A religious columnist, of the right wing variety, was talking about Islamic extremists. He was saying that they don't mind America's capitalism, consumption or freedoms.
Instead, he said, the extremists don't like America's feminists and gays.
Yes, a right wing religious fanatic would say that.
He thinks USA could reduce the hatred that Islamic extremists hold toward this country if we just decide to hide our feminists and gays. Show the so-called "decent heartland of family life" side of America. Then, extremist anger would soften, supposedly.
Well, it ain't gonna work. Not that way, at least.
America could show it's "family heartland side" till it's "blue in the face," or "red in the face" as in "red states - blue states."
It's not gonna work. It's not enough. The Islamic extremists would not be impressed.
Those type of extremists would still not be satisfied until Israel was wiped off the map.
The extremists would want to eliminate Israel and her people.
Then the extremists would turn on one another. Actually they are already turning on one another.
Sunnis versus Shiites, various tribes, clans.
They're fighting among themselves anyway.
That's what is meant by the term "mean spirited."
We shouldn't try to appeal to that kind of hatred. It would just turn us sour also. Turn us into "angry extremists" ourselves.
Hopefully, the world doesn't have too many hostile extremists in it.
We should appeal to the more humane mindsets that are out there also. Appeal to the more humane mindsets by supporting our gays and feminists; for instance.
As for how to deal with the hostile mindsets in this world, it is hard to say what the best strategy would be.
Ignoring the hatred might be a good strategy.
Yes, ignoring it.
You may think I am crazy.
I know, there is the phrase "squeaky wheel gets the grease." At the same time, when media focuses on all the hostility, rather than more positive things, it does create "copy cat" hostility in it's wake.
Ignoring the angry screamers, in this world, might be worth considering.
America has tried war against hostile elements.
"War on terror," "War in Iraq."
Outcome is dubious at best.
I could do a bad pun and say, "outcome is Dubya at best;" as in George Dubya Bush.
I know that's a bad pun.
USA's war effort, in Iraq, may be just playing into the hands of the hostile ideologies anyway.
Putting one set of religious fanatics in power over another.
We are really stuck trying to play referee.
We've tried to be referee in the Middle East for years and it seems like practically no one is impressed.
Well, there does have to be some defense against terrorism. Defense like having the police around to protect people from crime.
Maybe we should not call it a "war on terrorism" as "war" is too negative a response. "Police work" might be more effective.
Yes, police work, like "good intelligence," "breaking up terror plots" and so forth.
We can still use the military for this. No, I am not advocating disbanding the military and just relying on underfunded local police.
We do need some kind of force to deal with hostility, but we don't need to blow it out of proportion.
Maybe we are allowing ourselves to be dominated by the negative. It's too much "Tit for tat."
Ignoring the terrorists, or at least treating it more as "common garden variety crime" is worth considering.
We should not let the terrorists and bigots of this world govern our thinking.
Post a Comment