The Wussification of America
Posted by Joe Rivett on 01.08.2010
So much for flying the friendly skies...
Nothing is scarier than scared individuals. Because of the unsuccessful attempt of the Christmas bomber, some politicians want to have full body scanners. In addition, rules are being made to where people can't get up if their plane is going to land in an hour. It is annoying enough that I can't bring liquids on a plane. It is getting to the point where I wonder is it even worth flying anymore?
Anyone that has a small child knows that flying is already a pain in the ass. If my daughter cries an hour before landing I can't feed her? If I have to take a shit really bad, I have to go now go in my pants? Is this really going to stop a terrorist? Any terrorist with a half a brain would probably just blow a train up or a stadium where the security isn't as tight.
Planes are the safest form of travel. The best way to fight terrorism in the skies is to have an educated public. When I fly and I see a suspicious person, I now have my eye on them. If they try to take my plane, I'm going down with a fight. Based on 9/11 I'm not waiting for their demands to be met.
So why are we so afraid? Why do people lock their doors as if a burglar can't figure out how to get in? Why do people feel the need to own tons of guns when one is suffice enough to make me not want to mess with them?
If it means sacrificing a few hundred so that I can live my life with liberty and pursue happiness, I'd rather do that than have my body strip searched. Eventually, you have to draw a line. Eventually you have to say I'm willing to die so that I can live free. Isn't that what the troops are doing? The sad thing is that Washington politicians from both parties tend to agree on scaring the bejesus out of us.
You're damn right. hopefully none of these knee-jerk reaction laws pass. We are the biggest fucking pussies on the planet. What happened to us? We used to be bad asses. As a Ajax from The Warriors would say "Buncha Wimps"
Posted By: FEAR (Guest) on January 08, 2010 at 01:18 PM
For the life of me, I still can't figure out what is so terrifying about terrorists to most Americans. If you are in New York or L.A., sure, they might target your city. If you live 75 miles east of Omaha, chances are, you aren't on the terrorist agenda. Most people live in place that are totally safe from any of this.
By percentage, very, very, VERY few people have died in terrorist attacks. More people drowned every years. We don't ban beaches. More people die in car wrecks. We don't get rid of cars. It's a ridiculous thing to be scared of for most of us.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on January 08, 2010 at 02:53 PM
...i hate that they take an incident like that, then throw out a bunch of new laws and regulations, that no one can stop. Its just an excuse to slip laws through that would normally create public backlash. In the big picture are the number of terrorist attacks on planes even going up from 10 or 20 yrs ago? Are we really in that much more danger now? im curious to see the real numbers on that if anyone has them.
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on January 08, 2010 at 04:12 PM
You act as if this is something new. Conservatives have used fear as a political tool effectively since the beginning of politics. The same arguments you hear now (like people in Omaha have nothing to fear) were the same ones liberals were making during the Cold War, yet we all had to support building nukes because the Russkies were going to blow us up.
Conservatives have also used a fear as their way to stimulate the economy. Want jobs in your state? Come up with a weapon that has to be built! For decades conservative politicians have found new and inventive ways of funneling military money into their states in lieu of other jobs, which is why we had billion dollar jet plane that COULDN'T FLY IN THE RAIN. And the conservative from that state STILL wants money to build it.
As Rudy proved today by rewriting when 9/11 happened, conservatives love to rewrite history. According to them, Ronnie Reagan was a hulking he-man who single-handedly won the Cold War. But go back and see how he acted in his first term, back in the time of "The Day After." He was a great fearmonger, and it wasn't until the Soviet Union was nearly bankrupt that he grew a pair and acted like a cowboy. Heck, look at George W. Bush - the guy was an absentee landlord and on vacation nearly half the time before 9/11. Then he put on his flight suit and went to war WITH THE WRONG COUNTRY. And in the weeks after 9/11 all you tough guy he-men were talking about how we needed the Patriot Act and your Freedom Fries and if we didn't agree with blowing up Afghanistan even though we knew Osama was gone then we hated America.
Fear is an easy emotion to manipulate, and conservatives are masters of it. That's why Dick Cheney is a multi-millionaire along with Queen Rudy. Heck, even in this rant of yours you show how easily you're manipulated - you're all ready to profile "suspicious" people: does that include the middle aged women who's scared to death of flying, or the guy who keeps coughing because he has a cold, or a teenage black kid who's afraid because that one guy behind him keeps staring?
It's just ironic that in a commentary about being "wussified," immediately you have to talk about how tough you are and how you're willing to sacrifice a few hundred (what? people? brown people who talk funny? what?). Maybe you should tell us about how big your gun is and if it has a hair trigger.
I have an idea: try not being afraid. It's easy really when you don't pay attention to the fearmongering and act rationally. Don't ball up your fists and grit your teeth. Otherwise you'll look suspicious to some other white guy looking to prove how tough he is.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on January 08, 2010 at 10:17 PM
remember a guy named Khadafi, or however you spell it? The president of Libya. Ever wonder why he has't messed with us since the early 80's? Could it be because the Gipper launched a missle into his living room?
Posted By: Bryan Jones (Guest) on January 09, 2010 at 02:38 PM
Wussies also cry about skinned knees and cheat to win then brag about it.
Stop whining about things like 'No Russian'; give suspects due process; follow Geneva and pull aid from allies who refuse to sign civilian saving treaties.
You'll be treated like an adult when you act like one.
Posted By: Guest#6486 (Guest) on January 09, 2010 at 04:54 PM
Way to turn it into a chance to bash conservatives there GaryML. Nobody is impressed with you. Im sure the reverse argument against liberals would be something like, "they encourage Terrorists because of their lax punishments and quick forgiveness for criminals".
Let me clear it up for you though. It isnt a liberal or a conservative thing. It is a media thing. Do yourself a favor and watch the "Monsters are due at Maple Street" (an old Twilight Zone episode). I think that sums up what fear mongering does to people.
BTW, youre an idiot.
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on January 10, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Wow, GaryML...you're a fucking idiot. Yeah, it's all "conservatives" doing the fear mongering. Obviously, you haven't heard of (most recently) the health care bill your ass-bandit buddies are trying to foist on us. How do you think they're doing that? By trying to convince everyone the sky is going to fall if they don't. Trying to make everyone terrified the evil corporations are ripping everyone off. By trying to create a fear and hatred of anyone more successful than a loser like you. Please...both parties do it. At least with the conservatives, they're ginning up a fear of a REAL threat, rather than the class warfare shit gugs like you thrive on.
Posted By: STFU GaryML (Guest) on January 10, 2010 at 12:43 PM
I like how I'm branded an idiot, but neither one said I was wrong in what I said. Guess I wasn't THAT much of an idiot if they can't disprove my points and instead have to try and change the subject to liberals and the media.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on January 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Now, be honest Mr. Rivett. Did you write this article during the bus ride to school?
Posted By: Guest#2414 (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 03:15 AM
"Why do people lock their doors as if a burglar cant figure out how to get in?" Not all burglars know how to pick a lock, Of those who do, many would much rather just look for a house with unlocked doors than go through the work and risk of picking a lock. If I hear somebody picking my lock yhat gives me time to grab a gun, call the police, or do something else to deal with the situation. If the guy can immediately walk in hes much more likely to catch the residents by surprise before they can prepare to deal with him.
Posted By: Clint (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 06:41 AM
@GaryML All politicians indulge in fear-mongering if they think it will help get their agenda passed. Obama has been as quick to making fear based laws as Bush 43 was. We had a spate of anti-terrorism laws and misdirected rhetoric in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.
If anyone was an exception to fear-based politics, it was Reagan. Reagan who was the first not to take the continued existence of the USSR as inevitable and set tone for which the Soviet bloc could peacefully collapse. So, while most Presidents from Truman to Bush 41 deserve some credit for standing up to the USSR, Reagan is the one who won it and ended one major source of fear-based politics.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 07:05 AM
That is awesome Guest#2414! I was thinking the same thing, I mean was this done in crayon or finger paint? Doe this even constitute an argument?
I read the title expecting some sort of argument for the end of paternal state laws or a return of machismo and instead I get a 12 year old telling me he is going to fight a terrorist if he sees one and we all should too. What a joke.
As Comic Book Guy would say, worst 411 column ever.
Posted By: Huh (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 09:25 AM
I thought GaryML was spot on and it was a great comment. That's the problem with discussing politics though, you have the posters afterwards just telling him he's an idiot and that's pretty much it. This is exactly how women argue, they just try to use emotion and numbers (of people) to defeat anything else without having to resort to counter arguments or thinking. Politics is just high school for older people.
Traditionally fear mongering has simply been used to target various minority groups. I think everybody has gotten their turn. Way back it was immigrant Europeans like the Irish, then later on it became the Japanese and most East Asians during WWII, then Blacks which are a perennial favorite, then this decade it was a wide net over South Asia and some of the middle east---many middle easterners actually look white so it was an excuse to target brown skinned minorities from South Asia instead, who aren't even connected to the Arabs. If this War on Terror thing blows over it'll just be another minority group, I assume Hispanics are up next, but that's a very large and vocal group so that'll be a tough one. Jews are generally a politically active group as well so they won't be targeted. Really the choices are mostly Blacks, Mexicans, East Asians, South Asians, Muslims, various other religions such as Buddhists, etc.
Posted By: Guest#4401 (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Way to turn it into a chance to bash conservatives there GaryML. Nobody is impressed with you. Im sure the reverse argument against liberals would be something like, "they encourage Terrorists because of their lax punishments and quick forgiveness for criminals".
Let me clear it up for you though. It isnt a liberal or a conservative thing. It is a media thing. Do yourself a favor and watch the "Monsters are due at Maple Street" (an old Twilight Zone episode). I think that sums up what fear mongering does to people.
BTW, youre an idiot.
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on January 10, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Close, it is the conservative owned and run media (msnbc, cnn, fox, etc.) that is responsible for the fear mongering.
Posted By: Guest#5581 (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM
CDL, I consider Obama a conservative Democrat. Progressives aren't known for fearmongering, and consider things like military intervention an ultimate last resort. That's why it cracks me up with Republicans complain about Obama - he's John McCain light and puts a nicer spin on similar policies. A progressive wouldn't simply put tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan without a real strategy or launch missile attacks on Yemen in hopes of maybe hitting a target while killing dozens of innocent people. Or continue to employ Blackwater (Xe).
Agreed that most politicians use fear as a tool or a tactic, but conservatives - who are primarily Republican and make up about a third of the Democratic party known as the Blue Dogs or the New Democrats - use fear as their main strategy. Name an issue, and their first argument against it is based on fear. Gays want to marry? Be afraid - it'll destroy marriage! Reform health care? Be afraid - Democrats want to kill grandma! Sign up poor people to vote? Be afraid - Acorn is the first step in the New World Order! And so on.
What makes it so repulsive in the case of the current Republican leadership is that they don't just benefit politically from fearmongering, they benefit financially. Dick Cheney isn't just attacking Obama because of his views on fighting terrorism - he stands to make a profit every time we invade another country! Conservative Independent Joe Lieberman and Conservative Democrat Max Baucus aren't trying to derail health care reform because they think it'll hurt people, they stand to make a huge financial windfall if they can prevent a public government option and get a private mandate!
So yeah, fear is a tool all politicians use. But conservatives use it as a multi-purpose tool and it's always the first one they use - and keep using. Why come up with real solutions when you can just scare people? Sorry, but I'm not going to be afraid because Dick Cheney and his daughter tell me to be, and I'm not going to start profiling people on the street or in an airplane because a handful of idiotic idealists are pissed off because we're fighting wars in their lands (the REAL reason why the terrorists hate us).
The saddest thing is that our media is afraid to tell us that. Instead, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. And people buy that, because they're afraid.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM
The way women argue? You aren't getting any tonight!!!
Posted By: Guest #4401's wife (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Don't worry. The Government will protect us. They know whats best. WE don't need to be in fear as long as the government is around. Don't worry everybody, light skinned Obama, with no negro ancient, is on the job.
Honestly, just allow licensed Americans to take guns on planes. You can take guns on buses, trains, and any other form of transportation... and how many hijacks have happened there?
When the government dig's its claws into something, it fails. Everything fails. It fails so bad, and liberals... you are delirious to think anything different.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 12:37 PM
When the government dig's its claws into something, it fails. Everything fails. It fails so bad, and liberals... you are delirious to think anything different.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 12:37 PM
I think that my local police are doing a pretty good job. The army seems to be doing its part, too.
Posted By: Guest#8138 (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 01:13 PM
Oh, so a few irresponsible or evil individuals ruin things for everybody else and suddenly the rules get realy fascist? Welcome to how the victims of the War on Drugs have been feeling for 30 years.
Freedom in America means nothing more than choosing between Walmart and Target. Most real freedom is acquired & kept by staying off everyone else's radar because as soon as the stupid people of the world notice you, your own choices become everybody else's business. Ask Phelps, or even Tiger Woods. Real freedom is gone
Posted By: Madcapunlimited (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 02:47 PM
I for one am not in favor of adding new scanning machines in the airports. I say we increase the number of sky-marshals available and work on agreements/treaties with countries that we fly in and out of internationally to have counterpart versions of sky-marshal on international flights as well. If a country will not agree then we should not allow flights directly from that country.
Secondly, for international flights step up the background checks and passport reviews of people who are traveling. Israel seems to do a pretty good job of knowing who should be on their flights. Thorough background checks should be required for international flights, if you don't have anything to hide it should be a problem.
Third and I know this will ruffle some feathers but we have to profile. The majority of these incidents that have occurred since 9/11 have involved fundamentalist Islamic males between the ages of 18-35. Not old Jewish, African American or Hispanic women.
There's a saying that says never let common sense get in the way of standard operating procedure. And we are doing a terrific job holding up to that saying.
As an analogy, if I'm walking into the front yard of somebody's house, I'm going to be a lot more afraid of walking into that yard if there's an unchained pitbull than I will of a Chihuahua. Pitbulls have a reputation for being vicious, dangerous dogs. Like-wise Muslims have a reputation for being the instigators of the majority of these types of incidents against America. As opposed to the Irish Republican Army for example.
As far as promoting fear, a conservative's fear is typically deals with tangibles: National Defense for example. Liberals seem to be more concerned with intangible issues, example: Global Warming. In the end, both of concerns have a detrimental effect to the American taxpayer unless we use some common sense.
Posted By: Joequando (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 02:53 PM
(the REAL reason why the terrorists hate us).
The saddest thing is that our media is afraid to tell us that. Instead, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. And people buy that, because they're afraid.
--------------------
You're not wholly wrong, but not wholly right either. If every soldier in the Middle East said 'Yeah we're done' and went home tomorrow, the rhetoric of these nutcases would switch to "WE HAVE THEM ON THE RUN! STRIKE DOWN THE INFIDELS!" Really, it's damned if we do and damned if we don't: these people are run by charismatic psychopaths who pretty much hate us for existing and for surpassing Muslim culture.
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 03:56 PM
whomever just said msnbc is a conservative news channel is an not high on the iq scale. do you even watch the news? its the most liberal news channel on tv.
Posted By: havok (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 04:16 PM
re-title this article as 'the wussification of the Western World' and it would be spot on. Mate.
Posted By: Global Issue. (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 04:30 PM
With all the evidence showing just how many warning signs there were towards this guy, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they ignored it deliberately until he was on the plane so that they could pass this crap.
Posted By: Cun\' (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 05:47 PM
"By trying to create a fear and hatred of anyone more successful than a loser like you."
Health insurance premiums have been skyrocketing for years now. To deny this is foolish and naive.
Posted By: Loverboy (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Those body scanners were being shat upon universally UNTIL!!!!!!!!!!!!! the underwear guy shows up.
Then they NEED TO BE INSTALLED.
Folks, wake up - they are feeding us shit and making us like it.
Alex Jones.
Posted By: Guest#3291 (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 06:28 PM
"If it means sacrificing a few hundred so that I can live my life with liberty and pursue happiness, I'd rather do that than have my body strip searched." - Joe Rivett
SACRIFICE A FEW HUNDRED...???
If you really mean this then you are a sick, twisted and deranged lunatic. God forbid you ever procreate you piece of sh*t.
And what if were your parents, grandparent, brothers, sisters, etc. on that plane. Would you still feel the same you loser?
Posted By: Japhe Ryder (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 06:44 PM
@GaryML That's rather a "No True Scotsman" argument you're using with regard to Obama being a "conservative Democrat." You don't agree with his actions, therefore he's not a progressive. I don't think that quite works. In any case, judging by Obama ran and how he's acted reacted, as President, I suspect his actions are less a question of whether he's a progressive and more a case of, once a progressive starts getting top secret Presidential intelligence briefings, leftish defense policy doesn't seem quite as practical.
But as far as "Progressives aren't known for fearmongering," it rather depends on where your politics are. From where I stand (not being able to stand either party at the moment), I see as much fearmongering on the left. With regard to health care, I hear Democrats saying that opposing their plans will kill Grandma, just as much as the GOP says that the Democrat's plans would. It was Rep. Alan Grayson, a Democrat, who described GOP's view of health care as "Die quickly." That strikes me as being fear-mongering.
Or look at a lot of the rhetoric with regard to the environment, in particular anthropogenic global warming. Warnings of mass flooding, the destruction of civilization, cats and dogs living together, etc., if we don't change things right now? Yes, we could stand to do a lot less polluting and yes, there is impact of human activity on the Earth, but the "If we don't act now, we're doomed," rhetoric of progressives strikes me as fear-mongering as much as "gay marriage will destroy marriage" rhetoric of the right.
(Though the fact that Obama appears to be getting behind restarting the nuclear power industry is something I've been pleased to see. If there is AGW, he's actually backing something that is doable and of economic benefit.... of course, that might be another reason you don't see him as progressive.)
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 07:32 PM
@GaryML: As for terrorism against the U.S., as of 2001, we weren't fighting any wars over in the Mideast. Certainly not in Afghanistan or in Saudi Arabia (where Osama bin Laden was from). But neither do I think it's quite the case that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, per se.
About six months before 9/11, I read an article on-line -- I think it was from the BBC news -- that amused the heck out of me, at the time. The Taliban government had banned a haircut., popular among young Afghani men, because it was based on Leonardo DiCaprio’s haircut in Titanic. Think about that: A closed society, where everything western is banned, and a western movie was still smuggled in and became popular enough to create a haircut fad.
The terrorists don’t hate us for our freedom. They don’t hate us for the military in their land. You’re correct that it’s an invasion, but it’s not a military invasion. They were and are scared, because our culture invades their culture and there’s nothing they (or we, if we were so inclined) can do about it. Technology has progressed to the point that western cultural influence gets everywhere, no matter how hard government regimes try to keep it out. And I’m not sure if or how it can be resolved; certainly not in the short-run
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 07:34 PM
@Japhe Ryder: I can't speak for Joe Rivett, but as for myself, with every freedom comes a risk to our lives and the lives of those we love and care for. I accept the increased risk to myself and my loved ones, so that those same people I love also have a chance of living their lives in freedom.
God forbid that the result is the death of any of them. But if that's the result, I accept it now; and I hope I could accept it after.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 07:38 PM
"@GaryML All politicians indulge in fear-mongering if they think it will help get their agenda passed. Obama has been as quick to making fear based laws as Bush 43 was. We had a spate of anti-terrorism laws and misdirected rhetoric in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.
If anyone was an exception to fear-based politics, it was Reagan. Reagan who was the first not to take the continued existence of the USSR as inevitable and set tone for which the Soviet bloc could peacefully collapse. So, while most Presidents from Truman to Bush 41 deserve some credit for standing up to the USSR, Reagan is the one who won it and ended one major source of fear-based politics."
...and because of those actions, Reagan allowed our national debt to dwarf to an insane amount that is still contributing to our woes today. He was the first President to say, "Hey, fuck it. We've got credit," in the process turning us from the world's largest creditor to its largest debtor. His quixotic drive to outspend an already on-its-death-bed nation into nothing isn't an accomplishment; the USSR was already on the way to its demise, he just sped up our own economic demise.
But I agree, Reagan wasn't a fear-monger. His brand of politics revolved around flat-out lying to people's faces to make them feel good about themselves. Reagan was great at making people look past the truth to see whatever fairytale he wanted to push while he tossed millions at "revolutionaries" he knew little to nothing about because he hated the other guy even more in effect letting them terrorize their own people so we didn't have to or acted like Legionnaire's disease was the be-all, end-all intentionally ignoring AIDs while it was slowly consuming the country because he was scared of offending Jerry Falwell and his base of conservative Christians who were enjoying "God's wrath" on the homosexuals. Really, Reagan just fed money to the fear-mongers so he wouldn't have to do the job himself.
Posted By: Guest#7259 (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 08:10 PM
I think a good article would be nothing but screencaps of Lisa Ann from "Who's Nailin' Paylin?". She's one fucking hot MILF.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 08:32 PM
Japhe: Consider how many of our soldiers we are sacrificing in someone else's war. As sad and sadistic as it sounds, a few hundred is quite the bargain versus the well-being of 300 million.
Posted By: parliboy (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 08:52 PM
Easy enough to say, in retrospect, that the USSR was in inevitable decline and would soon collapse. When Reagan was elected, the feeling was that the Soviets were going to triumph and that anyone who said otherwise was telling a fairy tale.
But Reagan was right. And I dare say that his optimism was one of the major reasons, in the long-run, that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was so peaceful.
For whatever problems we have and have had with the debt, Reagan saved us a lot more with his foreign policy.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM
CDL, why did Osama bin Laden attack the United States? I'd like to hear your take, because it seems to be that you think it's because he was upset that our culture was interfering with his thanks to James Cameron's Titanic.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on January 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM
"Easy enough to say, in retrospect, that the USSR was in inevitable decline and would soon collapse. When Reagan was elected, the feeling was that the Soviets were going to triumph and that anyone who said otherwise was telling a fairy tale.
But Reagan was right. And I dare say that his optimism was one of the major reasons, in the long-run, that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was so peaceful.
For whatever problems we have and have had with the debt, Reagan saved us a lot more with his foreign policy."
So your argument is that if our economy collapses, it's okay because we beat the Soviets?
Posted By: Guest#0944 (Guest) on January 13, 2010 at 02:59 AM
@GaryML The Titanic example was just that – a small example of the cultural invasion of the West on the Islamic nations that has resulted in much of the terrorist attack.
One of the foundational authors for the Radical Islamist movement, in particular Al Qaeda, was Sayyid Qutb. Qutb spent several years in the United States, in the late 1940s, in Greeley, Colorado, which was (at least then) a conservative, dry town. Despite this being America at his most reserved, he was horrified. His description of a church dance: "They danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire..."
This, quite conservative of American practices, was unimaginably decadent to Qutb.
This decadence he saw rising in Egypt. In his attempt to change Egypt to a more Islamic society (by his standards, at least), he ran afoul of the Nasser government and was executed -- martyred, claim those who follow his teachings -- in 1966. However, his brother Muhammad took up his mantle, taught in Saudi Arabia, and counted among his students several key Al Qaeda members, including, most likely, Osama Bin Laden.
Sayyid Qutb's ideals are what drives Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the like. A the core of these ideals is the belief that western culture is decadent, immoral, and destructive to their vision of Islam.
If western culture had stayed in the west -- or, at least, out of the middle-east -- there likely would have been no trouble between Al Qaeda and the U.S. However, advances in communication technology made that impossible. The openness of western society cannot help but corrupt the vision of the intellectual heirs of Qutb. The only thing they can do, besides surrender their ideals, is to strike at us.
The Titanic leaking into Afghanistan is a small, trivial example, that made a few paragraphs in the news and caught my eye, because it was amusing, at the time. In retrospect it was a small part of the larger issue.
Al Qaeda does not hate us for our freedom -- they would hate our "decadence," if we were an out-and-out dictatorship. What they hate is our open society and, more importantly, that they can no longer keep the trappings of our society from contaminating theirs.
At present, the military is needed over there, so that the battle is not taken over here. In the long run, I believe this cultural war will end, not by force of western arms, but when a generation of Muslims who can live in modern, global society. And judging by the Muslims outside of the middle-east, that is achievable.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 14, 2010 at 11:24 PM
@Guest#0944 FDR ran deficits during WW2 to beat the Axis. Reagan ran deficits to end the Cold War. Ideally, we were to get a "peace dividend" to make things up.
Problem was the Presidents since then didn't do much to follow-up on it. They have run larger deficits -- and each seems to be worse than the last, Republican or Democrat.
Reagan didn't wreck our economy -- heck, the economy, after the first few years, boomed under Reagan. Actually, it did fairly well under Clinton, too, once he was pushed back from the healthcare brink and just let the economy be as it would.
Frankly, it's two Bushes who've done pretty poorly by the economy ... I don't see Obama being any better, but I regret that my paranoid libertarian-conservatism in the 1990s kept me from seeing that we had an okay President in Clinton.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 14, 2010 at 11:31 PM
So CDL, our military presence in what many Muslims like Osama consider their holy land in parts of Saudi Arabia wasn't the main reason - instead it was our culture? Hogwash. If our culture was such a threat why would they be our allies during their war with the Soviet Union?
And if what you're saying is right, why target the WTC and the Pentagon instead of Hollywood? You're taking one little thing you read on wikipedia and acting as if that's the be all end all of the reasoning behind why terrorists seek to terrorize people. You sound like Pat Robertson saying the people of Haiti made a pact with the devil - "true story!" - when it's a complete misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of history.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on January 15, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Also CDL, your misremembering of the history of deficits in this country is mind-blowing. Reagan didn't run deficits to win the Cold War - he did it so he could cut down the tax rate for the wealthy without coming up with any way to account for that money. Clinton lowered the deficit and produced a projected surplus because he raised those taxes (in addition to allowing Bush 1's tax hikes to stay in place). And by your logic it should be fine and dandy that Obama is running a deficit since he's waging three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War On Terror).
Seriously, your complete misunderstanding of how our economy works is jaw dropping. Where does your information come from? Are they teaching this in our schools? Or are you a self-educated person? Either way you need better sources.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on January 15, 2010 at 11:31 PM
This is what political correctness brings
Posted By: TheRev (Guest) on January 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM
@GaryML
The Soviet Union was a bigger threat to both the U.S. and the Mujahideen than each other. Therefore, we worked together against the USSR. Just like we allied with the USSR when the Nazis were the largest threat. It's quite possible that some ally with the war on terror will be our enemies, once this is settled.
The fact that communications technology has greatly improved and become more pervasive since the close of the Cold War probably also influenced the decision making process of the terrorists.
My main source when double-checking the facts on the Qutbs and their connection to Osama Bin Laden was not Wikipedia. It was this article from National Public Radio's website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796 The author is the host of NPR's All Things Considered.
Of course Bin Laden doesn't care for U.S. troops being in Saudi Arabia. And, yes, he has stated that that was also a reason Al Qaeda has attacked the U.S. There are likely multiple motives behind his actions. But I believe that the central guiding force behind Al Qaeda is the Qutb-inspired hatred for western culture.
You ask why they didn't attack Hollywood; I don't know what factors went into their final choice of targets. It would not surprise me if logistics were part of it – it would be rather hard to make a surprise attack on the west coast, after you’ve made one on the east coast.
Given your belief that our military presence is the middle east is the sole motivation behind Al Qaeda attacks, why did they attack the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon? The WTC had nothing to do with the military. It did, however, have to do with trade and commerce which is how media is sent around the world.
As for Reagan, yes, getting tax cuts in was another motive for running up the deficit. Political actions often have more than one motivation. While Clinton did raise taxes (and preserve Bush 41’s increases), taxes were still nowhere close to where taxes were, before Reagan. Clinton essentially operated on the Reagan economic framework. Indeed, as you note, he had projected surpluses. Which would indicate that any post-Clinton deficit has little to do with Reagan. Indeed, it also suggests that maybe Reagan cut taxes a little too much, but had essentially the right idea.
As for Obama’s spending, first off, it’s not exactly three wars. Afghanistan is part of the war on terror. For that matter, considering the terrorists have been active in Iraq, that too, is now part of the war on terror, whether or not it was originally. And, yes, Obama may have to run a deficit for military expenditures. I might prefer that he not run it for other reasons, as well, but that’s politics.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on January 16, 2010 at 09:38 PM
STAY CURRENT