Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: The new appeasement

www.theagitator.com
September 08, 2006
The New Appeasement
Over at Slate, Tim Noah dissects a publicity page for the new book by
conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza. The book is called The Enemy at Home,
and from the publisher's description may well be the most asinine attempt to
politicize September 11 to date -- quite an accomplishment in post-Coulter
America. D'Souza's argument is...aw hell. If I paraphrase it, you wouldn't
believe it. Here's the description:
  In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza makes the
startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the
world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by
America's cultural left. D'Souza shows that liberals--people like Hillary
Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore--are
responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim
countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world.
[...] He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our
enemies, but our abuse of that freedom--from the sexual liberty of women to
the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the
aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture. The
cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as
separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D'Souza shows that they are
one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion,
family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and
others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the
extremists in their own countries.
  After 9/11, a few libertarians and leftists made the case that perhaps we
ought to examine our own foreign policy, and see if U.S. interventions may
be spurring anti-American hatred around the world. Those critics were
roundly ridiculed, and their theory -- sometimes called "blowback" -- was
dismissed as "unserious." They were called "appeasers." Seems to me that if
the publisher's description is accurate, D'Souza's forthcoming book is much
more insidious, much more offensive, and much less believable than those
"unserious" realists, about a hundred times over. D'Souza is basically
arguing that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, and, therefore, we
should "curtail" our freedoms to appease them. Actually, it's worse than
that. He's blaming freedom itself, along with his political opponents, for
provoking September 11. In fact, he's treading perilously close to
suggesting we make our society more like a fundamentalist Islamic society so
the fundamentalist Muslims will be less likely to hate us. I don't think I
can come up with a more offensive explanation for why 9/11 happened if
someone paid me. Now, compare libertarian critiques of U.S. foreign policy
with D'Souza's insinuation that the cultural left motivated 9/11. Which is
more palpable? Which is more likely to inspire an angry young Muslim man to
pick up and move to the United States, live and train here for years, then
carry out a suicide attack: (A) That he sees U.S. troops and U.S. military
equipment in Muslim holy lands; reads the names of U.S. companies on Israeli
missiles and weapons used against Palestiniana; and sees reports of U.S.
sanctions starving Iraqi children......or...(B) He is aware that American
women take birth control, gay couples can get married in Massachusetts,
and -- I can't believe anyone would take D'Souza seriously as a thinker
after this -- no-fault divorce. Also, echoing Noah, what in the world could
D'Souza mean by "It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion,
family, and traditional values..."? Is he suggesting that critics of family
values policies not be allowed to criticize them? Is he suggesting we outlaw
"women's sexual liberation?" Should we forbid Hollywood from "exporting" our
"vulgar and licentious culture?"In a just world, claims like this would push
D'Souza to the far margins of serious debate. Sadly, instead, it'll probably
help him sell a lot of books.

 provoking September 11.
Un' argomentazione analoga ma assai meno fessa, dello scrittore inglese 
Martin Amis, qui:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1868732,00.html?gusrc=rss&
feed=1
Buon 9/11 a tutti gli appeasers e psycho,
Am.
-- 
Ovviamente hanno esagerato (oltretutto sbagliato anche i tempi)
ma non vedo nulla di scandaloso.
Tutti si danno del nazista o fascista reciprocamente (Capt. Kirk)