Friday, December 22, 2006

Right wingers agree with terrorists

You would think that Republicans would be shamed by the fact so many of them seem to agree, at least to some extent, with the beliefs of terrorists and other Muslim extremists. For example:
  • Dinesh D'Souza thinks that "decadent and depraved American culture...angers and repulses other societies—especially traditional and religious ones." You know, like the religious conservatives of al Qaeda.

  • Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) believes, in the manner of the Taliban, that countries should be run by a single religion. They only disagree on which religion should rule.

  • Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter think certain Americans are simply asking to be attacked by terrorists.

  • Bush supporter author Orson Scott Card thinks that, when terrorists call us decadent and evil, Hollywood movies "prove their point."

  • Mary Grabar, writing on one of the most-visited conservative sites, writes she agrees with pre-Enlightenment views of women, specifically that"Women, without male guidance, are illogical, frivolous, and incapable of making any decisions beyond what to make for dinner." It's unlikelythe Saudis who keep women from taking part in the electoral process would disagree.
Me, I'd be ashamed if these beliefs were held by people on my side of the political aisle, but not Republicans.

Tom DeLay, for example, has said about the midterm elections that "Democrats didn't win. Republicans lost." Today, Ayman al Zawahri released yet another tape (a reminder, of course, that he's still on the loose) and it seems like he's been listening to Tom DeLay.
(Democrats) aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won...
Shit, if terrorists directly copied the "it's not you, it's me" explanation of one of the leaders of my party, I'd probably whistle quietly to myself and hope that no one else noticed. Republicans, they lap it up.
The Jawa Report: How many times have we said that Democrat victotry will be seen by Islamic terrorists as a victory for them?

Riehl World View: If the Democrats had the slightest bit of back bone to offer in support of the war on terror, you'd think some Democrat leader would immediately want to take this head on. Unfortunately, they can't really do that, perhaps because to a good extent, it's true.

California Yankee, at Redstate: Zawahri may be right, but the Democrats couldn't have done it without the help of the biased media wing of the Democratic Party.

Power Line's AssRocket: I actually agree with Zawahiri on that one...Once again, I think he has a point...Once again, Zawahiri isn't entirely wrong...(And I simply have to add that Jules Crittenden praises Hinderaker for "sacrific(ing) himself to give us a good roundup. No greater love..." Apparently, in right wing world, reading is now what amounts to sacrifice and is worthy of praise similar to that which Jesus gives to those who sacrifice their lives for their friends [John 15:13].)
Yeah, you're reading that right. Those are four major right wing blogs agreeing with al Qaeda's Number Two!

Hell, Zawahiri should probably get his own log-in over at the Corner for his statement that attempting a diplomatic solution involving Iran would be to "embark on a painful journey of failed negotiations." (Then again, they've got too many radical weirdos over there already...How about My Pet Zawa?)

So far, only the conservative blogger "Captain Ed" has shown the sense to warn his "friends on the internet" that this is propaganda from a "delusional psychopath" and "(t)aking any part of it seriously is a mistake of the first order." Too bad for Ed that so many of his friends are themselves delusional and, therefore, willing to agree with a terrorist as long as he supports their beliefs about Democrats.

Update: Take Gun Toting Liberal's quiz.

Cross-posted at Unclaimed Territory, where I've been guest blogging.

9 Comments:

Blogger Gun-Toting Liberal said...

Wow... great minds think alike. Was accused by one of our commenters of sharing the DNC talking points with you, but to me, this is just common sense.

Blogggg ONNNNN,

GTL -

8:44 AM  
Blogger Raznor said...

I mentioned this on Unclaimed Territory, I think, but it gets mired in the hundreds of comments there so I thought I'd mention here that this post has inspired me to ask the question on my blog: If someone from Al Qaeda released a video stating that the fact that America has indoor plumbing is a victory for jihadists, how soon would right wingers start advocating for outhouses?

1:07 PM  
Blogger Matt Janovic said...

Very impressive observations, all. We have a global problem with religious and political extremists--the neocons are of this ilk, as are the jihadists. Then, you have elements of the religious-right who are basically the same as the caliphs in Saudi Arabi, possibly the most extremist Muslim nation there is. Very good piece, thanks.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous al_Donal said...

Question is: As a gay person, would you rather find yourself at the mercy of Islamic extremists or Christian zealots? An honest person would go with the religion of tolerance, Christianity. Islamic nuts would cut your head off. Comparing Republicans to Islamo-Fascists, that's absurd but it's a nice try. I'm sure it makes sense to the feeble minds who frequent this site.

8:37 PM  
Blogger Nitpicker said...

al_donal,

"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

These aren't nuts. Cameron's "research" shows up again and again in right wing anti-gay literature. Luckily, Republicans can't seem to get enough Americans to support their "extermination" plans.

6:43 AM  
Blogger Ynot said...

al_donal

If you think Christianity is a religion of tolerance, then you live on another planet. Radical fanaticism is alive and well in both religions. And since you don't really appear to know history, for the record, as far as tolerance is concerned, Islam, historically, has been the most tolerant of the two. There are no recorded instances of islamic countries expelling non believers from their land. As for Christianity...we unfortunately have a long history of expelling jews and muslims. There are, however, numerous records of the three faiths living side by side under islamic rule. Not only in muslim Spain but in the Ottoman empire. As well as in many other places. I think you are too smug in your religious beliefs to see the forest for the trees. Given a choice, I would prefer neither the Islamic extremists nor the Christian zealots. As far as they are concerned, I am less than zero. You and I would stand a better chance in a secular country. Not a Christian one. IF you need further proof, visit the Bible belt, and tell them you are gay. They won't kill you...but only because they can't get away with it.

11:01 AM  
Blogger Cyrus said...

al_Donal said...
Question is: As a gay person, would you rather find yourself at the mercy of Islamic extremists or Christian zealots? An honest person would go with...


Similarly, would you rather find wake up normally in your bed tomorrow morning, or find yourself abducted and airdropped into Somalia? An honest person would clearly prefer the former option.

I don't disagree with nitpicker and ynot's claims that many Christianists would act like Islamists if they could get away with it, but I think they miss another big problem with your argument: the dilemma you offer is hypothetical or just delusional. I think it's a common subtext (and sometimes not so "sub") from many right-wingers that America is in danger of literally being conquered and living under shari'a law or whatever, so any proposal Republicans like Bush want in the name of security is obviously necessary. However, the closest thing I've ever seen to evidence of this particular danger is short stories about time travelers and speeches delivered by Viggo Mortensen.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Nitpicker said...

Cyrus,

Well put. And you got me to thinking...

If I were a gay person, would you rather find yourself at the mercy of...

...the 1978 Oakland Raiders or the 1998 French soccer team?

...the Sharks or the Jets?

...the Rosicrusians or the Rotarians?

...Bill O'Reilly or the drunk beside you on a coach flight?

...the kindness of strangers or the wisdom of crowds?

What some people fail to realize is that, according to the Constitution and the amendments thereof, the United States was intended to be a country in which no one was required to rely upon the "mercy" of others.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eh. I'm not too worried about the whining coming from the right at the moment. It shows all too well that they won't face up to their high-handedness and arrogant refusal to recognize that America has slapped some peroxide and bandaid on 9/11 and moved on. That the fear button doesn't seem to work as well as it used to. That people are more worried about their kid dying face-down in the sand for some all-hat-no-cattle-cowboy's ego.

So I wouldn't recommend even giving the ravings any public notice. I don't normally resort to profanity online, but in this case I think I'm fully justified in writing: Fuck them. Fuck all of them. They are sooooo 2003, and everybody but them and their syncophantic. tinfoil-hat-wearing groupies knows it, if only at a gut level.

Frankly, I hope they keep grasping at straws like this. I want to see the moderate wing of the GOP take back the party. But not until after a fresh bitch-slapping in 2008. If I were the praying sort, I'd be praying that it will be time enough for the Dems to clean up the toxic cesspool left by the neocons and their catamites in the GOP.

12:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home