Certain claims have been made regarding Islam that reflect the staggering ignorance of non-Muslims, particularly in America, and point to a growing trend toward Islamophobia. Witness this statement made on a recent radio broadcast during a discussion of stem cell research: If the jihadis succeed in establishing Sharia Law there would be no more science, no experiments. Apparantly the speaker was unaware that Muslims, under Sharia Law, invented science. But back to that later…
First to refute the statement above with the following evidence from;
“Stem Cells and the Rebirth of Islamic Science”
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/05/stem_cells_and_.html
Asked about Dubai’s regulatory environment, Abdulqader Al Khayat, executive director of the Dubai Biotechnology and Research Park enthusiastically mentioned that Islamic law — Sharia law, was actually more open than the United States to certain types of research, particularly embryonic stem cell research. “In Islamic law, a fetus is considered human after four months of pregnancy,” he said. “Under Sharia law, any research that has human benefit is supported. There is no boundary for that.”
Currently, Iran and Saudi Arabia claim to follow Sharia in all areas of the law, yet both of these countries implement a full range of scientific methods financed by their governments.
Ever since the birth of Islam, Muslims made tremendous progress in the area of Science. In cities like Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo Muslim scientists advanced math, astronomy, medicine and theoretical science. Meanwhile Europe was in the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church having successfully convinced Christians that the Muslims were infidels, prevented Europe from benefiting from the new scientific discoveries being made in the Islamic lands.
In fact, it was Christianity that destroyed Islam’s ability to continue their contributions to science. Beginning in 1085, several Crusades brought a wave of devastation of Muslim resources, lives, properties, institutions, and infrastructure over a period of four hundred years. In the fall of Baghdad (1258), two million Muslims were massacred. Major scientific institutions, laboratories, and infrastructure were destroyed in leading Muslim centers of civilization. At the end of Muslim rule in Spain (1492) more than one million volumes of Muslim works on science, arts, philosophy and culture was burnt in the public square in Granada. The Western world has been struggling to catch up to Muslim science and technology ever since.
The perception of Sharia Law as a primitive barbaric form of human rights abuse, no doubt stems from the perception that the Taliban gave the world, even though the Taliban were applying their own perverted beliefs and were not following the tenets of Sharia.
The civil (as opposed to personal worship) aspects of Sharia apply to human interaction: Financial transactions, Endowments, Laws of inheritance, Marriage, divorce, and child care, Penal punishments, Warfare and peace, Judicial matters. In this way it is not dissimilar to the Law of Moses from the Old Testament which still guides the current thought of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), or for that matter, American law which is based on the morality of the Christian Bible.
The bottom line is that Sharia does not prohibit scientific experimentation, and in fact without Islam we might still be in the Dark Ages.
I would caution those who promote the idea that jihadism is an aspect of Islam that is a threat to modern society, not to confuse the jihadist ideology of hatred, violence, and human rights abuse with the beliefs of the majority of the Islamic world.
Oh Reckless One:
I’m beginning to think you’re doing this on purpose–wilfully misconstruing my argument here on Aspen Post and on “Con Games.”
It’s the jihadists I’m talking about and NOT Islam.
You continue to blog away as if jihad didn’t exist, as if Scotland and England and Fort Dix and JFK are inventions of the media.
Say after me three times SLOW:
Jihad. Jihadists. Jihadism.
Best, Con Man!
PS To title your post “Islamophobia” shows you completely missed my point…again.
Oh Reckless One:
I’m beginning to think you’re doing this on purpose–wilfully misconstruing my argument here on Aspen Post and on “Con Games.”
It’s the jihadists I’m talking about and NOT Islam.
You continue to blog away as if jihad didn’t exist, as if Scotland and England and Fort Dix and JFK are inventions of the media.
Say after me three times SLOW:
Jihad. Jihadists. Jihadism.
Best, Con Man!
PS To title your post “Islamophobia” shows you completely missed my point…again.
Oh did you think I was talking about you?
Hey I was trying to protect your identity while using your statement as a vehicle for the topic of Islamophobia, something I believe will become increasingly and painfully common in coming years.
Michael I don’t think you’re Islamophobic, or racist in any way. It’s just sometimes you do and say things that could lead those of lesser intelligence and understanding astray. What are people who don’t know any better supposed to make of your statement regarding Sharia law and science? If you, who continually claim to be speaking only of jihadism and not about Islam, confuse radical Muslim behavior with mainstream Muslim practice, then how are your listeners supposed to differentiate them?
Aren’t you the one who’s always chastising callers for using terms like “those people?” Remember; “precision counts.” Forgive me if I hold you to your own standards, especially when it comes to my pet topics.
Oh did you think I was talking about you?
Hey I was trying to protect your identity while using your statement as a vehicle for the topic of Islamophobia, something I believe will become increasingly and painfully common in coming years.
Michael I don’t think you’re Islamophobic, or racist in any way. It’s just sometimes you do and say things that could lead those of lesser intelligence and understanding astray. What are people who don’t know any better supposed to make of your statement regarding Sharia law and science? If you, who continually claim to be speaking only of jihadism and not about Islam, confuse radical Muslim behavior with mainstream Muslim practice, then how are your listeners supposed to differentiate them?
Aren’t you the one who’s always chastising callers for using terms like “those people?” Remember; “precision counts.” Forgive me if I hold you to your own standards, especially when it comes to my pet topics.
Were it not for Bush’s position on Intelligent Design and Amanda Boxtel’s hopeful progress with stem cell therapy (I do think of and pray for her improvement), I’d call your suggestion that, medically speaking, Jihadists, as well as the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the Iranian theocratic republic, are more forward thinking than we are “chuckle-worthy.”
Only a fool would impugn the Islamic contribution to science during the Dark Ages. During the “Golden Age” of Islam (c. the 8th to 15th centuries A.D.), the origin of many modern scientific principles flourished. Take the contributions of ibn al-Haytham, for example, commonly thought of as the first to posit an accurate explanation of how the human eye works…
But we’re not talking about the “Golden Age” of Islam here, are we? In fact, framed against this valuable contribution to ophthamology, we’re talking about Jihadists, whose most notable recent idea was to use air buses as payload delivery systems, box cutters as means of neutralizing airliner passengers, and, more recently, a syringe—a tool commonly used as to improve the health of the human body—as a relay in a propane and gasoline detonation device designed to destroy the human body. Surely the irony of this is lost on no one.
This is the face of the modern Jihadist.
Is the face of the modern Jihadist the same as modern Islam?
The silence of most in the Muslim community is tacit approval.
The fundamental difference between the common American citizen and modern Jihadist is a tenant that is central to America: religious freedom. Forget about racial and sexual equality, women’s rights, and sexual preference… The anopsia of the modern Jihadist is the failure to see human existence in terms of anything but religious belief. To trivialize the example of the Taliban in this regard is the height of denial. The Taliban is the best example we have of the interpretation of Sharia law—the social and religious existence—the Jihadists seek.
Cheers,
Were it not for Bush’s position on Intelligent Design and Amanda Boxtel’s hopeful progress with stem cell therapy (I do think of and pray for her improvement), I’d call your suggestion that, medically speaking, Jihadists, as well as the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the Iranian theocratic republic, are more forward thinking than we are “chuckle-worthy.”
Only a fool would impugn the Islamic contribution to science during the Dark Ages. During the “Golden Age” of Islam (c. the 8th to 15th centuries A.D.), the origin of many modern scientific principles flourished. Take the contributions of ibn al-Haytham, for example, commonly thought of as the first to posit an accurate explanation of how the human eye works…
But we’re not talking about the “Golden Age” of Islam here, are we? In fact, framed against this valuable contribution to ophthamology, we’re talking about Jihadists, whose most notable recent idea was to use air buses as payload delivery systems, box cutters as means of neutralizing airliner passengers, and, more recently, a syringe—a tool commonly used as to improve the health of the human body—as a relay in a propane and gasoline detonation device designed to destroy the human body. Surely the irony of this is lost on no one.
This is the face of the modern Jihadist.
Is the face of the modern Jihadist the same as modern Islam?
The silence of most in the Muslim community is tacit approval.
The fundamental difference between the common American citizen and modern Jihadist is a tenant that is central to America: religious freedom. Forget about racial and sexual equality, women’s rights, and sexual preference… The anopsia of the modern Jihadist is the failure to see human existence in terms of anything but religious belief. To trivialize the example of the Taliban in this regard is the height of denial. The Taliban is the best example we have of the interpretation of Sharia law—the social and religious existence—the Jihadists seek.
Cheers,
Worth noting:
MSNBC and now CNN are routinely referring to Jihadists.
Fox News (gulp) is playing the documentary about Muslims and Jihad Saturday night at 8 PM–the one that got knocked off PBS.
The word Jihadist is on the way to replacing Terrorist, thank God.
Best, Michael!
Worth noting:
MSNBC and now CNN are routinely referring to Jihadists.
Fox News (gulp) is playing the documentary about Muslims and Jihad Saturday night at 8 PM–the one that got knocked off PBS.
The word Jihadist is on the way to replacing Terrorist, thank God.
Best, Michael!
I’d call your suggestion that, medically speaking, Jihadists, as well as the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the Iranian theocratic republic, are more forward thinking than we are “chuckle-worthy.”]
Excuse me! Where have I said that Jihadists are more forward thinking? Saudi Arabia and Iran both have superb medical facilities and expertise, unbound by our Christian notions of the sanctity of life. They also have top of the line technologies in other scientific areas.
Jeez! You are putting words in my mouth just like the Gray-haters in the letters to the editor.
[Is the face of the modern Jihadist the same as modern Islam? The silence of most in the Muslim community is tacit approval.]
And how do you know what is being taught in mosques around the world? You and Michael both assume there has been silence, and Michael seems to buy in to Hamid’s assertion that American mosques are hotbeds of jihadist teaching. Neither of you really has any idea (nor do I) what is being said in mosques. Perhaps they are promoting jihadism and violence OR perhaps they are condemning it. Fatwaahs against killing civilians have been ordered throughout the Muslim world, but because it’s not reported in the mainstream media, you assume it isn’t happening and make the leap that Muslim’s are giving their tacit approval. That’s called prejudice.
[The Taliban is the best example we have of the interpretation of Sharia law—the social and religious existence—the Jihadists seek.]
No Mitch, it’s not. Afghanistan had Sharia law before the Taliban took over. They made their own law that had no relation to Sharia. To use the Taliban as an example of Sharia is a gross distortion that leads to an unfair discrimination against Islam.
And finally Michael. I’ve said all along I have no problem with your use of the word Jihadist in lieu of terrorist. My problem with you is that you often confuse the practices and tenets of Islam with Jihadism. If you would refrain from making statements like the one about science and Sharia law, I would have no problem with you going after Jihadism.
When people are careless with their words, they are careless with their actions. We don’t want to promote an unreasonable fear and hatred of our Muslim citizens and neighbors…now do we?
I’d call your suggestion that, medically speaking, Jihadists, as well as the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the Iranian theocratic republic, are more forward thinking than we are “chuckle-worthy.”]
Excuse me! Where have I said that Jihadists are more forward thinking? Saudi Arabia and Iran both have superb medical facilities and expertise, unbound by our Christian notions of the sanctity of life. They also have top of the line technologies in other scientific areas.
Jeez! You are putting words in my mouth just like the Gray-haters in the letters to the editor.
[Is the face of the modern Jihadist the same as modern Islam? The silence of most in the Muslim community is tacit approval.]
And how do you know what is being taught in mosques around the world? You and Michael both assume there has been silence, and Michael seems to buy in to Hamid’s assertion that American mosques are hotbeds of jihadist teaching. Neither of you really has any idea (nor do I) what is being said in mosques. Perhaps they are promoting jihadism and violence OR perhaps they are condemning it. Fatwaahs against killing civilians have been ordered throughout the Muslim world, but because it’s not reported in the mainstream media, you assume it isn’t happening and make the leap that Muslim’s are giving their tacit approval. That’s called prejudice.
[The Taliban is the best example we have of the interpretation of Sharia law—the social and religious existence—the Jihadists seek.]
No Mitch, it’s not. Afghanistan had Sharia law before the Taliban took over. They made their own law that had no relation to Sharia. To use the Taliban as an example of Sharia is a gross distortion that leads to an unfair discrimination against Islam.
And finally Michael. I’ve said all along I have no problem with your use of the word Jihadist in lieu of terrorist. My problem with you is that you often confuse the practices and tenets of Islam with Jihadism. If you would refrain from making statements like the one about science and Sharia law, I would have no problem with you going after Jihadism.
When people are careless with their words, they are careless with their actions. We don’t want to promote an unreasonable fear and hatred of our Muslim citizens and neighbors…now do we?
PS:
Michael, your teaser; “The relentless Post blogger reckless G stands ready to defend Islam against all comers, even those who make the distinction between Muslims and Jihadis.” is misleading. I am ASKING you to make a distinction between Muslims and Jihadis. Maybe that means you need to brush up on your Islamic studies in order not to confuse the two.
You wrote: “To title your post “Islamophobia” shows you completely missed my point…again. ”
Here’s your chance to tell us what the point was of your statement; “If the jihadis succeed in establishing Sharia Law there would be no more science, no experiments. “
PS:
Michael, your teaser; “The relentless Post blogger reckless G stands ready to defend Islam against all comers, even those who make the distinction between Muslims and Jihadis.” is misleading. I am ASKING you to make a distinction between Muslims and Jihadis. Maybe that means you need to brush up on your Islamic studies in order not to confuse the two.
You wrote: “To title your post “Islamophobia” shows you completely missed my point…again. ”
Here’s your chance to tell us what the point was of your statement; “If the jihadis succeed in establishing Sharia Law there would be no more science, no experiments. “
[Where have I said that Jihadists are more forward thinking?]
I put no words in your mouth–you wrote them in your own comment. You quote Abdulqader Al Khayat, “Sharia law, was actually more open than the United States to certain types of research, particularly embryonic stem cell research.” This implies that Muslim countries are more forward thinking than we are. You also suggest Islam has figured out the point at which a fetus becomes human, as if to suggest this is something we bufoons in the U.S. still struggle to understand.
[how do you know what is being taught in mosques around the world?]
I do not know what is being taught in mosques. I do know that precious few Muslims seek a public forum to denounce the actions of Jihadists, and those who do, like Dr. Tawfik Hamid, are denounced by people like you.
[To use the Taliban as an example of Sharia is a gross distortion that leads to an unfair discrimination against Islam.]
True. But to hold up the Taliban as an example of the social and religious conventions the Jihadists hope to install is as accurate a glimpse of this schism as recent history can give us.
Cheers,
[Where have I said that Jihadists are more forward thinking?]
I put no words in your mouth–you wrote them in your own comment. You quote Abdulqader Al Khayat, “Sharia law, was actually more open than the United States to certain types of research, particularly embryonic stem cell research.” This implies that Muslim countries are more forward thinking than we are. You also suggest Islam has figured out the point at which a fetus becomes human, as if to suggest this is something we bufoons in the U.S. still struggle to understand.
[how do you know what is being taught in mosques around the world?]
I do not know what is being taught in mosques. I do know that precious few Muslims seek a public forum to denounce the actions of Jihadists, and those who do, like Dr. Tawfik Hamid, are denounced by people like you.
[To use the Taliban as an example of Sharia is a gross distortion that leads to an unfair discrimination against Islam.]
True. But to hold up the Taliban as an example of the social and religious conventions the Jihadists hope to install is as accurate a glimpse of this schism as recent history can give us.
Cheers,
[I put no words in your mouth]
You lumped Jihadis in with my examples of Sharia science; Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Do you deny that science, even stem cell research is being practiced by countries under Sharia Law?
[This implies that Muslim countries are more forward thinking than we are.]
That would be implied by Conniff’s insistence that countries that allow stem cell research ARE more forward thinking than we are.
[I do know that precious few Muslims seek a public forum to denounce the actions of Jihadists, and those who do, like Dr. Tawfik Hamid, are denounced by people like you.]
But Dr. Hamid is not speaking to Muslim communities where his message could do some good, There are Muslim reformers out there. Hamid is not one of them. Just because our media doesn’t give any attention to Muslims speaking out against jihad doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
You and Michael seem so quick to embrace the idea that Hamid promoted; mainstream Islam condones jihad by remaining silent. Don’t believe everything you hear when you haven’t heard everything.
[But to hold up the Taliban as an example of the social and religious conventions the Jihadists hope to install is as accurate a glimpse of this schism as recent history can give us.]
I have no problem holding the Taliban up as an example of what happens when Jihadists take over a country. The Taliban is an accurate example of yours and Michael’s fears for America. Just DON’T confuse it with the perfectly legitimate and widely practiced Sharia Law. Then it makes it look as if Islam is the problem and not Jihadism.
[I put no words in your mouth]
You lumped Jihadis in with my examples of Sharia science; Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Do you deny that science, even stem cell research is being practiced by countries under Sharia Law?
[This implies that Muslim countries are more forward thinking than we are.]
That would be implied by Conniff’s insistence that countries that allow stem cell research ARE more forward thinking than we are.
[I do know that precious few Muslims seek a public forum to denounce the actions of Jihadists, and those who do, like Dr. Tawfik Hamid, are denounced by people like you.]
But Dr. Hamid is not speaking to Muslim communities where his message could do some good, There are Muslim reformers out there. Hamid is not one of them. Just because our media doesn’t give any attention to Muslims speaking out against jihad doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
You and Michael seem so quick to embrace the idea that Hamid promoted; mainstream Islam condones jihad by remaining silent. Don’t believe everything you hear when you haven’t heard everything.
[But to hold up the Taliban as an example of the social and religious conventions the Jihadists hope to install is as accurate a glimpse of this schism as recent history can give us.]
I have no problem holding the Taliban up as an example of what happens when Jihadists take over a country. The Taliban is an accurate example of yours and Michael’s fears for America. Just DON’T confuse it with the perfectly legitimate and widely practiced Sharia Law. Then it makes it look as if Islam is the problem and not Jihadism.
Much ado about the same. The problem in this world, as of now, is that racical faction of Islam known as Jehadism. Likewise, it is evident that Wahabeeism is of very real root and concern.
Its easy for an average scholar to go back through history and look at all the war, killing, ethnic cleansing, and conflict, and tie those ends to differences amongst religions (and/or cultures).
Why do we have to fight wars based on Religion(s)? Yet, we always have.
When will the world see a man or woman or group of people step up to the plate, set bygones aside, set the past aside, and just gather all these different cultures and religions at a world summit and work to create/foster peace amongst mankind?
Why can’t we all just make some concessions, ,meet half way, learn something about respect and tolerance, and living together in an increasingly globalized world economy?
Will that be the Anti-Christ? I hope not. Will it be a political or religiously moderate figure? I hope so.
However, if these radical factions insist on destroying our government, our society and our way of life… I say lets bomb them to oblivion if they dont’ want to meet us at the table and talk. We can take them out, one by one, or in groups, in the dead of night.
Isn’t that was the CIA used to be pretty good at?
Don’t get me wrong, sure… Christianity has had a few bad apples, a few who took it the wrong way. Remember Jim Jones and the Guiana Tragedy? (FYI — the Emmy Award winning actor who played Jones in that film, grew up 8 miles from my place in Texas — Powers Boothe.)
I think the central core of all religion is good, and fundamental in aspect. I think it will take a coalition of fundamental religious people to quell this stupid Jihad thing.
For example… Muslims?… they hold Abraham as a central figure in their religious history… as do Christians and Jews. Hmmm…. Just a thought… Gotta run — J
Much ado about the same. The problem in this world, as of now, is that racical faction of Islam known as Jehadism. Likewise, it is evident that Wahabeeism is of very real root and concern.
Its easy for an average scholar to go back through history and look at all the war, killing, ethnic cleansing, and conflict, and tie those ends to differences amongst religions (and/or cultures).
Why do we have to fight wars based on Religion(s)? Yet, we always have.
When will the world see a man or woman or group of people step up to the plate, set bygones aside, set the past aside, and just gather all these different cultures and religions at a world summit and work to create/foster peace amongst mankind?
Why can’t we all just make some concessions, ,meet half way, learn something about respect and tolerance, and living together in an increasingly globalized world economy?
Will that be the Anti-Christ? I hope not. Will it be a political or religiously moderate figure? I hope so.
However, if these radical factions insist on destroying our government, our society and our way of life… I say lets bomb them to oblivion if they dont’ want to meet us at the table and talk. We can take them out, one by one, or in groups, in the dead of night.
Isn’t that was the CIA used to be pretty good at?
Don’t get me wrong, sure… Christianity has had a few bad apples, a few who took it the wrong way. Remember Jim Jones and the Guiana Tragedy? (FYI — the Emmy Award winning actor who played Jones in that film, grew up 8 miles from my place in Texas — Powers Boothe.)
I think the central core of all religion is good, and fundamental in aspect. I think it will take a coalition of fundamental religious people to quell this stupid Jihad thing.
For example… Muslims?… they hold Abraham as a central figure in their religious history… as do Christians and Jews. Hmmm…. Just a thought… Gotta run — J
[Don’t believe everything you hear when you haven’t heard everything.]
I don’t think it’s a reach to think you would extend this admonishment to what I read, which is interesting, given you once wrote, “…I have not read the Looming Tower and will not.”
Apparently, your high-powered acumen and travels to the Middle East, combined with the veritable cornucopia of speakers and authors in which you have surely steeped your mind, immunizes your world vision from the myopia that renders me some kind of pitiable mass of American fear.
[Just because our media doesn’t give any attention to Muslims speaking out against jihad doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.]
Perhaps. But an absence of coverage may also indicate that instances of Muslims speaking out against Jihadism are the exception, not the rule.
For the record, Dr. Hamid did not introduce me to the idea that silence is tacit approval.
Cheers,
[Don’t believe everything you hear when you haven’t heard everything.]
I don’t think it’s a reach to think you would extend this admonishment to what I read, which is interesting, given you once wrote, “…I have not read the Looming Tower and will not.”
Apparently, your high-powered acumen and travels to the Middle East, combined with the veritable cornucopia of speakers and authors in which you have surely steeped your mind, immunizes your world vision from the myopia that renders me some kind of pitiable mass of American fear.
[Just because our media doesn’t give any attention to Muslims speaking out against jihad doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.]
Perhaps. But an absence of coverage may also indicate that instances of Muslims speaking out against Jihadism are the exception, not the rule.
For the record, Dr. Hamid did not introduce me to the idea that silence is tacit approval.
Cheers,
[Why can't we all just make some concessions, meet half way, learn something about respect and tolerance, and living together in an increasingly globalized world economy?]
You pen a noble vision, to be sure, Jon. But how do you negotiate when al Qaeda’s sitting across the table from you?
Earlier this morning as I was scanning my news crawler, a dispatch from Michael Yon caught my eye. Yon is one of three embeds tagging along on operation Arrowhead Ripper, a mission to remove al Qaeda in Iraq from Baqubah.
Apparently, the Jihadists had a very effective way of persuading Baqubah Sunnis opposed to insurgency to see things al Qaeda’s way. Speaking through an American interpreter, an Iraqi official described these methods. According to the dispatch:
“…on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.”
~Michael Yon, Baqubah Update, 05 July 2007,
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm
Now, I’ve got to believe this is the stuff of urban legend, Baqubah style. Still, if you’d like to sit down with the Jihadists and talk about living together under a global world economy, I really can’t think of any suggestions for fostering the kind of communication that would achieve the mutually-agreeable middle ground you seek. I do recommend, however, just as a precaution, that if the subject of dining comes up, you volunteer to BBQ and demand complete control over the menu.
Cheers,
[Why can't we all just make some concessions, meet half way, learn something about respect and tolerance, and living together in an increasingly globalized world economy?]
You pen a noble vision, to be sure, Jon. But how do you negotiate when al Qaeda’s sitting across the table from you?
Earlier this morning as I was scanning my news crawler, a dispatch from Michael Yon caught my eye. Yon is one of three embeds tagging along on operation Arrowhead Ripper, a mission to remove al Qaeda in Iraq from Baqubah.
Apparently, the Jihadists had a very effective way of persuading Baqubah Sunnis opposed to insurgency to see things al Qaeda’s way. Speaking through an American interpreter, an Iraqi official described these methods. According to the dispatch:
“…on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.”
~Michael Yon, Baqubah Update, 05 July 2007,
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm
Now, I’ve got to believe this is the stuff of urban legend, Baqubah style. Still, if you’d like to sit down with the Jihadists and talk about living together under a global world economy, I really can’t think of any suggestions for fostering the kind of communication that would achieve the mutually-agreeable middle ground you seek. I do recommend, however, just as a precaution, that if the subject of dining comes up, you volunteer to BBQ and demand complete control over the menu.
Cheers,
Thats my point. Thats what a forward thinking, practical, probably never gonna get rich fella like me thinks about.
At this time, the way things are shaking out, the military actions, the terrorist actions, the way so many of the Jihadist people are brain washed, and the way so many of the “rest” of society is being fed…. well, you are right. How do we ever make that happen? That is certainly the billion dollar question.
For now, until we bring those radical factions to a compromising alternative…. (which might never happen)… we need to bury them, and I mean truly erradicate them like fire ant mounds. We have to find them, take them out, and not in just I places like Iraq and Afghanistan, … we need to seek these groups worldwide and take them out with a very real global “Coalition of the Willing”… a true global anti-terrorism force.
I’ve written posts and columns in the past that said we did it all wrong, and I’ll forever stand behind that belief. A brief synopsis — after 9/11, we had every civilized, domesticated country in the world, at our front door, asking what they could do to help. If I had been President, I would have seized that and molded that and launched a united global anti-terrorism force that would root out and eliminate these radicals throughout the world. Its a beautiful thought, actually, in principal, as well as ideals.
Instead, the policy makers in the White House feed us a bag of progandized lies and half-truths. Instead of the above, we choose to invade Iraq, topple Saddamm, put 160,00 boots on the ground, within the country, and leave the borders (perimeters) unsecured. As we led up to what would be termed by our President as the war on terrorism, the rest of the world, and our most staunch allies, looked at our administration and its looming plans like… “what the @!$# are you doing?”
Beating a worn out horse there, so lets move on….
I believe in something called diplomacy. Yet, we should have been thinking diplomacy in that region 20 or 30 years ago. Because of the lack of diplomacy and a willingness to sit a the table together, we are left with the ashes, both on our own soil, and abroad. Within those ashes are still embers, still burning, still waiting to ignite, and still wanting to explode.
So, you pose a great question. Will and can we ever be able to sit down with Al Queda at the same table? No, as of now, we can’t. But, if we can take out bin laden and his top support, then yes, I think we can.
And at that point, I think we then do as I suggested earlier… we produce a summit… with Al Queda pretty much at our mercy, and we sit across from Islamic/Muslim leaders and ask…. “Okay, how do we work together to keep something like this from ever happening again? How do we live together, peacefully?
…. well thank you Sir, I take that as a compliment to my fine bbqing skills. Perhaps I’ll make them happy by making their stomachs and mouths happy. But trust me, I’d love to work that table, to moderate, to fascilitate, to work that room, and perhaps help make magic happen. ‘Nough for now… — J
Thats my point. Thats what a forward thinking, practical, probably never gonna get rich fella like me thinks about.
At this time, the way things are shaking out, the military actions, the terrorist actions, the way so many of the Jihadist people are brain washed, and the way so many of the “rest” of society is being fed…. well, you are right. How do we ever make that happen? That is certainly the billion dollar question.
For now, until we bring those radical factions to a compromising alternative…. (which might never happen)… we need to bury them, and I mean truly erradicate them like fire ant mounds. We have to find them, take them out, and not in just I places like Iraq and Afghanistan, … we need to seek these groups worldwide and take them out with a very real global “Coalition of the Willing”… a true global anti-terrorism force.
I’ve written posts and columns in the past that said we did it all wrong, and I’ll forever stand behind that belief. A brief synopsis — after 9/11, we had every civilized, domesticated country in the world, at our front door, asking what they could do to help. If I had been President, I would have seized that and molded that and launched a united global anti-terrorism force that would root out and eliminate these radicals throughout the world. Its a beautiful thought, actually, in principal, as well as ideals.
Instead, the policy makers in the White House feed us a bag of progandized lies and half-truths. Instead of the above, we choose to invade Iraq, topple Saddamm, put 160,00 boots on the ground, within the country, and leave the borders (perimeters) unsecured. As we led up to what would be termed by our President as the war on terrorism, the rest of the world, and our most staunch allies, looked at our administration and its looming plans like… “what the @!$# are you doing?”
Beating a worn out horse there, so lets move on….
I believe in something called diplomacy. Yet, we should have been thinking diplomacy in that region 20 or 30 years ago. Because of the lack of diplomacy and a willingness to sit a the table together, we are left with the ashes, both on our own soil, and abroad. Within those ashes are still embers, still burning, still waiting to ignite, and still wanting to explode.
So, you pose a great question. Will and can we ever be able to sit down with Al Queda at the same table? No, as of now, we can’t. But, if we can take out bin laden and his top support, then yes, I think we can.
And at that point, I think we then do as I suggested earlier… we produce a summit… with Al Queda pretty much at our mercy, and we sit across from Islamic/Muslim leaders and ask…. “Okay, how do we work together to keep something like this from ever happening again? How do we live together, peacefully?
…. well thank you Sir, I take that as a compliment to my fine bbqing skills. Perhaps I’ll make them happy by making their stomachs and mouths happy. But trust me, I’d love to work that table, to moderate, to fascilitate, to work that room, and perhaps help make magic happen. ‘Nough for now… — J
Mitch, you wrote: [I don’t think it’s a reach to think you would extend this admonishment to what I read, which is interesting, given you once wrote, "…I have not read the Looming Tower and will not."]
This makes me chuckle at the thought of Wharf Rat. Oh Wharf, where are you? I need you now!
The three reasons I haven’t and won’t read the Looming Tower:
1. I’m reading three books now, and have two in the waiting, and four more on my reading list.
2. The Looming Tower is not on my reading list because I am not interested in the minute details of 9/11, I’m interested in the big picture. I’m sure it’s a fascinating story by an author used to fabricating fascinating stories and characters (you can read more about how he “constructed” The Looming Tower on the Council on Foreign Relations website), but I want to know how everything fits together; history of the Middle East, religion of Islam, Israel, oil, US policy, etc. So I’ve done a lot of study in those areas and formulated my own picture, rather than rely on the picture offered by any one individual, no matter how creatively they convey it.
3. Well, now it’s just a matter of principle! I’m a VERY stubborn woman.
[Apparently, your high-powered acumen and travels to the Middle East, combined with the veritable cornucopia of speakers and authors in which you have surely steeped your mind, immunizes your world vision from the myopia that renders me some kind of pitiable mass of American fear.]
Sarcasm? Not like you Mitch. Is that a sign of frustration?
Funny you should mention Fear though. In the last twenty-four blog free hours I’ve given a lot of thought about what is going on here, with you and me and Michael (and now Jon whom I will deal with later). I came to the conclusion that this really is all about Fear, and yes I am going to continue to capitalize it for the purpose of this conversation.
Michael and Mitch, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe your Fear is coming from a very simple place; Fear of physical harm to you and your loved ones at the hands of the Jihadists. Since I am not afraid of death, and I don’t for one minute believe that the Jihadists will be successful in killing us, converting us, or replacing our Constitution with their perverted idea of Islamic law, my Fear is more intellectual, and I don’t mean that in a bragging way. What I mean is that I Fear the breakdown of our democratic society because of the exploitation of Fear of terrorism…your Fear. My Fear is that we may lose our freedoms at the hand of our own government, that Muslims in America will experience discrimination and persecution, that peace speakers will be jailed for sympathy to Palestinians and “other” terrorists. I Fear another Holocaust, and perpetual war, and the inflammation and increase of hatred and violence in the world.
So our differences and arguments all center on Fear. As a practicing Taoist I strive to abolish Fear from my existence. I’ve succeeded on the physical level, but still give in to worry and Fear on the mental level. Fear is a construct of our minds, and deconstructing is very difficult. It takes a wrecking ball!
Here’s the thing…maybe none of these things will come to pass. Maybe we will all live long lives and die natural deaths and our democratic republic will remain strong and we’ll be free and there will be rainbows and unicorns…
We have nothing to Fear but Fear itself.
Mitch, you wrote: [I don’t think it’s a reach to think you would extend this admonishment to what I read, which is interesting, given you once wrote, "…I have not read the Looming Tower and will not."]
This makes me chuckle at the thought of Wharf Rat. Oh Wharf, where are you? I need you now!
The three reasons I haven’t and won’t read the Looming Tower:
1. I’m reading three books now, and have two in the waiting, and four more on my reading list.
2. The Looming Tower is not on my reading list because I am not interested in the minute details of 9/11, I’m interested in the big picture. I’m sure it’s a fascinating story by an author used to fabricating fascinating stories and characters (you can read more about how he “constructed” The Looming Tower on the Council on Foreign Relations website), but I want to know how everything fits together; history of the Middle East, religion of Islam, Israel, oil, US policy, etc. So I’ve done a lot of study in those areas and formulated my own picture, rather than rely on the picture offered by any one individual, no matter how creatively they convey it.
3. Well, now it’s just a matter of principle! I’m a VERY stubborn woman.
[Apparently, your high-powered acumen and travels to the Middle East, combined with the veritable cornucopia of speakers and authors in which you have surely steeped your mind, immunizes your world vision from the myopia that renders me some kind of pitiable mass of American fear.]
Sarcasm? Not like you Mitch. Is that a sign of frustration?
Funny you should mention Fear though. In the last twenty-four blog free hours I’ve given a lot of thought about what is going on here, with you and me and Michael (and now Jon whom I will deal with later). I came to the conclusion that this really is all about Fear, and yes I am going to continue to capitalize it for the purpose of this conversation.
Michael and Mitch, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe your Fear is coming from a very simple place; Fear of physical harm to you and your loved ones at the hands of the Jihadists. Since I am not afraid of death, and I don’t for one minute believe that the Jihadists will be successful in killing us, converting us, or replacing our Constitution with their perverted idea of Islamic law, my Fear is more intellectual, and I don’t mean that in a bragging way. What I mean is that I Fear the breakdown of our democratic society because of the exploitation of Fear of terrorism…your Fear. My Fear is that we may lose our freedoms at the hand of our own government, that Muslims in America will experience discrimination and persecution, that peace speakers will be jailed for sympathy to Palestinians and “other” terrorists. I Fear another Holocaust, and perpetual war, and the inflammation and increase of hatred and violence in the world.
So our differences and arguments all center on Fear. As a practicing Taoist I strive to abolish Fear from my existence. I’ve succeeded on the physical level, but still give in to worry and Fear on the mental level. Fear is a construct of our minds, and deconstructing is very difficult. It takes a wrecking ball!
Here’s the thing…maybe none of these things will come to pass. Maybe we will all live long lives and die natural deaths and our democratic republic will remain strong and we’ll be free and there will be rainbows and unicorns…
We have nothing to Fear but Fear itself.
This is nothing more than an attempt to turn the italics off:
Long ago I wrote Michael to ask whether the AspenPost Comment box handles html. As you can see by this comment, Michael doesn’t answer my emails…
Cheers,
This is nothing more than an attempt to turn the italics off:
Long ago I wrote Michael to ask whether the AspenPost Comment box handles html. As you can see by this comment, Michael doesn’t answer my emails…
Cheers,
As you can see, the AspenPost comment box does handle html tags, at least as they pertain to fonts. This opens a whole new world of possibilities…
Cheers,
As you can see, the AspenPost comment box does handle html tags, at least as they pertain to fonts. This opens a whole new world of possibilities…
Cheers,
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but on this subject I trust you completely.
Thanks for turning off the italics.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but on this subject I trust you completely.
Thanks for turning off the italics.
“How do we live together, peacefully?”
Peace is way over rated. Nothing like a good war to thin out the population, generate jobs and revenue and just look at the advances that war brings in technology…
And if thats not enough to get you on board, well then we just make it a green issue. Just think how much less green house emissions there would be if we cut the world population in half…doesn’t bother me if we start in Iraq and clean out the middle east. I say, on to Africa, Asia, South America and Europe after that…why stop when you are on a roll.
See “G”, I’m not prejudice, I think everyone needs some killing. : )
“How do we live together, peacefully?”
Peace is way over rated. Nothing like a good war to thin out the population, generate jobs and revenue and just look at the advances that war brings in technology…
And if thats not enough to get you on board, well then we just make it a green issue. Just think how much less green house emissions there would be if we cut the world population in half…doesn’t bother me if we start in Iraq and clean out the middle east. I say, on to Africa, Asia, South America and Europe after that…why stop when you are on a roll.
See “G”, I’m not prejudice, I think everyone needs some killing. : )
[I have no idea what you're talking about, but on this subject I trust you completely.]
Well now, that’s something, isn’t it? You trust me completely about four silly keystrokes. But you question the veracity of my sarcasm.
G, I read what you write carefully…
Cheers,
[I have no idea what you're talking about, but on this subject I trust you completely.]
Well now, that’s something, isn’t it? You trust me completely about four silly keystrokes. But you question the veracity of my sarcasm.
G, I read what you write carefully…
Cheers,
Reckless:
I love your contention that you can understand what you so optimistically call “the big picture” regardless of any facts about Osama bin Ladin or Al-Qaeda that might get in the way. No wonder you won’t read “The Looming Tower.”
Under Sharia law, by the way, the book wouldn’t even exist. Or will you now tell me jihadists embrace books that don’t embrace Sharia law.
A point on fear: it’s not just personal or familial fear of jihad–it’s fear for all of us and yes, for you, too, Sue, regardless of your fearlessness.
Best, Michael!
Reckless:
I love your contention that you can understand what you so optimistically call “the big picture” regardless of any facts about Osama bin Ladin or Al-Qaeda that might get in the way. No wonder you won’t read “The Looming Tower.”
Under Sharia law, by the way, the book wouldn’t even exist. Or will you now tell me jihadists embrace books that don’t embrace Sharia law.
A point on fear: it’s not just personal or familial fear of jihad–it’s fear for all of us and yes, for you, too, Sue, regardless of your fearlessness.
Best, Michael!
[Or will you now tell me jihadists embrace books that don't embrace Sharia law.]
Honestly, Michael, have you been talking to Salman Rushdie again? It’s been what, a mere eighteen years:
“I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur’an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.”
~Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, February 14, 1989
So much for our 1st Amendment…
Cheers,
[Or will you now tell me jihadists embrace books that don't embrace Sharia law.]
Honestly, Michael, have you been talking to Salman Rushdie again? It’s been what, a mere eighteen years:
“I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur’an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.”
~Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, February 14, 1989
So much for our 1st Amendment…
Cheers,
[See "G", I'm not prejudice, I think everyone needs some killing.]
Tell me something I don’t know alpha! I must admit, I do see the appeal of looking at things from a pure animal instinct point of view, survival of the fittest and all that. I’m not against killing as you know, I’m just very particular about the reason.
[I love your contention that you can understand what you so optimistically call "the big picture" regardless of any facts about Osama bin Ladin or Al-Qaeda that might get in the way. No wonder you won't read "The Looming Tower." ]
Michael, your fixation with The Looming Tower is fascinating. I wonder if you have read any other books, the Koran maybe, or any books about Islam, or is TLT the gospel for you? You almost make it sound as if it is the ONLY source of info on Osama and Qaeda. It’s not.
[Under Sharia law, by the way, the book wouldn't even exist. Or will you now tell me jihadists embrace books that don't embrace Sharia law.]
See right there! That’s what I’m talking about! You’re mixing up Jihadism with Islamic Fundamentalism. They are not the same thing! This is exactly the kind of uniformed statement that leads down the path of persecution. Do you have any idea how many Islamic authors there are and how many books – even SCIENCE books, have been produced in the Islamic world?
Sure there are Fundamentalist countries that may prohibit books that demonize Islam like the Satanic Verses, but it’s no different than Israel prohibiting books that deny the Holocaust, or if the US became a Christian Fundamentalist nation, prohibiting books like the DaVinci Code. Hey, if the US were Fundamentalist, science would be at far greater risk than it has ever been under Sharia Law. In fact considering the stem cell research issue, it may already be!
ConDude, I appreciate your concern for my life, however misguided I may believe it to be. I’m sorry to seem to be picking on you, but you continue to blur the lines between Islam and Jihadism, while insisting you are only speaking about Jihadism. Would you pleeeeze read something OTHER than the Looming Tower. I really think it’s clouding your judgement.
[See "G", I'm not prejudice, I think everyone needs some killing.]
Tell me something I don’t know alpha! I must admit, I do see the appeal of looking at things from a pure animal instinct point of view, survival of the fittest and all that. I’m not against killing as you know, I’m just very particular about the reason.
[I love your contention that you can understand what you so optimistically call "the big picture" regardless of any facts about Osama bin Ladin or Al-Qaeda that might get in the way. No wonder you won't read "The Looming Tower." ]
Michael, your fixation with The Looming Tower is fascinating. I wonder if you have read any other books, the Koran maybe, or any books about Islam, or is TLT the gospel for you? You almost make it sound as if it is the ONLY source of info on Osama and Qaeda. It’s not.
[Under Sharia law, by the way, the book wouldn't even exist. Or will you now tell me jihadists embrace books that don't embrace Sharia law.]
See right there! That’s what I’m talking about! You’re mixing up Jihadism with Islamic Fundamentalism. They are not the same thing! This is exactly the kind of uniformed statement that leads down the path of persecution. Do you have any idea how many Islamic authors there are and how many books – even SCIENCE books, have been produced in the Islamic world?
Sure there are Fundamentalist countries that may prohibit books that demonize Islam like the Satanic Verses, but it’s no different than Israel prohibiting books that deny the Holocaust, or if the US became a Christian Fundamentalist nation, prohibiting books like the DaVinci Code. Hey, if the US were Fundamentalist, science would be at far greater risk than it has ever been under Sharia Law. In fact considering the stem cell research issue, it may already be!
ConDude, I appreciate your concern for my life, however misguided I may believe it to be. I’m sorry to seem to be picking on you, but you continue to blur the lines between Islam and Jihadism, while insisting you are only speaking about Jihadism. Would you pleeeeze read something OTHER than the Looming Tower. I really think it’s clouding your judgement.
B. Jon asked: [How do we live together, peacefully?]
The other night, Dr. Hamid answered your question. He said the teachings of Imams and influential Muslims must change.
I have been reading the Qur’an in an effort to better understand Muslims, to be sure, but also Jihadists. The other night I came upon this verse:
While I have not, to my satisfaction, resolved who “We” is at the beginning of the verse, this is a concept I can “get with.” It’s like the “do unto others” principle and the Hindu concept of Karma wrapped up into one tight little bundle.
One problem I see is that some in the Muslim community do not extend this principle to non-Muslims, or infidels as they like to call us. Take, for example, Anjem Choudary, a British subject and follower of Omar Bakri Mohammed. Choudary, you may remember, called for the execution of Pope Benedict XVI after the Pope gave a lecture entitled Faith, Reason and the University—Memories and Reflections [September 12, 2006]. When asked in a BBC interview whether Choudary would, as Omar Bakri Mohammed did, condemn the killing of innocents in London on 7/7/2005, Choudary replied,
(Frankly, the whole interview is worth a listen.)
My un-quided study of the Qur’an surely merits no authority. But following what I regarded as a verse of metaphysical greatness, I read in the very next verse a basis on which Choudray’s could justify this statement position:
Does suicide bombing fall under one or more of the categories of execution, crucifixion, or amputation?
Cheers,
B. Jon asked: [How do we live together, peacefully?]
The other night, Dr. Hamid answered your question. He said the teachings of Imams and influential Muslims must change.
I have been reading the Qur’an in an effort to better understand Muslims, to be sure, but also Jihadists. The other night I came upon this verse:
While I have not, to my satisfaction, resolved who “We” is at the beginning of the verse, this is a concept I can “get with.” It’s like the “do unto others” principle and the Hindu concept of Karma wrapped up into one tight little bundle.
One problem I see is that some in the Muslim community do not extend this principle to non-Muslims, or infidels as they like to call us. Take, for example, Anjem Choudary, a British subject and follower of Omar Bakri Mohammed. Choudary, you may remember, called for the execution of Pope Benedict XVI after the Pope gave a lecture entitled Faith, Reason and the University—Memories and Reflections [September 12, 2006]. When asked in a BBC interview whether Choudary would, as Omar Bakri Mohammed did, condemn the killing of innocents in London on 7/7/2005, Choudary replied,
(Frankly, the whole interview is worth a listen.)
My un-quided study of the Qur’an surely merits no authority. But following what I regarded as a verse of metaphysical greatness, I read in the very next verse a basis on which Choudray’s could justify this statement position:
Does suicide bombing fall under one or more of the categories of execution, crucifixion, or amputation?
Cheers,
B. Jon asked: [How do we live together, peacefully?]
The other night, Dr. Hamid answered your question. He said the teachings of Imams and influential Muslims must change.
I have been reading the Qur’an in an effort to better understand Muslims, to be sure, but also Jihadists. The other night I came upon this verse:
While I have not, to my satisfaction, resolved who “We” is at the beginning of the verse, this is a concept I can “get with.” It’s like the “do unto others” principle and the Hindu concept of Karma wrapped up into one tight little bundle.
One problem I see is that some in the Muslim community do not extend this principle to non-Muslims, or infidels as they like to call us. Take, for example, Anjem Choudary, a British subject and follower of Omar Bakri Mohammed. Choudary, you may remember, called for the execution of Pope Benedict XVI after the Pope gave a lecture entitled “Faith, Reason and the University—Memories and Reflections” [September 12, 2006]. When asked in a BBC interview whether Choudary would, as Omar Bakri Mohammed did, condemn the killing of innocents in London on 7/7/2005, Choudary replied,
(Frankly, the whole interview is worth a listen.)
My un-quided study of the Qur’an surely merits no authority. But following what I regarded as a verse of metaphysical greatness, I read in the very next verse a basis on which Choudray’s could justify this statement position:
Does suicide bombing fall under one or more of the categories of execution, crucifixion, or amputation?
Cheers,
B. Jon asked: [How do we live together, peacefully?]
The other night, Dr. Hamid answered your question. He said the teachings of Imams and influential Muslims must change.
I have been reading the Qur’an in an effort to better understand Muslims, to be sure, but also Jihadists. The other night I came upon this verse:
While I have not, to my satisfaction, resolved who “We” is at the beginning of the verse, this is a concept I can “get with.” It’s like the “do unto others” principle and the Hindu concept of Karma wrapped up into one tight little bundle.
One problem I see is that some in the Muslim community do not extend this principle to non-Muslims, or infidels as they like to call us. Take, for example, Anjem Choudary, a British subject and follower of Omar Bakri Mohammed. Choudary, you may remember, called for the execution of Pope Benedict XVI after the Pope gave a lecture entitled “Faith, Reason and the University—Memories and Reflections” [September 12, 2006]. When asked in a BBC interview whether Choudary would, as Omar Bakri Mohammed did, condemn the killing of innocents in London on 7/7/2005, Choudary replied,
(Frankly, the whole interview is worth a listen.)
My un-quided study of the Qur’an surely merits no authority. But following what I regarded as a verse of metaphysical greatness, I read in the very next verse a basis on which Choudray’s could justify this statement position:
Does suicide bombing fall under one or more of the categories of execution, crucifixion, or amputation?
Cheers,
[The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land ...]
This part of the verse is intriguing. Notice it doesn’t talk about punishment for unbelievers, but for those who wage war and strive for mischief through the land.
Could it be that Mitch has stumbled upon one of the very verses Jihadists use to justify killing westerners and targeting western interests?
[The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land ...]
This part of the verse is intriguing. Notice it doesn’t talk about punishment for unbelievers, but for those who wage war and strive for mischief through the land.
Could it be that Mitch has stumbled upon one of the very verses Jihadists use to justify killing westerners and targeting western interests?
[Could it be that Mitch has stumbled upon one of the very verses Jihadists use to justify killing westerners and targeting western interests?]
Yes. It could. As Dr. Hamid suggested, should the interpretation of this and like passages change?
Is such a change possible?
Cheers,
[Could it be that Mitch has stumbled upon one of the very verses Jihadists use to justify killing westerners and targeting western interests?]
Yes. It could. As Dr. Hamid suggested, should the interpretation of this and like passages change?
Is such a change possible?
Cheers,
[Yes. It could.]
Are you saying that the Jihadists are using this verse in relation to US foreign policy? If so, then I guess we are finally in agreement as to the reason they target us (and other ) wagers of war and mischief makers.
[As Dr. Hamid suggested, should the interpretation of this and like passages change?]
Why should the interpretation of an edict to punish those who wage war and make mischief be changed? Do we not have those same laws in our country?
Maybe, as I have been suggesting all along, we should stop waging war and making mischief in Muslim lands! Then how would they apply the Quranic verse?
[Yes. It could.]
Are you saying that the Jihadists are using this verse in relation to US foreign policy? If so, then I guess we are finally in agreement as to the reason they target us (and other ) wagers of war and mischief makers.
[As Dr. Hamid suggested, should the interpretation of this and like passages change?]
Why should the interpretation of an edict to punish those who wage war and make mischief be changed? Do we not have those same laws in our country?
Maybe, as I have been suggesting all along, we should stop waging war and making mischief in Muslim lands! Then how would they apply the Quranic verse?
No, G, my point about these particular verses was to show how an otherwise elegant concept can be juxtaposed by an idea so counter as to negate the former.
Yes, there are many examples of this in the Bible.
On balance, Christian churches teach that violence prescribed by such passages is unacceptable.
By contrast, Mr. Choudray’s comments illustrate his preferred focus.
Cheers,
No, G, my point about these particular verses was to show how an otherwise elegant concept can be juxtaposed by an idea so counter as to negate the former.
Yes, there are many examples of this in the Bible.
On balance, Christian churches teach that violence prescribed by such passages is unacceptable.
By contrast, Mr. Choudray’s comments illustrate his preferred focus.
Cheers,
Reckless,
I’ve been entertaining family for a week, so I can’t even hope to catch up with you all on the various Neoislamofascist Jihadism threads. I will say that when I first read your comments on Dr. Hamid, I couldn’t understand all the flack you got from the Con Man. Mitch’s comments make more sense because his criticisms have more depth and are generally quite balanced.
In a nutshell, I believe that any perspective can be challenged based upon the viewpoint and experiences of the person promulgating the opinion. I think you did a very good job identifying the potential bias, conflict of interest and shortcomings of Dr. Hamid. I also think Mitch makes a good point that there is much that can be taken from his presentation other than flaws in his perspective. Caveat–I didn’t attend, so I don’t know what he said other than from the blog’s collective comments.
This whole ‘fear” issue, on which you have challenged the Con Man, resonates deeply with me. Not only am I not “afraid” that Jihadists want to “kill me and all the infidels”, I am adamant in the belief that to fear terrorists (or jihadists, or whatever you want to label them) is the only way that terrorists can win the battle. That is the methodology behind terrorist activity.
Not to suggest that the actual problem of terrorism and jihadism should be taken lightly–it is not a new problem, nor will it disappear anytime soon. From a strict religious standpoint, an “infidel” should have been put on notice twenty years ago that reading “The Satanic Verses” would put one’s life at risk. Anyone who thinks the western world is primarily facing a new “religous war” is sorely misguided–to ignore the geopolitical realities of terrorism and jihadism is flat-out irresponsible. A simple examination of the location and targets of attacks illustrates the point that we are not facing a random attack against random infidels. Where are the attacks against the Chinese infidels?
Jihadism will not be defeated by new-world Christian crusaders–reform needs to come from within Islam. In addition, terrorism will not be defeated by a war against it–on this point I agree with the Con Man. We have a term for it, and it has existed for many years–COUNTERTERRORISM. It is the misguided fear disseminated by western political leaders and their lemming populace in the aftermath of 9/11 that has redefined the appropriate response as one which employs conventional military weaponry and strategy. A redux of the mistakes of the British infantry against the guerilla tactics used during the American Revolution, if you will.
If “The Looming Tower” is the final word on this debate, I’m a monkey’s uncle. Complex questions require dissemination of a variety of complex information, and “The Looming Tower” joke has now morphed into a symbol of the underlying problem–terrorism and jihadism cannot be compartmentalized into a neat and tidy analysis that attempts to oversimplify it. If one truly wants to eliminate the policies of western governments as relevant issues affecting the success or failure of counterterrorism efforts, we might as well throw out the whole notion of personal responsibility that the Con Man is preaching. Kick back, sip your margarita, burn your fossil fuels, and bask in the distorted reality that places our actions as a country beyond reproach.
Reckless,
I’ve been entertaining family for a week, so I can’t even hope to catch up with you all on the various Neoislamofascist Jihadism threads. I will say that when I first read your comments on Dr. Hamid, I couldn’t understand all the flack you got from the Con Man. Mitch’s comments make more sense because his criticisms have more depth and are generally quite balanced.
In a nutshell, I believe that any perspective can be challenged based upon the viewpoint and experiences of the person promulgating the opinion. I think you did a very good job identifying the potential bias, conflict of interest and shortcomings of Dr. Hamid. I also think Mitch makes a good point that there is much that can be taken from his presentation other than flaws in his perspective. Caveat–I didn’t attend, so I don’t know what he said other than from the blog’s collective comments.
This whole ‘fear” issue, on which you have challenged the Con Man, resonates deeply with me. Not only am I not “afraid” that Jihadists want to “kill me and all the infidels”, I am adamant in the belief that to fear terrorists (or jihadists, or whatever you want to label them) is the only way that terrorists can win the battle. That is the methodology behind terrorist activity.
Not to suggest that the actual problem of terrorism and jihadism should be taken lightly–it is not a new problem, nor will it disappear anytime soon. From a strict religious standpoint, an “infidel” should have been put on notice twenty years ago that reading “The Satanic Verses” would put one’s life at risk. Anyone who thinks the western world is primarily facing a new “religous war” is sorely misguided–to ignore the geopolitical realities of terrorism and jihadism is flat-out irresponsible. A simple examination of the location and targets of attacks illustrates the point that we are not facing a random attack against random infidels. Where are the attacks against the Chinese infidels?
Jihadism will not be defeated by new-world Christian crusaders–reform needs to come from within Islam. In addition, terrorism will not be defeated by a war against it–on this point I agree with the Con Man. We have a term for it, and it has existed for many years–COUNTERTERRORISM. It is the misguided fear disseminated by western political leaders and their lemming populace in the aftermath of 9/11 that has redefined the appropriate response as one which employs conventional military weaponry and strategy. A redux of the mistakes of the British infantry against the guerilla tactics used during the American Revolution, if you will.
If “The Looming Tower” is the final word on this debate, I’m a monkey’s uncle. Complex questions require dissemination of a variety of complex information, and “The Looming Tower” joke has now morphed into a symbol of the underlying problem–terrorism and jihadism cannot be compartmentalized into a neat and tidy analysis that attempts to oversimplify it. If one truly wants to eliminate the policies of western governments as relevant issues affecting the success or failure of counterterrorism efforts, we might as well throw out the whole notion of personal responsibility that the Con Man is preaching. Kick back, sip your margarita, burn your fossil fuels, and bask in the distorted reality that places our actions as a country beyond reproach.
Welcome back WR…
[If "The Looming Tower" is the final word on this debate, I'm a monkey's uncle.]
I do not contend Wright’s Pulitzer prize-winning, non-fiction work is anything like the final word on this debate. I read the book on Michael’s suggestion, and I did so with no predilections. I sought knowledge and insight I did not have, and I was not disappointed.
G’s refusal to read “The Looming Tower” has become little more than a passing amusement to me, but when she admonished Michael “not to believe everything you hear when you haven’t heard everything,” I found the sanctimony astonishing.
Cheers,
Welcome back WR…
[If "The Looming Tower" is the final word on this debate, I'm a monkey's uncle.]
I do not contend Wright’s Pulitzer prize-winning, non-fiction work is anything like the final word on this debate. I read the book on Michael’s suggestion, and I did so with no predilections. I sought knowledge and insight I did not have, and I was not disappointed.
G’s refusal to read “The Looming Tower” has become little more than a passing amusement to me, but when she admonished Michael “not to believe everything you hear when you haven’t heard everything,” I found the sanctimony astonishing.
Cheers,
[Caveat--I didn't attend, so I don't know what [Dr. Hamid] said other than from the blog’s collective comments.]
…
[...reform needs to come from within Islam...]
On this, you and Dr. Hamid agree.
Cheers,
[Caveat--I didn't attend, so I don't know what [Dr. Hamid] said other than from the blog’s collective comments.]
…
[...reform needs to come from within Islam...]
On this, you and Dr. Hamid agree.
Cheers,
As do I. Just because I hold US policy partly to blame for fueling Islamic hatred, I don’t count out the very real danger of the Jihadist mindset and methodology. Reform does need to happen, along with policy changes. Islamic reform should be supported by all of us.
And one last thing about Dr. Hamid, if his experiences in Jihadism are real, I applaud his conscientious decision to get out and to speak out against it. I believe he thinks he is doing us a service, and for that I can’t fault him. Whether he is truly contributing to Islamic reform is another matter.
I realize that not everyone can see the possibilities I envision if Islamophobia continues to grow in our society. Just as I have a hard time seeing how the Jihadists are going to take over America and make us all submit to Sharia law.
I think I know a few Texans who’d resist.
As do I. Just because I hold US policy partly to blame for fueling Islamic hatred, I don’t count out the very real danger of the Jihadist mindset and methodology. Reform does need to happen, along with policy changes. Islamic reform should be supported by all of us.
And one last thing about Dr. Hamid, if his experiences in Jihadism are real, I applaud his conscientious decision to get out and to speak out against it. I believe he thinks he is doing us a service, and for that I can’t fault him. Whether he is truly contributing to Islamic reform is another matter.
I realize that not everyone can see the possibilities I envision if Islamophobia continues to grow in our society. Just as I have a hard time seeing how the Jihadists are going to take over America and make us all submit to Sharia law.
I think I know a few Texans who’d resist.
Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden’s second-in-command, has issued a new video—actually, it’s a picture of al Zawahiri over a twenty-minute audio track. The video has no English subtitles, but early word is that the majority of it explains that Queen Elizabeth’s Knighting of Salman Rushdie constitutes an insult to Islam and the Prophet. Some early quotes (Source, LauraMansfield.com):
Of Gordon Brown, Zawahiri says,
As I read Zawahiri’s translated words, I am reminded of what then Prime Minister of Spain José Maria Aznar wrote shortly after the 3/11 Madrid bombings:
I am also reminded of what Dr. Hamid said about how the Jihadists view weakness…
You’re right about one thing: unless Dr. Hamid’s lessons penetrate the Mosque, he’s preachin’ to the choir. I also understand your concern about unchecked Islamophobia. It’s just that it’s going on six years, and there are no modern-day Manzanars.
Cheers,
Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden’s second-in-command, has issued a new video—actually, it’s a picture of al Zawahiri over a twenty-minute audio track. The video has no English subtitles, but early word is that the majority of it explains that Queen Elizabeth’s Knighting of Salman Rushdie constitutes an insult to Islam and the Prophet. Some early quotes (Source, LauraMansfield.com):
Of Gordon Brown, Zawahiri says,
As I read Zawahiri’s translated words, I am reminded of what then Prime Minister of Spain José Maria Aznar wrote shortly after the 3/11 Madrid bombings:
I am also reminded of what Dr. Hamid said about how the Jihadists view weakness…
You’re right about one thing: unless Dr. Hamid’s lessons penetrate the Mosque, he’s preachin’ to the choir. I also understand your concern about unchecked Islamophobia. It’s just that it’s going on six years, and there are no modern-day Manzanars.
Cheers,
It would be intersting to have a moderate Muslim cleric like Denver’s Imam Kazerooni on the show. Iraqi Shia Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni was imprisoned several times in Iraq by Saddam’s regime and had at least 2 family members killed by the regime.
He was educated in England. Currently, he is Director of an Interfaith organization at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Denver.
It would be intersting to have a moderate Muslim cleric like Denver’s Imam Kazerooni on the show. Iraqi Shia Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni was imprisoned several times in Iraq by Saddam’s regime and had at least 2 family members killed by the regime.
He was educated in England. Currently, he is Director of an Interfaith organization at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Denver.
Thanks Cathleen, that’s a great suggestion.
[Therefore, I say to Elizabeth and Blair that the message had arrived, and we are preparing a hard-set response, God willing.]
Now here’s something you won’t hear me say often but those Muslim Extremists are really f***ing nuts. That has to be the most intolerant sect I’ve ever come across, even more so than Fundamentalist Christians. Imagine someone thinking it’s their job to punish people with death for something as petty as knighting someone, and thinking it’s God’s will! Is their any hope of reforming Islam with people like that running around?
[Now speaking to Blair’s successor, I tell him: your predecessor’s policy has brought upon your people the disasters and the defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even in the center of London. If you have not understood the lesson yet, we are ready to repeat it again for you, God willing, until we are sure that you clearly understand it.]
Yeah just like I’ve been saying. They’re reacting to policies. And we don’t dare change those policies because…
[To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.]
Oh God forbid they might think they’ve won! Even though they have. The point of terrorism is to terrorize. They’ve certainly done that. I don’t know what it’s like in Britain, but I know here in the home of the brave, people are mighty scared of the big bad boogeymen. Wharf is right, they are so baiting us, and we’re falling for it. By making decisions out of fear we’ve got ourselves into quite a mess. Now we’re stuck. We can’t get out or they’ll think they’ve won. We can’t stay in because we can’t win, and eventually we’ll run out of soldiers (11th tour anyone?).
We’d better put on our thinking caps and come up with a new strategy because there is no military solution
[It's just that it's going on six years, and there are no modern-day Manzanars.]
How long did it take for the hatred and resentment and fear of Jews to permeate German society to the point people were ready to get rid of them by any means possible? In this country, I think one more Jihadist attack ought to do it, maybe within a year or two. By then we’ll be fully indoctrinated with the idea that our Muslim neighbors are a threat and the mosques are preaching jihad, and away we go…
Thanks Cathleen, that’s a great suggestion.
[Therefore, I say to Elizabeth and Blair that the message had arrived, and we are preparing a hard-set response, God willing.]
Now here’s something you won’t hear me say often but those Muslim Extremists are really f***ing nuts. That has to be the most intolerant sect I’ve ever come across, even more so than Fundamentalist Christians. Imagine someone thinking it’s their job to punish people with death for something as petty as knighting someone, and thinking it’s God’s will! Is their any hope of reforming Islam with people like that running around?
[Now speaking to Blair’s successor, I tell him: your predecessor’s policy has brought upon your people the disasters and the defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even in the center of London. If you have not understood the lesson yet, we are ready to repeat it again for you, God willing, until we are sure that you clearly understand it.]
Yeah just like I’ve been saying. They’re reacting to policies. And we don’t dare change those policies because…
[To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.]
Oh God forbid they might think they’ve won! Even though they have. The point of terrorism is to terrorize. They’ve certainly done that. I don’t know what it’s like in Britain, but I know here in the home of the brave, people are mighty scared of the big bad boogeymen. Wharf is right, they are so baiting us, and we’re falling for it. By making decisions out of fear we’ve got ourselves into quite a mess. Now we’re stuck. We can’t get out or they’ll think they’ve won. We can’t stay in because we can’t win, and eventually we’ll run out of soldiers (11th tour anyone?).
We’d better put on our thinking caps and come up with a new strategy because there is no military solution
[It's just that it's going on six years, and there are no modern-day Manzanars.]
How long did it take for the hatred and resentment and fear of Jews to permeate German society to the point people were ready to get rid of them by any means possible? In this country, I think one more Jihadist attack ought to do it, maybe within a year or two. By then we’ll be fully indoctrinated with the idea that our Muslim neighbors are a threat and the mosques are preaching jihad, and away we go…
[How long did it take for the hatred and resentment and fear of Jews to permeate German society to the point people were ready to get rid of them by any means possible?]
I’ll answer my own question with the following excerpted from “Prelude to the Holocaust”
http://www.geocities.com/~hra/prelude.pdf
Mass murder started 6 years after the Nazi party came to power, after the invasion of Poland…
Before Hitler came to power, the…Jews of Germany had been among Europe’s most assimilated, most cultured, most active contributor to the national life of the state in which they lived. Hundreds of thousands of them had become an integral part of German society.
The Nazi campaign of defamation had an important outcome: to make everyone aware that the despisal of Jews was almost universal and well deserved – Jews were dangerous, and the negation of the most cherished German values. They had not only to be feared, they had to be despised…The widespread anti-Semitism, blind hatred and the collective awareness of hatred among Germans were a necessary condition for the Holocaust.
Germans saw Jews as different. Jews ate differently. Jews dressed and behaved differently. Jews, of course, spoke differently. Jews worshiped a different religion. Jews did not live in the countryside, they did not own land.
Beyond perceiving them as different, Germans did perceive Jews as dangerous. Jews had a “Mordplan” – plans for assassinations of Germans. On posters attached everywhere on German cities one could read: The Jews of the whole world are trying to destroy Germany.
…widespread anti-Semitism led most Germans to nurture an attitude toward Jews that was “blind hatred,” in which strong distaste, fear, deep hatred and a urge to ridicule and to hurt are inextricably mixed together. The path toward mass murder was straightforward once almost every German nurtured “blind hatred” against Jews. The comparatively small number of officers, soldiers, that were actively involved in mass murder would have never given or obeyed orders that would have provoked a strong reaction among ordinary Germans. Thus the key point is not the attitude or the feeling of an élite minority in the Nazi party, but rather the attitude of the majority of Germans.
To affirm that the Holocaust was due to a few individuals that took advantage of a hierarchical chain of command is preposterous: the order they gave should have been at the very least accepted by a large fraction of subordinates. Although mass murder was not what everyone would do, it was something that everyone wished to see done.
This view; take away Hitler and there is no Nazism follows from one basically flawed view: the evil one is an exception, a perverted one; the people as a whole cannot be ethically wrong. This is contradicted by history, by studies in social psychology, and by the fact that hatred, only once it is collectively shared can create a corridor into a bizarre world of cruelty and injustice.
Hannah Arendt in her book; Eichmann in Jerusalem: An Essay on the Banality of Evil, illustrated how everyone could be, or better could play the role of Eichmann, if framed in the proper social context.
Very often we face a dilemma: should we oppose what we think is wrong – be prepared to stand against the whole world – or shall we simply comply with everyone else attitude?
Social disapprobation and ostracism are among the most difficult thing a lone man or woman could face without an adequate source of inner strength. Most people would never face the risk of becoming social out-casts.
We must be prepared to face hostility and disapprobation. Only in that case we can break the pattern that lead to collective hatred. Socially shared hatred is most dangerous, as it may lead to widespread and indiscriminate violence.
It is ultimately the absence of a culture of human diversity (and our ignorance of the social dynamics leading to mass murder) that make possible the repetition of the Holocaust.
[How long did it take for the hatred and resentment and fear of Jews to permeate German society to the point people were ready to get rid of them by any means possible?]
I’ll answer my own question with the following excerpted from “Prelude to the Holocaust”
http://www.geocities.com/~hra/prelude.pdf
Mass murder started 6 years after the Nazi party came to power, after the invasion of Poland…
Before Hitler came to power, the…Jews of Germany had been among Europe’s most assimilated, most cultured, most active contributor to the national life of the state in which they lived. Hundreds of thousands of them had become an integral part of German society.
The Nazi campaign of defamation had an important outcome: to make everyone aware that the despisal of Jews was almost universal and well deserved – Jews were dangerous, and the negation of the most cherished German values. They had not only to be feared, they had to be despised…The widespread anti-Semitism, blind hatred and the collective awareness of hatred among Germans were a necessary condition for the Holocaust.
Germans saw Jews as different. Jews ate differently. Jews dressed and behaved differently. Jews, of course, spoke differently. Jews worshiped a different religion. Jews did not live in the countryside, they did not own land.
Beyond perceiving them as different, Germans did perceive Jews as dangerous. Jews had a “Mordplan” – plans for assassinations of Germans. On posters attached everywhere on German cities one could read: The Jews of the whole world are trying to destroy Germany.
…widespread anti-Semitism led most Germans to nurture an attitude toward Jews that was “blind hatred,” in which strong distaste, fear, deep hatred and a urge to ridicule and to hurt are inextricably mixed together. The path toward mass murder was straightforward once almost every German nurtured “blind hatred” against Jews. The comparatively small number of officers, soldiers, that were actively involved in mass murder would have never given or obeyed orders that would have provoked a strong reaction among ordinary Germans. Thus the key point is not the attitude or the feeling of an élite minority in the Nazi party, but rather the attitude of the majority of Germans.
To affirm that the Holocaust was due to a few individuals that took advantage of a hierarchical chain of command is preposterous: the order they gave should have been at the very least accepted by a large fraction of subordinates. Although mass murder was not what everyone would do, it was something that everyone wished to see done.
This view; take away Hitler and there is no Nazism follows from one basically flawed view: the evil one is an exception, a perverted one; the people as a whole cannot be ethically wrong. This is contradicted by history, by studies in social psychology, and by the fact that hatred, only once it is collectively shared can create a corridor into a bizarre world of cruelty and injustice.
Hannah Arendt in her book; Eichmann in Jerusalem: An Essay on the Banality of Evil, illustrated how everyone could be, or better could play the role of Eichmann, if framed in the proper social context.
Very often we face a dilemma: should we oppose what we think is wrong – be prepared to stand against the whole world – or shall we simply comply with everyone else attitude?
Social disapprobation and ostracism are among the most difficult thing a lone man or woman could face without an adequate source of inner strength. Most people would never face the risk of becoming social out-casts.
We must be prepared to face hostility and disapprobation. Only in that case we can break the pattern that lead to collective hatred. Socially shared hatred is most dangerous, as it may lead to widespread and indiscriminate violence.
It is ultimately the absence of a culture of human diversity (and our ignorance of the social dynamics leading to mass murder) that make possible the repetition of the Holocaust.
It is ultimately the absence of a culture of human diversity (and our ignorance of the social dynamics leading to mass murder) that make possible the repetition of the Holocaust.
~Sue Gray
At the end of the day, when we say “innocent people” we mean “Muslims.” As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.
~Anjem Choudray
Cheers,
It is ultimately the absence of a culture of human diversity (and our ignorance of the social dynamics leading to mass murder) that make possible the repetition of the Holocaust.
~Sue Gray
At the end of the day, when we say “innocent people” we mean “Muslims.” As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.
~Anjem Choudray
Cheers,
The very next sentence after the one G cites says this:
“Until everyone can be led to believe that someone else, not sharing his or her beliefs, customs, skin color, sexual orientation, etc., is not a human being, hate would sooner or later appear legitimated or necessary.”
Cheers,
The very next sentence after the one G cites says this:
“Until everyone can be led to believe that someone else, not sharing his or her beliefs, customs, skin color, sexual orientation, etc., is not a human being, hate would sooner or later appear legitimated or necessary.”
Cheers,
Yes it goes both ways, but shouldn’t we be taking the higher moral ground?
We already know (and I have acknowledged) the insane intolerance of the Jihadists. But can we as a nation acknowledge our shortcomings, and the possibility that our hatred and fear of Muslims (just substitute Muslims for Jews, and Americans for Germans in my last comment) could lead to another holocaust? That it COULD happen here?
Yes it goes both ways, but shouldn’t we be taking the higher moral ground?
We already know (and I have acknowledged) the insane intolerance of the Jihadists. But can we as a nation acknowledge our shortcomings, and the possibility that our hatred and fear of Muslims (just substitute Muslims for Jews, and Americans for Germans in my last comment) could lead to another holocaust? That it COULD happen here?
Isn’t the defense of women’s rights, multi-culturalism and freedom of religion the higher moral ground?
Cheers,
Isn’t the defense of women’s rights, multi-culturalism and freedom of religion the higher moral ground?
Cheers,
“But can we as a nation acknowledge our shortcomings, and the possibility that our hatred and fear of Muslims (just substitute Muslims for Jews, and Americans for Germans in my last comment) could lead to another holocaust?”
I do not understand this apologistic attitude? Every country and person has short comings. Your “it’s our fault” mentality is nauseating. That’s like saying a women “got what she was asking for” when she is raped because she dressed provocative.
And I would like to point out that the Jews did not attack the Germans that lead to their systematic extermination, however, we have been attacked again and again by Islamic Muslim Terrorist. There is a significant difference. Don’t try and mix apples and oranges to attempt to justify your argument.
“But can we as a nation acknowledge our shortcomings, and the possibility that our hatred and fear of Muslims (just substitute Muslims for Jews, and Americans for Germans in my last comment) could lead to another holocaust?”
I do not understand this apologistic attitude? Every country and person has short comings. Your “it’s our fault” mentality is nauseating. That’s like saying a women “got what she was asking for” when she is raped because she dressed provocative.
And I would like to point out that the Jews did not attack the Germans that lead to their systematic extermination, however, we have been attacked again and again by Islamic Muslim Terrorist. There is a significant difference. Don’t try and mix apples and oranges to attempt to justify your argument.
Hallefallujah! The Con Man has seen the light! Break out the tapes if necessary, but I swear I just heard Michael say that U.S. foreign policy (in particular, the invasion of Iraq) has fueled the fire of jihadism and pushed more Muslims into the cagegory of Jihadists. Dang it, I missed that part in “The Looming Tower.” Perhaps now we can move on past the fallacy that jihadists only want to kill us because we are infidels. Let personal responsibility reign, along with its distant cousin, national responsibility.
Hallefallujah! The Con Man has seen the light! Break out the tapes if necessary, but I swear I just heard Michael say that U.S. foreign policy (in particular, the invasion of Iraq) has fueled the fire of jihadism and pushed more Muslims into the cagegory of Jihadists. Dang it, I missed that part in “The Looming Tower.” Perhaps now we can move on past the fallacy that jihadists only want to kill us because we are infidels. Let personal responsibility reign, along with its distant cousin, national responsibility.
WR, I stipulated several of G’s threads ago that U.S. foreign policy fuels this problem (can’t speak for Conniff).
[Dang it, I missed that part in "The Looming Tower."]
I’ll get my copy back and find it for you.
M
WR, I stipulated several of G’s threads ago that U.S. foreign policy fuels this problem (can’t speak for Conniff).
[Dang it, I missed that part in "The Looming Tower."]
I’ll get my copy back and find it for you.
M
Just crackin’ back on the Con Man, Mitch, with no malice intended. I still think Ed Troy nailed this issue a long time ago by recognizing the contributions of BOTH jihadism and U.S. foreign policy toward past (and future) terrorist attacks against the west.
Just crackin’ back on the Con Man, Mitch, with no malice intended. I still think Ed Troy nailed this issue a long time ago by recognizing the contributions of BOTH jihadism and U.S. foreign policy toward past (and future) terrorist attacks against the west.
[Isn't the defense of women's rights, multi-culturalism and freedom of religion the higher moral ground?]
Yes, but these things are being eroded by our fear and hatred. That’s my point. We haven’t yet, but we are in danger of, abridging our constitutional rights and freedoms for the sake of “preventing terrorism.” Do women’s rights in America, include a Muslim woman’s right to wear the headscarf? Doesn’t that also apply to religious freedom? Dr. Hamid wants the US to take away that right and freedom. Multi-culturalism is also at risk (just look at our attitudes toward Latinos). Now the trend seems to be going toward suspicion of moderate Muslims, also at the crux of Hamid’s message. It may not look like much now, but it could get worse, like I said after the next terrorist attack.
[I do not understand this apologistic attitude? Every country and person has short comings. Your "it's our fault" mentality is nauseating. That's like saying a women "got what she was asking for" when she is raped because she dressed provocative.]
Oh get off the self-righteous BS alpha. Personal and national responsibility is not unpatriotic. Tell me you’ve never pissed off anyone with your words or actions, or that you’ve never been angry at someone for theirs. Is it so hard to understand that what we do as a nation causes anger and hatred in those we are doing it to?
Besides, I’m just giving fair warning as to a potential problem here in the States. National hatred, demonization and persecution has happened countless times in our history (Native Americans, Blacks, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Latino). What is so unbelievable about us now turning on the Muslims?
[I still think Ed Troy nailed this issue a long time ago by recognizing the contributions of BOTH jihadism and U.S. foreign policy toward past (and future) terrorist attacks against the west.]
I think we’re all in agreement now; foreign policy; 50% responsible, crazy ass Jihadist ideology; 50% responsible. Maybe now that we’ve established those facts we can move on to talking about which 50% we American non-Muslims can do something about!
[Isn't the defense of women's rights, multi-culturalism and freedom of religion the higher moral ground?]
Yes, but these things are being eroded by our fear and hatred. That’s my point. We haven’t yet, but we are in danger of, abridging our constitutional rights and freedoms for the sake of “preventing terrorism.” Do women’s rights in America, include a Muslim woman’s right to wear the headscarf? Doesn’t that also apply to religious freedom? Dr. Hamid wants the US to take away that right and freedom. Multi-culturalism is also at risk (just look at our attitudes toward Latinos). Now the trend seems to be going toward suspicion of moderate Muslims, also at the crux of Hamid’s message. It may not look like much now, but it could get worse, like I said after the next terrorist attack.
[I do not understand this apologistic attitude? Every country and person has short comings. Your "it's our fault" mentality is nauseating. That's like saying a women "got what she was asking for" when she is raped because she dressed provocative.]
Oh get off the self-righteous BS alpha. Personal and national responsibility is not unpatriotic. Tell me you’ve never pissed off anyone with your words or actions, or that you’ve never been angry at someone for theirs. Is it so hard to understand that what we do as a nation causes anger and hatred in those we are doing it to?
Besides, I’m just giving fair warning as to a potential problem here in the States. National hatred, demonization and persecution has happened countless times in our history (Native Americans, Blacks, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Latino). What is so unbelievable about us now turning on the Muslims?
[I still think Ed Troy nailed this issue a long time ago by recognizing the contributions of BOTH jihadism and U.S. foreign policy toward past (and future) terrorist attacks against the west.]
I think we’re all in agreement now; foreign policy; 50% responsible, crazy ass Jihadist ideology; 50% responsible. Maybe now that we’ve established those facts we can move on to talking about which 50% we American non-Muslims can do something about!
So we’re back to your premise that we should:
“1) Stop vetoing UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands gained during the Six Day War, and
2) Withhold monetary assistance to Israel until:
a) Israel complies with the International Bill of Rights, and
b) Israel re-aligns its borders to what they were before the Six Day War (June, 1967)”
Right?
If we do any one or all of these, will the Jihadists cease their attacks on “the West” [Great Britain, U.S., et. al.]?
Cheers,
So we’re back to your premise that we should:
“1) Stop vetoing UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands gained during the Six Day War, and
2) Withhold monetary assistance to Israel until:
a) Israel complies with the International Bill of Rights, and
b) Israel re-aligns its borders to what they were before the Six Day War (June, 1967)”
Right?
If we do any one or all of these, will the Jihadists cease their attacks on “the West” [Great Britain, U.S., et. al.]?
Cheers,
Right Mitch, you have been paying attention!
I’ve always said, those actions alone won’t make the Jihadists cease their attacks. My hope is that it would erode the ability of Jihadist leaders to recruit young impressionable, angry Muslim youth to Jihad, eventually cutting down the number of people willing to blow themselves up for a cause that might appear to them more misguided if it were not so easy to hate and find fault with us. One thing is for sure; there would be a lot less attacks in Israel if those steps were taken.
And still, though I’ve asked this question countless times; what could it hurt? What’s the worst that could happen if we made those policy changes? Is this one of those standing on principle, never backing down, don’t let them think they’ve won sort of deals? Or is there some real legitimate danger to changing our policies?
Right Mitch, you have been paying attention!
I’ve always said, those actions alone won’t make the Jihadists cease their attacks. My hope is that it would erode the ability of Jihadist leaders to recruit young impressionable, angry Muslim youth to Jihad, eventually cutting down the number of people willing to blow themselves up for a cause that might appear to them more misguided if it were not so easy to hate and find fault with us. One thing is for sure; there would be a lot less attacks in Israel if those steps were taken.
And still, though I’ve asked this question countless times; what could it hurt? What’s the worst that could happen if we made those policy changes? Is this one of those standing on principle, never backing down, don’t let them think they’ve won sort of deals? Or is there some real legitimate danger to changing our policies?
So we should take these measures not because they will eliminate the Jihadist threat, but because they “couldn’t hurt”?
Cheers,
So we should take these measures not because they will eliminate the Jihadist threat, but because they “couldn’t hurt”?
Cheers,
Not because they couldn’t hurt, but because they might help, eventually. It’s sort of like your dentist telling you to floss, not because it couldn’t hurt, but because it might help prevent future problems.
It’s taken decades of errant foreign policy to create this threat, It will take decades to correct it. There is no quick fix, and no military solution. We can already see where the military strategies are increasing terrorism, not abating it. So it seems to me we should try diplomatic and political avenues.
Anyone who thinks (and this is for you Jon Traylor) we can just go around the world rooting out and killing terrorists is severely deluded and without imagination. The more we kill, the more enemies we make, especially since for every real Jihadist we take out, we accumulate collateral damgae; innocent women and kids. That just inflames the hatred and anger.
We need to all just calm down, quit being reactionary and find a non-violent intellectual solution. I’m sure that’s what Gandhi and MLK would advise. Surely we’re smart enough to figure this out. And I don’t see the point of stooping to the level of the Jihadis by killing people and bombing cities. Then we’re no better than they are.
Not because they couldn’t hurt, but because they might help, eventually. It’s sort of like your dentist telling you to floss, not because it couldn’t hurt, but because it might help prevent future problems.
It’s taken decades of errant foreign policy to create this threat, It will take decades to correct it. There is no quick fix, and no military solution. We can already see where the military strategies are increasing terrorism, not abating it. So it seems to me we should try diplomatic and political avenues.
Anyone who thinks (and this is for you Jon Traylor) we can just go around the world rooting out and killing terrorists is severely deluded and without imagination. The more we kill, the more enemies we make, especially since for every real Jihadist we take out, we accumulate collateral damgae; innocent women and kids. That just inflames the hatred and anger.
We need to all just calm down, quit being reactionary and find a non-violent intellectual solution. I’m sure that’s what Gandhi and MLK would advise. Surely we’re smart enough to figure this out. And I don’t see the point of stooping to the level of the Jihadis by killing people and bombing cities. Then we’re no better than they are.
I still maintain the idea of converting to Islam, flushing the Constitution, and adopting Sharia Law remains the single, most non-violent way of neutralizing Jihadism.
Cheers,
I still maintain the idea of converting to Islam, flushing the Constitution, and adopting Sharia Law remains the single, most non-violent way of neutralizing Jihadism.
Cheers,
Again with the sarcasm?
The question at hand is; How do we achieve security while preserving our liberties. Your solution doesn’t apply.
I never take for granted the fact that I can say what I want, wear what I want, and do what I want with very few limitations on my personal freedom. I go out in public with a man who is not my husband and not fear being arrested or executed. But I don’t believe that any of my freedoms can be taken away by Jihadists. You want to see a violent insurgency? Just let anyone try to invade and occupy America.
What I do think is possible is that our own government, with the blessing of my fellow citizens, can take away my freedom. I may still be able to appear in public with a man, but if the current trend toward totalitarianism continues, I won’t be able to write or speak for justice in Palestine, I won’t be able to petition my government, I won’t be able to wear a symbol of my religious beliefs, etc.
There is no chance that America is going to fall to some outside force, but every possibility that we can destroy ourselves from within if we don’t remain vigilant.
Again with the sarcasm?
The question at hand is; How do we achieve security while preserving our liberties. Your solution doesn’t apply.
I never take for granted the fact that I can say what I want, wear what I want, and do what I want with very few limitations on my personal freedom. I go out in public with a man who is not my husband and not fear being arrested or executed. But I don’t believe that any of my freedoms can be taken away by Jihadists. You want to see a violent insurgency? Just let anyone try to invade and occupy America.
What I do think is possible is that our own government, with the blessing of my fellow citizens, can take away my freedom. I may still be able to appear in public with a man, but if the current trend toward totalitarianism continues, I won’t be able to write or speak for justice in Palestine, I won’t be able to petition my government, I won’t be able to wear a symbol of my religious beliefs, etc.
There is no chance that America is going to fall to some outside force, but every possibility that we can destroy ourselves from within if we don’t remain vigilant.
“self-righteous BS ” now that’s calling the kettle black “G”.
“self-righteous BS ” now that’s calling the kettle black “G”.
Oh I’m sorry alpha, perhaps I should have phrased it this way;
Your “it’s NOT our fault” mentality is nauseating.
Oh I’m sorry alpha, perhaps I should have phrased it this way;
Your “it’s NOT our fault” mentality is nauseating.
Oh, you want to neutralize Jihadism AND preserve American liberties.
You’re right, in that sense, that solution is indefensible. I suppose, then, we could try throwing Israel under the bus.
Cheers,
Oh, you want to neutralize Jihadism AND preserve American liberties.
You’re right, in that sense, that solution is indefensible. I suppose, then, we could try throwing Israel under the bus.
Cheers,
Oy Vey!
Ok let me be even more specific; neutralize Jihadism AND preserve American liberties, AND peace and security for Israel and Palestine, AND two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot.
Security for Israel has always been one of my goals and has been the focus of many of my letters advocating policy changes. I don’t just want peace and security for us and the Palestinians. Israel has to be secure and duly recognized as a legitimate state also, else it just won’t work.
I don’t see things in black and white the way some of you do. It isn’t all or nothing for me, and exaggerating the solution is just as indefensible as exaggerating the problem.
There is a middle way, as they say in Taoism. The far left and far right are the danger zone. The center is the safest place. We can find common ground and solve any crisis, if we really want to.
Sure it’s easier just to blame the other guy and shoot him, but it doesn’t make the problem go away, cause there’s always another guy, and another.
Oy Vey!
Ok let me be even more specific; neutralize Jihadism AND preserve American liberties, AND peace and security for Israel and Palestine, AND two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot.
Security for Israel has always been one of my goals and has been the focus of many of my letters advocating policy changes. I don’t just want peace and security for us and the Palestinians. Israel has to be secure and duly recognized as a legitimate state also, else it just won’t work.
I don’t see things in black and white the way some of you do. It isn’t all or nothing for me, and exaggerating the solution is just as indefensible as exaggerating the problem.
There is a middle way, as they say in Taoism. The far left and far right are the danger zone. The center is the safest place. We can find common ground and solve any crisis, if we really want to.
Sure it’s easier just to blame the other guy and shoot him, but it doesn’t make the problem go away, cause there’s always another guy, and another.
[Security for Israel has always been one of my goals and has been the focus of many of my letters advocating policy changes.]
I do believe you when you say this…
How, then, do you conclude that Israel should re-align its borders to what they were before the Six Day War?
Cheers,
[Security for Israel has always been one of my goals and has been the focus of many of my letters advocating policy changes.]
I do believe you when you say this…
How, then, do you conclude that Israel should re-align its borders to what they were before the Six Day War?
Cheers,
Is that not an equitable solution? Do you see a problem with Israel giving back the land that was never theirs to begin with (unless you subscribe to either the “spoils of war” or the “God gave the land to Israelites theories”)?
In order for Palestine to become a viable state, there needs to be a contiguous area for them to control. The existence of Bantustans prevents Palestinians from being able to farm, work, go to school, visit family. And then there’s the Golan Heights, a very fertile and important aspect of Syria’s economy. Interesting how Israel keeps pushing people off their land and usurping territory that has value (under the guise of security), and relegating unarable desert to the Arabs. This seems suspiciously like the US agreeing to allow the Indians to remain on their land…until gold was discovered there. The Indian reservations in America now are almost all located in the most desolate, unproductive areas. Imagine the Native Americans trying to form their own nation out of the hundreds of isolated reservations. That’s what the Palestinians are faced with as long as Israel remains an occupier.
Is that not an equitable solution? Do you see a problem with Israel giving back the land that was never theirs to begin with (unless you subscribe to either the “spoils of war” or the “God gave the land to Israelites theories”)?
In order for Palestine to become a viable state, there needs to be a contiguous area for them to control. The existence of Bantustans prevents Palestinians from being able to farm, work, go to school, visit family. And then there’s the Golan Heights, a very fertile and important aspect of Syria’s economy. Interesting how Israel keeps pushing people off their land and usurping territory that has value (under the guise of security), and relegating unarable desert to the Arabs. This seems suspiciously like the US agreeing to allow the Indians to remain on their land…until gold was discovered there. The Indian reservations in America now are almost all located in the most desolate, unproductive areas. Imagine the Native Americans trying to form their own nation out of the hundreds of isolated reservations. That’s what the Palestinians are faced with as long as Israel remains an occupier.
No, forget about the “spoils of war” and like arguments. How does reducing the area of Israel increase its security? By making it harder to hit with a scud?
Cheers,
No, forget about the “spoils of war” and like arguments. How does reducing the area of Israel increase its security? By making it harder to hit with a scud?
Cheers,
By removing the reason many Palestinians have for attacking Israel. Like I said, Palestine can’t survive in it’s current configuration, and as long as Palestinians are suffering, Israelis will be attacked. Aren’t the Israeli’s always saying they are willing to trade land for peace? It worked with Egypt. Why not Palestine?
If Israel did everything right; returned the land, made reparations for the houses and orchards they destroyed, allowed Jerusalem to be free and open to all, then if Hamas attacked Israel without any provocation, it would be unjustifiable and most likely condemned by the Palestinian civilians and their Arab neighbors. As long as Israel continues to brutally occupy and oppress the Arabs in Palestine they will never be secure.
By removing the reason many Palestinians have for attacking Israel. Like I said, Palestine can’t survive in it’s current configuration, and as long as Palestinians are suffering, Israelis will be attacked. Aren’t the Israeli’s always saying they are willing to trade land for peace? It worked with Egypt. Why not Palestine?
If Israel did everything right; returned the land, made reparations for the houses and orchards they destroyed, allowed Jerusalem to be free and open to all, then if Hamas attacked Israel without any provocation, it would be unjustifiable and most likely condemned by the Palestinian civilians and their Arab neighbors. As long as Israel continues to brutally occupy and oppress the Arabs in Palestine they will never be secure.
[By removing the reason many Palestinians have for attacking Israel.]
That still leaves those Palestinians and other groups in the ME who don’t want Israel to exist. How do you mollify them?
Cheers,
[By removing the reason many Palestinians have for attacking Israel.]
That still leaves those Palestinians and other groups in the ME who don’t want Israel to exist. How do you mollify them?
Cheers,
>>
Okay, first off, the breakfast meeting with you yesterday was very cool. You know that we agree on about 80% more than we disagree on. As for those of you wondering… Reckless is not about promoting hate, as some have accused her of. Sure, she’s got a unique way of laying it out there, but she’s about promoting and fostering peace and understanding, not hate… so take that Ms. Sandler lady.
Now, Sue… let us not take this previous comment by me (alluded to by you in the introduction to this comment) out of context. I urge you to go back and read the full context of my two comments on this blog, on this subject, and see what my real and valid and cloud reaching points were (which also included rooting and taking out the radical terrorists that are hellbent on killing us). Mitch got it, didn’t you Mitch? Sure, I’m reaching for the stars, which is what I’ll continue to do, but yes, I’m also being practical and sensible in an approach to the Radical Islamic Jihadists out there.
I’m all for peace. I’m all about trying to understand what got us into this mess, and how we deal with, and ultimately how we ensure this crap never surfaces from the cess pools of the world again.
I’ll say it again, and I welcome some backup here folks…
Until we can somehow get all factions to the same table together with us and other civilized countries in the world, then Yes…. we should be targeting, finding, and eliminating the specific terrorists who threaten the security and welfare of the United States of America, it’s citizens and other peaceful nations around the world.
Sure, you mention, as you should… “collateral damage, deaths and casualties of civs, etc.” Welcome to the real world, my friend, there is much to learn. Sure, its gonna happen. But it won’t happen on a scale near the magnitude as it has happened in Afghanistan and even more so in Iraq. If we target specific terrorist cells, and we focus on taking out those specific cells, then we start swinging the pendelum back towards us… so that ultimately we weaken them to the point that they will crawl to the table and reason with us, and more importantly, with their other brothers of Muslim faith.
(Let me point out, again!… I still think the solutions will come from within the Muslim faith, from their leaders — as it should).
Again, if these #@!%$’d up radicals are deadseat on taking us out so they can swim in an oasis with 72 virgins at their beckon call in the afterlife… then, sorry folks…. I think we take them out first, and pray for their souls.
And finally, Sue, in regards to “collateral damage”… I shared an experience with you, and I saw your reaction. You know that I know what collateral damage is all about. I’ve seen it, participated in it, and witnessed it, firsthand. And it wasn’t pretty.
Thats enough for now… — J
>>
Okay, first off, the breakfast meeting with you yesterday was very cool. You know that we agree on about 80% more than we disagree on. As for those of you wondering… Reckless is not about promoting hate, as some have accused her of. Sure, she’s got a unique way of laying it out there, but she’s about promoting and fostering peace and understanding, not hate… so take that Ms. Sandler lady.
Now, Sue… let us not take this previous comment by me (alluded to by you in the introduction to this comment) out of context. I urge you to go back and read the full context of my two comments on this blog, on this subject, and see what my real and valid and cloud reaching points were (which also included rooting and taking out the radical terrorists that are hellbent on killing us). Mitch got it, didn’t you Mitch? Sure, I’m reaching for the stars, which is what I’ll continue to do, but yes, I’m also being practical and sensible in an approach to the Radical Islamic Jihadists out there.
I’m all for peace. I’m all about trying to understand what got us into this mess, and how we deal with, and ultimately how we ensure this crap never surfaces from the cess pools of the world again.
I’ll say it again, and I welcome some backup here folks…
Until we can somehow get all factions to the same table together with us and other civilized countries in the world, then Yes…. we should be targeting, finding, and eliminating the specific terrorists who threaten the security and welfare of the United States of America, it’s citizens and other peaceful nations around the world.
Sure, you mention, as you should… “collateral damage, deaths and casualties of civs, etc.” Welcome to the real world, my friend, there is much to learn. Sure, its gonna happen. But it won’t happen on a scale near the magnitude as it has happened in Afghanistan and even more so in Iraq. If we target specific terrorist cells, and we focus on taking out those specific cells, then we start swinging the pendelum back towards us… so that ultimately we weaken them to the point that they will crawl to the table and reason with us, and more importantly, with their other brothers of Muslim faith.
(Let me point out, again!… I still think the solutions will come from within the Muslim faith, from their leaders — as it should).
Again, if these #@!%$’d up radicals are deadseat on taking us out so they can swim in an oasis with 72 virgins at their beckon call in the afterlife… then, sorry folks…. I think we take them out first, and pray for their souls.
And finally, Sue, in regards to “collateral damage”… I shared an experience with you, and I saw your reaction. You know that I know what collateral damage is all about. I’ve seen it, participated in it, and witnessed it, firsthand. And it wasn’t pretty.
Thats enough for now… — J
I cut and pasted the third paragraph of Reckless’s comment as the intro to my previous comment a few minutes ago. It didn’t show up. Oh well. Go to comment #48, read third paragraph. Stay cool — J
I cut and pasted the third paragraph of Reckless’s comment as the intro to my previous comment a few minutes ago. It didn’t show up. Oh well. Go to comment #48, read third paragraph. Stay cool — J
Great post, Jackhammer. Right in line with your presumptive ally (see Sandler, Elaine). To paraphrase Eminem, tell me something about Sue I don’t know. A meaningful contribution would be nice, or give the mike back to Bunny Rabbit.
Great post, Jackhammer. Right in line with your presumptive ally (see Sandler, Elaine). To paraphrase Eminem, tell me something about Sue I don’t know. A meaningful contribution would be nice, or give the mike back to Bunny Rabbit.
[That still leaves those Palestinians and other groups in the ME who don't want Israel to exist. How do you mollify them?]
That’s where Muslim reformers come in. We can’t do everything!
Jon, I do understand your point, however, I still disagree with any method for combatting terrorism that creates more terrorists than it destroys.
Jack Hammer, you give my words more weight than they deserve. I’m just slogging through this subject trying to understand, as we all are, what is going on and what we can do about it. I’ve learned a lot from these guys and if you’ve got something of substance to add to the conversation, I’m willing to listen and consider your point of view.
[That still leaves those Palestinians and other groups in the ME who don't want Israel to exist. How do you mollify them?]
That’s where Muslim reformers come in. We can’t do everything!
Jon, I do understand your point, however, I still disagree with any method for combatting terrorism that creates more terrorists than it destroys.
Jack Hammer, you give my words more weight than they deserve. I’m just slogging through this subject trying to understand, as we all are, what is going on and what we can do about it. I’ve learned a lot from these guys and if you’ve got something of substance to add to the conversation, I’m willing to listen and consider your point of view.
[Sue Gray is nothing more than an ignorant anti-semite.]
I disagree.
If you think my questions lend credibility to Sue’s views, perhaps your objection is not that she has a forum here, but that you find yourself persuaded by her arguments.
I myself am not so persuaded, but I cannot measure the veracity of her argument unless I know what she thinks, can I?
Cheers,
[Sue Gray is nothing more than an ignorant anti-semite.]
I disagree.
If you think my questions lend credibility to Sue’s views, perhaps your objection is not that she has a forum here, but that you find yourself persuaded by her arguments.
I myself am not so persuaded, but I cannot measure the veracity of her argument unless I know what she thinks, can I?
Cheers,
Mitch, it’s interesting that during all of our conversations, you never really give a non-sarcastic opinion about what we should do to prevent terrorism. Really now, instead of just challenging my ideas, let’s hear some of your own.
Mitch, it’s interesting that during all of our conversations, you never really give a non-sarcastic opinion about what we should do to prevent terrorism. Really now, instead of just challenging my ideas, let’s hear some of your own.
G-
Your characterization of me as sarcastic is unfortunate. I’ll grant you that I in some of our exchanges I probably clicked send before I should have. That said, the principal reason I comment on your posts is a genuine desire to learn more about your position, so I could not be more pleased you have obliged.
Beyond the obvious, one key difference between you and me is that you are a blogger while I am not, which is to say you do not find my name in AspenPost’s bloggers list, and you do not see my name on any of the posts here. Comments, yes. Posts, no. I point this out to emphasize that I come here with no answers. Recognizing what a solution isn’t is not the same thing as thinking you know the right course.
To be fair, however, you can glean my views from the comments I’ve made here and elsewhere on AspenPost. Just use Google advanced search and search “Mitch.Mulhall” on “AspenPost.net”… That gives you 139 hits, more than enough, I think, to form a notion of what I think.
Cheers,
G-
Your characterization of me as sarcastic is unfortunate. I’ll grant you that I in some of our exchanges I probably clicked send before I should have. That said, the principal reason I comment on your posts is a genuine desire to learn more about your position, so I could not be more pleased you have obliged.
Beyond the obvious, one key difference between you and me is that you are a blogger while I am not, which is to say you do not find my name in AspenPost’s bloggers list, and you do not see my name on any of the posts here. Comments, yes. Posts, no. I point this out to emphasize that I come here with no answers. Recognizing what a solution isn’t is not the same thing as thinking you know the right course.
To be fair, however, you can glean my views from the comments I’ve made here and elsewhere on AspenPost. Just use Google advanced search and search “Mitch.Mulhall” on “AspenPost.net”… That gives you 139 hits, more than enough, I think, to form a notion of what I think.
Cheers,
139 hits, and you’re still a mystery to me.
[the principal reason I comment on your posts is a genuine desire to learn more about your position, so I could not be more pleased you have obliged.]
Hmmm…interesting. Not sure why everyone seems to care so much what I think (detractors and supporters alike). The amount of attention being given to discrediting and demonizing me seems disproportionate to the actual weight I carry in the world. I can’t really see what is so radical or threatening (or intriguing) about my opinions. They’re certainly not new, most are borrowed bits and pieces from other writers, and come on, all I’ve been asking for is a little co-operation, a little compassion, a little thought.
What’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
Something from my comment #35 keeps haunting me;
“Very often we face a dilemma: should we oppose what we think is wrong – be prepared to stand against the whole world – or shall we simply comply with everyone else’s attitude? We must be prepared to face hostility and disapprobation. Only in that case we can break the patterns that lead to collective hatred.”
Obviously my experience is not unique. Still, I have a hard time understanding why those who speak against hatred, intolerance, violence, and oppression are so reviled. I know I can be harsh with my judgements, and I don’t pull any punches, preferring to “tell it like it is,” but I never express hatred or intolerance, of Israel, Jews, or even for those who attack me. I don’t mean to condemn America or Israel, I just have great expectations that those who can, should.
Why is it so hard for people to distinguish between disagreement with government policies and anti-Americanism, between opposition to Israel’s policies and anti-Semitism, between understanding the reason for terrorism and condoning terrorism?
I guess these are rhetorical questions, just me wondering why…again. That’s what got me into this mess in the first place!
139 hits, and you’re still a mystery to me.
[the principal reason I comment on your posts is a genuine desire to learn more about your position, so I could not be more pleased you have obliged.]
Hmmm…interesting. Not sure why everyone seems to care so much what I think (detractors and supporters alike). The amount of attention being given to discrediting and demonizing me seems disproportionate to the actual weight I carry in the world. I can’t really see what is so radical or threatening (or intriguing) about my opinions. They’re certainly not new, most are borrowed bits and pieces from other writers, and come on, all I’ve been asking for is a little co-operation, a little compassion, a little thought.
What’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
Something from my comment #35 keeps haunting me;
“Very often we face a dilemma: should we oppose what we think is wrong – be prepared to stand against the whole world – or shall we simply comply with everyone else’s attitude? We must be prepared to face hostility and disapprobation. Only in that case we can break the patterns that lead to collective hatred.”
Obviously my experience is not unique. Still, I have a hard time understanding why those who speak against hatred, intolerance, violence, and oppression are so reviled. I know I can be harsh with my judgements, and I don’t pull any punches, preferring to “tell it like it is,” but I never express hatred or intolerance, of Israel, Jews, or even for those who attack me. I don’t mean to condemn America or Israel, I just have great expectations that those who can, should.
Why is it so hard for people to distinguish between disagreement with government policies and anti-Americanism, between opposition to Israel’s policies and anti-Semitism, between understanding the reason for terrorism and condoning terrorism?
I guess these are rhetorical questions, just me wondering why…again. That’s what got me into this mess in the first place!
G–yes, you are a lightning rod. Why? I have no idea.
I do know what draws me to your thinking. We can listen to the same speech, digest the same news, read the same information—excepting, of course, “The Looming Tower”—and come to if not diametrically opposed conclusions, distant ones.
You’re cocksure in your allegiance to the Palestinians, and dedicated to your cause. I, and I know others here, defend your right to voice your views. I consider your views carefully. I find little I can hang my hat on…
I don’t find this a disappointing. Rather, I find it a testament to America that even though we vehemently disagree about these many questions, we live in a time and place where your words are as important, if not more so, than mine.
Cheers,
G–yes, you are a lightning rod. Why? I have no idea.
I do know what draws me to your thinking. We can listen to the same speech, digest the same news, read the same information—excepting, of course, “The Looming Tower”—and come to if not diametrically opposed conclusions, distant ones.
You’re cocksure in your allegiance to the Palestinians, and dedicated to your cause. I, and I know others here, defend your right to voice your views. I consider your views carefully. I find little I can hang my hat on…
I don’t find this a disappointing. Rather, I find it a testament to America that even though we vehemently disagree about these many questions, we live in a time and place where your words are as important, if not more so, than mine.
Cheers,
For someone who disagrees vehemently with my views you sure are pleasant to talk to. Don’t really have that experience often, so thank you.
That said, between the letters to the editor and this blog I’m kinda tired of talking about this subject. I think I’ll take a break…as long as ConMan doesn’t say something that raises my ire!
That should make Elaine and jackhammer happy.
Adios for now.
For someone who disagrees vehemently with my views you sure are pleasant to talk to. Don’t really have that experience often, so thank you.
That said, between the letters to the editor and this blog I’m kinda tired of talking about this subject. I think I’ll take a break…as long as ConMan doesn’t say something that raises my ire!
That should make Elaine and jackhammer happy.
Adios for now.
Hey “G” you mean something like…
“So Jihad Sue, what’s next?”
: p
I’m joking, I’m joking…..
By the way, did you see that Syria is planning on attacking Israel if Israel doesn’t turn over the Golan Heights to Syria by Aug?
Wow…looks like this is going to be a fun summer!
Hey “G” you mean something like…
“So Jihad Sue, what’s next?”
: p
I’m joking, I’m joking…..
By the way, did you see that Syria is planning on attacking Israel if Israel doesn’t turn over the Golan Heights to Syria by Aug?
Wow…looks like this is going to be a fun summer!