Posts
The main stream media in the USA are largely still ignoring this developing story for now, possibly expecting it will fizzle out quickly. The Neocon predicted earlier that this has the potential to develop into another cartoon-crisis, with far more serious implications and indeed it has escalated over the past 24 hours. Some are calling this a diplomatic blunder, others are calling it a wake-up call for Christians (the Neocon believes it could be both). Below are links from media outlets around the world covering the fallout and what could be the initial stages of a crisis; time will tell. It should be remembered that the cartoon crisis took months to materialize. The Neocon is on top of this one.
Muslim fury grows at Pope's speech
Turkish Lawmaker Compares Pope to Hitler
Palestinaian Leaders join growing Muslim criticism against Pope
Muslim fury at pope jihad comments
Muslims in Uproar Over Pope's Remarks on Islam
Organization of the Islamic Conference criticizes the Pope
Pope's remarks recall cartoon crisis
Pope comments explosive in Mideast: analysts
BBC: In quotes: Muslim reaction to Pope
Tags: Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, G-8 Summit, Hezbollah, Fox News, CNN, Media
Larwyn’s Linx: FBI Whistleblower Says FBI Intentionally Blocking Security
Clearances for Trump Officials
-
*Send us news tips! Sponsored by My Private Journal*
Nation
• FBI Whistleblower Says FBI Intentionally Blocking Security Clearances
for Trump Officials ...
13 hours ago
Mob mentality (in the case of crowds taking to streets and burning flags,effigys,etc). Imams will be winding up impressionable people in the mosques (particular today,on a friday) to get out on the streets and go berserk. Keep in mind though that media (from every nation) is showing you a tiny section of things with it's selected photos. Outrage is outrage. But media in all countries will focus primarily on "furious crowd" photo opportunitys, while the rest of the people around them go about their daily lives quietly offended by the Pope's use of an ancient quote when talking about Islam, but never considering getting violent or threatening about it. During the Danish cartoons crisis, a tiny band of jihadi wannabe nutcases took to London streets and the photos (you know the ones, the "Europe, your 9/11 is on it's way" and "get ready for the real holocaust" crowd) have since become the "Face of Islam" by websites and blogs that found them very "useful".
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, hundreds of thousands of British Muslims didn't react in any such way. Most were just quietly offended. Some even agreed with some of the cartoons that suggested some people use Islam for political militancy (the famous bomb in turban pic). Some even felt the reactions of their fellow Muslims, were way over the top, and were themselves quite indifferent. Media is media. I have a friend who photographed many of the Danish cartoon 'flag burnings and effigy burning' demonstrations while in Pakistan, and according to him they were all small mobs. Local rabble, attention seekers who "loved" his camera and the opportunity to look the most "outraged" in his photos, and were joined by a lot of bored and easily impressionably youths eager to join a loud angry mob shouting loud (which is true of anywhere in the world).
Benedict is a learned scholar. He certainly knows his Religious history, and that is why he was careless in his speech, using that quote. By all means criticize Islamic history, and question aspects of Islam such as the many levels and meanings of Jihad. Islamic scholars are always more than willing to debate on such issues, and many people who go into debate with them armed to the teeth with media fuelled assumptions and accusations, end up well and truly defeated by "facts".
That is why many in our nations prefer to slander them just to get the less intelligent and insecure ones wound up and onto the streets burning flags and screaming into loudspeakers, to be able to say - "There you go. THAT is Islam". Scholars are scholars, and uneducated mobs are uneducated mobs. If somebody wants to debate about Islam, debate it with Islamic scholars and historians. Not go out their way to poke the uneducated mobs into fiery reaction. There are a lot of incredibly well informed Muslims in this world who know the history of both Islamic and western History to an extent that makes many of us look ignorant about our own past history and the history of Islam since it's conception. Benedict "may" not have gone out of his way to arouse anger, but I have read his talk and see no 'particular' reason why he brought up that 14th century quote. It just seems to pop up out of the blue within the speech, and doesn't really seem related to what he was talking about. Why he chose to use, I question. The words of a war weary 14th century Emperor is a gross dismissal of Islamic virtues, and Benedict must "know" it , being so well versed in Islam (as was his predecessor Pope Paul II).
So why did he use it? We 'must' question that, and not just buy the Vaticans - "He didn't mean to cause offence" statement. Knowing how speeches are recorded and often made public, what else did he think was going to happen around the world when using the words of Byzantine Emperor weary from war? As always, I will object to Muslim leaders "demanding" anything within or outside of European. We don't have to bow to pressure regarding what goes on within our own countries, no matter how offensive it may to other people. I protested in London during the Danish cartoon affair at how our governments were being intimidated and were even considering new laws (due to outside and internal pressure) on "inciting religious hatred" in which such cartoons would be considered 'provokative' in such a way. Nevertheless, I don't really see any reason for the quote of the 14th century Emperor, and it screws up the good work of Pope Paul II who was trying to build bridges with Islam after the blood soaked history of contact between Christendom and the Ummah.
As mentioned in my previous comment, Benedict sees threats everywhere. Until now, he has been slamming secular society and liberal society every chance he gets, as droves of people turn away from judgemental moralistic religion in western culture, or others are left in a vaccum of uncertainty after decades of liberal life, and now seeking something more meaningfull in such uncertain times. As Islam is the fastest growing Religion, he sees another huge threat. What a perfect way to get people on your side, by arousing rabble on the streets of Islamic nations, tapping into current anti-Islamic ignorance going on right now, and even provoke the rabble to attack your churches worldwide (or possibly kill christians). Just think how good that makes "Christianity" look, and how bad it makes Islam look. Oh well, a conspiracy theory for you ;)
Conspiracy theory indeed. Again, why is it that the West is always the parent and Islam is always the little child? When the child acts up, it’s always the parents fault for bad parenting, not the fault of the child misbehaving. That attitude in and of itself is condescending and disrespectful to Islam, don’t you think? These folks should be held to the same standard you would hold yourself, anything less is in and of itself prejudicial. If indeed most Muslims are enlightened, informed, sophisticated…etc..., as you portray, then why the double standard of expectations? I will remind you that should the Islamo-fascists get their way, it will be “enlightened liberals” like yourself who will be the first to have their heads chopped off.
ReplyDeleteElements within the Islamic world 'may act' like children, because we so often take it upon "ourselves" to be their nanny, and that creates resentment. If there is one thing we know, it is that if you treat people like babies, they will probably act that way. Simple answer? Don't treat them like mindless babies. We always reap what we sow.
ReplyDeleteWhen we back Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the soviets, we call them heroes and freedom fighters. When similar people are met in Iraq, we call them "terrorists". We back Massoud as a hero, but we call Iraqi insurgents who are against an invading superpower, "terrorists".
Can't you see the hypocrisy? They can.
If we go around the world imposing sanctions on them for not doing what we want, we create resentment (especially when the citizens so often suffer from the effects of sanctions, and not the governments which had sanctions placed on them). If we give them democracy and then say that who they elected with it are "unacceptable " because their choice was not a puppet of our nations, we are hypocrites and the locals see right through what our game really is. Insisting they cannot develop Nuclear power because they "might" misbehave with it, only 'creates' a child that is intent on disobeying you. Never criticizing Israel for some of it's blatant crimes, we wonder why those other countries see "us" as an axis of evil?
As I've said many times before, we so often hand others tools with which to become our created enemy. Assuming the role of Rome "enlightening" the Islamic world, we are met with viscious defense in response, and we ask why? We invade their countries, we try and install alien versions of government and culture, and as a result we give elements an excuse to turn it into a guerilla war.
Don't worry about the "Islamo-Fascists" going around lopping of millions of infidel heads, Joe. Such folks are a tiny minority of Muslims, and you know it but choose to spread the message that it is otherwise, for your own reasons. No doubt, if I had been a victim of somebody like Zarqawi, he wouldn't take my views into account. True.
But, there aren't millions of Zarqawis in this world, waiting to sack America or Europe (despite all the hype that people like Bush promote, to introduce draconian laws on the sheep who see him as their shepherd). What we seem to be creating though, is people who 'could' become Zarqawis, due to our arrogance around the world (and all the ones who are captured, currently state the invasion of Iraq as their motivation to fight back). You give me a label "Enlightened Liberal". I've never described myself that way. But if you wish to put me into a 'box', then okey....
When the nations of Islam allow other religions to flourish, then they'll get their apology.
ReplyDeleteAnother point here, is that if the more "average" Muslim citizen is quietly going about his business, why do they not condemn the actions of those few that were mentioned above? Certainly it would be demanded of Christians.
If one wonders why there is such distrust of the Muslim world and Islam in general one needn't look very far, for as the saying goes:
Actions speak louder than words,,,
One last thought;
ReplyDeleteIslam is indeed becoming the fastest growing religion,,,at the point of the sword.
Wow, great dialogue.
ReplyDeleteLet me get this right, the Pope comments about the link between Islam and violence and the Islamic reaction? Violence. Point made, case closed. If libs can't see this, then they are permanently hopeless.
There is something wrong with a culture that has so much natural wealth (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran),yet remains economically broken. Name substantial scientific breakthroughs in recent years from any Islamic country? There aren't any.
There are lots of defective cultures around the world. However, this one, Islam, has collectively decided to violently spread its seed in the US and the West.
Sure Islam has its legitimate grievances with the US and the West. Chairman Mao, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Pol Pot, all did too. FDR's cutting off oil to Japan prompted the attack on Pearl Harbor.
We are long past why they hate us. They do. Instead of educating their children toward a better life, they brainwash them that their greatest contribution is to destroy the Infidel and go to heaven. This is pure evil.
The US must use every means to break this death culture. If we don't, we will pay with our lives.
Fred Garvin
>>When the nations of Islam allow other religions to flourish, then they'll get their apology.
ReplyDeleteIslamic nations allow other Religions in their midst, but it is true that they often don't allow them to "flourish" within Islamic nations 'per se', and are often a minority in their influence on affairs of the state. Pakistan has quite a large Christian community. And there are Sikh communities In Kabul as we speak (admittedly, during Taliban times they were forced out, but have since returned). But Taliban's suppresion in that regard, was more of a "racial" matter.
Islamic rule of the past (and today), gave protection to people of the book in their midst though, under the concept of Dhimmi (contract of protection, in which terms and conditions apply). Dhimmi meant such people of the book could live there but have little power and influence on daily rule. Guests of their hosts (which if you think about it, is the right of an "Islamic" nation if it so chooses). After all, it is an "Islamic" nation. A religious nation partly running on Islamic principals. Not Christian or Jewish. As for people of "no" faith, things are less clear.
Some say that people of "no" faith were fair game in the past for being coverted at the threat of the sword. Because that was often the choice in the distant past (as it often was with Christianity on the march, I would add). Thing is, this is 2006 and the vast majority of Muslims would never consider converting anybody with a 'sword' because they know it is an empty gesture of conversion.
I've spent time living with Muslims in some pretty dodgy areas of the world where the actions of my Goverment and the U.S Government are extremely unpopular. But was I knelt on the ground and given the choice of a sword chop or conversion to Islam? Nope. Never. Not once. Infact, the total opposite. That shows you something very important about Islam. Nowadays in some western nations though, go out in your Shalwar Qameez or wear a long beard, and you could possibly find yourself being physically or verbal attacked, and called a "terrorist".
Look at the two reporters recently who at gunpoint were told to convert. They said the words, but they were empty words and they told everyone afterwards. So what value did it have? None. I've met many Muslims around the world, and of course all of them would 'like' me to convert. When somebody feels they are onto a good thing, they will want others to know about it (as the U.S does, going around the world trying to install Democracy).
But all of them have showed by positive "example" why they think it is a wonderful thing. It is through this route that I have seen the beautys of Islam. I have objections to various cultural aspects of Islamic life, and that is why I don't convert. That is my choice, and they all respected that. The days of conversion by sword are long gone. So I don't know where you got the idea that Islam is the fastest growing religion at the point of a sword, Richard.
As for the - "Why don't they stand up and condemn?". Fact is, they have (condemned killing of innocents). Countless examples are on the internet if you care to look. Countless condemnations of attacks like 9/11, hostage killings, and the like. But media chooses not to show that.
What we must understand also, is that although many Muslims don't support the slaughter of innocent hostages and flying planes into the WTC, they are well and truly fed up with people like the U.S backing Israel unconditionally in whatever it does in Palestine or Lebanon, and ignoring countless crimes against Muslims, or invading Iraq and now telling Iran it can't have nuclear power. Same for Chechnya and Russia. Why should Muslims unconditionally support Russia after all that has happened? You tell me.
Islam allows Muslims to visciously defend themselves from attack (such as the invasion of Muslim lands). So why should they sit back and let the U.S, Britain, and other nations just do what the hell they want in Muslim lands? Why should they say sorry for the actions of people defying occupation of these lands, and telling them they can't do this or that. Who is the one going around trying to convert at the point of a sword? (in this case, military).
Is it Muslim lands? Or the U.S and Europe? When was the last time Iran got involved in a fight? It was with Iraq (another Muslim land) in the 1980's. Iraq's last scuffle was with Kuwait (another Muslim land), and that wasn't about converting anyone with a sword. It was to take over oil fields. Was Chechnya invading other lands and converting them at the point of a sword? No,it tried to break away from Russia. Have Palestinians tried to invade Israel for the purpose of converting them to Islam? No, it has been a war or tit for tat. Not a Religious crusade of conversion.
So where exactly are these droves of Muslims going around convering the world at the point of a sword?
Islam has rules of war, and it is true that some militants are blatantly ignoring them. Even Zawahiri (of all people) condemned Zarqawi for all those beheadings of non-military people. Some say things have changed, when the backing of a public is fully behind a war machine's global efforts. Still, killing women and children is against Islamic rules of war though, and is to be condemned.
But, Islam does allow you to defend yourself from military, political, cultural, and economic interference and threat by outsiders. That is what is happening in today's world. Iran is defending itself from an arrogant superpower and the U.N, telling it that it must listen to it's demands. It seems that many want Muslims to have no view on global politics that effect the world community of Muslims.
It seems they want them to go onto the streets, fall on their knees, say sorry for the actions of people defending Islamic nations, and want them to unconditionally support western governments. "I" don't unconditionally support my Government, and I'm not even a Muslim. Would you have me thrown out of the country. Perhaps you would.
Once again ‘anonymous,’ acting as the self-hating lawyer for Jihad, constantly points out that “most” Muslims don’t do this or “most” Muslims don’t do that, all of which is completely irrelevant. It is interesting however that I don’t see anonymous talking like that when he refers to Christians or Jews. No such deference is extended by anonymous who loves to talk about “hypocrisy” while engaging in it in virtually every word he writes. In fact, when he talks about Israel he doesn’t say a “small minority” of Jews misbehave, he talks about “Israeli crimes” in sweeping generalities. Never mind that Israel is a tiny modern country surrounded by a sea of hostile backward totalitarianism. That tells you where ‘anonymous’ is coming from. Everything in anonymous’ world is about moral equivalency and moral relativism as it is convenient to any point he makes while bending over backwards to justify Jihad (in his oh so polite way). Some Christians may have converted some folks by the sword someplace on the planet hundreds of years ago (to use his world “some”), so now Muslims are just being morally equivalent to Christians. Every repugnant action taken by Muslims is “understood” as a mere “reaction” to Western actions, as if Muslims are simply robots or children not responsible for anything done in their name (insulting them while defending them at the same time). The West cannot win in anonymous’ world no matter what it does, and the positive is, of course, never mentioned: When Muslims in Kosovo need help, who you gonna call? Syria? Pakistan? When a tsunami struck a Muslim country (Indonesia), I simply don’t remember seeing Saudi helicopters flying in to the rescue with emergency food and supplies, unless I missed something, I saw the United States Marines. When Muslims were starving in Somalia I didn’t see British Muslims or their lefty friends coming ashore with tons of food, I saw the United States Military. When an earthquake struck Pakistan, I didn’t see Hezbollah flying in field hospitals to treat the wounded I saw the United States Air Force. Anonymous clearly has his own fundamentalist religion, one that worships at the alter of self hatred, moral relativism and equivalency. Where those who want to kill him are to be understood and justified all day long.
ReplyDeleteSelf hatred? Do I hate myself? No (LOL). Strange term to use,Joe. Btw,why reply as if you're talking to an audience, Joe? Speaking to me one to one,makes more sense. In my opinion,the fact that Muslims do "this" and don't do "that",is "extremely" relevant. Ignoring these finer points,is detrimental because ignorance (on both sides) is causing this conflict. You 'appear' to have taken on the assumption that because I haven't said "some" in regard to Israel or Christanity,I am perhaps tarnishing Jews or Christians as an entire people. Not at all. I am showing examples of similar events in the world from those who claim they are so much better than that "backward" Islam, to say that we can hardly take the moral high ground. Btw, I have Israeli friends (believe it or not) and have discussed these issues with them in detail. So its not like I'm against Jews,Joe.
ReplyDeleteSome of these folks had been active troops who have fought in these conflicts as part of their national service, and have had to kill. Why would I hate Jews or Christians as an entire people or religion? No reason to. I would suggest you provide Muslims some slack too, instead of dismissing them as backward. What I will point out, is examples (past and present) where we cannot claim the moral high ground over Islam. What I don't like, is how "some" (better be carefull to use it) in the Israeli Government seem to think they can ignore international law and cause mayhem knowing they will not be taken to a court to answer for military crimes that have occured.
By not having mentioned the huge amount of Aid that the west gives out to the world (including Islamic nations) that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge and respect it. Just,it wasn't mentioned in your posts I was replying to. I can't include everything in each reply when replying to the points you've made that don't refer to them. Our help was greatly appreciated and acknowledged in those nations. But that doesn't whitewash our record where we are being less 'kind' to Muslim lands. Islamic charities sent a huge amount of aid to those nations too, I would add.
Yes, some wealthy Gulf states were less forthcoming with their donations. No doubt about it. I don't have figures for aid that may or may not have come from Lebanon in the earthquake scenario, so I cannot say if that group Hezbollah sent any aid and money or not. Islamic charities take donations from all over the world, and I doubt we could say either way if Hezbollah contributed to relief.
On a practical level, wealthy governments being involved in such aid and humanitarian missions, mean it is blatantly obvious why everything looks so much impressive. Whole governments can arrange the logistics, planes, helicopters, and staff for such things. Organizations like Hezbollah cannot muster $350 million and all the practicalities needed for such a logistical endeavour in other parts of the world far away from Lebanon. Nobody has 'justified' Jihad here. I have simply explained some parts of it, and why 'perhaps' some are engaging in it against our nations (based on what many of them seem to say,too). Talking about it and how they view things, does not mean I have taken a position on it either way really.
I stand by the word "backward" and believe I am being charitable by using it. I have traveled extensively throughout much of the Muslim Middle East so I’m not talking as a person who has never left Kansas. I believe that the following words by Military Historian Ralph Peters hit the nail on the head:
ReplyDelete"Given all the wealth that's poured into the region, its vast human resources and all of its opportunities for change, the mess the Middle East has made of itself is stunning. Beyond Israel, the region hasn't produced a single first-rate government, army, economy, university or industry. It hasn't even produced convincing second-raters. Culturally, the region is utterly noncompetitive. Societies stagnate as populations seethe... Oil-rich Saudi Arabia has a per capita GDP half that of Israel's (whose sole resource is people)...The repeated failures we've witnessed go far beyond a religion on its sickbed."
Your own words clearly indicate that you are Hopelessly immersed in a fairly typical Euro-relativist mentality, where everything is morally equivalent and self-blame for everything is a symptom of that. In some ways I believe that you suffer from a form of Stockholm syndrome. You are a hostage in a sense and have come to identify, express understanding and make excuses for your captors. Your arguments are those of a lawyer for Jihad. You justify Jihad by constantly "understanding," explainging away and excusing the inexcusable. You use obsured examples of moral equivelecy with intellectual backflips. Really, what else is there to say? Either you are pretending not to get it or you are, as I mentioned hoplessly emerced in this Euro mentality that will ulimatly spell the end of Europe.
Oh I see now. If by self blame, you mean western nations stopping and least taking the time to look at perhaps why certain groups take it upon themselves to attack us, instead of getting all "gung ho" around the world blowing shit up and placing sanctions on other countries, then yes....long live a bit of self blame now and again. Because, choosing to ignore our part in 'creating' or 'provoking' hatred against us, we are simply idiotic and nothing will get better at all. But it seems many Neocons don't "want" things to get better, because they are guilty of the same apocalyptic complex that some Islamic clerics have.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to talk about the end of nations, it is not I who am inviting it with my words, I would suggest. Certainly not myself. Look closer to home, in your rhetoric, Joe. Not once have I said that we are to blame for "everything". We certainly are not. Of course many Muslim nations are to blame for the state of their economy. But my argument is not directly about how succesful their economies were or weren't, and most of the time it isn't miitant's reasoning either. You appear to be using that old U.S chestnut of "Islam is jealous of western success..that is why they hate us" instead of looking at the real issues behind their hatred.
My argument has been about our nations interfering politically (placing puppet leaders on the thrones),militarily (invasions) in Islamic nations, and a hell of a lot of death along the way. We use leaders when we want them (backing and arming Hussein against Iran in the 80's), and then call them terrorists when it suits our latest political agenda. We are to blame when we invade somewhere like Iraq with absurd justifications that prove to be sheer B.S, and then wonder why on earth hatred against us increases and some of our nations end up facing suicide attacks.
Did London receive suicide attacks from militant Muslims prior to Iraq? No. Did Madrid? No. It doesn't take a genius to see the obvious staring us in the face.Go on, invade Iran for choosing to make nuclear material. And we will soon see who is really inviting the destruction of Europe or the U.S by their words and actions. Over time it became clear just what was going on here. A dirty series of wars of regime removal that our Governments had been keeping on our back burner for years but didn't have a legal excuse for toppling them. With the war on terror, its a blank cheque. This is not just a war against "Islamo-Fascists". Our leaders are terrified of Islam. Shaking in our boots at it having power and influence globally. So we're trying to strangle it by making it a slave to our ideologys,politics,and military.
I certainly hope that our leaders are terrified of radical Islam and of the idea of a nuclear armed radical Islam with all that that implies. I do not apologize for one moment in praising the virtues of the West (as imperfect as we may be), which is mankind’s last best hope. Virtually every technology, every comfort, every advanced method of agriculture and commerce, education and science, enlightened participatory democracy; all are expressions of Western culture for which we have every reason to be proud and should defend with extreme measures if necessary. Yes, we have our faults and problems but they are dwarfed in comparison to the shortcomings elsewhere in the world. Any person who has traveled with an open mind and without self-loathing can see that. There is a reason why much of the world’s populations are clamoring to live in the West, and not the other way around. People vote with their feet.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I completely reject the silly notion that London was bombed because of Iraq, as if Islamo-nut-jobs needed Iraq as a reason to bomb London. You should be reminded that 9/11 happened well before Iraq, Bali happened well before Iraq, Nairobi, the USS Cole, Kobar Towers, the first World Trade Center bombings, all well before Iraq. And by the way, the US has not been bombed since Iraq, are we to infer in that case that Iraq has made the US safer? By using your logic, then yes because the US has not been bombed since Iraq. I for one don’t believe it, and I know that we could be bombed tomorrow by these people Iraq or no Iraq.
ReplyDeleteJoe you say you hope our leaders are terrified of radical Islam. But throughout the rhetoric on this Blog, you don't stop at radical Islam in your dislike. It appears you are terrified of Islam itself. Despite what you say, it 'appears' you are against the ideology of Islam, full stop. Airing the bitter rantings of a 'retired' Muslim Dr Wafa Sultan who drags all Muslim thought into the actions of extremists, is an example. I agree 100% that we have much to praise ourselves for. Nor do I apologize for the "virtues" of the west. Our virtues are our virtues, and to be praised. But our screw ups are our screw ups and to be condemned too. Ignoring our own mistakes (and the Islamic world acknowledging theirs too) is the only way we can sort this out (IMO). You reject the 'silly' notion that London was bombed because of Iraq. Excuse me? The bombers themselves said 'exactly' why they were doing what they were doing, in their martyr videos. Isn't it obvious?
ReplyDeleteAll of the pre-Iraq attacks you mention, have had our 'unconditional' support of Israel and our military prescence in holy lands, or our political meddlings in Middle Eastern history of the last several decades, as the justifications given. Whatever the rights or wrongs of their reasoning, there are some areas there that need to be addressed, because some (not all) of them have basis for criticism. We could say that all of these pre-Iraq incidents are terrorist attacks. But in regard to Iraq, there are many ways people could say they are simply reacting to an invading power. That is where we screwed up and have increasingly lost support within our own countries and from other countries. When we have invaded and occupied Muslim lands and show no sign of leaving soon, then it hands militants exactly what they always wanted.
It makes them look like the heroes. Not the aggressors. A perfect excuse to go all Mujahadeen on our very prescence. True there have been no attacks on the United States since 2001. But (IMO) that has been down to damn good intelligence work, and working the war on terror in that regard. I really don't see how invading Iraq has helped in that regard, at all. It has been proven recently that Iraq never tolerated extremist elements, and had no working links with Al Qaeda (despite the exciting pre-war dossiers of our leaders). Our War on Terror initially had the support of many (including myself) when it first began, through cutting off the finances of such organizations, and using intelligence work to root them out. But choosing to go and invade and occupy foriegn Muslim lands under the banner of 'war on terror' has just given them more legitimate looking reasons to strike back at our nations either within those countries, or at home.
Ano:
ReplyDeleteGuests of their hosts (which if you think about it, is the right of an "Islamic" nation if it so chooses). After all, it is an "Islamic" nation. A religious nation partly running on Islamic principals."
Based on your comment about it being the "ritght" of an Islamic nation, if tomorrow the US, whose laws are based on Judeo-Christian principals decided that it was going to ask Muslims for tribute to be allowed to practice their beliefs, that would be ok then? I can just hear the howls from the left and the rest of the world.
"So I don't know where you got the idea that Islam is the fastest growing religion at the point of a sword"
Have you looked at Sudan and Somallia lately? The genocide that is going on there is being spurred on and committed by members of the Religion of Peace. In Kosovo, the Muslim population, knowing that it is more or less protected from retribution is now doing its best to eliminate the Christians in that war torn area. The peacekeepers are woefully inadequate to stop it. Yet I hear not a peep, not even a whisper from the moderate Islamic element.
If the Evangelicals (who many consider to be extremists in the US) were to demonstrate in a like manner as was seen in the past week by the Arab "street", there'd be cries of a new "Taliban" in America
I would agree with you somewhat on the mess that is Checnya and Russia. Basically I'd trust neither side.
You mentioned that the MSM choses not to show these examples of condemnation by Muslims against Muslims. Why is that? You'd think that the left-leaning MSM would be overjoyed to show this and prove to the world by saying;
"hey look over here, these folks actually are standing up against terrorism and radical Islam"
For me the bottom line is this, the day that the moderate Muslim community, stands up and holds a press conference on, say the BBC, and condemns the actions of their people, is the day I'll give them their due. Certainly it would be expected of Christians and Jews.
I certainly agree with Richard. As for the difference between "radical Islam" and Islam. It is true that I view "radical" Islam as the immediate threat, but I also view Islam itself as deeply flawed, producing radical Islam and the kind of backwardness and stagnation seen throughout the Muslim world Ias described by Ralph Peters in a previous post). I believe Islam must go through a process of reform as the Christian Church did hundreds of years ago. Unlike you, I don't spend 99% of my time critisizing what are in comparison the minor flaws of the West, while making excuses for a culture of failure and hate.
ReplyDeleteWell the religion of peace has struck again:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_af/somalia_nun_killed
This sort of renforces my preivous statements about Sudan and Somalia
Have you looked at Sudan and Somallia lately? The genocide that is going on there is being spurred on and committed by members of the Religion of Peace.
ReplyDeleteRichard, you are talking about slaughter of people. Not 'conversion' to a religion. Islam can't be the fastest growing religion if those people are dead. How is it spreading Islam,through genocide? No, Islam is spreading as the world's fastest growing religion, through non-violent means. I agree, that everyday Muslims would do well to stand up and condemn the genocide taking place in Sudan. 100% agree with you on that. But that is up to them if they do or not. In regard to everyday Muslims going on TV and condeming the actions of all their people. Well, that is where it gets tricky. Although some may condemn the actions of state run slaughter of non-muslims (Sudan), they may not totally condemn the actions of people fighting occupation of Iraq or those resisting American and U.N calls to stop developing Nuclear power.
Joe. At least we've got that part straight (that it is not just 'radical' Islam you dislike). If Islam can go through the kind of reforms you mention, remains to be seen. And please, don't call government wars around the world "minor flaws". It is way beyond that now. My problem is not with western culture or people at all. It is with our governments invading or threatening those countries about what they can or cannot do, thinking it is going to help solve the gap. Just how is that going to help encourage Islam to reform? It is just fuelling resentment.