Christopher Hitchens said in today's edtion of Slate:
"How dispiriting to see, once again, the footage of theocratic rage in Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif. The same old dreary formula: self-righteous frenzy married to a neurotic need to take offense; the easy resort to indiscriminate violence and cruelty; the promulgation of makeshift fatwas by mullahs on the make; those writhing mustaches framing crude slogans of piety and hatred, and yelling for death as if on first-name terms with the Almighty. The spilling of blood and the spoliation of property—all for nothing, and ostensibly "provoked" by the corny, brainless antics of a devout American nonentity, notice of whose mere existence is beneath the dignity of any thinking person."
Wow. Why to go Chris. You said it much better than I did. Which is, probably, why you get paid to write and I... ...well... I just don't....
Hitch' added this, which seems familiar to me, too...
"But the ambitions of the Islamic fundamentalists are ultimately unappeasable."
I wish I had written this, but I didn't...
"Unlike some provincial mullahs, Karzai also knows perfectly well that the U.S. government is constitutionally prohibited from policing religious speech among its citizens. Yet, when faced with the doings of the aforementioned moronic cleric from Gainesville, he went out of his way to intensify mob feeling."
So, Karzai did stoke the fire that led to the burn that has resulted in the murder of 20 people – so far. [The whole Guardian article is worth reading, by the way. If only for the way it portrays Karzai as a self-promoting jerk.]
A couple of meanderings that Hitch' didn't write, but which come immediately to mind:
Why did the United States government apologize to anyone over a citizen's exercise of his right to free speech?
Why is Petraeus, the commander of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, even commenting about this? When did it become the obligation of the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan to apologize to Karzai, of all people, for anything? When did being obsequious to a foreign government become a requirement for command?
WHY THE HELL IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT APOLOGIZING TO ANYBODY? ABOUT ANYTHING?
It seems we are stuck in a catch-22. We can't actually say what we think to our Afghan partners, because that might upset them. That might make them want us to leave. So we have to be obsequious in order to get them to let us stay and let us continue to give them money. So we can't tell them they are a hypocritical quasi-theocracy with strong overtones towards being a kleptocracy.
It seems to me, since we brought all the money and the guns, we shouldn't have to apologize for anything.
If Karzai and his ilk don't want us there, then why are we staying? I know, really stupid question.
Onto a different angle on the same subject.
A few 'facts' have come out about Terry Jones. Apparently, he is a cultist. [duh!] His church asserts its authority over its members in a way that would make Jim Jones proud. He allegedly makes his followers work in his used furniture store for free. And he breaks up families by making members cut off all contact with apostates.
The Rick Ross Institute's website is my go to place for information on strange new religions. Ross compiles what are, essentially, press clippings about religious groups. His clippings related to the Dove World Outreach Center, (their website is here, by the way; don't expect much) – all seven stories – speak only to his decision to burn the Koran. Does that mean Jones is a cult leader?
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't matter.
I am not a big fan of totalitarian mind control cults. I don't think this changes what is going on here. To the UK Telegraph, Jones is a "...homophobic used furniture salesman". I am not quite sure why the Telegraph has taken that particular stance about Jones. Are they trying to shift blame away from the Imams and towards Jones? Does his being a "...homophobic used furniture salesman..." remove the blame from the people who are inciting this riot?
No, it doesn't. So the guy is weird. Welcome to America. If weird were illegal, we'd have to lock up the whole country.
"Pastor Jones denied any responsibility for the riot in Mazar-e Sharif, in which around 20 people died, including two who were reportedly beheaded, in what is the worst incident of its kind in recent years."
That earns another 'duh'. Does the Telegraph actually have reporters, or just people who make up catchy headlines like "homophobic used furniture salesman"?
Jeez, I want to talk about nuclear reactors in Japan leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.
"How dispiriting to see, once again, the footage of theocratic rage in Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif. The same old dreary formula: self-righteous frenzy married to a neurotic need to take offense; the easy resort to indiscriminate violence and cruelty; the promulgation of makeshift fatwas by mullahs on the make; those writhing mustaches framing crude slogans of piety and hatred, and yelling for death as if on first-name terms with the Almighty. The spilling of blood and the spoliation of property—all for nothing, and ostensibly "provoked" by the corny, brainless antics of a devout American nonentity, notice of whose mere existence is beneath the dignity of any thinking person."
Wow. Why to go Chris. You said it much better than I did. Which is, probably, why you get paid to write and I... ...well... I just don't....
Hitch' added this, which seems familiar to me, too...
"But the ambitions of the Islamic fundamentalists are ultimately unappeasable."
I wish I had written this, but I didn't...
"Unlike some provincial mullahs, Karzai also knows perfectly well that the U.S. government is constitutionally prohibited from policing religious speech among its citizens. Yet, when faced with the doings of the aforementioned moronic cleric from Gainesville, he went out of his way to intensify mob feeling."
So, Karzai did stoke the fire that led to the burn that has resulted in the murder of 20 people – so far. [The whole Guardian article is worth reading, by the way. If only for the way it portrays Karzai as a self-promoting jerk.]
A couple of meanderings that Hitch' didn't write, but which come immediately to mind:
Why did the United States government apologize to anyone over a citizen's exercise of his right to free speech?
Why is Petraeus, the commander of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, even commenting about this? When did it become the obligation of the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan to apologize to Karzai, of all people, for anything? When did being obsequious to a foreign government become a requirement for command?
WHY THE HELL IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT APOLOGIZING TO ANYBODY? ABOUT ANYTHING?
It seems we are stuck in a catch-22. We can't actually say what we think to our Afghan partners, because that might upset them. That might make them want us to leave. So we have to be obsequious in order to get them to let us stay and let us continue to give them money. So we can't tell them they are a hypocritical quasi-theocracy with strong overtones towards being a kleptocracy.
It seems to me, since we brought all the money and the guns, we shouldn't have to apologize for anything.
If Karzai and his ilk don't want us there, then why are we staying? I know, really stupid question.
Onto a different angle on the same subject.
A few 'facts' have come out about Terry Jones. Apparently, he is a cultist. [duh!] His church asserts its authority over its members in a way that would make Jim Jones proud. He allegedly makes his followers work in his used furniture store for free. And he breaks up families by making members cut off all contact with apostates.
The Rick Ross Institute's website is my go to place for information on strange new religions. Ross compiles what are, essentially, press clippings about religious groups. His clippings related to the Dove World Outreach Center, (their website is here, by the way; don't expect much) – all seven stories – speak only to his decision to burn the Koran. Does that mean Jones is a cult leader?
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't matter.
I am not a big fan of totalitarian mind control cults. I don't think this changes what is going on here. To the UK Telegraph, Jones is a "...homophobic used furniture salesman". I am not quite sure why the Telegraph has taken that particular stance about Jones. Are they trying to shift blame away from the Imams and towards Jones? Does his being a "...homophobic used furniture salesman..." remove the blame from the people who are inciting this riot?
No, it doesn't. So the guy is weird. Welcome to America. If weird were illegal, we'd have to lock up the whole country.
"Pastor Jones denied any responsibility for the riot in Mazar-e Sharif, in which around 20 people died, including two who were reportedly beheaded, in what is the worst incident of its kind in recent years."
That earns another 'duh'. Does the Telegraph actually have reporters, or just people who make up catchy headlines like "homophobic used furniture salesman"?
Jeez, I want to talk about nuclear reactors in Japan leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.
No comments:
Post a Comment