Sagredo: "Actually, no, not 'Nuff said. Why don't you spell it out for dummies like me."

Because I tend to ignore dummies...

The Independent: "We have nothing to fear from al-Qa’ida. Christian fundamentalists are the real extremist threat. That’s the message from the writers of a new play being shown at the Edinburgh International Fringe Festival. […] The writers said that, while there is public discussion about the dangers of radical Islamic groups, the influence of the Christian far right is underestimated."

The Christian Right is regularly criticized for its moral positions and for its alleged attempts to infringe upon civil liberties and liberal society. In addition, I prefer "our" extremists to "theirs". Moreover, the Christian Right is far more statistically significant and influential in the United States than Western Europe.

Vanessa Badham: “I’ve been very sensitive to extremists in other religions, particularly Islam, being demonised...I find the Christian right groups that are enormously powerful in our own culture a larger numerical threat than extreme Islam. […] Bush is from the religious right and he has the bomb; that terrifies me far more than the potential of other extremists to get their hands on nuclear weapons. In the religious right it is the self-appointed moral majority that sets its own rules, and anybody opposing them is labelled unpatriotic and shouted down."

Actually Bush does not have "the bomb". Rather, the American nuclear arsenal is under the control of the US Air Force, which answers to the White House, which answers to Congress and whom answers to the American people. Paramilitary NGOs such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., have no such checks and balances with regards to either their doctrine or capabilities. If Ms. Badham is opposed to any and all weapons of mass destruction, war, violence, etc., than there is nothing logically or morally "wrong" with this position (pacifism), however, to claim that the United States is more likely to launch its ICBMs (most of which are directed at "hard" military targets), than Russia, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, India or some paramilitary group that acquires them is ludicrous.

Perhaps 'Bush-bashing' is a worthwhile global pastime. However, Mugabe, Putin, Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad might deserve some attention as well, even if their electorates respond with rage, unlike Americans, many of whom respond to the opinions of others.

Lastly, the play is a Wisepart/Jews and Communists co-production. 'Nuff said.

Malice is a condition,a state of mind,but it does not explain why...why the malice? Was Karl Marx malicious?

                                         [ ... ]

A large fraction of the West's intellectuals are leftists.Are they all malicious people? If so,why?

The following article makes for some interesting reading.The trouble is,the people who might benefit most from reading it probably don't visit the BJ that often...

Title: The Left and the Jihad

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/left_jihad_3886.jsp

Muslim fury as 'Jihad The Musical' comes to the UK...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017641.php

Under Bush they claim they are "shouted down",whereas under al-Qa'ida they know they would be SHOT down,strung up and hacked off in the very literal sense of that term.Is this some kind of Kandahar syndrome,or what?

hmm, Bush has HAD the bomb for, what? six and a half years...if there was a problem would it not have manifested itself by now?

and I never see these people being shouted down...funny, funny world that they live in. at least until reality catches up. might not be so funny for them then... 

Of course not all leftist intellectuals are malicious.I'm referring to a specific group of individuals,like the ones mentioned in the article,who knowingly and wilfully side with the enemy,as per the statement:

We have nothing to fear from al-Qa'ida.Christian fundamentalists are the real extremist threat.

Yep,we know what side they're on.And,at the risk of them hating me for saying so,I'd characterize that side they're on as the ENEMY. i.e.as in one who is animated with hatred;one who attempts to injure another in every way;a foe,opponent etc.There,I've said it.

You know,I do believe that what I have just written  constitutes a 'hate crime' in their eyes,but if it does then too bad.I'll just have to live with my conscience.

Larry,like I said before,these people aren't to be underestimated.It's not stupidity,it's malice.(i.e. Desire to harm others;vindictiveness,ill-will,spite).In fact,I'd go further and suggest 'malice prepense',implying wicked intention,and an act deliberately planned beforehand. 

"Bush is from the religious right and he has the bomb; that terrifies me
far more than the potential of other extremists to get their hands on
nuclear weapons." Can someone direct me to where George Bush has stated he would use an atomic bomb on anyone? Where the religious right has stated they would vaporize anyone? Whereas when I opened my local newspaper this morning, islamic extremists had killed hundreds and threatened to kill millions more.

 Hindus do not fly planes into buildings, Buddhists do not behead news reporters on tv, Baptists do not blow up bazaars filled with women and children, moslems do.

 As Larry the cable guy would say, "Yer can't fix stupid".

"Never,never,ever,attribute stupidity to naivety when good old fashioned Left-wing malice will suffice".

visit: http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsB/badham-van.html

Check out her bio and selection of play synopses which prove the adage.

How can anyone take these people seriously?

Churchill, if I remember it correctly, said Jaw Jaw is better than War War, but he knew, of course, that that is true only up to a point, despite the horrors of war. My point is that when you read a comment like the preceding, about the dangers of the Christian Right and Bush, you know that argument is impossible. There is no talking to such idiocy.

We (Americans all, and I am not on the Christian Right) must do as we feel is right and necessary to maintain our civilization and if that means War War then so be it.

I never know whether the impossibly bad picture I get of Europe from this blog is sufficiently unbiased. You should print antithetical views and then, point by point disprove them. But, if true, then Europe is no longer aware of the civilization it has by birthright...no longer aware enough to defend it. Or perhaps also, they are overwhelmed by the 20th century face of that civilization. The horrors their immediate forebears perpertrated lie in their unconscious and motiovate this crazy behavior.

Looks to me like even more nonsense from the radical School Of Methodone Acting .A sort of Regietheater meets transcultural satirists on steroids...more from the 'Golden Shower' generation of moral and cultural Noel COWARDS !!!