the Long War

Abdul Rahman’s trial started Thursday. His crime? Converting from Islam to Christianity. If convicted he will be put to death.

Long after combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are over we will still be engaged in the Long War against Islamic Extremists. The war on terror is a war against a malignant ideology and it is a war to uphold universal human rights.

George W. Bush has said that they attacked us on 9/11 because of our freedoms. Many scoffed. Here in the U.S. we have the first amendment, the freedom of religion, the right to do and say as we please. But according to many Muslims, this right itself is an abomination to Islam. Because it not only allows, but seems to be designed to protect the greatest sin of all: Kufr, infidelity to the faith.

The Qu'ran uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities. The Qu'ran uses this word to identify those who denied Allah's favors by not accepting His Dominion and Authority. Kufr thus is an antonym for Iman or disbelief in Allah and a Kafir is a non-believer. This type of Kufr is called AL-KUFRUL AKBAR or major kufr. There are many types of Al-Kufrul Akbar... islaam.com

Abdul Rahman has committed the worst crime imaginable; he turned away from Islam. It might seem hard to understand why this would be considered a crime worthy of death if you live in a country that routinely has folks protesting the Iraq war, calling Bush a dictator, and characterizing America as the force of evil in the world and yet are still free to protest day after day, but it is.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam."

...Repeated attempts to interview Rahman in detention were barred.

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman converted back to Islam, but he refused.

"He would have been forgiven if he changed back. But he said he was a Christian and would always remain one," Wasi told AP. "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty."
yahoo

"An attack on Islam"

Immediately after 9/11 the question was asked, "Why do they hate us?" Some on the fringe left were ready with an answer. America's foreign policy is to blame they said. The United States is an oppressive capitalist state, an imperial power. Why should we be surprised that 'freedom fighters' would rise up to challenge us. Not only is this fringe left explanation dead wrong but it is now the message of the entire left and has hurt us in the war on terror.

So why do they hate us? Because we're not liberal enough? Nice try. No, they really do hate us because of our freedoms. Specifically because these freedoms are Kufr. We are Kufr.

Abdul's crime is, "an attack on Islam." Not just his choice of conscience mind you, it is an attack on Islam itself. Such a view is not only totalitarian, it is oppressive and wrong.

It is the reason Zarqawi doesn't consider the people he beheads as being human beings; they are lower than the beasts, not even human. This is not just due to his psychotic personality; it is the religious teachings of Islamofascism.

The summit of evil in this world is disbelief. There is no greater evil to be found than that because there is no sin greater than disbelief.

...Indeed, he directs it to the opposite of its appointed task and in doing so he is lower than a beast which crawls on the earth on all fours. islaam.com

Islamofascism is incompatible with western freedom. As I said, WE are Kufr. The only remedy to that is to submit to Sharia (Islamic law). We can debate how much of Islam has been overtaken by Islamofascism, but we cannot deny that Islamofascism exists and is held by a large percentage of Middle Eastern Muslims.

The Long War will be defined as the struggle to defeat this expansionist and intolerant ideology. We can't do that by coddling those who oppose us or eviscerating ourselves over how we are to blame.

Instead, we do it by being true friends to those who will be friends, and opposing those who would be enemies. In the words of U.S. Marines in Iraq, "No better friend, No worse enemy." This should be the guiding light of our foreign policy from now on. Abdul Rahman's trial is a test of this policy. I hope someone in our government is at work even now to help Afghanistan pass this test.

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 20, 2006 2:29 PM
Comments
Comment #134771

Mistake number one: Bush is still wrong on why they attacked us no matter the context you try to put it in—they hate us because of our involvement in the middle east and our bases after Gulf War 1. Now you are also saying “SOME on the FRINGE LEFT” are you glowering at us less now Eric?

Zarqawi doesn’t view his victims as Human beings is because terrorists rarely do—murderers aren’t terribly sentimental. I suspect he does what he does A: to gain power within that cadre and B: To generate fear to rivals—us or for that matter anyone else.The act actually serves Islam—Which leads to a great question; Why is everyone so PC about Islam like that can’t be the blame? No they’re just shouting “Allah Akbar” for their own spiritual benefit (sarcasm) it is afterall a religion that encourages violence—why not Islam as the problem?

Islamo-fascism is, I’m afraid the lion’s share of what there is over there in terms of religion, by intimidation perhaps, but those types are not a waning number.

Her’s a crazy idea Eric, The ancient Israelites were a warring and warmongering people until the temple was destroyed and there soon after came the diaspora. Would decimating Mecca and Medina to rubble have the same effect? Sure there was hostility towards Babylon but it really whacked the entire morale. If we took out Mecca as a target I think that would be the half-way mark in this war on Islamofascism as a whole. We would probably be more derided by the west for it but what do they bow to? It says to religious Muslims Allah lost and there may be very little retribution for it religiously as Islam is basically non-existent without Mecca or Medina. Although I would be against the Mosque on the Temple Mount in Israel being lit up—as that would have a very violent blowback and position us too far pro-Jew.

Which brings me to another reason why they hate the U.S.; Israel.

Posted by: Translator at March 20, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #134774

ALSO ERIC..

Islam has NOT BEEN TAKEN OVER by Islamofascism, it always was Islamofascism. Saladin on up to today—the Islamic age of enlightenment is for the most part a western myth. It was Islamofascism that started Islam really as that was Muhammad’s master plan in his beheadings, lootings and enslaving raids.

Posted by: Translator at March 20, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #134780

So eric and I actually agree on something:
Religious fanaticism and it’s intrustion into politics and criminal determinations is destructive.
Oh, wait, it’s only bad if it’s a different religion than his. Sorry, my bad.

Posted by: Dave at March 20, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #134781

I look at these topics with interest. I don’t understand why the right has such a vested interest in demonizing Islam. Is it to maintain an attitude of fear, so they can continue to paint democrats as soft on defense? Is it so they can ignore geopolitical realities and simply dismiss a billion people as hating us irrationally and irreconcilably, so we can justify blowing them up instead of solving problems? Do they just need to dehumanize their enemy to avoid the guilt? I don’t know. I do know that Eric took the quote about being “lower than animals” way out of context, in an attempt to induce fear. Interesting.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 20, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #134784

“So why do they hate us? Because we’re not liberal enough? Nice try. No, they really do hate us because of our freedoms.”

Eric, you’re goose-stepping with BushCo again. What a truckload of manure.

They hate us becuase of our foreign policies.
They hate us because we support Isarel.
They hate us because they see us as Godless.
They hate us because we’ve killed 10,000+ Iraqis.
They hate us because we started an unprovoked war of agression.
They hate us for a lot of reasons. But they do not hate us for our freedoms — and even if they did, that is not the reasons why they want to destroy us.

Posted by: 0% at March 20, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #134786

Eric,

“The United States is an oppressive capitalist state, an imperial power.”

So what you’re saying is The U.S. never, ever, looked the other way while a ruthless dictator, that we helped put in power, and his secret police ravaged the populous of his country?

Also you’re saying that the actions of said dictator, while we looked the other way, didn’t lead to his overthrow and the rise of an “Islamofacist” theocracy in the heart of the Middle East?

Granted, they were the actions of a ruthless, power hungry, madman, but are our hands truely clean here?

I can’t say that the US hasn’t done some good in the region, but our previous entanglements in Iran, for instance, didn’t do much to allign those folks in our favor.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #134792

Eric
Replace the word Islam with Christianity and you would have the lefts total support.
You can’t talk bad about muslims but they sure as hell don’t mind demonizing Christians do they.
Rather than speak about the wrong you have pointed out, they harp about how its somehow OUR fault, again.
Thanks for bringing it up.

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #134798

kctim,
Here, just for you, a liberal will state the obvious. Killing someone because they convert from Islam to Christianity is in fact bad, oppressive, and tyrranical.

Does that mean that Eric is right about anything else he said?

No.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 20, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #134803

What is also curious about the Rahman thing is that A: it won’t create juriusprudence lenience certainly and B: It’s politically safe to Strap ‘em in! (Point being he’s no longer an Islamic martyr).

Nice use of the name “The long war” you get GOP points for that ya know. If you get 50 of them for using the term in your blog you win either a “Bush-Cheney in 2004” windbreaker or a Hannity & Colmes totebag—your choice!

Posted by: Translator at March 20, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #134804

In your opinion Brian, Eric is wrong.
But the fact still remains, many muslims hate us.
Interesting how you use fear and taking things out of context to describe why the “right” believes this type of stuff. Why? Because its the same type of behavior the left exhibits when its dealing with the right and their religious beliefs.
Same issue, two different stances.

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #134808

Factual evidence #1: The man is being tried for rejecting Islam. His practicing of Christianity has nothing to do with anything.

Factual evidence #2: Minority religious groups are in any event under the protection of the Afghani constitution. Should the man be convicted, theoretically the president (Karzai) should step in.

So, Eric said, “The Long War will be defined as the struggle to defeat this expansionist and intolerant ideology.”

I would argue that Islam has been making progress towards tolerance. Not that this means we should thrown down our arms and skip around singing kumbaya, but it’s better than turning this into an us-against-them situation.

As for them being expansionist… where did this come from? Nothing in your post nor in the following posts has explained how Islam is an expansionist religion (at least any more so than all other religions). When you make a claim it’s generally a good idea to substantiate it with a reason.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #134812

Actually I’m not good with Muslim names, this is the guy who had been a Christian for like 12 years and is facing execution? Oh okay—got him confused with other Islamic news items I am working hard to barely pay attention to—whoops, my bad.

Posted by: Translator at March 20, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #134814

translator, i would take the windbreaker. last time i was there the dome of the rock was still there that would be where muhammad ascended to heaven. then after that he flew back to mecca. busy fella. this purely hypothetical of course.if the temple mount was built on top of mecca you think it would still be there?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #134825

What does the above comment have to do with anything? It seems to me you’re just baiting people, Rodney.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #134826

Translator
Eric probably would not accept the windbreaker or totebag from Hannity & Colmes, just from Hannity.

Islam believers hate the US because we are pro-Israel. It has been noted that the whole reason that many Islamists exist is to kill the Jews. What a sad life. And they will lose and find that all those virgins really were a myth.

Posted by: tomh at March 20, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #134828

Zeek, question: is there an irony in the fact that our bombings have killed multiple tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians and one converted Christian is about to be tried and possibly executed on a faith-based issue, and that automatically gets more presidence with the right wing press?

(Now that’s baiting!)

Posted by: Translator at March 20, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #134832

Aww… but tomh, Colmes is an essential ingredient to the Hannity and Colmes show!

Translator, to be fair, this is an important issue to Afghanistan since it will put their constitution and legal system to the test. Should the man be found innocent, it will validate the current system in the eyes of many people.

Also, it’s not as though “collateral damage” hasn’t been in the media… it’s just old news by now.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #134846

zeek, i thought i was addressing translator my point was not to bait. simply freedom of speech

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #134853

and expansionism ok

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #134854

Does this mean that the taliban have effectivly “Backdoored” the afghan political process? I do so hope that someday we ALL grow enough to stop using religious faith as a means to power.

Posted by: Ted at March 20, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #134870

“I would argue that Islam has been making progress towards tolerance. “

And I would point out the Right Wing Evangelicals in this country are making great strides towards intolerance. And the silence of main-stream Christian denominations regarding such intolerance by their supposed brethern is thunderous.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 20, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #134877

And I would point out the Right Wing Evangelicals in this country are making great strides towards intolerance. And the silence of main-stream Christian denominations regarding such intolerance by their supposed brethern is thunderous.

====

i feel like i am being sucked back into the 1950’s. it is much like a counter-enlightenment in a lot of ways.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 20, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #134879

Rodney, I’m afraid your thoughts are too incoherent for me to understand. Please put them in a clear and gramatically correct post so I can understand you and give a fair, constructive response.

Tim, that isn’t really relevant to this thread nor does it really relate to the point I was trying to make. Don’t quote me to make it easier to take an unnecessarily aggressive jab at the right-wing.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #134882

Tim,

Interesting how you use fear and taking things out of context to describe why the “right” believes this type of stuff. Why? Because its the same type of behavior the left exhibits when its dealing with the right and their religious beliefs.
Same issue, two different stances.

First, I wasn’t accusing “the right” of taking things out of context, I was accusing Eric of doing so. I don’t do that, so saying “you guys do it too” doesn’t mean anything to me.
Second, I don’t care if “the left” does it too. Does that make Eric’s argument right? No. I’ve never attacked Christians, so again, saying “you guys do it too” doesn’t add anything to the debate except to stereotype both sides.

I am genuinely curious why there are so many “Islam is bad” posts on this side. I really do want to know what they are trying to accomplish. I wrote what I think they want to accomplish, but I said that I don’t know. If anyone on the “red” team would like to tell me that there is another reason, I’d love to hear it.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 20, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #134887

This post give the reason they hate us. This war on terror is a war for freedom. This war started long before George W. Bush was president. Terror attacks out side the US on US targets took place. The American bashing left wants to believe it is some failed policy that has caused this and that is just not true. It is what we are that they hate. I am love what America is the home of the free and the brave. Oh by the way, atheists has a pretty terrible track record of human rights violations and killing. IE Communism, Fascism.

Posted by: Steve at March 20, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #134891

Thanks Eric. It is going to be a long war. It is funny how this thread has turned into all the US fault. Collateral damage and such…

This is world war III and to have a war both sides have to believe that they can win. The way to stop war is to have onside squeeze that believe from the collective body of the other side.

We could have taken the left’s path. Retreat to our borders. This would bring peace for a time. As Europe is assimilated. It has already begun. Have you noticed? But sooner or later the prospering US would be to annoying to resist. How can the US sit there making all this money while the poor countries starve. Sound familiar?

So the Bush plan is the most human plan. I know that last line will drive the lefties bonkers! We put a foothold in the Middle East. Try to show them the path through freedom and liberty.

Will it work? I don’t know. With the left’s plan of talks and placating, I know that there would sooner or later be a large scale attack. It would be inevitable. For reference look World War II and Chamberlain. The same thing could happen with the Bush plan, but there is a chance it would not. If a nuke is detonated in a major US city, I can guaranty, the cry for revenge will sufficiently high turn some country into a parking lot.

Posted by: JimmyRay at March 20, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #134894

zeek, thoughts, the act of thinking. my post is written on black and white either you agree with it or you dont. seems simple enough give it up

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #134900

Steve, that is a disgustingly horrible generalization you have made.

“Oh by the way, atheists has a pretty terrible track record of human rights violations and killing. IE Communism, Fascism.”

Since you said in essence, I am taking that to mean that you believe all atheists are either communist or fascist. Do you have any idea how illogical that is? It would be like me saying white people have a pretty terrible track record of human rights violations, i.e. KKK.

Also, I don’t see why you think fascists are necessarily atheistic. The Nazis sure were not.

BTW, that entire quote was a pointless jab that would fall under the category of flame-baiting.

Back on topic

I agree that it is not simply a failed policy which has lead us to this point. However, I don’t see why you are trying to equate all Muslims with terrorists. This thread is about Afghanis trying a man for rejecting Islam. It isn’t an us-vs-them thread.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #134901

Rodney, the fact that your words have been typed in black on a white background in no way makes them understandable. How can I agree or disagree with you if I can’t comprehend you?

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #134906

Hey Zeek

“Tim, that isn’t really relevant to this thread nor does it really relate to the point I was trying to make. Don’t quote me to make it easier to take an unnecessarily aggressive jab at the right-wing.”

I haven’t been blown over by everyone sticking to the point around here—and who’s to say what is unnecessarily aggressive, you? Pour it in your ear,sport.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 20, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #134907

zeek. sorry you cant get it. or dont want to get it. you seem very smart. tohm at 6.30 seemed to get a part of it.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #134910

Then again Tim, you aren’t using other people’s words to make attacks on others easier. The reason most people didn’t respond is probably because they ignored you, which I would have done had you not quoted me.

Rodney, are you saying I should go to tomh to find out what you are saying? Well, using what he said, do you believe that the point of Muslims is to kill Jews?

Well, that sounds dangerously like advocating the killing of Muslims to protect Jews…

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #134913

You can ignore me all you want—just don’t give me lectures about what is on-topic and what the ediquette is here.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 20, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #134920

dont put words in others mouths. critique the message not the messenger.you deserve this. if i can quote mr crow pour it in your ear pal and grow up

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 20, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #134928

To use your words Tim, “You can ignore me all you want.”

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #134930

Zeek:

After cooling off and giving it some thought, you’re right, and I was wrong. I apologize for using your words out of context. It won’t happen again.

Ron:

Have a nice evening.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 20, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #134951

Zeek
I was not advocating killig muslims to protect Jews. All I said was that Islamist to a very large extent openly state that their whole mission in life is to destroy the Jew.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #134957

thank you tohm. glad someone has some common sense, i believe we both were a witness to spin at its ugliest face to have someone put words in a others mouths is just plain dirty cheap and rotten. then this act like he could not understand what i was saying. christ he jumped right on it .his quote( whats that comment have to do with anything. seems to me your just baiting people rodney!) tim can apologize to him i sure in the hell wont.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 21, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #134958

Eric,

Good post. I think it was right on the mark. Abdul Rahman will be someone to remember when his time passes. I truly respect what he’s doing and it truly symbolizes what it means to be a Christian. No one, regardless of religion should be put to death because he/she refuses to convert to the predominant religion. However, this should not suprise anyone since this has been a common practice since the origin of Islam. Turning away from or disregarding the word of the prophet (Muhammad) is forbidden and is punishable by various means (including death).

As far as the reason why Middle Eastern Muslims hate America? Well, I’m sure you would get various answers depending on who you asked. I do believe that Eric’s synopsis for the most part is correct. However, good luck getting a Muslim to agree to that. If you were to ask a handful of Muslims why America is hated, I think you would hear many of the answers popularized by the media (and not just the U.S. media).

“United States are invaders!”

“Americans embarrased our people in Abu Ghirab.”

“President Bush is a dictator!”

These types of remarks are convenient, but the fact is the hatred existed before Iraq, before 9/11, before the Gulf War, before Khadafi, before Beirut, before the taking of the U.S. Embassy in Iran, and before the Munich massacre. The hatred goes way back.

The fact that Islam has a part in all of this is what it is, a fact. Just as other factions or groups have involement in other terrorist acts or wrongdoings. I don’t believe it’s an attempt to single out or pick on Muslims, they just happen to be the perpetrators at this time. So let’s just deal with it!

CFT

Posted by: CFT at March 21, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #134959

translator,

Mistake number one: Bush is still wrong on why they attacked us no matter the context you try to put it in-they hate us because of our involvement in the middle east and our bases after Gulf War 1. Now you are also saying “SOME on the FRINGE LEFT” are you glowering at us less now Eric?

“They attacked us because of our involvement in the middle east” doesn’t wash. It is convenient to say this because it is already a pillar of liberalism to say that America is oppresive. But if you want to look for a more solid reason, why not abortion? Or sexual freedom? Sex and violence emenating out of Hollywood surely offends devout Muslims to no end. Wouldn’t Muslims be more upset that San Francisco exists than the fact that the US is “involved” in the Middle East?

We have bases and “involvement” all over the world. There is something different about this particular situation that goes beyond the narrow minded ideology of the left.

The act actually serves Islam-Which leads to a great question; Why is everyone so PC about Islam like that can’t be the blame? No they’re just shouting “Allah Akbar” for their own spiritual benefit (sarcasm) it is afterall a religion that encourages violence-why not Islam as the problem?
Because there are moderate muslims. Muslims who believe that suicide bombing is a sin that will bar you from paradise. I hate to think what their actual numbers are, but there are no doubt many who would accept this view if the peer pressure and intimidation were removed.

I have a theory that what has happened in the Middle East in the last 20-50 years is a picture of what it might have looked like if the KKK had risen unchecked to become a more potent and lasting force in the south. I tend to think of the two ‘movements’ as being very similiar. Imagine skinheads and white supremicists controlling several states in the mid-west. Would jews be safe there?

If we took out Mecca as a target I think that would be the half-way mark in this war on Islamofascism as a whole. We would probably be more derided by the west for it but what do they bow to? It says to religious Muslims Allah lost and there may be very little retribution for it religiously as Islam is basically non-existent without Mecca or Medina. Although I would be against the Mosque on the Temple Mount in Israel being lit up-as that would have a very violent blowback and position us too far pro-Jew.

Prediction: Bombing mecca is just one (or two) 9/11’s away. Good, bad, or indifferent, that’s just the way it would be. I’m not saying it would be right or wrong, but I don’t think it would take many more 9/11’s.


dave,

So eric and I actually agree on something: Religious fanaticism and it’s intrustion into politics and criminal determinations is destructive. Oh, wait, it’s only bad if it’s a different religion than his. Sorry, my bad.

This comment is interesting, and it highlights the utter lack of perspective, as well as judgement of the left. It’s nothing new though, liberals were confused during the cold war too. In a contest between brutal totalitarian communism and capitalist America why is it that the left found it so easy to disparage America and so often fail to condemn the USSR? (Today’s anti-war protests are eeirily reminiscent.)

Likewise, to be unable to distinguish between religious people who hold to and believe in the value of free will in religion and those who don’t is fascinating to me. Perhaps it is the reason that so many on the left don’t believe we are even in a war right now. After all, we have radical right-wing religious fanatics right right down the street at your local church— and despite the danger that they pose, liberals are still safe to walk the streets.

Actually, I think the effort to ban anything that is remotely religious from all political debate is more akin to the Radical Muslim ideal than American. So in that way many atheist liberals are the extremists.


Posted by: esimonson at March 21, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #134971

Brian
I was not using the “they do it too” line.

“I am genuinely curious why there are so many “Islam is bad” posts on this side.”

As I am about all the “evil Christians” posts and replies.
These thoughts are related though. The left feels that Christians are the enemy to their political beliefs and the right feels that radical muslims are a threat to their country.

“I really do want to know what they are trying to accomplish”

I guess somebody on the right will have to give the rights reasons for this.
Personally, I don’t like muslim extremists because they attacked my country and continue to kill innocent people on a daily basis.
But I mostly hate them because I don’t believe putting their cause above my own country is the right thing to do.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #134981

This should be a wake up call for you, Eric. This is what has come of your nation building, or should I say, the lack of same.

You blame it on Islamofascism, I blame it on Afghanistan being a failed state, and more antiquated tribal laws and religious views filling in the gap.

Again, Islamofascism becomes a label you use not to acknowledge the real character of the situation, to put a conspiracy in place of a more mundane (if not less problematic) phenomena that your side doesn’t want to acknowledge responsibility for.

Besides, we’re not Kufr. We’d have to agree to be Muslims to be that. Apostasy requires belief. We are merely the ignorant.

I won’t insult anybody’s intelligence by implying that all muslims practice their religion peacefully or with moderation. Nor would I say that the Arab Street doesn’t like us. I won’t say that the modern Arab culture doesn’t have its problems or its disheartening aspects.

But look at us. Look at our society. It’s not that we don’t have a more just government than theirs, a more free society. It’s not that there is something to the American way of dealing with religious and ethnic differences that sets it apart. Our real problem is that we are human and we are many, and we have our share of the wicked amongst us, and our share of Good intentions that unfortunately travelled alongside our ignorance and insularity of thought and interest.

Which also happens to be their problem in part. War is best only in defense, because regardless of the intentions, war while it lasts brings division and discord with it. In fighting for the right, we must realize that not all or even most struggles for good are best waged by war.

As the Prophet Mohammed put it, the most important struggle for good is with yourself. If we fail at that, we will be ill suited to confront evil in others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #134987

tomh,

“All I said was that Islamist to a very large extent openly state that their whole mission in life is to destroy the Jew.”

Ok, do you see how I could misinterpret that? “Destroy the Jew,” to me, means killing. In any event it is an extreme thing to say. There could be some truth to it but I would like to here some examples that don’t involve terrorists.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #134991
After all, we have radical right-wing religious fanatics right right down the street at your local church— and despite the danger that they pose, liberals are still safe to walk the streets.

Posted by: esimonson at March 21, 2006 01:15 AM

That’s not so true anymore is it? The right wing christaliban evangelical movement has their leader in the white house. They kill doctors who provide reproductive services and bomb clinics and the Olympics and gay bars. Despite the rest of your doublethink, at least you acknowledge that they’re dangerous.
Posted by: dave at March 21, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #134996

Dave
Making any link of Eric Rudolph to Pres. Bush is like growing apples on an orange tree. There is no link or comparison.

Zeek
I worked amongst nearly 300 Somali Muslims. I had an opportunity to talk to about 80% of them about their beliefs. The common thread was that they lived for the day that they could kill the Jews. I know that was not printed in the NYT, but to me it is proof from their own mouths.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #134997

Eric

““They attacked us because of our involvement in the middle east” doesn’t wash.”

Why? This is a typically unsupported statement on your behalf. Personally, it makes much more sense to me to think that terrorists and opponents of the U.S. and its policies generally don’t like the U.S. because of what it does, not what it is. I think it’s a facile oversimplification, but a useful one for conservatives, to say that Islamic extremists attack us because of who we are. It’s useful, however, because it inculcates in Americans the idea that these people will attack us no matter how we behave — so why should we behave well or modify our foreign policy?

Personally, I think it’s illustrative to look at ourselves. Had 9/11 not happened, would we have attack Afghanistan? Sure, the Taliban was antithetical to nearly everything America stands for, but I doubt we would’ve attacked that regime were it not for what they DID, i.e. supported a terrorist attack upon us.

I don’t doubt that our culture and identity is relevant to a Muslim extremist, and serve as corroboration for the idea that we are evil, but the root of that idea lay in what we have done in their region, i.e. our exploitative practices, as well as political and military meddling.

“In a contest between brutal totalitarian communism and capitalist America why is it that the left found it so easy to disparage America and so often fail to condemn the USSR?”

Because there was no reason to expect good things of the USSR. WE, however, are supposed to be the good guys, the guys in the white hats, so when we engaged in wrong action, it was more damaging to our perception of who we are and who we’re supposed to be.

Now, I was very young in the 80s, but my limited recollection was that liberals during that decade were more often up in arms because the US’s policy of containment made it ridiculously hyper-sensitive to events that had no connection to communist expansion, leading us to give aid to brutal right-wing dictatorships in crushing people’s rebellions in places like Central America, and helping to fund death squads and the like.

“So in that way many atheist liberals are the extremists.”

Maybe. But we’re definitely a lot closer to the ideals of the men who founded this country than conservative theocrats are.


Posted by: Yossarian at March 21, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #134998

“But we’re definitely a lot closer to the ideals of the men who founded this country than conservative theocrats are”

That is one of the funniest things written on here in a long time.
Thanks Yoss.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #135002

kctim
And all along I thought Yossarian was a deep thinker. My apologies. I guess we all have a comedic side to ourselves.

Posted by: tohm at March 21, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #135009

tomh,

Bush has Pat Robertson has a spiritual advisor.
Pat Roberston has suggested, among other things;
the Assisination of an elected foreign President
that nature should destroy Dover, PA for rejecting IDiocy
and other gems such as
“There is no such thing as … separation of state and church … in the Constitution. It’s a lie of the left.”
Since Pat helped W get elected, funding from the feds to his “Operation Blessings” has increased from $108k to $14.4M
There are maybe two degrees of seperation from Bush to Rudolph.= but there is no seperation between Robertson’s and Bush’s agendas.

To be clear, islamofascism is more dangerous to life today than christalibanism is. But the American evangelican christian religious right is more dangerous to our freedoms. Yossarian is correct about that.

Posted by: Dave at March 21, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #135011

Dave
I’m thankful that what you printed is only opinion. I do not share that opinion. Facts are so much different from opinion. And I will go with facts.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #135014

Dave
““There is no such thing as … separation of state and church … in the Constitution. It’s a lie of the left.””

So where does it say that in the Constitution?

And what freedoms have we lost?

Tomh
“I do not share that opinion”

I’m glad I don’t live in that country he is talking about.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #135018

tom,

Of course, everything on the top of my post was supported and observable fact, but we’ll go past that. The first step in your salvation is coming to terms with the neofascism of the American evangelican christian religious right is to get you past the denial. Of course that’s to be followed by anger, etc…

For some additional information, today the facts are as follows. You have a choice to make sometime soon: You’re either on the side of those fighting for America, our future, our principles, and our Bill of Rights — or you quiver in fear of exposing the incompetent, destructive liars. Make the Choice.
You don’t seem evil, I’m sure you’ll see the light.


Posted by: Dave at March 21, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #135023

tomh, out of curiousity I would like to know more about these Somalis. Namely, where they were when you talked to them and where they came from.

This is highly relevant because if I were to go down into the deep south and round up 300 caucasians and asked them what they thought about Mexicans, I could probably get a vastly skewed response which would represent neither caucasians nor the U.S.

In other words, I’m not saying you’re wrong, or that there aren’t any homicidal Muslims, but to define Muslims as a homicidal people is pretty out there.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #135024

Dave
I see you have picked up on the Demos favorite word “incompetent”. What joy to be among those elite enough to be in unity on the use of one word.
Would you classify yourself as the opposite of “Evangelican Christian Right”?

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #135026

Zeek
The Somali’s were Somal nationals and they were in Phoenix AZ.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #135034

kctim,

Right back at you. I find the attempts of a person with no legal training at discussing the Constitution to be equally amusing.

tomh,

I shudder to think who is a “deep thinker” (holy cliche, batman!) in your estimation.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 21, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #135035

Dave
What “religious ideologies” are being imposed on your “rights of self determination”?
To answer item #2. Do no infer anything to what I write. My computer does not allow me to put things between the lines.
I also never use the “f” word to express my heart.
The “BuzzFlash.com” citation has a lot of opinion but grossly short on fact.
For instance of Feingold and Murtha trying to save our Constitution; 90% of congress could not or would not try to save our Constitution. The left is always trying to expand the Constitution; try to make it into a “living document”.
I am for America. I am for the Constitution and its meaning as designed by the framers. I am for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” without the ands, ifs, or buts. I am for preserving our system of government as was designed by the framers not what some legislators in the Judicial branch are doing.
Lastly polls are not trustworthy. They make good spin fodder.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #135037

If there any single incident that shows the difference between Islam and Christianity, it is this case. A man faces the death penalty for changing religions. Why? Because changing from Islam to…name your flavor…, “endangers Islam”. So, he must be killed to protect a “religion of peace”. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this?

For those who see no difference between Islam and Christianity, this should open their eyes.In none of the Christian countries, or countries where there is a Christian presence, is changing religions a matter of law, or official retribution. In this country, people do it all the time without having to fear being arrested.

The suggestion was made that if he is sentenced to death, Afghan president Karzai could just pardon him. Not unless Karzai is willing to go against a majority of his people and give the Taliban even more justification for killing. The man will be tried under Sharia, Muslim law, and is automatically guilty since he has confessed. Karzai could even face Fatwah himself for such action.

The question I have is, if there are so many “moderate Muslims” who oppose the extremists. where are they? Why do we not see massive demonstrations against the killings, kidnappings, car bombings, etc? Perhaps because Islam is a religion of peace only in the Orwellian sense. Or possibly, the communist sense of the old Soviet Union: Peace is defined as the time when everyone is communist or dead.

Posted by: John Back at March 21, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #135041

John Back
This situation in Afghanistan is repeated in the Far East time and time again without making the MSM. The question is valid; are the people of Islamic beliefs really peace loving and tolerant people? My answer is no.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #135042

Yoss
Your on a roll man, keep it up.

I will apologize though for not acknowledging your elite liberal status and letting you think for me.
I was raised to think and do for myself, so when I read something, like the Constitution, I don’t need other people to tell me what “they” think it means.
I’ll stick to what it actually says and means.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #135046

kctim
Way to go!!!
If people would think for themselves more ofter we could actually reduce many problems in society and maybe we could even get a responsible congress to deal with the real issues. I get tired of people reading into something I write or trying to tell me so and so meant this or that when he said something. My IQ is not Mensa level but it is high enough to understand yes, no, maybe, etc.
Keep you chin up!

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #135047
What “religious ideologies” are being imposed on your “rights of self determination”?
House Resolution 153 passed and urges the president to issue a proclamation “designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States.” Chestfield County VA supervisors bow their heads for a brief prayer to start every meeting of the board. … volunteers… are invited to offer words of inspiration before the county meetings on a rotating basis… a witch and local Wiccan priestess, volunteered, and was turned down. The county attorney wrote to tell her that only members of “Judeo-Christian” religions can pray on the board’s behalf.(WaPo 12/7/02) Baptist minister Kurt Van Gorden from Victorville, Calif., and Salt Lake City resident Melvin Heath were arrested and charged with trespassing for handing out religious pamphlets on a walkway of the west side of the LDS Chruch’s Main Street Plaza. The pamphlets point to Bible passages that Heath believes contradict LDS doctrine. (Salt Lake Tribune, April 9, 2002) (FL) State Sen. Charlie Clary, R-Destin, and State Rep. Greg Evers, R-Baker, have co-sponsored a bill (SB 572) mandating that public schools create a system by which students can elect a speaker to deliver a prayer or other message at school events such as football games and graduation ceremonies. (Church & State, vol. 55, no. 3, March 2002) Freshman House member Rep. Brian Kerns, R-Ind., introduced the “Ten Commandments Public Display Resolution of 2002” (H.Con.Res. 315), which states that the religous code has had a “significant impact on the development of the fundamental legal principles on which Western civilization and the United States are based.” Source: Church & State, vol. 55, no. 3, March 2002 Defining human life at the point of conception is religious. Discrimination against gays is a religious doctrine. ID is a religious doctrine.
To answer item #2. Do no infer anything to what I write. My computer does not allow me to put things between the lines. I also never use the “f” word to express my heart.
(a) Fine (b) good for you.
The “BuzzFlash.com” citation has a lot of opinion but grossly short on fact.
To paraphrase your bible “No one is as blind as those who will not see.” It is you who refuse to see all the ills inflicted on this earth by your president and who deny “facts” as “opinions”.
For instance of Feingold and Murtha trying to save our Constitution; 90% of congress could not or would not try to save our Constitution. The left is always trying to expand the Constitution; try to make it into a “living document”.
So I guess you want a “dead document.” One that reflects the prejudices and contemporay daily reality of a time long past? One that allows slavery, denys women the right to vote, or the right for our soldiers to vote. You want to discard 200+ years of case laws interpreting the Constitution simply because You don’t like it?
I am for America. I am for the Constitution
So am I.
and its meaning as designed by the framers.
I hear Bush lives in a time machine. Maybe he can take you back to the 1700’s too.
I am for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” without the ands, ifs, or buts. I am for preserving our system of government as was designed by the framers not what some legislators in the Judicial branch are doing.
You’re repeating yourself. If I wanted regurgitant punditry nonsense I’d watch Faux news.
Lastly polls are not trustworthy. They make good spin fodder.
I like the way the righties always talked about how the polls showed soldiers voted for Bush or believed that Bush was “trustworthy” but now that most people think he’s a liar and most troops think they should be home with 6 months and that Bush has a 34% favoribility rationg, then polls are “not trustworthy” I love it!

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 02:38 PM

Posted by: Dave at March 21, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #135055

Dave
Your first paragraph shows what some people are doing to promote what they believe in. The are not imposing anything on anybody. If a prayer before a meeting is imposition on somebody then that same logic can be applied to say that the lack of a prayer is the same type of imposition. In each of those instances you cited there is not an issue of forcing someone to do or partake in something they don’t want to.

I am sorry that you have been deceived about the Saddam, 9/11, Al-Qaeda connection. It is a fact.
The “psychotic Chaney” is an opinion—not fact.
The “lunatics need to be removed from power” is an opinion—not fact.
The “imcompetence of Cheney” is an opinion—not fact.

You use the word case laws to seemingly prove your point on the judiciary being correct. There are far too many opinions issued by appealant courts and the Supreme Court that do not in fact interpret the constitution, but do in fact create new laws. That is legislating. And that is wrong. Judges are not to legislate.
For instance after a couple of hundred years the Supreme Court renders a law (does not interpret) that says it is proper to kill a baby. Is this the kind of progress you agree with? Are you in favor of government taking your property so that a car dealership or hotel or condo or large department store or whatever can use your property to further enrich themselves at your expense?

It was earlier stated that the polls showed that our military wanted to come home before the year end, now that has changed to 6 months. What polls should one have confidence in? I don’t have confidence in any of the polls. All polls should put a disclaimer at the end of the polls that says there is a possiblity of error of 50%.

Got some business to tend to. To be continued.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #135059
a prayer before a meeting is imposition on somebody then that same logic can be applied to say that the lack of a prayer is the same type of imposition.
No it isn’t. One is passing LAWS requiring a religious event in a gov’t event. The other isn’t.
I am sorry that you have been deceived about the Saddam, 9/11, Al-Qaeda connection. It is a fact.
No, there was no connection. Even Bush just admitted that there was no connection.
The “imcompetence of Cheney” is an opinion—not fact
I shudder to think how low a threshold there is for your definition of “competence”.
There are far too many opinions issued by appealant courts and the Supreme Court that do not in fact interpret the constitution, but do in fact create new laws. That is legislating.
Wrong again. The decisions are based on the law and the issues brought before the court for interpretation. They’re doing their job.
Is this the kind of progress you agree with?
Whatever, fetuses are not yet human.
enrich themselves at your expense?
I don’t like eminent domain but the decision was correct. The laws need to be changed if you don’t like it.
there is a possiblity of error of 50%
Differences between polls depend on two things; normal sample errors and the questions asked. The precisions of the polls are accurate to the percent stated (see link for a tutorial) but results do depend on the quesitons asked and the order in which they’re asked. http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/


Posted by: Dave at March 21, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #135066

Dave
Some examples of incompetance.
Kennedy
Pelosi
Durbin
Reid
Harkin
Collins
Snow
Stevens

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #135068

Dave
Back to the prayer issue. Nobody is required to pray before any public or government meeting or gathering.
Catholics pray different than Baptists
Muslims pray different than Hindus
Buddhaists pray different than Animists
Jews pray different than Ancestoral Worshipers
Mix up any of those eight and the pattern is still the same. So if you have a prayer offered to the opening of the Supreme Court by a Lutheran pastor those in the presence should and probably do pray in their best fashion as best could be done. If you were a witch or satanist you could do likewise. There is absolutely no requirement to do as the invocation leader does.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #135070

Owww, such biting criticism.

Posted by: dave at March 21, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #135082

Wow - what a kerfuffle…

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I want to thank you for the fantastic lunch we just had. I did get a taste of Afghanistan hospitality, and its good. I appreciate you introducing me to many of the leaders of your government. Im impressed by their dedication to making sure the experience that youre going through, experience of growing a democracy that honors and respects all, is successful.

- exerpt from March 1, 2006 press conference at Pres Bush’s visit to Kabul, Afghanistan. The full transcript can be found here.

I am amazed that in all this discussion no one from the right has acknowledged that the “spreading democracy” policy of the Bush administration is not succeeding, even in poster child Afghanistan. Certainly Christian conservatives would hesitate to call Afghanistan a success when a conversion leads to execution.

Eric S,

in light of the developments in Afghanistan, combined with the spiraling disaster in Iraq, can we NOW declare the nation-building, democracy spreading, deficit busting, Middle East policy a failure and bring our troops home?

Better yet - let’s stabilize Iraq, leave and then have it turn into Afghanistan - where they smile with us at press conferences and execute Christians…

Never mind, I forgot - we’re not leaving Iraq, not under this administration, not since we are building three permanent military bases there.

Eric, one more question - why are we fighting a war to spread freedom, a justification for war you support, when you say that “Islamofascism exists and is held by a large percentage of Middle Eastern Muslims”? Particularly since you say “they really do hate us because of our freedoms. Specifically because these freedoms are Kufr. We are Kufr.”

Last question, Eric: It seems that educated, intelligent conservatives such as yourself, in an open pluralistic society such as ours, have failed to bring liberals to your way of thinking.

What chance do we really have of causing cultural change in the Middle East, in a society which, by your post, hates us because of our freedom?

Posted by: CPAdams at March 21, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #135083

tomh,

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each…

— Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison (1803)

you should read this case sometime - it emphatically made new law and established rather clearly that such was the power of the SCOTUS.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 21, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #135085

CPAdams
There is a large number of legal scholars that think different than the Marbury vs. Madison ruling. Either way we have to live under M v. M whether you or I think it right or wrong. Since then there has been far too much legislation from the bench.

Eric S.
Could I get you together with myself and two of those who wanted to throw in the towel on Iraq and play some poker. After the ante they will fold and we can collect the ante until they decide that the ante loss is too expensive.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #135088

hey tomh,

even first year law students debate the logic of Marbury. The only people who want to deny the precedent and eviscerate the SCOTUS are neocons.

As to your poker game comment,

Are you really comparing Iraq to no limit hold ‘em???

Because I never realized that you considered American soldiers and Iraqi civilians mere poker chips…

shameful…

Posted by: CPAdams at March 21, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #135100

Back to the original topic…

I suppose one could just as easily ask, “Where are the true Christians?”

After all, Christianity is allegedly a religion of peace, tolerance, forbearance, and one that is overwhelmingly concerned with improving the lot of the poor.

And yet the vast majority of people in America who believe themselves to be Christians, as well as Christ’s divine vicar on Earth, Dubya, are warmongerers whose primary concern is ramming faith down the world’s unwilling throat; their sole articles of faith are political positions on gay marriage and abortion; and they throw their political support to those who seek only to benefit the rich by any means necessary. And even the most cursory examination of the history of Christianity reveals that it is a religion steeped in blood, greed, and conquest.

So people keep telling me that Christianity is a faith of peace, but does what the Bible says really matter when its adherents are such abhorrent people?

Where are the “moderate” Christians, if there be any?

Posted by: Yossarian at March 21, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #135103

Yossarian
“The vast majority of people in America who believe themselves to be Christians … are warmongers…”.

Do you really know the vast majority of Americans who call themselves Christian? Man, that is a whole lot of people to know well enough to know their heart.

Yes Christianity is steeped in blood. The blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross at Calvary for you and for me. The only person in the history of mankind who was a King who laid down his life for his subjects. That is awesome.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #135109

And yet are you willing to believe that you can know that most Muslims are extremists who want to destroy us?

Posted by: Yossarian at March 21, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #135123

Yossarian
They spew it throughout the news.
They make it their known national policy openly.
I have associated with many Muslims and they all agree that they are here to kill Jews.

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #135139

You’re right. Christians never “spew” anything throughout the news. Nor through their “national policy” (?).

I see that your conclusions aren’t rational or principled; they’re just based on prejudice.

Not that I ever really doubted that.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 21, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #135143

Yossarian
A number of times you have made claims about a person or a group of persons that you know nothing about. You know nothing of my heart. You know nothing of my attitudes. You know nothing of my likes or dislikes. Yet, you call me rejudiced. You still do not know me.
Good night

Posted by: tomh at March 21, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #135144

Yossarian,

You’ve figured it out. It is those Christians that are the terrorist. And the chief terrorist is Bush. Wow your conclusions are “rational and principled”. There is not evil in the world except those necons…or is evangelics. Did you see those Assembly of God nuts on Fox News last night threatening to behead that peacefull Muslim?

Posted by: JimmyRay at March 21, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #135145

tomh

I’m basing my conclusion strictly on what you have said.

All your criticisms of Islam apply, all things being equal, to Christianity. Yet, you’re A-OK with Christianity. Thus, there must be some other reason you don’t like Islam: bigotry. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 21, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #135146

tomh,

The left is always trying to expand the Constitution; try to make it into a “living document”.
I am for America. I am for the Constitution and its meaning as designed by the framers.
So, you’re in favor of slavery?

All,
I find it interesting that the Wrong Wing has stopped calling them “Islamic extremists” and started calling them “Islamo-fascists”. I wonder why.

Is it because fighting “fascism” sounds more noble? Probably.

Is it because someone pointed out that it’s a bad strategy to fight religious extremism by invading and occupying a secular nation? Definitely.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 21, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #135206

Read the Quran. Compare the Quran of your choice, (many translations exsist), to the book entitled “Prophet of Doom” by Craig Winn. Religion of peace-no way. They hate us because we are alive. They need no reason but their Prophet and their Holy Quran.

Posted by: JR at March 22, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #135221

Eric,
I had to do a google to find out… I wasn’t sure. Okay, Afganistan. Got it. It might have been there all along and I just didn’t see it.

Are any of the players here Taliban? Al Qaeda? Are you relating an internal issue to international terrorism?

Just for a moment…. please. Just a moment… the religous right gets its wish and outlaws abortion because it is murder (I, personally would love to see it as the last resort possible, but I would not outlaw it) and England or Germany or France continues the practice… what do we do?

I believe that the issues is more one of religion involvement in government than the religion itself. We have many people of the Muslim faith in America and they are not, what is the term? Islamfacists? Or are they all just waiting?

In Turkey, which is the only really secular, democratic Muslim country they are puting novelist Orhan Pamuk on trial for writing about the genocide of Armenians. The European Union is talking about holding up Turkey’s admittance to the Union because of this. But, David Irving is facing jail for denying the holocaust in Austria.

This is why I continue to urge people to consider the ramifications of demanding that our government endorse their religion with holiday celebrations, 10 Commandment plaques on their courtroom walls and in many of the civil affairs of people.

Did you know that until the early 1980s (after a socialsist government gained power) in Greece, Christians were not allowed to marry non-Christians? Why? Becuase the Greek Orthodox church was offically the church of Greece and they chose who got married or not.

“Freedom Fighters/Terrorists” depends on where you are viewing it from… I am sure that the British did not view our founding fathers as freedom fighters. Many of the people that are now attacking us were our “Freedom Fighters” in Afganistan fighting the Soviets before they became Terrorists. Ever wonder where the Taliban got all those American weapons?

Am I an apologist for Islam? Some might say that. Am I trying to show perspective so there might be a fair and balanced discussion? Possibly. I believe so.

As I am about to try to address below to Translator, blanket denials of everything from the Muslim world as a western myth closes out the communication of a discussion because now we are dealing with opinion in denial of fact and historical evidence.

Instead, because I am a shades of grey type of fella… I would say that combined with America’s historical relations with the Arab world, the suppression of the rights of the people of those countries by their own government and the exploitation of the more radical interpretations of Islam, many are using the Koran as justification to attack America.

The Inquisition was the Church and the State forcing the conversion of Mulsims and Jews to Christianity upon the penalty of death. To say that Christianity or Spain has never had, nor will have anything good to provide to the world is silly.

Again, involvement of religion and the state seems to be the problem. Which is why I oppose the Office of Faith Based Inititves, the including of Faith Based Organizations in our No Child Left Behind Act. But hey, the President was addressing the National Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on March 9 in Washington.

Are you saying that America’s role in its historical dealings with the middle east plays no part? Absolutely none? Pure as the driven snow are we? Believing that makes it easier I guess.

Didn’t you read on FOX where those liberal elitest at Harvard wrote a paper?

“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” alleges that a cabal of journalists, Christian evangelicals, think tanks and top-ranking administration officials have set a Jewish agenda for U.S. policy in the Middle East.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188689,00.html

I am pro Isreal and would like to see it safe, secure and with peaceful relations with its neighbors… I am not a Zionist nor anti-Sematic. What this report does is discuss the relationship with Isreal and its implications of putting us in conflict with the Arab/Muslim world.

I am not sure about their conclusions, but their evidence they present is well documented.

That would make a good blog discussion.

Translator,

“Islam has NOT BEEN TAKEN OVER by Islamofascism, it always was Islamofascism. Saladin on up to today—the Islamic age of enlightenment is for the most part a western myth. It was Islamofascism that started Islam really as that was Muhammad’s master plan in his beheadings, lootings and enslaving raids.”


Do you know the genesis of the word “slave”? From “Slav” as in Slavic peoples. Why? Because they were once the dominant source of slaves. Do we have a clean history on slavery ourselves? Are we still slavers and and to be judged accordingly?

A western myth? Incredible. I need to go to the library and tell them that all their books in the non-fiction section concerning the history of Islam are wrong and should be removed to prevent people from being misled.

Saladin and Richard the Lionheart seemed to be able to come to an agreement. Actually, I believe it was that pilgrims may enter the holy city and worship freely… that wasn’t the case when the Christians were in control. Have you ever read about the conquering of Jursalem? That isn’t propaganda about the streets flowing in blood of Christian, Jew and Muslim… those were eye witness accounts by the crusaders.

Know who were the first people to sack Constantinople? The Eastern Empire that the crusades went to help? Christian crusaders!

Using the above logic that was the premise of this weblog… it wasn’t because of the crusade in 1098 that caused the problems.

The whole bit from the Eastern Emperor requesting help from the west to free the holy land from the infidels? Mostly propoganda. The eastern empire was decaying and losing ground to the Turks. It was hoped that some knights from the west might help stem the tide. Thus the call… thus the crusade… the holy war. Where each would be absolved of his sins and enter heaven upon death. Sound familiar?

But… there is no cause and effect in Islam. They are all just a bunch of hating, killing, murdering sociopaths.

Do I support them? Absolutely not. I agreed with the President to invade Afganistan. Clear and Present danger. Did I support the invasion of Iraq? Nope… the evidence did not reach a level of sufficiency in my mind to justify the actions. There just wasn’t enough evidence of a link.

Oh, by the way… the Baathist party was secular, not religous. It was based mostly of Sunnis but that was more because of relationships.

The problem was? One party. I am liberal in many of my views… but I understand that even with the Democrats supporting some of my views, I still want the Republicans there to keep them honest when the Democrats eventually regain control.

History… it can be interpreted… and it is all the time. But, to deny it because it doesn’t seem to agree with your beliefs or the current demagogory at the moment is not going to change the facts.

Lastly… if there is a democratic government in a foreign country, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t mirror ours. I wish it would… but that ain’t gonna happen. (See above concerning Turkey and Austria.)

If you were to look throught the archives you would see where I have been saying to people here that we need to be especially vigilent of keeping religion out of government so we can set the example… because… because there are Christians in these lands that need the protection that ONLY a secular government can provide.

So now, I am ready for my “Islamfacist loving liberal” bashing.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 22, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #135224

Wow, yet another “the terrorists hate our freedom” post! Come on now, isn’t this getting old?

Islam itself is not a violent religion, if i have to get into that again, well, i dont even have the time to today. This corruption of islam IS violent, and they’re very dangerous, but the whole ideology was born out of decades of subjugation under dictatorships. If you don’t believe me, look at the activities of Al Queda, they have active cells in authoritarian governments accross the middle east, and even in southeast asia. Now why is this, because the governments are terrorist supporters? No, it is because the Al Queda network is essentially a system of connections because various groups of nationals seeking to overthrow their governments. They want what is in their eyes justice. Now, obviously you can see that the view of justice is a little skewed under Islamist rule, but whatever the case, they seek freedom, the freedom to worship God and follow his laws. Now, the United States comes into this in a number of ways. You can say that we are defending these people when we state clearly why they attack us, but it doesn’t change the fact that Osama bin Laden has never said anything about America’s freedom being the cause of his “Jihad” (his usage of the term not being in line with the actual definition). I recomend you look up the full text of his 1996 Fatwa, and you will see he lays out pretty clearly why the United States should suffer.

Now, I would like to reitterate something else, getting involved in other countries’ business is liberalism. Calling for ending our excessive entaglement in the business and self determination of other countries and worrying about ourselves is realism, (which is not inherently isolationist), so what you suggest is liberal foreign policy, and there is no such thing as conservative foreign policy.

Posted by: iandanger at March 22, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #135233

****FULL DISCLSOURE PLEASE****
What I would appreciate is a fair review of an article that includes all the information that a person needs to discuss the situation… not selective information.

We can post a link to a story and paraphrase it here… but if there are certain elements of the storty that might make a difference, it would be a service to all to include that in the posting.

It is possible that people reading your post are already predisposed to glossing over the relevant information. I missed it too until I did a bit of checking really quick.

In fairness, you did mention it, but it was lightly mentioned and then off on how bad the liberals are.

What I am referencing too is the crime he is being tried for is leaving Islam… not being a Christian. I guess it is sort of like a gang? In for life?

The quote concerning “The Qu’ran uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities.” Could thus be construed to mean that once a person has accepted Islam then to deny it by converting from Islam is now Kufr.

Don’t the Christians have something similar? That if a person has never heard of Christ then he cannot be held accountable in heaven due to his lack of knowledge… but once he knows of Christ then he will be judged as not accepting Christ?

Facts should be presented clearly and then the arguments and opinions should be based upon their merits.

It appears that the intent of this blog was to make it appear that Christians are being persecuted in the Musim world… which they are. However, give us the relevant facts, pro and con and let us decide whether we agree with you or not and why.

Lastly, I am not sure what your goal is. Do we attack all countries persecuting Christians, or denying the rights of minorities? Or only Christian minorities? Like Christmas time… I want to get my kids everything, but my resources are limited.

Are you suggesting invasion? Embargos of oil products and commerce and diplomatic relations until they conform?

Other than trying to beat up liberals what is the bottom line?

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 22, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #135270

Darren-

I challenge you on the etymology of the word “slave” and “Slav”. Please provide recognized reference for this assertion. Otherwise, don’t make up “facts” and pass them off as truth.

Posted by: John Back at March 22, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #135277

Iandanger
Much of what you said is in my opinion correct. Two things I disagree with. Allah and God are two separate entities.
OBL does not have the authority to issue a fatwa under the various laws of Islam.
The bottom line is that anybody who wants to destroy the United Sates of America, does so because we support Israel. When future administrations come upon the scene in this country and they do not support Israel, who is the power of this country. It will fall like a lead terd in a punch bowl at a home coming party.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #135290

iandanger, your quote there is no such thing as conservative foreign policy, could you clarify some more. was reagan a failure at foreign policy. or madison, or burke or kirk. i have to ask you. i know i take a risk of being called sarcastic or baiting or not being understood. by the way not by you, ive found most of your posts quite enlightening. rodney

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 22, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #135298

Rodney,
This is a problem I have when discussing politics, a lack of universal definitions. I try and use the terms liberal and conservative, along with the terms left wing and right wing, as little as possible in the sense they are bandied about these days.

In international relations theory there are two major ideologies, liberalism (the direct offshoot of idealism) and realism, along with a lot of smaller theories for individual circumstances. Liberalism in foreign relations involves spreading the ideology of your country through your foreign policies, and as such, every president since woodrow wilson has been a liberal. When government interacts in another country’s afairs in order to influence an outcome, not directly involving their general welfare, its an act of liberalism. Thats what i mean when I say that.

I personally see Regan’s foreign policy as having major and lasting consequences for today’s world. At the time, he did what everyone would say was the right thing to do, supporting the afghans against the soviets (Carter had started a similar policy before leaving office), but in the long term he gave islamism a major foothold in that region.

It is what it is, but one of the things that sticks in my craw (to use one of my favorite expressions) is people talking about republican and democrat foreign policy like its really that different. Anyone who thinks John Kerry would have acted differently than Bush did or how Clinton did simply wasn’t listening to the man’s own rhetoric. There are differences in domestic policy to be sure, but they both practice liberal foreign policy to a very large degree.

Posted by: iandanger at March 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #135381

John Back,

I challenge you on the etymology of the word “slave” and “Slav”.
Look at this link. It says
Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) “Slav,” which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs’ own name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. ·As far as the Slavs’ own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than “slave” it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is “to hear” and occurs in many derivatives meaning “renown, fame.” The Slavs are thus “the famous people.” Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, “God’s fame,” Russian Msti-slav, “vengeful fame,” and Polish Stani-slaw, “famous for withstanding (enemies).”

It isn’t a “fact” - it’s a FACT. Challenge denied.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 22, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #135431

tree hugger:

i feel like i am being sucked back into the 1950’s. it is much like a counter-enlightenment in a lot of ways.

It’s called “Regression.” The societal equivalent of Deevolution. Building A Bridge To The 19th Century. Burning Cathedrals - that took generations to build, their spires ever seeking to be closer to Heaven - to red embes on the ground in a single night. A long, long Night.

For make no mistake, that is what they’re about. They want to:

- Make it Illegal for Women to have a choice over their own bodies. If they could, they would take back the Vote. Perhaps, if we yield to them the Former, they will take back the Latter. Who knows?

- Make it Constitutional for a law to be passed forbidding the burning of the U. S. Flag as a means of Free Expression - expressing revulsion for and opposition to a corrupt and totalitarian government. This will make America no different than any other nation in the world where such laws exist.

- Make it Constitutional to discriminate against homosexuals. Myself, hell, I was raised a Catholic Celt - and I’ve no sexual interest in my own sex, on top of that. But that doesn’t mean that I can dictate my own tastes for others. Of course, that’s exactly what they want to do.

- Pillage and rape the natural resources and pollute the environment with the by-products of their rapine and profiteering. Turn this blue green earth into a Red Hell. The Red States of Planet Earth. Then they can sell water and bottled air and - who knows? Soylent Red? - to us for a profit. For in their view there is but One God, and His name is Mammon, and Spencer was His Profit.

They want to Divide and Conquer, and then Sub-Divide - and then market the subdivisions, in attractive package-lots with a golf-course view in a gated community for the “right sort” of people.

For Regress is their goal, and they will not cease until either this planet consists solely of the imprisoned and their warders, all wrapped up in airtight polyphane - or until we crush their black hearts into the earth as fertiliser for the hungry and neglected soil.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 23, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #135434

That story about the guy who will be executed in Afgahnistan is not true. It is in invention of the liberal media. Here is how I know:

Our supreme commander-in-chief has told us that we have brought freedom and democracy to Afgahnistan. Because our supreme all-knowing high commander-in-chief never lies it must be true. Because this kind of thing couldn’t happen in a country with freedom and democracy it must be true. It must just be an invention of the liberal media, who serves satan, to bring down our most glorious leader.

Posted by: montanademocrat at March 23, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #135675

If Afghanistan is progressing towards democracy and the rule of law under US guidance today, the death panalty on this man is shocking. The question is, to what extent has the US succeeded in its crusade against democracy even after 4 years since 9/11 under George W Bush? Another question is, how many friends has the US gained (and lost) around the world in the process? We are not talking about ‘leaders’ here. We are talking about common folk like you and me.

Posted by: Hariharan Balakrishnan at March 24, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #206956

What is the comment from anyone on this subject since this last post of mine that I chanced to see while searching for something else in google?

Posted by: Hariharan Balakrishnan at February 7, 2007 12:52 PM
Post a comment