One Post to Answer Many

[Omar]

Instead of re-writing my answer all over the place, I thought I will make one
and hopefully answer many.


1. Why are the Muslims of the world quiet in the face of terrorism?

We aren't. What you are seeing is radical "Muslims" who are getting the spotlight. Many say that we say one thing in English and another in Arabic. Just because Arafat, a true terrorist himself, says it does not make it true for every Muslim country and every Muslim person.

The sqeeky wheel is what you are hearing, you need to shut it down and listen to the quiet, peaceful hum, of other people.

If you read farsi, Pashto, or Arabic, I can point you to the right directions.

2. Why are Arabs so hateful and war-mongering people?

What many people choose to ignore is that America has people like Casey Kasem, Selma Hayek, Doug Flutie, Ralph Nader, Paula Abdul, Spencer Abraham, Shannon Elizabeth, Tony Shalhoub, and many others. Arabs in the US total over 3 million people do you see them causing havok on your country?

What I saw was an American ex-military veteran take his gun and along with his son, shoot people. An American.

You talk about courage?

How about America’s and the world’s first jet ace? He was the Korean War hero, U.S. Air Force Col. James Jabara. In World War II, Army officers like Maj. Gen. Fred Safay fought alongside Gen. Patton, and Brig. Gen.Elias Stevens served on Gen. Eisenhower’s staff.

And in 1944, one of US Navy’s ships, the destroyer escort USS Naifeh, was named in honor of an Arab American hero, Navy Lt. Alfred Naifeh of Oklahoma. More recently, West Point graduate and retired four-star Gen. George Joulwan was the NATO Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, where he commanded both European and U.S. troops. Brig. Gen. William J. Jabour is the Director of the Air Force Program Executive Office for Fighter and Bomber programs in charge of the F-22 System Program Office (SPO).

How about political?

Some of us work in nation’s capital, like veteran Congressmen Nick Joe Rahall II (West Virginia), Ray LaHood (Illinois), John Baldacci (Maine), John E. Sununu (New Hampshire), Chris John (Louisiana), and Darrell Issa (California).

There are two Arab Americans in President George W. Bush’s Cabinet: U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mitchell Daniels. The first Arab American ever appointed to a Cabinet secretary post was Donna Shalala, the nation’s longest serving Secretary of Health and Human Services, and now president of the University of Miami. Former Governor of New Hampshire John H. Sununu became the White House Chief of Staff under Pres. George Bush Sr., and later a political commentator on CNN.

America’s longest-serving White House Chief of Protocol, serving seven and a half years under President Reagan, was Ambassador Selwa Roosevelt. Thomas A. Nassif, her assistant, and Edward Gabriel also served as U.S. Ambassador to Morocco. Ambassador to Syria is Theodore Kattouf, and Marcelle Wahba is Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.

The late ambassador Philip C. Habib served as Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Feisty Helen Thomas, who served for 57 years as a correspondent for United Press International and was dean of the White House press corps, is a Hearst newspaper
syndicated columnist. In a class by himself, the late, warm- hearted Robert George portrayed Santa Claus year- round for nearly 50 years and was a Presidential Santa at the White House through seven administrations.

Others who have served in high elected office are: former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who brokered a peace deal in Northern Ireland and led a peace commission to the Middle East; former U.S. Senators James Abourezk and James Abdnor, both of South Dakota; and former Congressional members Pat Danner of Missouri, Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio, the late George Kasem of California, who was the first Arab American elected to the U.S. Congress, Abraham Kazen, Jr. of Texas, and Toby Moffett of Connecticut. Victor Atiyeh was the popular governor of Oregon.

There are many more and I can go on and on.

I leave you with an article quote from Karen Armstrong (Karen Armstrong is a notable scholar who has written many books on religion, including Islam: A Short History, published last year by Modern Library, and the bestselling A History of God: The 4000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.).

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and Islam is the world's
fastest-growing religion. If the evil carnage we witnessed on Sept. 11 were
typical of the faith, and Islam truly inspired and justified such violence, its
growth and the increasing presence of Muslims in both Europe and the U.S. would
be a terrifying prospect. Fortunately, this is not the case.

The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or
peace. When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the
Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission
was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we
witnessed in New York City and Washington. Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a
vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta
and countervendetta. Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts,
and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful
city of Mecca. The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as
soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to
building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious
and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost
single- handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.

Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all- out war, several
passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate
business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare
survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this
spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!"
(4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so
selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost
every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and
do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm
them" (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense.
Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but
sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca
inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75;
22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people
to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran
suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45).
Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the
minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or
essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but
"struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will
into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very
important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they
go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to
the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating
wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is
extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of
faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and
Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In
words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human
beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may
know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or
slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent
civilians? Far from being endorsed by the Koran, this killing violates some of
its most sacred precepts. But during the 20th century, the militant form of
piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a
rebellion against modernity. Every fundamentalist movement I have studied in
Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is
determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for
survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more
compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive
passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.

It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic
representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an
abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian or Baruch Goldstein, who
shot 29 worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994 and died in the attack, a true
martyr of Israel. The vast majority of Muslims, who are horrified by the
atrocity of Sept. 11, must reclaim their faith from those who have so violently
hijacked it.

[Coot]

Damn Fine Post Omar.

[Omar]

Originally posted by Coot
Damn Fine Post Omar.

Thank you, kindly, Mr. Coot. :)

[fritzmp]

Smashing good post Omar. Ring the Bell and be heard, and while your at it, smoke the bastards that have hijacked your faith.

[Omar]

Originally posted by fritzmp
Smashing good post Omar. Ring the Bell and be heard, and while your at it, smoke the bastards that have hijacked your faith.

Actively trying, sir, very horrid business but we are doing our best.

[fritzmp]

While your at it, smoking that bunch of gilded and robed royalty that look like crack dealers in drag in Saudi would be a good start.

[DSL Dan]

Originally posted by fritzmp
While your at it, smoking that bunch of gilded and robed royalty that look like crack dealers in drag in Saudi would be a good start.
Now you're talking! Those guys are playing both ends against the middle, trying to cover all of their bets. Yo, House of Fahd, your game is just about over. :mad:

[Sunriser13]

Wonderful post, Omar!! Your words help to answer many of the burning questions we have... for, believe it or not, we are just trying to understand, and protect ourselves from those who would hurt us and ours.

[Sierra Mike]

Great job, Omar.

I would submit to you, however, that part of the damage control that needs to be done are editorials, demonstrations, fora in English wherein these issues can be aired for the benefit of the West.

You see, having them debated in other languages is definitely worthwhile...but we need to hear it, as well.

I have no doubt that what you say is true. But we don't see it here, and it makes us nervous and distrustful.

SM

[-Ken]

Thank you Omar.
God, I love it here.

I would like to submit Omar's brilliant post for
entry into the GA publishing contest.

I look forward to Martin's comment.


What's that I hear?
Could it be an apology?
Well Haywire, here's your chance to prove you're a man.

[ethics]

Can't submit an essay written by Karen Armostrong. It was a good post but let's not get carried away.

Also, there's no need to apologies, Omar wasn't seeking one.

[John R. Beanham]

Omar,

I agree with the others that yours is a fine post, but I must reserve judgement on your Item 1.

I DO accept that 90% of the Muslims of the world are peace-loving, but it is the other 10% that worry the hell out of me. ALSO it is the fact that we never see an Imam or other leader pointing the finger at a person or group and putting them in to the police or other authorities.
I have referred to the Australian Imam who admits that he knows of 'cells' in Australia but refuses to name them.

When that happens we will all know that Islam is on the level in the "War Against Terrorism". When Terrorist groups are deported or ejected from Muslim countries and handed over to the UN or whatever then we will know. Until then it is all just words

John.

[-Ken]

John,

May I ask, where do we turn in our 10%? As honest as Omar was,
don't we have our own 10% we need to admit to and get rid of?

Possibly a few rich corporate types who have abused power and
"gotten away" for far too long?

[Coot]

Originally posted by -Ken


Possibly a few rich corporate types who have abused power and
"gotten away" for far too long? and just as soon as one of these starts taking and or killing hostages, flying planes into buildings, bombing nightclubs etc., I'd be the first to advocate putting them up against the wall.

[-Ken]

Ok, if they send past use medicine to northern Africa and kill several
thousand, can we find room behind that wall to lock them up?

Or, how about if the clear villages and farm land, build an oil derrick
and abuse the previous residents?

Or, pay a corrupt dictator to clear a village, kill a few people and turn
the rest into economic slaves? Can we find room for those assholes too?

After all, we are the country they are busy garnering hate for. It is in
our national interest.

[Coot]

Now you know full well and good that if this was done to keep cheap gas in my bigass 4 X 4, it's all good.

Oh wait..ignore that previous sentence. Now you know you can't have it both ways, it's either up against the wall or let 'em go. No half measures ;)

[John R. Beanham]

Ken,


"May I ask, where do we turn in our 10%? As honest as Omar was,
don't we have our own 10% we need to admit to and get rid of?"


I think we do actually. In both the USA and Australia 'most' known criminals are identified and handed in if it is at all possible.

I don't get the idea that known criminals are defended and
given sanctuary by the Churches of our countries. I don't get the idea that the McVeighs of this world are NOT hunted down and punished.

If there was a major attack on the largest Mosque in the USA, and a couple of 100 people murdered, would that 'terrorist' be hunted down and punished? Of course they would.

I believe that the ring leaders of the 19 Muslim terrorist organisations listed by your State Department, are known to the
leaders of the Muslim Church and are seen by the Imam every Friday at prayers.

When the Imam points them out as they kneel and demands that they be handed over then we are on the way to peace.

John.

[ShinyTop]

I see an issue or a side issue not being thought of. I don't know about all religions but most have some sort of responsibility not to share information gained in the course of their spititual duties. Much like the confessional of the Catholics. Not being religious myself I do not know the details for the various religions. Is their such a commitment in the Islam religion? If so we may be out of line in demanding they turn in the suspects.

FWIW I still want them to tell but I am wondering about a religious side we are ignoring.

[Willem DeLerk]

Originally posted by Coot
Oh wait..ignore that previous sentence. Now you know you can't have it both ways, it's either up against the wall or let 'em go. No half measures ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/23/enron.lay/story.ken.lay.jpg

[mikeky]

<a href="http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/4392869.htm">Anti-gay group plans protest at local church
</a>An anti-gay group that pickets gay people's funerals and celebrates hate-crime killings will gather in front of the Cathedral of Christ the King next month to protest the recent baptism of a gay couple's quadruplets there.
....
Yesterday, Kentucky Baptist officials quickly distanced themselves from Phelps... Omar, to me, this article in a small way illustrates how you must feel. Clearly the morons in the article represent little that the Christian faith adheres to, and yet they receive significant coverage that reinforces the view of Christians as ignorant and intolerant. Fortunately, many if not most in the U.S. will recognize these people as a fringe element and disregard them. Sadly, due to their inexperience with Islam, that is not the case when it comes to Muslim fringe elements, and so you pay the perception price for their (Muslim fringe) actions.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by mikeky
<a href="http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/4392869.htm">Anti-gay group plans protest at local church
</a>Omar, to me, this article in a small way illustrates how you must feel. Clearly the morons in the article represent little that the Christian faith adheres to, and yet they receive significant coverage that reinforces the view of Christians as ignorant and intolerant. Fortunately, many if not most in the U.S. will recognize these people as a fringe element and disregard them. Sadly, due to their inexperience with Islam, that is not the case when it comes to Muslim fringe elements, and so you pay the perception price for their (Muslim fringe) actions. FYI, that asshole is the ringleader for http://www.godhatesfags.com.

Serioulsy, I encourage EVERYONE to check out that site. It is a shining example of religious intolerance and radical fanaticism. Those people are on a religious crusade. It just amazes me how socially primitive people can be. I am glad that they do not represent all, or even a large minority of Christians. These assclowns even picket people like Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell! They think that President Bush is too liberal! :nut:

[-Ken]

May I assume, we are in firm agreement
when I say we have to get rid of our 10%.

If these guy you linked to don't qualify,
I sure as hell don't know who would!

[Techie2000]

Are you saying Ralph Nadar is a bad person? Huh? Are you insulting Ralph Nadar?

[fritzmp]

You know, I liked the Corvair Monza.

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,

With deep gratitude I must we acknowledge Omar’s thorough, lucid, and sympathetic post as being a very necessary beginning to the exploration of a topic whose thorns prick the bare ankles of those who dare tread in its underbrush. It is impossible to see the culture of those whose mores we do not own, whose language we do not speak, and whose clothes we do not wear in any light but our own, unless someone present it, clearly, from one whose daily bread is baked and eaten within it.

To examine the crisis facing the world, and not the US, one ought to see the mythological, historic, and social frame, and then, the interstices of the three. How different the view is from the other side of the temple wall is a matter of which the underestimation may prove to be the undoing of our civilisation.

First of all, it might do to examine what, for want of a better word, the secularisation of Christianity. As abhorrent as it may be to believers, it is the basic values of Christianity, rather than the divine existence, that informs our modern thought. Whatever one may say of the horror of the Crusades, there are no modern apologists for them. No mainstream Christian believes that it would be acceptable to kill to maintain Christian control over a mere symbolic place. No Catholic argues the crusaders’ cause was just, nor would Rome now, to save the crypt, embark upon military folly. For better or worse, Christianity has evolved, for political purposes, into a kind of secular humanism, its values existing independent of the deity, and, in that itself, now admonishes us to see that political purposes and religious belief in the modern west are no longer one, nor have been for nigh on a thousand years.

Look for contrast, the deeply fundamentalist Christian, whose belief is still that a return to theocracy, the Boston puritan state, where temptation is fought not with an internal jihad, but with a political banishment, the excision of those who may differ, the heterodox, indeed, the heretics. Thus, even in Christianity, there exists the shunning of the western world, the world of Descartes and Jefferson, seeking the feudal realm where religious and civic duty are one, spiritual and temporal safety are one.

The Anglo-American model rejected this more than a millenium back, yet who would argue that Charlemagne would be more at ease conversing with Jefferson than Kohmeini. None who understands the difference between medieval and renaissance worlds. One need only to look closer to home, not at the raiment of the Orthodox Jews, but the spiritual aloofness, as separate from us as we from the Mesopotamian tribes. What to us may be the highest good, the celebration of the individual, eros itself, the life force beckoning, in a tank top, in learning to love freely, unfettered by imaginary gods is an obscene violation of a living god’s law to them. To protect themselves from such impurity, the temptation away from study of Torah, that which purifies and saves, succours and elevates, the modern ghettos are erected.

To what observant Moslem is the civil libertarianism of Jefferson, the scientific exploration of the psyche of a Freud, more necessary than the study of qoran. Indeed, what a different culture in many lands would result if technology replaced spirituality as the primary focus of human study. Who doubts for a moment that if Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, had put into practice a modern secular government, and devoted the energy of the law to material betterment, rather than islamic compliance that the very weapons we so fear would long since have appeared? Or, if not, because there would be no foreseen strife, the west and east one, in pursuit of betterment in this life, leaving the next to the clerics?

If, on the other hand, the belief in an after life be sincere, to what end a secular government? There are many on these shores who would abolish such, living in a land where the law of Moses and Christ would be the law of the land. It is the irony that Christianity’s greatest contribution to religious thought, tolerance, is that which weakens it politically. To what medieval man would even More’s dichotomous use of his lawyerly skills and adherence to religious principle make sense? One believed in a god in whose world we dwelt and whose laws were to be seen and obeyed. No, one can safely conjecture that the most finely pointed argument of the best educated intellectual of the ninth or tenth century would be far more similar to the Islamists than the modern, liberal Moslem’s, Jew’s or Christians.

It is not the war between Moslems and Christians, Israelis and Arabs, but the war between feudalism and secularism that is to be fought. If not, what value has Jerusalem to the Jews, if not mythological? Why do the Arabs simply not accept that after fifty of sixty years, for better or worse, adversarial possession or the international equivalent thereof is occurred?

For that matter, would a mid-east with secular democratic governments threaten the west? Unlikely. It is the fear that the west, with the rejection of religious morals and the acceptance of contract governments as the arbiters of temporal ethics, having no values, since the ethos of man is purely ephemeral, will pollute the purity of the children that threatens peace. Seen from the other side, what sane man would sacrifice his child’s immortal soul for political freedom? Seen from our side, what sane man would sacrifice freedom to gain something which may, in the final analysis, not even exist?

Feudalism is fath based. Anglo-American law, reason based. For some strange reason, moderate Christianity has adopted well to a kind of moderation of faith. Believe in god, but build better laptops. One wonders if a few generations of philosophy instead of bible would change the Islamic world, as it has the west.

One thing is for certain: Omar’s moderate Moslems may or may not exist, but it is not inherent in a theocracy to practice diplomacy rather than proselytising, tolerance rather than punishment. To argue that a medieval world where temptation itself may, with all good conscience, be eliminated at any cost allowed by scriptural dictum should coexist with a world in which only those things deeply offensive to a social contract may be politically remedied is without basis in everyday experience.

Falwell does not want his daughter to remain chaste, but demands as well that my libertinism be abolished, and my daughter be taught the rightness of his god’s justice, not in heaven, but on earth. Is this ultimately so different than a country ruled by mullahs? The worlds will collide, and to set forth that peace loving Moslems want to live in a world where their children, because the world in which we really live is in fact as small as it is, and from each other we are not distanced by time and space, but as close as the laptop and T1 line, will accept that sex is better than jihad is folly. The systems will not, not for animosity but for incongruence, coexist.

(I am reminded, on a very personal note, of my brother in law, an orthodox rabbi, who does not want his daughters to see mine, as it would corrupt them!)

To argue that a middle ages, pre-industrial revolution society will gladly allow its government to be secularised, is contrary not only to reason, but to fact. What benefit would accrue? On the other hand, if this life is less important than the next, the ever present forces of the evil of moral relativism, the logical consequence of political freedom, may in fact need be vanquished. Of the malevolent intention of Falwell and his ilk to destroy America from within I have no doubt. My Arabic is too primitive to understand how deeply the fear of secular society runs, and I must, for want of better intellect on my part, accept Omar at his word. I question then, however, how sincerely the Arab world wants peaceful co-existence, when the system of government itself is so contrary to reason. A monarchy, a theocracy, how can they aught but demand, for the safety of their children’s souls, the silencing of the sensualists, the secularists?

Dred Scott was horrible morals, but good law, well reasoned, and consistent within itself, and the only possible conclusion of law given the authority granted the Supreme Court. Somerset, given the far more sweeping powers of the Lord Chief Justice likewise. The issue of slavery was not decided in the wells, but in the battlefields. At some point, the blueprints of the epochal changes of man are drawn in blood, and not in ink.

Right now, unless Omar could argue that a secular, tolerant, non-Islamic government would evolve by itself, even in homogeneously Moslem lands, and that these governments would act in rational best self interest rather than upon the need for consistency with the law of god, the underlying proposition of the less jihad is always with us. In the US, the heterogeneity of the populace keeps, for the meantime, those who would revert to feudalism at bay. What would be the advantage of a secular contract government to a land of Moslems? The concept of submission to the will of god and the need for a government in which that will is absolutely unrecognised do not mix. Such a dichotomy is not demanded socially by a heterogeneous society.

Allowing children to damn themselves for all time by seeing toothpaste sold with sex can be avoided with a few planes and martyrs. This would every medieval bishop understand. This would Falwell preach. To say that Islamic law would not support this is contrary to text and common sense.

Omar’s thesis is thus a logical fallacy, since submission to the will of god cannot be the same as submission to the will of the majority of men, however reasoned. The law of god may or may not be the reasoned will of men. Islam requires submission to the former. If the former is not the latter, the religious law is either obeyed, or a secular government must be erected, with no reference to the former. The likelihood of this happening in a homogeneous Islamic land?

Faith and reason may coexist, but generally only do so when forced by the social frame. The mythology is too strong, and like some repressed unconscious urge, it surfaces with no warning, and its being is not to be known from its signs.

Thus, like every previous battle between totalitarianism and reasoned government, this one will not be fought at the ballot box. The laws of the prophet and the laws of the humanist are not sufficiently alike to allow the assuaging of the fear of one of the other. The war, which inevitably will come, comes not from ill will, but from the very nature of our psyches. The loss of the values of our superego by force is too frightening for most of us to bear without rebellion. The secularists may rationalise, the Christians pray, and the Moslems submit, but the forces of nature will not be overcome. The fear is the only autogenic reality.

Will secular technology prevail over medieval superstition? Will Islam, like Christianity, evolve into a private relationship with god in a publicly secular world? Will men ultimately see that a secular peace is always preferable to religious annihilation?

Only if those secular technologies do not kill us first.

Reasonable means in the hands of men of faith have usually proven deadly.

All good wishes,
Yazdzik

[ethics]

A masterpiece, Martin, although I do not agree with everything that was written.

[pupowski]

Originally posted by DSL Dan
Those guys are playing both ends against Yo, House of Fahd, your game is just about over. :mad: Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi fundamentalists are the #1 sponsors of terrorism, and should be dealt with accordingly. Bush loses credibility in the war on terrorism by overlooking the role of Saudi Arabia in 911 and al-queda attrocities.

[DSL Dan]

Originally posted by pupowski
Bush loses credibility in the war on terrorism by overlooking the role of Saudi Arabia in 911 and al-queda attrocities. Pup, when you're right, you're right--and in this case you're right. BTW he's also not doing such a good job tightening up the borders or kicking the INS squarely in their collective asses. :mad:

Bet you thought I was just another knee-jerk Bush supporter. ;)

[ethics]

Originally posted by DSL Dan
Pup, when you're right, you're right--and in this case you're right. BTW he's also not doing such a good job tightening up the borders or kicking the INS squarely in their collective asses. :mad:


There's plenty to criticise, and I think I can trust Pup's judgement when he makes critical posts around Mr. Bush and some of his advisors. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him, but I don't tend to throw it out with some of the other people over the net and how mindlesless they follow the herd in ignorant Bush bashing.
Hey, Maureen Dowd of NYT does it, SHE MUST BE RIGHT!

As for the problem you've mentioned, totally agree. Add to that the dismal airport security, which is not necessarily under the Federal government, but I betcha that will change if another disaster involving terrorism takes place.

[-Ken]

If I were to try and break it down so I could explain it to my ten year old, I
would start as describing this as a continuation of the age old battle between
good and evil.

In our country, we have Timothy McVeigh, James Kopp (http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=%7B1E7A16FB-7CCC-4B33-ABE3-F90558D68F6A%7D) and Griffin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm) (who shot a
doctor and prayed for his soul as he waited for the police). And we have no
problem "taking care" of them.

In both the Kopp and the Griffin cases it appears they had aid from a somewhat
organized network. This is purely homegrown terrorism.

We also have our equivalent of these militant clerics. We have our Falwells, Roberts
and many others.

As RRedline mentioned, we have the godhatesfags lunatics, to which I would like to
add, the American Nazi Party, Christian Identity and it seems almost 700 identified
card-carrying hate groups in the US.
http://www.tolerance.org/images/maps/hate/hate_map.gif
No problem though, they haven't done anything wrong, you know freedom of speech
and all that. You can read about these fun groups of Americans here (http://www.tolerance.org/news/news_hate.jsp).

Ah, but if it is a Muslim militant viewpoint, well then that must be somehow different
from the good old homegrown kind.

Now, why is it that we allow these assholes to live and benefit in our society but we
want to go to war to kill them in someone else's society. Furthermore, why is it we
ignore the historical fact that Hitler's Nazi party had a few thousand members in 1932
and in less than seven years caused a calamity on a world scale.

I caused quite a stir over screaming I won't stand for hate speech. I am not talking
about censorship. I am saying anyone who paints a broad picture against a segment
of the world's population in an attempt to dehumanize and incite hatred is going to
hear it from me. History has shown if we ignore them they eventually become a problem.

Thank you Martin, that was quite a piece. I don't believe there is anything inherently
conflicted in Islam which would not allow it to flourish in a peaceful co-existence.
It is more the interpretation than the religion. I believe you pointed that out very
clearly with the comparison to Christianity.

Dan, I have never thought of you as a mindless conservative unable to criticize the
administration. I would like to point out, if I had said the exact same thing, I would
have been "templated" and dismissed. Does that say something about all our ability
to express the same view and be interpreted differently?

[jamming]

Originally posted by -Ken
If I were to try and break it down so I could explain it to my ten year old, I
would start as describing this as a continuation of the age old battle between
good and evil.
*edit*
Now, why is it that we allow these assholes to live and benefit in our society but we want to go to war to kill them in someone else's society. Furthermore, why is it we ignore the historical fact that Hitler's Nazi party had a few thousand members in 1932 and in less than seven years caused a calamity on a world scale.

I caused quite a stir over screaming I won't stand for hate speech. I am not talking about censorship. I am saying anyone who paints a broad picture against a segment of the world's population in an attempt to dehumanize and incite hatred is going to hear it from me. History has shown if we ignore them they eventually become a problem.
*edit*
Dan, I have never thought of you as a mindless conservative unable to criticize the administration. I would like to point out, if I had said the exact same thing, I would have been "templated" and dismissed. Does that say something about all our ability to express the same view and be interpreted differently?

It is difficult to explain to a ten year old what hate and evil is about at anytime, let alone now . The Reason that we allow these "A&&hole&" is that we judge people based upon what they actually do and not about what they say. It is one thing to be politically incorrect and another thing to actively hurt or kill others. I believe a ten year old would understand that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

We do allow free speech to these people because we want to know who they are and when they step over the bounds of speech into action. We allow free speech, because someday our views may be unpopular and be considered incorrect at the time. It is called living in a free society, not one where ideas are considered too dangerous to be allowed to be voiced. that is why we allow people to have free speech.

As to your attempt to oppose them, that is great and is allowed you by the right of free speech. It is exactly why we have been given the freedom of our words, so that the ideas that are without merit may be exposed as the hollow ideas that they are. Keep opposing them but to adopt their methods is the first step to a tyranny of what you believe and to heck with others' opinion or thoughts make you more like them instead of less. If you don't see that then I feel sorry for you.

As to you feeling "templated" and dismissed, there is probably another story that your ten year old knows that would explain that well to him, it is "the boy who cried wolf.":_

[ShinyTop]

While agreeing that it does not appear our country is paying as much attention to Saudi Arabia's faults as I would like we would be remiss if we did not recoginize that we do not always know what is going on behind the scenes. We have important bases in the kingdom and would need to find other bases or reduce our exposure before publicly taking on the Saudis. I have adopted a wait and see attitude regarding this issue.

[pupowski]

Originally posted by DSL Dan
: Bet you thought I was just another knee-jerk Bush supporter. ;) You would have lost that bet Dan.

[DSL Dan]

Now, why is it that we allow these assholes to live and benefit in our society but we want to go to war to kill them in someone else's society.Ken, that is one of the best questions anyone has posed in along time--succinct and irrefutable. When does the hypocrisy end? When do we really stand for something, or are all decisions based upon expediency and hidden agendae? :(

[-Ken]

Jamming,

Let's try to understand the world isn't the way it was 20 years ago.

The might of our combined NATO military forces is no match for two
college kids and a small homemade genetics lab.

The issue of a delivery system is mute, it can be delivered by any
unknowing person. Considering the inability to prevent drugs from
getting into he country (forget illegal immigrants pouring through our
borders) we'd better find a new strategy.

The bottom line is hate.

The entire world needs to address hate. It needs to become so despised
throughout every corner of the world that we all agree to work to eradicate
it everywhere we find it. Blind hatred must be elevated to the level of repulsion
cannibalism invokes in the common man.

The clock is ticking. In another five to ten years based on historical evidence,
some lunatic is going to launch a bacterial nightmare, which will devastate
mankind.

The Black plague killed 70% of Europe's population in it's time.
Imagine that in Boston, LA or NYC.

Want to play war games? Think we can continue to influence people by
having the biggest weapons on the planet?

It's time we figured out how to all play nice in the sandbox. We either
straighten this out or technology will enable just about anybody to create a
disaster that will make Timothy McVeigh look like Walt Disney.

<small>This random reality check brought to by <b><i>them stinking liberals.<i><b></small>

[jamming]

Ken,

War is not a Game.

Opposing Hate Speech is Good.

Suppressing Hate Speech promotes some lunatic launching a bacterial nightmare, more than allowing them to give voice to their concerns. If they cannot speak about it openly they will seek other ways to make their voice heard.

[-Ken]

I am not suggesting we suppress hate speech. On the
contrary, I love to challenge it every time I see or hear it.

It is the allowing of it to go unchallenged that I cannot tolerate.

[jamming]

Then challenge it, but one person's hate speech is another person's point of view.....don't they teach about moral relativism in Liberal School anymore, or is that rule suppose to only apply to Conservatives. Liberal's - the do as I say and not as I do agenda.

;)

[-Ken]

And, speaking of generalizations...