D'Souza claims Abortion,Sexual Freedom caused 9/11

People will believe what they want to believe always.

 

Yes, actually they do. For example, recently there has been violence over cartoons depicting allah and french laws against head covering.

The Iranian government announced today an end to trade ties with Denmark, adding to a boycott of Danish goods that's costing companies there an estimated $1 million a day. On Saturday, crowds stormed the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, setting them ablaze.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june06/cartoons_02-06.html

Robert Redeker, a 52 year-old French philosophy teacher and author, known for his abrasive criticism of all religions, launched a virulent attack on Islam in the September 19th issue of the conservative daily “Le Figaro” – savaging the blessing of violence in “The Koran” and harshly characterizing Mohammad as a “teacher of hatred – looter, Jew-killer and polygamist.” The next day, the popular Egyptian preacher Youssef al-Qaradawi denounced Redeker on Al-Jazeera TV, and Redeker received death threats after an Islamist group posted his address, cell-phone number and photos online and called on Muslim “lions” to kill him, as Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed in 2004 in Amsterdam by a 27-year old immigrant from Morocco. Van Gogh outraged militants by making a film denouncing the oppression of women in Islamic societies.

Redeker's predicament, reminiscent of British author Salman Rushdie’s after Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa calling for his murder, has roused support from French unions, civil liberties defense groups and politicians of all stripes. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin denounced the threats as “unacceptable” and defended “freedom of expression.” The incident has fueled a debate between those intent on defusing tensions by refraining from criticism of Islam and those who view that attitude as appeasement.....

The sense of a creeping surrender of central values such as freedom of expression and the right to criticize, and even lampoon any creed and faith, was compounded by the decision of Berlin's Deutsche Oper director to cancel showings of Mozart's “Idomeneo” for fear of violence by Islamist extremists. German Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted: “Self-censorship out of fear cannot be tolerated.” The September 30th headline of the daily “Libération” asked: “Is it still possible to criticize Islam?” The opera, originally scheduled for November, may yet be performed later under police protection.

The absence of clear denunciations by moderate Islamic theologians, preachers and representatives to calls of violence and censorship is perceived as a sign of Islamists’ growing clout. It also feeds suspicions that silencing criticism of religion is, like female oppression, part and parcel of Islam. The threats against France, recently reiterated by Al Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the 2004 law prohibiting the Islamic veil in schools and public-service jobs have reinforced the feeling that Islam is trying to force its prejudices on secular European societies.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8293

 

So let me see I've got this right:

If you don't support birth control, gay rights, and abortion you are on the side of the terrorists?

So we should ban these things to gain favor with the terrorists.

 

i really don't think that's what he's saying.

 

r u?

are you saying than bin laden was lying when he gave his reasons for wanting to attack america?

 

not since they got kicked out, giving bin laden exactly what he wanted.

 

Of course not. But I think the tendency to make cliche of Bush's 'freedom' declaration obscures the truth in the statement. Radical Islamics do essentially 'hate our freedoms.' In their worldview only what the Koran says is ok, is ok. Anything else isn't. The concept of people deciding for themselves what is ok is antithetical to their worldview. That is why they denounce democracy, freedom of expression etc. Do not fool yourself into thinking they do not oppose democracy or our freedoms, because they are very upfront with these opinions.

As to the assertion that they don't or they would be attacking Europe, they are attacking Europe. AQ operatives kidnapped French journalists to try and force the lifting of the French ban on head covering, radical islamics killed Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam for his film on Islamic oppression of women, Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death for his book the Satanic Verses...there are numerous examples of these kinds of conflicts.

 

yes. people lie, it happens. peope who kill people also often lie and distort things especially when it's for political reasons.

 

so true...



so you are in the "they attacked us b/c they hate our freedoms crowd"?

 

I think they attacked us because they (ignorantly and unfairly) blame us for all their problems when it's really their incompetent and corrupt regimes that's mucking things up for them despite the access to vast amounts of oil...

to quote myself...

 

Here is the wikipedia short article on the history of the term 'Great Satan', which was in use as early as the 1950's. The article is also quoted below.

[rquoter]
The idea of the US as Satanic seducer is thought to derive from the 1950s writings of Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who is an icon amongst many Islamists. Qutb spent 2 years in the United States (in the 1950s) on a study mission on behalf of the Egyptian government.

He returned to write disdainfully United States and western culture. Of church hall dances “where people of both sexes meet, mix and touch”, he noted that these were held under the very eyes of ministers “who even go so far as to dim the lights to facilitate the fury of the dance … (T)he dance is inflamed by the notes of a gramophone (and) the dance hall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold hips, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust.”

The terms “a good time” and “fun” are cited untranslated in Qutb's work as the shameless ideals most sought by Americans and those catered for by their churches.

Islamic Revolution

Khomeini is quoted as saying on November 5, 1979, "[Americans] are the great Satan, the wounded snake." During and after the Islamic Revolution similar appellations (to "The Great Satan") were used for the Western World and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union, which was labeled as the Small Satan. Israel is these days sometimes depicted as "The Little Satan".

The term was extensively during and after the Islamic Revolution, but it continues to be in use in some Iranian political circles. Use of the term at rallies is often accompanied by shouts of Marg bar Amrika! ("Death to America!"). The term has also found use in political statements of non-Iranian Islamic fundamentalist political, criminal gangs, or guerilla groups. The term has been discussed extensively and addressed within the context of US-Iranian relations by some members of the United States foreign policy establishment. Former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, argued: "Far from being the great Satan, I would say we are the great protector. The United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II, defeated Communism and fascism and the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead."

[/rquoter]

As the article indicates they hated us as the 'great Satan' before gay rights and Planned Parenthood. The first hatred started because men danced with women and people tried to have fun. This fact and the way it alters the results of the author's logic makes clear the ridiculousness of the his assertions.

Under his arguments the Muslims hate us because of planed parenthood and tolerance of homosexuals. Because these are the source of the Muslim ire, his arguments goes, we ‘sacrifice’ them to help smooth our relations with the Muslim world.

But as the wikipedia article points out, the radicals also hate the fact that men and women mix freely and people try to have fun. I assume that the author does not object to ‘the free congregation of both sexes’ and ‘the pursuit of fun’. With this new information would he change his argument to suggest that we get eliminate these offences?

The logic of the article depends on the key, unspoken analysis that Planned Parenthood and the human rights of homosexuals are of low or negative value. His proposed course of action to placate the radicals is only reasonable in his logic because these are things that he wants to get rid of anyway.

I have a hard time believing that he would be so willing sacrifice something like 'fun' that he most likely considers a good thing. And, if he made judgment on the low value of Planned Parenthood clear and explicit, I am fairly sure that his arguments would be dismissed out of hand by all but the most culturally reactionary readers.

By leaving the most offensive aspect of his argument to remain unspoken, he is acting as the proverbial ‘serpent in the garden’. He is hoping to slip that part of the analysis past your conscious mind. He is genuinely trying to sneak this past the reader.

 

I missed the part where he said we should sacrifice gays or unwed mothers. He appears to be saying that there is a conflict between liberalism and fundamentalist Islam. That would seem to be a completely valid point.

I don't agree with his assessment of bin laden's motivation to plan 9/11, but then again the conflict between liberalism and fundamentalist Islam is certainly acknowledged by and propagated by bin laden and other fundamentalists.

 

Wait....do you have to agree that Planned Parenthood, Roe v. Wade and homosexuality are bad in order to acknowledge that they're things are very, very foreign and strange, and perhaps threatening to folks who live in other places of the world?

do i have to agree with islamic extremists in order to understand part of what they hate about the US?

 

[rquoter]

The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11

From Publishers Weekly

Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------

From Booklist

D'Souza once again turns his eye for social criticism to liberals, this time asserting their responsibility for the rise of anti-Americanism abroad and perhaps even the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The cultural Left in the U.S., by pressing for sexual freedom for women and gays through birth control, no-fault divorce, and support for gay marriage, has not only undermined American culture but also provoked the ire of religious conservatives in other nations, most prominently Islamic fundamentalists. Contrary to President Bush's assertions that terrorists and their supporters hate American freedom, D'Souza asserts that what they really hate is our licentious culture. He notes that American conservatives have more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists than with American liberals. He outlines a battle plan for the Right that includes building alliances with traditional Muslims and enlisting them in the war against radical Islam. This is an interesting perspective on the hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, particularly in light of the ongoing declared war against terrorism. Vanessa Bush

Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved


[/rquoter]

It sounds to me like he is making value judgements and assigning blame. I specifically like the line 'He notes that American conservatives have more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists than with American liberals.' It sounds to me like he is offering up the lamb for slaughter.

 

Exactly. If we were to try and make a determination on whether or not there is a inherent incompatibility between fundamentalist Islam and liberalism, we would examine these issues.

 

He might be doing those things. I have no idea who he is.

But it has no effect on whether he's right about the intentions and motivations of those who seek to hijack the Muslim faith with regard to the US.

 

I think it would be better to point where HE says these things rather than where someone else says he says these things.

 

Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?

Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?

Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the **** a Quarter Pounder is.

Jules: Then what do they call it?

Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.

Jules: A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?

Vincent: Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac.

Jules: Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?

Vincent: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.



I don't know which is more disturbing... that people like this guy wrote a book that made it to a publisher, or that otherwise intelligent people actually discuss said book. Jules and Vincent had a more interesting conversation, and it's a scene from a freakin' movie.



D&D. Good Grief.

 

If you would like to give me the cash, that is fine. Personally, I don't think that the trade magazine of the American Library Association (Booklist) or a trade magazine for the publishing industry (Publisher's Weekly) are particluarly into making things up.

Because it is a relatively new book and because it is copyright material, the demand that one can only talk about the book if one buys it is silly. After all the title is The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. It is pretty hard to extrapolate the subject with too much leeway from that title.

 

This entire "debate" is stupid. It's like trying to find out why you got stabbed, do you really care? Just deal with the knife wound first and then go have a cinnamon tea sipping session.