10.21.2006
Dinesh D'Souza, Terrorist Apologist
The far-right authoritarian pundit Dinesh D'Souza will unveil the secret complicity of Christian fundamentalism and Islamist terrorism in his forthcoming book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibilty for 9/11. Only he doesn't seem to realize it. His argument is, apparently, that fundamentalist terrorists are right to attack America, because America allows so many excessive liberties to women and gay people.
What's shocking is not that Dinesh D'Souza thinks this, but that Random House is publishing it: basically, a book that supports the values of radical Islamic fundamentalism, says that the 9/11 hijackers were right to attack us, and advocates a purge of those who don't agree with the terrorists.
Because in fact, D'Souza does seem to be advocating killing Americans: "In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad," D’Souza writes, chillingly, "we must defeat the enemy at home." Does "defeat" change its meaning from one part of his sentence to the next? (That would be awfully postmodern.) In a strange twist of logic, "we" are the ones who share the same values as radical Islamic fundamentalists, and the ones we must "defeat" are the ones the terrorists hate.
Got that?
And aren't you glad the President now has the legal authority to haul you into jail without charging you with any crime, torture you, and keep you rotting there forever without any right to trial?
Update: the blurb for D'Souza's book has been changed from its original state, in which it actually said that the "sexual liberty of women" was to blame for 9/11, and argues that it is the American left's critiques of Bush's war policies that cause anger toward America. Yes, that's right. Not Bush's war policies themselves. The fact that the left criticizes them. Now, you might think that the blurb has been toned down. But the "defeat the enemy at home" language is all new.
What's shocking is not that Dinesh D'Souza thinks this, but that Random House is publishing it: basically, a book that supports the values of radical Islamic fundamentalism, says that the 9/11 hijackers were right to attack us, and advocates a purge of those who don't agree with the terrorists.
Because in fact, D'Souza does seem to be advocating killing Americans: "In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad," D’Souza writes, chillingly, "we must defeat the enemy at home." Does "defeat" change its meaning from one part of his sentence to the next? (That would be awfully postmodern.) In a strange twist of logic, "we" are the ones who share the same values as radical Islamic fundamentalists, and the ones we must "defeat" are the ones the terrorists hate.
Got that?
And aren't you glad the President now has the legal authority to haul you into jail without charging you with any crime, torture you, and keep you rotting there forever without any right to trial?
Update: the blurb for D'Souza's book has been changed from its original state, in which it actually said that the "sexual liberty of women" was to blame for 9/11, and argues that it is the American left's critiques of Bush's war policies that cause anger toward America. Yes, that's right. Not Bush's war policies themselves. The fact that the left criticizes them. Now, you might think that the blurb has been toned down. But the "defeat the enemy at home" language is all new.
