Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“Bush also misdiagnoses and misunderstands oppressive regimes. It’s not the dissidents and victims who want to be victimized, as Bush suggests. It’s the victimizers who want to be in charge.”

Matthew,
It appears that Bush doesn’t even understand his own retoric. The history of the planet in the last half of the 20th century is rife with America sticking it’s nose into other countries business. Along the way we have supported some of the most fascist and repressive regiemes in history, in the name of Democracy. As long as these guys were against communism they were our guys.
Well the chickens have come to roost, so to speak. Now America will force Democracy down peoples throats.
God help us all.

I’m wondering at what point Pakistan’s military junta will be targeted for a Bush democratization makeover. And my current city-state hometown, Singapore, has but a single-party “democracy”. Should I be worried?

This whole mission of Bush’s, to force civilization on the heathens, seems arrogant, if not just plain wacky.

The whole idea of an interventionist foreign policy used to be anathema to conservatives - a risk-filled waste of US wealth and resources. What happened to you guys?

American Pundit,
You are 100% accurate in your statement that interventionism is anathema to the conservative.
It is the NEO conservative platform that says to spread “democracy” throughout the world.
I recommend the Book “Where the Right Went Wrong” by Patrick Buchanan or any of his articles to acquaint yourself with the vast difference between the Classic and the Neo Conservative movements.
It is NOT America’s mission or business to spread anything to anyone, and both parties have abandoned what made this country great in favor of a globalist approach to things.
The Neo-conservative risks our getting involved in longer periods of war, but neo-liberals are more dangerous because they can’t wait to hand our soveriegnty over the the UN.
Get our boys home and let the rest of the world blast each other.
“Friendly relations with all Nations, entangling alliances with none.”
-George Washington

So why do you guys vote for the neo-cons?

At what price to human life and suffering should one nation’s vision be imposed on other nations?

The fact that billions of people in the world prefer oppressive regimes to death and loss of homes, family, limbs, and life with some normalcy, indicates Bush has not a clue as to what is morally good for the people of the world. If people chose freedom and American ideals to their own lives in oppressive regimes, they would be dying to change those regimes. AND THEY ARE NOT!

Democrats are living under an oppressive regime here in the U.S., to listen to them, but, they are not rising up in arms to overthrow GW Bush, willing to die to change conditions.

Morality is not a simple exercise, and Bush displayed his inability to handle outlining a policy based on such complex matters and idealism. And he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the immorality of war, and force.

neo-liberals are more dangerous because they can’t wait to hand our soveriegnty over the the UN.

What the heck is a neo-liberal? and who in mainstream politics has ever proposed handing over sovereignty to the UN?

Methinks someone is taking campaign rhetoric way too seriously.

On a technical point:

American conservatives conserve the liberal tradition of free markets and limited government. American liberals are closer to what others call social democrats who advocate a larger role for government. This is confusing historically and internationally. It is even worse when neo-Conservatives embrace a foreign policy that resembles the liberal policies of Woodrow Wilson.

A neo-liberal in most of Europe is what we would call a conservative in the U.S. – i.e. smaller government and support for free markets. Some Western Europeans have referred to E. Europe as a “neo-liberal American Trojan horse” in the EU. Americans who read about this might be confused if they try to transfer their own political terms to other cultures.

Amazing the Liberal speak against President Bush’s speech. No interventionism, ram it down their throats, America sticks it mose where it doesn’t belong….and on and on. Take a reality check, our freedoms are proportional to that of our society and the societies we must coexist with in this world.
Simply put, a good President lays out his agenda in a general path and then allows his subordinates to fill in the details. This is known as leadership. Something President Clinton, Carter or Johnson did not know how to do.
Step back, take a breath and look at the world around us, we are the target or Islamofascists who wish to kill all Americans, not just Conservatives, not just Christians, but all Americans, for we do not believe their way.
If I were to put my interpretation on the President’s speech it would be this; America is free, there are other countries that are oppressed and yearn to be free. America stands ready to help them find their own variety of freedom, and through that discovery, America itself shall become stronger.

AP:
“This whole mission of Bush’s, to force civilization on the heathens, seems arrogant, if not just plain wacky.
The whole idea of an interventionist foreign policy used to be anathema to conservatives - a risk-filled waste of US wealth and resources. What happened to you guys?”

Yeah really. Even the president has done an about face on the idea of America being interventionist in foreign policy. This from the second debate in 2000:

Bush:
“But we can’t be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that’s where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I’m worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I’m not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.”

Kinda Ironic, isn’t it?

“If I were to put my interpretation on the President’s speech it would be this; America is free, there are other countries that are oppressed and yearn to be free. America stands ready to help them find their own variety of freedom, and through that discovery, America itself shall become stronger.”

Matt,
There is a cure for oppression, it’s called revolution. I don’t see all these folks you talk about standing up and declaring their freedom.

Hey, it worked for us.

I don’t mind helping people that ask for our help, however I find it ludicrous to assume that we, the United States, should invade any nation we think repressive, in that we have supported many of these nations, very often against their own people.

It is so refreshing to hear this debate about the interventionist policies of the neo-cons. It is evident to me that the real reason for going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or WTC terrorists, but rather a neo-con urge to remake the Middle East into our image of what it should be. We had the thin rationales for Iraq and attacking Saudi Arabia would be in bad taste. So we start with Iraq and the beauty of the idea will catch on like wildfire and the rest of the Middle East including Iran will fall in line and the millenium will be won. This ignores the history of the last century which clearly shows that US intervention in internal affairs of sovereign nations are much more likely to backfire than have the intended effect (cf. Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Afghanistan the first time, Iraq the first time, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.) The question is how to stem this blood-letting going on. Can’t cut and run, but the Wolfowitz crowd is banging the drum for Iran and North Korea. What to do? Bush has a “mandate” and will do whatever his handlers suggest. Does Congress have a backbone? I think not, unless people are irate enough. Are they? I hope so.

Interesting, isn’t it? I like the fact that Bush is articulating a position that extends the phenomonon of globalization to the politcal sphere; and keep in mind, that’s coming from a liberal ‘Bush hater.’
What makes me nervous is the fear that the extension will take the form of military conquest, rather than a gradualist approach, through the slow spread of the rule of law, and of cultural mores.

Mr. Klinghammer-
Islamofascists. Hmm. Haven’t heard that in a while. Maybe it’s because people found out there was more than one kind of Muslim, and more than one kind of political attitude there. Islamofascism is a fiction that allows people to treat this whole thing like it’s WWII, with a coherent enemy to be fought.

To treat it in that fashion, when the enemy is not like that, is to invite defeat. You lump people together, and sooner or later you either convince them to unite against you, or you exhaust and frustrate yourself dealing with all the unexpected consequences of using the same methods and approach on different cultures and political systems.

The trick of democracy is that, and one other thing: the will of the people. By its nature, Democracy requires cooperation from the people creating it. You can coerce it or encourage it. Coercing democracy means you have to beat somebody into submission to get that done. It’s easy to say we can do that, but if Iraq has proved anything, it’s the difficulty of getting an uncooperative people to put together a government for your benefit.

Stephen,
Funny you should post on that particular phrase, ‘islamofascist.’ I thought about addressing that particular word too. Coincidentally, I was reading up on fascism the other day. It’s difficult to find a way to connect ‘fascism’ with the apparently perjorative term ‘islamofascism.’ Lots of broad generalizations follow, so hold on to your hat! Here’s an attempt:

In fascism, the state is supreme.
In islamofascism, the religion is supreme.

Fascism is usually identified as a right-wing philosophy, the opposite of socialism.
Islamofascism could be considered right-wing in its fundamental conservatism, perhaps the opposite of secular humanism. (At this point, the term ‘theocracy’ would be just as accurate as ‘islamofascism).

Fascism is usually associated with belligerent nationalism.
Islamofascism would display belligerence towards infidels. (However, it’s worth noting that some of the most virulent strife in Iraq is between Shia and Sunni sects).

Fascism includes close cooperation between political and business interests, i.e., ‘corporatism,’ or ‘making the trains run on time.’ Elections reflecting the will of the people are shams. Socialist structures such as labor unions are forbidden.
This does not apply to islamofascism.

As you note, ‘islamofascism’ is a loose and obviously perjorative term. It makes no sense in today’s context, other than in its intent to discourage thought, and cloud understanding.

But to return to the speech, I’m pretty sure Bush did not refer to ‘islamofascism’, and I don’t recall anyone in the administration ever using the term… Let’s not give Cheney any ideas!

The general left and right categories don’t really work well.

A better distinction for our times is between pluralistic free market societies and government control. Under extreme forms of fascism, communism and strict socialism, the government authorities control most of the economy and society. They justify their actions with different rhetoric, but the systems work similarly on a practical level in that they seek to control all aspects of society and the economy. A person moving from Hitler’s fascist Germany to Stalin’s communist Soviet Union would basically understand them as similar in the way people lived and interacted with their leaders, despite the names. The same could be said for a person moving from capitalist U.S. to socialist Sweden. The way people actually live in these two countries is also similar, despite the names.

Saddam Hussein ran a fascist state, consciously patterned after what he considered best practices of Nazis and communists. We are currently fighting the remnants of fascist cells in Iraq.

We are also fighting Islamic radicals allied with these fascists. I think that is the original genesis of the term Islam-fascist.

If we judge by behavior, an Islamic state also looks a lot like fascism or communism in that it regulates society and business to the extent that it can. However, it adds the even nastier permutation of religious power. We should be against any such arrangement.

Jack,
Well, you know I’m leary of labels as well. The political philosphies of fascism, soviet communism, nazism, and others have resulted in totalitarienism. There are differences, but point taken.
You’re right, the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein fits the totalitarien fascist model rather well. However, the term ‘islamofascism’ certainly would not apply to the Baathists, before or after Hussein. This is a perfect example of where a perjorative term clouds our understanding of the situation. The ‘islamic’ element of Iraqi fascism did not exist under Saddam Hussein; in fact, that was a notably secular regime.

Terms like ‘islamofascism’ confuse an understanding of the Baathists. It leads to bad assumptions, to a misunderstanding of the big picture; for example, that Hussein was involved in 9/11, which is wrong; or that Hussein supported islamic terrorism, which is incorrect.

What is going on in Iraq right now? Who are we fighting? I’m not sure the US military knows, and if they do, I doubt the US public is being provided the info. I’ve seen reports that up to 95% of the insurgents are Iraqis. The insurgents seem to be united in their opposition to occupation; beyond that, and it’s a mystery.

Some insurgents are undoubtedly Baathists, and potential fascists. Reconstituting the Baathist party as a representative of the Sunnis might be desirable, however, as an effective counterweight to the islamic fundamentalists. Again, the Baathists and the fundamentalists are two very different groups, with very different goals.

This difference is important precisely because it can be exploited by the US. I’ve never thought more US troops on the ground was the answer. A better solution would be less. An effective, secular Sunni party, even if rooted in fascism, would stabilize central Iraq, and offer the US exactly what it seeks: a free, democratic Iraq.

There is one huge flaw with the Bush speech. Many Americans confuse freedom and liberty with the idea that people in other countries want to be like Americans. This is simply wrong. Free and democratic countries may not be friendly with the US…

Reference: “What happened to you guys?”
Answer: 9/11

“Longstreet”

Cool, now we, bloggars have our blogsearch toolbar - http://blogsearchengine.com/blog/index.php?p=123 !

I find myself suddenly giving a damn. Bush’s inauguration speech was the trigger. This is my first posting on a blog so take it easy on me.

The folling is a letter I wrote 1 hour after watching the President’s speech. I should also mention I voted for him in 2000.

Dear Senator,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the next four years in our great country. I am a married father of two boys who has never missed voting in an election. I also consider myself to be the most patriotic person I know. I proudly served four years in the U.S. Army and enjoyed the honor of protecting America’s freedoms.

This said, President George W. Bush’s inauguration speech has prompted me to write my Senator for the first time in my life. To be honest, I found this speech to be the most frightening inauguration speech ever given by a President. Is it true this President has declared a Freedom Crusade? After listening to the speech once I felt I should replay it one more time to be sure I understood where he was going with it. Though he did not use the word Crusade, he may as well have.

This President has failed miserably to spread freedom to just one country, Iraq. Barely able to manage this attempt at spreading freedom why should we ever trust him to conduct a world wide Freedom Crusade? If his model of Iraq is what we can expect for our world, we all must be frightened by this man.

With no mention of Iraq in this speech and his failure to address any real domestic issues, I am left to believe he is clueless to the issues that matter. Our boys are dying in a war we should have never been involved in. Our schools are failing to keep up with the rest of the world. We are exporting our wealth to a Communist China at record levels. The economy is stagnant. Our border security is laughable. Free trade is not fair trade. I could go on for twenty more pages and still not mention a Freedom Crusade.

Our founding fathers believed the biggest threat to freedom was government. They were right. This President wants to give freedom to the world yet restrict our freedoms here in America with a poorly thought out Patriot Act.

In closing, my reason for writing is to make a request. Please fight this President with everything you have, head on. Even if you are sure to lose the battle, fight for the war. Inflict as many casualties as possible at every opportunity given. Stop him a little at a time. Slow his momentum. This will give us less to repair in four years. I am counting on you. My children are counting on you. Our country is counting on you.

Sincerely,

Great letter, wisevil.

After seeing valid points on both sides I can’t help but get the feeling that we are missing the simpler truths about the difference between Democracy and Islam. They are incompatible. It’s not a matter of being Islamphobic(?),the belief that the Quran is perfect and the absolute law impedes any chance of dialogue.It’s only a matter of time before the Muslim people in the USA will fall under the sway of their more radical Iman’s here.
There will be a time when the Muslims are going to have to moderate their views or a religious war is inevitable.
And they will have allies outside of the Muslim faith. China and Russia are allready supplying tech. and materials to Iran.France and Germany and Russia was supplying weapons and ammo right up to the day before the Iraq invasion. These countries would love to see us fail. We need to stop being PC.
I hate to say it but isolationism may be a viable cause for the people of the USA. We have to stop the unfair economical practices against us and start developing our own products again. By that, I mean,when do you see anything saying “Made in the USA”.
We are our own worse enemies. By allowing unrestricted entrance to our borders we are diluting the American culture to a feint shadow of what it once was. If you come to America you must become American. Name one other country where you walk into the DMV and find you can take the test in 12, Thats right,12 different languages!
And I agree , Bush’s speech made me feel uncomfortable too. I don’t think we should be spreading our beliefs through out the world , other than by example. It may sound cold but if they want freedom then fine, let them get it for themselves. If there is a clear and present danger to our country, then by all means bomb the living crap out of the direct source and screw what Europe thinks. But otherwise lets mind our own business and keep our people safe.
I know Saddam killed a million or so of his own people but the Muslims leave you with impression that it was OK as long as a fellow Muslim was doing it. Thousands of Americans will die for an ungrateful people. After we leave, there will be a civil war in Iraq and guess who’s going to get blamed?
But not to worry, the mighty United Nations will save the day! Jesus what a joke. And here we are thinking about giving the UN all power over the oceans of the world.( Search L.O.S.T in google)
I voted for Bush for one reason only. If I voted for Kerry the end of the U.S. would have come much sooner. Are we just postponing the inevitable?

Sean-
Islam and democracy are not incompatible. Millions of muslims live peacefully in Europe, America and Indonesia. We are dealing with tens of thousands of bad apples in a barrel of over a billion. Furthermore, our attempts to humble the problem area are bound to be counterproductive, because these are areas already badly humiliated by centuries of colonial occupation by the great powers of yesteryear. Being controlled by western powers is a bit of a sore-spot for those cultures.

We got to get off this grateful/ungrateful fixation. Why are people supposed to be grateful for invasion and occupation, especially when it brings chaos and lawlessness. Besides, we didn’t do this for the gratefulness of the Iraqi’s, so they would like us. We were supposedly doing this, so we could remove a threat to our national security. Only it turns out there was no such threat, no such gun to our head. Invading and taking over other countries for gratitude is only possible when somebody else has done so as well. We must face up to the fact that our image of liberators must compete with an image of being occupiers and conquerors.

If you had voted for Kerry, you would have gotten a real war hero in the White House, and a much more moderate and organized policy maker.

Two points Stephan,
First off Islam is incompatible with democracy because the Quran is in itself it’s own laws,and these laws supersede any nations laws that a Muslim is living in.Their only loyalty is Islam. Because they currently live in countries where they are allowed to freely pray as they wish , please do not confuse this with living peacefully. In any country that is run by Islam other religions are not tolerated very well.
Secondly , Kerry a war hero?
A). Why won’t he release ALL his war records. as bush did.
B). He is a “self admitted” war crime Felon.
C). He committed treason by helping the enemy of his country.
War Hero? You might as well have Michael Jackson babysit your 8 year old son. I hear he gets along really well with kids.
As for being an organized policy maker, name one law he put to bill that was passed?
In twenty years of service?
Please Stephan get over it.You lost. A becoming grace would take you to a more believable level.

Sean,
I would interject that there are Christians in this country that belive that God’s laws intercede those of the Constitution. Bush made that comment himself recently.

Yes there are those, Rocky, however they won’t try to behead you for believing differently. They may shun you or debate you but they won’t demand that you must convert as does the muslim religion does. The Quran specifically states that you must convert for you are an infidel and are subject to it’s laws even if you are not one of the faith.And please don’t go with stephans answer of a few bad apples. A recent poll of muslims interviewed in Queens NY showed that 76%
believed Osama was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. This was from one of the local newspapers in Queens itself.
Now howlong before we have our first suicide bomber here?
Will he be a Christian or a Muslim?
I wonder what the German people thought in the early 1930’s when they saw those wacky guys called ” nazi’s ” marching along?
“Oh, it’s nothing. Just ignore them.”
Where are all the moderate Muslims that condemn these atrocities by muslims throughout the world?The silence is deafening.

“Where are all the moderate Muslims that condemn these atrocities by muslims throughout the world? The silence is deafening.”

Hardly a deafening silence, sometimes wilfull ignorance in refusing to hear about them. If not outight wilfull bearing false witness, or a ritual denying of the sincerity of them. “There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.” I think that is from the New Testament.

Making a “Muslim problem” like the old so-called “Jewish problem” is not the way to go. A civlization war with Islam is a ignorant and foolish fantasy, and an unconservative secularistic war on religion, or a medieval unAmerican anti-religious persecution .

Anyway a sample:

“During Friday prayers Muslim clerics in the Arab world have strongly condemned Tuesday’s attacks in America.

‘It’s not courage in any way to kill an innocent person, or to kill thousands of people, including men and women and children’ —Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi.

Syria’s most senior Islamic leader described the attacks on America as a terrorist act, as ignoble as what he called the state terrorism practised by Israel.

Hundreds of Palestinians also rallied in the West Bank city of Ramallah to show support for Americans killed in the attacks, as well as condemn Israeli killing of Palestinians in Jenin.

And in Iran, Tehran’s main football stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.

Iran’s Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilise against terrorism. “

Or go here:

http://www.cair-net.org/crisiscenter/html/cair_ad.html

Or here:

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335

Or here:

http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp

Or here:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-distortion.html

Getting tired now:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=1062

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1544955.stm

Religion, people are people. I’m a Christian trying to raise two boys to be smart, productive, honest people in this world. In Saudi Arabia there is a man attempting to do the same, only he is a Muslim. In Nepal, the same, only he is a Buddhist. Israel, the same, only he’s Jewish. I know this because I have traveled to these places and met these people. They are just people trying to get by in this world, no better and no worse than me or you.

In this world, there are the same percent of dishonest people in America as there is in Pakistan. The same percent of liars in Japan, as there is in France. The same percent of honest, hardworking people in Russia as there is in Brazil. In the world today there is the same percent of people in love, in all countries.

John Lennon asked us to “Imagine” a world with no religion. He asked us to imagine this because he wanted us all to step back and take an honest look at the world we live in. He never thought we could eliminate religion; he only wanted us to see how destructive we sometimes allow it to become. For the most part people are the religion they practice for two reasons, where they were born on this planet and who their parents are. People usually never get to choose their religion, they are born into it.

Religious faiths have pitted themselves against one another for thousands of years. They have in no way done this to benefit the souls of their followers; this is a fight for dominance and power. This fight for power has perverted the original message of most religions. The people managing these religions choose the direction and the faithful follow, now that is power. They all tell us everyone else is going to hell, stick with us though and you will be saved, have faith.

Build your numbers, collect their money, use the money to build mosques and churches and temples, use them to build your numbers and collect more money. Is this a harmless cycle? For the most part, yes. It is not until the cycle slows that we see trouble. Goal number one is to keep those people you already have. Next, convert as many as you can with promises of heavenly rewards or in some cases simply a release from persecution. Lastly, when all else fails, kill as many of the nonbelievers as possible. Well I’m sad to say it but the cycle has slowed and that’s where goal number three tends to come in to play. Now, with armies of the faithful, willing to follow their religious leaders blindly and without question; we again march into war.

The people of the world need to wake up, take a step back and look at what they are allowing their religious leaders to do in the name of God.

wisevil, very eloquently stated. Wish I had said that. Religion can set you free or blind your peripheral vision to all the world about you. Depends a lot on whether that religion comes from your heart, or from your religious leaders aspiring to power.

Dear wisevil,
I can understand how you wish not to condem Islam because of the act of a few psychos.The American people are conditioned to be fair minded and tolerant. Yet why are we so uneasy?
Perhaps because we have an intuitive sense that many of the adherents of this religion seem out of step with the rest of the world.The beheadings , the hand and feet chopping, stoning to death of women accused of adultery (including those who have been raped), Such barbaric customs disturb us. Muslim clerics are broadcasting messages every day for martyrs to blow themselves up for Allah’s sake.”You must kill all democracy seekers and jews!”
Don’t these act show a more dysfunctional society than the ideals of a merciful religion?
Did you see the video’s of screaming mobs of Muslims in Cairo,Islambad, Tehran, Egypt,Syria and Iraq , celebrating the death of thousands of americans? Why in the past 20 years have over2 million people died in conflicts involving muslim communities?
(Boy I’m getting tired.)
Why do Muslims carry out so many of the worst acts of terrorism?
The core of the problem is that under Islam there can be no separation of church and state.Islam is a way of life and the faithful must accept and affirm their surrender to Allah and live as members of the total Islamic community. This calls into question if a true muslim can give political loalty to a non muslim state. With over 20 million Muslims now living in Europe and 3 to 5 million living here in the good ol’e US of A ,The question of loyalty to the country of one’s citizenship becomes very important.
So the question begs,…
Does our tolerant and democratic way of life contain within itself the seeds of our own destrution?Should the organized intolerance of Islam be tolerated?
Tolerance of those who wish to eradicate our way of life is self-destructive.
I know the “I blame America” crowd is chomping at the bit but please remember this has been a problem through out the world for over 15 hundred years. I don’t foresee a more liberal(god I hate that word) or moderate form of of Islam that accepts the need to seperate church and state. Do you?
I fear that as in years ago western democracies will refuse to acknowledge the danger inherent in the rise of Nazi and Communist ideologies ,and our refusal to confront militant Islam may cost us dearly.
So shall we leave Iraq in the very throws of a painful birth.(democracy) or abandon it like a faithless father who denies his child?
JB

“The American people are conditioned to be fair minded and tolerant.”

It seems you have a problem with that.

” Yet why are we so uneasy?”

We have been under attack.

“Perhaps because we have an intuitive sense that many of the adherents of this religion seem out of step with the rest of the world.”

Many of the billion adherents ARE the rest of the world. “Intuitive senses” is a nice phrase that can also encompass ignorant prejudice.

“The beheadings , the hand and feet chopping, stoning to death of women accused of adultery (including those who have been raped), Such barbaric customs disturb us.”

They should and I know I’ve voted against all candidates who have advocated them.

” Muslim clerics are broadcasting messages every day for martyrs to blow themselves up for Allah’s sake.”

Where and who? Document, and document daily.

“You must kill all democracy seekers and jews!”

I suppose there are some in various places doing this, like the insurgent chaplaincy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds like hick Christians at various times and places too.

“Don’t these act show a more dysfunctional society than the ideals of a merciful religion?”

Yep.

“Did you see the video’s of screaming mobs of Muslims in Cairo,Islambad, Tehran, Egypt,Syria and Iraq , celebrating the death of thousands of americans?”

Not in all those places, there were some who got a kick out of seeing part of a city deemed an enemy get blown up.

” Why in the past 20 years have over2 million people died in conflicts involving muslim communities?”

War. A human disease, probably related to why many millions more died in the last 70 years in wars involving Christian , Jewish and atheist community.

“(Boy I’m getting tired.)”

It can’t be from excessive reflection.

“Why do Muslims carry out so many of the worst acts of terrorism?”

Muslim communities have large populations, poor mass organization and large grievances (evil, dysfunctionally perceived and expressed at times).

“The core of the problem is that under Islam there can be no separation of church and state.”

It is easy to separate church and state in Islam as Islam has no churches. Not having a separate religion and state is hardly an intrinsic core of a problem, especially religiously motivated terrorism, as most Islamist terrorists are non-states and anti-states. Britain doesnt separate religion and state, nor do a lot of harmless countries. OTOH alot of harmful countries — China, Russia, CUba — do. Religion should not be compelled by the state but it is not the core of problems, least of all anti-state terrorism by religious fanatics.

“Islam is a way of life and the faithful must accept and affirm their surrender to Allah and live as members of the total Islamic community. “

So is CHristianity (with ‘God’ substituted for the Arabic word for God, Allah, and’Christian’ for ‘Islamic’.)

“This calls into question if a true muslim can give political loalty to a non muslim state.”

No.

Does the Catholic doctrine of subjection to the Pope mean Catholics are not loyal to nonVatican states?

” With over 20 million Muslims now living in Europe and 3 to 5 million living here in the good ol’e US of A ,The question of loyalty to the country of one’s citizenship becomes very important.”

Loyalty to ones country is always a good civic question, requires no Muslims to think of it.

“Does our tolerant and democratic way of life contain within itself the seeds of our own destrution?”

Of course not. Such a question and its clumsy anti-American innuendo is almsot intrinsicially fascist to even ask — it means the questioner has a fundamental doubt in the American free way of life.

“Should the organized intolerance of Islam be tolerated?”

Islam doesnt look very organized to me — no central clergy, sect against sect, fatwa against fatwa, government against government. And in any case all intolerant opinion is tolerated in a free society. Else you dont embrace its freedom-loving values. Period. Nazis march in Skokie, Communists march on Mayday, and … horrors… 12 year old girls can wear headscarves without bullies baiting them.

“Tolerance of those who wish to eradicate our way of life is self-destructive.”

That is a anti-freedom “AntiIslamofascist fascist” sentiment. Pure and simple. Especially in light of the question that our tolerance is a flaw rather than a virtue, which is an unAmerican sentiment.

“I know the “I blame America” crowd is chomping at the bit but please remember this has been a problem through out the world for over 15 hundred years.”

Tolerating intolerant people is a 15 hundred year problem?

‘I blame America’ is a sentiment of those who question the virtue of our tolerance — a core value of America.

” I don’t foresee a more liberal(god I hate that word) or moderate form of of Islam that accepts the need to seperate church and state. Do you?”

Yes, it can evolve, though I am not a Muslim and dont care. There are such people, places and institutions (cf. Minaret of Freedom e.g.) But what I or you see evolve is not a basis for slashing the throat or questioning the virtue of America’s core tolerance and freedoms.

“I fear that as in years ago western democracies will refuse to acknowledge the danger inherent in the rise of Nazi and Communist ideologies”

What western democracy refused to acknowledge the obvious danger of Nazi or COmmunist ideologies to democracy? It took the US 15 years to recognize Soviet RUssia, and the western democracies bombed/invaded Nazi Germany into oblivion. Maybe too slow but no serious fan of real democracy ever saw the ideologies as not dangerous.

” ,and our refusal to confront militant Islam may cost us dearly.”

— we have armies in Afghanistan and Iraq and draconian laws to monitor and close Islamic charities: “refusal to confront”??? Wha— Who—? Huh?

“So shall we leave Iraq in the very thro[es] of a painful birth.(democracy) or abandon it like a faithless father who denies his child?”

This is absurd. How can someone who argues that Islam and democracy are inherently incompatible possibly want to commit US troops to fight for, or expect, a democracy in an overwhelmingly Muslim nation? That’s putting troops in harm’s way. How inconsistent can one be?

Sean and Matthew,

It seems to me, religion has a history of masking itself in good intentions. Christianity has a long history of this. Christopher Columbus’s search for gold was a good intention until he decides converting the natives to Christianity should be a priority as well. Pilgrims wanting to escape religious persecution by coming to a newly discovered America was a good intention until they proceed to persecute the American Indians with the hope of converting them to Christianity. Flash forward a few hundred years. The United Nations (with the strong backing of Christian Nations) creating Israel to give the Jews a place where they can finally be free from persecution was a good intention, of course Christians know that this must happen for the prophecies in their scriptures to be realized. Now, America invading Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Ladin was a failed good intention and while there they eliminate religious law, Shariah, and install a Western style government. Next, America invading Iraq to remove the apparently nonexistent threat of weapons of mass destruction sounded like a good intention, except while there American corporations regain control of a Muslim countries source of wealth and possible power, oil. America is a Christian nation, lead by a devote Christian President. There are hundreds of examples before, between and after those mentioned, in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

This is why President George W. Bush’s inauguration speech scares the hell out of me. He speaks of this Freedom Crusade. Freedom is the good intention used to disguise the real Crusade he wants us to embark on. The people fighting us in Iraq do it because we are occupying there country not because we are a Christian nation, that is secondary. Imagine America is taken over by an invading force of Buddhist; Americans would fight them not because they are Buddhist but because they are an invading force. Religions are quick to recognize aggression by other religions, in turn they respond by inciting their followers and taking advantage of the others aggression. The people are now given an additional motive to fight their invaders, God tells them to. Take all religion out of these situations and the people will still fight the invading forces, though most likely with out religion the invasion would not have occurred in the first place. The people fighting us in Iraq are not afraid of freedom, they are afraid of America’s Christian version of freedom. The same version of freedom a devote Christian President Bush has made a policy of the United States to spread to the world.

I am a Christian who loves his country and enjoys the freedoms America offers me. I will fight everyday to protect these freedoms for myself and my family. I will not fight a single day to give my version of freedom to someone who needs his own. Let them find their own version of freedom. Then, if necessary, fight and die for it as my fore fathers did.

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. We as Americans need to understand that a good intention can sometimes mask an alterative motive. What if Great Britain and its allies had continually medaled in our politics, propped up dictators who were friendly with them to run our country and when ever possible had corporations gain control of our resources? Our founding fathers were at times called terrorist by the people of England for their refusal to stand and fight in the traditional standard of the day. Our interests in the Middle East are just that, our self interest. We can mask our motives in wonderful grandiose ideas, mislead, and when need be lie to Americans and the world but if you live in the Middle East you know whose interests America is looking out for. America is free partly because Great Britain chose to stop fighting us. It took courage on their part to concede. Someday we may need to find this same courage in the Middle East.

Ask yourself why America even gives a damn about the Middle East? There is only one true answer, OIL. Take the oil out of the equation and we are looking at a bunch of Muslims in a desert. Without oil they pose no threat, they have no power and America is nowhere to be found in the Middle East. Unfortunately the one thing at this date and time America can not function without is oil. The U.S. has a severe addiction to oil. As those in Alcoholics Anonymous point out, it’s not until you hit rock bottom that you realize how severe the addiction really is. Right now America is in the “I will do anything to get my fix” or the “give me that crack before I shoot you” stage. This, combined with a fear of the Muslim faith gaining any more strength, is leading us down a very scary road.

I suggest we take a page out of John F. Kennedy’s notebook. J.F.K. laid out an ambitious plan that years later put a man on the moon. America must again use its great potential, ingenuity, and will power to break our dependence on oil. We need leaders with the integrity to break their bonds with special interests and lead us. If we could put a man on the moon, thought to be impossible at the time of Kennedy’s speech, we can easily eliminate our dependence on oil, we know for a fact that it can be done. So what is stopping us? Are we just lazy or is it easier to take the oil at gun point.

Sorry for those of you who had already read the above. I reposted.

I just felt if you read what I wrote earlier you would get where I’m coming from. Too often we don’t step back and look at all the players and their long history.

And I mean long history. Not 40-50 years, thousands of years.

These guys can hold a grudge and yes they should just let the injustices of Western powers go but they do not have it in them.

The West has played a life size Risk game in the region over oil for years. Before that let’s not forget creating Israel and a couple of Crusades. They are pissed. Just because Americans have a short memory doesn’t mean Muslims do.

Where are all the moderate Muslims that condemn these atrocities by muslims throughout the world?The silence is deafening.

Sean, I see that all the time here in SE Asia. I guess it makes more sense for moderate imam’s to publish the anti-terrorism editorials and air the “Violence dishonours faith” PSA’s in countries where radical Islam is a concern, rather than out in Briar, Texas.

Too bad the US media doesn’t pick this stuff up. It might help Americans get a better understanding of who the enemy is (hint: his initials are OBL, not SH).

Dear Mathew,
I can honestly say that I am shocked to see so much vehemence to a letter I wrote. I thought this was simply an exchange of thoughts between a group of people who could discuss events in a mature way. Such vitriol can come only from some frustrated liberal arts major
who is still in agony over the election! So please allow me to critique your critique on me.
You said I have a problem with Americans being fair minded and tolerant. Where did you drudge that up from? I was actually bragging.
You said that intuitive senses can also encompass ignorant prejudice. Well it can also encompass a truth…However ,when people always see the glass as half empty, as you obviously do, you can twist any definition to fit your criteria.
You said you voted against all candidates who advocated beheadings ,stonings and chopping of hands and feet.What election was that?
Unless your talking about self admitted” I commited war crimes” Kerry.
You said to document the statements of those who cried for the murder of Americans Jews and anyone seeking democracy. Are you living under a rock? Where would I begin?
You said you suppose There are various places where 911 was celebrated .That “hick Christians” Do this too.Hick Christians? Watch out Matty, your slip is showing. But thats OK I guess since it’s only Catholic bashing.(So much for prejudice , hey Matty?)
War is a human disease? I thought it was two or more ideologies in conflict that used violence. I think we should concentrate on
past twenty years since that is more in point to this conversation.
You said there is no problem with the separation of church and state With Islam because they have no churches. Please tell me that was an attempt at humor? They’re called mosques.
You said that by simply substituting God for Allah , The christian community follows the same acceptance and surrender as the Muslims do today. I have yet to hear the Pope cry out for the blood of infidels but who knows.
You said my statement “Does our way of life contain the seeds of our self destruction” Was clumsy and anti-american innuendo and almost intrinsicially fascist to ask. Of course I have doubts. Only those that are arrogant and foolish have no doubts.I am sure you don’t doubt this do you?
Islam is absolutely organized because every Muslim in the world must follow every word of the only book they are allowed to believe in. No matter were in the world they are the Quran connects them. Where as Catholicism is splintered into so many factions you don’t know what to believe in anymore.
As for intolerance being tolerated as an embracing freedom loving value,there are limits. Even you can’t scream fire in a movie theater though it infringes on your right to free speech.
You said, and I Quote you again,I made an”AntiIslamofascist” statement.What the F*** is that? I think even Orwell is spinning in his grave on that double speak! And yes tolerance can be a flaw if it is used for evil deeds. There are only so many cheeks you can turn Buddy.!
I have never doubted the virtues of Americas tolerance or freedoms. I doubt those who would use these against us. And I doubt those who refuse to see the world as it really is.
You have done a wonderful job as a liberal to try to twist my words around and I hope that there are some liberals who are ashamed of the way you did this but, I doubt it.

In response to the quote -
“Name one other country where you walk into the DMV and find you can take the test in 12, Thats right,12 different languages!”

Take a look at the number of languages spoke and officially recognized in India -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_languages_of_India

Maybe its time u expand your horizon and look beyond US ?