Did the GOP write OBL's Talking Points?
Ted at CT reminds us of this 2002 letter from OBL. He sounds one helluva lot more like Rick Santorum than he does like Michael Moore. My favorite part is that in which he admonishes us for not punishing Clinton for his fornication.
I can't believe I don't remember having seen this letter before. After 9/11 I got in many arguments with people both to the left and right of me about OBL's motives. My line was that he seemed to be motivated in part by hatred of our policies and in part by hatred of liberalism and modernism. I had friends on the right who seemed to think that any admission that our policies were motivating him was tantamount to treason--and friends on the left who steadfastly refused to admit that he was motivated by an opposition to liberalism or modernity. But it does seem like it's both.
Ted at CT reminds us of this 2002 letter from OBL. He sounds one helluva lot more like Rick Santorum than he does like Michael Moore. My favorite part is that in which he admonishes us for not punishing Clinton for his fornication.
I can't believe I don't remember having seen this letter before. After 9/11 I got in many arguments with people both to the left and right of me about OBL's motives. My line was that he seemed to be motivated in part by hatred of our policies and in part by hatred of liberalism and modernism. I had friends on the right who seemed to think that any admission that our policies were motivating him was tantamount to treason--and friends on the left who steadfastly refused to admit that he was motivated by an opposition to liberalism or modernity. But it does seem like it's both.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:56 PM
6 Comments:
Entirely correct IMO, WS. Islam's philosophical enemy isn't Calvary Baptist Church, but the brothels of Amsterdam. The Qur'an has a soft spot for "People of The Book," (i.e., the Bible) but the modernist, secular West is infidel, and the absolute enemy.
Which is why Hitchens, if I may use a dirty word, argues that it is secularists who should be most attuned to the Islamist threat, because the bell tolls for thee. Remember that many of the 9-11ers were educated in the West, and saw [what they viewed as] its depravity first-hand. They became convinced that such an empty society a) lacked the will to defend itself and b) deserves to fall.
(I do hope Mr. Tony D is not equating the peaceful exhortations of a James Dobson with societies that stone gays, adulteresses and rape victims. A defect in depth perception may see them as the same in essence and therefore identical, but surely we can draw some sort of line at life and death.)
TVD:
How do you view the decidely unpeacful exhortations of Falwell and Robertson in the respective cases of remarks on Chavez and Sharon?
I made it a point to mock Robertson (somewhat amusingly, I hope) over the Chavez thing at the groupblog I contribute to. My fellow righties there were unaninimous in their derision, too.
I'm not as up on Falwell, but those dudes are so last century.
(New NYT poll on eavesdropping. Looks 50-50 to me, depending on how the question is phrased. Put me down too as against "new anti-terrorism laws which will excessively restrict the average person's civil liberties." These guys are shameless. That's a push-poll. No such laws are even being contemplated.)
Imagine the outrage if, instead of spying on us, the NSA decided to jam cable tv signals.
There'd have been a revolution by now.
I would be in favor of jamming The 700 Club.
Are you kidding? Get high and watch that sometime. It's AWESOME.
Until it sinks in that they're serious...then it gets scary.
But some fine entertainment, IMHO.
Tho they ain't doing anything to improve the reputation/character of christianity, that's for sure.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home