ignorance and hypocrisy.

                        It is sick and twisted to think killing poor innocent people thousands of miles away is a justified approach to make yourselves safe when all you have to do is topple your own despotic regime and its leaders.

                        by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 03:50:16 PM PDT

                        •  Seems you and Bush have one thing in common

                          You readily confuse Iraq with Osama bin Laden!

                          by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:34:58 PM PDT

                          •  How is that?

                            please explain.

                            by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:23 PM PDT

                            •  You talk about the coalition decreasing

                              And you talk about people coming to the facts. But this concerns the War in Iraq. And as most people at Kos know, (as we are a part of the reality based community after all) there simply was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. The War in Iraq and the war on al-Qaeda are totally different animals, although they may be cynically packaged as one in the same by the administration. But here you are also packaging them as one in the same if you imply my belief that al-qaeda must be vanquished means I feel the invasion of Iraq was part and partial of the same engagement. They most certainly are not. But that does not mean that Osama is not a killer. He is killer. Without question.

                              by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 05:05:27 PM PDT

                              •  please reread.

                                Maybe it's because the posts are getting thin you are misunderstanding.

                                The war on terror had a very big coalition of countries after 9/11 when Powell promised the white paper on Osama and Al-qaeda. But...the US invaded Afghanistan without offering any public disclosure.

                                After that catastrophic success the countries in the coalition started dropping like flies.

                                By the time the Iraq invasion came along the US needed to brag about Micronesia's involvement in the coalition.

                                So if you are under the impression the coalition only shrank after the Iraq invasion you are mistaken.

                                Iraq is after all part of the War on Terror.

                                by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:12:01 PM PDT

                      •  You're very confused.

                        100,000 dead civilians, 8-10,000 in prison camps (the youngest an 11-year old boy), in a country that never attacked us? All for oil and military bases in a country with no ties to 9/11, no ties to Osama Bin Laden, and no WMD.

                        Any you say no evil acts by Bushco can be proven?

                        And you somehow conflate Bush's insane war with an attack by hijackers from Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.?

                        You are very confused.

                        by nuttymango on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:30:37 AM PDT

                        •  Um....

                          You obviously posted before you actually read the thread.

                          by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

              •  let me

                pick some holes
                1.Nothing is black and white in the world
                2. No body claimed Stalin or Mugabe are good
                3.was atomic bombs against 170,000 japanese (mainly civilains) good?
                4.Was slavery good?
                5.Was  near wipe out of the native americans good
                (you can tell me points 3 through 5 were not raised by you either)
                But what i am trying to point out is that evryone has their own rationale for their evil or good behavor.
                Lastly let me apply your famous westen legalese to you that everyone is inocent unless proven guity and you have not tried anyone yet.

                by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:45:25 PM PDT

                •  filling your holes

                  1. Never said it was
                     
                  2. Yes they did, but maybe not you personally
                     
                  3. Don't favor the use of WMDs in particular
                     
                  4. Um....no
                     
                  5. Um....no again

                  Of course everyone has their own rational for good and evil. And yes, in a court of law everyone is innocent until proven guilty (well, at least in the Anglo-American legal system), but here at Kos we are in the court of public opinion. I am not the judicial branch. I am allowed to make a suggestion someone is guilty, just as you might be allowed to suggest Rumsfeld is guilty of authorizing torture. You can't prove that of course, but you might have reason to assert it.

                  by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:21:56 PM PDT

                  •  thank you

                    for the clarification

                    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:27:26 PM PDT

                  •  well..

                    I never said Stalin was good either and you mention it in direct reply to my post.

                    The problem with your court of public opinion is that you render any discussion about policy worse than useless if you continue to perpetuate myths while doing it.

                    How do you discuss creating peace if you insist that there is actually a war on terror to be fought.

                    That is the toxic fallacy that stifles any true discussion of peace.

                    The War party won't be stopped until Democrats face the reality and admit there is NO war on terror. Just a war of GREED.
                    

                    by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:57:47 PM PDT

                    •  I'll be honest in saying

                      I am not a big fan of the phrase 'War on Terror' because I don't exactly know what the hell it means? The IRA raises up to 80% of its money in the USA, but we're not going to bomb Boston I hope. The Israeli-Palestian conflict is obviously nuanced with history and politics implicating both sides. The American patriots who set fire to British vessels, dumped their cargo, and beat their tax collectors in 1776 would certainly be called terrorists by the Royal Crown.  

                      But that said: Yes, we are certainly at war against al-Qaeda. There is no doubt about this. How that war is best fought is open to debate. The Bush approach is freely open to critics myself being one of them. But that Osama bin Laden and his followers are anything short of Fundie religious murdering fanatics can't honestly debated. They simply are killers determined to kill again.

                      by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:14:41 PM PDT

                      •  Please indicate one...

                        act of war America has commited against Al-Qaeda?
                        

                        by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:14:45 PM PDT

                        •  Technically and legally speaking

                          You can not declare war against an organization. But I'm not sure what your point is? Is it that America has not done enough to rid the globe of the scourge that is al-Qaeda, or that we have done too much?

                          by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:46:34 PM PDT

                          •  My point is...

                            The US hasn't done anything about Al-Qeada.

                            Since 9/11 it has secured a pipeline in Afghanistan and seized oil fields in Iraqi.

                            It has liberated nobody. Reconstructed nothing. And the Bush administration has no intentions of starting anytime soon.

                            Al-qeada is as able as it ever was to strike the US.

                            Where is Mullah Omar? Where is Zarqawi?

                            Some Dem's will argue the Italian reporter would be dead if the US was trying to kill her while believing Osama and Zarqawi are real enemies unable to be caught by those same omnipotent troops.

                            It is all such aobvious joke I can't believe it needs explaining.
                            

                            by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 05:06:23 PM PDT

                            •  But that is a different question altogether

                              Whether enough has been done to displace al-Qaeda is fully open to debate. Honest, thought provoking debate which I would never object to. But earlier you seemed to imply that NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE AT ALL because in reality Mullah Omar and Osama are probably innocent men created by the Bush administration to scare us. Now that I simply cannot accept. And you can't accept that either unless you honestly believe President Clinton was part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. He tried to take out bin Laden not once but twice remember. Osama was not born under Bush II. His war against us is much older than W as the first WTC bombing attests to.

                              by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 05:16:03 PM PDT

                              •  We must indeed honestly examine Clinton's role.

                                But before that.

                                I must argue with your characterization of my argument.

                                I never implied or said Omar or Bin Laden was innocent.

                                I did say fighting them is like fighting the drug war at the boarders.

                                For the American people to believe that Osama bin Laden, mullah Omar, Zarqawi, or Sadam are the enemy is counter productive even delusional when Bush is bankrupting the nation, destroying the environment, and murdering innocent people all to enrich his family and friends.

                                The American people would have rioted by now had the Democratic Party not provided cover for the bush administration's stonewalling.

                                Energy Task force
                                9/11 Investigation
                                Afghan massacre
                                Guantanamo Bay
                                WMD
                                Abu Gharib
                                Italian reporter...

                                In any functioning democracy these scandals would bring a government down.

                                With the help of well placed Democrats the American people decided the scum of the earth republicans were the better dragon slayers.

                                The world is left with not much doubt.

                                As for Clinton......500 000 Iraqi children would argue that point better than I given the chance I'm sure.

                                by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 05:54:48 PM PDT

                                •  So are you saying?

                                  "As for Clinton......500 000 Iraqi children would argue that point better than I given the chance I'm sure."

                                  That ex-President Clinton bares more responsibility for the loss of Iraqi lives than the regime which governed Iraq does? Because if you are attributing these deaths directly to Clinton then we are no longer in the realm of Bush policy at all. I'm just making sure here?
                                  

                                  by Dont Just Stand There on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:17:38 AM PDT

                                  •  well.. thanks for the reply...

                                    You asked about Clinton then say I'm off topic?

                                    If you read my other comments you'll see that I think there is little difference between Republican and Democratic foreign policy.

                                    BushI didn't take Baghdad in 91 because it would have cost 25000+ US casualties.

                                    Instead he set up crippling sanctions and a bilateral no fly zone with the UK.

                                    When Clinton took power he dutifully maintained the sanctions and tightened the no-fly zone.

                                    The "no-fly zone" appears nowhere in the UN resolutions.

                                    I would like to speculate instead of using the old stand by..."Some say"...that the no fly zone were devised not to protect the Kurds or the Shia, rather they protected a weakening Saddam and Iraqi resources from Iran.

                                    Once Bush II received the 20 thousand page dossiers presented to the UN by the Iraqi government detailing its weapons stockpiles (or lack there of) he proceeded to invade.

                                    So, to a cynic the 650 000 Iraqis that have perished over the last 12yrs could be said to have died instead of more valuable American soldiers.

                                    Why do you think the US military refuses to Report the Iraqi casualty figures?

                                    How can ANY decent and moral American stand silent while the military kills innocents without telling you how many have been killed in your name?

                                    By accepting that your military does not even count its victims (Total BS) you acquiesce to a sickening game of hide the bodies before observers can count them.

                                    You and I agree on more than we do not I think.

                                    Where we differ is the ultimate responsibility.

                                    Do you believe Kerry voted for the war in Iraq because he was given faulty intelligence?

                                    Did you subscribe to the AnybodyButBush strategy that muzzled the left? And if so did you remain silent because you believed the centrist pro-war strategy was just a ruse to siphon the few Republican votes needed and the left agenda would ultimately prevail somehow?

                                    Did the Bushlite pro-war strategy help perpetuate and galvanize the Bush doctrine as an American ideal and therefore officially marginalize any real debate of foreign policy?

                                    If so does that not make the architects and subscribers of the ABB strategy equally culpable as the right wing ideologues that drafted the Bush doctrine?

                                    Instead of marginalizing the fringe radicals directing this Administration the 'main stream' Dem's marginalized there own base.

                                    From reading your posts I think you would call the above an unfortunate result of an otherwise sound strategy while I believe it was coordinated and intentional.

                                    I feared if Kerry won last November I'd watch the 'mainstream' Democrats go back to sleep thinking they had finished the fight.

                                    In a way Bush winning has given the left the chance to refine the argument and cast a wider net over the culpable.

                                    We have four years to prove that "centrist" Dem's have enabled Bush as much if not more than feeble minded right wing Republicans that would otherwise look very fringe indeed.

                                    By providing intellectual and financial cover for an American Imperial strategy the Dem's have rendered any mass opposition impotent.

                                    If the DNC (now headed by Dean, fingers crossed) authorized, organized, or even sponsored a national protest for anyone of the scandals quietly buried by the government and media the streets would be full in every city and town in the country.

                                    But they do not.

                                    by AnonymousArmy on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 12:20:40 PM PDT

            •  And we wonder why middle America doesn't

              trust us on defense.

              They look at arguments like this and just shake their heads as to how anyone can be so clueless.

              What you are saying here also contradicts what Kos was saying above. The problem we have on the left is that there are some of us who don't look at Islamic fundamentalists as the enemy to liberalism that they are.

              Bin Laden issued a fatwa against the US in 1996 requiring all muslims to wage war against the US, those who did and died in the process of killing Americans would be martyrs in the eyes of Allah and go straight to paradise and receive their 72 virgins.

              Since then al Queda bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi, the USS Cole in Yemen, the WTC in New York.  How many acts of war do you need before you realize that there is someone out there who wants to kill you?

              by daisycolorado on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:50:33 PM PDT

              •  Bingo!

                by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:02:18 PM PDT

              •  Intrestingly...

                It's your exact argument that will render Middle America's opinion entirely moot when Bush is finished bribing away their jobs to co-operating countries.

                by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:58:04 PM PDT

          •  Interestingly

            Tacit is the operative word.
            If you read the statements that he has made it can be read in more than one way. the only clear thread in it is that he does not come out and say  openly he actually did it. from a legal point of view I would see it as leaving wriggle room.
            Our govt says he did it so we all believe that to be the truth. but history shows us clearly that the govt has never been always truthful.

            I am not saying he did nor he did not. Honestly I don't know who did it. All I have to go by is what my govt says.(there is not much evidence out there to evaluate it yourselves because everything is a secret under the national security.
            If you look at it in another way Bin ladin has a lot to gain by claiming that he did it. The amount of popularity he has gained in some parts of the world has made him an household name. Egotistical people thrive on that.
            So by being tacit he get popularirty. and if he was not involved, then in a court of law if he is ever brought to one he can claim that he never cnfessed to the crime.
            one little fact always bothered me
            Atta the leader of the highjackers reportedly was drinking heavily in florida. If he is a true Muslim and so dedicated to his religion to kill and die for it how can he be drinking ? use of alcohol is against Islam.

            by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:02:38 PM PDT

            •  Wow! What an eye-opener

              "Atta the leader of the highjackers reportedly was drinking heavily in florida. If he is a true Muslim and so dedicated to his religion to kill and die for it how can he be drinking ? use of alcohol is against Islam."

              REALLY?!?
              You found a fanatic religious nut-jobs not practicing what they preach? I'm shocked!!! Next you're going to tell me that sex-weary televangalists have extra-marital affairs, or that the money they make doesn't go to charity after all, but to solid gold bathtubs in their summer homes.  
              

              by Dont Just Stand There on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 03:41:54 PM PDT

        •  BEHEADINGS for one

          kidnapping for another.

          Al Quaeda bombings have killed many, many civilians.

          I consider 9/11 an invasion.  Don't you?

          by Barbara H on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

          •  I don't

            consider 9/11 an invasion.  I consider it a terrorist attack.  That's like saying that every time a Palestinian blows up a bus in Israel, Israel has been invaded.  The semantics seem kind of wonky to me.

            by fishhead on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:34:39 AM PDT

            •  what is

              the difference between the two?

              by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:07:07 PM PDT

              •  To me

                the differnce is one of scope and intent.  An invasion involves entry by force with an inent to conquer or overrun.  The Japanese didn't invade the United States on December 7, 1941 - they attacked it.

                Moreover, an invasion happens on the scope of nation-states.  Groups of individuals don't invade countries - they may infiltrate countries and undertake violent acts while there, but their scope and their intent is necessarily limited.

                by fishhead on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:12:24 PM PDT

                •  different

                  scope yes
                  intent same
                  and the end result maybe same

                  by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:24:54 PM PDT

            •  what would you call

              an Isreli officer blowing up a palestenian 12 year old?
              Collateral damage?

              by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:09:12 PM PDT

              •  Would you call it an "invasion"?

                I wouldn't.  I'd call it "blowing up a Palestinian 12 year old."

                by fishhead on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:13:49 PM PDT

                •  thank you

                  for saying both are acts of terror

                  by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:25:51 PM PDT

                  •  You're welcome

                    but that was never the semantic issue.

                    by fishhead on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:57:48 PM PDT

                    •  sorry

                      for being a bit touchy. I am not even from palestine lol

                      by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:25:55 PM PDT

              •  its all in the eyes of the beholder

                The court just dismissed the case filed on behalf of millions of vietnamese exposed and damaged by agent orange.  We have recognized the harmdul effect of the dioxin (agent orange exfoliating agent used by the USA in MAM .Our GI were also exposed and they are getting compensated for it. So one can not deny the harmful effect) (was it in the same class as the dioxin used against the presedent of Ukraine? any connection between agent orange and the orange revol :)).
                The Bush govt had filed a brief in the court supporting the companies (DOW among them) saying that the Cin C will not be able to function in war if the vietnamese won the case.
                Maybe its because the victims ( noone is denying that they were victims) are hapless,"subhuman" vietnamese???????
                On the same time the US govt just settled with Hungarian Holocust victims/families off for millions of dollars for some abtuse role played by the us army.
                I am not belittling anyones misery. But lets be fair to all. if not thats what breed anger and hostility towards us.

                by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:23:14 PM PDT

                •  good points

                  I'm very upset at the idea of the US totally clearing itsself over the use of Agent Orange.

                  No level of Dioxin exposure is safe, its on of the most toxic small molecules known to man.  Even if we had simply succeeded defoliating all of our intended areas alone that would be an environmental war crime.  

                  The thousands, yes thats thousand, of deformed babies which have resulted from our indicrimminate use of AO deserved much better from America, especially an America looking for forgiveness and improved relations with Vietnam.

                  by itsbenj on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:43:56 PM PDT

                  •  Will

                    KOS start a thread on agent orange?

                    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:11:37 PM PDT

                  •  Do you think

                    that AOis a good topic for this group of people to talk about?
                    Lets talk the truth man. not just F@*# politics.
                    the problem with us is no matter what we say
                    we are just GOP lite
                     Atleast the GOP has the conviction (atleast appears to)and the general population sees us as pretenders. eg. Kerry talking the tough talk about Iraq trying to one up W.(YES I HAVE A PLAN etc etc) Kerry on the duck hunt. (I did vote for Kerry)
                    DON"T try to win votes. Votes will come to you.
                    Start being honest to yourself, talk the honest truth how ever unpalatable the truth might be and do the corrct (not the right) thing.
                    A lot of us dot even believe  what they themselves are saying. A lot of us try to split hairs inorder not to appear unpatriotic. You can not be patriotic to america if your actions or support of action are inhuman.You are just being a dumb ass nationlist.

                    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:22:04 PM PDT

                  •  america

                    will never ask for forgiveness for two reasons
                    

                    1. thats is against the self rightousness
                       
                    2. that is not legally savvy

                    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:49:13 PM PDT

          •  don't be absurd

            "I consider 9/11 an invasion.  Don't you?"

            I recommend that you read Scheuer's "Imperial Hubris".  He describes, convincingly to me, that Osama is fighting a defensive Jihad, i.e. he is resisting a US attack on Islam.  In one respect I think this is an important perspective.  We can disengage from this war by the simple expedient of withdrawing our armed forces from the Middle East.
            

            by mikhail on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:56:38 AM PDT

          •  How do you reconcile...

            Condi saying she had no idea plains would be used as missiles with Cheney holding simulations of that very scenario on the morning of 9/11.

            Which of the 'Al-Qaeda' bombings you mention have arrest warrants been issued for Osama.

            And finally how do you differentiate between this administration's lies and truth.

            by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:11:35 PM PDT

            •  you're kidding, right?

              Wow, its sad.  I know, I know the government has lied a lot here and there.  But Osama Bin Laden is VERY REAL, and he is at war with people who don't follow his philosophy.  If you are looking for evidence against him, he has claimed responsibility for some attacks, but mostly what implicates him is the money trail.  That said, there may well be an element within the American govt who have been allied with him - the Republicans in the 80s who supported the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan, the whole Carlyle Group / James R. Bath connection between Bush and Bin Laden family money, etc.

              There's a lot about 9/11 that doesn't make sense. And I personally feel that GWB is a war criminal with few recent paralells, but then I'm one of those wacky people who thinks all life is equal in the eyes of who or whatever - an Iraqi life is just as important and valuable as an American life (I can't believe such a thing even needs to be pointed out, but most Americans don't agree...)  But Osama Bin Laden is not some innocent dude who is being picked on by the western media for being a towel-head who happens to disagree with America.  He is an admitted, cold blooded murderer who believes in tyrannical, theological rule, or death as the alternative.  He is not worth your words of understanding.

              by itsbenj on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:51:10 PM PDT

              •  I need

                to know more is all I will say

                by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:32:02 PM PDT

                •  then go do some research!

                  reading comments here on Kos ain't gonna fill you in on a century plus of fucked up US - Arab relations...

                  by itsbenj on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:36:41 PM PDT

                  •  i have done that

                    and i have read about the realtionship.
                    What I meant was i am still not clear about events leading to 9/11, meaning that there is a whole binch of information that is missing.

                    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:42:33 PM PDT

                    •  Teaching Company did a great series on this

                      The Teaching Company did a great series on the events leading to Sept 11.  It's called the United States and the Middle East:  1914 to Sept 11.  The URL is http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
                      Their courses are excellent, and inexpensive.
                      

                      by Jerry C on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:38:51 PM PDT

                      •  if i visit thier site

                        will I get a visit from homeland security

                        by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:40:45 PM PDT

                      •  thanks for the link.

                        BBC did an excellent series I  recomend called 'The power Of Nightmares'.

                        Linked at my site

                        by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:00:28 PM PDT

                  •  So you agree with me.

                    You can't believe anything the Bush administration says about anything.

                    It's funny that Dem's believe Bush more and more the closer to home the lies strike.

                    by AnonymousArmy on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:04:57 PM PDT

          •  I considered it a National Security discrace

            I talked to several of my neighbors on the night of Sept 11 and said that the event was a National Security discrace...  My neighbor across the street, who is on the town Republican Council, said that I shouln't be talking that way...that now is the time to stick together.

            So lets be honest.  We were not invaded. A group of islamist radicals, who gave us years of fair warning, carried out a devistating attack against innocent civilians.  Our very well paid security apparatus failed us, and we all know the consequences.

            What bothers me the most is that it took more than 3 years for us to investigate and determine cause.  Only one person resigned, and that was George Tenet.

            If we want to talk about invasions, lets talk to the Russians, or the Poles, or any of a number of nations who have been invaded, occupied and brutalized.....

            by Jerry C on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:32:08 PM PDT

            •  Tenet

              Bush gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom!
              

              by piniella on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 08:33:51 PM PDT

  •  Fundamentalist Olympics.

    Osama only killed twice as many Americans as Bush did.

    The more appropriate measure is how many civilians did they kill in their respective quests of carnage in the name of their gods.

    Osama: Approx. 3,000 American civilians.

    George: Approx. 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

    Strength of the Christian god: in the mass murder Olympics, our boy makes Osama look like an amateur.

    by Julian on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:08:42 AM PDT

    •  What are we up to now on US troop casualties?

      And you know those are as low as he can get them to be.  Can you say traffic accidents?

      by glitterscale on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:34:12 AM PDT

  •  Bin Laden speeches read like the WSJ...

    ...editorial :

     "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval Office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he `made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and be remembered by nations?"...

    ...In his indictment of American society as the "worst in the history of mankind," bin Laden's principle charge is that America is a "nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."

    by Frank Roberts on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:09:58 AM PDT

    •  Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist

      Modernism and industrialism relegate religion to a specific role in society that does not interfere with economic activities and does not interfere with the tolerence of social diversity required to make a modern society work econmically.

      In such a modern society, religions are forced to try to attact adherents, rather than finding the government forcing people to accept their doctrines. The main function of religion in a modern society is as a form of individual therapy to assist them to deal with role conflicts.

      Remember, our personal roles have become complex. We have one role in our family, another in our job, and frequently another role in our religion. We may even have other groups in which we have additional roles. In each role, we have a status and specific requirements for our behavior. When society was based on an agricultural economy, we essentially would have each had a single role. In such a case, we would all agree on the religion we accepted, and the authorities of that religion would be able to tell us what our role was and how to act. Role conflicts only existed if we rejected religion. Look especially at sexual roles.

      Religion (before industrialism) has been primarily responsible for determining sexual roles. Modern Industrial society requires diversity and removes government from enforcing sexual roles. It's simply not an efficient use of government - it adds nothing to social stability, which is the primary role of government. Religions, however, find control of sexual roles as one of its primary functions.

      When government stops enforcing sexual roles, fundamentalists find themselves in total opposition to government. Bin Laden simply rejects the modern world and the way governments have adapeted to it.

      Look at the statement above that bin Laden uses to condemn America. "You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."

      The roles of government policy makers and the roles of male and female relations (as prescribed by religion) must be the same according to bin Laden. Many of us don't accept that.

      I have frequently stated that if we have a really good President (in terms of policy) who, for persoal reasons needs regular sexual access to a variety of people, I am personally quite ready to provide him or her with an intern-of-the-month club membership.

      I'm not saying that I approve of such behavior. I am still pissed at Clinton over the Monica incident. But my anger is over the political result, not over his (or Monica's) morals. Those are none of my business.

      Bin  Laden has a real problem with modern society, especially as demonstrated by America. I want modern society to continue and to grow. People like me are a real threat to bin Laden and to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Reed and Paige Patterson. They are all fundamentalists, and they are all representatives of the dying past who do not want to go quietly.

      Yeah, "You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator." You are quite right. I really do reject the so-called pure nature you define. Bin Laden, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Reed and Paige Patterson, you are all wrong. You arrogate to yourselves an authority that you don't have.

      by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:12:05 PM PDT

      •  they

        are all the same too.
        let me add that
        there are the fundementalists and the pretenders.
        I do not think W is a christian Fundementalist. I think he pretends to be one and uses that persona to attain his personal goals

        by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:34:55 PM PDT

  •  You gotta count

    the FUTURE terrorists Bush created with his "war on terr, and the future Americans and others the new terrorists kill.

    by Little Red Hen on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:36:42 PM PDT

  •  Bin Laden = Goldstein (n/t)

    by GenXWho on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:17:43 PM PDT

  •  Outrageous.

    Let's compare Bush to Osama Bin Laden and kill two birds with one stone. After all, Osama only killed twice as many Americans as Bush did.

    I am sorry for breaking up this merry love-fest, but this comment is outrageous.

    There is a crystal clear moral difference
    between a wanton terrorist and the President of the United States employing the use of force pursuant to his or her constitutional role as commander-in-chief.

    Of course, that is not to say you have to agree with the President takes in his or her capacity as commander-in-chief.

    No doubt some of the more leftist Kossaks are hovering their fingers over the "1" key about now.  So be it.  The vast majority of the American public agrees with me.

    If the public is ever to trust Democrats on national security again, Democrats themselves must condemn these kinds of comments.

    by He Who Must Not Be Named on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 03:40:32 PM PDT

    •  Re: Outrageous.

      Whether the vast majority of the American public agrees with you or not is irrelevant, but determining morality by scorekeeping without considering motivations is fallacious.

      Democrats condemn these kinds of comments all the time. The only way for the public to trust Democrats on national security is for the media to stop pushing the lie that the Democrats are spineless doves. Look who fought both World Wars, got the US into Korea, started the Vietnam War, started supplying the proto-Taliban against the Soviet Union, caught the guys responsible for the first WTC attack, etc. Democrats have been just as pro-defense and hawkish, only less willing to call their opponents wimps (except in '88).

      There are also questions about whether the use of force in Iraq was persuant to Bush's role as C-in-C, but that's another debate.

      by Cecrops Tangaroa on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:12:42 PM PDT

    •  You're Right

      It was a classless comment. And had someone else made it, I'd probably have been the voice of sanity.

      But that's my "wet blanket" role.

      Right now, I'm in my "preaching to the choir" role.

      :)

      by danthrax on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 12:54:28 PM PDT

•  Here, Here

  But, where?  How?

  by Bendygirl on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:09:41 AM PDT

  •  We need to simplify this Kosmunication....

    and keep a copy in our wallet to use on our conservative brother in laws at thanksgiving, LTEs, radio call in shows, etc etc

    This argument would have been more effective pre-election, when you couldnt get away from the whole 'A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden' bullshit. That particular meme has died down for now, but there is an election coming up next year...

    by ablington on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

    •  and...

      We could start calling them the TaliGOP.

      by greenmom on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:08:18 PM PDT

  •  You answered your own question

    "here, here!"

    I believe what you meant was "hear, hear!"

    One of my pet peeves that I love to harp on about :)

    by fishhead on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:35:51 AM PDT

    •  oh yes

      damn fingers.

      type type away and spelling and grammar to hell.

      Now as I head out to provide my daughter with the worst in movie entertainment, I'll keep in mind that I really meant to spell Here as Hear.  yes, I agree, I was wrong.

      by Bendygirl on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:28:31 PM PDT

  •  The key

    to making this a viable political issue IMHO is is if liberal Christian leaders find the will to take it on fulll bore and are given the support and machinery to do it. This is not an issue for the normal political trenches.

    The smack down of the religious right and the politicians who benefit from their hate-filled drivel must come primarily from those on the left who answer to the title of Father, Pastor and Rabbi, not Senator or Representative. Only they have the credibility, standing and immunity to make the charges stick. This only happens if leaders on the religious left are ready to recognize and speak loudly against the absolute evil that resides in the American fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell et al and their perverted version of Christianity.

    by dicta on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:23:01 PM PDT

    •  Amen brother

      by Joe B on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:54:43 AM PDT

•  Damn straight

  We need advisorjim to give us some language to break through the cognitive dissonance on this one.  Theocracy is theocracy.

  by ides on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:10:10 AM PDT

  •  Theocracy is fundamentalist control of Gvrnmnt

    Fundamentalists reject modernism. They take control of government in order to stop the changes in society being caused by industrialism and nationalism.

    No theocracy will ever achieve an industrialist per capita level of income. The Islamic fundamentalist rulers of Iran are finding this to be a major problem, and had not Bush provided a Nationalist threat to Iran when he invaded Iraq, the religious leaders of Iran would be on the way out.

    by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:12:58 AM PDT

    •  And it is in the

      best interests of the Bushistas to stoke that fundamentalism in Iran so that the Kool-ade drinkers here will feel that we ARE justified in invading Iran.  If the Iranians didn't have us spurring on their fundamentalism and nationalism, they probably would, indeed throw the Mullahs out of power and build democracy.  But then we couldn't even PRETEND to be liberating them when the time comes for Cheney's Halliburton Warriors (aka US Armed Forces) to invade Iran and take their oil!

      by Bulldawg on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:32:37 PM PDT

      •  Not sure I agree with you

        Frankly, I think the Bushistas are too self-absorbed to recognize the positive aspects of Iranian society.

        The Bushies really think they have such a lock on "goodness" that if the Iranians don't do what they are told, the Iranians are automatically wrong. So, of course, we have to send in troops and threaten the Iranians or they won't do the right things. Can't trust the "Wogs" you know. Espceially if they aren't Christian.

        The result is that the Bushistas see the faults of the Iranians, but give no credence to the positive aspects of their society. Since our invasion of Iraq increased the (nationalist-based not religion-based) power of the fundamentalists, the Bushistas really aren't going to give any credence to the modernists.

        by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:21:08 PM PDT

•  There's a saying

  "You can't spot it if you ain't got it."  What people rail about most loudly in others frequently reflects their own strongest negative personality traits.

  Works for parties, too.

  by firedoglake on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:10:11 AM PDT

•  American Taliban = Talibaptists

  I realize that there are other flavors of the Religious Right, but the conflation gets the point across.

  by keestone on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:11:12 AM PDT

  •  Islamangelicals

    courtesy of THE DAILY SHOW

    by dmichaeld on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:20:14 AM PDT

    •  I'd hold off on that, guys

      Yes, most Baptists and Evangelicals are conservatives, but you don't want to alienate the few who aren't by associating the entire denomination with the Taliban. Let's go after the people in power, not your run of the mill evangelical Christian.

      by mschloss1979 on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

      •  Ecumenism

        Well, I would only use it to contrast the majority of religious folk who respect true freedom of religion, including Southern Baptists, with those who want to force me to drop my faith in favor of theirs. Those are the Talibaptists.

        by keestone on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:31:49 AM PDT

      •  Remember

        Jimmy Carter is a Southern Baptist.  And probably the last true Christian we will ever have as a president, or true person of any faith.  Every major world religeon has at its root the "spirit" of the "Golden Rule."  Few practice it.

        by Bulldawg on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:55:50 AM PDT

        •  True person of faith... Go Russ! :) n/t

          by WisVoter on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:36:36 AM PDT

        •  Carter is not Southern Baptist anymore

          While Jimmy Carter used to be a Southern Baptist, he has parted with them around 2001.
          He saw Southern Baptist Convention become so conservative that, he simply didn't want to be associated with it anymore.
          I am not surprised with that decision.
          I am surprised Al Gore and Bill Clinton (Goes to Hillary's United Methodist church.) are still Southern Baptist.

          by DuPageCountyLiberal on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:17:07 AM PDT

          •  I'm not so sure about Carter

            having left Southern Baptistry.  Yes, he DID leave the Southern Baptist Convention, but it was a part of a schism or rebellion in which many Southern Baptists Participated.  " As early as 1987, some moderates, disappointed by their inability to stop the fundamentalist takeover, formed the Southern Baptist Alliance".  See:  http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html  and http://www.allianceofbaptists.org/

            by Bulldawg on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:18:46 PM PDT

        •  Carter is not the last "True Christian"

          That makes the Fundamentalists into the "True Christians." They aren't.

          They are the so-called Christians who can't deal with the advancement of society.

          Society is becoming more Christian as it becomes more wealthy. It is also becoming more accepting of diversty and of variation of human roles. Ask any person who is gay or transgender.

          by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:22:19 PM PDT

          •  No, no, no,

            please, you misunderstand.  I don't give a rodent's patooki what Carter's denomination is.  By "True Christian," I meant "one who is a follower of the compassionate and tolerent teachings of Christ."  NOT  repeat NOT the lock-step repeater of ANY denomination's dogma.  Sorry to rattle you.

            by Bulldawg on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:35:30 PM PDT

            •  true

              let us not confuse christianity with christian theocracy

              by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:55:48 PM PDT

            •  Christian?? Fundamentalists??

              My problem isn't your definition of Christian. My problem is that the fundamentalists have grabbed hold of the concept of who is Christian.

              They aren't. But in general discussion, if you state the term "Christian", you are accepting the fundamentalist definition.

              Merely to state that they are not "True Christians" does not take the popular definition of Christian back from them. They have stolen it. As of right now, the definition is theirs.

              I am sure you disagree. So do I. But generally, right now the definition is theirs.

              The fundamentalists have rejected Carter, and he has rejected them. But the fundamentalists have stolen the term "Christian" from the rest ofr us.

              by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 08:00:57 PM PDT

          •  And, incidentally

            I'm not a Christian!  I am a Zen Buddhist.

            by Bulldawg on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:38:34 PM PDT

            •  The problem is with the fundamentalists

              They claim the right to define what is Christian. This is because they want total control of both Christianity and society.

              Come down to it, If you want labels I am (probably) a deist-Buddhist myself. At least today.

              But I know evil when I see it, and the Christian definition is a good one. There is truly evil in this world. If you don't recognize that, then you are subject to acting on that evil without understanding what you are doing.

              If you reject the concept of evil along with the idea of religion, then you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Don't. Evil exists. It must be fought.

              by Rick B on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:37:39 PM PDT

  •  An

    extreme secularist is equally dangerous.
    They all are rigid and unforgiving

    by brown american on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:51:26 PM PDT

•  brilliant!

  by Anot