Pizza and politics - Cindy Sheehan at Rays...

In a simplistic world, peace would be an easy choice to make. In a world in which terrorists use the Muslin religion as their justification for flying planes into buildings in order to murder innocent people, peace is a little harder to imagine. I have not forgotten that feeling. I hope others remember.

In a simplistic world, peace would be an easy choice to make. In a world in which terrorists use the Muslin religion as their justification for flying planes into buildings in order to murder innocent people, peace is a little harder to imagine. I have not forgotten that feeling. I hope others remember.

Spoken while our unmanned drones bomb innocent civilians on the other side of the earth.....

Yes, the world is complex. But there are ways to strive for Peace, and other ways where violence is merely perpetuated. Think about it.

Also, ask yourself why the people disliked the US enough to give their lives. It wasn't because of our "freedom," as the previous administration suggested. If it was, why wasn't Sweden being bombed? There are concrete reasons. US policies and actions.

Are our current policies making Peace more or less likely? Very complex questions, truly...

Peace....

In a world in which terrorists use the Muslin religion as their justification for flying planes into buildings in order to murder innocent people, peace is a little harder to imagine.

Im going to take issue with you over the statement that people use the Muslim religion as their justification....I think hatred is the reason. I dont care for your general slamming of a religion. I am not religious but I consider your remarks to be very much out of line. As Robin often says,consider this forum to be similar to a neighborhood bar where folks gather for conversation. Maybe your neighborhood tap is a racist and bigoted place,express your views on religion there and please keep it out of here.

In a world in which terrorists use the Muslin religion as their justification

I may be out of line after reading your post. If indeed you did mean to imply that there is religion that has its views based on finely woven cotton fabric, I suppose anything is possible.

In a world in which terrorists use the Muslin religion as their justification for flying planes into buildings in order to murder innocent people, peace is a little harder to imagine.

Im going to take issue with you over the statement that people use the Muslim religion as their justification....I think hatred is the reason. I dont care for your general slamming of a religion. I am not religious but I consider your remarks to be very much out of line. As Robin often says,consider this forum to be similar to a neighborhood bar where folks gather for conversation. Maybe your neighborhood tap is a racist and bigoted place,express your views on religion there and please keep it out of here.

Such a touchey subject for a food forum, to be sure. John, I read Bryan's statements as simply saying that in the specific event of 9/11, the hijackers used Islam as a justification for their actions. Al Qaeda uses Islam as a justification for its actions.

I don't think Bryan meant that all Muslims are terrorists, or that Al Qaeda or the hijackers were RIGHT to use Islam as a justification, or that Islam is a justification.

In short, I read Bryan's statement as meaning that it's a sad world where a terrorist would use ANY religion as a justification for such cowardly, murderous actions.

[Robin Garr]

the crowd who were more anti-Bush than anti-war.

You know, I generally don't try to take political positions without thinking about them, but I'm having real difficulty seeing much of a distinction there.

[Robin Garr]

In short, I read Bryan's statement as meaning that it's a sad world where a terrorist would use ANY religion as a justification for such cowardly, murderous actions.

Sadly true, and certainly the murders of abortion doctors and West Bank Palestinians bear awful evidence that extremism isn't limited to only one of the peoples of the Book.

the crowd who were more anti-Bush than anti-war.

You know, I generally don't try to take political positions without thinking about them, but I'm having real difficulty seeing much of a distinction there.

I'm having the same difficulty...How does a person be one of those things without being the other.

In a simplistic world, peace would be an easy choice to make. In a world in which terrorists use the Muslin religion as their justification for flying planes into buildings in order to murder innocent people, peace is a little harder to imagine. I have not forgotten that feeling. I hope others remember.

In a simplistic world there's the ability to draw a clear difference between "good" and "bad." Such binaries, though, require defining one term off of the other term. As long as you define one group as completely innocent and the other group as completely bad, it's not hard to come to comfortable terms with how the world works. Unfortunately binaries exclude details more than they include them.

I'm in no way excusing what the terrorists did. I'm merely saying the world is a wee-bit more complicated than the picture you present. Buying into such binaries merely allows us to replicate a view of the world that makes us comfortable by playing into our biases. America played a role in the international context that led to 9/11. We shouldn't talk negatively of those who died, but we should consider what role we, as a nation, we played (and continue to play) in world politics that leads to such hostility against our people, our nation, and what we profess to believe. Creating a binary between them and us does little to move us forward as to work for what Nimbus is talking about - the idea of peace. Accepting that war is inevitable allows us to vacate our responsibility, as peoples and a nation, to work to prevent such (work, terrorist attacks, etc.) from continuing. And, yes, all peoples of the world have the same responsibility. We merely can control what we do and how our actions affect/effect other people.

the crowd who were more anti-Bush than anti-war.

You know, I generally don't try to take political positions without thinking about them, but I'm having real difficulty seeing much of a distinction there.

I'm having the same difficulty...How does a person be one of those things without being the other.

I'm reading this to say that people ascribe to the anti-war idea merely as a way to demonstrate their hostility to Bush. Being anti-war extends far beyond resisting a particular political figure. Anger toward a certain political figure is just that - anger (for whatever reason) toward that figure.

In short, I read Bryan's statement as meaning that it's a sad world where a terrorist would use ANY religion as a justification for such cowardly, murderous actions.

Sadly true, and certainly the murders of abortion doctors and West Bank Palestinians bear awful evidence that extremism isn't limited to only one of the peoples of the Book.

All of the folks who are anti-Bush are not anti-War, and vice versa. All our troops are still in Iraq, and we're even ramping up in Afghanistan. Where are all the war protesters now? Where are all the media following Ms. Sheehan around 24-7?

The wars continue; the occupant of the Presidency changes, no more anti-War protests. You are holding to the myth of the monolithic left, and monolithic Democratic party. It's clear to me that many on the leftare more anti-Bush than anti-war. Ms. Sheehan get's my respect for her consistency.

[Robin Garr]

By coincidence, Steve, today's New York Times has a front-page story that presents a somewhat more nuanced view of this very topic:

Obama Faces Doubts From Democrats on Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world ... itary.html

The wars continue; the occupant of the Presidency changes, no more anti-War protests. You are holding to the myth of the monolithic left, and monolithic Democratic party. It's clear to me that many on the leftare more anti-Bush than anti-war. Ms. Sheehan get's my respect for her consistency.

By coincidence, Steve, today's New York Times has a front-page story that presents a somewhat more nuanced view of this very topic:

Obama Faces Doubts From Democrats on Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world ... itary.html

Are you saying that I'm the one lacking nuance?

I don't see anything in that article that contradicts what I've been saying here.

I want peace as much as the next guy, but to have a spokesperson like Sheehan does not do any good for that cause.

Many believe she is a certified "nutcase",including members of her own family.

Anyone who says they would prefer to live under Hugo Chavez qualifies for the "funny farm".

Here is a link to that interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7K2HdFZiKw

Or check out this site: http://www.bobbyshred.com/cindysheehan.html

or: http://www.targetofopportunity.com/cindy_sheehan.htm

or: http://www.cindysheehanwatch.com/

I hope this satisfies you Roger.

[Robin Garr]

Are you saying that I'm the one lacking nuance?

I don't see anything in that article that contradicts what I've been saying here.

Uh, hello? Did you think we were in an argument, Steve? I was adding a data point to the open conversation.

(Added by edit) Looking back up the thread, it was also meant as a civil, not argumentative, response to your specific comment, "You are holding to the myth of the monolithic left, and monolithic Democratic party." The NY Times article suggests that the Dems are falling a little short of monolithic on this issue right now.