First, let's talk about context. Two different sites linked to this post
of mine (no, I will not do those sites the favor of giving links. They both seem a bit obsessed with me, one to the point of frightening me just a bit).
In their rants against me, the authors of both sites choose to sift through my words and come up with something palatable to their readership, if not entirely true. What they refer to is this passage:
bq. Right now, in my anger, I want to go to war with the entire Middle East, save Israel. I want to annihilate them. I know it is unreasonable and I know it isn't right. I know it's a horrible thought, but it's there, at the tip of my brain, trying to get me to shout it out to the world. Kill. Them. All.
They did not reference the rest of the post at all, which would have given their readers a better feel for my anger and a sense of how raw it was at the time I wrote that. Both authors also chose to gloss right over the fact that I admitted the thought was horrible and unreasonable. Perhaps these two men have never had a gut reaction to terrorism like I have. In fact, I'm willing to bet they never had a reaction like mine at all because, judging from their sites, we're only getting what we deserve.
Perhaps I might have stayed at their sites and argued my position in the comments, if not for the tone. One site's author and commenters are so hateful towards me there's just no point in trying to defend myself. The other author, who once declared that he was devoting his entire blog to disseminating my words, parlays his rant against me into a rant against Jews and Christians and, well, I lost interest in what he had to say pretty darn quick.
He also says this when he links to me: Anyone who claims that anti-Semitism, religious intolerance and extremism are basic tenets of Islam is talking out of their ass.
Well, I never said that. I have said over and over again that the so-called religion the terrorists of the Middle East are practicing is a warped, twisted version of Islam, defined to their own benefit. But don't let that stop you from your baseless conjecture, Josh.
He also accuses me of "murderous indifference" because (and I don't know he comes up with this idea):
bq. She's harboring that belief that seems so common to Americans, that the United States is an indestructible giant; that other countries only exist because we allow them to exist and that all sovereignty but ours is conditional on our approval. Michele reacts to every headline as if her reaction to the death of an American is somehow more significant than the reaction of an Iraqi woman to the death of one of her countrymen.
I hope you are reading this Josh. Read it very slowly, one word at a time and try to comprehend. This is a personal
weblog. I write about my personal
feelings. I have never interviewed an Iraqi woman about the death of an Iraqi because I am here. Home. In America. I am not a roving reporter and I am not required to seek out and publish all aspects of a story. This is a place where I note my
reactions to what's happening in my
small world. That does not make my reactions any more important than someone else's. It just makes them visible.
I think - and I've said this before - that Josh and his kind are in a state of denial about the war on terror. They see the war on terror as something we
started. They see us as the aggressor and enemy. They see us attacking other nations, they do not see us defending ourselves against terrorists. You and I see a war against the kind of people who would fly fully loaded airplanes into tall buildings; they see it as the U.S. oppressing a religion. It's a shame, really.
When Joshua accuses me of murderous indifference
and then says that "Michele and her kind" are throwing punches that will drag this conflict on and on, I bite my lip in frustration.
I see it the other way. When I see people who side with the terrorists, people who think that the car bombers in Iraqi are just innocent people defending their homeland, people who think that Palestinians have the right to walk onto school buses and blow them up, people who think America brought 9/11 upon themselves, I see what I think are the people who are dragging this conflict on.; people who do not recognize a war, who are blind to the fact that there are several groups of zealots out there who want us dead.
I really want to know what Joshua means by murderous indifference, though. That's sticking in my craw a bit.
Donald Sensing wrote a great piece
on ways the war on terror could end. He lists four different scenarios. Basically:
* We win and democracy prevails in the Middle East
* The terrorist win and radical Islam prevails in the Middle East, which now absent Israel.
* A massive attack on the U.S. prompts an all out war
* The war on terror drags on forever, with nobody winning or losing
At the end of Donald Sensing's post, he states: Does anyone doubt we must win this war? And does anyone still doubt that we really are at war
I can answer those questions for you . Yes and yes.
One could surmise that even the "esteemed" members of the 9/11 commission
fail to realize the extent
of the war we are waging
; that there are those who do not realize what could happen
if we didn't continue this fight. And it's not just a fight with Iraq - anyone who thinks Iraq encompasses the entire war of terror is not paying attention. Witness Iran
bq. Some people remember that the folks running Iran today were the "students" who seized the U.S. embassy in 1979 and held 52 American men and women hostage for more than a year, while President Carter fiddled.
Witness Saudi Arabia
bq. Al-Qaeda says it got help kidnapping American contractor Paul Johnson the New Jersey man from people inside the Saudi security forces.
The militants say sympathizers gave them uniforms to help them capture the American.
And witness countries
who continually wage war against their own:
bq. The longer the warfare is allowed to continue, the more a next-few-months mass starvation scenario is locked into place by a combination of public health conditions, and logistics limits on delivering aid during the monsoon season when roads become impassible. This deadly scenario, I believe, is exactly what the government of Sudan wants: Having cleared thousands of square miles and burned hundreds of villages of black Africans, it now hopes to starve the victims so they can never return to claim their land and reestablish their families.
not part of the war on terror? I would think it is. Genocide is just another form of terrorism. And you can bet your last American cent that we would suffer the same fate as those in Darfur
if our enemies have their way. If we are going to fight the war on terror, we have to fight it for everyone, not just us.
But first, we must all recognize that such a war exists. And then, we must all agree that the war needs to be won. That it even comes into question is deplorable. And it does
come into question. There are those who dismiss the war on terror. As stated above, there are those who think we
are evil aggressors. There are those who would put a halt to this important war we are fighting.
And they say I
am guilty of murderous indifference? Perhaps they are guilty of projection.