I think it's worth looking back at what people really felt on September 11, 2001, because not everyone felt the same, then or later. Certainly it's true that, five years ago, Tony Blair spoke of standing "shoulder to shoulder" with America, that Iain Duncan Smith (remember him?) echoed him, and that Jacques Chirac was on his way to Washington to say the same.
But it's also true that this initial wave of goodwill hardly outlasted the news cycle. Within a couple of days a Guardian columnist wrote of the "unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population". A Daily Mail columnist denounced the "self-sought imperial role" of the United States, which he said had "made it enemies of every sort across the globe".
That week's edition of Question Time featured a sustained attack on Phil Lader, the former US ambassador to Britain and a man who had lost colleagues in the World Trade Centre who seemed near to tears as he was asked questions about the "millions and millions of people around the world despising the American nation". At least some Britons, like many other Europeans, were already secretly or openly pleased by the 9/11 attacks.
And all of this was before Afghanistan, before Tony Blair was tainted by his friendship with George Bush, and before anyone knew the word "neo-con", let alone felt the need to claim not to be one.
The dislike of America, the hatred for what it was believed to stand for capitalism, globalisation, militarism, Zionism, Hollywood or McDonald's, depending on your point of view was well entrenched. To put it differently, the scorn now widely felt in Britain and across Europe for America's "war on terrorism" actually preceded the "war on terrorism" itself. It was already there on September 12 and 13, right out in the open for everyone to see. . . .
. . . perhaps Europe's failure to enthusiastically join the "war on terrorism" was in some sense preordained. While not entirely incorrect, the notion that President Bush has wasted international post-9/11 sympathy is not entirely accurate either. As I say, at the time of the attacks, influential Europeans, and influential Britons, were already disinclined for their own reasons to sympathise with any American tragedy. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/12/2006 11:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No other nation has a veto over America's national security. End of discussion.
#2
Yeah...it's not like we "squandered" any sort of goodwill. These people already hated us. They were just temporarily stunned into accepting us after 9/11, because for once, the USA had "victim" status. As soon as we struck back at our enemies, the Taliban and Hezbollah became the victims, and the socialists were free to curse the USA once again, guilt-free.
#4
"made it enemies of every sort across the globe".......yes, yes, yes we hate you, we hate you, we hate you, imperialist, infidel sons of swine. One moment please, the postal donkey is here from the village below.........brb, PRAISE THE PROPHET in the same day my 7-11 franchise is approved and my Green Card arrives, yes, yes, praise Alan.
I hate you America, yes, yes, I hate you, I hate you.
Pack Asiya my wife, make haste, pack, pack, pack. Our 7-11 store awaits us. YOU have the midnight shift, we must hurry.
#5
What I don't understand is that on one hand folks can say the world hates us, and then on the other dismiss the idea that folks will cross shark infested waters in a raft, or cross barren desert to get to the USA.
Look which way the people are going and you'll see which nations the world hates.
#6
I disagree about the victim status deal. For about 2 weeks there was in the World Mindset the possibility that the Cowboys might bring out the Two Keys of Justice.
#7
"the world's goodwill" never existed. I was looking all over the internet on 9/11/2001 and found many examples of ill will. A French writer recalls:
For example, I remember September 11, 2001. I had my mother on the telephone, and she asked me Why, son, why did this happen?! with all the anguish in the world in her voice, and suddenly she started to cry uncontrollably when she saw a man and a woman jumping out of one of the burning towers hand in hand on television.
But I especially remember September 12, 2001, when my colleagues scoffed me during our coffee break, mocking my distress, decrying the arrogance of the Yankees and the imperialism of their boss, Bush. What is worse, it is that, although I can be labeled today as an artist or intellectual, at the time I wasnt working in an artistic or intellectual milieu which are traditionally anti-capitalists and therefore anti-American.
No, I was working for the Paris police.
From top to bottom, I saw it for myself: on September 12, 2001, the overwhelming majority of the French didnt shed a tear for what had just happened in New York.
This account was recently published, but reactions like the one described were very easy to find on the original 9/11.
#8
Anyone who thinks we "squandered" any "good will" forgets the United Nations Conference on Racism and Xenophobia in Durban, South Africa that concluded only 3 days before the 9/11 attacks-- a weeklong hatefest directed by Kofi Annan, with third-world shitholes spewing their venom at Israel and the United States.
No, we certainly didn't squander any of the world's "good will"; but they sure as Hell have squandered ours.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/12/2006 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I posted before yours came up, Dave D., and you are absolutely right. In fact, I saw something today about a recent survey which revealed that now about 75% of Americans think the UN is useless and our money shouldn't be squandered supporting it. A big change from my childhood, when we all went out every Halloween trick-or-treating for UNICEF.
Not ten miles from me, the USS New Jersey lies at anchor in the Delaware, a floating WWII museum on the Camden waterfront.
I've got something FAR more honorable for her to do: shell the UN.
Top off her fuel bunkers, lube up her engines, load up her magazines with powder and one-ton shells and get 'er underway.
I can visualize it, this fine, old battlewagon on her last mission: down the Delaware and around Cape May Point, then slowly and majestically up the Jersey coast, firing salvoes to thrill the kiddies from Wildwood up through Avalon, Sea Isle City, Atlantic City, Manasquan, Long Branch and Sandy Hook.
Into New York Bay and up the East River, to finally drop anchor off 41st Street at the Queens Midtown Tunnel.
Give the Gang of Thieves one hour to vacate. Then level her 18" guns at the UN Assembly Building, and open fire.
And don't stop till the ammunition runs out.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/12/2006 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Give the Gang of Thieves one hour to vacate.
Why give notice? These are some of the principal terror promoters in the entire world. I realize that you're trying to adhere to international law and all that, but just this once we need to make an exception. We're talking eviction, Medieval style.
the Two Keys of Justice.
And that's another keeper for today. I'll trade their plastic "Key to Paradise" for our "Two Keys of Justice" anytime.
#13
You're right: just drop anchor and commence firing. Besides, it'll add to the excitement...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/12/2006 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Europe was looking for the US to immediately come on bended knee, sobbing "we were wrong", asking advice from its betters, and offering its military and assets to the UN in a 'cooperative effort'.
When it didn't happen ("thanks, but we in America have work to do"), the Europeans were hurt.
#15
I remember a discussion like this in a now-defunct European chat room - American opinion, we're friends, why do we have to ask for help where their's was why didn't you ask for help????
#16
GW: Hello Kofi
Kofi: Hello Mr President. I wanted to talk to you about giving us more money for ...
GW: Kofi, I'm just calling to let you know that the US is terminating it's membership in the UN.
Kofi: What! You can't possibly be ...
GW: Oh, and one more thing. You and your staff have 24 hours to pack up and get out. I've got Trump on the other line and he's got a demolition crew ready for tomorrow. Building another 'Trump' something or other.
Kofi: This is an outrage ...
GW: Good talking to you Kofi. Have a nice day. ... click ...
#17
Then level her 18" guns at the UN Assembly Building, and open fire.
Sorry to pick nits, but the New Jersey's have 16-inch guns, not 18-inch (the Japanese Yamato had 18-inch guns).
Note that, however, according to experts, there's not a whole lot of difference between an American 16-inch shell and a Japanese 18-inch shell of the WW2 era.
While the 16-inch shells fired by the New Jersey's would be quite adequate (though likely overkill as it's doubtful if the shells would even explode before penetrating clean through the UN building) in destroying the UN, the 5-inch secondary battery would probably be more effectively deployed in the shore bombardment role against non-fortified targets.
At one point in time the USN considered rocket-assisted shells for the New Jersey classes 16-inch guns in order to extend their range though, in an era of cruise missile the concept didn;t bear much fruit.
#18
Damn, I swear these idjits going off about "we lost the world's goodwill" don't know a blessed thing about history.
We've been dissed by Europe from the founding days of this nation. The "reasons" why we were found inferior by the intelligentsia have changed over the centuries (I believe the original diss was that nothing civilized could possibly come from such an untamed land, hence the French fascination with Ben Franklin.....look, he's NOT a savage! How could THAT be?).
The rest of the world got in on it later (Latin America, Asia), but to act like all of a sudden they hate us is one of the biggest loads of crap imaginable.
It's been fairly constant throughout history. They all hate us, but the minute some sh!t hits the fan, they have us on speed dial, begging for help from their American "friends".
The only difference now is that with the Internet, we can see all the crap they are spreading almost as soon as they spew it. It used to take far longer, even as recently as the late 80's.
What many of these other nations tend to forget is that not all Americans fit into the stereotype of being only able to communicate in English. They think that no one here could possibly speak Upper Revoltistanish, even though emigre communities are scattered throughout the land.
The rest of the world hasn't changed. We have, and we are less tolerant of their crap. We fling it right back at them now (think Bolton), and they aren't used to that.
If standing up for ourselves a little more pisses them off, well....bite me, pal. And if you hate America so damn much, stop killing yourselves (sometimes literally, like the Cubans crossing the water and Mexicans crossing the desert) to get your butts over here.
#19
Dave D. How about this? Take Old Ironsides, get her seaworthy for the trip, bring her to to the UN and start hammering on Koffi's shop with the 24 pounders until you trash the place and drive off the Riff Raff Rat Club.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/12/2006 23:45 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Oh for the days when Governor Dubya of Texas was de facto responsible for downturns in the economy while Clinton was still POTUS; and for Dubya being "imperialist" only 8 months after being officially inaugurated, six of which are considered still "moving in/getting adjusted" times by most Poli Sci perts. And wasn't it the infamous Lefty US Ninth, NOT Dubya, that publicly announced that America was an "illegal" and "unconstitutional" nation??? How quickly eight years of respect and admiration for America under Great/Saint Bill, American and International Hero, became anti-American arrogance and hatred in eight months under a GOP Prez.
September 10th people look at Islamic fascists and project their own liberal values onto them. They wonder what we did wrong to provoke such rage; they wonder how we could split the difference with our attackers and buy peace, for that is what reasonable people do. If only we can sit down and reason this thing out together.
Jack Layton is a September 10th person. He thinks we can negotiate with the Taliban, to tackle the "root cause" of their alienation. Maybe he'd bring Dr. Phil along to really get a good discussion going, have a good cry and walk away as friends. . . .
September 10th people are torn between their belief in our Western, liberal values, built up at great cost over centuries, and their new fad of political correctness towards minorities. And so a September 10th person who would noisily criticize a Catholic priest's moral prudeness, and invoke the separation of church and state, sits quietly as Muslim imams propose the invocation of sharia law and censorship of dissidence -- including children's cartoons of Mohammed.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/12/2006 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rodney King diplomacy. It can't wrap it's little mind around a simple concept: There is such a thing as EVIL in the world, and EVIL people don't need a reason to do what they do. Wanna bargain and negotiate with evil f*cks? Be my guest. See how far you get.
H/T Instapundit --- snipping this one -- is a good read.
What would the past five years have been like, I couldn't help wondering, if debate and criticism had proceeded atop the civil platform of agreement that the President was really trying to do his best in a terrible crisis that almost no one had anticipated? Imagine that everyone had been sober and serious all along, as if the responsibility were theirs and not someone else's. Imagine that the opposition to the administration's policies had been more substantive than personal, focused on alternative proposals rather than autopsies of irrevocable decisions past. Imagine that all of us were dealing with today's reality instead of pet grievances from months or years ago. Isn't it possible that the critics might have had more impact on events, that the defenders of American policy might have listened and responded more thoughtfully?
You can decide all these questions for yourselves, but I know I would have been more open to opposing views if their proponents had not insisted that doing the right thing required a first step of denouncing the president as a fool, a liar, an opportunist, and a closet tyrant. If I put aside the partisan emotions such postulates inspire, I have enough breathing room to perceive that my own views have changed again and again over the past five years. On September 11, 2001, I wanted to nuke Afghanistan, I wanted the world to tremble in fear of American military might, I wanted to go Roman Empire on the whole smelly, barbarian world. I wanted bin Laden and everyone he had ever met vaporized into a radioactive cloud. But Bush did not launch the B-52s and ICBMs. I was irate when I asked the question a lot of people just like me were asking at the time, "What is he waitng for? Just go DO it."
With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, conservatives these days ought to be happy, but most arent. They see expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption, and they wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance. Some accuse Bush and the Republicans today of not being true conservatives. Others see a grab bag of stated policies and wonder how they cohere. Everyone thinks somethings got to change.
Now seven prominent conservatives dare to speak the unspeakable: They hope the Republicans lose in 2006. Well, lets be diplomatic and say theyd prefer divided governmentsoon. (Perhaps that formulation will fool Dennis Hastert.) Of course, all of them wish for the long-term health of conservatism, and most are loyal to the GOP. What they also believe, however, is that even if a Speaker Pelosi looms in the wings, sometimes the best remedy for a party gone astray is to give it a session in the time-out chair.
Normally it might work. But we are in a fucking war, if you haven't noticed. Back stabbing traitors in charge of the government is not a real good way to go about not loosing. Vote different Republicans in during the primary and then vote Republican during the election. That is the way to change these idiots, not by surrendering to the surrender/run/hide/appease crowd.
#2
The best thing conservatives could do is not hope for republican defeat in the short run, instead plan for republican reformation in the future.
To do this, they must clarify the real splits in the republican party. It is not a hostile split, but it is there nonetheless, and should be recognized.
The longstanding split is between "true" conservatives, who are just that, "conservative" in its classical sense; and "religious" conservatives, who are not true conservatives, in that they want radical reactionary change.
The other split is between these two groups, on one side, and the liberal republicans on the other. A liberal republican may not be "socially" liberal, but they embrace government excess and are not "fiscally conservative." They are not the true RINOs, who are socially liberal as well, and are a tiny minority.
It is important to understand the distinctions between these three groups, to reform the party. "Religious" conservatives demand change in their direction from a candidate; "true" conservatives demand that they support and maintain a healthy status quo in the country; and "liberal" republicans want candidates to spread government largesse as much as the democrats did.
So what is entailed in a "reformation"? The true conservatives reassert themselves as the majority of the party. They allow *some* largesse to the liberal republicans, but keep it within reason, not the spending spree so many today find offensive. The true conservatives also give the religious conservatives *some* of what they want, in changing those aspects of our culture that are both terribly offensive to them, *and* are involuntary and intrusive. That is, true conservatives may not be opposed to homosexuality, but they agree that it is grotesque to force sexuality of any kind on young children in public school.
However, true conservatives must struggle to prevent excessive spending (while realizing that "the business of America is business"); and also to deny the religious conservatives the ability to *be* intrusive into the lives of others, not just to be protected from the intrusions of others.
#3
Why not just hand the government over to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the PLO, Fatah, Al-Queda, or any of a number of other groups that want our very way of life destroyed? You say the libs don't want our way of life destroyed? Coulda fooled me.
#5
Not a very impressive set of essays: not one of this gaggle of effete, bowtied fussbudgets seems to grok the notion that we're at war with an enemy who's determined to either force us to bow down before their hateful deity, or kill us.
If this ship of fools represents the cream of modern Conservative thought, Conservatism is doomed.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/12/2006 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is a collection of has beens, never was's, and wannabes. The only ones who listen to pretentious poseurs like these are Democrats that want to quote them. They represent nothing but their own fevered visions of intellectual acclaim.
This interview is starting to make waves on the net. Tim Blair and The Belmont Club are commenting on it. I watched it and couldn't help thinking Hitchens is going to be a huge hit in the future. This guy is sharp, even if he looked like sh*t
I watched this show. If you had watched it like I did and tried to register your displeasure aboout the dismissive atttitude shown to Hitchens and the fatuousness of Maher and feckleckness of poor old MAx Cleland, then you would end up in the HBO forums with some of the most despicable brainwashing militant moonbats I have ever (virtually) met.
Chris is the man.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
09/12/2006 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I wish there was more time too. That was amazing.
by Mohammed Fadil ("Iraq the Model")
Republished in the Wall Street Journal EFL'd to get to one particular point.
. . . You also see others who criticize the American response to the attack calling it "savage" or "brutal" which are words commonly used by the Arab media that at the same time ignores the savage brutality of the attack in the first place.
Concentrating on the response and ignoring the attack that provoked it is an act of denial and running away from reality, and concentrating on the "erroneous" American policy is something I cannot accept because it comes either from dictatorships that see a threat for them in the American policy that calls for liberty and democracy, or from fascist religious powers that see in the pluralism and tolerance that America calls for a danger to their dominance on the minds of their people, or from some American politicians blinded by ambition and care only about discrediting their opponents.
Like we said in a previous post, did Moscow's pro-Arab, pro-Islamist policy keep the Russian people safe from the hands of radical terrorists who use their extreme interpretation of religion as a cover for violence?
NO . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/12/2006 08:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Concentrating on the response and ignoring the attack that provoked it..."
Sounds like the NFL, when the flag goes against your team.
I look at the roundup of stories from today, yesterday, the day before, ad infinitum ad nauseum, and I've just had my fill. I don't doubt we could accurately write half the headlines for tomorrow without much effort.
I kinda like flyover's quarantine idea - and Dave D has commented favorably upon it today, too. It's dumb of us, of course, cuz we know it won't work - the triangulators and commerce whores will subvert it, but it's that last gasp effort before we go medieval across the board - or give up and submit. Wishful thinking, doncha know.
Ugly time is near. I no longer care what happens to any Muzzy - or any internal enemy of the founding principles of America. I do still care about some non-Muzzies cuz they haven't devolved into attacking embassies, blowing up whatever trips their fancy, kidnapping tourists, killing indiscriminately, and, generally, proving they don't belong on the planet... but even that is wearing thin and capricious selectivity is coming into play.
I guess my comment the other day about going ahead and just killing everyone we don't like was either unpalatable or thought to be a joke.
It wasn't. I don't care anymore about anyone who wants to destroy the West, cares more for their immediate economic situation than having a future in a free and open society, wants to drag America down to Europe's Nanny-swamp level - or worse, or isn't willing to fight the assholes - for anything, including themselves, their families.
I'm tired. There's no more room for knives in our backs, it's all full up from our allies and the creepy fucks at the UN, or for any more roaring mousies to latch onto our ankles. There's just no room at the inn. Randy Newman is a prophet and nailed it in Political Science. It stopped being funny and started making real sense some time ago, and now I've noticed. I just wanna fuck 'em all, now. Hard.
#3
I keep reading about this person called .com and how his insight and comments were missed on th RB, now I understand why. He hit the nail on the head with this one. I am so tired of hearing the MSM and liberals telling how afraid we should be, how our "friends" are blocking us in the UNSC, and how our government is failing. The world just doesn't get it. There are people in the US that don't give a shit about the human rights, the civil liberties, and the intrusion on person information of the people not supporting us or attacking us. WE WANT SOMEONES ASS KICKED NOW! I know that my side of the street is clean, they can have access to all my person data, they can do what they need to do to catch these bastards. ENOUGH! Get the job done!
#6
6 - Shhhh! That be ancient debris from the Name Wars!
Besoeker - Ain't it sad? Just boggles the Western mind... but, as the Lee Harris article linked to yesterday points out, that's irrelevant... and where we made our first mistake...
#7
.com - Tired just like you described is what I am too. Just damn tired of it all. Whatever horror is required in the future to resolve this I want to just get on with. Enough of the pussyfooting around.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
09/12/2006 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Preach it, .com!
Enough is enough. I'm sick and fucking tired of waiting around for the next atrocity. You could give me infinite odds and I'd still never bet against more Muslim atrocities. Islam is congenitally predisposed to crimes against humanity.
We need to begin purging Muslims from all non-Muslim-majority countries around the world. Per David D., we need to go for Door #10 and quarrantine the lot of them in their utopic hell-holes. Then put them on notice that Door #11 is now on a hair trigger. Personally, I have zer-fucking-oh faith that such an isolationist plan will work. Door #11* is the only one guaranteed to succeed.
Per Door #9, we need to start with a policy of massive retaliation. Commit an atrocity and watch some or the other Muslim nation get glassed over. We probably should begin with Pakistan, just to cripple the one existing Islamic nuclear power. Continue deporting all Muslims in sight and begin sealing our borders as well.
THERE IS NO UPSIDE TO SEEKING A PATH TOWARDS COEXISTENCE WITH ISLAM.
Islam does not seek to coexist with anyone and we are absolute idiots to operate on that principle. If Islam would rather die than coexist, give them death. It's the least we can do to repay their incessant atrocities.
* David D's list of options:
1. SURRENDER: Islam's stated mission-- and to them, their manifest destiny-- is to convert the entire world to Islam; we could dispense with this entire war just by becoming Muslims and being done with it.
2. APPEASEMENT: Buy them off by giving them what they want.
3. IGNORE IT: Just ignore atrocities like the Islamic attacks on 9/11 and in Madrid, London, Bali, Israel and Beslan.
4. ISOLATION: Withdraw from the rest of the world and its troubles, keep our heads down and a low profile.
5. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION: Hunt down the terrorists who attack us and prosecute them for their crimes-- but only after they've committed them. And only if the ACLU lets us.
6. INTRUSIVE DOMESTIC SECURITY: We could prevent terrorist attacks by turning America into a police state, with intrusive government monitoring of all aspects of our lives and suspension of habeus corpus. Anyone even suspected of terrorist activity or sympathies, simply disappears in the middle of the night.
7. LIBERATION & REFORM: What we're doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is trying to see if Arab/Islamic society can be detoxified by introducing democratic self-governance. Maybe it can; maybe it can't. We'll see. So far the results don't look very promising.
8. CONQUEST & SUBJUGATION: Invade their countries, assassinate their political and religious leaders, outlaw Islam and bulldoze their mosques, and rule them with an iron fist.
9. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT: Respond to terrorist attacks on American soil with extravagantly disproportionate retaliation against their cities and their infrastructure. Repeated often enough, this will eventually lead to deterrence.
10. EXPULSION & QUARANTINE: Outlaw Islam within the U.S. and expel all Muslims, citizens or not. Forbid entry into the U.S.-- even for brief visits-- to all Muslims regardless of country of origin, and all nationals of whatever religion from countries that are predominantly Muslim. Seal the Canadian and Mexican borders tight with orders to shoot to kill, and NOT ask questions later.
11. EXTERMINATION: We could end this once and for all-- just nuke the entire Islamic world and let our descendents deal with the guilt.
#10
11. EXTERMINATION: We could end this once and for all-- just nuke the entire Islamic world and let our descendents deal with the guilt.
Posted by Zenster 2006-09-12 17:22|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top
Not an insignifican number of us have learned to live with "guilt." Make it so.
#12
Yes, indeed, a poster can get a lot of mileage out of quoting Dave D. I've done it myself on more than one occasion. ;-)
I keep the link in my favourites.
#13
The Hawkish Gloom is certainly in effect.
#11 for all comers.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
09/12/2006 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Zenster, no need to kill every Muslim. Just nuke their oil fields (then deport all muzzies from Dir el Harb to Dir el Brara---see how many friends they've sans petro $$$).
The West is on a collision course with Iran. There will either be a preemptive war against Irans nuclear program, or an endless series of hot-and-cold war crises following Irans acquisition of a bomb. And an Iranian bomb means further nuclear proliferation to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as a balancing move by the big Sunni states. With all those Islamic bombs floating around, what are the chances the U.S. will avoid a nuclear terrorist strike over the long-term?
I refuse to be a gloomy hawk. I am an angry hawk and will remain so. We must all keep the fire in our collective bellies. Only by maintaining the rage and fury that these Islamic atrocities have ignited will we ever have the willpower to take the measures required to ensure our safety.
For those of you who have been here at Rantburg for some time, you know that I strongly defended the Moderate Muslim back when I first arrived. Persuasive arguments, particularly by .com gradually eroded my belief in moderate Islam. The recent article, Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims , by Fjordman cemented this changeover permanently. More than any single thing, though, it has been the Thundering Silence regarding terrorisms inhuman aspect, issuing forth from Muslims around the world, that has put an end to my tolerance.
Be certain that the constant Islamic atrocities, most especially Beslan, have also propelled me towards this polarized view. But more than anything, it is the mute acceptance of jihadist terrorism by the world's Muslim population that has driven this change in my worldview.
I am grateful for the moral support of those here who have witnessed this transition in me without attempting to rub my nose in my previous held beliefs. In no way does this alter my faith in the perfectibility of man's spirit. What I have had to realize is there are cultural memes so powerfully psychotic that they can erode the very humanity of an individual. One glance at Nazism should have told me this but I dearly wanted to believe that this world had learned its lesson from Third Reich Germany. Obviously, we have not.
Most ironic of all was how, when I first arrived here at Rantburg, my earliest detractors routinely accused me of having a "kill them all" mentality with respect to Muslims. I did not then and it is only with a minuscule twinge of regret at having lost some small piece of my humanity that I do take that position now.
Islam must go. Our continued existence presents us with a binary choice, live without Islam or die with it. I choose life.
My cousin Jessica and her family were among the last passengers out of Heathrow before terror alarms turned that airport into chaos last August 10. Within days, over twenty suspected terrorists, accused of planning to blow up as many as ten planes enroute from London to the USA, had been arrested. More remain at large.
Now Britain's MI5 has taken into custody sixteen others suspected of terrorist activity unrelated to the airplane plot. Like those alleged to have planned the earlier event, most of these are British citizens.
And in all of this, overlooked, somehow, in the chaos surrounding London, two bombs were found on trains traveling out of Cologne, Germany on July 31. Both failed to detonate, but not to create terror throughout the country. Two men are believed to be responsible; one has been arrested a Lebanese student known as Youssef Mohamad E.H.
At the five-year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, we the media, the experts, the people in the street keep asking ourselves: are we any safer now? And the answer comes back, over and over again: no. In fact, we are likely at greater risk than ever; and the foiled London plot never mind the very real bombs that by some lucky fluke failed to detonate in Germany only hints at what still may be ahead.
September 11 shocked us with the discovery that a distant enemy could reach us here at home. Now, as we are slowly learning, that enemy is a lot closer than we thought.
What the 7/7 London bombings, Theo van Gogh's murder, the bombs in Germany, and the latest U.K. threat demonstrate, of course, is that Islamic militancy is no longer an import that can be stopped by closing Western borders. Europe is radicalizing. Or, that is, Europe's Muslims many of them are joining the ranks of radical Islamists, Muslims who use Islam as a political tool for theocratic ends. Of the 24 arrested in conjunction with the August plot (fifteen of whom have been charged), most were British-born, and at least three were recent converts to Islam. Mohammed Bouyeri, van Gogh's assassin, was born and raised in Holland, as were most of the members of the terrorist group to which he still belongs. Dutch officials, moreover, estimate a total of at least twenty such groups in the Netherlands. In France, where five thousand of the country's five million Muslims are said to be extremist, according to an interview with French Secret Service director Pierre de Bousquet de Florian that appeared earlier this summer in Le Parisen, Muslim youth even secularized French citizens can be converted to extremist thought in only weeks.
So acute is the problem that some have even coined the term "Generation Jihad" to describe what Bill Powell, writing in Time magazine, called "Young Muslims living in cities all over Europe including many who were born and raised in the affluence and openness of the West, products of the very democracies they are determined to attack."
Surprising? Not really. Dutch newspaper de Trouw reported earlier this summer on a conference of young Muslim leaders sponsored by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and held in Copenhagen on July 7, the anniversary of the London bombings that left 56 dead (including the bombers) and as many as 700 wounded. Speaking at the conference, British Islam expert Aftab Malik remarked, "It is nonsense that Muslim extremism is the consequence of Western foreign policy; there have been extremist branches of Islam since the beginning." Reports de Trouw: "Pretty much no one reacted [to the statement] nor did they respond when Malik mentioned how furious he becomes at the sight of Islamic children laughing at beheading videos they download to their mobile telephones."
Much of Europe has understood this by now: Peter Clark, who heads up Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, speaking on the BBC, observed, "What we've learned since 9/11 is that the threat is not something that's simply coming from overseas into the United Kingdom. What we've learned, and what we've seen all too murderously, is that we have a threat, which is being generated here within the United Kingdom The number of people who we have to be interested in are into the thousands. That includes a whole range of people, not just terrorists, not just attackers, but the people who might be tempted to support or encourage or to assist."
But in America, we're not paying quite as much attention. And we should be: Earlier this year, Joseph Braude reported in The New Republic, "Many of those recently held out as moderate leaders of the American Muslim community--and embraced as such by American politicians--are anything but. For over a generation, supporters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah have promoted their views and solicited support in numerous U.S. mosques, Islamic centers, and convention halls "
For many, this is hardly news.
What is news is that so many others are just finding out. Where has the US media been all this time? Where have the mainstream media reports been on the abuse of Muslim women in Western Islamic homes? Why so little talk of the honor killings as many as 15 a year or more in the Netherlands alone? Is there a reason you haven't read the story in your local paper, or watched the report on the nightly news, about the current best-selling books among Muslim communities in Europe like Holland's How To Be A Good Muslim books that explain in no uncertain terms how homosexuals should be punished (thrown headfirst from tall buildings and then stoned if they manage to survive the fall), and that Jews are to be killed; or books like How to Raise A Muslim Child, which advocate hitting women? Where has the attention been while European Christians are converting to Islam (it's rarely Jews, for obvious reasons), only to find themselves targeted on online messages boards by recruiters for violent jihad? And who is doing anything about it? Anyone? Clearly not enough. Visit many of these sites and you can watch the entire process: the radical guy who comes in now and then with news stories most propagandistic lies, though not all about Jews, Americans, infidels; who gets into bulletin board arguments and articulately, persuasively, often dramatically, expresses his opinions on the issues; who gradually, still, forges bonds with other members of the online community, coaxing them, befriending them, in between the tales of how Americans rigged the 9/11 bombings (or Israel did, or both), of how Hitler (and I am not making this up I've seen it posted) deliberately created the Holocaust at the request of the Jews, who wanted to found Israel and wipe the Palestinians from their land and knew that this was a good way to make it happen.
But you don't hear other voices. You don't see the posts of wiser, respected, so-called "moderate Muslims," never mind the voices of Muslim heretics. I don't mean the confrontational ones, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's; I mean those most of them unknown who can as deftly manipulate the conversations, the ideas, the principles, being fostered in these venues as do those who use them to recruit their armies for jihad. In a war of ideas, where is the army for our side? Where are our "thousands" who "might be tempted to support or encourage or to assist" in spreading Enlightenment ideas, encouraging freedom, not "submission"?
Over the past year, I've written from time-to-time about various endeavors to counteract the efforts of Islamic militants to hijack the hearts and minds of (mostly younger) Muslims in the West: Faysal Ramsis, who has created web sites for young Muslims opposed to violence and terror; Senay Ozdemir, who embraces Muslim women in a magazine supportive both of their religion and of their right to liberty, to the advantages non-Muslim women ordinarily enjoy. Farhana Ali, a Pakistani-American anti-terrorism expert at the Rand Corporation, a Washington, DC-based think tank, points to British-Pakistani Raza Jaffrey, who runs a Muslim youth hotline in the U.K.
Of course, there are others. And if readers know of any of them, I hope you'll write in and tell me. We need such efforts desperately and we will need to give them all the attention and support we can both to safeguard younger Muslim hearts and lives, and to protect our own.
Abigail R. Esman is an award-winning author-journalist who divides her time between New York and The Netherlands. In addition to her column in World Defense Review, her work has appeared in Foreign Policy, Salon.com, Esquire, Vogue, Glamour, Town & Country, The Christian Science Monitor, The New Republic and many others. She is currently working on a book about Muslim extremism and democracy in the West.
#2
I'm not particularly worried about my safety. I'm more concerned that we are not causing enough of those murderous bastards in the middle east to worry about THEIR SAFETY!
#3
This question of whether or not we are safer after 911 is like asking for apples and getting oranges.
Pre 911, I'm willing to bet that like me, 99% of Americans had absolutely no concern about Islamists, terrorists, or even all the bombings they were doing to us. We even wrote off the Cole. I considered myself a "news junkie" but will admit, the name bin Laden meant nothing to me. Can't say I had ever heard of his name.
Oh, I knew about Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, Kobor Towers, cause they all got at least a day's coverage. But I remained one of those 99% Americans, that went on about my daily life, not considering that any of this was about me. Did grumble some about wanting Clinton to do something -- but still, never fear. Why should I have felt unsafe?
So yes, I was safer before 911, in my mind at least. As my 88 years old Mother has been known to say, "I didn't know no better."
#4
I'm not particularly worried about my safety. I'm more concerned that we are not causing enough of those murderous bastards in the middle east to worry about THEIR SAFETY!
Amen. Who cares if we're safer? I'd rather be free than safe. Safety is an illusion, anyway. Of course the government should take prudent steps to defend the homeland, and to protect it's citizenry. But many are deluding themselves into thinking we can be made safe. If someone wants to get to you badly enough, they will. The key is to stop them before they get the chance. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty, nor Safety." ----Ben Franklin
#5
If someone wants to get to you badly enough, they will. The key is to stop them before they get the chance. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So, America, never entertain for one moment, that pathetic and stupid pacifist LLL line of, "Why do they hate us?", ever again. They cannot be appeased. You have to defeat 'em. Humiliating evil is necessary.
#6
These simple turds believe having a nuclear bomb of any sort makes them a big player on the world stage. They don't comprehend the power of weapons currently in our arsenal now. Makes the Nagasaki weapon look like a firecracker. They also can't realize the awful scenario of coordinated blasts delivered by the MIRV's which would create real armageddon over hundreds of square miles. Really, nothing would survive. May live for a few days, but the radiation levels would make life impossible. Knowing this, we have been restrained, but as we all have said here, if there is a follow on attack here in the homeland, this restraint may evaporate over night.
#7
We should make public knowledge our targeting of Iran in the event of the non-test related discharge of a nuclear device anywhere in the world. We should present the whole migillah to the UN, let them know this is the Iranian portion of the plan only and that there will be aditional areas targeted that will remain secret and send the USAF over Iran to leaflet target areas to inform residents of their status as a target together with the target map for all of Iran. We should provide information on their chances of survival, instructions for building a Great Leap Forward bomb shelter, goods they may wish to store in the unlikely event they survive, iodine pills, and pictures of Ali Khameni, with his cell phone number and e-mail address.
January 2006 Wind of Change entry, linked yesterday in a comment (or was it in an article? Sorry, no hat tip, can't remember, my bad), which makes some rather pessimistic assessments.
#1
Saddam + Radical islam + Iran + .... > is no threat, which is why of course Zawahiri's and Abu's warnings, rants and threats today. * The symbolism of COLUMBIA is that America may win the battles but still at the end lose the war; whilst WTC Twin Towers on 9-11 > DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER FROM THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT, DEM OR GOP, AMERICA + EVERYTHING AMERICAN IS GOING DOWN, VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY. EXTERNALLY BY CALCULATING FOREIGN HAND(S), INTERNALLY BY DYNAMIC, FIRED-UP CHAOS AND STRESSES BREAKING THE IRON BEAMS OF STRENGTH AND RESILIENCE.
#2
This is a SUPERB summation. If only the West would wake up to the inevitable - and shape the coming war to be fought on OUR terms - instead of ceding that initiative to the dark forces of Islam.
#3
"I personally believe that we're very likely to see at least 10 million dead in the Middle East within the next two decades, with an upper limit near 100 million."
I think he's being rather optimistic. My best guess, the way the Islamic world is headed: six hundred million dead by 2020.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/12/2006 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"My best guess, the way the Islamic world is headed: six hundred million dead by 2020."
And it would still be about 900 odd million short of what's needed to finish the lot.
#5
The truly sad part is that the only alternative is collective suicide.
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/12/2006 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I personally believe that we're very likely to see at least 10 million dead in the Middle East within the next two decades, with an upper limit near 100 million. I do not believe pre-emptive action will be taken against Iran. I do, however, believe the extremist mullahs in Iran mean exactly what they say. They are steeped in an ideology that believes suicide/murder to be the holiest and most moral act possible. They have been diligent in laying strategic plans for an offensive Islamic War against Israel, America and the West.
Here is a likely scenario:
Nine lives expended, Musharraf gets whacked (and I doubt it won't take "two decades)." Rabid, seething Mullahs take over Pakland. Pakland nuclear weapons are placed in the hands of the evil doers. Someone lights the fuze....all hell breaks lose.
#8
So the race is on B? On the right is PAKYLAND with their nuke and moderate leader and on the left is Iran developing the bomb and their wacked out Mulla's. Who will make the needed change first, Mullas take over Pak or Iran getting the bomb. My money is that Israel will see the effects of who gets there first.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/12/2006 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#9
If the Paks win the race, they will attack India, and India will make black glass out of 'em.
My biggest fear is that Iran nukes itself and creates a massive radioactive cloud which covers the world. The 'On The Beach' scenario.
#10
An entire generation will soon have past, of those who were alive and remember the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most unfortunately, old lessons will have to be learned once again. I hope we survive the learning.
#11
I once hoped we could end this before my sons would have to fight in it. I, like you, am facing the reality that the lessons of our fathers will be relearned by our sons.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/12/2006 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"I believe that the first nuke let off in the Islamic world will be by Islamists against other muslims."
I've always believed that Darth. Their penchant for destroying the 'infidel' is only surpassed by their penchant for destroying each other. Either Sunni will bomb Shiite or Shiite will bomb Sunni. Probably the latter. Why? Allan wills it.
#13
If we use the German experience in WWII as a guide, they needed to lose 10% of their population to conclude that dying for the Reich was a bad idea.
The Japanese needed to lose 6 - 7% of their population to decide that peaceful co-existance was a good idea.
Applying these percentages to the muslim world you come up with 100 - 150 million folks.
Al
Posted by: frozen al ||
09/12/2006 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
That's assuming these people learn as quickly as the Germans or Japanese...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/12/2006 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#15
By the end of the century, Islam will be history. However, how many of us are going to die before it happens?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/12/2006 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#19
#17 "#16 Meeny."
insufferable pedant on
Actually, that's "Meany."
/off insufferable pedant
Sorry 'bout that - I've been cite-checking/proofreading all day and haven't come back down to earth yet. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/12/2006 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Opening money quote from the linked article:
I personally believe that we're very likely to see at least 10 million dead in the Middle East within the next two decades, with an upper limit near 100 million. I do not believe pre-emptive action will be taken against Iran. I do, however, believe the extremist mullahs in Iran mean exactly what they say. They are steeped in an ideology that believes suicide/murder to be the holiest and most moral act possible. They have been diligent in laying strategic plans for an offensive Islamic War against Israel, America and the West. Plans backed by 25 years of action, and stated no less clearly than Mein Kampf. I believe that Ahmedinajad's talk of 12th Imam end-times and halos around his head at the UN aren't the ravings of an isolated nut, simply an unusually public (and unusually noticed) expression of beliefs that are close to mainstream within their ruling class. That class of "true believer" imams and revolutionary guard types have been quietly consolidating their control over all sectors of Iranian society over the last few months, and I do not believe anyone in the world today has both the will and the capability to stop them. A key pillar of The Bush Doctrine is about to fail.
The will to stop these end-times bastards is what this is all about. Such apocalyptic thinking and fixation upon eschatology voids any conventional notions about impressing upon Iran the potential for loss-of-life or even its wholesale destruction.
Iran, with its minority Shiia population, is a Petri dish model of what we face on a larger scale throughout the Arab Middle East. Theocratic dictatorship, entrenched with violent religious doctrine, fueled by massive oil wealth and desensitized by a complete and total disregard for the value of human life.
Confronted with such an enemy, there is no applicable conventional war doctrine which will deliver total victory. Unconventional or nuclear war is not an intelligent option. In order to defuse Iran's immediate threat we need to cripple their nuclear arms program and decapitate their leadership. This is the very most we can hope for within the next year.
Given all of this. It is best that we act sooner than later. I can only hope that Bush has sufficient personal resolve to take on this onerous task once the mid-term elections are over.
#21
Zenster, that is an unusually precise and incisive exposition of the problem. I fear that George Bush is the only person on the planet with the will and the means to stop these bastards. That is why there are so many people in this country deperately trying to stop him and why it is so important that they fail.
#22
Thank you very much, RWV. I fear that I may be coming across like a broken record of late. I do my best to encapsulate and synopsize the points I see as being critical within the given articles or overall schemes presented. It's nice to know that these efforts are appreciated.
It is tragic that so many solutions to these pressing crises have come to rest upon Bush's shoulders. It is not that he is unworthy of whatever power needed to solve them, it is merely that no one single leader can possibly be expected to unilaterally act upon such a multitude of vital issues. This is less an indictment of Bush's skills than it is a condemnation of how cowardly much of this world's leadership continues to be.
I would not relish being in Bush's place right now. One can only hope that he will act in time against Iran. This is the one single outstanding confrontation that his administration can actively address in its sunset phase that will leave a lasting legacy of having acted upon the most pressing issues. Inaction upon his part with respect to Iran will cement a reputation for having done the right thing at the wrong time, or not having done it at all.
Good points, and it is a start.
September 12, 2006 -- WELL, here it is, five years late, but here just the same: an apology from an Arab-American for 9/11. No, I didn't help organize the killers or contribute in any way to their terrible cause. However, I was one of millions of Arab-Americans who did the unspeakable on 9/11: nothing.
The only time I raised my voice in protest against these men who killed thousands of innocents in the name of Allah was behind closed doors, among the safety of friends and family. I did at one point write a very vitriolic essay condemning their actions, but fear of becoming another Salman Rushdie kept me from ever trying to publish it.
Well, I'm sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.
Yes, our extremists and our culture.
Every single 9/11 hijacker was Arab and a Muslim. The apologists (including President Bush) tried to reassure us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but was a twisting of a great and noble religion. With all due respect, read the Koran, Mr. President. There's enough there for someone of extreme tendencies to find their way to a global jihad.
There's also enough there for someone of a different mindset to find a path to enlightenment and peace. Still, Rushdie had it right back in 2001: This does have to do with Islam. A Christian who bombs an abortion clinic in the name of God is still a Christian, at least in his interpretation, and saying otherwise doesn't negate the fact that he has spent a goodly amount of time figuring out his version of the one true and right thing to do.
The men who killed 3,000 of our citizens on 9/11 in all likelihood died saying prayers to Allah, and that by itself is one of the most horrific things to me about that day.
And, while my grandparents never waged a jihad, their attitudes toward Jews weren't that much different than Mohammed Atta's. No, they didn't support the Holocaust, but they did believe that Jews were trouble in many different ways, and those sorts of beliefs were passed on to me before I'd ever actually met a Jew.
I'm sorry for that, for ever believing that anything that my grandparents or other relatives had to say about Jews or Israel, for that matter, had any real resemblance to truth. It took me years to realize that I'd been conned into believing the generalizations and stereotypes that millions around the Arab world buy into: that Jews, America and Israel are our main problem.
One look at the average Arab regime should alert us to the fact that the problem, dear Achmed, lies not overseas or next door in Tel Aviv, but in the brutal, corrupt despots that we have bred from country to country in the Mideast, across the span of history. That history and its corresponding economic devastation is the main reason I reside on New York City's West Bank - New Jersey - not the one near Jerusalem. On my worst day, I'm happy about that fact. I'd rather be here than there, and experience the freedom and boundless opportunities that were mostly unknown to so many generations of my family in the Mideast.
For as long as I live, the image of those towers falling, as I watched in horror and disbelief from the corner of 40th and Fifth, will be for me my Pearl Harbor, for in that instant I recognized that not only was our city under attack - so was our freedom.
It still is. And will continue to be for years to come. And the threat is not from within, but from Islamic fascists who desperately want to destroy the freedom and opportunities that millions the world over still seek.
Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever.
Emilio Karim Dabul is a freelance writer and PR consultant living in New Jersey.
#1
So why doesn't Emilio convert to something else ?
The kill-them-all movement doesn't allow for moderate muslims. He writes that the Koran is full of jihadi excuses, but he still lives by such a lunatic screed ?
"There's also enough there for someone of a different mindset to find a path to enlightenment and peace. "
He sees in the Koran a different path. If you look at the Bible there's a fair amount of violent crap in there that could, with the "right" mindset equate to a religious duty to force conversions (see Chritianity circa 1400).
Personally I put NO credence in any man's word about religion or what God wants, if God wants me to do/know something he can tell me himself, I ain't listening to human itermediaries. Christianity has moved on from the inquisition. Islam hasn't and I've seen nothing to suggest that it can. Apparently Emilio does and more power to him.
This may be a true MMM sighting but I'll need more data to accept the true existence of such.
#3
"He sees in the Koran a different path. If you look at the Bible there's a fair amount of violent crap in there that could, with the "right" mindset equate to a religious duty to force conversions"
Oh, nonsense. There's nothing in the Bible about inquisitions. Inquisitions may have been many things, but they were never Christianity. Being espoused and practiced by the 'official' church didn't make them so.
I'm so tired of this moral equivalency I could vomit. The Bible has one overriding, unifying message. It's one of love, peace, forgiveness and reconciliation with God through his Son. The Koran has many messages too, but here's a main theme: KILL THE INFIDEL. Apparently, Allan is such a weak and castrated God, he can't fight his own battles.
Compare that with "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay" or "Bless those who curse you". If you cant see the difference, You've fallen victim to the MSM's never-ending bombardment of "Islam is a religion of peace....blah....blah....blah".
Look in the Bible? I have. I've studied each and every book in it. I've read it through over 150 times. I'm not saying this to brag. I'm saying know a little about something before you talk about it.
#4
#3: "The Bible has one overriding, unifying message. It's one of love, peace, forgiveness and reconciliation with God through his Son."
I'm not Christian, mcg, but I believe that's the New Testament, not the whole Bible. The Old Testament is pretty violent. No moral equivalency - there is none - just the facts.
As for Mr. Dabul's finding "a path to enlightenment and peace" in the Koran, I know that is possible. Those who do ignore the violent jihad crap as ancient history not applicable to our time, and don't buy the women as property crap preached by the imami-clowns either. They avoid alcohol and pork, but don't care if others indulge in them at the same table, and the women (and men!) dress modestly, but no more modestly than a decent, non-trashy non-Muslim does. I'm not sure how they fit the prayer-time requirements into their lives, since I've never seen them pray, but they do.
I know Muslims like this - though I don't think of them as Muslims but rather as friends. I do make sure to designate any food with pork, or drinks with alcohol, and make sure there are other choices, but I do that anyway, whether they're around or not. It's simple courtesy - observent Jews also don't eat pork, some people are vegetarians or can't eat/don't like pork, and not everyone can drink alcohol, or wants to.
And by the way, they don't have any hatred of Jews, and do speak up against the islamonutz.
I suspect there are many more Muslims in our country like Mr. Dabul, and my friends. I hope they continue to speak up, and speak out. Islam needs a Reformation - sooner rather than later, for everyone's good.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/12/2006 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever.
Sorry, pal. You're a day half-decade late and a dollar short. However good your intentions are, no matter how well you have finally managed to speak up against this heinous atrocity, your voice was drowned out long ago by the Thundering Silence of Muslims around the world.
#7
"I'm not Christian, mcg, but I believe that's the New Testament, not the whole Bible. The Old Testament is pretty violent."
Well yes, and there's violence in the New Testament as well. I was of course, only giving the Christian view of the Bible's overall theme. The Christian view is that Christ is spoken of and revealed specifically in both the Old and New Testaments. We take the Bible as a whole, and we find one common theme, that being Christ.
As to violence in the Old Testament, in the sense of 'inquisition' at least, it is never advocated. Sure there are passages where War occurs. Israel had to take Canaan by force...the inhabitants weren't going to give it up willingly. There are other passages where violence and atrocities occur, and this illustrates that the Bible is an accurate historical record because it tells the whole story---warts and all. Anecdotal stories are nice. I have met many a nice, kind friendly muslim as well. But the question at hand is one of core principles, as reflected in one's religious tenets. Any cursory examination of the Koran reveals it's not even good literature, let alone good doctrine. And it has resulted in enslavement, degradation, barbarism and rot in every civilization that has followed it. It is moral equivalency to say that since there's 'violence' in the Bible, that it's no better than the Koran. One's an accurate historical record, and generally considered by even non-religious types, to be a masterpiece of literature. The other....well nevermind.
#8
#7: "It is moral equivalency to say that since there's 'violence' in the Bible, that it's no better than the Koran. One's an accurate historical record, and generally considered by even non-religious types, to be a masterpiece of literature. The other....well nevermind."
We can certainly agree on that.
If I were forced to choose a religion from one of those two, it wouldn't be Islam, even a "lite" version. Thank God Luckily, I don't have to. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/12/2006 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Maybe the tide will have turned when jihadis like Osama and al-Zalwahiri have more to fear from their fellow Muslims than from anyone else, as in this story by Kipling:
'But our Mullah is a holy man. He has helped two score of us into Paradise this night. Let him therefore accompany his flock, and we will build over his body a dome of the blue tiles of Mooltan, and burn lamps at his feet every Friday night. He shall be a saint: we shall have a shrine; and there our women shall pray for fresh seed to fill the gaps in our fighting-tale. How think you?'
A grim chuckle followed the suggestion, and the soft wheep, wheep of unscabbarded knives followed the chuckle. It was an excellent notion, and met a long felt want of the tribe. The Mullah sprang to his feet, glaring with withered eyeballs at the drawn death he could not see, and calling down the curses of God and Mahomed on the tribe. Then began a game of blind man's buff round and between the fires, whereof Khuruk Shah, the tribal poet, has sung in verse that will not die.
They tickled him gently under the armpit with the knife-point. He leaped aside screaming, only to feel a cold blade drawn lightly over the back of his neck, or a rifle-muzzle rubbing his beard. He called on his adherents to aid him, but most of these lay dead on the plains, for Khoda Dad Khan had been at some pains to arrange their decease. Men described to him the glories of the shrine they would build, and the little children clapping their hands cried, 'Run, Mullah, run! There's a man behind you!' In the end, when the sport wearied, Khoda Dad Khan's brother sent a knife home between his ribs.
#11
Did Jesus Christ ever tell his followers to massacre all males, enslave the children and rape all the women? Did Jesus Christ ever set out to conquer the world by the sword? Mohammed did. So, why is this man still a muslim?
#12
What people forget about the Jewish Bible is that it is a collection of historical documents written over time, documenting the history, the poetry and the laws of the people that started out as the Tribe of Abraham (the Hebrews--> the Israelites), settled down to become the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and then developed over some more centuries into the Jews. Our understanding of what Abraham's covenant with God entailed changed over that time, as the Bible records: from cleaving to the single god only, to worshipping the only God to, in Amos (I think -- mcsegeek1 or other experts, if you would correct/confirm please?) "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Or as the Rabbi Hillel said to the pagan a century before Christ, "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is commentary -- now go and study."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
