Why can’t we come to terms with terrorism? “Terrorism” is like “pornography”—we think we “know it when we see it,” still, the word evades useful definition because it covers aspects of human existence we’d rather ignore than understand. Indeed, the shock of 9/11 was not entirely unlike discovering the parish priest with triple-X videos of local altar boys—we were suddenly… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (8)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe weakness of the liberal mindset is the inability to distinguish good from bad. Targeting and killing civilians - as the terrorists do - is bad. Always.
But all wars kill innocents. This does not make all wars terrorist activities. Removing a madman from power and, in the process, possibly inciting a civil war may be a good thing. In a decade we will know whether it was in Iraq or whether it was just a failed attempt. The best analogy is that of a hostage rescue. . .
Posted by howCrazy on Jun 29, 2005 at 2:23 PM The weakness in the conservative mindset is that conservatives are two lazy and/or stupid to engage in any meaningful analysis. It’s so much easier to simply fall back on their primative, survival instinct for tribalism and label everything either black or white, good or bad, us or them, and be done with it. (Grey areas are to complicated and intimidating for conservatives). That’s why conservatives are so hateful and fearful of anyone different from themselves - the tribalistic “enemy camp” mentality.
You comments about innocents dying in war is a diversionary tactic. The issue, as to Bush’s war in Iraq, is that he has committed the greatest breach of public trust in U.S. history by lying about the need for war, covering up the true intelligence, all so that he and his family could make money war profiteering. That and trading with the enemy has been the Bush family business for the past 80 years.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 30, 2005 at 2:24 PM “The weakness in the conservative mindset is that conservatives are two lazy and/or stupid to engage in any meaningful analysis.”
When calling someone lazy and/or stupid you might, at least, get the grammar of your insult right, as it only makes you look lazy and stupid.“(Grey areas are to complicated and intimidating for conservatives).” So is the correct us of to, too and two for Lefty.
Posted by E.B. White on Jun 30, 2005 at 3:14 PM E.B.,
Thank you for pointing out my gramatical shortcommings. By the way, when you wrote: “So is the correct us [sic] of to, too and two for Lefty,” I presume you meant “use.” Right? LOL.
You and I must have attended the same grade school. LMAO.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 7:27 AM Lefty - are you aware of how Roosevelt “lied” to get us involved in WWII? Was it immoral or ok?
Americans are inclined to be both insolations and antiwar. This is a good thing, but has its limitations. (Note that Bush began his first term as an isolationist, but 9/11 drastically altered his - and much of the worlds - perceptions.)
Posted by howCrazy on Jul 1, 2005 at 7:59 AM HC,
No, I’m not. And I have no doubt that if such an allegation comes from the pen of a conservative, that it is a lie. What I do know is that a significant part of the U.S. Navy’s fleet was destroyed at Pearl Harbor after Japan declared war on us. Are you saying that FDR lied about that?
As for Bush being an isolationist, being the biggest liar in the history of the U.S. Presidency, I have no interest, trust or respect in anything Bush says, including the policies and positions he claims to be his. Bush lied in order to go to war for the purpose of making money for himself and his family - war profiteering - that and trading with the enemy - the Bush family business for over 80 years.
Bush’s war in Iraq is the greatest breach of public trust in U.S. history and he should be impeached, removed from office and criminally punished along with every one of his cabinet and advisors who conspired with him and every one of his family members who have profited from this disgraceful war. JMHO.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 9:35 AM Hi Lefty - you might read some of the history of WWII - it is fascinating (and disturbing in a variety of ways as well). The nice thing about history (as opposed to current news) is that we can look back on it with a modicum of objectivity. I realize there is nothing i can say that will change anything you think - but i do believe if you study more history you will get a somewhat different perspective than you have now. (My belief being based on your very strong emotional assertions, which you claim to hold without any reservations and which are “gospel” to your worldview.)
Anyway, i do appreicate the diversity of opinions that are found here from time to time. It certainly makes me think, and even occasionally see things in a new light. (I suppose i really should not post here - it probably makes me an unintentional “troll”. But i love to see how people defend their beliefs, especially when they differ from mine.)
Posted by howCrazy on Jul 1, 2005 at 9:57 AM HC Said:
“. . . I realize there is nothing i can say that will change anything you think - but i do believe if you study more history you will get a somewhat different perspective than you have now. . . .”
I change my mind occasionally. I don’t like to admit that I’ve been wrong, but I do it. Having said that, I have studied history, over 800 years of it. And I doubt that there is any more I could learn that would change my perspective about the Bush crime family. They’re just bad people, crooks, and they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Are you aware of the crimes of Jeb Bush?
In any event, whatever crimes historical figures may have committed, learning of those that I don’t already know about cannot undue the crimes of the Bush family, or change my mind about them. To put it into perspective, to me, Ronald Reagan was just an extreme right-wing, ultra-conservative anachronism. But, at least he was an honest, genuine anachronism. The Bush’s are much worse than that. From what I understand, they are personally responsible for most of the hatred for America in the world.
As for you being a troll, only you know what your intentions are. I’m fairly new to this board. At first I thought it was loaded with conservative trolls. After a few weeks I recognized that there is one troll, Michael Hardesty, who pretends to be at least 8 or 9 different trolls and who has conversations with himself under different names, (as well as using the names of others who regularly post here and can’t stand him), whose sole purpose it seems is to disrupt the discourse. I genuinely think that he is paid by the GOP to spend his time doing this. (Hey, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after me). LOL. At first I engaged him and got off track. Since then, I think I’ve discovered a more effective way to deal with him.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 1, 2005 at 8:23 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Phyllis Eckhaus
- A Wingnut in Sheeps Clothing
- The Northern Slave Trade
The hidden history of slavery in New York calls myths of American morality into question - Empire Made Easy
- Hiroshima: The Falsehood Fallout
As the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima arrives, two recent books examine the history of atomic weapons - Terrornomics
- The Uses and Abuses of Race
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
