Summit County letters: Reaction to Liddick’s column on radical Islamist terrorism
It’s time to protect our precious land
Our land is very precious and it’s so important to preserve it. Efforts to preserve the landscape known as Bears Ears National Monument date back to 1903 — even before the Antiquities Act, which allows presidents to protect land that has cultural or scientific significance. The current monument was proposed by five sovereign tribal nations — Navajo, Hopi, Ute Mountain Ute, Uintah and Ouray Ute, and Zuni — which proposed a 1.9 million-acre national monument intended to honor American Indian connections to the land, while also protecting cultural resources. The Obama Administration provided the long needed protections for this area by designating 1.35 million acres of national monument. The Monument was in full acceptability with the Act, which states that an area is to be confined to the smallest area comparable with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. In direct opposition to this, President Trump is planning to significantly reduce the size of the Monument, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres, which contain historic artifacts, unprotected and vulnerable to destruction. Please do what you can. Call your senators, representatives, President Trump, to preserve our precious land.
Liddick off base in terrorism assessment
RE: Liddick’s take on radical Islamist terrorism
I read Morgan Liddick’s column from Tuesday, Nov. 28 entitled “Will radical Islamist terrorism ever end?” with interest. He made many good points on the issue, such as that a radical jihadist is hard to spot in a crowd and that hatred and violence is a distinguishing feature. I personally condemn all radical jihadist attacks of hatred where ever they may occur in the world. I agree that it is unlikely that radical Islam will go away anytime soon, particularly when many in the U.S. express anti-Islamic sentiments.
In his article Mr. Liddick mentions two terrorist attacks that recently occurred in the U.S. (the November 5 attack in a Texas church and the October 1 Las Vegas shooting) erroneously implying that the motive in each case was radical Islam. In the case of the Texas shooting the authorities have not publicly identified a motive, but they emphasized that the shooting did not appear to be fueled by religious issues; it was more likely an issue that the gunman had with his mother who was a member of the church. Similarly, in the case of the Las Vegas shooting a motive is unclear but the shooter had been depressed after losing a significant amount of money. Once again, the shooter was not motivated by Islamic beliefs.
In addition to the above misleading comments, Mr. Liddick fails to mention or recognize other home-grown terrorists with white supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi, anti-gay, anti-abortion, or anti-government beliefs. All of these domestic, home-grown terrorists also express hatred, use violence and are hard to spot in a crowd. Mr. Liddick also fails to acknowledge that the majority (70 percent) of the terrorist attackers in the U.S. sine 9/11 were NOT motivated by radicalized Islamic beliefs but by white supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi, anti-gay, anti-abortion, or anti-government beliefs. More than twice as many people have been killed by these domestic terrorists as opposed to those with radicalized Islamic beliefs. Prior to the 9/11 attack more than 90 percent of all terrorist attackers in the U.S. since 1905 were home-grown people who held white supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi, anti-gay, anti-abortion, or anti-government beliefs. This information is readily available on the internet on many sites, such as Wikipedia.
Mr. Liddick readily admits that his opinion pieces are biased to the right. It might be to the benefit of himself and his readers, however, if he provides more objective unbiased information regarding both sides of the subject at hand.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.