I have enabled the comments feature for the blog. This was done with some apprehension, not because differing opinions from mine would be expressed, but how they might be expressed.
Comments posted to this blog do not necessarily represent the opinions of the World of Tomorrow. Open conversation is encouraged, but personal attacks and vulgarity will result in the comments feature being shut off.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from some of the regulars that stop by the WoT and those who are visiting for the first time.
3 comments:
Thank-you for deleting those comments. I figured that Anonymous commenting is fine, as it is the substance of issues that matters, not who brings them up.
At any rate, is there a response forthcoming regarding my questions about Iran's and AQ's endorsement of Bush?
Thanks!
Hmmm. Now I don't have access to the rejoinder by ANONYMOUS, and so I can't attempt to be constructive to his/her genuinely thoughtful answers, which I had planned on discussing (after a day's thought) this evening. Perhaps a personal contact would have been helpful, SBLOODS.
I have some passion about the Russia/Iran thing because I am personally invested in those regions, having spent substantial time working through those issues, and personally knowing families of victims of Chechen/Islamofascist violence. Perhaps you misconstrue my invective. Now we may never know.
As I'm certain you're aware, you can restrict commentary to people who are registered Blogger users, so we may at least address non-anonymous users, and so they can't hide behind their anonymity.
I'll readily admit I was being a jerk, and I'd like to take this space (before you delete it again) to apologize to ANONYMOUS, who presented a thoughtful and intelligent rejoinder, but I think you dropped a nuke when something a bit less might have done the trick.
How 'bout contacting me personally next time? I'd never dream of nixing a post of yours without first hearing your defense, or at least giving you an opportunity to modify it.
And, if you could re-post ANONYMOUS' rejoinder as attached to the original post, I would look forward to working through it.
Below is my original comment, and my response to Darin's comment. I still wonder why not being "able to hide behind [my] anonymity" is so important. I'm not making an argument from authority (which are usually fallacious anyway). I'm offering reaosons and questions that are important no matter who I am. The real issue is the issue at hand, not the author--or so i still believe.
ORIGINAL POST:After all, Putin wants Bush, while Arafat prefers Kerry — and that is all we need to know.Shouldn't we also know that Iran has endorsed Bush; that Al Qaeda has endorsed Bush:
"A statement from al-Qaeda following the Madrid bombings clarified this intent. It said the organization hoped George Bush would win reelection, "because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber." Quoted on the Arabic news Web site www.elaph.com: "Bayaan lil qa'ida yuhhammal tawqi' kataib abu hafss al massri," March 17, 2004."
And that while Putin has endorsed Bush, Putin is severe threat to democracy?:
"President Vladimir Putin announced plans Monday for a "radically restructured" political system that would bolster his power by ending the popular election of governors and independent lawmakers, moves he portrayed as a response to this month's deadly seizure of a Russian school.
"Under his plan, Putin would appoint all governors to create a "single chain of command" and allow Russians to vote only for political parties rather than specific candidates in parliamentary elections. Putin characterized the changes as enhancing national cohesion in the face of a terrorist threat, while critics called them another step toward restoring the tyranny of the state 13 years after the fall of the Soviet Union."
================
RESPONSE TO DARIN:Anonymous posting is not so much fun, as it is prudent when one tries to have a decent conversation about important issues with interlocutors who respond with "Kill yourself now. PLEASE!" and "Your stupidity makes my hair hurt."
Look, I was asking what do seem to be important questions. Why insist on deriding my comments? I wasn't rabid or disrespectful, I don't think. The theme of this blog is "Supplying the information you need to influence the world of tomorrow." So I was worried when the original post didn't include what I thought was important information. I wanted to know how the unstated information would be accommodated by the original poster's position. I don't see how your response helps.
I find two substantive points in your response--let me know if i missed something.
(1) Putin is justified in his actions, because of Russia's fight against "islamofascists".
and
(2)if you think any foreign leader wants Bush to win, you're significantly more stupid than I had hoped you weren't.
As to (1), you do admit that "We're not crazy about Putin's autocracy." Now why is it crazy to worry that your extolment of Putin's endorsement of Bush comes from a perspective that wouldn't mind Bush's taking the same autocratic standpoint? Why isn't that a worry that an American can have without being called a "dickjob"?
As to (2), you don't say why the news reports I link to are unreliable. The Bush administration didn't challenge the reports, they simply denied caring. But why should we not care that Iran, who's supposedly a member of the "axis of evil" and on Bush's "watch-list", wants a Bush victory rather than a Kerry victory? You spend more time being belligerent than addressing my concerns.
Perhaps you are smarter than I am. You certainly seem to think you are. But you fail to address the substance of my comment.
Post a Comment