Subject: Re: output LISP From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 03:16:36 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * firstname.lastname@example.org > He used the term "crusade"? [I'm a tad incredulous; perhaps I should > not be so skeptical, but I am, a little...] I have had CNN and BBC World on at all times since I saw the terrorist attack live in September 11. George W. Bush has stupidly talked about "wanted: dead or alive", "war on terrorism", and "crusade against the terrorists" on numerous occasions, but the "crusade" quote has been edited out of recently aired footage of the unscripted speech where he stuffed his foot way down his throat. Still, it has made the rounds in the Norwegian press and several other European presses, and several learned people on the history of the "interactions" between Islam and Christianity have written lucid commentaries on the blundering cowboy's lack of rhetorical skills and tremendous lack of sensitivity towards other faiths than his own, not the least of which is the complete and utter alienation of _non-religiuos_ in the United States, itself, which also the San Francisco Chronicle has commented intelligently on¹. The Christian fundamentalist rhetoric in "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" is such a gag-worthy line that I am sorely tempted to join the terrorists. Such fantastically retarded rhetoric is precisely what we expect from Taliban and other amazingly narrow-minded religious fundamentalists, although the latter turn out to be far more measured and mentally aware of their own predicament than that blundering cowboy that very unfortunately leads the most powerful nation in the world. > It underlines the principle that Bush needs _desperately_ to learn to > _never_ open his mouth except when he's got a script to work with. So true. It reminds me of a line that went around when Dick Cheney was having heart problems. "If Dick Cheney dies, does George W. Bush become president?"" > One interesting observation that has been pointed out: If you look > back at The Crusades, the ultimate result was that Saladin crushed the > crusaders... That's not exactly the result Bush is likely to want > to be associated with, either... The crusades were also incredibly ill-prepared and ill-executed. As much as I hate, and I really mean _hate_, incomptence, especially when matched with political power, it ranks in my view as an order of magnitude worse than the most disgraceful and mass-murderous event of the last century. Considering, however, the propensity of American political leaders to invoke "war" as if it is something good or noble or just, one should not be surprised that they are likely to think of the crusades as reasonably positive events in the history of their own religion. Just as I find the turn towards fundamentalism in Islam very alarming (it started, I believe, with the religious fundamentalist overthrow of the Shah of Iran, as a very violent reaction to the "Western" influence, and which has been used by the morons who thought they could use religious fundamentalism for their own political ends, such as CIA's backing of Afghan nutcase groups which now become targets because they got out of control -- well, duh!), the turn towards more Christian fundamentalism in the political landscape of several European countries, including Norway, and the United States is not boding well for the future. I believe that World War III will be a war between Islam and Christianity, motivated by simple turf wars over water and oil, but somebody as stupid and emotive as president George W. Bush may well lay a ground that will be very hard for more reasonable people to undo and reverse. George W. Bush is using "God" in his speeches even more often than the Taliban are using "Allah", and this is neither patriotic nor inclusive -- it is parochial and _very_ exclusive of those who are Americans and who do not share the president's _personal_ belief system and revengeful attitude. This _should_ have been a time for people everywhere to join the U.S.A's desperate need for international, panglobal support in fighting terrorism and ridding the world of the cultures that support such antisocial and anti-_human_ tactics to serve their sick, sick political agenda, but we are instead looking at a dangerously emotional and narrow-minded cowboy who fails to recognize that he would gain much more support from many more people if he could can his own religious zealotry (and unlike those who want adherence to the ANSI Common Lisp standard, this is what _real_ religious zealotry looks like, to keep this sub-marginally on-topic :). /// ------- ¹ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/22/MN215155.DTL -- Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism to fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade", which only invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period of Christianity with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam? He is _such_ an idiot.