|
|||||||||
Posted September 28, 2001
Publicity
Just a word on the column by Justin Raimondo ["Operation Infinite Arrogance," September 26]. As of today there have been no arrests in the murder of a Sikh that was mentioned in the column. Therefore there can be no knowledge of the motivation of the murderer. I hope the trend to victimology in the site will be muted, until the facts are in. We get enough accusations of racism from Revered Jesse. We don't need it from otherwise intelligent people like Justin.
Justin Raimondo replies:
A witness reported that the assailant yelled, "Death to all Arabs."
College Student and Patriot
I am a college student and a patriot, but I find that the news received on mainstream television lacks the open-minded views expressed on your site. I fear that soon censorship of such views will be in effect, due to the US governments need for positive public support. I just wanted to say that I believe the people involved in this site are true American's, interested in protecting the freedoms of the public and thank you for your service (American Flag in the background and trumpets playing).
Smoking A Cigarette!
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of September 17, "The Third World War":]
Justin Raimondo saw hostility emanating from every pour of Mrs. Suburban Housewife, and thought it may have to do with his darker (than her) features. Especially in the wake of 9-11. How can he have missed the point so completely? He was smoking a cigarette! For years, government and the media have treated smoking as the moral equivalent of child molestation on pay-per-view. She would have been more receptive if he had been holding a lit stick of dynamite.
Myths
In his September 14th article "The Jingoes and the Social Reformers," Joseph Stromberg quoted Robert Zevin in stating that "the Jingoes (warmongers) and the Social Reformers had always been 'together.' Their shared commitment to an ever-growing state apparatus made them natural allies."
I have to disagree with this statement. During the Vietnam war the Jingoes (warmongers) and the Social Reformers (the antiwar Left) were not allies but adversaries. During the past decades many left-wing organizations that support social reform have opposed US interventionism in the Middle East, the Balkans, and especially in Latin America. The most popular example of the Left supporting military intervention would be supporting the US fighting European Fascism during the Second World War. However, many on the "old" Right supported US interventionism to stop the spread of "Communism" during the Cold War. Pat Buchanan still defends the Cold War. So both sides may be guilty to a certain extent.
Basically I just wanted to say that I believe it is a Libertarian myth that a "Welfare State" is synonymous with a "Warfare State." Just like Marxists believe in the myth that Capitalism needs war to sustain itself. Sweden is a "Welfare State" yet it has managed to avoid military conflict throughout the past century including both world wars and the Cold War.
Why not?
I want to commend you guys for standing up for what you believe. You must have received lots of threats and so on. My own confidence in the future sinks with each passing day and more obvious opportunism to remove inconvenient civil liberties both in America and here (Canada). We were told immediately that it isn't the time to blame the intelligence community. Why not? What better time could there be to ask for an explanation. The Far East is a virtual tinderbox and we're striking matches.
The insane policies pursued over the Balkans have made defense of Western Europe problematic. The issue of blowback has to be addressed otherwise whatever is done over Afganistan can't work. The golfer Johnny Miller made an analogy for his sport -- "What's more important, lining up a rifle or pulling the trigger?"
Folly
...Our
foreign policy, which has not changed under either political
party, seems almost designed to create hatred towards
the U.S. Columnist Sam Francis recently made the case
that we have been at war since the beginning of the Persian
Gulf war and the recent attacks are actually the war being
brought home.
Indeed, we have yet to cease waging war against Iraq,
a country that had not performed any act of aggression
against America before we pounded the hell out of them.
The sanctions alone have cost millions of innocent lives
according to U.N. statistics. How many Arabs hate us for
this ongoing war?
This critique of our globalist foreign policy would not
be complete without some comments on the primary reason
so many Arabs hate us -- our blind support for Israel.
The Arab hatred for the Israelis dates back to biblical
times. While one cannot help but admire the tenacity of
the Israelis, it is time to consider cutting the umbilical
cord. The main suspect behind the recent attacks, Osama
bin Laden, has repeatedly called for death to the Jews
and Americans, always in the same breath. One cannot ignore
the fact that Israel's $3 billion annual foreign aid stipend
and our guardianship is the primary reason why so many
Arabs hate us.
Our future foreign policy should be to eliminate all foreign
aid and to only wage war against those who attack or threaten
to attack the United States or any of it's possessions.
The recent attacks have proven the folly of our current
policy.
~ Mr. Pat S.
Only One Thing
Only
one thing
could have stopped the terrorists.
Terrorists
easily hijacked the planes because federal laws have decreed
that passengers are to be defenseless. If passengers carry
legal protection, then terrorists will get a round hole
in the head instead of go free to blow up buildings and
kill people. Even passengers with a .22 caliber protection
can prevent crime.
Congress should allow passengers and crew to carry protection,
but that won't happen because Congress is too liberal
for that. So, you decide if Congress should be blamed
for making sure the passengers and crew were not allowed
to defend themselves in an emergency, and enabling the
terrorists to get away with their deed.
~ Don C., Missouri