letter in response to jonah goldberg article 11-13 on attack at fort hood
mr. goldberg,
i read your column today on the killings at ft. hood, and you make some very good points about our reluctance to point out the obvious (i.e. that major hasan was a muslim and was, if the reports are true, in fact, a radical, terrorist muslim at that.
that being said, you did make a statement, that puts you into somewhat of a radical category yourself: "there is a powerful case to made that islamic extremism is not some fringe phenomenon but part of the mainstream of islamic life around the world."
what exactly is that "powerful case?" you don't back up that inflammatory statement with any proof or facts. there is no evidence whatsoever that islamic extremism is part of the muslim mainstream. indeed, there is ample evidence that it is not. to wit: there are 1.1 BILLION muslims in the world, and if even 10% of those people (110 million) were extremists then there would be thousands upon thousands of terrorist attacks against western targets, if not monthly, then yearly, and there are not. according to the united nations charter, resistance to an occupying army is NOT terrorism but something that is EXPECTED of the population of the occupied country. whether or not we americans think we are occupying afghanistan or iraq, you can rest assured that the citizens of those two countries do. in the early '60's, the CIA overthrew the duly elected government of iran, installed the shah and continued to meddle in their affairs for years. were the iranians who protested and took americans hostage (but did not harm them) terrorists? radicals? or were they iranian patriots?
here in the united states, there are millions of muslims. where are all the attacks? where are the bombs in the shopping malls? at the sporting events? in the vegas casinos? all of those are what the military would call "soft targets" and yet none of those millions of american muslims have planted a bomb in any of those. where is your case? where is your proof? what statistics can you quote?
and fyi, i am not muslim nor am i from the middle east. i'm just a catholic boy from oklahoma who happens to believe in fair play; who would rather the world live in peace than in constant conflict and would wish that respected writers such as yourself refrain from making broad, inflammatory, accusations against millions of our fellow citizens.
i surmise that you are jewish, based upon your name and, if so, shame on you. surely you must be sensitive to broad, racist, statements, directed against the people of the jewish faith or nationality and surely you would not want to be lumped in with the bigots and monsters who made those broad un-provable statements by making broad un-provable statements against people of the muslim faith.
i look forward to your follow-up article where you retract that statement...knowing you to be a generally fair-minded, intelligent and thinking man.
ron shock
las vegas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ron Shock
i read your column today on the killings at ft. hood, and you make some very good points about our reluctance to point out the obvious (i.e. that major hasan was a muslim and was, if the reports are true, in fact, a radical, terrorist muslim at that.
that being said, you did make a statement, that puts you into somewhat of a radical category yourself: "there is a powerful case to made that islamic extremism is not some fringe phenomenon but part of the mainstream of islamic life around the world."
what exactly is that "powerful case?" you don't back up that inflammatory statement with any proof or facts. there is no evidence whatsoever that islamic extremism is part of the muslim mainstream. indeed, there is ample evidence that it is not. to wit: there are 1.1 BILLION muslims in the world, and if even 10% of those people (110 million) were extremists then there would be thousands upon thousands of terrorist attacks against western targets, if not monthly, then yearly, and there are not. according to the united nations charter, resistance to an occupying army is NOT terrorism but something that is EXPECTED of the population of the occupied country. whether or not we americans think we are occupying afghanistan or iraq, you can rest assured that the citizens of those two countries do. in the early '60's, the CIA overthrew the duly elected government of iran, installed the shah and continued to meddle in their affairs for years. were the iranians who protested and took americans hostage (but did not harm them) terrorists? radicals? or were they iranian patriots?
here in the united states, there are millions of muslims. where are all the attacks? where are the bombs in the shopping malls? at the sporting events? in the vegas casinos? all of those are what the military would call "soft targets" and yet none of those millions of american muslims have planted a bomb in any of those. where is your case? where is your proof? what statistics can you quote?
and fyi, i am not muslim nor am i from the middle east. i'm just a catholic boy from oklahoma who happens to believe in fair play; who would rather the world live in peace than in constant conflict and would wish that respected writers such as yourself refrain from making broad, inflammatory, accusations against millions of our fellow citizens.
i surmise that you are jewish, based upon your name and, if so, shame on you. surely you must be sensitive to broad, racist, statements, directed against the people of the jewish faith or nationality and surely you would not want to be lumped in with the bigots and monsters who made those broad un-provable statements by making broad un-provable statements against people of the muslim faith.
i look forward to your follow-up article where you retract that statement...knowing you to be a generally fair-minded, intelligent and thinking man.
ron shock
las vegas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ron Shock
posted by Ron Shock | 4:06 PM
7 Comments:
good to have you back on the blog ron!!! sure have missed you!!!
Ron, once again, you have distilled complex thought into basic speech. The hysterical right wingers just dont get it. Welcome back, pal.
Peace and Love, SM
You actually changed my thinking on this issue. Thanks sir.
It's nice to see you post something new on your blog Ron. I was losing faith. I will be in Vegas this week so hopefully I'll see you at MGM.
Hey. Ron...
Missed y'all on Spooky Day. Hope you're both all better than before.
Nice job on the post...nailed the dismount from the soapbox at the end.
I was with the pharmacy stuff up 'til the "K-9 Slim Down Dogs'.
Now you and I know that dogs and cats have clearly recognizable personalities (and thence perhaps souls, but I don't want to get into a Jesuitical smackdown in case we don't see exactly eye to eye on that])...personalities, yes...but do we really believe that a dog has sufficient mental horsepower (well?) to decide whether or not they can handle a product that might be the equivalent of doggie crystal meth ?
And who are we (or some marketing guy) to decide what the right range is for dogs' weights and body shapes? Dogs especially, since they don't have the feline PR machine behind them, already have enough self-esteem problems based on believing that their 'average bear dog' isn't in the Mensa category...do we really want to up the ante with the added onus of body-image issues?
Finally, what's the deal with Bladder Support Dogs ? Sounds more like it ought to be marketed in the Personal Assistant category rather than Pet Rx. Did you get a separate webpage link or a printed brochure that explains what's going on here? I'm familiar with Vision Support Dogs for people who are fully or nearly blind, but this seems like the sort of thing that is a teensy market niche at best, and like the kind of thing that would be better handled by a sales avenue that's a little more discreet than the Internet.
Gee whiz...
Well now, as a good Catholic boy, explain to me why the Catholics don’t go around attaching bombs to their bodies and blow up civilians? Where do you come off defending these raghead extremists? And who taught you English grammar? You’re supposed to capitalize certain words, you know. You might learn how to write correctly before criticizing the writings of others!
Goldberg...Catholics have been known to engage in genocide, so that argument is irrelevant.
I don't defend violence...I can understand how a person could be driven to violence...but I look to those who have lived exemplary lives for guidance and neither Mother Theresa, Ghandi, or Christ himself would have become violent, even in the face of death....but as I said, while I personally would advise against violence as a choice, I can understand how one could be driven to it...or brainwashed to believe it is an acceptable alternative.
I never criticize anyone's spelling or grammar and if I stopped to "spellcheck" every word I type, I would lose my train of thought...so if you don't like what I have to say, then you have the right not to read it. Goodbye Goldberg.
Post a Comment
<< Home