|
Shake head
Dear Republic:
I think you need to re-examine your views on what these Islamists are trying to protect in their societies. (“We share common cause with the Islamists,” Republic issue 118). You called their societies "nurturing, cohesive, and purposeful." How can a society be nurturing, cohesive and purposeful, whose leader and his sons took great pleasure in watching their own citizens be cruelly tortured? Put into chopping bins either head-first, or feet-first, depending on the seriousness of their crimes (in the leaders' eyes?) How can a society be nurturing, cohesive and purposeful, whose leader kills innocent men, women and children, with chemical weapons of mass destruction by the way, just because they are not in the same sect of Islam as the leader?
They ruled with fear—plain and simple. His aim was to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Is this what we should be sympathetic to? It is not all about the Western culture. Its beginnings go back thousands of years. You are too quick to blame the West and satellite dishes for people blowing themselves and others up.
You never, not even once, mentioned the Madrassahs, which do nothing but teach hate to young Muslims growing up. This is what we are to be sympathetic to? Don't be so quick to be sympathetic to the terrorists and their concerns. Most of the terrorists are offered money, or 70 virgins in heaven to do what they do. It's poor, vulnerable men who have been convinced that they are doing this for the "greater good," and they do it out of desperation—most of the time, for themselves, not for the greater "good."
Why do the radical imams and terrorists call us the "infidels"? Because we don't believe as they do. So all of your talk only about forcing Western culture on them is ludicrous. They are raised to believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do should be killed. Look at the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie—just for criticizing the religion. Look at the murder of Van Gogh. Did these men "corrupt" their society, simply by speaking against it? I think you are way off base as far as your theory for these terrorists' acts. I venture to say that most of the people in Saddam's society were poor and didn't have access to all of the luxuries of western societies in their culture.
He loved his own decadence, as did his psycho sons. Was this our fault also? It seems in most of these Muslim countries, a small ruling party is filthy rich, while the vast majority of the population is kept poor. Is this our fault, too? Poverty and lack of opportunity for people often make them rise up.
Your theories have some validity to them, but you also need to see that blind hate of others never got a society, religion or culture anywhere. You must make them take responsibility for living in our modern world without blowing up any and everyone they can, for the sake of blowing them up to make a point. They blow up their own. Look at what happened in Egypt yesterday. They blow up other Muslims who disagree with their radical Islamic views. This is nothing to sympathize with. You are way off base.
- D K, Orlando, Florida
Dear Republic:
Let me get this straight—the terrorists hate our culture, so they are justified in slaughtering innocents? Well, since Hitler hated the expansion of Jewish culture in Germany, I guess in your next column you'll be making allowances for the Holocaust.
I assume you'll also be defending Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, whose "crime" was to write a novel. Some might call that craven, since you're a writer who enjoys Western press freedoms, but what do they know? And while you're at it, what about Islamic regimes that would ban or destroy most art and music, Western or otherwise?
And let's not forget to stand up for the right of the Taliban regime to torture and execute homosexuals, subjugate women and bar girls from attending school. I assume you'll also be going to bat for the fundamentalists who want to destroy Israel, the Jews and, while they're at it, all the infidels as well.
Which I think includes most of us. But why worry? As you said, Mr. Potvin, we're all on the same side, right?
- T. Rogers
My mind’s a blank
Dear Republic:
I just wanted to comment on a letter by another reader—Jacques Durden, Vancouver BC—in the July 21st Republic. Durden makes a very good point in his criticism of the use of "the left" and "the right," as if they are two monolithic entities and there exists no other paradigm. Being that you are such a considerate, and eloquent writer, you have the opportunity to go further in your use of words.
I strongly feel that we need to be more intent in our use of words and structure of thoughts, because the "education" (from the Latin "educar' - "to draw forth that which is within") system does so poorly, that even teachers, broadcasters and journalists no longer have a grasp of the language, or a critical thought amongst them.
- K Smith, Vancouver
Cross reader
Dear Republic:
As a faithful reader of your publication I would like to whole-heartedly thank you for the new crossword feature, penned by Mr. Lance Piebenga. His clues and answers are both witty and informed, and they bring many hollers of laughter and joy to the kitchen table. Keep 'em coming!
- Ian Pinot
Flaming
Dear Republic:
I am visiting Vancouver BC from the States and I just discovered your paper. I was at Granville Island when I came across it. These days, there are fewer and fewer independent news sources so it is refreshing to see the flame of truly free journalism still burns! I just love your alternative to the mainstream media, keep up the good work! Peace, salaam, shalom.
- J P, The States
****
|
