Screwing for Virginity

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Monday, September 11, 2006

9/11: In Memoriam

Prior to the commencement of his presidency, George W. Bush’s campaign slogan was “Bringing America Together”. Apparently, according to the Republican Party in general, and Bush in particular, the grand old U.S. of A. was experiencing crises of national identity. Whether there was an internal conflict of Us/Them in the United States or not, Bush’s dreams were answered at the precise moment that two planes crashed into the national monument known as the World Trade Center, five years ago. The “crises of national identity found its provisional resolution by displacing the internal conflict of Us/Them on an external screen.” (Richard Kearney) The body politic known as the United States was (re)united on September 11, 2001, just like the separatist Puritans and the non-religious adventurers were united under the Mayflower Compact or like how frontiersmen put there differences aside while expanding America’s borders westward. This time, however, “we” were not arriving to the New World on the Mayflower or pushing the frontier further west in stagecoaches or covered wagons and uniting against the savage “Indians”, instead, “they” were the savages arriving on airplanes, crashing into buildings, nevertheless, again we united against “them”. Our crises of national identity, our differences were put behind us; America had been brought together against “them”; against savage terrorists. We were once again the United States of America.
However, it was indeed a “provisional resolution”. Between the attack upon the World Trade Center and today, five years later, we have seen the Bush administration declare preemptive war on Iraq, declare an endless “war on terrorism”, curtail civil rights, defy laws, resort to overwhelming force, and other actions, like these, that are “ready products of fear and hasty thought.” (Wendell Berry) Again we are experiencing crises of national identity; Americans are no longer united over the issues of war in Iraq (how is this connected to 9/11 again?), war in Afghanistan, or war on terrorism. Words like “freedom” are evoked to reunite the body politic, because who is against “freedom”? Terrorists. This administration is fighting for “freedom” against those who are against “freedom”, so if you are against this administrations actions, you are against “freedom” (you are no better than a terrorist) because this administration is fighting for “freedom”. This logic disintegrates public dialogue into ad hominem arguments, words like “freedom” disintegrate into rhetoric of self-righteousness and self-justification, and critical self-appraisal is thrown out with the bathwater. We are implored to remember the victims aboard the planes and in the towers who died on this fateful day, but these are just disguised calls to revenge and resentment, to increase military funding (recall Eisenhower’s warning against the military-industrial complex), to give our endless support to the thriving bureaucracy, in order to stamp out these “embittered few”, these “thousands of trained terrorists” so “innocents” who died on 9/11 and others will not have died in vain (The National Security Strategy). But will retaliating in immature and dangerous ways, will the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of “innocents” in Iraq and Afghanistan, will the deaths of thousands of American, Canadian, English, Iraq, and Afghan soldiers, will the severed head of Osama bin-Laden, save the victims deaths from banality? It doesn’t look like America’s typical unoriginal and uncreative response of war and violence will save or is saving the victims death from be(com)ing trivial. Perhaps it is now, five years out, to start thinking of different ways to handle the crises that 9/11 has placed in our laps. When should we start forgiving? When is it right to remember and when is it right to forget? How much should we remember and how much should we forget? Is this a time and place (like Northern Ireland, Bosnia, or Rwanda) where we should take note of Nietzsche’s call to “actively forget the past” in order to surmount revenge and resentment? To rework Adorno’s question about Auschwitz (which he later retracted), “Is poetry possible after 9/11?” Or is this a time and place (like Auschwitz) in which “it is essential to remember the past in order to honour our ‘debt to the dead’ and try to insure that it never happens again” (Kearney)? If we are to remember the past, if we are to narrate the events of half a decade ago, how do we do so without “losing the unique character of unspeakable horror” (Kearney)? Let’s not follow the easy path of many Christians, both conservative and liberal, and create or subscribe to some Master Narrative that attempts to explain it away. 9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever. We must avoid “banalising” it “by reducing it to voyeuristic spectacle or kitsh” (Kearney) or a commodity of the culture industry (a real and present danger with the appearance of numerous emotive 9/11 films).
Either way, we must take seriously both the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers and the dissent of the populace concerning the subsequent actions taken by the Bush administration in order to make occasion for strenuous self-appraisal. First, what has the United States done to stimulate such an attack? Could it be that we are trespassers in the Islamic holy land, not just Mecca, but the whole Saudi Arabian peninsula? Could it be because of the untrammeled spread of the global market leaving the Islamic people maimed in its path? Second, why are citizens dissenting? Obviously, some people aren’t pleased with the way this administration is handling things. Instead of hijacking, raping, and using religious vocabulary to justify your actions and arrogantly proclaiming the superiority of your stance while ignoring the critique, why not actually engage the critique and confront the disagreement? How could there possibly be a quandary if your stance and actions are divinely sanctioned? Displacing internal conflict onto an external screen is only a temporary cover-up for crises of national identity, attention cannot be diverted ad infinitum from the internal conflicts (though an endless war on terror was a creative attempt), eventually these crises will have to be dealt with.
If America is to be brought together, let it be brought together not by identifying outside enemies like America did in the 20th century with communists, fascists, Cubans, Iraqis, Vietcong, or North Koreans nor by trivializing the deaths of victims by using their deaths as a method to continually fuel the military-industrial machine to satiate our perceived need for revenge. Perhaps, it is time to think of new ways to “bring America together”. But first it is time to think of new descriptions as to what is meant by “America”, both ideally and in actual performance, or whether or not America should be “brought together” at all.

16 Comments:

  • At 11:16 AM, September 11, 2006, Blogger Chris said…

    This essay is also posted on adifferentportrait.blogspot.com.
    You may be interested in checking that site also for interesting discussion.

     
  • At 12:48 AM, November 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, November 05, 2006, Blogger Buddy said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 9:55 PM, November 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 6:32 PM, November 06, 2006, Blogger Buddy said…

    I don't allow anonymous posts.

     
  • At 6:55 PM, November 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous1 said…

    I didn't even get the full five days? I was going to post (however I was busy yesterday) that if the problem was differentiating between people posting (if so why didn't you say so in the first place?) that you could just refer to me as Anonymous1 or something like that and I would call myself that so that way it would get rid of any confusion of who said what. However you are the administrator of your blog and you can do with it what you wish and determine who you want to post comments and who you don't want to post comments.

     
  • At 7:20 PM, November 07, 2006, Blogger Buddy said…

    Anonymous1, you had five days in which to respond; you did and refused to identify yourself. If you identify yourself as Anonymous1 (or perhaps something a bit more clever), I will return your comments. Are you claiming both of the above anonymous comments?

     
  • At 7:27 PM, November 07, 2006, Blogger Buddy said…

    Previous deleted comments:

    Anonymous1:
    Where to begin there is just so much written to be commented on. First of all have you any idea what militant islam is like? Perhaps you should watch a show called Radical Islam on the Fox News Channel at 4pm or 10pm sunday november 5th, although you probably won't see this comment in time. Although I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things I want to say I guess I'll try to continue commenting on your essay. One thing that caught my eye is when you said, "9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever." On whose or whats authority do you make this claim? Also if I may redirect a question at you when you ask, "what has the United States done to stimulate such an attack?" These trespassers you speak of who are they you say "we" who is we? Americans? who? Also who is to say that the global market is the cause for the maimed Islamic people? How did the global market get there in the first place without someone's approval? Who's to say that the global market is at fault at all? Most of these countries where Islamic people are "maimed" you see a very oppressive government. The government is the problem. How are the people supposed to live when everything they could have is taken away from them? Another thing I noticed is when you stated, "Instead of hijacking, raping, and using religious vocabulary to justify your actions..." Considering that your essay is about the United States are saying that the U.S. has done these things if so when and where and by whom? In terms of arrogantly proclaiming the superiority of a stance... Where has this been done? Specifically in terms of the Bush Administration where has this been done? And when it comes to engaging the critique and confronting the disagreement that has been done and is continually being done. The critiques on the Bush Administration's policies concerning Iraq and the war on terror have been met I'd say head on from people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin (you may or may not know who he is), etc. Either you haven't been paying attention or have chose to ignore these counter-critiques I am not sure. For your last paragraph I will admit that wars have brought people together, because they were seen as worth fighting for or worth banning together for. Why were they worth fighting for? Because they were our enemies and they were threats and ignoring those threats would have done us no good. Ignoring those threats is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. And the enemies that did 9/11 are still out there and are still threats. How can you forget something that is still happening?


    I'm sure there are some things I've missed, but I hope this comment is good enough for now.
    12:48 AM, November 05, 2006

    Buddy:
    Anonymous,

    You have five days in which to identify yourself before I remove your comment.

    Assuming you will take responsibility for your comment, I have a few questions for you.

    You said:
    "In terms of arrogantly proclaiming the superiority of a stance... Where has this been done? Specifically in terms of the Bush Administration where has this been done?"
    To paraphrase part of your comment, either you haven't been paying attention or have chose to ignore it. Bush has consistently framed this war in terms of good vs. evil, with America and its allies as good and enemies as evil. Are you trying to argue that the Bush administration doesn't see good as superior to evil?

    You said:
    "Why were they worth fighting for? Because they were our enemies and they were threats and ignoring those threats would have done us no good."
    Please follow your own advice and define who "we" are. The children who were run down in the streets of Baghdad were not "my" enemies.

    Finally, you both challenge Chris's assertion that "9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever" and support retaliation and pre-emptive strikes against this threat. Which is it? If these terrorist attacks are God's judgment upon America, then wouldn't America be in the wrong to fight against the perpetrators? If America is being punished by God, then how can it continue to portray itself as good? You can't have it both ways.

    I hope you decide to come forward and claim your comment. Otherwise, my response will make no sense to future readers.
    10:20 AM, November 05, 2006


    Anonymous1:
    Hello, it is I, Anonymous that claim the above response.

    In response to your first question, did you happen to see the Radical Islam program on FoxNews. If so are you going to sit there and tell me that those people are not evil doers?

    In response to your second question:
    The "we" I was talking about seemed to me as obvious if you read the beginning part of the comment you quoted. I was speaking about Chris' last paragraph of his essay. I am sorry for the confusion so allow me to explain further. If you were to look at Chris' last paragraph of his essay he mentions various "outside enemies" that the U.S. was identifying in the 20th century. Those are the enemies I thought I was talking about, again I apologize for the confusion. Also the term "we" was used earlier in my comment when I questioned Chris as to whom the trespassers were.

    In response to your third question:
    Where did I exactly agree or disagree with that statement. The question I asked was on whose or whats authority Chris made that statement. Also whose to say that the 9/11 attacks doesn't have more than one meaning. Along with judgment it could also be a wake up call to the evil that is out there that we either tried to pacify or ignore entirely. But my intention wasn't to debate the statement only to ask where the authority for the statement was given.

    I hope this clarifies the issues with my comment.

    Sincerely,

    Anonymous
    9:55 PM, November 05, 2006

     
  • At 11:22 AM, November 08, 2006, Blogger Chris said…

    Anonymous1,
    One thing that caught my eye is when you said, "9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever." On whose or whats authority do you make this claim?
    1. I don't see anywhere in the narrative where God has called down the thunder (so to speak) in this way. The Flood punished the wicked. Sodom was wicked (save less than 20 people). How many people in the Twin Towers were homosexual? How many supported same sex marriage? If homosexuality is wrong (which I am not convinced of), why wouldn't God crash a plane into a GLAAD meeting?
    You ask why there can not be more than one meaing. I want to avoid numerous micro-narratives that allow it to be explained in whatever way one wants. Also I want to avoid a master narrative. By saying that God ordered the attack as a chastisement of America, this turns it into a Master-narrative that gives it one meaning and thus explains it all away.
    Another reason, talk about this being a chastisement from God is a red herring. It is a way to avoid critical self-appraisal concerning the problems of our relations with these people. If someone punched me in the face after I told him that his sister was a whore, I wouldn't say "he punched me because I procrastinated on my homework" or "He punched me because I didn't cut my toenails". The same hold true for the body politic. They didn't "attack" the US because of some intra-national "problem" but because of our relation to them.
    Finally, it seems an unverifiable and therefore an unfalsifiable support of one's theological/doctrinal views. We don't like homosexuals. We can make the Bible support our beliefs. We can project those beliefs onto God, so now God's doesn't like homosexuality. We are "attacked". We can say that since God doesn't like homosexuality, then this is God punishing those who are (or support it). You can't verify it (but you still speak as if ex cathedra), but others can't falsify it either.

    who is to say that the global market is the cause for the maimed Islamic people? How did the global market get there in the first place without someone's approval? Who's to say that the global market is at fault at all? Most of these countries where Islamic people are "maimed" you see a very oppressive government. The government is the problem. How are the people supposed to live when everything they could have is taken away from them?
    I never said that the global is the cause of anything. But it's hands are not clean. It is a cause of alot of things. Injustices are perpetrated, people of the periphery are exploited and impoverished, by those of the core of the global market. Who approved the presence of the global market? Maybe someone, but probably not. It may have been forced, just like agriculture was forced onto hunter-gatherers. Capitalism must expand to continue in existence. If the governments are the problem, why are terrorist attacking the United States and not their governments.
    Why did the terrorists attack the United States, let's look at the reasons why they believe they attacked.
    In a 1998 fatawa (an Islamic legal pronouncement), bin Laden, et. al., lists three crimes (or sins) committed by the Americans:
    1. U.S. support of Israel.
    2. U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
    3. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.

    The fatwa goes on to state that the United States:
    1. Plunders the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.
    2. Dictates policy to the rulers of those countries.
    3. Supports abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.
    4. Has military bases and installations upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries.
    5. Intends thereby to create disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.
    6. Supports Israel, and wishes to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the occupation of Palestine.

    I have no problem with counter-critiques. But where is the critical self-appraisal? It seems to come down to the false dichotomy of us/them. We are good, they are evil. If we think that we are good and that God is on our side, there is no need for critical self-appraisal.

    I will admit that wars have brought people together, because they were seen as worth fighting for or worth banning together for. Why were they worth fighting for? Because they were our enemies and they were threats and ignoring those threats would have done us no good. Ignoring those threats is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. And the enemies that did 9/11 are still out there and are still threats. How can you forget something that is still happening?
    As Buddy said, the children run over in the streets of Baghdad are not my enemies. Don't kill any children for my benefit. I don't subscribe to General William Tecumseh Sherman's doctrine of declaring a civilian population guilty and rightly subjected to military punishment. This seems to be the difference between war and terrorism. Terrorists intentionally perpetrate violents against innocents, in war, a nation is willing to perpetrate violence against innocents. Why is war "good" and terrorism "evil"?
    Also, why are these people "threats"? What caused these "threats"?

    Those are some thoughts. This response is already too long.

     
  • At 10:53 PM, November 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous1 said…

    Chris,

    For the first part you did not answer my question. You went on to explain why you made the statement, but you did not say where the authority for that statement was. As I told Buddy my intention wasn't to debate the statement but to ask where the authority for the statement was given. Also you said: "I want to avoid numerous micro-narratives that allow it to be explained in whatever way one wants." By making your statement are you not explaining it the way you want? This is why I asked you where the authority comes from to make your statement. You did not say I do not believe that God yadda yadda yadda. You stated it as if to say this is the way it is. You are stating (or attempting to) God's will. Are you so divinely attuned that you can make this statement?

    For the second part you said in your essay, "Could it be because of the untrammeled spread of the global market leaving the Islamic people maimed in its path?". Then in your previous comment you say, "I never said that the global is the cause of anything." Which is it? But when it comes to the "maimed Islamic people" the governments have a lot to do if not all to do with it. You mentioned, "If the governments are the problem, why are terrorist attacking the United States and not their governments." The reason for that is the terrorists are getting funding from these governments and not giving much if anything to the people. Also at the end of the second part you list the things that fatwa believes the U.S. has done wrong to that I guess the obvious response is so what? By listing them are you agreeing that these are wrong doings?

    The third section you said, "But where is the critical self-appraisal?" After 9/11 I'd say we had quite a bit of a self-appraisal. Before 9/11 all the terrorists attacks we just kind of ignored the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on embassies, the first word trade center bombing, etc. Then 9/11 happened and we finally realized that there were people with a lot of hate who wanted us dead and decided perhaps we should defend ourselves. There's been self-appraisal you just don't agree with the outcome.

    And for the final portion when have children been run over in the streets of Baghdad? Also if Sherman's doctrine is in effect it doesn't seem to be. The U.S. military does it's best to limit civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein did his best to deter the bombing of military installations by putting them in densely populated portions of cities. Saddam Hussein did his best to use his citizens to his advantage during the wars he'd purposely put them in harm's way. The Iraqi people were lied to saying that Iraq was winning the war had they not been lied to perhaps they would've known to evacuate the cities and escape the battles to come. And finally the reason why these people (assuming you mean terrorists) are threats is because they attacked us not just on 9/11 but before that as well. They also continue to threaten to attack and/or kill us. What caused the threats? I'd say because of what they believe. They believe that they are to rule the world and are to kill those who do not convert. All of which is done in the name of Allah.

     
  • At 3:42 PM, November 10, 2006, Blogger Chris said…

    1. I don't really understand the distinction you are drawing between authority and explanation. Anyway, I think what you are trying to ask is: how can I speak for God and say "God didn't do this...". I don't think I am speaking for God, and I think someone would be hard pressed to find any support for the argument that God has divinely sanction this "attack" for such and such a reason. But I am sure that it can be done, and is done. So what I am saying is that I base my authority in a communal interpretation of the Biblical narrative.
    2. I don't really see the contradiction between saying that "I never said that the global market is the cause of anything" and asking the question "Could it be because of the untrammled spread of the global market..." It's not THE cause, but it is certainly A cause, and a very important one.
    So if the governments are the problem why are they attacking the US and not their governments? You answer that the reason is that the "terrorists are getting funding from these governments and not giving much of anything to the people" Are the terrorists or the governments not giving much to the people? And how does this answer the question? These people maimed by the government become terrorists, why don't they attack the government? Because now they are happy because they are funded by the government? This seems very clean cut. They were maimed and frustrated by the government, so they become terrorists, but now they like the government so they decide to attack the US. Is that the argument?
    To your "So what?" Am I agreeing with them? To an extent, yes. These are some of the reasons they attacked. Why are we in the Saudi Arabian peninsula? Oil? I think the US is wrong in their aggression toward the Iraqi people. I think the way we are handling our relations with Israel are wrong, and I think Israel is not handling things well.
    3. You talk about finally realizing that these people hate us and that we decided to protect ourselves. This is not critical SELF appraisal. This is an unimaginative uncreative response that avoids critical self-appraisal. SELF appraisal is when you appraise the actions of yourself. What can we do differently in our relation and action toward them and not kill them.
    4. When has a child been run over in the streets of Baghdad? Have you not been paying attention? Spending too much time watching FOX news? The Sherman Doctrine doesn't seem to be in effect? Why are civilians dying? The US does its best to limit civilian casualties, but they are still willing to kill them nonetheless.
    "What caused the threats? I'd say because of what they believe . They believe that they are to rule the world and are to kill those who do not convert. All of which is done in the name of Allah." Is this just Islam? I'm assuming you are talking about the terrorists. You would be hard pressed to find this anywhere in the Qu'ran. And I doubt that Terrorist believe that they should rule the world. It seems to be another caricature, especially in light of the fatwa I mentioned earlier, they are not so concerned about ruling the world. But even if they are, how is this mentality any different than the US. We believe we are to rule the world and are to kill those who don't convert (to the global market). All in the name of God or western (post-)capitalism (what's the difference these days anyway?)

     
  • At 10:45 PM, November 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous1 said…

    Chris,

    You said, "I don't think I am speaking for God" however in your essay you said, "9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever." Had you said it in the form of an idea or belief then I would agree you are not speaking for God, but instead you stated it. A simple paraphrase of your statement in your essay is God did not use 9/11 to call down destruction on America so on and so forth.

    As for all this talk of global markets and oppressive governments I think we're not getting anywhere. You talked about maimed Islamic people because of (mainly or partially) the global market. The point I guess I've been trying to make is that it's mainly (or solely for all I know) the oppressive governments that are the cause of the maimed Islamic people. In your comment you talk about the maimed people by the government becoming terrorists. If it came across that I was saying that I apologize for the confusion I did not mean to say that. These people become terrorists because of what they believe and the governments that support them do so because they believe it as well. I apologize for the wasted time and confusion concerning this particular topic.

    "SELF appraisal is when you appraise the actions of yourself." The U.S. didn't do that? We looked at our actions (or lack there of) and decided to defend ourselves. They(terrorists) attacked us on 9/11 and in the past where is the call for their critical self appraisal? The "unjustices" that the fatwa are making that you agree with, are they significant reasons for terrorists to start a war? Are the unjustices even the reason why they started the war in the first place? They think of the Jews as pigs and monkeys and believe they are to rule the world for the sake of Allah. It doesn't matter if I'm hard pressed to find that in the Qu'ran they've already done so and are still doing it. Here is a link that shows a few clips from a move entitled "Obsession". This movie was partially shown on that FoxNews special I told you of, but considering your skepticism of FoxNews I can assure you there is no FoxNews in this clip only the clips from the movie. Here is the link:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=7MqGaqQdm50&mode=related&search=
    If that doesn't work the clips are viewable at obsessionthemovie.com but in the clip I posted all together allready.

    When it comes to children being run over in the street I asked when it happened because I thought you would then list a source of some kind, but instead you come back and question that I questioned your accusation.

    "We believe we are to rule the world and are to kill those who don't convert (to the global market). All in the name of God or western (post-)capitalism (what's the difference these days anyway?)" I'm not quite sure what to make of this nor do I think I'll even try.

     
  • At 11:14 AM, November 15, 2006, Blogger Chris said…

    1. I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between "statement" and saying something in the form of an idea or belief. I believe the sky is blue, so I say, "the sky is blue", not "I believe the sky is blue". Would it make you feel better if I said "I believe that God did not use 9/11 to call down destruction on America so on and so forth"?
    2. I'm just saying that the United States version of globalization is the spread of it's economic system, and since the US is the world's dominant power, business (literally) is good. And frustration and bitterness against America have grown as the poor have watched the U.S. expand its hegemony and wealth, while they themselves have received scarcely any benefit. And this has intensified the feeling among the poor that they are oppressed by the US.
    However, I also agree that to some extent a problem is the corrupt, authoritarian governments of many Muslim states and that these governments are also maiming their people. We should reduce our ties with the present governments in many Muslim states, and try to develop improved relations with some opposition elements there. And give aid to those who are being maimed by their governments, and to some extent correcting political injustices that turn people into terrorists.
    3. No the US didn't do that. I am not talking about their action of revenge and retaliation. They attacked us so we should attack them. We learned in kindergarten that that isn't how you respond. It's childish and idiotic. Fight fire with fire? War doesn't and has never lead to peace. I'm talking about critical self appraisal. What did we do to deserve such an attack?
    I'm not saying that the terrorists shouldn't do the same critical self appraisal. I'm just saying that we should check the plank in our eye before we point out their specks. Are we without sin, and justified in casting the stone?
    Sure they hate us. But why are they projecting such a hate onto Allah that they should rule the world and will the West? It's not very easy to get such an interpretation from the Qu'ran. They are now like Christian fundamentalists, they are misinterpreting their story in order to justify their actions. However, radical Islamic people have their backs against the wall and use their story to justify terrorism. Christian fundamentalist (who no less feel that they should rule the world in the name of God) feel their backs are being pushed toward the wall and use their story to justify war (which is no more than state sanctioned terrorism).
    I don't see much of a distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism and a majority of American citizens. Islamic fundamentalists think that Bush is a pig and should be killed. Christian fundamentalists and a majority of American citizens think Saddam Hussein and bin Laden are a pigs and should be killed. They are indoctrinated, Christian fundamentalists are indoctrinated, American citizens are indoctrinated.
    They think they are right, the US thinks they are right, and they both kill eachother.
    3. Where are all the dead children? I did question your question because I didn't know of children's deaths. But apparently I was wrong. A simple search: go to google, click on "images", and type in "iraq dead children" and see what pops up.
    4. Ok, don't try.

     
  • At 6:27 PM, November 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous1 said…

    On CNN 7,9 and midnight EST there is a special exposing more of the arab tv and islam's beliefs and intentions. Sorry for the late response the 7pm one has already started hopefully you can catch the 9 or midnight showing.

     
  • At 6:34 PM, November 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous1 said…

    little more info it's on a program called Headline Prime hosted by Glenn Beck. I say this because we seem to have CNN and another channel like CNN so just trying to clarifying on where the program is being shown.

     
  • At 12:17 PM, November 17, 2006, Blogger Chris said…

    I actually don't have a tv.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home