ALERT
... They are the actions of a public that prefers glib, trendy gestures to an open dialogue on the nuances of a complex situation that cannot be boiled down to "You're either with us or against us" ...Translation: I am smarter than the American people, a people who prefer glib, trendy gestures to anything I might have to say. They need me to show them the error of their ways. But they will not listen to me, their suffering redeemer. A prophet is not honored in his country and all that.
All of the psycho babble aside- this one phrase says it all!
You are either with us, or you are against us.
Something my father, a 20 year military veteran always told me: “When a battle starts, look at who is on your side, identify any cowards, and kill them first.”
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
The author feels that he can turn the debate in his favor by redefining "patriotism" to something more congenial to his point of view. If he were the arbiter of the English language that would be one thing, but he isn't, he's just another liberal pushing vagueness as profundity. Nice try. It is amazing to me the number of liberals who were in open contempt of patriotism six months ago and who are now informing us of the true meaning of the word. I ain't buying.
There was no room for discussion of U.S. sanctions in the Middle East.
Of course there was - and the position of the left was that such sanctions had killed 100,000 Iraqi children and were immoral.
However, the greatest threat to our security is not a Fundamentalist Islamic regime or a power-hungry dictator, but our own arrogance that we, as Americans, belong automatically to a higher order of humanity.
If the author is referring to himself here he might have a case.
The author simply doesn't understand that there is something inherently polarizing in somebody arrogating to him- or herself the right to kill you to get your attention. Attempting to occupy a fictional middle ground with such an individual merely gives him or her a chance to make another attempt. There is nothing moral about this; there is a great deal stupid and suicidal about it.
The confusion that the Charles Bishop incident has caused is not just due to the apparent oxymoron created by the contrast of his personality and his actions, but also because of a fine distinction that has been created between patriotism and anti-Americanism. It is much easier to diametrically oppose these two concepts than to accept that very few people are one or the other; it allows us to label ourselves and others in order to feel safe in a hostile social climate.
Ummm, "I kinda like America and I kinda want to crash a plane into a building to point out their subtle faults?"
How about: "I don't believe that America should be destroyed, but it is evil and must be wiped from the face of the earth."
Or this: "Even though I don't approve of Osama bin Laden, I'm glad that his supporters are causing us to examine our foreign policy by killing us."
Is that good? Is that the middle ground?
What's Clemence's problem? This is true.
Young heads filled with mush!
Perhaps he might wave a flag, emotionally charged, if someone he was close to was murdered on 911 by people that have but one agenda ... our destruction.
I get so sick of the crowd that thinks we can negotiate with folks whose only desire is to see us dead.