Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 22, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

HATING US FOR OUR FREEDOMS....Over at Tapped, Janna Goodrich points out the following quote from Glenn Beck:

More and more Muslims now hate us all across the world, and it really has not a lot to do with anything other than our morals.

The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

Now, obviously, as Janna points out, this argument is appealing to conservatives because it's a way of condemning social liberalism. It's an unusually loathsome way of condemning social liberalism, but hey. Strange bedfellows and all that.

However, there's another reason that this argument has generated a certain amount of conservative appeal lately: it perpetuates the trope that "they hate us for our freedoms." And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions. And that means there's no need for us to change anything we're actually doing in the Middle East.

And that's a pretty comforting thought for conservatives, isn't it?

Kevin Drum 5:46 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (208)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's comforting to far more than just conservatives. How many mainstream Americans want to do the "hard work" of re-thinking our foreign policy? No more than the number of Britons who wanted to examine imperialism when they could afford to maintain the empire, is my bet.

Posted by: Steppen on February 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, ass-kissing Bushies, help me out!

Which is it - do the Islamofascistterroristas hate us (as Shrub has repeatedly said) because we love, go to church, have freedom for women, are just and kind

OR, in the latest head-snapping reversal, do they hate us because we're decadent, corrupt and promiscuously pornographic????

Don't you get a sore neck from having to believe two contradictory things at the same time???

Posted by: marty on February 22, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

So what do muslims think of Europe? We come in a distant second to Europe on the liberalism front. Are they playing nice with their non-muslims, or is there real tension between the cultures?

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

So if the Muslims think our morals are in the gutter and the conservatives agree. Why do they want to keep fighting the Muslims. They should invite them over to discuss how to deport Britney Spears and the rest of the Hollywood infidels to Antarctica

Posted by: Peter on February 22, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

How des this country bumpkin get a show a cable news network? I mean, really, its about the $$$ and does this guy really pull the numbers to warrant his existence on TV. If so, I think the muslims are one to something.

Posted by: The fake fake AL on February 22, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

So conservatives are hell-bent on fighting them "over there" so that we degenerates can keep living our sordid lives stateside? Awesome. Thanks, guys!

Posted by: dj moonbat on February 22, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bin Laden is quoted as saying: "You don't see us attacking Sweden." Sweden! The source of the finest pornography available to humanity.

Posted by: Stiff Mittens on February 22, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush wing and bin Laden -- match made in heaven.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on February 22, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

I bet they would like us better if we stoned Glenn Beck to death.

Note this isn't a recommendation to stone Glenn Beck to death.

Note on note, I added the note so I could type the phrase "stone Glenn Beck to death" a second time.

Posted by: OnYourLeft on February 22, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

RSM,

Why don't you visit Europe and find out for yourself? Be prepared to go off the beaten path, be open and you will be surprised at how friendly Europeans (all flavors) are.

Earnestly try to speak their language and you can capture the hearts of an entire village (been there, done that)

Muslims have done quite a bit of changing to integrate themselves. Yet, so have those interacting with them, a feature Americans really could emulate without losing anything.

Posted by: Sky-Ho on February 22, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect that Beck and the other social conservatives secretly admire the Islamic Right for making the culture war a literal one.

For me the best articluation of the connection between far-right Muslim extremism and far-right Christian extremism was this article by Ellen Willis in The Nation, published shortly after 9/11:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011217/willis

Opening graph:

"It often happens that the lunatic right, in its feckless way, gets closer to the heart of the matter than the political mainstream, and so it was with Jerry Falwell's notorious response to September 11. In suggesting that the World Trade Center massacre was God's judgment on an America that tolerates abortion, homosexuality and feminism, Falwell--along with Pat Robertson, who concurred--exposed himself to the public's averted eye. For most Americans, from George W. Bush on down, resist the idea that the attack was an act of cultural war, and fewer still are willing to admit its intimate connection with the culture war at home.

Opponents of the "clash of civilizations" thesis are half right. There is such a clash, but it is not between East and West. The struggle of democratic secularism, religious tolerance, individual freedom and feminism against authoritarian patriarchal religion, culture and morality is going on all over the world"

Posted by: Happy Dog on February 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

"They hate us for our Doritos" makes about as much sense too.

Posted by: Robert on February 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

I, for one, welcome our Dorito overlords.

Posted by: Queequeg on February 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Beck: More and more Muslims now hate us all across the world, and it really has not a lot to do with anything other than our morals.

Well, I agree. You have to question the morals of a country that starts preemptive war under false pretenses, holds numerous citizens of a country without trial, tortures prisoners, and causes the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens and justifies it all by saying "better over there than over here". Yeah, I think Muslims are certainly questioning our morals at this point.

Posted by: patrick on February 22, 2007 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

So if the Muslims think our morals are in the gutter and the conservatives agree. Why do they want to keep fighting the Muslims. They should invite them over to discuss how to deport Britney Spears and the rest of the Hollywood infidels to Antarctica

I have always feared that the day will come when the Christofascists, the Judeofascists, and the Hindufascists all find common cause with the Islamofascists against us secular types.

I say we keep them all fighting amongst themselves for as long as possible -- who's with me?

Posted by: Disputo on February 22, 2007 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

They can have my freedom, but leave my pork rinds alone, dammit!

Posted by: thersites on February 22, 2007 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Sweden! The source of the finest pornography available to humanity.

Allah bless Sweden.

Posted by: Disputo on February 22, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

of course they hate us for our morals... especially the morals that cause 'us' to kill them by the hundreds of thousands and call them "subhuman" and call for the murder of their scientists, and religious leaders.

wacky mooslums!

Posted by: cleek on February 22, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

and Mrs. T. says they'll have to pry her pork hocks out of her cold, dead hands!

Posted by: thersites on February 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Right there with you, Disputo. Let's pour some gasoline on that fire and then duck and cover.

Posted by: Stiff Mittens on February 22, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

What is this porn of which you speak? I'm a nice Jewish girl who knows not of these things.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 22, 2007 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

When I worked in Egypt during the 1980s, I worked two months on and one month off. When I came back to the States, my Egyptian crew regularly made requests that I bring back pornography for them. They preferred blonds and big boobs.

My point is people vary everywhere. There may well be people who hate us because we allow pornography, but there are others who envy us for that same thing. My guess is it's about the same proportion as here, and what matters politically is which group is in power, or which group supports those in power.

Posted by: anandine on February 22, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: So what do muslims think of Europe?

The ones I worked with (granted not the best educated) thought either that Europe was one of the American states or America was a European country.

Posted by: anandine on February 22, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, talk about your "blame America" crowd. That's exactly right, they blew up the world trade center because I wore a short miniskirt on 9/10.

So, if we just give up our freedom--you know, freedom of choice, to love who we want, to wear what we want, to marry who we want, to worship God (or not) as we please, to say what we want, to work at whatever job we choose--we'll be safe? All that "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" stuff is all it'll cost to ensure we don't die in a massive terrorist fireball?

Great plan, Glen.

(Although, if it involves the expunging of Ana Nicole Smith from our TV screens, I have to say this capitulation to the extremists does start to sound appealing...)

Posted by: anonymous on February 22, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm... They hate us for our freedoms and we hate us for our freedoms too!

Posted by: Tom on February 22, 2007 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

I would wager that when Mr. Beck says " Our morals are just out the window...verge of moral collapse...our promiscuity is off the charts," he is really speaking about his own behavior. The tranposing of his moral failings to modern American culture allows him to condemn those he disagrees with politically and foment war with those whom his superego actually agrees with.

Beck is a morbidly conflicted fuck. I hope he cracks up soon.

Posted by: Brojo on February 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

So maybe I'm just being dense or something, but I think when Bush says "they hate us for our freedoms," that is not meant to be in sympathy with their hate. It's supposed to mean that what's BAD about our evil enemies is that they hate freedom, America's great gift to the world. So rather than perpetuating this trope, the Glenn Beck view that the Muslim world hates us for our freedom to be immoral is fundamentally at odds with it.

Posted by: bobbo on February 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

anonymous sez:

That's exactly right, they blew up the world trade center because I wore a short miniskirt on 9/10.

So that was you?!

Posted by: Disputo on February 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

shorter Glenn Beck:

"We have to be more like the repressive Muslims that we hate so that the Muslims will not hate us for not being more like them."

Or something.

Posted by: trex on February 22, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Then how is Glenn Beck any different from Pat Robertson - who also blamed America for the attack on 9/11?

Posted by: ckelly on February 22, 2007 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Poor, pathetic libs. It took you this long to realize that we Conservatives feel the same as Bin Laden about the decline of American morality? I guess being so slow to figure things out is what you get for wrecking the American educational system with politically correct "feel good" claptrap about evolution and global warming.

Welcome to reality. The terrorists aren't anti-American, they're anti-liberal.

And now you can weep and despair as the brilliance of Bush's true plan dawns upon you. By deliberately deflecting attention from Afghanistan and the anti-liberal Taliban and the search for anti-liberal Bin Laden, by helping anti-liberal Fox News become "mainstream", by getting our military bogged down in Iraq with insufficient force to actually win against anti-liberal insurgents, by making sure anti-liberal North Korea has nukes, by passing the anti-liberal Patriot Act, by helping the anti-liberal forces in Iran overcome the wimpy moderates, and by shaping the Supreme Court into an anti-liberal powerhouse, Bush has left you pathetic liberals with nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Think about it. Bush has single-handedly reshaped the entire planet in favor of those of us who are opposed to "women's rights," "gay rights," "scientific facts," and all those other things that liberal corruption has foisted upon us.

BWA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: American Hock on February 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Best. AHock. Ever.

Posted by: Disputo on February 22, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Then how is Glenn Beck any different from Pat Robertson - who also blamed America for the attack on 9/11?

Glenn is pudgier and dull looking while Pat somewhat resembles a bulldog and is dull looking.

Another difference: I don't think Glenn ever gets a Word of Knowledge about a viewer in Mobile who is suffering from gout. That's not to say he doesn't have quite the dull look.

Posted by: trex on February 22, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Then how is Glenn Beck any different from Pat Robertson - who also blamed America for the attack on 9/11?

bigger audience, cheaper suits.

Posted by: thersites on February 22, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

So Bush appeases them by taking away our freedoms?

Posted by: john john on February 22, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it has something to do with our bombing the hell out of them and stealing their natural resources. Last I checked, murder and theft qualified as moral issues.

Just a wild guess.

Posted by: Delia on February 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

When you get down to it, this is the best defense of social liberalism you could come up with.

If the Muslims hate us for our loose morals, then if we go conservative here at home, we're letting the terrorists win. As a patriotic America, you have the *duty* to smoke pot, have wild orgies, play violent video games, listen to loud music, and wear revealing clothing.

Posted by: Steve Simitzis on February 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Loving the American Hock parodies. However, I wonder if we will ever see American Hock and Al's Mommy in the same room? Somehow I doubt it - I think there is a Superman/Clark Kent thing happening here...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 22, 2007 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

This is a common theme among the loony right. One idiot is following Falwell and Robertson by blaming 9-11 on liberals. D'Souza says American society should become more like fundamentalist Afghanistan: end the Democracy experiment, stop educating women etc. There really isn't much difference between the fundamentalist mentality from one sect to any other.

He says morals? Bushistas have morals? I haven't met one Bushista yet who demonstrates the existence of morals in their behavior or personality.

Posted by: Mike on February 22, 2007 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Wilson - June 14, 2003

"The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90's which was called, "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm." And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem."

19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/28-lecture-wilson-32.mp3

"On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."

13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/29-lecture-qa-32.mp3

Posted by: A Passionate Attachment on February 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

What is it Kevin?

Only idiots have to insult other people to make their points, stupid. God, I wish you knew how dumb you look when you argue ad hominem. Can't you make a point without resorting to insults and put-downs, you dick-for-shit.

I defy you to respond to the logic of my reasoning.

Posted by: Frickin Freq Ken on February 22, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Actually a recent global poll shows that the majority of people polled around the world do not believe there is, in fact, any clash of civilisations. Generally we believe that the differences are primarily political - whether struggles for oil, a homeland, political freedoms, national pride, etc.

It ain't about religion, and most people, it seems, are perceptive enough to realise it.

Who cares what numbnuts like this commentator, and the clueless and irrelevant trolls like egbert or Kenneth think?

The world thinks differently - and it's one of the most positive things I have found in these dark days.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

The Beck arguement also makes "social liberalism" resposible for 9/11.

Posted by: Robert Earle on February 22, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

oil, control the DAMN OIL--THAT'S WHY WE'RE THERE.

No mistake has been made--no clash of civilizations, no differences betweens the politcal parties.


That's why Hillary won't admit she made a error in going to war..she's an oil addict.

it's just the damn oil!

Posted by: Dr Wu -I'm just an ordinary guy on February 22, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Floopmeister
Actually a recent global poll shows that the majority of people polled around the world do not believe there is, in fact, any clash of civilisations.

Yea, but that leaves somewhere between 10-30% depending on the culture who believes it is. And that means a billion or so may. And of those, certainly a pile are willing to at least accomodate if not actively support those that actually take action against us.

How many Americans favored independence back in Revolutionary War times?

They may not hate us our freedoms, but the response to the cartoons of Mohammed certainly suggest they are incompatible with our freedoms.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Everything that I hear from the Middle East (especially Iran) is that they love the American people, it's just the (mainly) Republican administrations that they despise.
It is convenient for neo-cons to claim its our morals they hate.. then they don't have to rethink the actions of St. Ronnie and Bush Sr. Incompetence didn't begin with Jr.

Posted by: blaze on February 22, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder what "morals" Glenn Beck is talking about? By some metrics (divorce, teen pregnancy) we're doing better now than in the 70s or 80s, and others (drug use, poverty) seem to be about the same (they go up and down, we are not at a historic high or low). Gay marriage is legal in MA now, but it wasn't in 2001, so that couldn't have motivated that attack, and the number of gay marriages is not large (around 8100, according to Wikipedia).

Foreign aid as a percentage of GDP, that's down. Income inequality, that's up, but those are the only trends I see, and I doubt that either is what he was talking about.

Posted by: dr2chase on February 22, 2007 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yea, but that leaves somewhere between 10-30% depending on the culture who believes it is.

Oh well - there'll always be a fringe element out of step with mainstream opinion, but generally these marginal views don't reflect the society as a whole and in democratic societies their overall influence matches their demographic clout.

BTW - isn't Bush's approval rating around the 30% mark?

What is much more important to large numbers of world citizens is, of course, global warming. The supporters of the 'Clash of Civilsations' / GWOT should be seen for what they are - a minority fringe.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2007 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if Glenn Beck really wants to talk about morality, what kind of morality is it that allows the government to send other people's kids to war without the proper armor, not take care of them or their families properly because they're busy cutting veteran's benefits, conducts a war with mercenary soldiers that get paid two and three times more than the reservists and national guardsmen that they fight alongside, and all the while support big bucks for their friends in the military-industrial complex while they raid the treasury with war profiteering. Oh, and by the way, there will be tax cuts in a time of war, but primarily for the already wealthy.

The less than wealthy on the other hand, get government snooping into their phone conversations, their internet conversations, their bedrooms and procreative activities. Government has seen fit to restrict the lesser classes access to bankruptcy filings, including a "blame the victim" implication, even though studies have shown that most people file bankruptcy due to medical bills or divorce. There are so many things wrong with this country that need fixing, from our profligate abuse of the environment and our consumerist attitude, and yet we are consumed with the morality of abortion rights and whether we should allow stem cell research or allow the unwanted embryos to just expire or be incinerated. The terrorists don't need a reason or an excuse to hate us, they just do, and they will no matter what we do, because they are poor and powerless and we have so much we don't know what to do with it all, and then we whine that we have a right to their oil.

Posted by: Ann in AZ on February 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

We want to be free! We want to be free to do what we want to do! We want to be free to ride. And we want to be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man. And we want to get loaded. And we want to have a good time! And that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna have a good time. We're gonna have a party!

You got a problem with that?

Posted by: bobbywally on February 22, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

It's a mite indelicate, but the idiomatic paraphrase that popped into my head after reading Glenn Beck was, simply:

"Courtesan, fuck thyself."

Posted by: Lionel Hutz, attorney-at-law on February 22, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

The point of view is backwards. Bush and his conservative colleagues are jealous of the theocratic control Muslim leaders have over their followers, and would like to have that power here.

Posted by: asdfg on February 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

American Hock is a god of a satirist.

Posted by: batavicus on February 22, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Beck pollutes the air everytime he speaks. Conservatives decrying social liberalism have had enough hypocritical incidents to last a lifetime. Their own self righteous loud mouth representative of moral values--Rush Limbaugh, known to speak out against pre-marital sex, and "let's lock up all junkies," caught with a bottle of viagra without his name on it returning from the Dominican Republic, he unmarried. And his Oxycontin scandals. And the video of him ridiculing a man with parkinson's disease.
... the Mark Foley scandals grooming young male pages for sexual gratification-- the conservatives failing to address this dismal abusive situation and in fact allowing it to continue to keep house seats-- for years.
Hypocrites, all.
How moral is the deteriorated situation of the Walter Reed Medical Center, of the attempts to reduce benefits for veterans and their families, of continuing this obscene war, of leaving the poor, elderly and disabled to languish for days in the heat in New Orleans, while the administration partied and shopped.
No doubt they hate us for the abuses at Abu Grahib--so degrading and unforgivable--and the continuing violence against those of Moslem faith in the Middle East, sanctioned and made perpetual by this imperial admininstration's crusade. And the treatment of detainees, extraordinary rendition...it is endless

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 22, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Do Muslims not party?
Does a burka not permit the eating of Doritos?
Do said leaders all have a Cheney to show them the way?

The asking of serious questions must wait, cat demanding food.

Posted by: Zit on February 22, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions. And that means there's no need for us to change anything we're actually doing in the Middle East.

Yeah Kevin, you just hit the ball with the sweet part of the bat. So-called conservatives actually make statements like that with a straight face, leaving the rest of us to wonder, “do they really believe something so stupid, or are they just puttin’ us on.”

Some of “them” hate us for our actions and many more dislike us for our actions. Bin Laden has talked about how he watched our big artillery shells hit the buildings in Lebanon, fired just for spite in retaliation for the Marine barracks (as though we were punishing the actual people who blew them up), and he was very much angered. Who wouldn’t be? That’s just acknowledging a fact, not defending a terrorist.

How many American bombs have “those people” seen dropped on “their kind”? Few of us have any idea; there have been just so damn many. How many American artillery shells? Aw, not important, right?

Red State Mike writes: They may not hate us our freedoms, but the response to the cartoons of Mohammed certainly suggest they are incompatible with our freedoms.

Come on Mike, how many Americans were offended by John Lennon’s statement about the popularity of God vs. the Beatles? I remember bond fires and hatred in response. But was that surprising? Was it that big a deal? No. No, it wasn’t.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on February 22, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Beck: "We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts."

Reading between the lines: "Why can't a dazzling urbanite like me get laid?"

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 22, 2007 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

It's almost Inkblot time.

Friday's almost here.

Posted by: Cheryl on February 22, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: "[Muslims] may not hate us our freedoms, but the response to the cartoons of Mohammed certainly suggest they are incompatible with our freedoms."

Your continued overt bigotry toward Muslims also strongly suggests that you're none too compatible with them yourself.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 22, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Damn, Cheryl. You are calm tonight. Had a glass of wine or something?

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on February 22, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

If I keep posting it... maybe somebody here will go watch these videos.

Go to Google video and watch the Power of Nightmares. Parts I,II,III.

It is the best in-depth examination and explanation of the radical islamic movement and it's relationship to the neocon movement.

It is 'must watch' stuff or anyone who's actually interested in what's going on. This should be shown in on every teevee channel and in every theater until Americans 'get it'.

Posted by: Buford on February 22, 2007 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

Come on Mike, how many Americans were offended by John Lennon’s statement about the popularity of God vs. the Beatles? I remember bond fires and hatred in response. But was that surprising? Was it that big a deal? No. No, it wasn’t.
Posted by: little ole jim from red country

You're right, the response to Lennon wasn't a big deal. Ultimately, respect for our freedoms won out over their anger. But the response to attacks on Mohammed are a big deal. Fatwa to kill the author of Satanic Verses. Riots about some cartoons. Murdering Theo Van Gogh. Those are all things condoned in the large by muslims, and incompatible with western society.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Beck is actually lamenting that Democrats have dramatically gained ground with the so-called values voters. Beck exhibits amazing hubris.
It's a bit much having him on, then Nancy Grace tearing up the airwaves.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 22, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK


Every time you think you've heard every ridiculous, stupid, hypocritical and cognitive dissonant thing these guys could say, along comes someone like Beck to grab the crown as the authoritarian right's biggest fool. He's actually telling us that if we just followed the directions of the Muslims--his avowed enemies--all would be well. We won't have to kill them anymore if we just do what they tell us to do!


Posted by: jayarbee on February 22, 2007 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 8:47 PM:

Ultimately, respect for our freedoms won out over their anger. But the response to attacks on Mohammed are a big deal.

Damn. Talk about missing the point.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn’t Theo Van Gogh murdered in 2004? Prior to the cartoons?

Crazy Mulim murders somebody. The U.S. military is not the answer to this problem. Our amazing weapons of war are not the answer to this problem.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on February 22, 2007 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

I've never understood idiots like Beck. If they hate us for our freedom...we're supposed to quit exercising those freedoms?

Isn't that the acquiescing to the terrorists they're usually blaming liberals for?

Screw that--if you wanna fight terrorism, go do your spouse/neighbor's spouse/boytoy/girltoy in some kinky position or three, rent some porn, drink some beer, watch Jerry Springer, vote Democrat, and drive over the speed limit listening to rock music.

Posted by: Sebastian on February 22, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

bobbywally: "We want to be free! We want to be free to do what we want to do! ... We're gonna have a good time. We're gonna have a party! You got a problem with that?"

Left on the cutting room floor:

The Peter Fonda character in the movie The Wild Angels, from whence this quote comes -- bet you didn't think anybody'd know that, did you, bobbywally? -- would eventually grow up, move to Evanston, IL and join the Republican Party, where he supported the election for Gov. George Ryan in 1998 and was eventually given full immunity by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in exchange for crucial testimony in the illegal kickback scandal that sent his boss to federal prison.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 22, 2007 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Muslims may not hate us for our freedoms, but the response to the cartoons of Mohammed certainly suggest they are incompatible with our freedoms.

Christians may not hate us for our freedoms, but the response to [The Last Temptation of Christ, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, the teaching of evolution, a blow job, sex ed, "Gay" day at Disneyworld] certainly suggest they are incompatible with our freedoms.

Posted by: yeah on February 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Damn. Talk about missing the point.
Posted by: grape_crush

OK, what was the point?

People fussed over Lennon, but his comments stood. Muslims fussed over the cartoons, and the west self-censored. Big diff.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Christians may not hate us for our freedoms, but the response to [The Last Temptation of Christ, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, the teaching of evolution, a blow job, sex ed, "Gay" day at Disneyworld] certainly suggest they are incompatible with our freedoms.
Posted by: yeah

Last I checked, Last Temp of Christ is still available, Janet's wardrobe malfunctioned as planned, evolution still gets teached, etc. Liberals pushed back. Have they pushed back against muslims about the cartoons, or did they acquiese?

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Last I checked, Last Temp of Christ is still available, Janet's wardrobe malfunctioned as planned, evolution still gets teached, etc. Liberals pushed back. Have they pushed back against muslims about the cartoons, or did they acquiese?

Hey, Redstatemike. You forgot what you were arguing. You weren't basing your original claim on how liberals responded to the complaint. It was about the complaint itself.

If the Muslim response to the cartoons shows that they are incompatible with our freedoms, then the Fundamentalist response to the Piss Christ photo or the Last Temptation of Christ (etc., etc.) shows that they are also not compatible with our freedoms. Both are examples of thin-skinned religious fundamentalists not being able to stand the idea that their primary religious figure is being ridiculed by people who don't share the same faith.

You're a lot more like the Muslim fundamentalists than you'll ever admit.

Posted by: obobo on February 22, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

obobo
If the Muslim response to the cartoons shows that they are incompatible with our freedoms, then the Fundamentalist response to the Piss Christ photo or the Last Temptation of Christ (etc., etc.) shows that they are also not compatible with our freedoms. Both are examples of thin-skinned religious fundamentalists not being able to stand the idea that their primary religious figure is being ridiculed by people who don't share the same faith.

I'm more interested in the response of liberals to the fundamentalists. One of your two examples above is an example of liberalism and free speech winning the day over fundamentalism. The other is an example of liberalism being cowed into accepting the fundamentalist's desire to censor. Guess which is which?

You're a lot more like the Muslim fundamentalists than you'll ever admit.

Really? I'm arguing that we shouldn't bow to any fundamentalist's wishes. I choose not to give special dispensation to muslims. Why do you accept their desire to censor?

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Muslims fussed over the cartoons, and the west self-censored.

Just in case you still miss the point, some self-censored and some didn't. You can still find those cartoons very, very easily if you want.

And some self-censored in the case of Last Temptation of Christ and some didn't. You can still get a copy of it if you want.

Posted by: obobo on February 22, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Last I checked, Last Temp of Christ is still available, Janet's wardrobe malfunctioned as planned, evolution still gets teached, etc. Liberals pushed back. Have they pushed back against muslims about the cartoons, or did they acquiese?

Last I checked the cartoons were published in over fifty papers worldwide including in the U.S.

Last I checked Christians hadn't yet completed their Holy Time Machine in order to unslip Janet's top so they settled for brutal and ridiculously large fines on the broadcasters to extract their pound of flesh...so to speak.

Last I checked Christians were going so far as stacking school boards and issuing death threats to judges - or should I say "fatwas" - to get the teaching of evolution banned.

Posted by: yeah on February 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

When is someone going to ask Beck, on the question of promiscuity, is he with America or with the terrorists?

Posted by: Boronx on February 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM:

OK, what was the point? People fussed over Lennon, but his comments stood. Muslims fussed over the cartoons, and the west self-censored.

Similar outrage over remarks made about religion, simliar public outcry, similar attempts to censor.

You can still buy Lennon's music, and you can still google the 'toons.

I don't hear too much continued outrage over Lennon's remarks over 30 years after they were made. I don't anticipate that 30 years from now the 'toons will be much more than a Trivial Pursuit history category question.

Get the point now, Mike?

Big diff.

No, not really. The only distinction you've made is that once group is Muslim and the other Christian. And you seem to have only excused the Christian group for their past behavior, Mike.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

"And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions."

It also means, by inference, that we would benefit by having fewer freedoms. And I have to agree—but only as it relates to Glenn Beck's lying, filthy mouth.

Posted by: Kenji on February 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

The argument over the 'toons or Lennon's music/actions still misses one big point - these were the actions of noisy minorities.

Ditto the statue of the 10 Commandments outside the courthouse...

Or the Schiavo flap...

Do you really believe the outcry over the cartoons would have been so small if a significant proportion of the world's Muslim population really cared about it more than they cared about their kid's education, or getting a promotion, or checking out the latest Bollywood blockbuster?

Anything more serious actually happen other than a lot of sound and fury? Other than a lot of reactionary (Islamist) idiots using the 'scandal' to push their own agendas?

It was a noisy minority, once again.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2007 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Don from Hawaii - You were referring to the actual person Fonda's character was based on correct? I am somewhat of an old movie buff, and this is killer trivia! What is the name, and any other good tidbits on his association with the Ryan probe? Thanks.

Posted by: bmaz on February 22, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 9:42 PM:

One of your two examples above is an example of liberalism and free speech winning the day over fundamentalism.

No, Mike. Both are examples of free speech (didn't know that free speech was a liberal value, Mike) matched against fundamentalism.

You have no argument, Mike.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 22, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

RE: HATING US FOR OUR FREEDOMS

Let's get real here, guys. Conservatives hate liberals because they think liberals have sex every night, take drugs, and otherwise have more fun in one night than a conservative has in an entire lifetime.

It's not true, of course, but it is what the perception is.

Unfortunately, rather than taking advantage of the perception to encourage more people to be liberals, liberals try to come off as "moderates", thus turning off those that are undecided, and coming off as liars to conservatives.

So here is what I think liberals should do: have sex every night, take drugs (or drink, as long as no one gets hurt), and have more fun every night than conservatives do in a lifetime -- then tell people about it.

I guarantee you the world will be a better place if you take this advice.

EOM

Posted by: Dicksknee on February 22, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

yeah
Last I checked the cartoons were published in over fifty papers worldwide including in the U.S.

Following your link, more like 150, with about 28 in the US (out of how many papers publishing in the US?) Of those, missing were LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, WSJ, USA Today, Balt Sun, and pretty much every major rag in every major city in the country. Self-censored.

I don't hear too much continued outrage over Lennon's remarks over 30 years after they were made. I don't anticipate that 30 years from now the 'toons will be much more than a Trivial Pursuit history category question.

No one cares now. If Lennon made the same comment, there would be a collective yawn. But how long between The Satanic Letters fatwa and the cartoons? I'm not seeing muslims evolving to a more liberal position.

No, not really. The only distinction you've made is that once group is Muslim and the other Christian. And you seem to have only excused the Christian group for their past behavior, Mike.
Posted by: grape_crush

Bzzzzt! I am taking issue with liberals for rolling over in response to muslim's desire to censor while (properly) taking on christian fundies.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Beck and the various trolls on this board should be watching "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" ---
a powerful expose of the abuse of prisoners in the fall of 2003, detailed by some of the soldiers and prisoners involved--playing now on HBO-E.
I am choked up and it has been on a mere twenty minutes

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 22, 2007 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

If anyone is interested in the issues of Guantanamo Bay, check out this SBS show on the issue of David Hicks (the Australian still in Gitmo).

It lays out the whole thing very, very powerfully.

http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbs_front/index.html

Click on the link for 'Hicks on Trial'.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2007 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

So there are some Muslims and some Christians who think that, on the whole, Americans are too promiscuous. There are Hindus who think that too. And some secularists.

Are there some Christian countries run as puritanically and misogynistically as Saudi Arabia? (I mean in the present.) How about Muslim countries with as strong a freedom of the press as India or Israel?

as Janna points out, this argument is appealing to conservatives because it's a way of condemning social liberalism. Beck was actually criticising promiscuity, which isn't equivalent to social liberalism. The Muslims (well, the governing Muslims of Iran and Saudi Arabia) punish homosexuals the same whether they are promiscuous or not. Lots of liberals I know are appalled by the promiscuity of some gay people, as by some straight people, without suffering from intolerance of gays at all. There may be some conservatives who conflate liberalism with promiscuity, but not most of them.


Posted by: spider on February 22, 2007 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Of those, missing were LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, WSJ, USA Today, Balt Sun, and pretty much every major rag in every major city in the country. Self-censored.

Because once there is a controversial image it must be published in every single paper in order for it not to be "self-censorship"?

That must be why Janet Jackson's nipple was shown on the front page of every paper in the country.

Not.

If you want to get into it, the real fucking test case are images of the dead from Iraq. We see NONE in the media. No graphic images of dead and wounded Iraqis or American soldiers are shown on our news programs EVER in this country, while they're commonplace in the rest of the world. Utterly and completely sanitized here. Talk about your self-censorship. Dozens and sometimes hundreds of people are blown to bits in that country every day and yet given the absence of those images on the news you'd think Iraq was as safe and uneventful as Poughkeepsie.

This self-censorship is to appease none other than the reactionary Right in this country. It sure as hell isn't for the sake of the Left. Were Americans forced to see the ACTUAL images of war on their teevees, goofballs in Toby Keith tee shirts would have burned down the studios of the "traitorous and treasonous" CNN and MSNBC long ago.

If Mohammed is sacred to the Muslims, then Dubya's war is just as sacred to our religous and cultural extremists.

Posted by: yeah on February 22, 2007 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

They hate us for our Trojans.

Posted by: gregor on February 22, 2007 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

The blindness to what is happening in Europe with Muslims is almost funny.

Here is one small example. In Paris you are besieged with Muslim beggars and the gangs in the banlieues exclude the police. The French are waking up to the danger, however, and that is why tey are so friendly to Amnericans these days. Not the government, of course, which is still seeking accomodation with the jihadi states but the people know better.

In 10 years we will see a flood of immigrants here fleeing the Islamization of Europe.

Posted by: Mike K on February 22, 2007 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

This makes Glenn Beck, quite literally, a terrorist sympathizer, just like Dinesh D'Souza before him.

I think CNN should start introducing his show by saying, "Coming up next, terrorist sympathizer Glenn Beck."

Posted by: Boots Day on February 22, 2007 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I've come to the conclusion that islam itself is a religion of hate. They may hate us for our freedom or perhaps for our lack of morals. But why does Shiate hate Sunni and Sunni hate Shiate enough to commit the atrocities that they do on each other? Hate is a powerful tool for controlling the naive.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on February 22, 2007 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Notice how the trolls completely miss the point of the article Kevin posts:

"However, there's another reason that this argument has generated a certain amount of conservative appeal lately: it perpetuates the trope that "they hate us for our freedoms." And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions. And that means there's no need for us to change anything we're actually doing in the Middle East.

And that's a pretty comforting thought for conservatives, isn't it?

—Kevin Drum

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 22, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions. And that means there's no need for us to change anything we're actually doing in the Middle East.

And that means we could actually be victorious in Iraq if we clean up our act here at home, and that could mean that if we are not victorious in Iraq it's because we failed to redress our moral turpitude here at home, and so when we finally pull the troops out of Iraq it won't be that we lost because the war was an ill conceived irrational act of blatant aggression planned and executed by a crew of chickenhawks who learned military strategy watching videotapes of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War. No, it will be because our morals are just out the window. We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

Posted by: Dave Howard on February 22, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Islam doesn't have the hate-mongering market cornered. Christians killed one another with an almost pornographic glee during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

More blood has been spilled in the name of one almighty god or another than all other ideologies combined, I seem to recall reading somewhere.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 22, 2007 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

Because once there is a controversial image it must be published in every single paper in order for it not to be "self-censorship"?

It was a huge story, and the pictures were central to it. Most readers probably never saw the pictures.

That must be why Janet Jackson's nipple was shown on the front page of every paper in the country...Not.

Janet Jackson's nipple was shown on the most watched TV program of the year.

If you want to get into it, the real fucking test case are images of the dead from Iraq. We see NONE in the media. No graphic images of dead and wounded Iraqis or American soldiers are shown on our news programs EVER in this country, while they're commonplace in the rest of the world. Utterly and completely sanitized here.

The cartoons *were* the story. We already know what dead people look like. We don't show dead car wreck victims or cancer patients either. Although you can watch the HBO special to see our soldiers dying on the table. Or if you're in town with military, actually talk to the wounded. And the passing of milestones such as the 1,000th dead, or a new record in dead in a month, is always duly noted.

Why do you want to see our soldier's dead mangled bodies?

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

...In Paris you are besieged with Muslim beggars and the gangs in the banlieues exclude the police. The French are waking up to the danger, however, and that is why tey are so friendly to Amnericans these days. Not the government, of course, which is still seeking accomodation with the jihadi states but the people know better.

In 10 years we will see a flood of immigrants here fleeing the Islamization of Europe.

I suggest a bladder control medication, Mike K.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Janet Jackson's nipple was shown on the most watched TV program of the year.

Nice try.

Why do you want to see our soldier's dead mangled bodies?

I didn't single out soldier's bodies and you know it, I said the "dead and wounded bodies of Iraqis and American soldiers."

What a disingenuous move on your part.

Why show the images of the dead in a war? Because that's what makes it real. Without those images Americans can just pretend that everything is fine and avoid making an informed judgment.

And that's what has happened with Iraq. For most of America it's an abstract news story they can hide from.

The images convey the reality. It's the images of poverty or starving children or people trapped in New Orleans that convey the reality of the story and move people to action.

Why not show the images of the dead? You know why, Mike. Conservative and hawks shit their pants at the prospect of this ever happening.

The minute accurate, graphic images of this war is displayed is the minute it's over and done with. Woken from their reverie, forced to face the truth, the American people will never allow it to go on.

I'll go you one better, though; we don't need to show images of dead soldiers (more people die in car accidents, right?) just images of the Iraqis. Once that happens there won't be any more dead soldiers anyway as we'll be bringing them home alive.

Posted by: yeah on February 22, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K on February 22, 2007 at 10:23 PM:

Here is one small example.

Oh, you can do better than some conservative Brit tabloid, can't you?

Red State Mike on February 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM:

No one cares now. If Lennon made the same comment, there would be a collective yawn.

I beg to differ. Any person who's been dead since 1980 making a public statement would be a big deal.

But, more seriously, any person of Lennon's stature making a similar statement nowadays would prompt some backlash. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks for disparaging Dubya...And Natalie Maines isn't Lennon and cutting on Dubya isn't bashing God...

At least to sane people, anyway.

But how long between The Satanic Letters fatwa and the cartoons?

Satanic Verses, Mike. Almost 20 years. When is the last time you've heard of the Satanic Verses fatwah in the news? You're grasping now...

I'm not seeing muslims evolving to a more liberal position.

You could make the same statement about Christians in the US...And still be wrong.

I am taking issue with liberals for rolling over in response to muslim's desire to censor while (properly) taking on christian fundies.

And I am telling you that your 'issue' is a hallucination brought on by too many nights spent listening to people like Glenn Beck feed your paranoia and fill your mind with crap.

Show me a liberal who's 'rolling over in response to muslim's desire to censor', whatever the hell that means...

Posted by: grape_crush on February 22, 2007 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

You don’t suppose Muslims might hate us for doing things like this or this or even this.

Of course, we could listen to the words of Osama bin Laden himself . Here is an excerpt from one of his 2004 recorded messages:

”No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.”

But that Glenn Beck is just so much smarter than us liberals, yesiree. He has everything plum figgered out, don’t he?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 22, 2007 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - I make it a point to find pictures from international news sources and post them when I post about the sectarian civil war that is raging in Iraq as a result of Bush's Folly.

And I agree that the coffins at Dover make it real.

My nephew's skin is in the game, and I take it personal that the sacrifice is muted and that the military is at war, but America is at the mall.

Color me disgusted and cynical.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 22, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

It is way to late and I am way to tired to google for a long, long list of the conservative Republicans who are being arrested, indicted, or resigning from a Congressional office for promiscuous and perverted behavior. Not mention the fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer money committed by Republicans.

Posted by: Mazurka on February 22, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of such things as being "hated for our freedoms" now:

'Fake Marriages' Lift Pressure - (Washington Post)

In China, gays and lesbians say societal pressure drives them into marriages of convenience.

"Convenience", meaning not wanting to be killed for being openly gay. Some like Orson Scott Card would approve of such hiding in the closet, I'm sure. I don't.

Posted by: David W. on February 22, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

It is way too late and I am way too tired to google for a long, long list of conservative Republicans who are being arrested, indicted, and resigning Congressional seats for promiscuous and perverted behavior; but, the lists are out there.

Posted by: Mazurka on February 22, 2007 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

In his book Arabian Sands, Wilfred Thesiger described a trip on camelback across the Rub' al Khali from Oman into Saudi Arabia just after WWII to look for locusts. He said the bedu he traveled had an interesting way of signaling their interest in a woman. A young man would sit beside a young woman around the campfire and run his camel prod under the sand to poke her in the butt unseen by the others around the campfire. If she ignored him, he would withdraw the prod with no dishonor. If she (as I remember it from reading it 20 years ago) faced him and smiled, they would meet out in the bushes later.

The point? All guys get horny, and Moslem guys find a way to mess around with chicks, too, even if they have emptied their last few ounces of water to perform ablutions before prayer.

He also asked some Bedu what they thought of Jews, and they asked him who Jews were, some tribe of Arabs they hadn't heard of?

Posted by: anandine on February 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Then how is Glenn Beck any different from Pat Robertson - who also blamed America for the attack on 9/11?
Posted by: ckelly

glenn can't leg press 2000 lbs ... and he doesn't have god's own age defying shake.

Posted by: Nads on February 22, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

They hate us because we're different from them. Wasn't that always obvious? It's what they've said all along.

And, I don't want to give up these differences. I want to preserve and protect tolerance for gays, equality for women, religious freedom, political freedom, and all the rest. I wouldn't change one single thing about America to placate those fanatics.

It's the America-haters who are surprised. In their view America and the west should be blamed for the hatred that radical Islam bears toward others. Get a clue. Their hatred is caused by themselves and their version of Islam, not by us.

The only blame I would assign to the west is taking too little action to halt the spread of radical Islam.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 22, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

They hate us because we're different from them.

Maybe a few fanatics, but we have our own version of ultra-religious nutjobs who hate everyone different than them.

The stone-cold, unspinnable fact is, most of the non-fanatic types who hate us none-the-less hate us for our meddling ways, our hubris and our propensity for making a sport of who can fuck the indigenous people the hardest.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 22, 2007 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Their hatred is caused by themselves and their version of Islam, not by us.

Damn, but I feel sorry for you, ex-liberal. You really do keep waking up on the wrong side of history, don't you.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2007 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

But the response to attacks on Mohammed are a big deal. Fatwa to kill the author of Satanic Verses. Riots about some cartoons. Murdering Theo Van Gogh. Those are all things condoned in the large by muslims, and incompatible with western society.
Posted by: Red State Mike

you really believe this bullshit, don't you? It fits with your previous racist anti-muslim commentary.

I'm not even sure you realize when your occasional (but reliably persistent) racism peeks through.

Muslim Scholars, Leaders Condemn Cartoon Violence

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) deplored Sunday the attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, describing them as detrimental to the image of Islam.

Posted by: Nads on February 22, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

I want to preserve and protect tolerance for gays, equality for women, religious freedom, political freedom, and all the rest. I wouldn't change one single thing about America to placate those fanatics.

We're talking about conservatards, right?

Because they're (you're) the ones who've always worked at discriminating against gays, fought against equal rights for women, casually disenfranchised the poor and minorities of political rights, and been intolerant of religions other than your own.

Just so we're clear.

Posted by: yeah on February 22, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

people polled around the world do not believe there is, in fact, any clash of civilisations.

I was speaking to my spouse, who immigrated to the US from Korea, about respect for parents. All cultures respect their parents. My spouse usually thinks Americans do not respect their parents and are decadent, but she recognizes even Americans love and respect their parents, despite my example.

when we finally pull the troops out of Iraq it won't be that we lost because the war was an ill conceived irrational act of blatant aggression planned and executed by a crew of chickenhawks who learned military strategy watching videotapes of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War. No, it will be because our morals are just out the window. We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

Sounds like premature ejaculation caused by guilt from the act of sex. And its true. We are a society on the verge of moral collapse when we invade and occupy other countries to seize their natural resources. We are a society on the verge of moral collapse when we glorify the soldier's obedience to covetous, deadly commands. Our immorality gives us guilt, which becomes rationalized as a shortcoming - a weakness - immoral and the reason for our failure. The US invaded Iraq and does not have the patience and moral strength to stay in longer and succeed because we know it is wrong to invade, kill and steal. At the same time we want to give Iraqis democracy, liberty, rebuild their schools and free them from tyranny.

Those who adovate raping and stealing are also the ones who decry the immorality of their society, which they claim is superior to the society with the coveted goods. Our conflicting desires to lustily rape and lovingly satisfy need to be reconciled in order for us to renounce militant solutions to political problems.

TRANSPOSE

Posted by: Brojo on February 23, 2007 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen): Maybe a few fanatics,

Yes, it's the fanatics I meant to allude to. The ones who commit murder and terrorism in the name of their religion. Unfortunately, they are not that few in number. They are committing terrorism in many parts of the world: the US, Canada, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe.

The stone-cold, unspinnable fact is, most of the non-fanatic types who hate us none-the-less hate us for our meddling ways, our hubris and our propensity for making a sport of who can fuck the indigenous people the hardest.

And, some love us for our meddling ways.

Now, "If you talk to these sheiks, they’ll tell you that they’re in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar," he said.

"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty."

http://alphabetcity.blogspot.com/2007/02/ramadi-shaykhs-in-no-hurry-to-see.html

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 23, 2007 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

god's own age defying shake

I started a religion called the New Shakers, which is also nown as the Church of Latter Day Beats.

Posted by: Brojo on February 23, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Fatwa to kill the author of Satanic Verses. Riots about some cartoons. Murdering Theo Van Gogh. Those are all things condoned in the large by muslims, and incompatible with western society.

"Fatwas" on Iranian and Venezuelan leaders and Iranian scientists by right-wing bloggers and televangelists; "fatwas" on liberals by right-wing talk show blowhards and skinny blonde neonazis; and "fatwas" on judges, abortion doctors, film directors and country music singers by ordinary everyday right-wing rabble.

Murdering Martin Luther King, Jr and shooting James Meredith.

Those are all things condoned in the large by American Christians when they happened, and incompatible with western society.

What's a an allegedly enlightened democracy to do?

Posted by: yeah on February 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

I'd be the first to punch Joan Goldberg in the face...just for purely ideological reasons, of course.

Posted by: elmo on February 23, 2007 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

I'd be the first to punch Joan Goldberg in the face...just for purely ideological reasons, of course.

Only if you pulled me down the stairs and stepped on my back! :)

Here is the email I sent off to Talk of the Nation today when they actually gave him a microphone on the issue of Global Warming (he maintains that we just need to adapt to the deforestation and desertification because it will cost money to confront the problems).

We can't afford NOT to stop global warming! Why is Jonah Goldberg even being taken seriously on this (or any) topic? He is qualified to address neither economics nor science, and his "shiny, happy people, technology will save us" vision is delusional at best. Unbelievable! Again I am left looking about helplessly for the missing "liberal media" that we keep hearing so much about. Even NPR, the last bastion of common sense, has fallen through the looking glass and given this unqualified gasbag a microphone to spread his propaganda about a serious topic! For shame!
--{my real name}
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' --Isaac Asimov
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

The only blame I would assign to the west is taking too little action to halt the spread of radical Islam. - ex-liberal

Wow, so the west is perfect, without fault, flawless. They must be awfully jealous.

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives hooked-up with the Christianists, and now we're watching the Walk of Shame

Posted by: Absent Observer on February 23, 2007 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

I want to preserve and protect tolerance for gays, equality for women, religious freedom, political freedom, and all the rest.

None of the values that conservatives like ex-liberal say they want to preserve would be in existence if not for progressive people who were called heretics, accused of immorality and all the nasty names that conservatives like ex-liberal call liberals today. People like this want to take credit for the ideas of others. They seem to have no understanding at all that progress requires constructive self-criticism.

It's the America-haters who are surprised. In their view America and the west should be blamed for the hatred that radical Islam bears toward others.

The people you call “America haters” are most likely simply advocating American responsibility for American actions.

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

antiphone: Wow, so the west is perfect, without fault, flawless. They must be awfully jealous.

antiphone, if these fanatics were attacking only the west, it might made sense to look for flaws that we could correct. But, they are making murderous attacks throughout much of the world. Islamic fanatics have probably killed more Muslims than westerners.

The problem is their murderous ideology, not the entire rest of the world.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 23, 2007 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

I'm extremely curious to hear from ex-liberal what actions the West should have taken "to halt the spread of radical Islam".

Posted by: notthere on February 23, 2007 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

…if these fanatics were attacking only the west, it might made sense to look for flaws that we could correct.

You seem to be saying that as long as you can find someone who is behaving badly we don’t need to look at ourselves, we can pretend we are perfect. Talk about moral relativism…


Islamic fanatics have probably killed more Muslims than westerners.

What on earth does this prove? There have probably been more Christians killed by Christians that by Muslims, certainly more Jews killed by "westerners".

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

The problem is their murderous ideology, not the entire rest of the world.

There are plenty of problems in the world. Take the example of the IRA. They were using terrorist tactics. What was their ideology? National independence. Do we conclude that national independence is evil?

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

Did the IRA hate British freedoms, lifestyle etc.?

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

All guys get horny

(Shhh. That's supposed to be a secret.)

Posted by: Disputo on February 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

silly antiphone ... white terrorists are completely rational actors with completely understandable motives.

not like the sand niggers.

Posted by: Nads on February 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to “liberate” it the U.S. had no problem with the murderous ideology of the Mujahadeen and supplied them, the way Iran is being accused of doing in Iraq. Was this a mistake or was it the right thing to do?

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Islamic fanatics have probably killed more Muslims than westerners.

Texans kill more Texans than North Dakotans.

Posted by: Disputo on February 23, 2007 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

The Reagan administration illegally sold missiles to Iran used the money to illegally finance arms for Nicaragua. Right thing to do, or product of a murderous ideology?

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, it's the fanatics I meant to allude to. The ones who commit murder and terrorism in the name of their religion.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas, is operated by the United States Army at Fort Benning, Georgia, and provides specialized training for foreign militias, militaries, and paramilitary organizations aligned with U.S. strategic interests in regard to various overt and covert international conflicts.

In the 1980's the United States was convicted by the International Court of Justice (World Court) for 'unlawful use of force', killing Nicaraguans for political purposes and supporting a proxy-terrorist force, the Contras.[23] This made it the first and only state in history to be convicted of state-sponsored international terrorism by the World Court. In April 1985 CIA Director Stansfield Turner testified to the US Congress in confirmation Nicaragua was being subjected to US “state-sponsored terrorism”, during the Iran-Contra hearings. The US then vetoed UN Security Council resolutions calling it to terminate its terrorist war and that all states observe international law.

The United States has been conducting terrorism via proxies for decades, training terrorist groups and setting up client states with brutal dictators who savaged their people while the U.S. happily propped them up with money and arms. America has directly and indirectly killed many more innocents than have the Islamic extremists.

Until Americans can recognize and take responsibility for the death and suffering they've caused in the name of profits and power and ease, they'll neither understand the motives of their enemies nor will they have a common frame of reference necessary for intelligently defusing foreign threats.

All they'll have are the guns and bombs and fear and ignorance that create more enemies.

Posted by: yeah on February 23, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

All they'll have are the guns and bombs and fear and ignorance that create more enemies.

And this is perfectly fine with reactionary nationalists like ex-liberal. They can do the church lady’s superior dance all the way to hell.

Posted by: antiphone on February 23, 2007 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

So al Qaeda hates the US because Americans have too much sex. And that is why we were attacked on 9/11. And they are right to hate America. And he agrees with them in their hatred of America. That is his position.

I remember a time when Bill Maher got booted off the air because he said the hijackers weren't cowards because they were willing to die for their insane beliefs. Compare that to AGREEING with al Qaeda and claiming that they are "right" for hating the US because we live in a free country that isn't run by fundamentalist fanatics. And I'm not saying he agrees with al Qaeda and hates America as some sort of smear -- HE SAYS THIS DIRECTLY HIMSELF.

The religious right should seriously consider a Falwell/Bin Laden ticket in '08.

Posted by: Orson on February 23, 2007 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

>>we live in a free country that isn't run by fundamentalist fanatics

I mispoke. I meant "we used to live in a free country that wasn't run by fundamentalist fanatics."

Posted by: Orson on February 23, 2007 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

Frequent bedwetter: "Whining about insults where none were intended is for children."

Guess it's never too early to pick your own epitaph.

Posted by: Kenji on February 23, 2007 at 4:26 AM | PERMALINK

I'm confused. Do Muslims around the world hate America because Americans feel free to launch pre-emptive wars at will, or because these wars stand a good chance of being immoral?

And, if we agree with people (not just Muslims) who hate America, aren't we giving aid and comfort to America's enemies?

Or are conservatives simply adopting the anti-liberal Talking Point Du Jour to score some cheap points on Fox News?

Talk about knee-jerk conservatism . . .

Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 23, 2007 at 4:39 AM | PERMALINK

If countries were hated for their freedoms then Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Belgium etc., would be the most unpopular on earth. Clearly they're not & equally clearly, the USA which incarcerates a larger percentage of its' population than any other country one earth (including China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Burma etc...) has fairly dubious claims to being realistically considered free. As Iran's president is so fond of pointing out - Americans don't even have the basic freedom of universal healthcare.

No, the reason Islamic extremists hate "America" is remarkably similar to why most European, South American & Asian nationals & most of the planet hates "America".

They hate the hypocrisy of administrations that espouse democracy then reject democratically elected governmemnts (Venezuela, Palestine etc).

They hate governments that demand regime change of certain tyrannies ( Iraq, Iran, N Korea, Cuba etc.) while lucratively befriending others (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Russia, China etc).

They hate the notion & practice of American exceptionalsim whereby America forbids other nations from acquiring nuclear arms when the US has more bombs than anyone & is the only nation on earth to have used them in conflict, TWICE, murdering >100,000 civilians.

They hate the ham-fisted, double-crossing, too-clever-by-half US attempts at Realpolitic, where ill-informed Yanks choose the wrong side, arm them to the teeth & then discover (OOOOPS!) they soooo need to wage war against them. ( eg., Saddam/ Iraq/Mujahadin/Osama/Taliban etc.,)

They hate the high-sounding, well-written speeches in support of international law, international treaties, the UN, UN resolutions etc., & the subsequent haste with which the US completely flouts & ignores those selfsame bodies & laws, the minute they contravene US intentions.

They hate the unqualified, utterly one-sided US support for the Israeli government even when the Israelis have flagrantly, repeatedly violated international resolutions & US sponsored initiatives.

They hate the US claims to champion globalisation & free trade, bullying enforcement of international tarrif elimination while the US government continues to outrageously bolster & subsidize US farmers, US steel manufacturers etc. Ask the Canadians, America's closest & most similar neighbours how they feel about US free trade for a slight insight into why countless other countries "hate" America.

Why the world, despite appalling US administrations, continues to love America & Americans is because of its' fair-minded people, its' beautiful Constitution, its' vibrant culture, (particularly its' sensational music & cinema), its' melting pot multi-culturalism, its' ruthless capacity for self-examination & self-crtiticism, it's beautiful geography, its' general population's endearing naivete alongside a tiny, elite population, present company included, of remarkable sophistication.

Simply put, while much of the world hates what the US government does, it continues to love who Americans are.

Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on February 23, 2007 at 6:51 AM | PERMALINK

Look, if your country was invaded by a self-righteous, constantly aggrieved country that told you you were being invaded for your own good and in the aftermath of the invasion thousands of your countryfolk were killed and wounded, your water stopped running, there was no electricity and the hospitals couldn't cope . . .

Would you hate the invader for its "freedoms" or for what it had done to you?

Posted by: JB on February 23, 2007 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

Along similar lines, how would people react if I said, "Conservatives hate Middle Easterners because of their lack of freedom"? The objections are obvious: Not all conservatives hate all people from the Middle East; those that do are responding to actions rather than thoughts; freedom or lack of it is at best a tiny part of the big picture. The same applies in reverse, then.

Posted by: RSA on February 23, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Grape_Crush
And I am telling you that your 'issue' is a hallucination brought on by too many nights spent listening to people like Glenn Beck feed your paranoia and fill your mind with crap.

I don't know who Glenn Beck is. I assume he's a conservative talk radio guy?

Show me a liberal who's 'rolling over in response to muslim's desire to censor', whatever the hell that means...

tip of the iceberg from Wikiland...

Staff of the New York Press walked out in protest after management disallowed them to reproduce the cartoons as part of their reporting.[160]Two editors of the University of Illinois student paper, the Daily Illini, were suspended (one later fired) after reprinting the cartoons.

The University of Prince Edward Island's student newspaper The Cadre was removed from circulation by university authorities after reprinting some of the cartoons.

Courts in South Africa preemptively forbade any publication of cartoons containing Mohammed.

The Cardiff University student newspaper gair rhydd (which is Welsh for free word) became the first organ in the United Kingdom to publish the images. The day after after publication, the decision was taken to pulp the edition and only approximately 200 copies were actually distributed. The editor along with two journalists were suspended for the decision to publish. Gair Rhydd resumed publication on 13 February 2006, with an apology.[157][158]

Meurig Llwyd Williams, archdeacon of Bangor, included a drawing, reprinted from the French newspaper Le Soir, in the church paper Y Llan. It showed Muhammad sitting on a heavenly cloud with God and Buddha and being told: "Don't complain - we've all been caricatured here." He was forced to resign and the issue of the paper was destroyed.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

"And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions. And that means there's no need for us to change anything we're actually doing in the Middle East." - Kevin

Kevin, this makes no sense. A very pathetic attempt of spinning an observational comment from a conservative talk show host into a Republican GWOT Policy stance.

Just an aside, I would be interested in your comments on how you think Radical Islamists "feel" about our promiscuous society? Do you think it may "offend" them?

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2007 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

DanJoaquinOz: If countries were hated for their freedoms then Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Belgium etc., would be the most unpopular on earth

These countries ARE hated by radical Islam, along with India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Australia, Somalia, etc. Radical Islam hates ALL who do not follow their precise religion and culture.

If the US changed in the ways you American-bashers want, it might be an improvement (or it might not.) But, such changes would not reduce the hatred that the radical Islamic terrorists bear for all who differ from them.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 23, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Glenn Beck: they hate us for our freedoms and so do I.

Posted by: Orson on February 23, 2007 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

RSM has a great point, Kevin. Radical Islamists killed and rioted over a "cartoon" that they felt was offensive to them. So I ask again, how do you think they "feel" about our "open" culture? Just asking, I want to see how you excuse this away.


I assume I will hear something to the effect......"oh, our culture has nothing to do with terrorism".

Which will demonstrate the complete lack of understanding in terms of this threat the liberals are dangerously famous for.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

don't know who Glenn Beck is. I assume he's a conservative talk radio guy?

He's nationwide on talk radio with a 10 ten audience and has a TV show on cable, CNN I think. Glenn is very conservative but not a strict republican. He's very funny and very successful. He's one of the reasons liberals are so intent to regulate talk radio. They cannot compete with him.

Posted by: rdw on February 23, 2007 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Jay: "If only these hairy arm-pitted hippie women would put on their burkas, Osama would leave us alone."

Please move to Afghanistan--your country no longer wants you.

Posted by: ibc on February 23, 2007 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

He's nationwide on talk radio with a 10 ten audience and has a TV show on cable, CNN I think.
Posted by: rdw

Ahh, I think I have seen him on CNN. I don't listen to talk radio, other than Marketplace on NPR, hosted by Kai Ryssdal. I went through Navy flight training with him last century, so its nice to see a friend make good. Nor do I watch talk TV.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

They hate the notion & practice of American exceptionalism

Well you got one thing right.

Jealousy is an awful thing but can you blame them? We are an exceptional nation blessed with liberty, freedom, democracy and capitalism. It is why we are exceptional.

It's got to be a bitter pill to shallow to be French and to know your day has passed with your entire culture is in a sharp decline totally eclipsed by the USA decades ago and more recently experiencing a bizarre, clumsy and botched attempt to lead the EU. At the same time a demographic disaster nears while Asia explodes economically and begins asserting itself.

Old Europe doesn't hate America. They hate what they've become.

BTE: obsessing about what others think of you is childish. Grow a spine.

Posted by: rdw on February 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Jay:

They hate America for our cultural freedoms? The irony is rich.

It was conservatives who got their shorts in a bunch over Serrano's Piss Christ photo in 1989 (FYI, no one ever verified the jar contained urine. Many figured it was just beer).

So, if you hold the position that Piss Christ is sacriligious and immoral, don't begrudge Muslims who get angry over images of Mohammed.

If the freedoms Muslims allegedly hate us for -- like personal privacy, freedom of expression, habeas corpus, timely trials by juries of our peers, etc. -- are really greatly diminished now, then Muslims must hate us for our immoralality, no?

But after our pre-emptive & incompetently managed Iraq war, support of anti-democratic governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.), Abu Ghraib, extraordinary renditions, rapes and massacres of civilians in Iraq, our lack of universal health care at home, etc. etc., does America really have a claim to morality?

So, what's really left about America that causes Muslims (and many others) around the world to say they hate us? Could it be that under President Bush's leadership conservatives have made a succession of very bad foreign policy decisions and managed the consequences of these decisions even worse?

Why is owning up to mistakes the last thing conservatives ever consider doing?

Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 23, 2007 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

pj in jesusland: So, if you hold the position that Piss Christ is sacriligious and immoral, don't begrudge Muslims who get angry over images of Mohammed.

pj, I have no problem with Muslims who get angry over images of Mohammed. My problem is with the Muslims who committed terrorist acts -- rioting, murdering nuns, burning down churches, etc.

Angry conservatives only responded to Piss Christ with words.

See the difference?

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Jay,

Well, then, there's something you share in common with fundamentalist Muslims -- the need to limit freedom of the press for religious purposes.

Try building on this and see what your neighbors say.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 23, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK
However, there's another reason that this argument has generated a certain amount of conservative appeal lately: it perpetuates the trope that "they hate us for our freedoms."

Huh? While liberals are likely to draw a connection between "they hate us for or immorality" as being closely tied to "they hate us for our freedom", in that liberals are likely to say that many of the things that both "Islamofascists" and "Christofascists" point to as "immorality" are simply "freedom", I don't think that connection appeals to conservatives at all, since connecting those two ideas implies that much of the American Right, just like the terrorists, also hates us for our freedom. While, of course, many liberals (myself included) see that as true, its not an exactly appealing idea to conservatives.

Conservatives tend to either embrace the "they hate us, and rightly so, for the immorality that comes from the ideas promoted by the left, but their actions in response to that legitimate anger are improper and misdirected" explanation, or the "there is little point in examining their motives because their actions are so repugnant" approach; the "they hate us for our freedom" fuzziness goes along more with the latter view than the former, accompanied by the unspoken implication that the "freedom" involved is simply an intrinsic unalterable trait of America, and that therefore "they hate us for our freedom" isn't so much an explanation of something about what we do that bothers them, but simply an explanation of an implacable, unexaminable, irrational identity-based hatred.

And if they hate us for our freedoms, guess what? It means they don't hate us for our actions. And that means there's no need for us to change anything we're actually doing in the Middle East.

This is certainly part of the appeal of "they hate us for our freedoms", but I can't see how you can connect that, as you do, to the "they hate us for our moral degeneracy" explanation that Beck offers; really, it doesn't show the connection but instead the divergence between the two different conservative viewpoints. Beck's explanation clearly is about actions, just not policy actions. While it, too, diverts attention away from US policy, it doesn't do so by suggesting the hatred has nothing to do with what "we" do, instead its does so by focussing it on what "we" do as individuals, not what "we" do as a government.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

More and more Muslims now hate us all across the world, and it really has not a lot to do with anything other than our morals.

The things that they were saying about us were true.

Sounds to me like Glenn is siding with the terrorists...

Posted by: e. nonee moose on February 23, 2007 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and all the rest of these right-wing yahoos just spew what they want to believe is true and it's clear that none of them have spent any time at all interacting with Arabs or Muslims, nor have they taken any time at all to study Middle Eastern culture.

Having spent more than 15 years living and studying in the Middle East (namely Egypt) and having interacted extensively with Arabs and Muslims on all levels of the socioeconomic ladder and representing all political and religious viewpoints, I can say categorically that while most Arabs and Muslims are more socially conservative than many Americans and Europeans, that has nothing to do with their antagonism towards us. That can be attributed to 3 or 4 basic points:

1. Our unconditional support of Israel and our complete disregard for the disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people. It is difficult for those who have not been lived or traveled extensively in the Middle East to understood how deeply this issue resonates with Arabs and Muslims (and even Arab Christians) at all levels of society.

2. Our support and propping up of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East from the Saudi monarchy and the governments of Sadat and Mubarak, to Saddam Hussein himself throughout the 1980s.

3. The West's long history of imperialism and economic exploitation of the Islamic and Arab heartlands.

4. While there are few Arab Muslims who might admit it, there is a strong sense of resentment, envy and jealousy at the West's political, economic and military dominance in recent centuries.

Hop in a cab or sit down in a cafe in Cairo or any other Arab capital and chances are the proverbial "man on the street" will tell you that they'd do anything to get a visa and come to the West to work and they want the same economic opportunities and political freedoms that we enjoy. A great many will also tell you that they do in fact also want to enjoy the same cultural freedoms that we have here. Trust me, these guys aren't flying into buildings or burning American flags because we drink beer or have sex before marriage.

Posted by: John Bentley on February 23, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Having spent more than 15 years living and studying in the Middle East (namely Egypt) and having interacted extensively with Arabs and Muslims on all levels of the socioeconomic ladder and representing all political and religious viewpoints, I can say categorically that while most Arabs and Muslims are more socially conservative than many Americans and Europeans, that has nothing to do with their antagonism towards us.

Yeah, yeah. So you have extensive experience in and knowledge of the region, culture and people. Like that's convincing. You can use facts to prove anything that's true.....

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

John Bentley, pleased to meet you. When I selectedt he screen name "Global Citizen" a decade ago it wasn't necessarily just a hat-tip to Hume. I am a Jew with relatives in Israel (about as far from me as they can get if you look at a globe, and I like that aspect of it, even if I disagree with their politics). I have lived in the middle east three times in my life, thanks to military orders. On Saturdays my mom kicked us out of the house with our allowance with the admonishment "you are in these people's country. Go eat some food and interact and learn something. And don't forget your ID, I'm not picking you up at the gate again, god-damnit. Now get out of my house." Best life lesson I ever had, but it didn't make me real popular with most of the anthro and soc professors I came across when I went to college in the states.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Hello Stefan. Did you get an email from me and an invitation?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

It's interesting how conservative Christians and Muslims around the world share many of the same tendencies:

1) They support authoritarian regimes;
2) They seek strict controls on social behavior;
3) They seek restrictions on political & cultural freedoms;
4) They evangelize;
5) They universalize -- "If God is right for us it must be right for everyone or else he isn't the one true God."
6) They cover their women (hajibs for Muslims, hats, gloves & long skirts for traditional Christians);
7) They form separate indoctrination schools for their children
8) They often have odd ideas about science and its role in our daily lives.

America's history is replete with religious intolerance, starting with the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony who hung Quaker heretics on Boston Common & burned witches in Salem.

It's no wonder the Becks and Hannitys of the world find common cause with fundamentalists in the Middle East. When it comes to authority, they think alike.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Was it sent to my (real) Hotmail account? When was it sent?

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

I sent it the same place I sent your Christmas greeting, perhaps when you were traveling?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Angry conservatives only responded to Piss Christ with words.

I seem to recall that liberal radio host Alan Berg was murdered by angry conservatives.

And let's not forget angry conservative Eric Rudolph and his string of terrorist bombings, or angry conservative Tim McVeigh, author of what was at the time the worst terrorist atrocity on American soil.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Shoot me one to this email, and I'll resend. :)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

It's angry Christian Conservatives that murder physicians for providing a medical procedure. Bernard Slapian was killed by a sniper as he drank juice in his kitchen after returning from Temple with his wife and children.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

We will always have wackos and fundies such as Jim Jones, McVeigh, etc. We will always have Lyndie Englands. They will never, ever go away. Every society will have them. The question is how society responds to their appearance when they pop up. The examples you listed all were punished in some way (I assume) while riots against the Mohammed cartoons were in some cases state sanctioned. Big diff.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

The question is how society responds to their appearance when they pop up.

Well, in this society people who advocate murder, torture, terrorism and the repression of free speech are celebrated and get their own talk shows, book deals and TV and radio appearances as a reward -- at least, that is, if they're right-wing. Just ask Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Reynolds etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: "If the US changed in the ways you American-bashers want, it might be an improvement (or it might not.)"

There are so many things wrong with this statement... well, don't you feel kind of silly saying things like that?

Posted by: Kenji on February 23, 2007 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike says:

..Ultimately, respect for our freedoms won out over their anger. But the response to attacks on Mohammed are a big deal. Fatwa to kill the author of Satanic Verses. Riots about some cartoons. Murdering Theo Van Gogh. Those are all things condoned in the large by muslims, and incompatible with western society

Newspapers can choose what they want to print. If they choose to not print a cartoon depicting a black man getting lynched, that's their choice. But there is no law prohibiting it. Also, are the fundamentalist who kill doctors who legally perform abortion compatible with Western society? Do those actions suggest Christian fundamentalists are incompatible with Western freedoms? Or were protesting Muslims exercising their freedom of speech? Last I checked, they should have the same rights as Christian citizens. And isn't murder of Van Gogh a single act of one deranged Muslim?

Posted by: Andy on February 23, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

The question is how society responds to their appearance when they pop up. The examples you listed all were punished in some way (I assume) while riots against the Mohammed cartoons were in some cases state sanctioned. Big diff.
Posted by: Red State Mike

rush gets invited to the white house. glenn beck, genocidal nazi that he is, gets to malign an elected congressman without consequence.

the response of certain segments of this society are inflammation of their inherant racist tendancies. you would be an example.

Incidentally, I've already provided a link upthread why the violence was already condemned by one of the few international Islamic bodies. being a racist, you probably glossed over that.

Posted by: Nads on February 23, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

don't you feel kind of silly saying things like that?

No. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. There is no dichotomy at all for the True Believers.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

As long as we as a species insist on falling on our knees in worship of a myth, atrocity will prevail in the name of whatever god the believers decide to slaughter their neighbors in. Islam per se is not my enemy. Religion in general is my enemy.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, anyone who wants Pat Roberts to explain himself should email their questions to:

uptodate@kcur.org

He is being interviewed live by Steve Kraske right this minute, and beating the war drum mightily.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

We will always have wackos and fundies such as Jim Jones, McVeigh, etc

And there are 140,000 of them just waiting to come home so they can act out the aggression and hostility they are learning in Iraq.

Posted by: Brojo on February 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

If the US changed in the ways you American-bashers want, it might be an improvement (or it might not.) But, such changes would not reduce the hatred that the radical Islamic terrorists bear for all who differ from them.

Actually it might change the hatred of some radical extremists, because one of the drivers of their actions is the American and western colonialism that's been taking place in the Middle East for the past eighty years or so, both real and perceived.

It's quaint if not entirely inconsistent that you're unwilling to acknowledge American misdeeds and atrocities in that region and others, but what gives rise to nationalism and neoconservatism but a total moral blindness when it comes to the policies of one's own country?

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

The US props up the authoritarian regime in Egypt in order to prevent the self-determination of its people. Those people may impose religious restrictions on their society that Americans disagree with. America's economic and military aid to Mubarak's tyranny allows for their oppression.

Many have seen the video of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri in an Egyptian jail cell railing against the torture and political repression he and his comrades received for their attempts to become political actors in their country. This repression is subsidized by American taxpayers. Many Americans applaud this type of repression and cannot understand why their support is deemed worthy of retaliation.

Posted by: Brojo on February 23, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS,

Are you proposing secular humanism as a philosophical and social framework for tempering religiously motivated violence around the world? As something different cultures can share in common even if they have different religious traditions?

I was under the distinct impression from conservatives that secular humanism underpinned moral relativism and was the leading source of America's growing immorality and amorality.

Shocked, I tell you. I'm shocked!

Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Also, are the fundamentalist who kill doctors who legally perform abortion compatible with Western society?

No they are not, and they get caught and imprisoned.

Do those actions suggest Christian fundamentalists are incompatible with Western freedoms? Or were protesting Muslims exercising their freedom of speech?

The point I'm making is, it seems you are more than willing to push back against christian fundamentalists that attempt to take away your freedoms, but are unwilling to do the same with muslims. I would have expected the cartoon issue to be a cause celebre among liberals, frankly. What better opportunity to make a statement for free speech.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yo, Red Mike,

Since when is it the just the responsibility of liberals to protect freedom of speech in America? Don't you live in the same country? Then why isn't this a cause celebre for conservatives, too?

Or is it that you want liberals to do all your political heavy lifting while you sit in your recliner shooting spitballs at us?

Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

No they are not, and they get caught and imprisoned.

What??? Some do, some don't. Some people who blow up mosques get caught and imprisoned, some are never caught.

Your argument is that people who blow up mosques don't get caught because theocratic Muslim countries somehow override local and internaqtional police?

In the past five years suspects have been caught and held on terrorism charges in France, Germany, Canada, the US, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Britain, and just about anywhere else you can think of.

Face it, you lost this argument the moment you started it.

Posted by: yeah on February 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

The point I'm making is, it seems you are more than willing to push back against christian fundamentalists that attempt to take away your freedoms, but are unwilling to do the same with muslims.

The point you seem to miss is that Christian fundamentalists are a large and influential force in our own society and therefore have some chance of taking away or at least circumscribing our freedoms. They get invited to the White House, they have tens of millions of followers, and they have a lockhold on the GOP presidential candidates.

Muslim fundmentalists in America, on the other hand, are a tiny and reviled minority -- however, if they ever do get to a point where they have the money, power and political influence to attempt to assert their way of life then liberals will push back against them as well.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

In the past five years suspects have been caught and held on terrorism charges in France, Germany, Canada, the US, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Britain, and just about anywhere else you can think of.

Here's the timeline on the cartoons. Please find a comparable response for exercising freedom of speech from fundamentalist christians.

Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in January 2006, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In Damascus, Syria, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean embassies were stormed and set on fire by protesters. In Beirut, thousands of people protested on the streets, and the Danish General Consulate was stormed and set on fire. As of March 2, 2006, at least 139 people have died primarily during riots stemming from protests.

Face it, you lost this argument the moment you started it.
Posted by: yeah

Nice try, but saying it doesn't make it so. All that fussing by muslims against free speech, so much easier to just be cowed and do their bidding. Easier to attack fundamentalist christians, they don't really fight back with violence, mostly just yelling. I don't understand why you choose to be a muslim apologist.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Muslim fundmentalists in America, on the other hand, are a tiny and reviled minority -- however, if they ever do get to a point where they have the money, power and political influence to attempt to assert their way of life then liberals will push back against them as well.
Posted by: Stefan

You're right, I'm thinking beyond our borders.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

The U.S. certainly deserves its fair share of blame for subsidizing, arming and apologizing for dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, while pretending to be on the side of democracy, free markets etc. However, an equal, if not greater, share of the blame should be assigned to these societies themselves.

Obviously the regimes themselves, which are incredibly corrupt and oppressive, and which stifle any hint of cultural or economic innovation or growth, deserve the most blame, but I believe the economic elites, academics, and the upper and middle classes in particular have failed themselves and their countrymen, by letting themselves be co-opted by the regimes. A large problem is that most in these societies are unwilling to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what can and should be done to improve their own society. And, of course, any question challenge of Islam, its interpretation and its roles in society, is off limits. So instead, the regime and its minions in the press, and often in the universities, encourage each other and their societies at large to blame others for their promlems, and invariably that means the U.S. and Israel. This, obviously, is a primary reason for the love affair that Arab newspapers have for elaborate conspiracy theories.

Posted by: John Bentley on February 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, I'm thinking beyond our borders.

But that's not the point you claimed you were trying to make. You talked about Muslim fundamentalists "that attempt to take away your freedoms" but of course Muslim fundamentalists beyond our borders have even less ability to "take away your freedoms" than the ones here do. How on earth would they accomplish this magical feat?

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

All that fussing by muslims against free speech, so much easier to just be cowed and do their bidding. Easier to attack fundamentalist christians, they don't really fight back with violence, mostly just yelling. I don't understand why you choose to be a muslim apologist.
Posted by: Red State Mike

there's the RSM we all know and love. careful ... you don't want your hood to completely slip off.

you whined earlier that the posters here were prejudiced against you because of the "red state" in your name. your repeatedly racist anti-muslim rhetoric makes your position abhorrent, and your postings suspect.

Posted by: Nads on February 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in January 2006, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In Damascus, Syria, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean embassies were stormed and set on fire by protesters. In Beirut, thousands of people protested on the streets, and the Danish General Consulate was stormed and set on fire. As of March 2, 2006, at least 139 people have died primarily during riots stemming from protests.
As of March 2, 2006, at least 139 people have died primarily during riots stemming from protests.

Presumably, most of those who died would have been the protestors killed by goverment anti-riot squads (particularly in countries such as Pakistan and Egypt, wehre the authorities are not known for their light hand in dealing with dissent). That somewhat undercuts the claim that these protests were tolerated....

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

But that's not the point you claimed you were trying to make. You talked about Muslim fundamentalists "that attempt to take away your freedoms" but of course Muslim fundamentalists beyond our borders have even less ability to "take away your freedoms" than the ones here do. How on earth would they accomplish this magical feat?
Posted by: Stefan

They can't. The freedoms will have to be given away. One piece at a time.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

The freedoms will have to be given away. One piece at a time.
Posted by: Red State Mike

... by denying habeus corpus? by indefinite detention? by rendering them to torturing countries? to torturing them ourselves in black op sites?

how many freedoms have you already given away in the name of security? I don't understand why you're an apologist for fascism.

Posted by: Nads on February 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Easier to attack fundamentalist christians, they don't really fight back with violence, mostly just yelling.

Yeah, that's what the KKK is known for, not fighting back with violence....

Frankly, the main reason Christofascists in America don't use violence is that (i) we have a relatively stable society with a strong law-enforcement presence that would quickly clamp down on such tactics and (ii) they exercise enough power through money and the political process that they don't have to use violence. If America were more similar to a relatively corrupt and chaotic society such as, say, Pakistan, then the Chrisian fundamentalists would be rioting, shooting and blowing things up to their heart's content.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK


rsm: We will always have wackos and fundies such as Jim Jones, McVeigh


#1 killer of americans by terror from 1993 - 9-11: timothy mcveigh

mcveigh is dead..

osama?

not so much...

Posted by: mr. irony on February 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

The freedoms will have to be given away. One piece at a time.

I'd offer to give them habeus corpus, the prohibition against torture, or the right not to have my phones and letters tapped by the government, but I'm afraid Bush already beat me to it....

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Please find a comparable response for exercising freedom of speech from fundamentalist christians.

That was easy:

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of eastern Indonesia after three Christian militants were executed in religiously divided Sulawesi.

Protesters torched cars, looted shops and set prisoners free from a jail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5368922.stm

You really outta google other stories on this one. Christians took to the streets with machetes and burned cars and buildings.

I don't understand why you choose to be a muslim apologist

First of all, are you saying there is something inherently defective in the religion of Islam in particular that precludes it from defended as opposed to Christianity or Judaism?

Just wanna get that straight.

Secondly, I'm not a "muslim apologist." I'm showing that extremism is present in actuality and in potential in all religions and philosophies, and that to assert that Muslim extremism is "worse" or more prevalent based on the murder of one man, or riots over perceived blasphemy, is false. Christians tend to wreak their oppression through the power of the state and armies because in the West because they can. Not being minorities they don't have as much need to resort to terrorist acts -- although as has been amply demonstated on this thread, some still do. So do Buddhists and Hindus and Marxists and Maoists.

Singling out Muslims for their violent acts is nothing more than creating a bogeyman. The truth is that billions of Muslims aren't extremists or terrorists.

Posted by: yeah on February 23, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

how many freedoms have you already given away in the name of security? I don't understand why you're an apologist for fascism.
Posted by: Nads
I'm not, retard. I'm against all the things you just listed.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not, retard. I'm against all the things you just listed.
Posted by: Red State Mike

that's to your credit ... try to vote accordingly in the future instead of justifying the dissolution of these natural rights in the name of either "national security" or, in your case, underlying racism.

Posted by: Nads on February 23, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Another example of rioting Christians:

Christians Riot In Indonesia Over Muslim Blasphemy Against Christ

Mar. 20, 1997

JAKARTA, Indonesia (CWN) - Hundreds of Christians rioted in a rural Indonesian town on Monday following a rumored insult of a picture of Jesus Christ, according to police reports on Wednesday.

A police spokesman said the riots began after a Muslim living in a rented house said he didn't like a picture of Jesus Christ hanging there. When the report of the insult spread, hundreds of Christians began attacking Muslims with stones and knives.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=4556

Posted by: yeah on February 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

A police spokesman said the riots began after a Muslim living in a rented house said he didn't like a picture of Jesus Christ hanging there. When the report of the insult spread, hundreds of Christians began attacking Muslims with stones and knives.

The point I'm making is, it seems you are more than willing to push back against Muslim fundamentalists that attempt to take away your freedoms, but are unwilling to do the same with Christians. I would have expected the Jesus picture issue to be a cause celebre among conservatives, frankly. What better opportunity to make a statement for free speech.....

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

The point I'm making is, it seems you are more than willing to push back against Muslim fundamentalists that attempt to take away your freedoms, but are unwilling to do the same with Christians. I would have expected the Jesus picture issue to be a cause celebre among conservatives, frankly. What better opportunity to make a statement for free speech.....
Posted by: Stefan

It sounds like you've found your common ground with christian fundies, an unwillingness to defend free speech.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK
The point I'm making is, it seems you are more than willing to push back against christian fundamentalists that attempt to take away your freedoms, but are unwilling to do the same with muslims.

There are a lot more Christian fundamentalists trying to take away my freedom in America, and they are a lot better positioned (through their alliance with one of the nation's two major political parties, the one that currently controls the executive branch that fails to observe the Constitutional limits of its power) to actually succeed in taking away my rights.

So, yeah, I am more concerned by the real threat to my freedom than the bloody shirt the very people making up that real threat wave around as an excuse for actually taking away my freedoms.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

It sounds like you've found your common ground with christian fundies, an unwillingness to defend free speech.

Well, that's what I'm known for around here, my rousing denunciations of free speech....

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that's what I'm known for around here, my rousing denunciations of free speech....

Huzza!

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah. That Stefan. He's such a monolithic authoritarian.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 23, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

Beck's lies mask the reality that al-qeada attacks us because of specific foreign policies, mainly support of Israel. see "Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us.""

I have never seen anyone on mainstream TV point out that Bush and others are lying about why we were attacked.

Posted by: Tom Murphy on February 24, 2007 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

So instead, the regime and its minions in the press, and often in the universities, encourage each other and their societies at large to blame others for their problems, and invariably that means the U.S. and Israel.

Well said and quite true. The more interesting aspect of all this which is rarely mentioned but at the core of liberal fury against conservatives and Islamic fury against Christians and conservatives. Conservatives really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. It's about American exceptionalism. It's not about European exceptionalism and certainly not Islamic exceptionalism. Neither exists.

We are the dominant nation for several reasons. We can debate and disagree on the reasons but the dominance is obvious and undeniable. If liberals think our support for Israel is wrong there's a long established political process they've been in control for most of the last 50 years. Quite obviously the Democratic leadership has been quite supportive of Israel and it's only the fringe in the USA agreeing with the fools in Old Europe. It's just as obvious the fools had been totally duped by Arafat and remain on the wrong side of History.

John B is quite right in pointing out Israel is a deep humiliation for the Islamic world. It will remain so for quite some time because Israel will not surrender and cannot be defeated. Islam will continue to use terrorism and liberals in the west will continue to support them. The USA will continue to support Israel. Israel will continue to substantially outgrow their Arab neighbors and become even more technologoly and militarily powerful as their neighbors become weaker. The fence will prove to be the most decisive change in the Middle East in 25 years. Good fences make good neighbors. Israel can continue to focus on economic growth and technological advancement while the Palestinains can continue their civil war.

One day they'll realize John B was correct. Islam has met the enemy and it's not Israel but themselves. They will remain humiliated and backwards until that day and there isn't a thing western liberals can do about it.

Posted by: rdw on February 24, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Conservatives really don't care what the rest of the world thinks.


how is that working for them these days?

...conservatives lack the ability to appreciate irony...

its their downfall really...

Posted by: mr. irony on February 24, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm glad somebody is on to this blow-hard, Glen Beck. What a disgrace he is to CNN and to media in general. I sent a complaint email to him and CNN identifying his continuing diatribe as "yellow journalism" and "the new jingoism" and the next day he started his "program" with "I'm not a journalist and I don't pretend to be one." I am sure that in Hitler's day they had a guy like Glen Beck on the radio waves of Germany stirring things up and preparing the people for war and extermination of minorities.

Posted by: gt on February 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

how is that working for them these days?

It's working very, very well. We've had great tax cuts and the economy has been terrific ever since. Check out that fence in Israel. It's the last thing liberals wanted. We've got a booming and safe Israeli economy more secure from Palestinian terrorism than at any time in the last 30 years. The Palestinian economy has collapsed while they fight a civil war. Palestinians in Israel have vastly more freedoms, liberty and prosperity than their cousins outside Israel and will now grow as a separate society uniquely well representative of the value of conservative support for Israel versus liberal liberal support for Palestine and the rest of the Arab world.

It's quite comical to see libs comment so positively on turds like Arafat, Castro and now Chavez. Hugo is looting and destroying Venezuela in another example of the tradegy of lefty ideologies. Your old world is passing you by my friend. You want to be France and France rots from within. GWB has remade US foreign policy to leave Old Europe behind and embrace close allies such as Israel, Australia, Japan and now India. We are spending 85% of the worlds Military R&D and sharing it with these new friends good friends. THe US and it's allies will remain the pre-eminent military powers. They'll just be different friends.

Posted by: rdw on February 24, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I'm glad somebody is on to this blow-hard, Glen Beck

Apparently a lot of people are on to Beck. He's got the 3rd largest talk radio audience which has made him a very, very wealthy man. He has his TV show which apparently is doing well since it's on several times a day and he does regular 'concert' tours which sell out.

I love listening to liberals bitch about conservatives speaking loudly. The audacity of anyone disagreeing with liberals on public airwaves. There outta be a law!!! To bad you can't reinstitute the 'fairness doctrine' for radio. Al Franken might finally get an audience.

The irony for Glenn Beck of course is that he's conservative and not on Fox. Also there's the fact he doesn't hide his contempt for liberals and is quite funny. Liberals will of course try to shut him down which will only increase his audience. There's irony all around us isn't there?

Posted by: rdw on February 24, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

RDW,
You are, as ever, full of it. No one is complaining that Beck is given a radio show, we're complaining that he, like almost all the other wingnut talk show hosts, are making things up and accusing people of things that seem to contradict their earlier statements. Honestly, with this, Beck becomes exactly the kind of America hater you people claim to dislike, and the fact that you still back him makes it clear that you're all nothing but liars and hypocrites.

Posted by: Mike B. on February 24, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, with this, Beck becomes exactly the kind of America hater you people claim to dislike, and the fact that you still back him makes it clear that you're all nothing but liars and hypocrites.

Beck isn't close to being an American hater. Mocking liberals for a living doesn't make one an America hater. Pulling two sentences out of comments made by someone making their living talking 3 hours a day on the radio and another hour on TV, and assigning special importance to it, is beyond stupid.

You do this to Rush all the time. It drives his ratings. It's why his last contract was for $250M.

I don't dislike America haters. I don't know any well enough to dislike them. They're merely airheads. Charles Krauthammer said it well. "Liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think liberals are stupid." Generally speaking I rather enjoy meeting liberals and I thoroughly enjoy my in-laws. They're classic libs. All are certain global warming has been proven. Not a one has seen a smidgen of evidence. Classic! They get annoyed when I call them the new scientologists and even more annoyed when I point out that's not really fair to scientologists.

Posted by: rdw on February 24, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

RDW,
This is as sad an example of wingnut looniness as there ever needs to be. No matter how you spin this, Beck said America WAS at fault for Muslim hate of us, and that is the issue. That is as clear a case of "hating America" as any you could find.
No one believes your spin anymore, conservatives have had the floor long enough that we KNOW how nuts they are.
About Global warming: I HAVE seen the Evidence (Start with the IPCC website, http://www.ipcc.ch, you'll find lots there) Your In-laws are right.

Posted by: Mike B. on February 25, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly