Advertisement

Archive for Monday, October 2, 2006

Extremism

October 2, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

The terrorist problem is not Muslim extremism; the problem is unreasoning fanaticism of all sorts. The two most destructive acts of terrorism in America took place, first, in Oklahoma City and, later, in New York City. The terrorists in both cases harbored a grudge against the United States that they expressed by causing the death of thousands of innocent people. They served causes we should think are opposites; one from the fanatical American right and the other from fanatical Muslims. All of them were willing to die for their respective causes.

The irrationality exhibited in both cases is no less obvious than the extremism. Those who were killed were not responsible for the hatred that possessed the souls of their killers, who were not dissuaded by innocence. Such motivation is sometimes called ideological but ideas do not motivate such action; hatred for perceived injustice does. The ideology is a rationalizing overlay.

The leaders who propagate such ideology do not seek death for themselves because of it, they are violent political people seeking power over others. Some of these ideologies are religious, some are not. It is not surprising that two such religious ideologies believe God approves the killing of innocents.

Richard Cole,

Lawrence

Comments

damnocracy 7 years, 6 months ago

Not sure where people get the idea that McVeigh was some far-right, religious nut (okay, yeah, they get it from stupid websites), but McVeigh was an admitted atheist dis-satisfied with our government.

As ridiculous as some on the far right can be, the people out there claiming that they are as dangerous as Islamic extremists need to be rounded up and sent off to have supper with Pat Robertson, followed by dinner with some terrorists in Afganistan and Iraq.

Sure, Pat Robertson is a wack job from time to time, but ol' Pat won't wack your head off. Even Fred Phelps will only scream that you are going to hell--he ain't gonna send you there via an express killing.

Islamic exremists, on the other hand, will certainly will wack your head off, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, an adult or a child.

The author who wrote the letter to the editor is just babbling. There is no comparison.

0

davisnin 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't recall McVeigh belonging to a pervasive religious movement with agents and resources all over the world. He was just a nut. You can't compare Columbine and Beslan either. That reminds me, they attack the people not at war in Iraq as well. Hmmm. You can find random acts of violence anywhere, that doesn't mean that Muslim extremism is a non-issue.

0

couranna1 7 years, 6 months ago

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols should not be mentioned in as Muslims "The leaders who propagate such ideology do not seek death for themselves because of it, they are violent political people seeking power over others. Some of these ideologies are religious, some are not. It is not surprising that two such religious ideologies believe God approves the killing of innocents." Sounds like Bush to me. OKC bombers were not trying to free themselves from perceived opression They were simply criminals who were mad with other idiots at their "lot" in life and committed a criminal act to sock it to the man. In war of course the leaders do not want to die that's why we pay kids and do most of our armed services recruiting in poor neighborhoods. OKC &WTC were for completely different reasons and McVeigh was not willing to die (granted he was forced to but only after being caught and appeals exhausted) and nichols fought for his life. Why? because they were not fighting for an ideal but an agenda Regardless of what we may think of the ideal they are willing to die for it puts them in a different category and much more dangerous. The bombing of WTC was a horrific and terrible day not just America but for mankind. A peaceful world should be goal and not thru any type of violence. We can get along. It is our leaders and their leaders with agendas that we die for everyday As for Ottawa only been there twice once to play ball in college and once I cannot recall but I do know a guy from Ottawa. enough said

0

my_black_lab_told_me_so 7 years, 6 months ago

Ah, I don't think that McVeigh or Nichols was "willing to die for their cause".

....So that part of this letter is flat out wrong!

Those two were cowards!

0

logicsound04 7 years, 6 months ago

"McVeigh was an atheist. A nominal label of some denomination or branch of the church does not a believer make - just as not all Democrats are spawn of Karl Marx."


That's funny, I don't think any of them are.

=======================================

"Bushies=alQaeda"


Is that really what you think this letter is about? Amazing...

======================================= "This letter is just another example of someone trying to associate non-leftist/secular worldviews and illustrate them as being morally equivalent."


Speaking of not being able to tell what the author is talking about...what the hell are you talking about? Can you tell me what this sentence means? The author was tying different types of extremism/radicalism together. I'm not sure what point you're making.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, Richard I do not see in the media that The Royal Society For The Protection Of Animals has stated publicly that it wishes to kill Americans and destroy the USA but I do seem to recall such satements having been shouted out by members of radical Muslim.

I am amused by the comment, "The terrorist problem is not Muslim extremism; the problem is unreasoning fanaticism of all sorts."

Uh, yeah.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

Jeez, these are some very revealing posts this morning. The baseless prejudice expressed is either irrational hatred based on pure ignorance, or a parody thereof.

0

75x55 7 years, 6 months ago

lunacydetector - you're on the mark. This letter is just another example of someone trying to associate non-leftist/secular worldviews and illustrate them as being morally equivalent. Unfortunately, it isn't well-defined or written so it is difficult to tell what the letter writer is really trying to communicate, unless it's something as shallow as 'Bushies=Al Queda'.

McVeigh was an atheist. A nominal label of some denomination or branch of the church does not a believer make - just as not all Democrats are spawn of Karl Marx.

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 6 months ago

Whats the point? Couldn't insane irrationality be called extremism?

0

blue73harley 7 years, 6 months ago

ld - I think you are right...about Ottawa.

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 6 months ago

Also, Mcveigh was Catholic, not Atheist, quit the slander...

0

Clint Gentry 7 years, 6 months ago

While not endorsing marrying your first cousin, I believe it's been found that there is minimal amount of problems associated with that practice. Also, it's the state of Missouri that has the real worry.

0

lunacydetector 7 years, 6 months ago

Correct me if i'm wrong but Timothy McVeigh was an atheist when he bombed in OKC.

The problem with the Arabs (and people from Ottawa) is all the inbreeding - over 50% marry their first cousin. THAT has to take a toll after many generations, especially in the little bedouin groups. (The Ottawa part was my attempt at humor.)

0

Richard Heckler 7 years, 6 months ago

Meanwhile the Iraq and Afghanistan death toll mounts consisting primarily of innocent human beings that which includes our soldiers. Not good diplomacy.

The Oklahoma City bombers did not represent the United States anymore than the New York City killers represented Pakistan,Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Iraq was never implicated in the matter except by the White House. It was a small band of terrorists in both cases not necessarily representing any country or government.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.