I'd like to know if Bush even was aware that the extremists had been calling U.S. actions in the mideast a modern Crusade. If so, he should have known better than to reinforce the propaganda. If not, why not?
Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:56 AM > To: Brin-L > Subject: Crusades again > > > I keep meaning to post this, but somehow I always forget. A > letter to The > Christian Science Monitor on 9/27 contained another point of view on > President Bush’s use of the term “Crusade” in his first anti-terrorism > speech post 9/11. > > It read as follows: > > “You report that President Bush’s use of the word “crusade” may anger > moderate Muslims. It is appropriate for Americans to consider > the nuances of > our language; but other cultures should try to understand our > phrases too. > The American use of this word is less derived from medieval > crusades pitting > European Christians against Arabic Muslims, than from our own > reformers who > led crusades against corruption in local politics. The president did not > intend to offend Muslims, but to energize Americans.” > Lawrence Winans, Minneapolis, MN > > That point of view honestly hadn’t occurred to me, but it’s a valid one. > Better late than never, I guess. > > Jon >
