Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (9358)	10/31/2001 2:21:22 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 27666

It is, on the contrary, a depressingly clear-eyed survey... Mr. Ajami called the terrorists "activists." He refers to their "resourcefulness and audacity," their "frustration." These are statements that seek to justify and explain away the savage murderers he is discussing. I could care less what the explanation is, after the Arab world, directly responsible for creating these evil killers, has not so much as offered the United States ONE SINGLE APOLOGY. No, quite completely to the contrary, they have lectured those who have been murdered, have actually dared argue we deserved this. This after we saved millions of Arabs from sure mass murder in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bosnia. Next time you better believe America will not lift a finger to save the Arabs. These were ARABS who killed Americans. Whatever Mr. Ajami spouts, there is no arguing that fact. If America did unleash a Crusade against foreign Islam, I think that right now it would be perfectly justified. That would simply be taking up the offer Islam has given the West. War has already been declared on the U.S. Perhaps we should accept. I am slowly coming to this conclusion. Not yet, but I'm getting there. Mr. Ajami offers no condolences for the murdered. He shines the spotlight on those who are guilty of murder, raises them up and explains their dilemma. Not once does he call bin Laden or any other terrorist evil or inhuman. No, he constantly seeks to display their humanity, seeking understanding under cover of an intellectual argument. Why is that? Now that is very interesting, indeed! You know, maybe Harvard, Yale and Berkley will buy this garbage, but the American public certainly will not. From his own words, it is clear that Mr. Ajami, deep down, feels self-important, feels that now the Arab world is taking on its rightful place in the world as a power - terrorist or not it does not matter. The message is that the United States and its current President are powerless to change the Middle East alone. There he is gravely mistaken, twice. First, we are not alone - NATO and Russia stand beside us. Unlike the "friendships" that are the norm between states in the Gulf, America's friends will fight these murderous twits right beside us, whatever the cost. Just wait and see. (You should see the letters I have been receiving from friends all over Europe. They are in a fury that matches what you are seeing here.) Second, the United States is not powerless. The Arab-Islamic world should recall very clearly one fact: the United States is the only country to ever raze two enemy cities with nuclear weapons. It would be a major miscalculation to think that we won't do it again.

To: tekboy who wrote (9358)	10/31/2001 3:38:31 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 27666

Wish I could feel the same way The statements made when stripped of their pedantic foliage still leave responsibility to the U.S. to change policy to avoid further destruction of our national monuments. Responsibility for suicide terrorists rests with Islamic religious policy, which manufactures them in large numbers - and Ajami should know that better than anybody. He should address the beam in his own eye. Instead, he is framing the discussion to be about relative hegemony between Islam and The West (U.S.). It's a power trip. That engenders more conflict, not less. It is a challenge, not to our policy, but to the US as a people, and you called it correctly when you say "costs of empire", in the sense he is taunting us to say Islam's empire will beat the U.S. empire. That's the definite message that I get. My reaction is "to hell with him, and the religion he rode in on". Better that some responsible Islamic spokesman (are there any?) talk about their biggest problem: how to be a successful non-violent religion rather than an obviously dysfunctional, suicidal, self-defeating one that is bound for extinction either fighting among themselves or against others. Reminds me of the Aztecs, who got so bound up in blood-lust that they killed 60,000 in one weekend by ripping their hearts out, one by one. Pretty soon, no more Aztecs.