Subject: Re: output LISP
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 03:16:36 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

> 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

> 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 :).

  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.