IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY TO ME.
[RANT ALERT!]
OVER THE LAST YEAR THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED READERS GO TO MANY DANGEROUS PLACES - JUST THIS PAST WEEK ALONE THEY WANT THEIR READERS TO GO TO: TURKEY; SOUTHERN THAILAND; INDONESIA; AND ISLAMABAD.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CAN SEARCH BACK THE LAST YEAR: ABOUT HALF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO NATIONS WITH PLENTY OF JIHADIST TROUBLES - INCLUDING MOROCCO, EGYPT, THE PHILIPPINES, ETC.
I THINK THEY DO IT TO SEND A SUBTLE ANTI-BUSH PROPAGANDA MESSAGE THAT THESE PLACES ARE PERFECTLY SAFE - AND THAT GLOBAL JIHAD IS MERE BUSH PROPAGANDA.
THEN AGAIN... MAYBE THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE NYTIMES; MAYBE GLOBAL JIHAD IS... ER, WELL... UM GLOBAL - MEANING ABOUT HALF THE EXOTIC TRAVEL SPOTS OF YORE ARE NOW PLACES WHERE JIHADISM IS A PROBLEM.
ASIDE: I'LL GRANT THEM THIS: THERE ARE NOT US STATE DEPARTMENT RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL TO ANY OF THESE PLACES. BUT THE NYTIMES DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE TROUBLES ION THE ARTICLES - AS IF THEY DON'T REALLY EXIST. MAYBE THEY WANT THEIR READERS SPENDING MONEY THERE - UNDERWRITING JIHAD?
I'D RATHER THEY SHOULD RECOMMENDED THAT AMERICANS NOT TRAVEL TO THESE PLACES UNLESS AND UNTIL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THESE NATIONS DO MORE TO CRACKDOWN ON JIHADISM AND "RADICAL" ISLAM?
[RANT ALERT!]
OVER THE LAST YEAR THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED READERS GO TO MANY DANGEROUS PLACES - JUST THIS PAST WEEK ALONE THEY WANT THEIR READERS TO GO TO: TURKEY; SOUTHERN THAILAND; INDONESIA; AND ISLAMABAD.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CAN SEARCH BACK THE LAST YEAR: ABOUT HALF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO NATIONS WITH PLENTY OF JIHADIST TROUBLES - INCLUDING MOROCCO, EGYPT, THE PHILIPPINES, ETC.
I THINK THEY DO IT TO SEND A SUBTLE ANTI-BUSH PROPAGANDA MESSAGE THAT THESE PLACES ARE PERFECTLY SAFE - AND THAT GLOBAL JIHAD IS MERE BUSH PROPAGANDA.
THEN AGAIN... MAYBE THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE NYTIMES; MAYBE GLOBAL JIHAD IS... ER, WELL... UM GLOBAL - MEANING ABOUT HALF THE EXOTIC TRAVEL SPOTS OF YORE ARE NOW PLACES WHERE JIHADISM IS A PROBLEM.
ASIDE: I'LL GRANT THEM THIS: THERE ARE NOT US STATE DEPARTMENT RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL TO ANY OF THESE PLACES. BUT THE NYTIMES DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE TROUBLES ION THE ARTICLES - AS IF THEY DON'T REALLY EXIST. MAYBE THEY WANT THEIR READERS SPENDING MONEY THERE - UNDERWRITING JIHAD?
I'D RATHER THEY SHOULD RECOMMENDED THAT AMERICANS NOT TRAVEL TO THESE PLACES UNLESS AND UNTIL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THESE NATIONS DO MORE TO CRACKDOWN ON JIHADISM AND "RADICAL" ISLAM?
Well Reliapundit, perhaps you yourself should travel to these places which you label as "dangerous" to find out why NYT is recommending them.. Don't write untrue stuff about places you've never seen or been to. I am presently in Istanbul and believe me it's like heaven here. Not only Istanbul is one of the most, if not THE most, beautiful & interesting cities in the world, it also is definitely not "unsafe". I have no idea why you think Turkey is "dangerous"???
ReplyDeleteit is ruled by an islamist party; there are jihadoterror attacks there, and turks are RIGHT NOW experiencng a great deal of political instability - with the very real prospect of ANOTHER coup. they are havoing trouble picking a prez.
ReplyDeleteas the secular versus islamist/jihadist polarity heats up, and with the election of Sarkop -- who is anti-EU memebership for turkey, these polarities will only grow.
i wouldnlt travel to any nation ruled by an islamizst party or a party appeasing jihadism anywhere.
the nytimes seems to WAMNT the us touriost to spend $$$ in nations where govt's appease terror and where jihadoterror attacks by al qaeda have occurred more than once in the past few years.
these are facts.
glad u like it there!
i do feel we live in an us-or-them world.
i would not travel to turkey for the fact that they wouldn't let us troops TRANSIT to iraq for the iraq war.
this hurt or war and post-war efforts. greatly.
therefore, essentially turkey is on the other side.
which doesn't bother you.
i'd prefer it if the us was more resolute and rewarded our allies and punished our enemies and those who pretend they can stay on the sidelines.
like the turks.