Bjørn Stærk blog - Fighting European Islamism

Jeremy | 2005-07-11 16:57 | Link

That's a really good post, and a fine example of the spirit of this site. Although the spirit is not shared by many of the posters here, in my opinion.

A few comments.

"A terrorist is something you become, not something you're born."

Absolutely. It's a sign of laziness, racism and inhuman hatred to proclaim that all "Islamists" are potential terrorists, that Islam itself is the evil that must be stamped out - the Nazis attempted to apply this dysfunctional reasoning in 1930's Germany - Jews were also perceived as the "problem" in Russia, which led to the pogroms. Ex-Yugoslavia. Rwanda. Et cetera. This is not the way to better the human condition, any more than blowing up buses.

All religious ideologies are flawed, by definition, and most people who accept them use their ideas as a platform to attain a more generous life. Most people seek the essential truths of religious thought, and finding it, recognise that they share it with all humanity. People are good or bad with or without religion. Or - there are good people - and idiots - everywhere.

"And then of course there are dangerous views among non-Muslim. Some people believe we should negotiate with the terrorists."

To many, the word "negotiate" in this context seems to imply a cowardly acceptance of the legitimacy of the terrorist ethic, a recognition of equality, already a step towards defeat. I don't believe there's any question whether Western nations should "negotiate" in this manner - of course there should be no "negotiation" whatsoever with "terrorist" organisations in this sense. Any group or individual who endangers the lives of innocent human beings for political reasons, attempting to impose their own point of view or agenda through violence and murder, should be hunted down and punished as quickly and efficiently as possible.

However, unfortunately for many Western interests, this ethic applies (and should apply) to Western countries also. Understanding why a "terrorist" becomes what he is does not mean condoning his actions. But it is essential to draw efficient and just conclusions from a study of the causes of "terrorism." It is inconceivable to imagine that "we" are always unilaterally right, whatever we do, and "we" are allowed to stomp on anyone who disagrees. There's a distressing amount of this about today.

Human rights are not "negotiable" and are not relative to race or religion. Not under any circumstances.

Again, unfortunately, a genuine attempt to avoid the creation of thousands of new "terrorists" would involve a re-assessment of much of the cannibal fabric of Western commerce and power, which underlies and pollutes any masquerade of "Democracy" presently in play. I say "unfortunately" because there's almost no chance of anything like a genuine attempt to better the human condition being made any time soon, at least not by the incumbent power structure. And in the meantime, many innocent and courageous soldiers on both sides (US / UK / Coalition, and also many honest Iraqi freedom fighters, who also have every right to defend their homeland), are being slaughtered. Worse, the war has been brought home to the civilian population. Including the innocent civilian populations of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and in far greater numbers.

Those who berate Islam (there are of course reasons to criticise) might usefully be asked to comment also on the Christian ethic, as so magnificently demonstrated by such shining examples as George Bush and Tony Blair - Thou shalt not steal? Thou shalt not kill? Thou shalt not bear false witness? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods? Should we invade the Vatican or send the Archbishop of Canterbury to Gitmo? And if I dared to extend this idea to include the Jewish ethic, as demonstrated unrelentingly by the behaviour of the State of Israel, would I be labelled "anti-Semitic"? Sharon to Abu Ghraib?

The only workable solution would have to start with a recognition of the equality of all human rights, of the essential dignity of all human beings. That would be infinitely more complicated - and so much less profitable - than the solutions presently being applied.

ch | 2005-07-11 22:06 | Link

BS, I think you have gotten just the type of commentor you wanted here, now.

Adios..

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-11 22:34 | Link

Before I comment on Bjørn’s “Fighting European Islamism”, may I say as a nation, we (USA) weeps for the lost of lives in London in this latest series of bombings by Islamic terrorists.

There is evidence that indicates an alarming percentage of European, as well as American Muslims, embrace a measure of sympathy for the militant Islamic cause worldwide. That alone should be of concern to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. To hesitate for a moment to decide on what side you stand can prove fatal for yourself and those around you. In the USA we encourage a Pledge of Allegiance to this country. Unfortunately both inside and outside our nation the trend is to downplay the importance of that pledge. Among the groups that refuse to pledge their allegiance to a country that gives them refuge are the Muslims. A remarkable contradiction, that is unless you have a conflict identifying where you allegiance lays. Muslim cannot pledge an allegiance to a republic, or a democratic monarchy whose common laws are rooted in Christianity, without offending their god.

You have basically suggested the success to defeating terrorist is to convince the European Islamic community to discredit the Islamic terrorists. This will never happen, because they themselves become primary targets of Islamic terrorism. The success in defeating Islamic terrorism for Europeans, their American cousins, and elsewhere, will be to return to the God and faith their Christian fathers abandoned two and three generations ago. I will humbly accept all the criticism this statement will generate simply because it is true.

The verbose who see themselves as stalwarts of freedom scans the bondage of Church repression simply do not understand the message in both New and Old Testaments. Mans inhumanity to man and greed created all the bondage we now think we freed ourselves from in our hast to abandon truth. Go back and read the works of men like Martin Luther and C.S. Lewis who desperately tried to show us where freedom truly lays. And in that truth you will find our defense.

Real name | 2005-07-12 00:34 | Link

Bjørn Stærk:
Others believe that islam itself is the enemy, not islamism, and that any European muslim is a potential suicide bomber. This is usually claimed by people who have overread the quran and become useful idiots for islamism, which they see as the only real form of islam.

So those who do not subscribe to your view which claims that there is a clear distinction between islam and islamism - are idiots? "Useful idiots".

Impressive reasoning...

Tor, Trondheim | 2005-07-12 03:29 | Link

Bombs explode in London, film at eleven.

This is not exactly news, seeing that the IRA has been blowing up stuff in and around London for decades. The only major difference is that the perpetrators appear to have changed - the scale of the attack was not even an order of magnitude off.

I am (paradoxically) somewhat relieved by the London bombings. It is utterly impossible to secure a public transportation system of the scale of London's against a sufficiently dedicated attacker. This is because, to paraphrase Schneier, every passenger becomes a trusted user of the system. As such, this was an atrocity that was expected, however much one might try to prevent it.

However, the relief comes from the fact that the bodycount and carnage is at low as it has turned out to be. After 11/9 and all the media hype in its wake, one would have expected a truly massive follow-up. If this is truly the worst that Al'Queda and its offshoots can come up with, then they must be weakened indeed. I rather doubt they'd be setting off small firecrackers in London if they had something big going on. Maybe someone has been doing something *right* since 2001.

It also pleases me to see the British reaction to the atrocity. Life is apparently returning to "normal" reasonably quickly. To successfully fight terrorism it is not only necessary to be vigilant, but also to keep the terrorists from controlling the public agenda. (Spain fucked up this bit royally. I would argue that the US did as well. DON'T FUCKING GIVE THE FUCKHEADS ANY MORE FUCKING INCENTIVES!)

*Puts NOK 50 in the deadpool, betting that Italy'll be hit next.*

Sandy P | 2005-07-12 06:50 | Link

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0711/p01s04-woeu.html

Via LGF:

A defiant Islam rises among young Britons

Thursday's attacks turn attention to a group alienated from British society.

...Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain....

---

al-Tikriti??? A relative of Saddam?

---

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."...

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-12 10:28 | Link

Jeremy: Again, unfortunately, a genuine attempt to avoid the creation of thousands of new "terrorists" would involve a re-assessment of much of the cannibal fabric of Western commerce and power, which underlies and pollutes any masquerade of "Democracy" presently in play.

Uh-huh. So Muslims are turning to crazy religious hatred because .. Western democracy is flawed? Explain to me how that works. A Saudi man thinks to himself: "Yes, it's true that I can't get a job because I don't have a real education, that religious nuts will beat me to death if I ever do anything fun, and that I have about as many political rights as a house-fly, but the way that Bush guy stole the 2000 election, now that really pisses me off. Death to the infidels!"

Should we invade the Vatican or send the Archbishop of Canterbury to Gitmo?

No. Why on earth would we? The Vatican isn't funding a worldwide Christian terrorist network. The rulers of Mecca do. I'm not saying we should invade Mecca, just that your sense of perspective is kaput.

ch: BS, I think you have gotten just the type of commentor you wanted here, now. Adios..

When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

Geronimo: The success in defeating Islamic terrorism for Europeans, their American cousins, and elsewhere, will be to return to the God and faith their Christian fathers abandoned two and three generations ago.

What, me too? And the Muslims? All of them? I think my plan is more likely to succeed. At least it won't require an act of God. Besides, your God doesn't exist, and I would prefer to try reality-based plans before ones that rely on massive suspension of disbelief.

Real name: So those who do not subscribe to your view which claims that there is a clear distinction between islam and islamism - are idiots? "Useful idiots".

Useful idiot is an expression, what I mean is that you're naively serving the agenda of islamists by explaining to Muslims that islamism is the One True form of Islam. You're not scaring anyone away from Islam by saying that. You're pushing them into the arms of the nuts. Imagine yourself as a regular Muslim living in Europe. On one side you have the natives around you think you're a potential terrorist, that the very foundation of your life has no good in it and must be fully renounced, and that it would have been better if your kind had never come here at all. On the other side you have a couple of your friends who are well-read and deeply religious followers of your own faith, who can explain to you why all these people despise everything you stand for, and have some profound and scripture-based ideas on how to fix all the wrongs of society. Which is easier to embrace?

People don't casually throw away everything they've built their life on. You need to give them an easier way, and in the case of religion that easy way is reinterpretation, not renounciation.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-07-12 13:45 | Link

An important point that needs to be stressed is that al Qaeda is no organization, it is - at most - a network. This is even reflected in their name, meaning the Base.

That means that different parts of al Qaeda, and groups that share views with al Qaeda without being directly affiliated, can operate on their own, with full disregard to what other groups are contemplating or planning. Thus, the attack in London is not - because it was smaller than previous attacks - a sign of weakness.

Personally, I have problems with the fact that almost all terror attacks connected to Islamism is connected to al Qaeda. That someone met someone that once met someone who has met someone does not constitute a network, nor an organization. This overfocusing on a "visible" enemy is taking the focus away from many of the important issues at hand. I have recently written about that in my blog as well.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-07-12 13:50 | Link

Bjørn:

I HOPE Jeremy is referring to the lack of Middle-Eastern democracies, and the fact that many despotic regimes receive Western support. In that case, he might have a point.

Øyvind

Seb in London | 2005-07-12 16:12 | Link

The terrorist attack on London didn't shock me. I've learned to accept the idea that if you're in the center of a European city, you may experience a terrorist attack.

So we just get used to it, do we? Absurd.

Muslim terrorism can only occur because these fanatics can count on the quiet support of their "moderate" friends and relatives

These people hide them, feed them and cover for them when the authorities begin asking awkward questions

We had to deal with a very similar situation in South Africa nearly a century ago. It was dealt with very successfully by a policy of internment

ALL "British" Muslims must be rounded up and temporarily confined to internment camps for the duration of the terrorist threat

Benny Zoons | 2005-07-12 17:22 | Link

We all know how this is going to end again:
Europe will talk and talk because the political ellite doesn't dare to talk about radical solutions like banning islam or deportation of muslims.
Integration develops too slow if not at all,demographics in Europe are toppling..
And on one day the muslim extremists and their supporters will really go to far and the brutal response of Europe will be total genocide.
What else is new ?

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-13 02:14 | Link

Besides, your God doesn't exist, and I would prefer to try reality-based plans before ones that rely on massive suspension of disbelief.

In reality, it is your view that relies on a massive suspension of disbelief. Often, aetheists such as yourself try to switch the argument and demand that God be reproduced in a laboratory.

However, Christians do not argue that God is a phenomena of nature. We claim that He is a living being. As such, the standards of evidence used in courts are applicable. For example, witnesses. There are millions of witnesses that support the claim that God is real.

From the original apostles to Saint Olav and our fellow norskies who saw the miracles after Olav's death, to modern day people who have seen miracles that have been tested by scientists. At Fatima, 15000 people saw a miracle. It was in all the newspapers. There have been over 400 people raised from the dead. Here are more documented miracles:

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracels2.htm

This authentication process is very rigorous:
http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm

But what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

Sandy P | 2005-07-13 02:56 | Link

Via LGF and you can watch the clip:

Host: The question, in short, is whether the religious scholars... Sir, the religious law assembly in Mecca at the end of last month issued a fatwa forbidding the killing of civilians. Should we follow it or Osama bin Laden?

Al-Siba’i: These assemblies resemble the assemblies of the Church. These assemblies forbid young people from going to Iraq to fight the Jihad. These assemblies... The Higher Religious Authority (in Saudi Arabia) are the ones who allowed the presence of Crusader forces in the Land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia). These assemblies...

Host: Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama (sic) Al-Maqdissi, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi’s mentor... OK. Abu Hani, OK... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers...

Al-Siba’i: The term “civilians” does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as “civilians” in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.

These institutes, like the Islamic Association (of Britain), represent white-collar people, the effendis, people with “prestige.” They only represent their own interests and do not mix in society. They don’t know... Ask other Muslims... People see them only on their TV screens. They don’t participate in the demonstrations for the poor. they are not interested in people’s problems. We invite them, and they don’t show up.

Host: The Muslim Association of Britain represents 400 Islamic organizations...

Al-Siba’i: These are all interest groups. With all due respect, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sheik Moududi group do business with one another.

Host: Are you claiming they are not Muslims?

Al-Siba’i: They are behind all these movements. They promote some people nobody has heard of. Then they promote some journalists.

Host: Excuse me, who do you want to promote? Those who want the banner of “There is no god but Allah” over the Queen of England and Buckingham Palace? Those who want to establish a caliphate and turn the Queen of England into a captive? Those who say (England) is Dar Al-Harb and property there can be plundered? Are those the kind of people you want?

Al-Siba’i: These associations do not represent the Muslim public. They collaborate with the British police for certain interests. They want an “English Islam,” and not the Islam that was sent to the Prophet Muhammad.

If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy...

----

At some point in time, you actually might have to believe what they say.

Sandy P | 2005-07-13 02:59 | Link

Ohh, lots of good stuff at LGF:

Host: The Muslim Association of Britain represents 400 Islamic organizations...

Al-Siba’i: These are all interest groups. With all due respect, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sheik Moududi group do business with one another.

Host: Are you claiming they are not Muslims?

Al-Siba’i: They are behind all these movements. They promote some people nobody has heard of. Then they promote some journalists.

If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy...

----

Pay attention to Britain.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-07-13 08:14 | Link

Not that I want to see this debate go completely off track, but I am a bit unsure about what Gunnar refers to when he speaks of the Fatima-miracles, that were "all over the news". If he could tell me, that would be appreciated.

http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/fatima2.html

Osmund Bindalen | 2005-07-13 09:04 | Link

Bjørn said: "Others believe that Islam itself is the enemy, not Islamism, and that any European Muslim is a potential suicide bomber. This is usually claimed by people who have overread the Quran and become useful idiots for Islamism, which they see as the only real form of Islam. I don't care about what "real" Islam is, only about good and evil Islam. Both exist, and to claim that Muslims are unable to choose good over evil is a determinism that has no root in reality..."

Your distinction between Islam an islamism is based on misunderstanding of both. There is no two kinds of Islam. Muslims may be active or passive in their practice of Islam, and they may be more or less trained in the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadith, but they all ultimately belong to the same creed and are soliders in the same jihad. What we call "islamists" are simply the better trained "activists" among them. There is no political sedative that could possibly passify them but appeasement.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-13 09:30 | Link

The apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima ( also at Zeitun, Egypt etc ) has all the hallmarks of alien intervention (cf: UFO's etc):::::

http://www.portcult.com/FAT.13.INTERNET.htm ( sites critical of Fatima, also UFO viewpoint)

http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/fatimufo.htm ( alien intervention? at Fatima)

Regarding 'God', 'miracles - fatima or otherwise' the following alternative views should prove refreshing if not challenging to long held and cherished notions LOL :)

*****************-------->>>>>

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/God.htm ( alternative view on God )

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/theology.htm ( does science question the existence of God?)

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/thealogy.htm ( why is God male? christians and muslims - take note ;)

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/ (brain and mind, buddhist arguement against materialism )

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/GodWars.html ( religion a form of self-propagating mind virus !)

Schwester Aischah Njanjaponika Kim
specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults
خبير الدّيانات الخطيرة و طوائف
危險宗教和崇拜的專家

kim sook-im | 2005-07-13 14:44 | Link

Yohoo all theists and monotheists et alias !

Here are a few of the numerous proposed god-based worldviews:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"
1. Polytheism, oligarchical
2. Polytheism, hierarchical ("henotheism")
3. Ditheism, complementary (usually representing male and female gods)
4. Ditheism, conflicted ("moral god vs. evil god/devil")
5. Monotheism (most that claim this title fall under #4)
6. Panentheism
7. Pantheism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One point that should be obvious, but is always ignored by religious propaganda, is that there would be no reason to believe that a single individual was responsible for the changes in our evolution; in other words, it takes a leap of faith to conclude there is only one god, and not many. I’m not the first to suggest that the world appears like it was "designed by committee" (#1--for more, look up the philosopher Hume).

Evidence for alien interference would also say nothing about the motives of our "gods". The problem with determining a god’s will from nature is that living organisms are basically designed to eat, mate, suffer, and die. Most people feel the need for a more humane "purpose" to justify all this carnage, which is the root of all religion and philosophy. Unfortunately, there is little we can use other than a leap of faith to determine the motives of the alien "gods": .........."

For more on alternate world views other than theists versus atheists go to--->

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Interference.html ( evolution, creation, alternate world views)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/OpenMinds.html ( RELIGION , SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSE, DO YOU DARE TO EXPLORE ALL THE POSSIBILITIES WITH AN OPEN MIND)

Sorry i'm un poquito off track, but i just can't resist this little diversion given that Allah, Jehovah, virgin Mary and what not are so intricately involved in the whole conundrum of human existence and suffering!

o.k. I'll say 50 hail mary's for penance ...;)

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamic cults
Scientist / Doubting Thomas/Susan

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-13 15:32 | Link

Not that I want to see this debate go completely off track, but I am a bit unsure about what Gunnar refers to when he speaks of the Fatima-miracles, that were "all over the news". If he could tell me, that would be appreciated.

I don't think this is "off track". It may turn out that the only cure for the cult of Islam is the Truth of Christianity. In fact, there are reports of many Islamic to Christian conversions in Europe. Muslims who were originally unsure about the teachings of Islam have been convinced by the terrorism that it's not for them.

Missionaries who went to the middle east in the 80s reported a huge conversion rate. That's why they were prohibited from entering.

Similarly, the norwegian society was transformed from extreme violence to peace & brotherhood by the miracles of St Olav.

As for Fatima, I'm referring to the Miracle of the Sun, witnessed by 15,000 people. A person who in a court of law dismisses 15,000 witnesses would have no place on a jury, since they are obviously prejudiced.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/fatima.html

kim sook-im | 2005-07-13 15:57 | Link

Calling all theists, monotheists, modern monkeys;) et alias please refer to :

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/NewReligions.html ( on current religious conflicts 0

yohoo Gunnar and Geronimo, pls note christianity is no guarantee as a passport to peaceful coexistence. Read in the above links about continuous KKKristian ( yes kkkristian) and issslamist persecution of buddhists in south korea and world wide ( catholic persecution of south korean buddhists by (gasp!) kkkatholikkks.
Say your hail mary's !

Heil Mary full of Glaze , the horde is with me !

Sister Agnes N. Kim
Kkkonvent of the holy inkkkuisition

Sue, NJ, USA | 2005-07-13 17:22 | Link

I suspect that what Jeremy means by the "cannibal fabric of Western commerce and power" is economic globalization. In other words, it all boils down to distribution of wealth. Jeremy seems to imply that the world economic order, imposed by the West, is unfair, and that is what spurs terrorism. People's beliefs don't matter, only their economic circumstances.

I disagree, because in many cases people's economic (and political) circumstances are dictated by their mindsets and beliefs. The West is not to blame for the backwardness, corruption and autocracy of the Middle East.

I also think that Islamic terrorism should make us question the kneejerk rejection of nationalism as outdated and bigoted. Yes, Europeans love to mock the American custom of the Pledge, but it works. Those who feel alienated or put off by American patriotism don't tend to stay in the country. Those who stay, regardless of ethnicity and religion, are united by their mutual patriotism. You can't be so scared of violent nationalism that you stop insisting that immigrants respect your culture and accede to it.

Erin S. ~ Olympia, WA | 2005-07-13 18:23 | Link

With the news that those responsible for the 07/07/2005 bombings in London were in fact British muslims, born and raised, give proof that Islamic militantism is not borne out of oppression and/or poverty. But simply hate, intolerance, and fundamentalism.

How does one fight European Islamism? You cannot reason or impress upon an islamic fundamentalist the error of his/her way. They lack empathy, for empathy requires each one of us to put ourselves in the others' shoes as someone once said:

"The wonderful thing about empathy is that it doesn't require you to agree with, condone or even forgive the actions of those you are attempting to empathize with. It requires you only to pause long enough to put a human face on those we might be in a rush to judge due to our own convictions."

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC:

A gazillion tunnels (OK, I'm exaggerating. A MILLION tunnels), miles of winding roads, a couple of ferry crossings and a 3 day cruise on the Hurtigruten (sp?) route via MS Trollfjord; Husband, son, and I have returned home to Washington from our trip to Norway. We had a lovely time and our little guy did better than expected on the flights to and from.

Also better than expected: People's attitude. I was so bracing for an onslaught of anti-Americanism, Bush-bashing, and the indoctrination of the glories of socialism. But only experienced a bit of all three during a dinner party at the Alexandria hotel near Loen on Day 3 of our Norwegian holiday. A friend of my husband's parents was going on and on about the torture in Iraq and how, just that day, Bush admitted to torturing people.

I had no clue to what she was blathering on about as I have been away from the news and dealing with jet lag and and jet lagged toddler. None the less, my husband came to my rescue and the subject was changed. I did bring along a book called: Heaven on Earth, the Rise and Fall of Socialism which I read during the down times. And willingly discussed with those who cared to.

I did see a couple of t-shirts that I just had to have: A Good Bush-Bad Bush t-shirt and ASS: Scandinavian Booty (playing off of SAS airline's logo).

All in all, it was a wonderful trip and I have re-fallen in love with Norway. I hardly felt that I was away from the States, though. There are so many American shows on the tellie, lots of American/Canadian bands playing on the radio and MTV, and the fashion was overwhelmingly American (lot of the ladies were running around looking like replica Carrie Bradshaws from Sex in the City).

Who said America has no culture!??! Huh? Huh? ;o)

Norwegians have every right to feel proud of their culture and country. Norway is breath-takingly beautiful and her people very lovely indeed.

*.¸¸.·´¨`*»·..·«*´¨`·.¸¸.*Erin*.¸¸.·´¨`*»·..·«*´¨`·.¸¸.*

Jeremy | 2005-07-13 18:23 | Link

This is getting wild - I love it.

Demonstrably, much of the ugliest behaviour in the planet's history has been driven by religious intolerance. This continues bloodily today, much to all our distress.

How is it that human beings have been consistently developing religious ideas for as long as we have records? I doubt that it's simply a need for comforting fairy-tales to numb the fear of death. There must be a level of human consciousness that makes itself perceptible to us and which we express through the idea of a "Godhead" or "Prime Creator". However, these expressions are all, obviously, rooted in the language and concepts available to the time and culture in which they appear. And they will all become subject, as has demonstrably been the case with Christianity, to kidnapping by power interests for the purposes of keeping the masses under control by playing on their fears.

The word we use to designate the transcendent consciousness does not matter at all - God, Allah, Tao, who cares? Like "love" - "amor" or "liebe" or whatever - what matters, what is essential, is the experience itself.

Dismissing someone as a "heathen" unless they embrace one religious dogma or another is the most basic and dangerous form of blindness - if you think about God for more than a second, it becomes immediately obvious that we all have equal access to this energy. Those who choose to live by one set of rules or another have every right to do so, but what we do not have the right to do is attempt to oblige others to live according to our standards or to punish them when they do not. Or actually, more truthfully, we can try if we like, but we had best be prepared to accept the consequences. Bombers who get caught are in deep and deadly shit, and so they should be.

By the same token, we do not have the right to exploit other people's energy for our own purposes, without regard for their dignity as human beings just like ourselves. Again, we can try, but there is bound to be a backlash.

Which brings me to the point that Bjorn called me on. Obviously I don't think that annoyance with a "faulty" form of Western Democracy is enough to trigger a bomb attack by a Saudi or Iraqi.

First of all, how faulty is "faulty"? Bush (or the Bush crew) stole the 2000 election? Certainly did. So what kind of representative for Democracy is he in the eyes of the world? What exactly is the value of what he is claiming to export at such deadly cost? Huge cost for "us", by the way, but immeasurably huge for "them".

Western interests have been manipulating world politics since WW2, notably in South America - funding and propping up one demon dictatorship after another - and the "Middle East" - Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a good ol' boy as long as "we" needed him and he bought from us all that stuff that helped him gas hundreds of thousands. He was never a nice man, even when he was "our" buddy. And I can't avoid mentioning the very obvious point that unilateral US support for the State of Israel, despite their flagrant and murderous contempt for the international law that the US pretends to believe in, has not gone unnoticed over the last fifty years.

This sort of behaviour is perceived as hypocrisy by most of the world, perhaps because it is. Anger at this is fuelling "terrorism", as anyone reasonable can understand, since these Western interests are clearly seen to be intent on maintaining and extending their grip on the world without care for the cost to others. There may well be religious lunatics involved in the evil bomb attacks on civilians in New York, Madrid, London, even in Iraq. But the cause is not Islam.

The Western world - the "Coalition" foremost - must recognise that it is not enough to "stomp out terrorism" - short of genocide, this could not be done anyway - it is essential to accept the idea that we share the responsibility for this situation.

Finally, until we recognise that human beings are also - ALL OF US - spiritual beings, and all equally dignified in the consciousness of the Primal Being, and act upon that recognition - there will be no peace.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-13 20:20 | Link

I read all kind of BS and utter nonesense about Islam and terrorism here ! I was certainly amused by the word ISLAMISM !! I am muslim so I am islamist by definition, beside, why you lot insist on using the term Islamic terrorism ? why the term christian terrorism was not used when the IRA terrorised the UK for over 30 years and YES the bombers were also BRITISH-BORN !!

All the talks about ' they attacked us because they hate our freedom and our values' is PURE BULL SHIT..it is only intended to divert attention from the 'real' causes of terrorism which EVERYONE in the west knows very well.

One Italian woman interviwed on the BBC said ' I feel our turn is coming because our troops are in Iraq '

She got it very right. she spotted why her country is on the list..she is too clever to parrot the same bull shit about freedom and values !

I do condemn the attacks in London very strongly, killing innocent civilians is wrong by any definition including the muslim one, but here is the question that will make all your argument about ' freedom and values' collapses:

Why these terrorists dont attack Sweden or Finland or Switzerland or Iceland or Chille for example, these also free countries, aren't they?????

Let us read the statement of responsibility issued by Al-Qaeda after London attacks ( from the BBC )

This is the full text of the statement.

---------------------------------------

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660391.stm
__________________________________

Nothing in the above statement about ' our freedom and values and all the BULL SHIT' some idiots here keep paroting ! there is only and ONLY one thing in this statement and that is Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conclusion:

NATIONS WITH MUSLIM BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS SHOULD BE ALWAYS ON HIGH ALERT.

Full stop.

Erin S. ~ Olympia, WA | 2005-07-13 21:19 | Link

Conclusion:

NATIONS HOUSING FANATICS AND FANATICS LIVING AMONGST US WITH INNOCENT CIVILIAN BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS SHOULD ALWAYS BE LOOKING OVER THEIR SHOULDERS.

And *THAT* Ex-whatever is no BS.

Why?

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AFRAID! :o)

The only idiot parroting bullshit around here is YOU!

*.¸¸.·´¨`*»·..·«*´¨`·.¸¸.*Erin*.¸¸.·´¨`*»·..·«*´¨`·.¸¸.*

Rune K, Oslo | 2005-07-13 21:39 | Link

Tor: I'm putting NOK 50 in the deadpool on Denmark.

I'm hoping that none of us will receive the price from this macabre bet, but if any of us do - I certainly hope it won't be me that wins.

I'm a tad pesimistic though.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-13 22:50 | Link

the world growth rate of Muslims is 2.13, and for Christians it is 1.36. A closer look reveals, however that the birth rate of Muslims world wide, is literally double that of Christians. This is due to the fact that Muslims are largest in the developing world where dirt floors, thatched roofs and large families are common. When you the actual conversion rate, where men chose their religion, rather then are born into it, you can see that Christians are converting, on a percentage basis, almost twice as many as Muslims (1.7:1). This means that individual Christians are out converting Muslims almost two to one! What this means, is that as third world Muslim countries become more civilized, their birth rate will drop off to match the rest of the civilized world, but Christians will still continue to out convert them at a rate of 1.7:1

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

From this, it's obvious why the islamo-fascists want to keep people uncivilized. The US action in Iraq is such a threat, because a free, prosperous, educated, civilized and peaceful Iraq will change everything.

John Edwards | 2005-07-13 23:00 | Link

Hi Kim... What do you do... read and study all day? Is there anything you don't know? Nao e' possivel. A menina e' um genio!

Another bomb or two or four and here we are again talking about the same things. Yesterday I watched a PBS show on Beslin, with Bill Moyers at the end telling us it was a Separatist group that killed all those children. Sure the killers were yelling "Allaahu Akbar" but but the words "Muslim and "Islam" were missing from the narrative. Strange!

I want to call everyones attention to an interesting discussion at altmuslim.com. The title is "Speak Out Or Be Condemned For Your Silence" at http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1486_0_25_0_C. This is a good site for Muslim watchers (you too, Ex-C).

As I wrote, we do not know what is in the hearts and minds of any Muslim. God only knows. We do know what Muslim's do where they are a majority, and we see the strength of radicalism in Muslim communities in the West. The fact is that wherever Islam dominates, other religions as well as women and other groups are discriminated against and persecuted. Period.

So, based upon these simple facts, We - the people of the West - have every right to doubt the honesty, sincerity or even Muslims' understanding of Islam. We cannot put our women, our children and our civilization in jeopardy just because something hurts Muslim's feelings. Tough! Based upon Islamic websites, there is no doubt that if Muslims ever control a Western country, out goes personal freedom, and in comes sharia law, persecution, hate, anger, killings, and all the other things that bring such joy to the hearts of so many Muslims.

So, I couldn't care less what Muslims say or how many times they condemn terror. Talk is cheap. The only valid clue to what Muslims really believe is how they treat people where they are a majority. And it ain't a pretty picture. In case you haven't noticed, they don't even treat other Muslims very well. So, dear Muslims, quit blaming it on everybody else and take a good, hard look at your religion, your writings and even the life of your prophet.

Hey Ex-c. Next month it will be one year that I asked you if you think people who say unkind things about your prophet should really be killed. You indicated you wouldn't do it yourself, but if an Islamic state ruled that way, if would be fine with you. Does that mean all of us? It can't be blasfemy, so why the anger? Oh yes, you were using a different name then - Sahudim or something.

JE, Aka Kactuz

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-13 23:02 | Link

The truth is that those responsible for the following should be proud. Only in Europe is fighting Nazis controversial. Shame on you Quislings!

Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.

Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.

Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

An interim constitution has been signed.

Girls are allowed to attend school.

Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Not Tired of Living | 2005-07-14 15:18 | Link

OK, here's how the War on Terror is going to end:

Eventually, some nutjob in the Middle East -- Iranian, Saudi, Pakistani, doesn't matter which -- lobs an atom bomb at Israel.

Jerusalem: gone. Crater. Dome of the Rock: Gone.

The Israeli military, which has command bunkers for such eventualities, immediately responds by sending its atomic missiles at Cairo, Islamabad, Jeddah, Teheran and Mecca. Five big radioactive craters.

End of war. Period. And then, maybe, the rest of the world will have some peace and quiet.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-14 15:49 | Link

Ex C says "NATIONS WITH MUSLIM BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS SHOULD BE ALWAYS ON HIGH ALERT" Ex C's got it all wrong. What is going to happen is that " MUSLIM NATIONS WITH CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH AND HINDU BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS SHOULD BE ALWAYS ON HIGH ALERT." Come to think of it, why bother; they are so stupid that they believe that the West will do nothing. Besides what is of more concern are the inncocent camels. The brdenis on Muslems to decry and abolish terrorism. If not then like a cancer they should be eradicated. FULL StOP

Michael Farris, Poznan, Poland | 2005-07-14 19:24 | Link

Ex-Christian as usual makes no sense, he writes

"NATIONS WITH MUSLIM BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS SHOULD BE ALWAYS ON HIGH ALERT.

Full stop."

But Iran has far more Muslim (Iraqi) blood on its hands than the US or the UK any western country. Muslims have killed more Muslim Palestinians than Israel has. Pakistan has lots of Indian and Bangladeshi Muslim blood on its hands. Does any of this count? Or is okay for a predominantly Muslim country to kill Muslims? (Also see Sudan, killing lots and lots of Muslim Sudanese).

Stop uncritically following fanatic talking points and pay attention to history and reality. It might surprise you.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-14 20:00 | Link

Re: Micheal

When muslims fight each other it is OUR affairs but when christians or jews attack us then dont muslims all become one hand. Maybe you should pay attention to history, the fate of the crusaders in our land is good start.

Beside, I am still waiting for any mindless Islamophobe here to answer my question:

''Why these terrorists dont attack Sweden or Finland or Switzerland or Iceland or Chille for example, these also free countries, aren't they?????''

I guess this question exposes naked all your BS about ' they attack us because of our values and our freedom ' !! right ??

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-14 20:06 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

I want also to take on the point made in the original article about Islam and the oppression of women, of course, ignorant westerners who themselves are the worst oppressers of women always like to throw stones at others..

If Islam really oppresses women, how do you explain this ?

FROM THE OFFICAL SITE OF SWISS RADIO INTERNATIONAL :

Around 30,000 women in Switzerland have converted to Islam

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=5416761

Remind me when the last time the USA,France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Sweden, Norway and other ' free ' nations have woman as their president or prime minister ??

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-14 22:02 | Link

Ex C says
"When muslims fight each other it is OUR affairs but when christians or jews attack us then dont muslims all become one hand. Maybe you should pay attention to history, the fate of the crusaders in our land is good start."

If you inverted Muslims, on the one hand, and Christians and Jews, on the other hand, and phrased it in terms of current events rather then the crusades one would be at a good start for the reality of the situation. Except for
Turkey, which is essentially secular, every Islamic society that I can think of is a basket case economically and they continue to decline. No industry, no research, no free press of note, no diversity, lots of illiteracy, lots of prayer, lots of veils, etc.

Beside, I am still waiting for any mindless Islamophobe here to answer my question:

''Why these terrorists dont attack Sweden or Finland or Switzerland or Iceland or Chille for example, these also free countries, aren't they?????''

The short ansewr is who cares? If the implicastion is that they have stayed on the sidelines so they are protected, I would guess tht the response is that but for Islamic graciousness which can does turn at will they are no better protected.

Aurora | 2005-07-14 22:06 | Link

Why don't we put Herbie and ex-Christian in an arena with Not Tired of Living as ref? No prisoners. It wouldn't solve anything, but it would give them an opportunity to practise what they preach.

Peace to all

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-14 22:36 | Link

Aurora, frankly you may be correct. At bottom, why are not Christians and Jews entitled to the same views of Muslims as they hold of Christians and Jews. Wy not allow Christians and Jews to treat Muslims with the same contempt as Muslims treat Christians and Jews. I see no reason to accord respect to someone who does not accord equal respect to me and my beliefs -- and that is the nub of the issue as I see it. Your position, while admirable, does not protect western society from continued attacks. Unless Islam is prepared to disregard Ibn Taymiyya all the West is left with is talking to an unmoving wall.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-15 08:19 | Link

Oi de novo John/aka Kactuzkid,

Não Senhor, eu não sou um gênio, mas eu sei que ex-cristão tem uma abóbora grande para um cérebro ha ha !!!:)

Yohoo ex-christian - are you back with your nasty islamoid propaganda again :) Did you not read my response in the past regarding those foolish broads in switzerland who turned mausoleum oops i mean muzzzlim? There are many stupid females out there who smoke Virginia Slim because they think that would put them at par with males - well they cough , hack and eventually die a horrible death from lung cancer.

Likewise if you fish around in a large enough universe of subjects you are bound to happen upon a group of dumb broads ( Swiss or otherwise)who were either drunk, or have been duped by their islamoid husbands ( or most like coerced and threatened with dire bodily harm, like loosing an arm , or leg or having their throat slit wide open to expose their glottis and epiglottis ;)to become muslimahs!

Regarding Sweden, Switzerland blah blah blah..... why , darling did not the muslims sort of took over Malmø and turn it into a mad-house? Finland, well they sort of like the finnish sauna; Switzerland?..well they are enthralled by Heidi and also they need their swiss chocolate before and after their dhohor prayers; Iceland? oh they could'nt find Rejkjavik on their map, at any rate its too cold for their camels to make camp; Chile - - Oh they have pinochet to keep Chile busy O.K., i'm just being silly . Anyway the truth is that these countries are just sitting ducks once the Guardians of democracy and liberty are done away with...so why bother with them for now at least.

Ex-christians , muslims attackkk about anyone who are not members of the cult of Izzzlam - so what is your point? The bangladeshi muslims are persecuting the peace-loving buddhists and hindus in the chittagong delta area and also the buddhists in the kashmiri region. They are particularly vicious to the buddhists because they consider the buddhists idolators and also non members of the alNas-ul-Kitab ( people of the book, jews, christians and muslims ).

Your uhholy manifesto commands you to sequester others land as booty for Allah - sweet and simple, end of arguement ...comprendo?

Ex-christian ...you know , you should really expend your mind a bit and worry more about things like global warming and that species are disappearing...but no , your cult worries about silly little things like whether your females are covered up properly with hijab, burqas, chaddors, doppeta and swath and swath of cloths...whether you should slit your sister's throat cos she happens to date a man of her liking and free choice....your morality and the morality of your false God is predicated on misogyny , your 'honor' seems to reside in the sexual organs and false modesty of the female of your species.

To further expose the ridiculous falsity of your creed, let me ask you a question. Suppose -God forbid - half of native hawaiians suddenly loose their better judgement and kkkonverted to Issssslam, can they be good muslims if they still engage in their hula dance, and wear grass skirts and eat poi/pork and all things hawaiian -pineapple inclusive ( although pineapple is not native of hawaii -- aha gotcha on that one did i not :)..can they still run around their coconut groves wearing puka shells and skimpy grass skirts bedecked with lei and a hibiscus flower in their hair. Well they are children of God and have been placed there in their island home since time immemorial. So ..i suppose they will have to divide the island into half, so that the muslim hawaiians will have to do their bathing and dancing covered head to toe with black abaayah, chaddor, burqa and what not, pork will be forbidden, but it's o.k. to have goat or camel POI? Hawaiian language will once again be threatened and Meli kelikimaka/merry christmas will now be replaced with Moobalaka Eyeed too fitera/ Mubarak Eid ul Fitr. Hawaiian culture is matriarchal...do you suppose hawaiian females can keep a harem of islamoid studs. I suppose not and now you will have to import muslim sheikhs to show the Hawaiian muslims how to start a harem right?..let's see at least 4 wives, what about concubines?

So you see your precious Issslam is nothing but a facade for bedouin-arab cultural hegemony ...making mockery of the intelligent ground of being =God by equating middle eastern language, rites, rituals and customs with Divinity.

O.k. will you be sweet enuf to read the following links...oh come on , don't let me make you ;)

http://www.islamreview.com/cgi-bin/guestbook/guestbook.cgi?start_number=150

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_8241.shtml

oh and in all fairness for a balanced presentation please go to this link :

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11091

Sssssister Aishah NyahNyah-ponika KKKim
Your favorite Kor(e)an Ayatohlass
أختك المفضّلة ....عائشة نيانيابونيكا كيم

Oi de novo John/aka Kactuzkid,

Não Senhor, eu não sou um gênio, mas eu sei que ex-cristão tem uma abóbora grande para um cérebro ha ha !!!:)

Your uhholy manifesto commands you to sequester others land as booty for Allah - sweet and simple, end of arguement ...comprendo?

O.k. will you be sweet enuf to read the following links...oh come on , don't let me make you ;)

http://www.islamreview.com/cgi-bin/guestbook/guestbook.cgi?start_number=150

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_8241.shtml

oh and in all fairness for a balanced presentation please go to this link :

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11091

Sssssister Aishah NyahNyah-ponika KKKim
Your favorite Kor(e)an Ayatohlass

한국에서 너의 마음에 들는 자매 김
أختك المفضّلة ....عائشة نيانيابونيكا كيم

Jack | 2005-07-15 09:04 | Link

Ali Dashti | 2005-07-16 03:45 | Link

Benny Zoons: "We all know how this is going to end again: Europe will talk and talk because the political ellite doesn't dare to talk about radical solutions like banning islam or deportation of muslims. And on one day the muslim extremists and their supporters will really go to far and the brutal response of Europe will be total genocide."

Yes, that could very well be what will happen. As long as many people such as Bjørn don't understand what's going on, we will react too late.

Sylvia, Denver | 2005-07-16 06:33 | Link

I seen a number of comments recently on different blogs that anticipate violence by Europeans if they continue to be threatened by Moslems.

The general tone is usually, "Well, we'll take care of them like we did to other troublesome minorities".

The difference however, is that it is the general European population that is the one being systematically disarmed. Defending yourself violently against Islamic thugs will land YOU in jail. Serious criticism of Islam can put you in hate speech camp.

Jews, Gypsies and other minorities were systematically disarmed, politically isolated and scapegoated, and tended to live in small, closed communities. They had little, if any outside support.

Moslems are not really a minority group in a psychological sense, and they don't act like one.

What exactly are you going to defend yourself with? Going to load Moslems onto boxcars at the point of a .....what?

You're being systematically disarmed, the legal systems works against you, and violent Islamofascist groups appear to be well financed, organised and armed.

Who do you think is going to get themselves killed?

(Good grief, I hope this scenario never plays out)

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-16 10:00 | Link

AMAZING !

Some mindless Islamophobes are advocating genocide against Muslims here in this blog !!

Waooo!! I knew you were very filthy but I did not expect you to be so evil to the level of calling for genocide !!!!

May God curses you !

kim sook-im | 2005-07-16 13:22 | Link

ahem !

AMAZING....Some mindless islamist is all agitated about genocide against muslims? ....double ahem....genocide is applicable only to a particular ethnic group, islam is not a race, it is theofascist cultic ideology with many similarities to Nazism. Like a super mind Virus it replicates itself voraciously among the infected and helpless victimS and mutates into strains that are lethal resulting in high MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY RATE !!!

Early symptoms are sudden obsession with religiosity, growing of beard, oppressing of their womenfolks, rabid anti-semitism...halucinating about etheral virgins in the hereafter.

Death is usually due to scrotal implosion secondary to extreme constipation of male sexual energy. Auto-destruction by suicide with explosives and destruction of innocent by-standers have frequently been reported by astute clinicians ! This late stage rabid-like symptoms of death by vain-glorious auto-destruction is particularly dangerous and hazardous to public health of millions of earths uninfected denizen.

Currently there is no known cure or reliable method of eradication. Public education and preventive methodologies are being studied. Anti-memetic vaccinations with anti YSLM titers are strongly advised. Some anti-dote such as KRISTIAN 101, BODDHI 101, HINDOO 101, BAHAI 101, SEKULAR 101, FREETHINK 101 and similar anti-dotes are being experimented with.

May the great Spirit bless y'all

Doktress Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim....
Megical specialist in supramental memetic virology
دكتور عائشة كيم ....الإخصائيّ الطّبّيّ في الأمراض العقليّة المعدية
金醫生
危險和感染精神病醫學專家

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-07-16 13:24 | Link

Gunnar wrote: "Similarly, the norwegian society was transformed from extreme violence to peace & brotherhood by the miracles of St Olav".

Oh, well, that is not quite what I remember from my history lessons... Olafur hinn helgi was not the most calm and charming dude throughout Norwegian history. And he certainly did not care too much about the Ten Commandments, burning down farms, plundering, killing... A good Christian man, he was.

By the way, I believe the mother of one of the three children in Fatima said: "She is only a fake who is leading half the world away".

Surely the work of Satan? Which reminds me: is it not possible for Satan to do miracles as well, as mentioned in 2. Thessalonians 2, 9, for instance? Well, it is nice to have an explanation, I guess, for the fact that it is not merely Catholics that experience miracles. So does, of course various kinds of Protestants, even the kind of them who claim that the pope is a servant of - you know - the bad guy. And Muslims? Gee, they experience miracles too! Some claim to see the Arabic letters for Allah written both here and there and in tomatoes, others tell of Allah beans that turns out being plenty of food for loads more people than it should have been. Hindus have miracles too, thousands of people report seeing statues of Ganesha drinking milk. Buddhists have them. Taoists have them.

And, frankly, I think the chances for making everyone disciples of Jesus, like he reportedly commanded, are somewhat slim. While you are working on it, however, I do hope that there are other ways to stem militant Islamism. And I do believe, as Bjørn does, that the most important work there has to be done by Muslims themselves and not be missionaries.

Bjørns post is a very good one. The only problem I see with it, is the word he chooses for the opponent; "Islamist".

There are several reasons for this. For once, Ex-Christian has a point, in English the word has previously been used about anyone belonging to the religion of Islam and it certainly implies something of the like. As Bjørn makes clear, that is of course not the case. A second reason is that not even Islamist ideology, as much as I disagree with it and dislike it, leads to bombs on the London underground. One should be careful not to understand the Islamism in the government party of Turkey in the same way as the Islamism of Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-07-16 13:41 | Link

By the way, Gunnar, I do not know where you got the idea from... but girls where absolutely allowed to attend schools in Iraq before the invasion as well.

Thanks to an increasing influence of concervative Shiites the situation for women in Iraq may actually have detoriated since the invasion, instead of improving. That does not mean that loads of good things has not happened in Iraq. It has.

Still, mixing up Afghanistan and Iraq is not very smart.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-16 14:07 | Link

Ahem...

"...For once, Ex-Christian has a point, in English the word has previously been used about anyone belonging to the religion of Islam and it certainly implies something of the like."

Really ? that nice gentleman ekkks-kkkristian who opines that 'internecine warfare among muslims ie. muslims killing millions of other muslims is non of others business , but if a jew or christian were to kill a muslim then they/muslims will become one Hand !?

....that nice-gentleman that had further opined in previous blogs that 'Islam to a mouselim is dearer than life itself !....that anyone that disagrees with his fanaticism are mindless islamophobes.???

hmmmm ... i recall in previous postings ex-kkkristian was also lauded for 'disdaining the Wahabists etc'( as if that makes his ideology any more palatable ....he who is probably beside himself with mirth and satisfaction, now that the british have had their nose rubbed in the dirt)

I think a lot of people are not aware of the subtle difference between atrocities committed by 'christians' versus atrocities committed by islamoids ( o.k. that's the proper scientific nomenclature in order to avoid the confusion between islamists and islamites :) ;) :0).

Wicked 'christians' that murder and plunder in the name of Jesus act in contradiction to the spirit of the christian gospel.

Jesus' basic message is divine Love/ Agape Love/ UnConditional Universal Love. His prime directive was to Love God with all your heart, then immediately the 2nd commandment was to love your neighbour(any neighbour irregardless of attributes, yes including ex-christian)as yourself...for upon these two commandments hang all the laws and prophets. Jesus is a MahaBoddhisatta in the buddhist tradition.

On the other hand when islamoids kill, plunder, rape and maim infidels ...they do so not in contradiction to their islamic holy writ , but rather they do these things in compliance and obedience to the wicked exhortations of their unholy manifesto and in emulating their violence prone prophet who they ironically elevated to a status of 'the perfect creation'/'alInsan-ul-kamil'. ( for all this i refer you to your 'favorite' references:)

www.faithfreedom.org

and

www.prophetofdoom.net

To buddhists, miracles are the operation of hiterto unknown/unrecognized natural laws of the natural universe (o.k. we may be getting into metaphysics also ). O.k. a t.v. set may be a miracle to a roman soldier of ancient times since he is not cognizant of certain physical laws that allow for images and sounds to be transmitted.

Sister Aishah N. Kim
Spesjialist in irrasjional adamik kkkults

Helga Buchwald | 2005-07-17 04:02 | Link

There is a person posing as a muslim on your website who clearly is a troll plant. The garbage from that windbag is tailored to alienate any objective and reasonable person from true Islam. No wonder more people are growing to hate Islam, even muslims. Between the fake muslims who libel Islam and the fanatics who murder the truly innocent there is nothing good about Islam for anyone to be proud of. This foolish demolition of Islam has to stop, but true muslims are afraid of the fanatics and the imposters. Western political fanatics appear to egg on the fanatics who claim to be muslims.
The freedoms that westerners enjoy infuriate the fanatics even while true muslims are attracted to the freedoms. True muslims enjoy the freedom of religion in the west, but the fanatics and imposters use those freedoms to threaten and bully, even to kill.
These fanatics and imposters seem to believe that if they are ruthless and brutal enough that everyone else will surrender to them. They forget the principle of an equal and opposite reaction that is induced eventually by such behaviour.

Bjoern Staerk | 2005-07-17 12:04 | Link

No I don't believe he's a troll, just very excited about his new faith. And surely you don't believe that all Muslims who speak like this (and worse) are imposters?

Osmund Bindalen | 2005-07-17 14:51 | Link

If you seriously intend to fight islamism, you should take a closer look at this posting:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/JenniferKing50718.htm

kim sook-im | 2005-07-17 17:48 | Link

fighting 'terrorism' per se is like putting out the fires without trying to find out who the perpetrators or the root cause of the terror is.

Here is an excellent article on the ' Invention of Islam 'by Ahmed Simon:

--------->
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/inventionofislam.shtml#top

Here is a some excerpts from this excellent and eye-opening article:

".....History documents the Vikrama Era (58 B.C. to 415 A.D.) of the Maharaja/s Candragupta/s stretched their Hindu Empire from India right up to the whole of the Arabian Peninsula in the West. These Maharaja/s were greatly devoted to their Hindu Deities of Lord Siva (moon God-Allat) and his spouse, Goddess Durga (moon goddess-Allah). The Maharajas gave thanks to their Godly Deities by building temples in their honour, in all their territories (at least 7 in Saudi Arabia alone, including the present Kaaba). Even after their Empire fell, the Arabs faithfully devoted themselves to these Godly Deities/Temples up to Muhammad’s time. (For details – see ‘Kaaba a Hindu Temple’ in www.hinduism.co.za)......."

"........... Muhammad gathered a concoction of about 10% of Babylonian Talmud (not the Torah of Judaism, but with numerous errors/etc); about 5% of Christianity (a few parts of the Gospel, but distorted and erroneous, probably gathered from Mary his Coptic slave, and Waraqa, his wife Khadija’s Christian cousin, and during his travels to Syria); about 25% of existing Hindu temples/Allah/idols/rituals and beliefs in Saudi Arabia. (The word ‘Allah’ is a Sanskrit word and in truth, there is no Islamic Allah); about 10% of Animism (spirits, demons, Jinns, devils, spirits, etc) gathered from existing Arab folklore and mythical tales; about 10% of Arabic traditions and culture, and 40% of Muhammad and his companions’ own barbaric creations, to make up Islam, his new religion. Since Muhammad and his several hundred companions were completely illiterate (could not read or write) and Muhammad had a poor memory; thus, his companions memorized for him the Quranic verses they plagiarized/concocted. But in the battle of Yamamah, almost all his companions were killed and the original Quranic verses were lost forever and was never compiled in writing before Muhammad himself was killed by food poisoning in 632 A.D. by a Jewish slave, who said, “If you are a true Apostle, Allah would have saved you”. ......."

Happy reading!

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-18 06:50 | Link

Time for some serious reading for the mindless Islamophobes:

The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise

Karen Armstrong
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1525894,00.html

A must read.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-18 07:02 | Link

Another ' embarrassing ' finding for those mindless Islamophobes:

From today's The Guardian:

Tube bombs 'linked to Iraq conflict'

Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the terrorist attacks in London, a respected independent thinktank on foreign affairs, the Chatham House organisation, says today.
According to the body, which includes leading academics and former civil servants among its members, the key problem in the UK for preventing terrorism is that the country is "riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1530817,00.html

Until when you will bury your dumb heads in the sands talking about ' they attacked us because of our freedom and values' ??

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-18 22:45 | Link

DENVER — (Rep. Tom Tancredo ) A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Tor Inge Vevatne | 2005-07-18 23:18 | Link

Can torture ever be justified? The tv-serie 24 made a sterliesed example were they justify torture. They have a key-vitnes that is unlikely to give needed information to stop a nuclar attack unless he is tortured. Perhaps an unlikely situation, but what if it happend? Is torture still wrong?

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-19 09:14 | Link

Sylvia:
And good thing it is that the general population do not have weapons. And 'general population' includes the muslims.
Two armies fighting eachother with hands and knives must be better than if they are armed with guns. First of all, it would take a hell of a lot more from the person who wanted to attack their enemey, (psychologically prevention) second, there would a lot less chance of fatal injuries.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-19 13:50 | Link

As regards torture, a professor at Harvard Law school took the postion that torture was not wrong. In his view it was wrong to leave torture to the judgment of the individual interrogtor and what was required was a "torture warrant". In his view an application would have to be made to a court with supporting grounds set for as to the need for torture much as is needed in obtaining a serarch warrant. Only afdter approaval by a judge could it proceed.

Tor Inge Vevatne | 2005-07-19 16:36 | Link

Interesting Herbie. If torture should be allowed it should surtenly have strong restrictions. Do you have a link? I don't know where I stand on this yet. I'm gennerally against death-penalty, since it's a violation of a persons human rights. However i think it should be allowed in the time of war. I can see some simularities regarding torture. It's very much a violation of a persons human rights, but the qonsequences can be so much bigger in times of war, and expecially in the war on terror, that perhaps is should be accepted.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-20 01:00 | Link

Øyvind, your arguments are weak, as they quibble over details and don't touch the main thrust. It is indisputable history that Christianity dramatically changed the level of violence in every society where it was accepted, to the extent it was accepted. Your statement about Olafur is a big straw man, since I never claimed that all people's behaviour changed.

And what a straw man regarding the mother! That shot completely misses everything. You still have 15,000 witnesses to deal with.

It's true that Satan can do miracles. We can only judge by the fruits, and this the Church does with great deliberation. For example, Fatima is approved, but Garabandal is not. But the bottom line still proves my point. If Satan exists, then so does Jesus. We need to move towards the good.

Yes, our Christian brothers also experience miracles. As well they should, they believe in the Trinity. When the apostles asked Jesus "There are people who are performing signs in your name, but they are not of our fold". He answered something like "Leave them alone, if they are not against us, they are for us". Your point?

Yes, the muslims may claim miracles. Not surprising, since as you stated, Satan can do miracles as well. Any so called religion based on violence and falsehoods (eg. Gospel of Barnabas) can't be true. To support the idea that God does not exist, you would need to show miracles have not occurred. Reason dictates that you should start with the most impressive ones, which are also documented well. FYI, the Vatican has these records. Many famous non religious people have tried, and converted instead.

>> making disciples chances slim

One of the reasons that Iraq is so important to the islamo fascists is that the new Iraq will have religious freedom. Christianity out converts Islam by a huge margin, so violence and prohibitions are Islam's only defense.

Do you also believe that the most important work against german Nazis was done by the Nazis themselves? Was Norway's Quisling problem solved when the norwegian Nazis finally started on the path of self reflection? Was the most important work against Japanese fascist ideology done by the Japanese war lords? Your opinion doesn't pass the laugh test, and you're embarassing yourself.

Right, and let's boil all this down to a discussion about semantics, shall we? Wow, where is the cool Kevin guy from Bergen when we need him? Oh, you probably wore him out.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-20 13:14 | Link

Tor: The cocept is described in a book by Prof. Alan Dershowitz in his book "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age,"

Underhis proposal, no torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge.

An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.

The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture. The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal meansbut would allow excruciating pain.

According to him "Those opposed to the idea of a torture warrant argue -- quite reasonably -- that establishing such a precedent would legitimize torture and make it easier to extend its permissible use beyond the ticking bomb case.

Those who favor the torture warrant argue that the opposite would be true: By expressly limiting the use of torture only to the ticking bomb case and by requiring a highly visible judge to approve, limit and monitor the torture, it will be far more difficult to justify its extension to other institutions.

The goal of the warrant would be to reduce and limit the amount of torture that would, in fact, be used in an emergency. This is an issue that should be discussed now, before we confront the emergency."

Tor Inge Vevatne | 2005-07-20 14:09 | Link

Thanks Herbie. You, or Dershowitz, have some interessting points. And I can't agree more then the debate must start now. We all know that torture to some degree allready accure, still terrorist are able to strike. When it can happend in London with long experiance figthing terrorism, besides giving a huge warning 9/11, it shows we do not have necesery methos. Sadly I think the scenario from those opposeing it is quiet realistic, besides the tought of beeing tortured, even if the risk is very small, is terrible.

One the other hand, torture accure. According to and article i read in Times its Secretary of State Rumsfelt that approve the use of "torture" og harder then ordenary methos of interrogation on prisoners that f.ex have been trained to stand against ordenary methos. I'm not saying thats tru or not tru, but if it's tru it would be much bette to have a judge approving it rather then secretary of state, to get more controll and balance of power.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-20 15:48 | Link

Tor: I agree with you partially. Rumsfield never apporved torture. What ihe approved of was aggresive interrogation which involved sensory deprivation (noise lack of sleep) and embarrasement (dogs, nakedness). The argument against torture that is traditionally raised is that it only provides or may only provide false information in order to stop the torture. I have never thought much of this argument since the information can then be checked. However in a democracy the concept of torture is upsetting. On the other hand so is a homicde bomber and the cutting off of heads and screaming God is great.

Tor Inge Vevatne, Bergen, Norway | 2005-07-20 18:56 | Link

Herbie. I don't think we diceagree all that much.

It make sence to distinguish between aggresive interrogation and torture, thou traditionally it is(at least in this country), and many will never accept that it's not. Expecially left-wing preasure groups like Amnesty will have an interest of categorising it as torture to make it more unacceptable.

What i think is interesting, however, is not what we call things, but what we do. Aggresive interrogation is, of course, more acceptable then torture and can be more widely used, thou never in other maters then national security, and not on conventional soldiers.

Anyway, i don't think the executive power should approve aggreasive interrogation either. It could be a military court, but I think even in the war on terror it's important to have a seperate controling power, that can not be overruled by poleticians.

Aggreasive interrogation would probably not work on a short basis, when immidiate information is needed to prevent a mager terrorisk attack. Interrogation that allowed some forms of excruciating pain probably would. (If allowed the results should, however continuesly be evaluated) Another dilemma, as well as the opposing arguments discribed above, is that such a warrant would not have the chance to be tried in a higher court since the very nature is the need for immidiate action. (I suppose that is the case for every warrants, still the probleme is bigger when it come to torture)

PS. My view are principly, and not based on any of the stupied BS opinions about Rumsfield beeing a war criminal.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-20 19:50 | Link

Tor, your point about appealing of such an order of torture is a good one, I had not thought about that. The remedy on appeal for an improper search warrant is that the evidence gets quashed. Obviously you can't undo torture and can't wait for an appeal in some instances. I would guess that a) the statute would have to state clearly what grounds must be stated to support such a warrant and b) the degree of proof that must be offered in support and c) the facts establishing the urgency.

Totoro, U.S. | 2005-07-21 00:31 | Link

Gunnar, MD . . .

You said: "Right, and let's boil all this down to a discussion about semantics, shall we? Wow, where is the cool Kevin guy from Bergen when we need him? Oh, you probably wore him out."

Hang in there! Don't let the semantician wear you down! You neither, Herbie NY, and Kim Sook-im, princess of the Nile.

I'm just checking in here and have nothing to add to the conversation, but want to cheer on those who continue to fight the good fight against the spreading evil called Islamism.

Tor Inge Vevatne, Bergen, Norway | 2005-07-21 15:55 | Link

Herbie. The problem remaines since we would expect the process to be very strict in the first place, if torture should be allowed. I can't think of anything that solves that dilemma, thou your suggestions is about as far as we can get. I suppose it just have to be that way, quashed evidence from "improper torture" is, as you said, of little help.

Another dilemma is that by accepting torture we are letting the terrorists win, since we are givin up ouer values. My best answear to that, is that ouer civil society reamains more or less as before. And you could use that argument against anything, like f.ex the Patriot Act. Terrorisme is something new, that nobody could have forsean, I suppose we just have to be pragmatic about it. Sadly terror have allready changed ouer society. We are more afraid. It's less open. UK is about to limit the freedom of speach, regarding support for terrorism.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-21 16:01 | Link

Reading various condemnations by Muslim groups of the last series of bombing in London I am struck by the fact that they all say this is the work of people who are not true Muslims, but that they can appreciate the motivations behind the attacks. Muslims subscribe to the view that Sharia law is more imporatant than secular law and there is no basic legitimacy to secular law it is only Sharia law that is legitimate. I am coming to the view that Muslims who are citizens of acountry must swear an oath of allegiance to that country or lose their citizenship. We are fast coming to the point that obligations must rumpt rights. All the Moslims seem to care about are rights and they feel free to ignore their obligations to the country they are "citizens" of.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-21 16:09 | Link

Argument restated
Reading various condemnations by Muslim groups of the last series of bombing in London, they all say this is done by people who are not true Muslims, but that they can appreciate the motivations behind the attacks. Muslims subscribe to the view that Sharia law trumps secular law and there is no basic legitimacy to secular law; it is only Sharia law that is legitimate. I am coming to the view that Muslims who are citizens of a country must effectively swear an oath of allegiance to that country that they recognize that Sharia law covers only private practices and they have an affirmative obligation to assist secular authorities in finding and rooting out terrorists or lose their citizenship. We are fast coming to the point that obligations must trump rights. All the Moslems seem to care about are rights and they feel free to ignore

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-21 21:38 | Link

Interesting thought from the Wall St. Journal Political diary page:

"Sooner or later, it was bound to develop that the target of Britain's homegrown Muslim radicals isn't British foreign policy [but]British Muslims themselves and their peaceful relations with the rest of British society. The goal is to make all Muslims suspect in the eyes of their fellow Britons, to punish those Muslims who favor quiet assimilation, to make their lives impossible.
* * *
British Muslims may have to get used to the idea that they are being deliberately placed in the line of fire by their radical fellow Muslims, with the hope of defeating their intent to live happily, successfully and peacefully amidst a larger, polyglot world. This is their fight too, and perhaps most of all."

Tor Inge Vevatne, Bergen, Norway | 2005-07-22 00:24 | Link

Regarding to swearing and oath, it will not help if the extrimists don't except secular laws. It may thou have an effect for some, and i don't see how it can hurt. This issue is allready beeing discused in norwegian public. It's typical for modern societyes to think of their right and forget their obligations.

Regarding the muslim religion i agree with Bjørn that it's not neceserly evil and we must judge the muslim on what they do and belive in practis, and not whatever the Koran say. What is scary, however, is that the number that put Sharia above secular laws, and moreover have supportiv views of Osama Bin Ladin.

One teori why so many hate the west so much is that they are frustrated over globalisation, were western values is imposed to the rest of the world, and other cultures are comming to us. It's nobodys fault, is just how the world develops, and it's easy to see that not everybody in norway is happy about this development either. I understand that frustration very well, I am not happy about it, and i think Norway would have been much better of if it stayed as a homogenous society. However there is little we can do about that now, except limiting further immigration.

Regarding terorisme, after all i don't think it helps much to figure out why they do it, all we can do is fight back. The only one that benefits if the west don't stay together is the extremists. Churchill said in WW2. Let them do their work, and we do ouer best. It worked before, we must hope it works again.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-22 07:40 | Link

Others believe that Islam itself is the enemy, not Islamism, and that any European Muslim is a potential suicide bomber.

This is usually claimed by people who have overread the Quran and become useful idiots for Islamism, which they see as the only real form of Islam.

( No , i disagree with you. Since muslims have been indoctrinated to rever this book as the verbatim word of Allah, every commandment therein is sacrosanct. If it says 'take not jews or christians as your friends' ...than it means that, and it is non revokable and mandatory up to the present. Which part of 'take not etc... etc.. do you not understand Bjoern...and which part of take not the jews etc. eetc... is overreading into the Quran Bjoern???

If the sacred book of Phhtahh says: " and when you O Menkhestaerk son of Menkh-e-Bjoern should encounter the infidel Amenkh-o-vind. put you the shaft to your bow and pierce his heart with your surefire arrow ...extinguish you his life-force, thus command you I, Phtahh-God of vengeance -that our enemies may taste their bitter fruits."

....and you Bjoern being a hopelessly pious Phtahh-ist who rever the book of Phthahh, and considers Phthahhism 'dearer than life itself'....why you would just read the book of Phthahh just as if Phthahh were there in Person commanding you -his slave (abduphthahh)-to do his bidding. You would not have overread,or underread the commands, you would have just read the commands right and acted on the command of your God ...so (phh)that's (phh)that!!! )

I don't care about what "real" Islam is, only about good and evil Islam. Both exist, and to claim that Muslims are unable to choose good over evil is a determinism that has no root in reality.

( oh really? and pray would you elaborate just a bit more as to exactly what consitutes 'good' islam...why...... just list me a handful, just a few 'goodness' that is 'islam'....and while you 're at it would you also mind listing me several proofs to support the contention for a flat earth??? :)

Much of the blame for this anti-Islamic extremism must be placed on those who for years have kept any critical debate about immigrant culture under the lid, but that lid is now mostly gone, and doomsday prophets with a martyr complex no longer have any excuses.

( may i remind you that islamic extremism and conversely ANTI-ISLAMIC EXTREMISM has been present since time immemorial or at least since the concoction of the Lie call Izzzlam...and if you don't believe me take a time machine back through time and ask the contemporary quraish tribesmen of Mohammad.Also ask the hindus who have suffered the brunt of islamic extremism and all the dhimmis of the world who have suffered mightily under the yoke and islamic extremism -- i wonder why anti-islamic extremism do not find root more often. Oh Bjoern -you do know don't you - that like begets like...by the ssssword you live , so shall you die by the ssssssword ...ssssso forgetheth Allah to sssssay ssssso ;)

The hypotheses that Islam is pure evil does not fit with reality.

Now you really caused me to choke on my noodles ( pasta fettucine ..that is - haaaaaaah gotcha on this one did'nt I :) with this one. O.k. I'll
go easy on you for this one for now...I'll give you a chance to refute this basic hypothesis that Islam is pure evil

Ho: 'islam is pure evil'

Ha: 'islam is not pure evil' ( alternate hypothesis)

there is a caveat here !

........if 'islam is not pure evil', it does not automatically confer that islam is

divine
good
the best religion
the one true religion
the correct religion ( for men/errr
forget about women for now)
will solve all of humanity's problems
etc etc.. and host of other possible
positive attributes.

it merely argues for it's not being evil, but it could be neutral or morally irrelevant LOL.

Princess Hatshepsook
Specialist in Phhthahlasmic necromancy
الأميرة هاتشيبسوك....إخصائيّ سحر فهثااه

kim sook-im | 2005-07-22 07:43 | Link

oops,
sorry, the foregoing post was in response to Bjoerns earlier posting above, opening comments

Fighting European Islamism
Monday July 11, 2005 by Bjørn Stærk

So sorry,

Princess Hatshepsook

Tor Inge Vevatne, Bergen, Norway | 2005-07-22 13:32 | Link

Regarding discussion on torture. Today a suspect terrorist was shot and killed, and they did shot with the intention of killing. I such a warrant can be given, there must be some way we can get a warrant on torture as well. To me it does not seam like these kind of warrants have been missused a lot, so that give hope to the other discussion as well.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-22 14:17 | Link

This debate is beginning to have a very artifical quality in my view. The bottom line is that while not all Moslems are terrorists, all terrorists appear crurrently to be Moslem. The burden of proof in such a situation should be on Moslem community members to establish they are not terrorists. In the absence of such proof, it is fair and rational, as a matter of self-protection, to assume they are terrosists or support terrorists and respond accordingly.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-22 14:17 | Link

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-22 14:55 | Link

Interesting Op Ed in the NY Times:

Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN July 22, 2005
I wasn't surprised to read that British police officers . . . were combing through the Iqra Learning Center bookstore in Leeds for clues to the 7/7 London bombings. Some of the 7/7 bombers hung out at the bookstore. * * * Guess what: words matter.
* * *
If the primary terrorism problem we face today can effectively be addressed only by a war of ideas within Islam - a war between life-affirming Muslims against those who want to turn one of the world's great religions into a death cult - what can the rest of us do?

* * * We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against others.
* * *
Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or explain them.
* * *
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."

There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.

Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers." Every week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers' words also need to be disseminated globally. * * *

Sandy P | 2005-07-22 18:35 | Link

Just surrender and all will be well. Let's see how long it takes Britain to become dhimmified.

Via LGF:

Senior Muslims have warned the Government that it needed to revise British foreign policy if it wants to put an end to the violence.

Dr Azzam Tamimi, from the Muslim Association of Britain, said the country was in real danger and that this would continue so long as British forces remained in Iraq.

He described the July 7 bombings and the attempted attacks in London on Thursday as “horrifying” BUT said it was not enough to simply unite in condemnation of the bombers.

Dr Tamimi, speaking after a Sky News debate in Birmingham, said: “The latest developm