Hi there, !
Today Thu 09/16/2004 Wed 09/15/2004 Tue 09/14/2004 Mon 09/13/2004 Sun 09/12/2004 Sat 09/11/2004 Fri 09/10/2004 Archives
Rantburg
533548 articles and 1861493 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 78 articles and 814 comments as of 19:02.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Maulana Salfi banged
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
10 00:00 trailing wife [4] 
22 00:00 Phil Fraering [2] 
1 00:00 BigEd [2] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
6 00:00 Anonymous5032 [4]
1 00:00 Anonymous6439 [4]
7 00:00 SCpatriot [1]
14 00:00 UFO [6]
6 00:00 beer_me [4]
0 [4]
28 00:00 Jayson Blair [2]
2 00:00 Shipman [3]
2 00:00 Michael [5]
0 [3]
2 00:00 Don [2]
5 00:00 Steve White [4]
9 00:00 ex-lib [2]
7 00:00 asim ishaq [14]
62 00:00 UFO [8]
0 [3]
0 [1]
7 00:00 Highlander [6]
2 00:00 Steve White [2]
4 00:00 UFO [5]
1 00:00 Anonymous6417 [3]
4 00:00 mhw [2]
Page 2: WoT Background
43 00:00 .com [9]
11 00:00 trailing wife [3]
2 00:00 TS(vice girl) [12]
1 00:00 Destro [2]
0 []
1 00:00 BigEd [1]
6 00:00 True German Ally [3]
7 00:00 borgboy [2]
7 00:00 Zhang Fei []
22 00:00 lex [2]
9 00:00 UFO [3]
6 00:00 Howard UK [5]
61 00:00 Super Hose []
6 00:00 Anonymous6444 [3]
0 [1]
0 [1]
23 00:00 True German Ally []
7 00:00 Zhang Fei [4]
12 00:00 Michael [4]
3 00:00 Michael [5]
0 [2]
2 00:00 Shipman [2]
1 00:00 CrazyFool [2]
2 00:00 badanov [2]
2 00:00 Rerailer [6]
53 00:00 Aris Katsaris [4]
18 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [1]
Page 3: Non-WoT
3 00:00 Super Hose [3]
13 00:00 Super Hose [3]
3 00:00 Frank G [3]
5 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [1]
8 00:00 .com [2]
4 00:00 lex [2]
9 00:00 tu3031 [3]
12 00:00 AzCat [3]
5 00:00 Douglas De Bono [2]
10 00:00 Robert Crawford [4]
57 00:00 Nanook [2]
2 00:00 Shipman [3]
1 00:00 Don [2]
7 00:00 feeling bitchy []
16 00:00 SCpatriot [4]
15 00:00 Zenster [3]
16 00:00 BigEd [3]
50 00:00 .com [2]
5 00:00 GK [2]
3 00:00 feeling bitchy [3]
25 00:00 Matt []
3 00:00 mojo [3]
13 00:00 feeling bitchy [2]
18 00:00 Frank G [1]
0 [5]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
5 00:00 Mike Kozlowski [12]
Home Front: WoT
Fisk: We Should Not Have Allowed 19 Murderers to Change our World
Posted by: Super Hose || 09/13/2004 09:59 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Then you won't let my one boot in your ass change your world either, retard.
Posted by: Chris W. || 09/13/2004 10:08 Comments || Top||

#2  Fisk..too bad for him they invented the Internet. Now his opinion is just that, opinion. Back in the days of old media - his word's carried more weight. Now it's just another opinion among millions.

Hey Fisky, what's that you say? Blah.blah blah. So much reading material, so little time.
Posted by: B || 09/13/2004 10:28 Comments || Top||

#3  I don't remember them asking for Fisk's permission.
Posted by: ed || 09/13/2004 10:33 Comments || Top||

#4  where's a band of disgruntled afghanis when you need em? Fisk needs another guilt-beating to cheer him up
Posted by: Frank G || 09/13/2004 10:41 Comments || Top||

#5  Another dumbass homesick refugee from the past.
Posted by: .com || 09/13/2004 10:43 Comments || Top||

#6  Get your ass over to Iraq, Fiskie. I'm sure there's plenty of Iraqis who'd welcome the chance to kick your sorry ass.
Posted by: tu3031 || 09/13/2004 10:49 Comments || Top||

#7  Now it's just another opinion among millions.

And a totally worthless one at that.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 09/13/2004 11:03 Comments || Top||

#8  I thought "fisk" was a verb. There's really a guy named Fisk?
Posted by: Matt || 09/13/2004 11:08 Comments || Top||

#9  Robert Fisk - source of unending articles of self-loathing and worship of 7th century societies. Sentence-by-sentence deconstruction and ridicule is name after his unintentionally humorous works being deconstructed
Posted by: Frank G || 09/13/2004 11:10 Comments || Top||

#10  Does he comb his hair over that lobotomy scar?
Posted by: BigEd || 09/13/2004 11:18 Comments || Top||

#11  Frank, you can send that one straight to Webster's (or did you get it from Webster's?)
Posted by: Matt || 09/13/2004 13:20 Comments || Top||

#12  I think Robert Fisk has a point there. I think Fisk shouldn't have let 9/11 stop him from venturing into Muslim territory for additional beatings from disgruntled Muslims. Writing from London using newswire stories as background doesn't really suit him. No - he really needs to be back on the ground soaking up punches from his Muslim friends. These beatings are being administered out of love, not out of anger.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 09/13/2004 14:45 Comments || Top||

#13  He's also right in that we should have changed our world long before 19 murderers had any input.
Posted by: Rawsnacks || 09/13/2004 17:29 Comments || Top||

#14  Actually, I think Fisk makes a very good point. We DID overreact to 9/11. All that rage and fear, and over what? One very well funded and capable terrorist, who got lucky and landed a punch on the nose of the most powerful nation on earth. A couple of hundred guys who have their act together, militarily speaking, have now been running us around for three years.

We should have reached out with one thumb and crushed bin Laden and his Taliban backers, and then kept right on trucking. No reason to elevate the level of fear in the nation, or to go off half-cocked in Iraq.

War fever and the American drive for vengeance have done us a disservice.

Better get ready for the draft, 'cause it's coming after November. No exemptions this time.
Posted by: Mister Write || 09/13/2004 22:11 Comments || Top||

#15  War fever and the American drive for vengeance have done us a disservice.

Bzzzzzzt - wrong answer. Capitulation, self-doubt and waffling seems to be your style. Should another attack by Islamists occur on American soil, expect an extreme over-reaction. Until then, consider this Afghanistan and Iraq ops as self-restraint. Next time it gets medieval, and your handwringing will be met with little patience. THIS is why it's called Rantburg. Enter carefully, pantywaist
Posted by: Frank G || 09/13/2004 22:17 Comments || Top||

#16  Of course you do. Excellent analysis and a perfect fit with your other comments. You have the situation down pat. We can all log off and leave the fate of civilization in your capable hands. Whew! Lol! And I was actually worried for awhile there. Thx!
Posted by: .com || 09/13/2004 22:17 Comments || Top||

#17  Oops, Frank's too fast for me.

#16 is directed to #14.
Posted by: .com || 09/13/2004 22:18 Comments || Top||

#18  Mister Write, I disagree.
Had 9/11 been the isolated work of some loonies, then maybe.
It was not.
And 9/11 serves as a perpetual warning that a nation not aware of threatening dangers can be hit hard.
Nuclear attacks (or just a plane flying into a reactor) are a real threat.
They want to do it, they probably can do it soon, and when they are ready they will do it.
Posted by: True German Ally || 09/13/2004 22:22 Comments || Top||

#19  Hey, anytime, .com. We're all in this thing together, right?

Frank: No pantywaist here. (Not that that has anything to do with what we're discussing.)

Capitulation, self-doubt and waffling seems to be your style. Should another attack by Islamists occur on American soil, expect an extreme over-reaction. Until then, consider this Afghanistan and Iraq ops as self-restraint. Next time it gets medieval, and your handwringing will be met with little patience.

Yep. And that's when it will finally be called Nazism. Today, the term would be a wild exaggeration.

What you're talking about is naked aggression, naked rage. Think: when you make decisions out of anger, do they tend to be good ones or bad ones? Do you profit from your rage, or does it profit from you?

REASONED response. That is the key.

I believe history will judge us harshly for the decision to go after Saddam at that precise moment. The passage of time will prove one of us right.

True German Ally: That's a good argument. But how do you KNOW that what we're acting on, post-9/11, isn't just paranoia? It's entirely possible for a whole nation to be paranoid and rush to war. Certainly, once the shooting war starts everyone wants to support the troops. That's why it's imperative that the shooting never start unless, and until, the case for war is ironclad.

Nuclear attacks (or just a plane flying into a reactor) are a real threat.
They want to do it, they probably can do it soon, and when they are ready they will do it.


Saddam had no nukes, and wasn't close to getting one. Whoops! We goofed. Oh well, what the hell, we're there already. Let's set up some bases.

C'mon, everyone overstated the threat of al Qaeda post-9/11. They had an A-team, and then they had a guy with a bomb in his shoe. After that, they were forced to operate in other countries because our security was justifiably tight.

There is no "War on Terrorism." There is a guy we didn't catch and no longer talk about. And a bunch of henchmen rounded up, and more still out there. There's also a country we liberated, and another one we... well, you know.

Guys, just CONSIDER the possibility that there may be another valid viewpoint.
Posted by: Mister Write || 09/13/2004 23:57 Comments || Top||

#20  "We're all in this thing together, right?"

Yes, indeed we are. Please notify the LLL. When you've gotten them on-board, come back and tell us about it. I'd LOVE to see a Dhimmicrap Party which was somewhere to the right of Trotsky. That would be a refreshing change.
Posted by: .com || 09/14/2004 0:15 Comments || Top||

#21  We Should Not Have Allowed 19 Murderers to Change our World

What should we have allowed their atrocities to do, then? Face the question squarely. Any lack of concerted effort to eliminate all further opportunities for a repeat of 9-11 would merely have been national suicide.

While there has been some awkward thrashing about as America's battle plans have been drawn into focus, a total lack of response against the Middle Eastern sponsors of terrorism would have been unthinkable.

Saddam may have been low-hanging fruit, but picking him off of his perch has sent an unmistakable message to all the other regional tyrants. Since the invasion of Iraq, there has been more progress towards representative government and the ending of human rights abuses in the Middle East than in the entire preceding CENTURY.

We have not allowed 19 murderers to change our world.

We are changing that part of the world which bred up those 19 barbaric murderers.
Posted by: Zenster || 09/14/2004 0:33 Comments || Top||

#22  Mr. Write: don't concentrate too much on the story the press wants you to see.

Take, for instance, Saddam's nukes: the press got so involved in the story over whether Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger (or not) they completely forgot to cover the fact that Iraq not only has uranium deposits of its own, but had stockpiles of yellowcake on hand.

And was also building delivery vehicles.

Not to mention that we discovered, in the aftermath of the Iraq War, an entire network dedicated to building turnkey centrifuge installations for enriching uranium with, with Pakistan and Malaysia in the role of suppliers and Libya and Egypt (!) being the publicly disclosed customers thus far (there are two more, allegedly, "somewhere out there.")

Iraq was continuing, against the terms of the cease-fire, work on long-range guided missiles that were of dubious accuracy that would make them useless militarily if loaded with conventional weapons. What do you think he was going to put on them?

Furthermore... when Iraq did have an active bomb program, one of their main infrastructure sites was at Al Qa'im. Look at it on a map.... it's right on the Iraqi side of the Syrian border.

If you didn't know about this before, you need to ask yourself why.
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 09/14/2004 1:18 Comments || Top||


Third anniversary
David Warren
It is three years now since I woke in my little flat, showered, made coffee, looked lazily at a paper with yesterday's news, tried to return a phone call to New York, and was told by a recorded voice: "All lines to Manhattan are out of service at this time." This was my tip to turn on the radio, then the Internet, then anything else I could find to turn on. Then I found myself writing the first of some 400 articles on the "terror war". It has become almost a beat.

"The purpose of terrorism is to terrify," I began, after quoting Rudyard Kipling, "so that the first response to it must be the Gospel response: 'Be not afraid.' No matter how horrible, no matter how many casualties, no matter how evil the enemy, who exults in his lair, we must not give him the satisfaction of our fear. ... The immediate task is to sift through the rubble."

To me, the attack was not entirely surprising; I'd been waiting for it since the Jihadis' first attempt to knock down the World Trade Centre in 1993. But to most others, it was something that made no sense at all. That, in a line, is why I've felt an obligation to write, continuously, on this subject. Not because I know a great deal, but because I am aware that others know even less. I have tried to explain, in something like half a million words, the nature of an assault on the West, that was gathering while we slept, and is still imperfectly apprehended.

The Western world, in its post-Christian decadence, still does not comprehend the fire that burns in the souls of our adversaries. In the savage but not entirely unfair estimate of an Iranian correspondent, whose own life is in constant peril: "You were scared. But now you have eaten, and you have copulated, and you want to go back to sleep."

Not entirely fair, for while Canada sleeps, the U.S. continues its vigil. In Iraq, it is fighting, sometimes hand to hand in towns like Fallujah and Samarra, with gunmen of the same irregular army that struck it that beautifully clear morning in 2001.

Ayman Zawahiri, the Egyptian-born deputy of Osama bin Laden -- an intellectual who is among the theorists of "Islamism", as well as one of its generals -- appeared on a new tape Thursday. It was an acknowledgement of the third anniversary from the other side. Zawahiri declared:

"The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time, God willing. In the two countries, the Americans are between two fires: if they remain there they will bleed to death, and if they withdraw they will have lost everything."

With much of the world eager to cheer any U.S. setback, and President Bush's domestic opponents sounding the Vietnam-note of defeatism, the terrorist's analysis should not be casually dismissed.

The tape, which was aired to the Muslim world by the Al Jazeera network -- which serves as the Jihad's public notice board -- is almost certainly authentic. Simultaneously in Iraq, a group that calls itself "Zawahiri's followers" (Ansar al-Zawahiri), posted a declation that, unless Silvio Berlusconi's government capitulated to its demands within 24 hours, Italy would "never know the fate" of two young Italian women they have seized.

In three years, the U.S. has liberated 50 million Muslims from abject and murderous tyrannies -- has overthrown the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- and created openings that would not otherwise exist for people in Pakistan, Libya, and elsewhere. Mention this to my media colleagues, and I can expect hoots of derision and eyeball-rolling. But if I mention it instead to the people I have communicated with daily on the ground in Afghanistan, or Iraq, I find that it is still considered a miracle, like the fall of the Berlin Wall.

What the U.S. does not know, though it try, is how to create an alternative, sane political order in any of these countries, to defeat the Jihad. For that is, finally, up to the people among whom the Jihadis have nestled. The alternative being "black glass" on an unimaginable scale.

The U.S. can, and probably will in a second Bush term, escalate the battle, join it on new fronts, and I hope, pull fewer punches. But on the third anniversary of 9/11, the full seriousness of the Islamist menace -- of the lethal ideology that is still spreading mind to mind through the Muslim world -- is not yet appreciated.

Over the coming decades, either "Islamism", or the West, will be destroyed.
Posted by: tipper || 09/13/2004 3:08:55 AM || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  One of the few clear thinking Canadians whao has appearewd here before. Too bad he does not have mopre influence there. He understands this:
...while Canada sleeps, the U.S. continues its vigil.

I think Russia has been awakened by Breslan, as has Australia by Bali. Somehow the UK government understands while most of the population does not...

I don't know what else to say, except that he needs to keep up the noise. And sadly, when an "I told you so" happens, then we will truly have an ally back on our northern border...
Posted by: BigEd || 09/13/2004 18:02 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks
Mayhem and morality (definition of terrorism for the arabs who refuse to listen)
By Irfan Husain
Over the last week or so, innocent civilians of different faiths have met violent deaths in separate parts of the world: Christians in Russia; Buddhists in Iraq; Hindus in Kashmir; and Jews in Israel. In each incident, the perpetrators have been Muslims. While it can be argued that in the same period, Muslims have been killed in Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq and Palestine, there is a crucial difference. In the latter events, legally constituted and directed state power was responsible for the killings. In the former, the killers were terrorists, and their victims unconnected with security forces.

It is true that the faith of the various groups behind the deaths of the non-Muslims is coincidental as they all have different agendas. The Chechens behind Beslan, the Palestinians who carried out the recent suicide bombing in Israel, the Kashmiris who continue to target Hindu civilians, and the Iraqis who are killing and kidnapping foreigners are all fighting different wars. Despite the attempts of the occupying powers to link them, the fact of the matter is that these militant movements have very little in common except their religion. By and large, they are motivated more by the spirit of nationalism than by faith. And except for a handful of pan-Islam zealots, these are all indigenous struggles.

However, while these unequal contests demand unorthodox tactics, the fact is that increasingly, it is the innocent who suffer most. Being soft targets, they are killed or taken hostage almost at will by the guerrillas; and as they are perceived by the state as sheltering the resistance, they become acceptable collateral damage in the "war on terror". The fact that many of the most violent groups operating today are Muslim is not without significance in a world where the electronic media has no time for fine distinctions, and sound bites carry more weight than serious analyses. Thus, when global TV channels speak of "Islamic terrorists", western audiences do not differentiate between Chechen and Iraqi guerrillas. For them, the killers who deliberately target civilians are Muslims. Ergo, Muslims are bloodthirsty people who target the innocent.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fawad || 09/13/2004 1:54:44 PM || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  the only problem I see with this article is that there is no precedent for the kind of sustained and disciplined non-violent resistence in muslim religion or culture. The very root of islam was a man who never sucessfully excecuted such a path. He talked a good game about peace but when push cam to shove he had very little patience to wait on non-violent change. He would wait for some time and then he would attack and retroactively produce a verse of the koran to justify his actions.

That is the base model for all muslims. Its a fact. And any calls for a sustained and disciplined campaign of non-violent resistance will always run aground on it if it isn't immediately resisted as a foreign non-islamic import from western culture.

On the other hand, at the root of Christian history, is the example of Jesus who never hurt anyone and died a horrible and shameful death rather than gather his followers and go to war against Rome. And yet his followers conquered the Roman empire in his name in 400 years without a single battle being fought by them. In those 400 years Christians absorbed brutal punishment from the Romans and yet they survived and thrived. I wonder how many innocent lives were saved in those 400 years because the Christians had an unshakable example for how to really make personal sacrifices and take it on the chin for good of all.

Thats the kind of time it can take. The best islam can manage is a saying of mohammed telling them to be patient for 20 years if someone opresses them and then attack.

I am not going to hold my breath on the idea in this article taking off among muslims unless they are more western than muslim and how many are like that?

Posted by: peggy || 09/13/2004 15:54 Comments || Top||

#2  PS. I know someone is bound to call attention to the fact that Christians and Christian states have acted barbarically more often than not. But I readily admit that. I am talking about the roots and beginnings of each faith here.

With a root like that at the base of Christianity a precedent and an imperishable ideal was set for Christians of all ages to orient themselves towards and to strive to emulate. This has led to centuries of struggle within Christianity to purge it of the misuse of violence. This is a struggle that has been won bit by bit until you have as a result the successful struggle of MLK on the one hand and on the other the example of the US using force to liberate whole peoples and then willingly leaving their territories once the job is done.

Whether we renounce violence or advocate is strictly limited use, in our culture its all because we have that root, that point with which to orient ourselves that we have this result.

And its because muslims have mohammed as their root that they do not and likely will not ever control the use of force as well as we have come to control it.
Posted by: peggy || 09/13/2004 16:09 Comments || Top||

#3  This has led to centuries of struggle within Christianity to purge it of the misuse of violence. This is a struggle that has been won bit by bit

Historically incorrect, Christianity was just as violent in 1650 as it was in 350. Christianity was stripped of violence by its confrontation with the enlightenment, including anti-christian elements of the enlightenment. In places like czarist Russia where the enlightenment was weak, christianity remained violent into the 20th century.

If christianity could be made unviolent, NOT by its core documents, but by enlightenment civilization, than so can Islam. And in those few places where Islam has been, well, subordinated to the enlightenment, like Turkey, it has emerged as no more violent than christianity.
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 09/13/2004 16:15 Comments || Top||

#4  Peggy

I am not precisely Muslim friendly but has been one (and AFAIK only one) non-violent Muslim movement in history it was the Red Shirts a Pashtoon movement created by Abdul Ghafar Khan (aka as "the Frontier Gandhi") who fought British colonialism by non-violent methods. Abdul Ghafr Khan was in my opionion a far better man Ghandhi (none of the hipocrisy or paedohile tastes to begin with) and he had far more merit than Ghandhi to renounce violence than Gandhi since he was from a very violent culture (and he had the means to exert violence: he looked really, really strong in the pictures I have seen of him) but being a Muslim and a Pashtoon he couldn't have the same influence than Gandhi between "real Indians".

He opposed the creation of Pakistan (he forewew that this "Country of the Pures" would generate racism, islamism and hate) and seem to have given a Western education to his daughters.
Posted by: JFM || 09/13/2004 16:45 Comments || Top||

#5  Is Christianity in Northern Ireland de-violenced in your sight, LH? For me it's only under control because of the Brits and would revert to form within weeks if they left.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 09/13/2004 17:03 Comments || Top||

#6  I don't know where you get your information from liberalhawk, but I think you just are sonstitutionally unable to give Christianity any credit. And you give secularism way too much credit. But I don't have the time to overturn that bias here.

Those core documents have led to many non-violent saints, the ultimate examples for Christians. Its those core documents that have been the conscience of the West from ancient times in countless lives. It eventually produced a climate where the secularists and such could be possible. Those people were as immersed in the Christian environment as any of their believing bretheren.

I cannot believe the hubris that leads to someone saying that the Enlightenment was somehow founded in a vaccum free of Christianity and then it was the Enlightenment that reformed it.

Who were these men who were completely free of any Christian influence whatsoever? That is some feat that they were able to cleanse their minds of it entirely.

Yes it was bit by bit. I am talking about building a groundswell. No Christian lands were no less violent in 1650 as in 350 but by 1650 the preponderance of non-violent saints and examples inspired by the core documents of Christianity had increased over time. They were the conscience of the faith speaking consistently throughout all the centuries of its existence. That base was built by the non-violent resistance of the first Christians. No matter who was in power, they were speaking out and writing calling for peace and gentleness in the name of Christ.

The truth is that those in power were quite naturally more ruthless and powerful than those who were not and it took a long time to build to where there could be an impact. But gradually that conscience built.

And when there were secularists who challenged Christians to live up to their ideals, there were people of conscience in the powerful majority who listened. Without that conscience, how do you suppose this transformation took place? Did the tiny minority of secularists force the Christian majority to change. With what power?

You need to learn your history a bit better I think. The Christian tradition of non-violence is consistent and ancient and it was what tamed a brutal unimaginably barbaric world to the point where people could have the luxury of being athiests and secularists today.

However badly we strayed in the ensuing centuries after Christ, Christianity got started on the right foot and has been able to return to that foundation in its maturity. Christ is a solid
rock at the root of the Christian faith.

The root of islam flaps in the wind because sometimes mohammed made peace and sometimes he fought when he didn't have to. There is no solidity there. islam rests on a shifting foundation and it will always be more likely to explode into violence.

Somehow I just knew that you would ignore anything that I said that admitted fault on the part of Christianity. It doesn't surprise me that you still continue to insist that because I am proud of my faith and I'm not afraid to articulate the reasons why, that I automatically rule out the merits of any other system of thought and refuse to see any flaws in mine own.

Try reading my posts next time. You are always telling me things that I already know and will and do readily admit as if you think that they never crossed my little bigoted fundamentalist mind.

I think islam is the worst religion but i don't think its bankrupt. I have been thinking deeply about it for a long time and I know a great deal about it. This is not some decision I made out of some knee jerk reaction. I made it through analysis and giving full credit to the ideas of those who disagree with me. I made it because I listened for years to muslims tell me about their faith and by reading what they write about it. My decisions about it were not based on a reaction to terrorism but by study. 9/11 only finally confirmed in me that there is a greater weakness in islam than in any other faith and that weakness is centered on the contradiction between mohammmeds words and actions making it far more difficult for muslims to maintain peace and to coexist with people of other faiths.

This is not saying that they can't do it or that they have achiveed nothing. There is a big difference. I am saying that it is much more difficult for them to succeed because of the nature of their religion.



Posted by: peggy || 09/13/2004 17:34 Comments || Top||

#7  Good post, peggy. Too bad that LH never reads past the first line before he responds.

He's under the illusion that his liberal tendencies come from the o'l "eye for an eye" written in the first book.

Maybe someday he will realize that his "liberal" self comes from the second half of the Bible. But if he gets it, it won't be without him screaming and hollering that Christians suck.
Posted by: 2B || 09/13/2004 17:45 Comments || Top||

#8  I think that the root lies in liberating the culture of the power of religious leadership namely the clerics. It was achieved in the western culture by the advent of Capitalism & Industrial age.
And whenever they let go of secularism they always ended up in a very medieval fashon example Hitler, or modern day serbia.
Wherever the muslims have freed themselves of the power of clerics, they have done quite well example Turkey. But this is the only example. The clerics have become too strong for this to sucessfully happen any where else. I had a hope from Liberated Iraq but I see that they have decided in favor of religion and hence barbarism.
Posted by: Fawad || 09/13/2004 20:01 Comments || Top||

#9  The biggest mistake Christians made after Constantine's death was to think it could be a state religion like all the other religions that preceeded it. It was never designed to be one: almost every directive given in the New Testament was given to individuals or to churches, and it was only coincidence that, when addressing an individual's sin, that that person was a government official. When Paul talked about the duties of the state to suppress Evil and gather taxes, he was speaking to Christians explaining their role vis-a-vis the State, and was not telling the State what to do.

If anyone can find a verse in the New Testament where Jesus or an apostle gave orders to the State regarding some issue, I'd appreciate an e-mail citing it, for I'm at a loss to find any such verse.
Posted by: Ptah || 09/13/2004 20:02 Comments || Top||

#10  Ptah, my fave Jesus quote on the role of religion to the State is, "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's; render unto God that which is God's". That sentiment is why Jewsih prayer services have contained a prayer for the government and the country since the time of the Roman Empire.

OK, you Christian people, listen up! (Not you Ptah, you get it -- you and some others here -- y'all know who you are). Liberalhawk is right about this one.

The history of Christian violence against the Jews -- propagated by individuals, communities and the State -- started in the 2nd century A.D., along with Christian violence against the pagans. The last Jewish child kidnapped by the Church after forced conversion took place in Italy in the 19th century, and he died a cloistered monk.

Christian violence against the Jews throughout the territory of the Roman Empire is such that the Jewish population in the 20th century was not much more than it was at the time of Christ, in comparison to the growth of the general population. Intramural Christian violence has no doubt prevented the kind of population pressure that resulted in the Black Plague, so I suppose in one sense we should be grateful, although examples such as the Church-sanctioned crusade against the French Albigensians led to genocide by the cruelest methods then extant. The Thirty Years War that pitted Catholic against Protestant States led to whispered tales of cannibalism throughout the towns and villages of Germany as each side punished the peasants for adhering to the wrong religion, then forced them to convert.

Christianity has only been able to revert to its peaceful ideal when it has been unable to take advantage of the power of the State, a process started in the West by the Enlightenment, and in the East not at all. Only with time have the leading lights of Western Christianity come to understand that secular powerlessness translates into religious strength. In Europe, where the powerless Churches are still clients of the State, religious belief and participation have fallen to near zero.

BTW many thinkers of the Enlightenment were, indeed, agnostics and atheists. On this side of the Atlantic f'r instance, Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament to remove all the 'magical' bits, leaving only the man Jesus and his words of wisdom. Or Benjamin Franklin, tho' reared a Quaker, who was a Mason at a time when that was a codeword for atheist. Many of the scientific lights of the time were only interested in Deity in his role as Supreme Watchmaker, other than the pro forma declarations necessary to keep one from being cast out of society.

2B, Liberalhawk's liberal self comes out of his Jewish traditions, of which Christianity inherited one strand. He isn't hollering that Christians suck, but rather teaching you a bit of the history of your own religion.

Throughout much of its history, Christianity has failed abysmally to live up to its stated ideals. Much of the time it didn't even try. That these ideals are a very good thing is beyond dispute, as is the fact that many have worked to make them into a personal code. But you unfairly and unChristianly accuse Liberalhawk of a bias that most definitely is not there.
Posted by: trailing wife || 09/13/2004 23:29 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
78[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Mon 2004-09-13
  Maulana Salfi banged
Sun 2004-09-12
  Bahrain frees two held for alleged Al Qaeda links
Sat 2004-09-11
  Blast, Mushroom Cloud Reported in N. Korea
Fri 2004-09-10
  Toe tag for al-Houthi
Thu 2004-09-09
  Australian embassy boomed in Jakarta
Wed 2004-09-08
  Russia Offers $10 Million for Chechen Rebels
Tue 2004-09-07
  Putin rejects talks with child killers
Mon 2004-09-06
  GSPC appoints new supremo
Sun 2004-09-05
  Izzat Ibrahim jugged? (Apparently not...)
Sat 2004-09-04
  Russia seals off North Ossetia
Fri 2004-09-03
  Hostage school stormed by Russian forces
Thu 2004-09-02
  16 dead so far in North Ossetia stand-off
Wed 2004-09-01
  200 kiddies hostage in Beslan
Tue 2004-08-31
  Booms in Moscow, Jerusalem
Mon 2004-08-30
  Chechen boom babes were roommates


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.
18.117.183.172
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (22)    WoT Background (27)    Non-WoT (25)    Local News (1)    (0)