Dag Herbjørnsrud has become a commentator for Al Jazeerah. Herbjørnsrud is the coauthor of The Fear of America, a book on the long roots of European anti-Americanism, and was last mentioned in this blog for his views on Muslim democracy.

Herbjørnsrud says to NRK that his intent is to bridge differences between Westerners and Arabs, and show the nuances of Western views about Islam. In his first column for Al Jazeerah, Western Europe united against Bush, he points out that Norwegians are more critical of George W. Bush than people in Muslim countries like Indonesia and Turkey are.

In September, Globe Scan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) published the results of their Global Public Opinion.

Nearly 34,000 people in 35 countries on five continents were asked about their views on US foreign policy. The main outcome was that the majority in 32 of the 35 countries surveyed preferred senator John Kerry to George Bush. Only Nigeria, the Philippines and Poland had populations which preferred to see Bush re-elected.

But if we take a closer look at the results, some really interesting patterns emerge. In Norway, as much as 74% of the population favours Kerry. Only 7% support the incumbent president. No other population surveyed displays such a wide margin between Kerry and Bush.

..

Thirty-four per cent of Indonesians prefer the incumbent US president. If we are to believe the poll, this represents some 70 million Bush-supporting Muslim people in Indonesia - many more than in the 10 European countries combined.

Kerry is also popular in Indonesia, though, where he is favoured by 57% - but, except for Poland, no European country can match a ratio where Kerry leads over Bush by less than two to one.

..

Interestingly, the two other Muslim countries surveyed, Turkey and Kazakhstan, are also rather split.

In Turkey, 25% of the population prefers Bush, 40% Kerry. In Kazakhstan Kerry leads by 40% to 12%, which is comparable with the views in the United Kingdom.

..

At least, all these polls seem to confirm that people from different cultures do not differ too much on the world's most important questions. There is no clash of civilizations, as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have propagated for more than 10 years. The great schism of today is not between cultures, religions or civilisations.

I agree with the main point Herbjørnsrud is trying to make, that views about America are not determined by which faith or civilization you belong to. But he doesn't make it very clearly, and he stretches it too far when he concludes that "our own neighbour might be a bigger threat to our common global civilisation than the average Joe or Abd Allah of a different religion on the other side of the ocean". If you consider Islam and the West as Huntingtonian civilizations, and only look at the global picture, yes, this is true. Conflicts are not caused by differences in civilization. Other factors are generally more important.

But that does not mean that Islamist terrorism is a smaller threat to Norway than Sweden and Russia are. Herbjørnsrud almost entirely ignores the level of anti-Americanism in Arab countries, which is fine when his point is that some Muslims like American foreign policy more than we do. But it's not fine when his point is that "our own neighbour might be a bigger threat" than people on the other side of the world. That requires a different line of inquiry. Not only "how do people feel about Bush?", but "what do they do about it?".

Most Norwegians dislike George W. Bush, and so do most Arabs. But Norwegians who dislike Bush speak angry words, and, at worst, make lame death threats on the web. So do many Arabs. But others form terrorist groups and blow up American civilians - and Europeans, Muslims, Jews, anyone who stands in the way. Only a minority of Arabs do this, but a minority large enough to pose a major threat to Europe and the US. Our neighbours do not. Nor is Islamic extremism limited to the Arab world - it exists, also, in Indonesia.

It's meaningless to compare Bush critics in Norway with Bush critics in Arab and Muslim countries when their motivation is so different, and they act out their views so differently. Herbjørnsrud's point about the mythical clash of civilizations is grounded in fact. His conclusion that "we need to fight our inner demons, not the myth of a threat from alien civilisations" is not. Which "inner demon" poses a larger threat to Norway than a truck bomb in central Oslo? We are at war with Islamist terrorism, not because the terrorists are of a different faith and have a different "skin colour", as Herbjørnsrud implies, but because they're actually a threat to us.

Well said! I'm curious, too, just why Kerry is so favored in Norway. What do you know that we presumably don't? Is the NY Times, for example, that popular? Is CBS? I certainly hope not! We're weaning ourselves from those teats. Does Norway have a similar set of media gatekeepers?

Where does "Islamist terrorism" come from? Discussions of this question too often begin with or imply a number of false assumptions - "Islamists" are basically barbarians who attack the civilised world for reasons of jealousy, hatred of freedom, religious intolerance etc. - they have no legitimate reason for opposing our society - they must be subdued by violence. It must be recognised that for at least the second half of the 20th century, the prevailing world powers (mainly the US, but also the European powers, notably the UK) ran roughshod over the human rights of people all over the world. The UK has a long history of colonial rule, often imposed by great brutality and manipulation. The record of the US in South America need not be expanded upon, but the Middle East has been a hotbed of injustice and colonial violence for most of a hundred years. The British attempted violent control of Iraq during and after WW1, recognising that the oil and natural reserves there were an enviable prize. Israel was invented by the United Nations by the major colonial powers of the time, without any regard for the desires of the people of Palestine nor the opinions of the other Arab nations - this led to immense and genocidal violence and bloody terror perpetrated by the very people who had just suffered the same in Europe. When Nasser attempted to exercise control of the Suez canal, an international colonial Coalition was mounted to deprive him of that right, leading to more violence. Since the 1967 war, Israel has exercised brutal colonial rule over the innocent population of Palestine, and has behaved in total violation of human rights and international law. The US has systematically vetoed any UN resolution requiring justice from Israel. The US government (and no doubt European colonial powers, certainly the UK) has manipulated the governments of Middle Eastern countries since WW2, helping Saddam Hussein into power, helping the Shah of Persia into power, continuing its lucrative relationship with the oligarchy of Saudi Arabia, all the while arming and funding Israel. The people of this part of the world have every reason to feel that their existence is of no concern, that their own dignity means nothing to the international community - the UN truly continues to represent the colonial powers of Europe and the USA. I am not saying that Israel should not exist, nor that suicide bombings are acceptable - murder is wrong, whoever commits it. But it is false to take the position that "we were attacked for no reason", that "they knocked our towers down because they hate democracy", these are all low-grade basic propaganda attitudes. It must be seen that the people of the Middle East have legitimate reasons for suspicion of and anger at the Western forces. The longer injustice prevails, the more violent the reaction becomes, that is obvious. I contend that the US and its allies are not concerned with "democracy" and "freedom", but with profit and geopolitical strategy - that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with preventing terror, that the commonly accepted definition of "terror" is itself a one-sided concept, and that to the extent that we eagerly jump into these media-propagated trenches, nothing will improve, on the contrary, as is easily demonstrated in Iraq, they will only get worse. Terror is defined as "what the bastards did to us" without any regard for what we are doing to them. True solutions are no doubt possible, but as long as Western politics is in the grip of financial powers who have every interest in ongoing war and destruction, we the people will suffer, whether we live in Iraq, the USA, Afghanistan or Norway.

All for now - best wishes

Pete

"I contend that the US and its allies are not concerned with "democracy" and "freedom", but with profit and geopolitical strategy..." Pete

You contend that and support your contentions how? Was Norway in on the money and power game when it sent forces to assist the efforts? Is that all the effort comes down to? I am not as cynical as that.

...or at least the second half of the 20th century, the prevailing world powers (mainly the US, but also the European powers, notably the UK) ran roughshod over the human rights of people all over the world.

Pete: If Islamists are fighting for "the good side" against the evil colonial oppressors, how do you explain the emergence of the Iranian mullahcracy, which has killed 100 times the number of people, mostly for political means, as the Shah of Iran? Did you know that the Shah's son, living in exile in the US, is now extremely popular in Iran? Did you know that the current wave of killings is now heating up in Iran again, with 13 year old girls being sentenced to be stoned to death?

Regarding Afghanistan, do you really think they were better off under the Taliban (or the Soviets) than now? Also how do you explain the complete disinterest in Afghanistan by the US after the Soviets were routed out? We are often blamed for "letting" Afghanistan fall into chaos under the Taliban.

Here is the article about the 13 year old facing stoning, BTW. This is far worse than anything that happened under the Shah, according to the many Iranian expatriates I know.

Here we go again ! why you want to confuse the muslim hate for American foreign policy which is run by christian and jewish fanatic zionists with Europe ?

Muslims DONT hate Europe, even Bin laden made it very clear in his latest video:

''Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'"

Until Americans acknowledge the reactionary effects of their BARBARIC ANTI MUSLIM foreign policy, the "War on Terror" will remain doomed to fail.

Susan:

GO FIX YOUR OWN MESS FIRST ..

Here are some statistics about how many American childern are killed every year in the USA:

-5,000 children are killed by parents or grandparents.

-30,000 or more children are left permanently physically disabled from abuse and neglect.

-Child abuse in the United States afflicts more children each year than leukemia, automobile accidents, and infectious diseases combined. With growing unemployment, incidents of abuse by jobless parents is increasing dramatically.

-2,900,000 children are reportedly subjected to serious neglect or abuse, including physical torture and deliberate starvation.

-150,000 children are reported missing.

-50,000 of these simply vanish. Their ages range from one year to mid-teens. According to the New York Times, "Some of these are dead, perhaps half of the John and Jane Does annually buried in this country are unidentified kids."

-900,000 children, some as young as seven years old, are engaged in child labor in the United States, serving as underpaid farm hands, dishwashers, laundry workers, and domestics for as long as ten hours a day in violation of child labor laws.

Source: Hidden Holocaust, USA
From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti

http://www.michaelparenti.org/HiddenHolocaust.html

To be frank, ex-C, the mess in America have never been and will never be an excuse for stoning thirteen year old girls. Please don't make Susan happy by trying to excuse stuff like that.

Let's stop for a moment, ex-C, and ask ourselves: What does the Muslim countries need?

Do they need thinkers and philosophers that merely talk about the "Zionist-run America" when looking at problems in their own countries, or - if they add anything - add stuff like "the atheists", "westeritis", etc. Or do they need thinkers that fight for democracy and human rights?

I am not asking what America needs, though we could talk for hours about that. I am asking what Muslim countries need.

Pete is, of course, right about the Islamists having a rationale. The fact that Pete's French got little to do with that. Islamists have a rationale, they're not simply unknowledgeable and uninformed fools. As I have written about many times before, some of them aren't even anti-democratic, but even those who are often point at very real problems in for instance Arab countries:

- nepotist elites
- corruption
- injustice
- an unfair Western influence
- foreign occupation (Palestine, Iraq)

Of course Islamists would explain problems like this with the lack of Islam, and their solution is most often some kind of theocracy, regardless of whether it is a democracy "guarded" by a council of religious leaders or a outright theocracy in the Western meaning of the word. So, basically they're pointing out some of the right problems, but they have the wrong solutions.

Some of them have idiotic answers about what the problems are - like "it's the lack of monotheism, sufis are polytheists and shias are really Jews". Some, however, are Islamists but still don't have ideas like this and instead of dreaming about a theocracy they do support democracy - a true democracy. Amongst the forefighters for democracy in the Middle East there are Islamists to be found and it is sad that these are overlooked.

Regardless of how many miles the United States, Norway or France have left to walk the Middle East also has a long way yet to go.

The future depends on people who are willing to take those difficult steps in a dangerous desert, not people who flee back to their own little oasises, overlook their own faults and continually rant about the problems of the United States, France or Iran.

As a believer in God, ex-C, you should be the first one to defend human rights and oppose atrocities as those Susan mentioned. Pointing out American problems sadly isn't to do this.

Øyvind

Ex-C: Again with the totally predictable and reactionary "argument."

This child in Iran is being judicially tortured and murdered under the "law" of Iran for the "crime" of being raped and impregnated by her brother.

It is illegal to murder children in the US and anyone who is caught doing it will go to jail or be executed; but the mullahs who are murdering this child are free to kill again under their barbaric "law."

Regarding Europe: Islamists threatened Europe long before the "War on Terror". Muslims tried to blow up the Christmas market in Strasbourg in compliant, pro-Islam France in 2000 -- for what reason? Because France wasn't bending over quick enough and handing over her culture to Islam fast enough?

Europe is full of dhimmies;they long to be dhimmies just like they longed to be under Stalin's boot before, and under Hitler's boot before that, and under Napoleon's boot before that. (ou have European people on this website who still make it quite clear -- despite some weak protestations to the contrary -- how much they preferred the Gulags and their 30 million victims to the American capitalist "monster.") Yes, "Ex-C", brag to your heart's content about how effective Islam has been at colonizing the Euorpeans, as you have a lot there to brag about. I mean that sincerely. Islam has been very, very good at colonizing the Euros. They are nearly finished and dhimmie-ized to your heart's content. They won't raise even a whimper to defend their own civilization, they'll hand over their churches to be made into mosques and steeples to become minarets with hardly a sigh.

Americans are quite different. We are not dhimmies, and never will be.

Pete, you argue as if non-Westerners have no moral responsibility for anything. It's not true that all the problems in the world can be attributed to colonialism or to the US. While it's obvious that both have caused problems, it isn't fair or helpful to characterize Islamic terrorism as some kind of inescapable result of European colonialism or of US involvement.

It's important to keep in mind that Arabs and Muslims make choices, and that they can be wrong or even terrifically misguided. While you are careful to state that suicide bombings, for example, are always wrong, you make the underlying point that ultimately, blame for these types of things lies with the West.

I don't want to attribute to you ideas which you don't hold. But broadly, your type of analysis is common to the racist left: responsibility can only be assigned to moral actors, and in any interaction between West and non-West, only one of them is a moral actor capable of being held responsible for its actions. Non-westerners are only capable of reacting; no volition or moral choice can ever be assigned to them.

The Ottoman Empire, for instance, was a Muslim colonial power which controlled huge swaths of the Arab world. Europeans got control over its territories when the Turks lost their empire in WWI. Perhaps you omitted this for brevity. But to read your last post, you'd think that injustice only began when the UK (and France) took over these territories.

That's just an example. But there's plenty more where that came from. I'd like to see the left, on some occasion, find that in some interaction between West and non-West, that the non-Westerner acted poorly and the Westerner acted well. I don't think there is such an occurance, which says most of what needs to be said about the left.

Oyvind: I seem to recall that only a couple of months ago you were defending the Iranian govenrment as an example of "Islamist democracy." Only when I posted evidence of the mass political killings that have taken place under the mullahs did you even back down and admit the nature of that government. Frankly I do not think you are qualified to identify an "Islamist democrat."

But, blessed be, the Iranians have just democratically voted to enrich uranium for nuclear warheads. They've already got missiles capable of hitting Europe -- all they need now is the topper for it, which they'll get in the next two years.

Will Europe dhimmify fast enough to avoid nuclear obliteration by the Iranian mullahs? Will they pay enough jizyah, will they wear the dhimmi badges and agree to clip the front of their heads?

That is the 64 million dollar question on my mind this fine Sunday morning.

"The Ottoman Empire, for instance, was a Muslim colonial power which controlled huge swaths of the Arab world."

And when are the Ottomans going to pay back the people of Orthodoxy for the 1000 years of slavery, war and genocide they inflicted on them in the name of their Empire? I see no Western leftists demanding "reparations" for the descendents of the thousandds of slaves of the Caucusus, for the unwilling thousands of Slavic Christian inhabitants of the seraglios and the jannisarries. I see no one willing to excuse the Orthodox Russians for their actions in Chechnya as "understandable" reactions to Islamic imperialism against their people for 1000 years. Pete?

Maybe this is all about anthropology and not politics.

A fascinating article in NEW SCIENTIST describes a study of human attitudes toward power. The results seem to explain the resentment toward USA in anthropological terms:

As a rule, when a group becomes much stronger than other group, the other groups will be compelled to gang up against the strongest group.

When two dominant groups are perceived as equally strong, this will not lead to weaker groups ganging up on either "strongman". The weaker groups are instead quite comfortable with the "balance of power".

So here we are, post-Cold War, with one group (or nation) much stronger than anyone else. Regardless of the "strongman's" intention, his power WILL draw resentment and suspicion from weaker groups (i.e. nations).

I hesitate to draw the obvious (and frightening) conclusion: If the United States get even stronger, several lesser nations will form an alliance against it, and perhaps even declare war on the USA. (For NO reason except a deep-seated, atavistic fear of America's strength and power!)

Of course, I could be mistaken...

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Who speaks on behalf of the victims of this form of 19th century imperialism? I really want to know.

"I hesitate to draw the obvious (and frightening) conclusion: If the United States get even stronger, several lesser nations will form an alliance against it, and perhaps even declare war on the USA. (For NO reason except a deep-seated, atavistic fear of America's strength and power!)

Of course, I could be mistaken..."

That is probably a possibility. The US against the EU coalesced with Islamia and/or China or all of them. It could come to that.

If Europeans will fight for anything, it will be for Leftist Utopia.

The US is on the horns of a sad dilemma. Western Europe lives in a protective bubble created by the Pax Americana, but now after 2 generations free of war, they don't know it. But the US cannot remove Europe from the Pax Americana without endangering itself, although many Americans, such as myself, would like very much to see Europe removed from the Pax Americana and see the fatuous leftwing intellegentsia of Europe -- which looks like us to be most of the population -- forced to confront reality. (Western Europe I mean -- Eastern Europe already knows that reality quite well.)

If anyone's interested, here is the Iran Focus website which is run by Iranian dissidents and keeps pretty good tabs on what that government is doing:

Iran Focus. I doubt if such websites are regular viewing matter for Pete or Oyvind.

Øyvind, Bergen

''To be frank, ex-C, the mess in America have never been and will never be an excuse for stoning thirteen year old girls. Please don't make Susan happy by trying to excuse stuff like that''

Well, there is NO excuse for stoning anywhere in the Quran, in fact, stoning was NEVER EVER mentiond in the Noble Quran !

My point was, why the hell islamophobes like Susan is bringing this up ? this thread was about AL JAZEERA, what has that to do with Iran and stoning ! those rotten Islamophobes cant miss any chance to defame Islam.
Isnt more appropriate for such pathetic Americans to go and fix their own MESS first before they post these typical anti muslim nonesense ??

I mean if you want to criticize someone for something bad they do, you should first look at yourself and determine wether you are not guilty of the same thing you are condeming, dont you think ?

I need an EXPLANATION from you and from other American Islamophobes here about the statistics I just posted, why no one comment on them ? they are MORE horrible than the news coming from Iran ?

SELF-RIGHTOUSNESS WESTERN HYPOCRISY AGAIN !

"Ex-C," as I said before, there is a difference between a depraved act of a private citizen which is against the law and punishable by a nation, and a depraved act that is fully sanctified by the law of a nation. If you are unable to see the difference then you are logistically challenged in a very severe way.

I posted the article about the stoned little girl because "Pete" posted some long stuff about how Islamist movements were all wonderful rosy anti-imperialists fighting for freedom. Certainly the Khomeini government presented themselves that way and numerous Western Leftists like Pete embraced Khomeini like a lost brother 25 years ago. In fact Khomeini was given political asylum in France for many years, before returning to unleash undescribable hell on his native country -- a fact that many Iranian exiles, democrats and dissidents bitterly resent the government of France for, BTW. Europe thinks it is so beloved by the Islamic world but have they ever hung out on an Islamic dissident website? If so they would soon see how much they are despised by "real" Muslim freedom fighters.

PS regarding "Missing children" in the US -- almost all are the result of divorced parents kidnapping their own children from the custodial spouse. They are acting against the law and would be prosecuted if caught. OTOH, Islamic law encourages Muslim spouses to kidnap children away from non-Muslim spouses -- non-Muslim parents have zero rights to their own children under Islamic law. It's a big problem as anyone who -- like me -- personally knows Western women who have been stupid enough to marry Muslim men and follow them back to their own countries.

History can repeat itself and will. The "Islamist anti-imperialists" that Pete and Oyvind enthuse about are fully capable of being exactly like Khomeini, and no doubt will turn out to be that way if given half a chance.

Hi everybody

Some really interesting comments there. Susan, thanks for the Iran Focus website, I'll look at it. It seems to me from your postings that you are horrified and angered by injustice and violence - if I'm right, then we agree on that. For David, I'll make it clear that I'm English, not French, but even if I were French, I have no intention of excusing France's behaviour by pointing out injustice in the behaviour of others. France and Germany of course gleefully sold nuclear technology to Iraq in the 80's, when Iraq was a Western ally - and the USA gleefully sold Iraq the materials that enabled Saddam Hussein to massacre his own Kurdish citizens. Many European nations, but particularly the US and the UK, sold weapons to both sides in the terrible war between Iran and Iraq, in which millions were slaughtered, including conscripted children. None of the Western governments had anything to say about freedom or democracy then.

Brian, I had no idea that I was part of the racist left - I was not claiming that the Muslim population is capable of little more than reaction. My point is a human one - I believe that responsibility does lie with power - of course Susan is right to point out the insane religious mindset that sees no problem with stoning 13-year-old girls because they are victims of rape. Any religious integrism, Jewish, Muslim or Christian, has to be wrong - these people have understood nothing of their religion. However, if the USA claims (as it is doing via George Bush) moral superiority and a divine mission to bring freedom and democracy to the world, and then imposes itself with extreme violence on other nations, then they have to be coherent, or expect contestation - the racial and sexual inequalities inherent in the US treatment of its own citizens, and the citizens of many other countries in the world, does not allow them to lord it in this manner. If the US is so dedicated to justice, why have they systematically supported injustice all over the world for decades? The examples are too numerous -first and foremost, why does it not request minimal adherence to international law on the part of Israel? Since the US, through military and financial help, is a major reason for Israel's current status, they could easily do so.
But they do not, on the contrary, they block every attempt by the international community to bring Israel to task. The results can be seen on daily TV - where attacks on Israel by suicide bombers are given headline coverage with video, interviews and full coverage, and IDF incursions into the occupied territories are passed off with a few lines and almost no visual coverage, regardless of the number of dead.

All the evils in the world are not the responsibility of the USA and Britain - however, by taking military action to impose their point of view on others, they must expect criticism. The reasons for this current catastrophe changed from day to day - getting Osama bin Laden was the first reason for devastating Afghanistan, killing untold numbers of innocent civilians with random bombing - not car bombs, mind you, but huge blockbusters dropped from five miles up onto isolated villages - then it became about outing the Taliban - Iraq was about obliging Saddam Hussein to comply with UN regulations - when he did, it was because he was sneakily hiding WMD's which the UN inspectors clearly stated did not exist, and which no-one's found since - then it was because he was responsible for 9-11 - 40% of Americans still believe that lie - now it's supposed to be about bringing freedom and democracy. The truth is, if you want to look at it, the reasons are financial and political - whatever the soldiers think they're doing, whatever the populations of the participating nations might believe, however great the human bravery and selflessness of fighters on both sides. Governments are possessed by financial interests, and as such do not do the will of their people. There must be other ways of bringing about positive change than mass destruction.

Does it not seem strange to you that a major military power apparently led by a self-declared devout Christian is imposing mass destruction and totalitarian conditions on a nation they claim to be dangerous religious fanatics who despise freedom and democracy?

Later

Best wishes to all

Pete

Oyvind rightly points out that this thread started off with an article about Al Jazeera. I don't receive Al Jazeera on my cable connection, only CNN, BBC World, and the French news channels, the best and most impartial of which is the Franco-German channel Arte. CNN, and also BBC World to an extent, report their news subjects with little discussion of the basic premises - we are at war with a barbaric enemy - we face "Islamists", "insurgents", "terrorists". This is only to be expected since these channels are all funded by the governments which have a vested interest in the war. Why is it so shocking that Al Jazeera apparently reports the news from the Arab point of view? I don't see where that is "supporting terrorism". And Susan, you're overdoing it when you say that I paint a rosy picture of Islamist freedom fighters - I'm trying to say that there must be a more productive way of looking at this than the Rambo-esque "us or them" mindset that George Bush blabbers so insistently.

Best

Pete

Pete,

You offer zero solutions except some vague Lefty ramblings. The plain fact of the matter is that Afgahnistan is better off now in every way than it was 3 years ago. I followed the news from Taliban-infested Afghanistan very closely in that time, as I do the news from Iran today. The Taliban in addition to being brutally psychopathic were also incompetent in every way. Has the Western lefty establishment forgotten abou those fervent appeals of looming "mass starvation" of millions in Afghanistan only 3 & 1/2 years ago? Where are the massively starving millions of Afghanistan today?

You offer nothing Pete, no solutions, no actions, nothing but pious lefty blatherings
that are forgotten the moment you leave your equivalent of a church -- the local cadre's headquarters pehaps? Go on your marches and wave your slogas; they are the modern-day equivalent of hymns and chants and I'm sure they make you feel just as tingly and self-righteous all over as they did the 19th Century peasant girls who felt the presence of the Virgin when they said their novenas in their churches.

But when it is all said and done, the fact remains. Only US bombs freed Afghanistan from the Taliban, not lefty pious prayers chanted in your anti-war demonstrations. You offer nothing.

Pete: anybody who thinks that the BBC World or any BBC channel is "pro-Coalition" is frankly insane.

If anyone's interested, here is an example of some REAL Muslim freedom fighters:

Darfur Rebels Fight For Secularism, Equality of Religions

But such people are unlikely to be considered "freedom fighters" by the pieties of the Western left. They are not fighting for totalitarian leftist utopias; they are not anti-American; they are stepping in line with the "Islamist" "resistance" as they are fighting for things that are in fact against Islamic law (equal treatment of all religions under the law).

They are only fighting for some basic
principles that Western people won (and shamelessly discount the importance of) many decades ago. They will be ignored and left to fail and die on their own. The UN will not care; the EU will not care; the US State Dept. will not care.

Sorry, that should be "they are NOT stepping in line with the Islamist resistance". . .

Susan, your arguments are well-stated. I have nothing to add.

I would go further and state that the nature of war has changed in the past 15 years: it has become a force for positive social change. As such, war and warfare needs to be an option on the table for every crisis.

Pete,

The race issue, and slavery, is of course the Achilles heel of American history, and no proper screed against the US should fail to mention it. Yet somehow US racism, whatever its extent, wasn't quite sufficient to decline American assistance during Europe's several recent civil wars. All of which comes down to "we saved your butts during WWII". This may seem somewhat off-the-mark (and an obnoxious American thing to say), but you are in fact arguing (along with ex-C) that, today, the US doesn't have the moral authority to intervene elsewhere in the world. But if this is true now, it was surely more true 50 years ago. Yet such protestations were notably lacking then.

The sexual issue I don't understand, because the US is in the mainstream of Western experience when it comes to sexual discrimination.

Most of the US's recent supporting of injustice has to do with the Cold War, where we supported pro-Western dictatorships over pro-Soviet or socialist democracies nearly every time. I don't want to get into whether that was the right choice to make, but I will point out that it was our choice to make in the absence of any other power able to take on the Soviets. Certainly the UK and France could not.

But all of this is mere background. As I wrote in the comments to an earlier post, what I think is really going on is that the US is returning to a more natural (for us) and radical (for you) foreign policy. It's the spread of democracy. 9/11 woke us up from the our post-Cold War holiday and Clinton's brief love affair with the rest of the world. Work remains to be done.

A 21st Century that includes Stalinist dictatorships, Islamist theocracies, and various small-time kleptocracies like you'd find in Egypt or Syria isn't good enough. The diffusion of potentially dangerous technologies just makes the situation more untenable.

Bottom line: something must be done. If not us, who? Focusing on the US's particular peccadilloes is all fine and dandy, and sells a lot of books, but you're not offering any serious alternatives. Neither is anyone else.

Susan

"Ex-C," as I said before, there is a difference between a depraved act of a private citizen which is against the law and punishable by a nation, and a depraved act that is fully sanctified by the law of a nation. If you are unable to see the difference then you are logistically challenged in a very severe way. ''

The question is why a nation which prides itself with ' human rights, democrasy and freedom' has a substantial amount of its citizens behaving like ' barbarians' ???

I am sure you will scratch your head long time before you can make up an answer !

''I posted the article about the stoned little girl because "Pete" posted some long stuff about how Islamist movements were all wonderful rosy anti-imperialists fighting for freedom. Certainly the Khomeini government presented themselves that way and numerous Western Leftists like Pete embraced Khomeini like a lost brother 25 years ago. ''

But Khomeini came on the back of POPULAR Islamic revolution, it was the PEOPLE of Iran who wanted him, do you have any problem with that ?

''In fact Khomeini was given political asylum in France for many years, before returning to unleash undescribable hell on his native country -- a fact that many Iranian exiles, democrats and dissidents bitterly resent the government of France for,''

That is pure nonesense..the Islamic ' revolution' happened because the people of Iran wanted it to happen, Iran before the Islamic revolution was a dictatorship, at least now it is a democrasy wether you like it or not.

'' BTW. Europe thinks it is so beloved by the Islamic world but have they ever hung out on an Islamic dissident website? If so they would soon see how much they are despised by "real" Muslim freedom fighters.''

Another piece of nonesense, when President Chirac of France for example visited Algeria last year, he was welcomed like a HERO by the hundreds of thousands of MUSLIMS who lined the streets to welcome this ' infidel ' !!

Chirac given rapturous reception

French President Jacques Chirac has received a rapturous welcome from hundreds of thousands of Algerians at the start of the first official state visit by a French leader since the country's independence in 1962.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2812101.stm

PICTURE: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38900000/jpg/_38900663_chircrowdbody203ap.jpg

Algerians give Chirac a hero's welcome
By John Lichfield in Paris
The Independent
03 March 2003

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w09/msg00023.htm

try again, your incitment against muslims is not working.

''Islamic law encourages Muslim spouses to kidnap children away from non-Muslim spouses -- non-Muslim parents have zero rights to their own children under Islamic law. ''

Another LIE, I challenge you to prove that Islamic law does what you alleged !

Stop this hysteria, stop promoting Islamophobia and outright lies against Islam and Muslims, you are doing nothing to harm Islam, you are wasting your time, Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran:

'' They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allâh's Light (Islâm) with their mouths, but Allâh will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn (disbelievers) hate it'' The Noble Quran 9:32

"The question is why a nation which prides itself with ' human rights, democrasy and freedom' has a substantial amount of its citizens behaving like ' barbarians' ???"

Such things are not at all relative to the discussion; the discussion is based on whether or not a government condones or enforces such behavior. My government does not; the government of Iran -- Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Nigeria -- DO condone and in fact legalize such things. It is a fact that a child of nine if she's female is considered an "adult" under Islamic law. BTW, do
you think there is no child abuse etc. and kidnappings in your Islamic countries?

"That is pure nonesense..the Islamic ' revolution' happened because the people of Iran wanted it to happen, Iran before the Islamic revolution was a dictatorship, at least now it is a democrasy wether you like it or not."

It is not a democracy; all laws must conform with Islamic sharia as determined by the Council of Guardians, headed by Khamenei. Khamenei himself has killed dozens and perhaps hundreds of political opponents.

"Another piece of nonesense, when President Chirac of France for example visited Algeria last year, he was welcomed like a HERO by the hundreds of thousands of MUSLIMS who lined the streets to welcome this ' infidel ' !!"

Maybe Dhimmi-boy Chirac is beloved by Algerians, but France is not beloved in Iran for giving Khomeini asylum. I was speaking primarily of Iranians. Besides the Islamic world no longer loves Dhimmi-boy Chirac quite that much since he has decided to keep "French" Muslim girls from wearing the headscarf. Bad Dhimmi! How dare you seek to uphold the laws and customs of your own country instead of those of Islam!

"Another LIE, I challenge you to prove thatIslamic law does what you alleged !"

Here is the case of Siham Qanda, a Christian widow from Jordan whose two children were forcibly taken from her because her husband allegedly converted to Islam before he died. The children automatically were declared to be Muslims despite the fact that they prefer to remain Christians. As a CHristian Siham Qanda was declared not competent to raise "Muslim" children.

A similar case has occurred in Malaysia where a non-Muslim woman lost her children to her husband because he converted to Islam, and when she tried to get them back was told her rights were subject to the laws of the Sharia court, even though she is not a Muslim.

There are many such cases in the world today; non-Muslims living under Islamic law are severely discrminated against in many ways.

The problem has become so bad that the US State Dept. issues warnings to IS women who marry Muslims and go to Muslim countries that they may not get their children back if they wish to leave those countries.

Brian:

Racism as a point of law has been done with in the US for a long time. I feel no shame in it at all. The fact of the matter is, non-Muslims are subjected to the equivalent of Southern Jim Crow laws in nearly every Muslim-majority controlled TODAY, and the Petes of the Western world do not give a a freakin' damn about it.

They'd shriek like banshees if an American court tried to take a black child away from its mother and give it to a white custodian, but the Siham Qandah's of this world and their children are worth less than nothing in their eyes.

Again, if anyone is interested, here is Open Doors, a US charitable organization that tries to help persecuted Christians in Muslim and Communist Countries. Their news items feature only a tiny tip of the iceberg of how Christians are treated in Muslim countries:

Open Doors News Site

Jim Crow law in the US from 50 years ago? What do you Pete in particular have to say about the Jim Crow law that is lived under by people like Siham Qanda TODAY? In "moderate" Muslim countries like Jordan?

Susan

I read the article on the Open Doors site - it sounds to me like a repressive regime and that Brian O'Connor is in hot water. His situation may well be unjust, assuming he was not in possession of alcohol or pornography. He of course has a right to practise his religion in privacy, as is granted by Saudi law. From the article, though, I can have no idea why he has been singled out for such treatment, unless it's connected with the "crime" for which he has already been convicted by Saudi law, that of "spreading Christianity". To my mind, that sort of definition of crime is backward and repressive. However, quite frankly, I can't see grounds there for invading Iraq. Also, although to my knowledge no Muslim in the US has been whipped, there are many who have spoken of harsh and unjust treatment, including jail, inflicted on them for no other reason than they are Muslims - this happens in France too. The Muslims are todays bogey-men, and most of them have done nothing to deserve it. This does not excuse attacks on Christians, though, any more than Brian O'Connor's misfortunes excuse attacks on Muslims. The common problem here is one of human stupidity, which these days is rampant on all sides, largely by virtue of the media. On that point, it would not be unfair to say that if you took a page on current affairs from any just about any major newspaper and changed the words "Islamist" or "insurgent" or "terrorist", for "Jew" or "agitator", you'd end up with a page that wouldn't have been out of place in Hitler's Germany.

I'm a member of no political party, and feel a sort of amused resentment at being called a Leftist. To my mind, today's "left" and "right" political tendencies, like the Labour / Conservative, Democrat / Republican farce, are really both arms of the same power, as can easily be seen by the recent history of any of the countries concerned. The same agenda goes forward regardless. It is not necessary to attend cadres or churches to arrive at an opinion on one's own, reading books and Internet pages and thinking is enough. Discussion makes it all the better. To me, it's an insult and an outrage that human beings are set one against the other for the profit of the minority. And having a point of view in which human life has an individual importance is not the equivalent of 19th century religious rapture. It's a sign of sanity.

Since both you and Brian berate me for offering no solutions, I will try a few.

First, that the rules of democracy should be understood and applied by the nations that wish to champion them, in dealings with other nations and in internal politics - in Western countries today, no taxpayer has the slightest say over what is done with his hard-earned money. This is not democracy - try a referendum asking citizens where they would choose to spend the money they've earned - you can be sure that Education, Housing and Health Care would be very high on the list, much more so than spending unbelievable sums on weapons of mass destruction - sums which go directly into the pockets of those who finance the political parties. Not to mention the creation of viable jobs. This should be done BEFORE attacking other nations in order to spread the Good News.

Second, if you truly want "terrorism" to cease, stop creating situations that guarantee it continues and will only get worse - spend money understanding the problems on the ground and attempting to offer real solutions - in other words, solutions which truly benefit the human beings who live in the areas concerned. Bombing the shit out of people doesn't help them.

Third, cease making generalisations based on religion and race. There's only one - human - race.

Fourth, accept that it is immoral and terminally inefficient to treat other human beings as mere profit animals.

Sound pretty feeble, doesn't it? A first step to all this is refusing to fall for the lies we are fed by the powers that be - there's enough information on the Internet to give everyone the possibility of forming independent opinions - as soon as you start doing that, you realise that the "news" media doesn't tell the whole story, that's the least that can be said.

Talk to you later

Best wishes

Pete

Also, an afterthought - perhaps an attempt to break out of this ill-fitting "cowardly and ungrateful European" mould - while many of the sane people who disagree with the recent excess of mass violence are indeed Europeans, there are also a large number who are American, and they have some very pertinent and rigourously thought-out points of view to share. They can be found on web-sites by anyone who's interested, and I will be happy to give you some URL's if you want.

Best wishes

Pete

Brian

Points taken - however, as you are well aware, the world is very different today than it was in 1940. The USA was repeatedly begged, if not manipulated, by Winston Churchill to step in to WW2 - there is ample documentation to suggest that the event that precipitated American entry into the war was allowed to occur in order to win over the opinion of US citizens who had no desire to go and fight for Europe. I feel I must say that the British made a creditable stand in WW2 also, and were essential partners in winning back Europe from the Nazis - but it remains true that without the mass of American forces, it would probably have been impossible.

However, nobody asked the USA to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, the decision was taken unilaterally, for reasons concerning only the United States, (with Tony Blair trotting obediently along behind, a position that suits him embarrasingly well), in defiance of international protocol, and in direct contradiction to international law, which denies the right to pre-emptive attacks. Israel, of course, had until recently cornered the market in pre-emptive attacks. The reasons given for the attack on Afghanistan were sketchy at best, and even more suspiciously so for the attack on Iraq. None of the war goals stated for these two attacks are anywhere close to being realised, and the only thing certain is there has been widespread destruction and suffering - not least among the Coalition forces - US media are not even allowed to note the return of dead soldiers. Why not? - answer that. How proud of our boys and girls is that? There have also been immense profits, taken directly from the tax-payers' pockets, for the American war machine, which remains comfortably in the clean and chubby hands of the chosen few, and also for the pack of reconstruction companies that swim along in the wake of the Shark. The oil pipeline is coming along in Afghanistan, and the oil fields of Iraq are under close supervision - however, I suspect that these two elements will become serious problems for the occupying forces, for obvious reasons. Here I return once again to the same point - the stated reasons for these invasions (once they finally agreed on the story) are "freedom and democracy" and the "war on terror" - these are transparent lies, and all the yelling about "religious fanatics" and "terrorists" and "Islamist barbarians" and so on will not change that. There is no way to win a war on terror, it's a contradiction in terms. That said, I have to say that we definitely agree that something must be done in this 21st century. I don't see that stone age brutality is a step in the right direction.

Later

Bast wishes

Pete

Pete,

Yes indeed. Quite feeble indeed. And nothing tha would frighten the Taliban. Same old moral equivalence, same old refusal to face facts, same old blame for the "war profiteers" and "oil pipeline builders." Same old rhetoric that was used to excuse the murders of the Soviets during the Cold War, and to convince the West not to fight it (thank God we did).

And yes, the news media doesn't tell the whole story -- you certainly don't find articles about little girls being stoned to death in Iran in
the MSM. Even Brian O'Connor's story is not to be found on CNN. And none of those other Open Doors articles you didn't bother to read.

No sale, Pete, no sale!

Sorry.

"Sound pretty feeble, doesn't it?"

Yes, very feeble indeed.

The Black Book of Communism

100 million dead, Pete. Did you go on the same marches and demonstrations then Pete? Did you use the same old rhetoric? Did you have a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book and its brilliant wisdoms contained therein? Did you play the Police album with "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children too" on it

Sorry Pete, the trouble with apologizing for totalitarianism is that it doesn't work the second, third or fourth time around.

Oh, Bjorn, let's expand, and include China:

Violent clashes between members of the Muslim Hui ethnic group and the majority Han group left nearly 150 people dead and forced authorities to declare martial law in a section of Henan Province in central China, journalists and witnesses in the region said today. [...]

Although most Chinese belong to the dominant Han ethnic group, the country has 55 other groups, including several Muslim minorities and others who have ties to Tibet, Southeast Asia, Korea and Mongolia.....

One reason is they're not getting enough of the economic pie.

---

And the SorK Christians are going into Iraq to convert.

Never a dull moment.

I spent the last hour searching the net for articles about the Afghan pipeline Pete. I found lots of conspiracy articles published between the years 2001-2002. Not much else afterward.

Karzai signed a pipeline deal with Turkemenistan and Pakistan in late 2002. It's a gas pipeline, Pete, not an oil one. The gas is going to the Indian Subcontinent, not to the Us or the West. Unocal (the US company that figures in all the conspiracy theories and in Fahrenheit 9-11) is not building the pipeline. I fail to see how the US is benefitting from a gas pipeline that delivers natural gas to India.

Pipeline Deal Signed in 2002 This deal does not seem to bear any resemblance whatsoever to the Afghan pipeline deal that Unocal proposed in the mid-90s and then abandoned in 1998.

The US must be pretty stupid. We went to war for a natural gas pipeline to India and Pakistan, when we were supposed to be going to war for an oil pipeline built by Unocal that delivered Central Asian oil through Afghanistan to the West. The US went to war so that India and Pakistan can have more natural gas? This does not make sense Pete, this does not make sense at all.

Moreover, I could not find any evidence that said pipeline had even begun to be built in the nearly two years since the memorandum of understanding was signed amongst Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, despite your insistence that said pipeline was "coming along nicely." Not even on websites like The Guardian
which promoted the pipeline conspiracy story heavily after 9-11. Surely if said pipeline had begun to be built, The Guardian would have covered it? Surelt if said pipeline had American corporate involement, The Guardian would have covered it?

its simple the islamic leaders of today believe they are the THEOCRATICLY ELITE. 70 years ago there was an european power that believed they were RACIALLY ELITE. Islam as practiced currently in its birthplace and all across the Umma boils down to arabian imperialism. take a globe of earth and stick pins in all the places wars are going on and you will see a common denominator. also remember ex-c when you sit and point your finger at others you are actually pointing the other three at yourself.

Susan

''Such things are not at all relative to the discussion; the discussion is based on whether or not a government condones or enforces such behavior. My government does not; the government of Iran -- Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Nigeria -- DO condone and in fact legalize such things.''

This is nonesense, the people of these muslim countries dont condone such things while YOUR people commit horrible crimes against childern, so the question remained unanswered:

Why a nation ( The USA ) which prides itself with ' human rights, democrasy and freedom' has a substantial amount of its citizens behaving like ' barbarians' ???"

'' It is a fact that a child of nine if she's female is considered an "adult" under Islamic law. BTW, do you think there is no child abuse etc. and kidnappings in your Islamic countries?''

Of course there are but not as much as in your SICK country.

''It is not a democracy; all laws must conform with Islamic sharia as determined by the Council of Guardians, headed by Khamenei. Khamenei himself has killed dozens and perhaps hundreds of political opponents. ''

It is a democrasy, it is even clearer than the American one, the president is FAIRLY elected not SELECTED as the case with your ' dictator'.

"Another piece of nonesense, when President Chirac of France for example visited Algeria last year, he was welcomed like a HERO by the hundreds of thousands of MUSLIMS who lined the streets to welcome this ' infidel ' !!"
Maybe Dhimmi-boy Chirac is beloved by Algerians, but France is not beloved in Iran for giving Khomeini asylum. I was speaking primarily of Iranians.''

I did not know you speak on behalf of all Iranians !! beside, you did not answer my main point which was the Islamic Revolution happened in Iran because THE PEOPLE there wanted it to happen !!

'' Besides the Islamic world no longer loves Dhimmi-boy Chirac quite that much since he has decided to keep "French" Muslim girls from wearing the headscarf. Bad Dhimmi! How dare you seek to uphold the laws and customs of your own country instead of those of Islam!''

Well, we muslims respect the laws of the countries we are in as long as we are minority, once we are majority, we will definitely have SHARIA LAW to govern us and before you jump from your chair you need to remember that sharia law does NOT apply on non muslims, so you dont need to buy a BURQA ! LOOOOOOOOOL

"Another LIE, I challenge you to prove that Islamic law does what you alleged !"
Here is the case of Siham Qanda, a Christian widow from Jordan whose two children were forcibly taken from her because her husband allegedly converted to Islam before he died. The children automatically were declared to be Muslims despite the fact that they prefer to remain Christians. As a CHristian Siham Qanda was declared not competent to raise "Muslim" children.''

I challenged you to prove that ISLAM or ISLAMIC LAW condone the above, you FAILED. Instead you went quoting fabricated cases aimed at defaming Islam like the famous case of NORMA KHORI, this christian Jordanian LIAR who wrote a FAKE novel about muslim honour murder just to be EXPOSED as liar in Australia !

Bestseller's lies exposed
Literary Editor Malcolm Knox uncovers Australia's latest hoax author

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464854793.html?oneclick=true

So Susan, you either apologize for FALSELY accusing Islam and ISLAMIC LAW of condoning taking childern from their non muslim mothers or you are a LIAR ! which one ?

Pete, Paris and Susan:

Here are some examples of CHRISTIAN OPPRESSION against Muslims in the USA:

Hate crimes against Muslims in U.S. on the rise !

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...world-headlines

Bias Against Muslims Up 70% in the U.S:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8-2004May2.html

El Paso Islamic center attacked with firebombs
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=8122

Vandals Hit Fargo Mosque in N.Dakota:
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=71840

In the neighboring state of Minnesota, two Islamic centers were also vandalized recently. SEE: "Twin Cities' Muslims Detail Vandalism Attacks,"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5013716.html

Also in New Jersey, a Muslim driver reported being attacked by a white male in another car who punched him in the face while he was sitting in his car at a traffic light. During the incident, the attacker reportedly called the victim a "terrorist" and a "sand n*gger."

In July, two Muslim teenagers in Buffalo, N.Y., say they were targeted by white teenagers who shouted ethnic slurs and then tried to hit the girls with their car.

A Muslim woman driver in Illinois and a Muslim shopper in California were assaulted at the end of June by attackers shouting anti-Muslim and racist slurs.

Earlier this year in Florida, vandals wrote "Kill all Muslims" inside the Islamic Community Center in the Tampa suburb of Lutz.

The FBI is also investigating vandalism and threatening messages targeting the Islamic Community of Southwest Florida in Charlotte Harbor.

In Missouri, vandals painted a Nazi swastika and the word "die" on an addition under construction at the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis.

Three Miami Islamic centers were vandalized.

http://www.cair-net.org/asp/printthis.asp?id=1254&page=NR

Warning Issued in Texas After Mosque Drive-By Shooting

http://www.sikhnet.com/s/DriveByDenton

US Arabs, Muslims victims of bigotry
Tuesday 14 September 2004.
Muslim and Arab Americans are being made victims in their own country by America's use of racial profiling.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0DBD9A6-5B8F-4D55-9BE6-4394DB1004AE.htm

Susan ! how about starting a website like your 'open doors' website to highlight the plight of Muslims OPPRESSED by Christians in the USA and in many parts of the world ??

Folks, this discussion is clearly whipping up serious passion and may be getting out of hand. Examples of injustice and dumb hatred can be found on all sides, and they are indicative of the mess we're all in - nothing will be improved, however, by trading insults, nor by investing in revenge killing. Israelis and Palestinians kill one another, Muslims and Christians kill one another, left and right, black and white, it seems to be the favourite game. Who benefits from all this? Certainly not the people whose lives are destroyed - rather the people who make a profit from the destruction - military industries, reconstruction industries, petrol industries - these are the same people who finance and run the political parties which presently rule us. In principle, this political system was set up to serve us, to apply the will of the people - I'm talking of our own Western world here, not other totalitarian regimes, which I despise by the way. As I said before, if you were to ask people to vote on what they wanted their money to be spent on, you can bet there would be a vertiginous drop in the military budget of all nations. That is what democracy is all about - the will of the people. But politics these days simply implements the will of the major industrial interests, and manipulates public opinion through the media to that end - peace is bad for business. Business on the global scale seeks profit at any price - the British were experts at that for centuries, and submitted most of the planet to repression in order to keep control of the natural ressources of other lands. This is exactly was is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, whatever bullshit story is trotted out for us. It's not about freedom, it's about profit and power. It's time that this sort of behaviour ceased, we've had enough experience as a race to learn that it does not work, it leads only to worsening trouble - the proof of that is all around us. There are other more productive alternatives - working for justice is one of them, but there must be justice for all. Unfortunately the United States, as the major world power, has taken it upon itself to dictate to the world its own idea of good behaviour - which means "do what we tell you" - and unfortunately, its own history and present reality clearly indicates that it has not yet cleaned its own house. No-one will accept a clock-cleaning from someone who is demonstrably dirty themselves. Racking up examples of other people's crimes in no way excuses crimes committed against them. Might is not necessarily right. Bush and Kerry are working for the same company, just listen to their campaigns - it's all only about who gets to do the job, not about whether the job is just, productive, or even worth it.

Having said all that, I repeat that I am not an apologist for any other form of totalitarianism, although that should have been clear from the beginning. Disagreeing with the US invasion of Iraq is not the equivalent of bombing Washington, nor is it anti-American, anti-Christian or Communist-inspired. Millions of Americans are against the invasion of Iraq. Who can they vote for to make a change which expresses their point of view? Susan, you sound quite cross, please avoid trying to redraw those who disagree with you as caricatures. I will look for new information about the Afghanistan pipe-line, and if I discover I am wrong, I will admit it.

All for now

Best wishes

Pete

I don't have much time either to comment, but I just wanted to highlight this statement by Ex-C:

"Well, we muslims respect the laws of the countries we are in as long as we are minority, once we are majority, we will definitely have SHARIA LAW to govern us and before you jump from your chair you need to remember that sharia law does NOT apply on non muslims, so you dont need to buy a BURQA ! LOOOOOOOOOL"

There you have it Pete, Oyvind, Mono, and all the other Islamofascist apologists posting here. This is the plan for Europe. He has admitted it fair and square. And his claim that sharia doesn't apply to non-Muslims is garbage. ALL Muslim countries currently adopting sharia have forced it on non-Muslims as well. ALL OF THEM. As well, sharia's government of the relationship between non-Muslims and Muslims is extremely unfair, as I showed in the Siham Qandah case above where the woman's brother was able to steal her children's fortune by converting to Islam and lying about her husband's supposed "conversion." This happens again and again and again to non-Muslims living under sharia.

Ex-C:

Everything you posted about "Muslim" oppression in the US is garbage. It doesn't compare in any way to people being put in prison and lashed and murdered for preaching their religion. Muslims are free to preach Islam in the US and they do, they do very, very much. Unlike Christians in ALL Muslim countries, including Turkey.

Millions of Muslims are moving to Christian countries, millions of Christians are NOT moving to Muslim countries. If Muslims are so "oppressed" here why are they moving here in such great numbers?

Regarding the Siham Qanda case, (and the later Malaysian case) it was based on shariah court rulings. Do you "Ex-C" know so much about sharia that you know more than the judges of sharia High courts in Jordan and Malaysia? Wow, you really have learned a lot about Islam for being an "ex-Christian!" You know more about sharia than people who have been studying it for 30, 40 years!

You should really think about applying for a job as a Qadi in one of those countries -- I bet you could set 'em real straight in no time!

Anyways, my work here is done. I proved that Pete's pipeline story is nonsense; I proved that Oyvind's contention that Iran represented "Islamist democracy" was nonsense; and most importatly, I proved what I have known about "ex-C" all along: He's a theocratic fascist who can't wait to see kind tolerant Europe turned into a shariatopia where "justice" like that dealt to Siham Qandah is the norm for all you kind tolerant dhimmi Europeans. Just like a lot of his co-relgionists who are moving into the West.

Thanks, Ex-C, for the assistance. Folks who read this website: you had Salahuddin admit it, and now you have Ex-C admit it - what they both want is your countries, your cultures, your
governments.

Laying aside for one moment my grievously weighty recent identity as a racist Leftist Islamofascist, may I wish you all a wonderful All Saints Day - peace brothers and sisters.
Susan, do try and relax.

Best wishes

Pete

Pete,

Funny you should tell ME to relax, but not the undoubtedly spittle-beflecked (by now) Ex-Christian, who has just aggressively laid claim to his "right" to force medieval religious Jim Crow law on your kind tolerant self.

Politically correct to the last eh, Pete?

And don't wish anybody a happy All Saint's Day. You live in an (almost) Islamic country now, and it's forbidden for dhimmies to display their religous beliefs publicly in a Muslim state. Better start learning the rules now -- maybe Ex-C can help you out.

Anyways, my work here is done.

Good job Susan!

Happy All Saints Day to everyone in Norway. Don't forget Saint Olav and the other norwegian saints whose great work resulted in 1000 years of solid Christianity. Don't be so quick to assume it was a good idea to throw away what a millenia of norwegians thought was good.

"Earlier this year in Florida, vandals wrote "Kill all Muslims" inside the Islamic Community Center in the Tampa suburb of Lutz."

I am amazed in a country that has 288 mio. citizens a majority of them not moslems you can find people doing such. Remember 9/11 btw ?

But of-course 9/11 has nothing to do with islam I forgot.

Nor has this anything to do with islam:

http://hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/

No that 80 % of households experience violence commited against women has nothing to do with islam it´s about bad influence from the west. If the moslems could just be without this bad influence every moslem would live a wonderful pious life. That´s why some of them are so eager to either convert us all or kill us.

And Ex soon even more ex - is so right stoning is not mentioned in the Quran ( a 100 whippings is but against unmarried adulters ). What he however forget to tell us is that there is also the hadith and some of these hadith have about similar rank in Islam - and just to show you a few examples of what they say:

Muslim 680 The Prophet said: "When an unmarried couple fornicate they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. In the cases of a married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death. If one of the pair is unmarried, one hundred lashes and exile for a year.

Muslim 682 The Prophet said: "Do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child." After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the Prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle Prophet prayed over her and she was buried.

Muslim 623 The Prophet said: "It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim except in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for a life, and the deserter of Islam."

Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

Bukhari:V1B22N28 “The Prophet said: ‘I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.’ When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, ‘All the favors done for them by their husbands.’”

Qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

...............................................

"...reform isn't about telling ordinary Muslims what to think, but giving Islam's one billion devotees permission to think." Irshad manji.

...

A lot of lot could be said about Islam, but for anyone who care to read about it, the anti modern elements + disdain for women and infidels so often transformed into cruel acts can´t remain eternally neglected.

"The reasons given for the attack on Afghanistan were sketchy at best" - Pete.

I am always in for a debate and by god we need one. Pete im sorry sketchy ? Is it sketchy that a country house a mass murderer and don´t want to deliver him to justice ? Sketchy that we attack a country where islamists largely in the vision of Osama and due to his money - and other rich supporters were working in labs to make WMD in order to have more lethal options than just flying planes into building and detonate huge conventional bombs.

Look at the new Bin Laden tape - what this guy was standing for is set back years though new camps evolve elsewhere like in Bangladesh, kashmir, chechnya, and even probably Pakistan - and of course heavily funded by saudi Arabia.

You are against war and that is fine - but if USA had not acted as it did the world would feel free to house and help terrorists and let them perform attacks that beat what happened 9/11 by lenght.

Yes halliburton got a good deal in Iraq but they could have got this good deal also by lifting the sanctions as they were the ones who did the rebuild after 1991 and is the largest oil infrastrucure company in the world and best capable. And for the oil in Iraq it´s more unlikely than ever to find it´s way into the hands of an american company.
If US spend 120 bio - to rise to 200 bio probably totally for oil and due to there would be some more for halliburton to do Iraq than if it was just lifting the sanctions and let Saddam goad the rebuilding ( which halliburton would still be likely to perform ) so he could get more money for himself and his military. To spend all those money and lives, get so many opponents in the world just for 2 bio ( or whatever ) extra profit to halliburton ?

Well left wingers with utopians ideas and moslems hell bend on hating us don´t matter we do I can understand if they disagree, in the end the left wingers compete with moslems about who hate western culture most.

But ask where most people want to live in a communist rule or sharia rule or in a western modern democracy ? - it´s really that simple.

You ask for justice and help to the rest of the world but how many bottomless holes like that of the palestinian rules shall we poor money into, holes that are not just holes with lots of need but black holes where money mysterously disappear into the hands of corrupt people. Not that the west is entirely without corruption but money produce more result in some places than others.

If we could help people to get freedom and democracy around the world why on earth should we not ?

If the moslem world spend half the energy they spend on hating us on making life better in their part of the world they would acheive a lot.

Susan

Europe is not dhimminized and it will never be. Europe will be Europe and will face facts and take action eventually. The 68 generation won´t last forever - nor will ideals of tolerance at any cost. Europe do face major problems - with immigrants from lesser developed parts of the world - which is becoming apparent in most large cities in particular.
Europe by any means will never adopt sharia - nor do most moslems living here wish to adopt to it just as your 7 mio moslems in the US don´t live in US to dhimminize it - though naturally from some islamic ideologists their hope is demographic revolution to quote khomenei free from my memory.

But the stand is between fundamentalist Islam and western culture cause anyone which care to understand more deeply what both are about know they can never be aligned or meet. They do hate democracy and dream of their khalifat instead. But chance of success will not be bigger than the chance of those who wished for communism I would say.

Folks,

As promised, I have to admit that I was wrong about what I described as "the Afghanistan oil pipeline" - Susan is right - the one I thought I was talking about is in fact a gas pipeline intended to transport natural gas to Pakistan - India might become an interested partner at a later date. Also, at present, the infamous Unocal is no longer part of this deal, it's being run by the Asian Development Bank. One oil pipeline is planned between Kazakstan and Western China, though, while another is proposed between Turkmenistan and the East coast of Pakistan - the latter would cross Afghanistan. There's some interesting stuff on the Internet about the history of the region, btw, in particular quotes from and an interview with Zbigniew Brezezinski, who was Jimmy (not Dhimmi, Jimmy)Carter's national security advisor. He wrote a book some twenty years ago called "The Grand Chessboard" which detailed strategy for US control of the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq. I've included some of the more interesting links below - there's clear evidence of a US "agenda" for the region that pre-dates 9-11 by many years.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

http://redwoodpeace.org/caspian.html

http://members.tripod.com/~KELSAGHIR/Caspian/index

There's also a long article from Free Republic which I've saved to read this evening over my dinner of humble pie - it's apparently a debunk of Michael Moore's "9-11" film, in particular concerning the pipeline story. I'll read that too - I didn't like MM's film by the way, since it was presented as "at last the truth that Bush wouldn't tell", and then only went half-way, skirting many of the more important issues and leading the spectator up yet another garden path. We've been there before and don't need it.

So Susan, you were right about the pipeline, I was wrong. OK? I nonetheless contend that the main points I made about Coalition motives for the invasions are correct, as borne out by info you can find on the sites below and elsewhere. And I have no reason to believe that ex-Christian wishes me any harm at all, I think he's just tired of hearing his co-believers slagged off so much lately. That's understandable. Your reaction is the similar from the other side. Isn't it?

I'll bet that when an honest Christian prays his God, Allah listens with a compassionate ear. And vice versa.

Is that going to piss you off?

Best wishes

Pete

Pete -

This dates back to first oil crisis in 73 or something and the days of Nixon/Kissinger

Under Carter the "Carter doctrine" was made to make it clear that US would not tolerate any military move from ( Soviet ) towards control of the larger middle - east, - and even hinted any blocking of oil supply would be looked ill upon.

Now Brezezinskis book and Cheney´s comment years ago "I have seen a region emerge to as great importance in human history" can all add to the fule of US being imperialistic and all middle east policy about oil. Oh yea I can help you further information that back some years ago when national security council were lead by Richard Perle the infamous neocon hawk huh! they actually discussed fully serious in a meeting the option of invading Saudi - Arabia and splitting the country into a part with oil and a part with Mecca - THAT IF ANY FUNDAMENTALIST REGIME SHOULD TAKE OVER.

Now all this spell big conspiracy in the minds of many.

But what it is really about is not letting any hostile power getting the hold on the oil and thus being able to use it as a weapon against the rest of the world. And if oil supply should fail it would cause economic stand still even regression in all of the world except of course in hunter and forager societies - but maybe we should just go back to living that way given the wickedness that follow modern way of life ? - and it would be all over the world potentially killion millions of people and doing no good for the world as a whole.

So yes the US is interested in the region of -course as the biggest consumer per capita of oil it is.

That ofcourse will probably make you and a lot others keep thinking that oil was all it was about when US invaded Iraq and Aghanistan.

But try to see things in a bit broader perspective and maybe even from the view of the modern world we live in.

The energy issue is immense and a debate of it´s own, But some Middle east persons are actually against Kerry because he want to make the US less dependant on oil.

Just it should be obvious that the US could have saved 120 + Bio dollars, a lot of lifes by lifting the sanctions and letting Saddam hurry to pump oil so he could fill his own pockets and rise his great army again. And they could once again go pat on his shoulders and call him "stabilizing factor in the middle east". For a lot of reasons but not oil they did not lift the sanctions but made a regime change.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

The first result on altavista for "the grand chessboard"

Global dictatorship in five years huh ? Commited by the neo-trotkist elite in CFR and bilderberg leading figure Brezezinsky. and of course all the other neo-trotkists - oops neo-cons.

Now in five years i´ll be damned that would be some incredible feat it would surely make Trotsky envious.

I do no one thing if the ugly face of dictatorship should ever rear it´s ugly head I would rather die than live under it - a lot of bad things can be said about the current world system, but this maybe a bit of the mark.
Not that I have any doubt that democracy with the netto result of an yet elected elite mean that those of the invisible and sometimes true power- Which is economy - try to exert their influence on those in apparent political power.

But we still have democracy and free speech and people are free to express themselves indeed run for the high seats.

In the end it all cooks down to who people vote for and who they buy from. Though personally im for a philosophical rule - or more specific that people vote for leaders not selected in political/ideological parties but among Experts eg. In charge of economy will be the what the economic world private sector and universities consider as the best to do this job - thus setting up their list of candidates one of which the voters vote for.

Democracy is not perfect but as Churchill put it "it´s the worst of all forms of government except all those others which have been tried from time to time"

Given the hardships alone USA had convincing the world of getting rid of Saddam - mind if I have take the apparent Brezutopisky stand a bit relaxed ?

Susan

So after all your ranting you failed to PROVE that Islam or Islamic law condone the taking of childern from their non muslim mothers which means you are were indeed ''lying'' when you made your false statements about Islam.

As to the rest of your post, it is all but piece of apologetic nonesense, firebombing mosques in the USA is nothing in the eyes of Susan, no wonder, she is the same woman who earlier in this blog advocated OPENLY THE GENOCIDE OF ALL MUSLIMS IN EUROPE !

She is the same woman who goes in another forums and hate sites promoting the ' final solution' against muslims !

But Susan, you and your hateful islamophobes will fail, we are here to stay in our land, we are EUROPEANS and MUSLIMS wether you like it or not....so you either accept to let us live in peace in OUR land or bear severe consequences, we are NOT the jews of Germany in 1940s..I think you know that very very well.

T Hansen - Denmark

"Earlier this year in Florida, vandals wrote "Kill all Muslims" inside the Islamic Community Center in the Tampa suburb of Lutz."
I am amazed in a country that has 288 mio. citizens a majority of them not moslems you can find people doing such. Remember 9/11 btw ?''

Remember that history does not start on 9/11 ! beside are you justifying the attacks on mosque because of 9/11 ????

''But of-course 9/11 has nothing to do with islam I forgot.''

like the Holocaust, it has nothing to do with christianity !!!

''No that 80 % of households experience violence commited against women has nothing to do with islam it´s about bad influence from the west. If the moslems could just be without this bad influence every moslem would live a wonderful pious life. That´s why some of them are so eager to either convert us all or kill us.''

Perhaps you can explain these statistics in your WESTERN PARADISE:

Denmark:

Tornstam, L., 1989, Abuse of Elderly in Denmark and Sweden. Results from a Population Study. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, Vol 1:35-44

http://www.soc.uu.se/research/gerontology/viol.html

Sweden:

Assaults on the Child in Criminal Statistics

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden81.html

Slavery in Europe: Human Traffic

Channel 4 News uncovers the modern day slave trade taking place across Eastern Europe. Our correspondent talks to the women in Romania who were literally sold into slavery.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_2/11_slavery.html

Western Women come off worse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1189262,00.html

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day.

-In 1999, 1,642 murders were attributed to intimates; 74 percent of the murder victims. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99, October 2001)

http://www.nmclites.edu/stuaffairs/response/NationalStatistics.html

-Billions Lost to Abuse in the U.S. Each Year, Study Finds

The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking and homicide committed by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year, according to a report released last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

http://endabuse.org/programs/display.php3?DocID=235

Spousal abuse

What's the greatest cause of death of pregnant women in the United States? Complications caused by pregnancy? Cancer? Road crashes? No - it's not any of these. It's murder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3591548.stm

-Every 12 to 15 seconds a woman is battered in the United States.

-95% of all domestic violence is committed by males against their female partners. (NCADV)

-Domestic violence is the largest single cause of injury to women in the U.S.- more than injuries from auto accidents, muggings and rapes combined. (Surgeon General of the U.S.)

-Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998) to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. (The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women's Health, May 1999)

IN CANADA:

-A woman is sexually assaulted by forced sexual intercourse every 17 minutes in Canada; a woman is sexually assaulted in many other ways every 6 minutes.

-Sexual assault happens to 1 in 4 Canadian women at some point in their lives.

-49% of all sexual assaults and 18% of sexual assaults involving forced sexual intercourse occur in broad daylight.

-62% of victims of assault involving forced sexual intercourse are physically injured in the attack; 9% are beaten severely; 12% are threatened with a weapon; 70% experience verbal threats.

-Studies reveal that only 1 in 10 sexual assaults are reported to police.

http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/avp/statistics.htm

PERHAPS YOU CAN ALSO BLAME '' ISLAM '' FOR THE ABOVE TERRIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF WESTERN WOMEN !!!!

Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago, when Denmark gave the women this right ???

until 1945 french women were NOT allowed to vote !
until 1971 Swiz women were NOT allowed to vote !

The president of the largest muslim country in the world was MUSLIM WOMEN, tell me when America will, if ever, elect its first women president ?

tell me, when FRANCE will have its first woman president ? how about Germany, Italy, Portugal..etc ?

we muslims are more advanced when it comes to women rights, until you reach our level, you can beg for a debate about women rights, not before.

''And Ex soon even more ex - is so right stoning is not mentioned in the Quran ( a 100 whippings is but against unmarried adulters ). What he however forget to tell us is that there is also the hadith and some of these hadith have about similar rank in Islam - and just to show you a few examples of what they say:''

The hadiths you are refering to have NO similar rank in islam, please, go learn some basics about Islam before you COPY and PASTE from well known hate islamophobic websites.

''Muslim 680 The Prophet said: "When an unmarried couple fornicate they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. In the cases of a married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death. If one of the pair is unmarried, one hundred lashes and exile for a year. ''

How is that different from the BIBLE ??

Stoning for adultery in the bible:

Deuteronomy 22:13-29

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her....you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones..''

John 8: 1-11:

''but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such..''

''
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”''

This is a LIE, this hadith does NOT exist, try again.

''Qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”''

Another FABCRICATED LIE, here is what verse 4:15 says in the Noble Quran:

4:

15. ''And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allâh ordains for them some (other) way.''

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe004.htm

You see, you are copying and pasting LIES from hate sites, the above verse is very clear, you chose to cut off the last part of the verse which was: '' or Allâh ordains for them some (other) way.'' because later Allah indeed ordaind for them something else in Sura Nur (24) verse 3:

''Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty or an Unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.''

So you see, you are being fooled and lied at by the hate sites you are copying and pasting from!

here is a good site about women in Islam:

Muslim women league in the USA:

http://www.mwlusa.org/

I hope you will have the will to read through it as you read through the hate sites.

T Hansen - Denmark

And before I forget, here is something which will STUNN you:

From THE COPENHAGEN POST:

Two researchers have set out to discover why some 3000 to 5000 ethnic Danes have converted to Islam in recent years

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/79365.html

Enjoy :)))

"why some 3000 to 5000 ethnic Danes have converted to Islam in recent years..."

The Palestinian academic Edward Said answered this question over 20 years ago in his book on Orientalism: the attraction is not only based on a Freudian attraction for the Other, but is also an expression of colonialist imperialism.

The Western man demonstrates his power by choosing to become Muslim, knowing full well that a return is always possible. Muslims, on the other hand, will never feel accepted as Westerners (at least not in Europe), even though they might convert to Christianity.

The key operative here is the ultimate power that is embodied in choice. Only a Westerner has the power of choice over another culture, and to exercise that choice is to engage in a form of colonialism.

In other words, Ex-C, you and your fellow converts are subjecting Islam to colonialism.

And there's nothing bad in that. In fact, your presence there as a colonialist vanguard of the West will probably force the kinds of changes we here in the West want to see in Islam.

RSN | 2004-11-01 21:30

«The Western man demonstrates his power by choosing to become Muslim, knowing full well that a return is always possible. Muslims, on the other hand, will never feel accepted as Westerners (at least not in Europe), even though they might convert to Christianity.»

lol, barely 5 millions of french are muslims. Are they not "Westerners" or even not "true frenchs"? BS, keep your hateful, meaningless, religions wars for you, ty.

Choosing to become muslims?
a majority of muslims are muslims from their birth date, as a majority of christians that have never "choose" to be christians but are this from their parents choices or culture.
Go france, we don't do abstract religious borders, we know arabs and muslims and we loved them :)

Best regards,
Sensi

Who does the raping 3-4 % of the danish population being moslem and guess their share of the rapes ?

Women got to vote 1400 years ago cool but they did vote long before the Augustinian darkness fell over Europe here as well as far back as 2000-3000 years before christ in a pre - christian ancient culture the celtic. And let´s move focus to the age we live in shall we ? Aghanistan under taliban now what did they get wrong ? Pakistan had woman as president I agree in that good example. But how about the rest of the women in that nation ? How about Saudi - Arabia + all the little arab states except perhaps Q´utar? How about Iran, Sudan and a lot of other states.

Well for one christ gave a good advice "know the treee by it´s fruits"

3000-5000 converting the recent years - well that don´t worry me much. I don´t have a problem with people wanting to belong to a religion and pray to god, I do not belong to any religion but I do believe in god and pray myself. I think God is beyond our imagination and find the many experts on earth are to busy talking about what they know little about. and adding to god motives, attributes, which speak more about themselves than God. If anyone thinks god wants him to kill somebody or that god creates some to go to hell forever and other to go to paradise forever - it says all about them and nothing about the God whose love is like the infinite number of suns and endless manifestation of the universe.

I have a problem with fascist like mind sets that use violence and intimidation as natural means even if the intimidation only is targeted after life - "you go to hell if you don´t believe what I beleive" And when a faith based intolerance alá that is combined with concept of jihad where infidels are not only going to hell in after life but can be killed right here and now.

"the life of an unbeliever has no value, it has no sanctity" Omar Bakri Muhammad.

Islamophobia and hate ? well why is by the way that people have something against exactly that religion - could it be there is a reason ?

I have no doubt that most muslims are modest, honest, kind, people looking for guidance in the troubled ocean of life. just a lot of fundamentalist have other plans with them and those fundamentalists are but a few thousands in this country for one.

Up to about 10 % voted for the communist party at it´s peak in the long run no communist regime did well nor did the communists here nor will islam here.

@ Susan | 2004-10-31 21:39

«Besides the Islamic world no longer loves Dhimmi-boy Chirac quite that much since he has decided to keep "French" Muslim girls from wearing the headscarf»

He don't decided anithing: our parliament decided to underline that religious open signs from all religions were not wanted to be weared in the public schools with the aim of reducing problems between religious scholars (mainly jews/muslims) and to reinforce our principle of laicity, that's all, you are free to do anything you want in a private school or everywhere out of public school. The islamic smart world have understand that (see our two hostages story). misinformation...

@ Pete, Paris | 2004-10-31 14:32
we share the same point of view here even if i am not a lefty ;)

Best regards,
Sensi

Hey Sensi - nice to meet you - thank God another non-lefty! In Paris too! Let's find some more and start a movement :)

T Hansen - we certainly agree about religion - this could lead to a whole other discussion - let's say that people who use their religion as a reason for submitting others have understood nothing about their religion. It's always disturbing to hear hatred in the words of people who talk religion. And honestly, I don't think one religious maniac is any worse than another - Christians do it, Jews do it, Muslims do it, and it's also done by those whose religion is Science, Reason, Profit or even Atheism. Bush's slip of the tongue when he used the word "crusade" about the war on terror was at the very least most unfortunate, and certainly revealing - and it was also exactly the right way to rub Muslims the wrong way. Just what we need, eh, another religious war, our God against theirs. What rubbish.

Good night all

Best wishes

Pete

Sensi, I don't know if you choose to be willfully obtuse, or is it that you didn't understand what I said:

According to Edward Said, Westerners (Christians) who adopt "Oriental" (Muslim) ways are always colonialists.

Yet, according to Said, the reverse cannot be true. And, quite frankly, I can see that in France: Muslims are not accepted as part of mainstream culture, but Christian converts to Islam certainly are accepted as part of the Islamic world.

According to Said, this is a manifestation and an example of Western imperialism and colonialism.

Your point about second and third generation Muslims is valid, though. In the final analysis, all French Muslims are destined to be absorbed by Western national and secular identities. They will become French first, Muslims second.

@ RSN | 2004-11-02 00:34

Sorry, i don't have choose to be willfully obtuse :) I am sure that you have saw that i have some trouble with english language, in such case i miss vocabulary to fully be able to express my opinions, or maybe to understand yours.

Islam is not a part of the mainstream culture, because of our long christian history and of the late immigration of muslims arabs in France.
We live under the same rules and we won't reject any culture as far as it keeps respecting these. France is not anymore a Catholic/Christian state thus we are going to have slowly a mainstream culture made of all the components of our society without, let's hope, any discrimination.
French muslims are French, and their religieusity, if any, is not my concern. We don't like much the american model of communities, which in our opinion is based on racism: blacks with blacks, hispanics with hispanics, jews with jews, w.a.s.p. with wasps... In France we are trying to have only one national community, not making case from what separates us or make us differents (maybe utopian but worth to be tried).

Best regards,
Sensi

«Hey Sensi - nice to meet you - thank God another non-lefty! In Paris too! Let's find some more and start a movement :) »

nice to meet you too :D
Are you studying in Paris?

btw concerning the lefty-thing (when you are from extreme-right all is obviously lefty), i consider me as a centrist, i like conscensus and, on all specific cases, i take the effectiveness where it is.

Best regards,
Sensi

Ex-Christian,

Why would Danes convert to Islame or any other religion? Superstition? Deliberate ignorance? A desire to belief in an ideal or being better then oneself whom can be emulated? To cast responsibilities for ones actions onto another greater being or power?

I think you'll find that human beings have been worshipping, spirits, gods, sticks & stones and all sorts of useless crap for millions of years, why the surprise that Danish people are as prone to this as much as any others? Lets not forget that…

Danes are people too!

cheers,
Dave

PS:

Bush, and other leaders of great power throughout the ages have often attributed their actions to the will of the god(s). Government employees can always blame that great ship of state, children their parents, soldiers their officers, and “the people” can always blame the corrupt leaders, but if your power is absolute the need to invent someone who leads who and shoulders your blame must be great.

"Christians do it, Jews do it, Muslims do it, and it's also done by those whose religion is Science, Reason, Profit or even Atheism."

Peter,

I think the key element of scientific thought that is absent from most dogmatically held religions, political ideologies, and social views, is that scientific theories are both verifiable (can be confirmed through independant observation/ experimentation) and can be proven incorrect, whereas dogmatic thought whether it is neo-clausewitzian attitudes of neo-cons, Freudian psycho-babble or Marxism can and will never be effectively debunked in the minds of its followers.

cheers,
Dave.

Bush, and other leaders of great power throughout the ages have often attributed their actions to the will of the god(s).

Bush hasn't done this.

I think the key element of scientific thought that is absent from most dogmatically held religions, political ideologies, and social views, is that scientific theories are both verifiable (can be confirmed through independant observation/ experimentation) and can be proven incorrect

Of course, the case for Christianity has been proven. (I'm laying a trap for you)

ex-C-
What is your background? You make this threat- "But Susan, you and your hateful islamophobes will fail, we are here to stay in our land, we are EUROPEANS and MUSLIMS wether you like it or not....so you either accept to let us live in peace in OUR land or bear severe consequences, we are NOT the jews of Germany in 1940s..I think you know that very very well."
Muslims have fled their native lands for years, yearning for the welfare money and the freedoms of the west. It's the only place they can get an education as well. What was the last patent from the middle east for? an exploding jihad butt-plug?
You make a sever threat above, and before one can respond you would need to properly identify your background. You threaten "severe consequences" if you are not permitted to live in "your land".. so where IS your land little man?
The world has seen no progress nor contributions from muslim lands for centuries. At the rate your going you'll either beat your selves into the sand or have that done for you within 50 years. How can you preen, boast and claim as you do whilst having NOTHING factual to back that up? You represent true pathetics.

Pete, some responses:

On the rationale for Afghanistan being sketchy, I find your position strange. 9/11 can be defined as an attack on the US by Afghanistan, as there's plenty of precedent for holding a govt responsible when attacks are launched from its territory. It's a matter of active collusion between the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that case, but even negiligence is enough. Common sense would indicate that this is the case as well. Bush's formulation that we would go after terrorists and the govts that harbor them wasn't a new legal concept- only the broad application of it was.

On no Churchill-like invitation to Iraq, Kuwait certainly did invite us in in '91, and the US/UK have been there ever since. Saddam had been violating the ceasefire routinely by shooting at Ameican and British jets. The fact that Iraq's sovereignty had been severely curtailed for over a decade is often overlooked when people argue over whether we had the right to violate it in 2003. It had been continuously.

On your solutions, there seems to be the implication that the way the US handles all its problems is with military force. This is a caricature. The US spends all kinds of money outside the US trying to solve problems. We have experts looking for solutions all over the world, through govt, corporate, and private enterprises. But these things tend not to make the front cover of Le Monde.

It would be great if all problems could be solved that way, but that's not the world we live in (yet). I will point you towards Darfur. We're seeing in that place how tragically your solutions can fail. And when they do, you've got to have a Plan B.

I’ve recently seen three videos of western and Nepalese hostages being beheaded by those barbaric thugs in Iraq. Thirty year old men, armed to the teeth and murdering unarmed old men and boys like they would a goat. They are a disgrace to the human race and as far as I’m concerned the coalition are doing the right thing. I wish they would show the videos on the nightly news, it would shut up some of our woollie headed liberals who say “our troops are criminals and all the Arabs want is to be left in peace”. They should see what we are up against and just how peaceful the struggle for power would be if our troops left.

Mike

@ Brian O'Connell | 2004-11-02 05:05

«The US spends all kinds of money outside the US trying to solve problems. We have experts looking for solutions all over the world, through govt, corporate, and private enterprises. But these things tend not to make the front cover of Le Monde.»

Well, certainly, but the USA also spend millions of dollars supporting fascist extreme-right colons in palestine since 35 years, puting their veto at U.N. each time Israel is sued for their war crimes, and support with your taxs their concentration camps policy (i.e: gaza): that's why they are hated by the majority of the muslim arabian world, and it is maybe the major cause of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. If i need to synthetize my opinion: USA support good and very bad things that's the problem and this leaves us perplexed.

"Le monde" (officially 2,08 millions readers, not buyers, for barely 65 millions people + abroad) reports everything good or bad coming from everywhere, we don't have that sort of news that make you still think that saddam hussein, the dictator put in place by CIA in 63, was involved in 9/11. We have, in france, the same news than everywhere around the democratic world, excepting the USA. Because since the U.N. case, where Bush's government have exposed their "evidences" of WMD in Irak (pathetic), your news, or at least what a great part of the population seems to learn from them, are just liars or propaganda (as in the ol'soviet union ironically).

«Darfour (...) We're seeing in that place how tragically your solutions can fail. And when they do, you've got to have a Plan B.»

Don't use some amalgamates as your news networks, Plan A seems to work: troops of the A.U. (African Union) have been sent to stop the massacres with the agreement of U.N. and there is actually a ceasefire. What is plan B?

@ Mike, London, UK | 2004-11-02 09:18

Yes, these people are the shame of the mankind, they are Al-Quaida's terrorists and were elsewhere before you came, at this time your troops, UK soldiers know how to do a proper & respectfull job, can't leave and let Iraq fall into chaos, i share your point of view, and it is too late to go back...

Best regards,
Sensi

n.b:
- I want peace for both Israel and Palestine, and i condemn all kinds of terrorist, both those from states and bunches.
- If M.Bush had asked France to go somewhere for good reasons as the freedom and the democracy and not with such lies, we would be at your sides on the battlefield.

Sensi: USA support good and very bad things that's the problem and this leaves us perplexed.

Now can I be astonished at a Frenchman criticizing the US? Osirak, exocets- these ring a bell?

The French media are very reticient to criticize France's sometimes awful foreign policy. There are a wider range of views in the US media.

On the rationale for Afghanistan being sketchy, I find your position strange. 9/11 can be defined as an attack on the US by Afghanistan, as there's plenty of precedent for holding a govt responsible when attacks are launched from its territory.

Agreed, but if your cellar is full of rats, and one bites your child, and he dies, do you get rid of all the rats, or just the one that did the deed?

Certainly, the Taliban was harboring a dangerous group of folks who definitely had some part in attacks against the US. However, the idea that the taliban is the state that has the power to threaten the US is not believable.

The case is much stronger that Iraq is the state behind the attacks. After losing the gulf war, they promised to get their revenge. Iraq is implicated in 93 attack on the WTC, Oklahoma City, and 9/11. They trained fanatics to take over airplanes, and Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence just before 9/11

http://edwardjayepstein.com/teamb/1.htm
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/againstallenemies.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/

RSN | 2004-11-01 21:30 |

"why some 3000 to 5000 ethnic Danes have converted to Islam in recent years..."

''The Palestinian academic Edward Said answered this question over 20 years ago in his book on Orientalism: the attraction is not only based on a Freudian attraction for the Other, but is also an expression of colonialist imperialism.''

I read orientalism and I did not recall Saed explaining why westerners convert to islam !!

''The Western man demonstrates his power by choosing to become Muslim, knowing full well that a return is always possible. ''

This is pure nonesense, the western man demonestrates his RATIONALITY by accepting ISLAM as the only true religion.

''Muslims, on the other hand, will never feel accepted as Westerners (at least not in Europe), even though they might convert to Christianity.''

But who told you muslims want to become westerners in the first place ?? what we are seeing with muslims when they come to Europe is their tight grip on their beliefs and their religion, they hold Islam very dear to their hearts, I recall how thousands of muslims chose to die rather than convert to christianity after the fall of Al Andalus in 1492.
It is amazing what we are witnessing now, thousands upon thousands of westerners converting to Islam despite all the systematic hate campagiens launched against islam in the west, this only indicates that Islam is really great religion.

''The key operative here is the ultimate power that is embodied in choice. Only a Westerner has the power of choice over another culture, and to exercise that choice is to engage in a form of colonialism.''

oh really ?? I can diagnose you with this disease affecting many westerners: self rightousness !!
Isnt the 'choice' to PRESERVE and hold dear your religion when you are in the west a great CHOICE as well??

''In other words, Ex-C, you and your fellow converts are subjecting Islam to colonialism.''

Nonesense, how about putting it this way: ISLAM is colonizing us ( westerners ) !!
you see, your argument is 2 way road.

''And there's nothing bad in that. In fact, your presence there as a colonialist vanguard of the West will probably force the kinds of changes we here in the West want to see in Islam.''

But I consider myself MUSLIM first, I dont give a damn about my ' western' heritage, Islam is FIRST and everything else come later.
I think you need really to understand how we , western converts to islam, feel about our great new faith.

Sensi, paris

RSN | 2004-11-01 21:30

«The Western man demonstrates his power by choosing to become Muslim, knowing full well that a return is always possible. Muslims, on the other hand, will never feel accepted as Westerners (at least not in Europe), even though they might convert to Christianity.»

lol, barely 5 millions of french are muslims. Are they not "Westerners" or even not "true frenchs"? BS, keep your hateful, meaningless, religions wars for you, ty.

Choosing to become muslims?
a majority of muslims are muslims from their birth date, as a majority of christians that have never "choose" to be christians but are this from their parents choices or culture.
Go france, we don't do abstract religious borders, we know arabs and muslims and we loved them :)

Best regards,
Sensi

Thank you Sensi for your kind feelings, muslims in Europe are integral part of our societies, we should fight those who try to incite hate and discrimination against them.
Islam will be major force that will shape the west in the next decades so we better ' accomodate' ourselves with this new ideological superpower.

T Hansen - Denmark

''Who does the raping 3-4 % of the danish population being moslem and guess their share of the rapes ?''

Oh really ? is that what your racist government is telling you that all rapes in Denmark are done by muslims ???

Crosspoint Anti Racism
Denmark

http://www.magenta.nl/crosspoint/dnk.html

''Women got to vote 1400 years ago cool but they did vote long before the Augustinian darkness fell over Europe here as well as far back as 2000-3000 years before christ in a pre - christian ancient culture the celtic. And let´s move focus to the age we live in shall we ? ''

Why you should move focus ? is it too embarrassing to talk about when your western women got their rights to vote ? is it too embarrasing to know that Muslims women got the right to vote and indeed USED IT 1400 years ago ?

''Pakistan had woman as president I agree in that good example. But how about the rest of the women in that nation ?''

A nation that DEMOCRATICALLY elect a muslim woman as its head of state is a healthy nation with great deal of gender equality, dont you think ?

'' How about Saudi - Arabia + all the little arab states except perhaps Q´utar? How about Iran, Sudan and a lot of other states.''

I think you dont know really the situation there because all your information is from biased western media, I have been in the middle east, I lived there for many years and believe me, their women have MORE rights than ours.

Iran for example has MORE women in its parlaiment than the USA has in its congress !

Indonesia which is the largest muslim country in the world had MUSLIM WOMAN as its president, tell me when the USA, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and other ' civilized' western countries will have their first woman president ????

''Well for one christ gave a good advice "know the treee by it´s fruits"''

Indeed, Jesus also considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim):

Revelation 14:4 '' Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure''

''3000-5000 converting the recent years - well that don´t worry me much. I don´t have a problem with people wanting to belong to a religion and pray to god,''

The main question is this: if Islam was really that bad, how come all these ' civilized' westerners are converting to islam ?

''I have a problem with fascist like mind sets that use violence and intimidation as natural means even if the intimidation only is targeted after life - "you go to hell if you don´t believe what I beleive" And when a faith based intolerance alá that is combined with concept of jihad where infidels are not only going to hell in after life but can be killed right here and now. ''

This is typical parroting of usual sterotyping about Islam, let us for a moment examine some verses in the Noble quran to determine wether what you wrote is really true:

THE NOBLE QURAN

2:256 ''There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing. ''

16:82 ''But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you). ''

6:107 ''Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them. ''

17:53, 54 '' And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith. ''

21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far."

22:67 '' To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do."

88:21, 22; also see 24:54 ''And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe. ''

48:28 '' He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the (task of spreading) Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every (false) religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.''

42:6, 48 ''And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach .... ''

64:12 ''Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message. ''

60:8 ''Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. ''

60:9 ''Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.''

The teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him ) on how we should treat our Non-Muslim friends and neighbours on a day to day basis as well as how to government should treat a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state.

"He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)

"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall mysefl be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)

"Anyone who kills a Non-Muslim who had become our ally will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Bukhari)

"the life of an unbeliever has no value, it has no sanctity" Omar Bakri Muhammad.

So you see from the above, Islam does not really tell us to kill the ' infidels' and those who dont believe, this is the sort of propaganda you hear from the evangelical christians ,the Jewish zionists and the 'rotten' Islamophobes.

''Islamophobia and hate ? well why is by the way that people have something against exactly that religion - could it be there is a reason ?''

people have nothing against Islam, people are just ignorant of the truth about Islam, otherwise how do you explain the fact that Islam is now the FASTEST growing religion on earth ?

From the BBC:

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/islam_around_the_world/html/default.stm

From the MSNBC:

With 1.2 billion followers, Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion—but also its most misunderstood.
Understanding Islam
A best-selling religion writer explains why the West needs Muslims to maintain a strong and vital faith
Karen Armstrong: 'Islam does not preach violence'

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067495/

''I have no doubt that most muslims are modest, honest, kind, people looking for guidance in the troubled ocean of life. just a lot of fundamentalist have other plans with them and those fundamentalists are but a few thousands in this country for one. ''

Those fundamentalist were NOT born as such, it is the sheer injustice that is inflicted on muslims that turn them into fundamentalists.

''Up to about 10 % voted for the communist party at it´s peak in the long run no communist regime did well nor did the communists here nor will islam here.''

Islam is YOUR future, Islam is the future of your childern and grandchildern.

David Elson, Queensland, Australia

Ex-Christian,

''Why would Danes convert to Islame or any other religion? Superstition? Deliberate ignorance? A desire to belief in an ideal or being better then oneself whom can be emulated? To cast responsibilities for ones actions onto another greater being or power? ''

How about converting to Islam because ISLAM makes sense !!!

''I think you'll find that human beings have been worshipping, spirits, gods, sticks & stones and all sorts of useless crap for millions of years, why the surprise that Danish people are as prone to this as much as any others? Lets not forget that…

Danes are people too!''

The question remains:

If Islam is really that bad ( as the jewish-controled western media always frame it ) how come despite all this negative publicity Islam is recieving, it continues to grow rapidly all over the world ??

PS: And since you are from Australia, here is something for you:

Aborigines turn to Islam

A rising number of young Aborigines in Australia are converting to Islam.

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

Gunnar, Maryland

''Bush, and other leaders of great power throughout the ages have often attributed their actions to the will of the god(s). ''

Bush hasn't done this.

--

You are wrong, Bush DID this:

"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world," Bush said during a news conference last week. "And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help spread that freedom."

at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."

After Bush's September 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the President and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought--God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the President responded.

During that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.

Source: The white house website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

We know that the religious experience is common to human beings from all cultures ever since records have been kept - human beings feel or sense a truth, a plane of existence that can not be expressed in words, can only be hinted at - it may then be recognised by others who have their own approach to a similar experience. In most cases, the major religions are an attempt at expressing what seems to be basically the same truth. The cultural and historical environment may make for apparent and superficial differences in the basic form of these religions - the name used to designate the Supreme Being, for example, and the various modes of prayer - but all seem to agree that there is ONE Supreme Being, that we are ALL connected directly to that Being, and as such we ALL have equal dignity and deserve equal respect. It is the power structures invented to support these religious truths which cause problems, because a power structure first of all operates in order to preserve power. Since power seeks to take precedence over the will of others, it can be argued that this is the primary departure from the religious truth it purports to defend. According to the story, Christianity began with the teachings of Jesus, which were apparently reported and translated more or less efficiently - various interpretations have demonstrably been used ever since as a form of mass mind control as much as a set of guidelines for a productive life. I'm not qualified to speak for Islam and Judaism, but I would assume, human nature so far having been what it has been, that the same errors were made by the religious leaders of these two major religions. I've spoken with Muslims and Jews about this, however, and they assure me that violent imposition of one doctrine over another has no part in their religion as they understand it, on the contrary, they speak of respect and brotherhood. In fact, love is the word which arises most often. Until you feel love, you've no idea what it feels like - movies and songs and other people's stories may be interesting approaches to it, but until it happens to you, you don't have a clue. As soon as it happens, as I sincerely hope it will for us all, then you know what it is - and nobody can tell you that you must feel this, that, or the other. It's your experience, and it's up to you to express it as you wish - nobody would argue with that, I think, so what the fuck is all the noise about religion for? It's the same thing. It's a unique and personal experience, and no-one else has any rights over it whatsoever. The present mess in the Middle East is not truly a problem of religion, it's a question of colonialism. Islam seems to crystalise the motives of many of those who feel they have a right to defend themselves and their brothers against imperial aggression. There are without doubt some evil men who are prepared to use "Islam" as a means of forwarding their own power agenda - just as there are evil "Christians" - some gravitating around and manipulating the US power structure - and also evil "Jews" who manipulate the state of Israel, amongst others. Insofar as we get caught up in those lies and power games, we become victims of and parties to the current chaos. We may become victims of it anyway, of course, by virtue of a car bomb or a "smart" bomb, a "terrorist attack" or a "pre-emptive strike".

It seems to me that "love your enemy" is a daunting challenge, especially these days, but I feel it's still more worth while than "an eye for an eye."

Best wishes

Pete

You: Bush, and other leaders of great power throughout the ages have often attributed their actions to the will of the god(s).

Me: Bush hasn't done this.

You: You are wrong, Bush DID this:

None of your examples even come close to supporting your allegation. There is a huge gulf between praying to God for guidance, and claiming that what you're doing is God's will.

"Oh really ? is that what your racist government is telling you that all rapes in Denmark are done by muslims ???"

We have no rascist government - hilarious!

No it´s from the crime - statistics people have to go through great trouble to get all information - no one in the official system is willing to publish findings. 75 % of greater crimes in the city court of copenhagen is by "people of other ethnic groups than danes" Don´t give me some bullshit about we treat them badly, are rascist etc. If someone was invited to your home and he misbehaved, stole things, defamed you you would kick him out telling him to never visit you again. And yes almost half of the rapes are commited by fucked up arab kids which can´t understand a woman that do not dress in burka do not necesarily want to have sex - and the view of many moslems including a leading iman is "that it´s their own fault for dressing the way they do".

"Islam is YOUR future, Islam is the future of your childern and grandchildern."

No freedom and democracy, sanity and science, free speech and free expression is our future - if you think Islam you be wiser.

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

I am aware of the beautiful passages in the quran, but the jihadists haven´t got their ideas from strangers,

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

Quran 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

Quran 8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (Sura 5:51)"

Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5]

"'Islam does not preach violence'"

No no just listen to messenger of peace above,

The same messenger of peace that personally lead the conquest of Arabia then his followers took on persia, north africa, andalusia which Osama want back.

"Thank you Sensi for your kind feelings, muslims in Europe are integral part of our societies, we should fight those who try to incite hate and discrimination against them."

No you should work with your own hate and discrimination and fight against that - and stop worshiping maniacs like khomenei and Bin laden - stop your rascist attitude vs so called infidels.
And unless you want to have walls build around you whereever you live you must stop terror attacks.

"Islam will be major force that will shape the west in the next decades so we better ' accomodate' ourselves with this new ideological superpower"

Yes you are so damn cocky believing you that with Allah on your side you will win though your recent record is one of acheiving nothing.
You are so far, nothing but a little minority in the west though you try to outbread everything, and you still talk about the next decades. You can kill journalists,writers, artists, and publishers, politicians, attack and intimidate opponents rape girls, you can perform terrorist attacks killing hundreds of thousands and eventually you will! But you can´t defeat the west neither military, monetary, idological. Now most of the west or particularly europe may exert itself in tolerance. But you will step cocksure over the line only to find that god is not on your side and even our much cherished tolerance has it´s boundaries.
If it wasn´t so sad it would make me laugh -

But good for all communist and utopian disposed mindsets that they find some new variant of ideological fatal blindness.

Gunnar,

Bush considers God a key political ally, according to an article from Capitol Hill Blue as reported by Scripps Howard News Service March 5, 2003. He wrote: Bush told a conference of lawmakers that people cannot "claim to know all the ways of Providence" "Yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history" he said "May he guide us now" http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/bushfundimentalism.htm

"Of course, the case for Christianity has been proven. (I'm laying a trap for you)"

You should spring the trap, I'm waiting for the punch line! (I hope you weren't referring to that interesting piece of fiction "the holy bible".

Cheers,
David.

pete

“but all seem to agree that there is ONE Supreme Being, that we are ALL connected directly to that Being, and as such we ALL have equal dignity and deserve equal respect.”

And the early paganism of the Europeans? The spiritualism of the aboriginal Australian? The plethora of gods within the ancient Egyptian belief system? There is no talk of ONE being in these mythologies.

“love is the word which arises most often”

Nothing leads to hateful feelings faster than love scorned, or an absolute faith-based belief system denied. It won’t be until people give up trying to force their blatantly unprovable belief systems on one another and embrace truly as brothers (without being conditional on conversion!), that peace will reign in the world!

Dave

@ Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 16:57

« Islam will be major force that will shape the west in the next decades so we better ' accomodate' ourselves with this new ideological superpower. »

You don't have understand me: Islam while never be the "major force that will shape the west in the next decades" or a "new ideological superpower" in Europe or at least in France, we have laicity: thus Religion+Power are meaningless here, all religions are welcome as soon as they don't try to do politic, otherwise we will fight them and make them follow our rules.

Best regards,
Sensi

@ Brian O'Connell | 2004-11-02 16:21

« Now can I be astonished at a Frenchman criticizing the US? Osirak, exocets- these ring a bell?

The French media are very reticient to criticize France's sometimes awful foreign policy. There are a wider range of views in the US media. »

I give me the right to criticize every country around the world, and of course more democratics ones than the ones where all is to do and nothing else to say.

Osirak, exocets? can you remind me that, because i dunno what you are speaking to...

I criticize French politics all the day (my father is a MP lol), the French media too, I also criticize past foreign policies and even sometimes actual french foreign policy (they want, as always, to sold weapons, this time to the non-democratic China...) this won't remove me the right to criticize USA expescially in this case for his place in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Best regards,
Sensi

Ok, Taïwan vedettes (exocets)?
Osirak nuclear plant?

Taïwan vedettes is a pure and only corruption thing, nothing new here and its an old case, ask halliburton & Boeing nowadays.

Osirak nuclear plant was a civilian electricity plant and it is not our fault if Sharon thinked that this would be diverted from this purpose (it was not even finished). At that time, UK, USA, France and others used to sell all sorts of weapons to Saddam (put in place by CIA in 63) and we had already helped Israël to construct nuclear weapons, which is, in my opinion, worse :)

Best regards,
Sensi

Dave - you're right of course about early polytheistic religions and the spirituality of various cultures like the native Australians, the Maoris etc. However, I was commenting on today's major religions, particularly Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all of which play a major part in the mess we're in today. These religions all have clauses written in which are intended to keep the masses in line - the Apostles' Creed, for example, has nothing to do with the apostles, and everything to do with the early Christian power structure. Judaism has numerous texts stating that non-Jews are little more than animals. I am not familiar with the Islamic texts, but it would seem that there are also plenty of examples of this sort of exclusivity. This is all pre-medieval nonsense, and the vast majority of people today know that, believers or not. Only religious fanatics - of all stripes - claim their right to condemn others and seek to impose their way of life on others. Examples of this sort of behaviour unfortunately abound.

"Nothing leads to hateful feelings faster than love scorned, or an absolute faith-based belief system denied. It won’t be until people give up trying to force their blatantly unprovable belief systems on one another and embrace truly as brothers (without being conditional on conversion!), that peace will reign in the world!"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

We will not change religious structures themselves by confrontation, but only by rising above that sort of pre-fabricated mindset - the same is true of political absolutes. If we manage to do that, by thought and discussion, the systems themselves will become obselete and will be obliged to evolve themselves. Taking pre-ordained sides and defending one pile of rubbish against another only reinforces both. These blogs which quickly degenerate into hateful Christian-Islam exchanges are symptoms of the disease that is rampant today. Automatic media-inspired US hatred of France is the same phenomenon - France opposed the invasion of Iraq for very clear and sensible reasons, thereby expressing an opinion shared by a huge percentage of the world's population - this was displeasing to the US/UK power structure, which wanted war for reasons completely different from those stated, leading to media lynching and the sort of unbelievable stupidity which led people to pour French wine in the gutter, believing that they were being patriotic. This does not mean that those who oppose the war are anti-American, any more than those whose oppose Israel's shameful behaviour in Palestine makes us anti-Israeli or anti-Semites. It does not mean either that France is a shining example of truth and virtue - it is not - as Sensi rightly points out, they are quite comfortable with selling arms wherever they can, thereby profiting directly from injustice, horror and destruction, just like any major world power today. How can any nation pretend to be working for peace when thay have an invested interest in the massive sale of weapons? These are the questions we need to be addressing, not wasting time trying to prove that Jews are better than Arabs, or Christians are the root of all evil, or that America is the great Satan or that Islam is a barbarian creed. This sort of thinking obscures the real questions - first of all, do our governments truly represent us, are they really acting in our interests? Do we agree with the way the government spends our money? If not, there's the problem.

Religion - from the Latin 'religare' (‘to bind fast') - the original idea seems to have been to link people together - but beware of being "bound fast" as prisoners are.

Best wishes

Pete

Ex-C wrote:
Ex-C wrote:

"she is the same woman who earlier in this blog advocated OPENLY THE GENOCIDE OF ALL MUSLIMS IN EUROPE !

She is the same woman who goes in another forums and hate sites promoting the ' final solution' against muslims !"

This is a blatant lie.

Regading Ex-C's other posts, I think his arrogance and intentions are very clear to anyone not looking at Islam through politically correct rose-colored glasses.

Pete: Thanks for admitting you were wrong on the pipeline thing. You are indeed an honorable person.

@ Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 16:28

« The case is much stronger that Iraq is the state behind the attacks. After losing the gulf war, they promised to get their revenge. Iraq is implicated in 93 attack on the WTC, Oklahoma City, and 9/11. They trained fanatics to take over airplanes, and Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence just before 9/11 »

Lol, the case is much stronger when proportionally your brain become much smaller, you have great evidences, maybe go to U.N.
Btw even M.Bush aka President liar have said that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Oklahoma City? an extreme-right fascist as you have plenty in paramilitary militias.
You will always find somewhere, someone that will say you what you want to hear, and then you will smile blissfully with a new faith in your idiocy.

Best regards,
Sensi

Btw the only country that may have been indirectly or directly involved in 9/11 is Saudi Arabia (your friends...), some princes were strangely killed with the same manner as witnesses after the JFK assassination. You should better follow that path...

Best regards,
Sensi

Brian

I only just found your post this evening

Brian O'Connell | 2004-11-02 05:05 | Link
Pete, some responses:

Thanks.

Well, of course, this will lead us head-first into a discussion of the nitty-gritty - what proof was ever advanced for the guilt of bin Laden? What proof was ever advanced for the collusion of Afghanistan? When I say proof, I mean proof, not media-propagated government-inspired rumours. I might point out that the same criminally deficient "intelligence" services that were so dumb that they were unable to react to serious multiple forewarnings of 9-11 was used as
the justification of the attack on Afghanistan - these are the same "intelligence" services that had "solid evidence" that Saddam Hussein had all those WMD's that he doesn't have. The attack on Afghanistan was planned well before 9-11, and this can be easily verified without having to kiss Michael Moore's imposing ass. The plans for taking over Iraq were being worked on years before 9-11, and here, MM need not bend over either. Anyone who cares to document themself at all about 9-11 will quickly learn that there are some very troubling anomalies in the official story pointing clearly to government collusion - that confused moan you can hear is the rising wrawl from the throats of millions of fine upstanding citizens howling "conspiracy theories" as they read from the Fox News script - but these anomalies exist, and are distracting enough to have been smothered by the government "investigation" of 9-11 which was avoided as long as possible - enough at least to question whether the reasons given for the massive destruction of the lives of millions of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq are truly valid.

I had no intention of suggesting that Americans are only capable of reacting to problems with military solutions. American people, like all other people, are for the most part decent human beings who are ready and willing to help others, and capable of organising in order to do so. However, for the American government - particularly this one - it's the solution of choice - incidentally at the same time making a fortune for the military industries, who finance both political parties, out of the pockets of the taxpayers, who have no say in the matter. Wouldn't it be more humane simply to make an obligatory transfer, in an amount to be defined by the industrialists, from the people's wage-packets directly to the industrialists, without having to go abroad and kill all those people? But, see, that probably wouldn't fly - first of all it might be called slavery, and second of all, we're going to have to repossess our oil, which somehow got under all that Iraqi sand.

As was noted in the PNAC plan "...the process of transformation (of the balance of power in the Middle East) is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Hey ...

It's true that Iraqi sovereignty had been continually violated since 1991 - by daily bombing and by sanctions - the modern equivalent of a medieval seige - however I don't necessarily see that as a good thing, not least because it led directly to the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi civilians, including 500,000 children. Madeleine Albrecht, representing the US government, considered that "a fair price to pay". That's the reasoning of a terrorist in my opinion.

As for Kuwait and Desert Storm - from

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

There are plenty of others

"... since 1980, the United States alone sent about $1.6 billion in arms and high-tech equipment to Saddam. One shipment landed in Iraq just one day before we went to war against him."

"... citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert."

I won't speak about Darfour since I haven't followed it - I will be looking at it though - there's been talk about Sudan for a while - there's oil there, isn't there?

Later

Peace and love, brother

Best wishes

Pete

Susan

Thank you - the truth will set you free.

Best wishes

Pete

A note I forgot to include in my post to Brian - I talk about the US and Bush a lot, but as an Englishman, I have to admit my shame and disgust for the hypocritical and cowardly wheedling of the Blair/Straw/Mandelson clique - I'm afraid I see their behaviour as being quite as reprehensible, since they're not only jumping on the bully-boy's bandwagon, but making moralistic declarations about it - Bush talks as if he shared the wish of many Americans of his age - they all wish they were John Wayne. Blair tries to sound like Gandhi. It's revolting. The UK also has a very well-developed arms industry, and has no qualms whatsoever about arming mass murderers wherever they operate. And these liars are supposed not only to represent their own people, but also to indicate the moral compass for our age!

Best wishes

Pete

Yes Pete, there's oil in Sudan - in the South where the non-Muslims live (or rather lived, but a lot of them have been ethnically cleansed off their lands.)

And guess who's got the largest, fattest concession of them all, through the gov't in Khartoum?

France.

BTW, just so you won't embarass yourself again, the US oil industry pulled out of Sudan 20 years ago.

Susan

Thanks for helping to reduce my intake of humble pie - however, I've never tried to say that France is better than the US - obviously France as a functioning member of the ex-colonial international community has as much house-cleaning to do as any other - my point is that while we spend our time avoiding looking at our own evil by condemning and seeking to punish someone else's, we're not getting any of that essential cleaning done. I think Christians are reminded of the importance of that by Jesus' lesson of the mote and the beam. (Matthew 7:3-5)

Best wishes

Pete

Pete I think you read to much David Icke.

Aghanistan was on pentagons drawing board before 9/11 so I heard as well - Could it anyway in part be because muhajedins was being trained in 1000´s there and everyone knew that Osama had spend his fortune building facilities for eg. development of biological and chemical weapons ?

How about Bin ladens latest videotape ... how much more evindence do you want for his involvement in 9/11 ?

He was btw reported dead and has the ability to be in kashmir, tora bora, pakistan at the same time.

We live in the age of massive and contradictory information the easiest thing is to either disbelieve or firmly believe one thing...

Thomas

I also noted that bin Laden suddenly popped up again just before the US election with a clear admittance of his guilt for 9-11, when he'd always denied it before - as I've said elsewhere, it was just like a Mad Max movie - the baddy disappears for a while, lulling us all into a false sense of security, and then all of a sudden BOO here comes the bogeyman again! Enough to remind American electors what they're supposed to be scared of, thereby giving a little nudge in the direction of GBW's WOT. Certainly would have helped in a close race. Remember that the Bushes and the bin Ladens have long been close business partners - perhaps they still are.

The mujaheddin were indeed being trained in Afghanistan, notably by the CIA all through the 80's and some of the 90's, and armed by the US.

I have read some David Icke, as well as a lot of other writers on a lot of other subjects - was there some point I made in particular that made you think of David Icke? And I might say that I have also listened to Tony Blair on a number of occasions - that doesn't however guarantee that I will vote Labour, or Conservative for that matter. And "...in an age of massive and contradictory information...", whatever the easiest thing may be, I like to think that the best thing is to try and maintain an open mind.

Best wishes

Pete

Lol, the case is much stronger when proportionally your brain become much smaller, you have great evidences, maybe go to U.N. Btw even M.Bush aka President liar have said that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Oklahoma City? an extreme-right fascist as you have plenty in paramilitary militias.

reduced to ad hominem, eh? Bush benefits politically by keeping it fuzzy, so that is no argument.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I can't ignore the evidence that the US govt is none too eager to tell the american public about a lot of bad stuff. For example, in Pittsburgh, a plane crashed in the early 90s. I was amazed when the local reporters said that the FBI shut down all access to the site. I had no idea about terrorism, was perplexed, and came to no conclusion. When TWA 800 was shot down with a missile, there was an obvious cover up. After 9/11, a clinton staffer even slipped and said on national TV that the TWA 800 was shot down.

Oklahoma City Source: Jayna Davis, the first investigative reporter at the scene of the bombing, hardly a right wing kook. Nichols definitely did go to the Philipines to meet with mideast terrorists. It's a fact. There was an APB out for a mid east looking person who fled the scene. I remember this in the news. For more info: http://www.jaynadavis.com/

9/11 source: Duelfer report. Iraq did train fanatics to take over airplanes. Defectors told us this, they did find the site which matched the sketch from the defector. KSM had a fake identity that could only have been created by the Iraqis.

Contrary to public myth, Mohammad Atta did meet with Iraqi Intelligence just before 9/11
http://edwardjayepstein.com/PragueConnection.htm

http://edwardjayepstein.com/teamb/1.htm

And they were probably not Saudis:
http://edwardjayepstein.com/nether_WWDK4.htm

The problem here is the CIA. They wanted to avoid being blamed by the american people. They don't want a question like "if you had satellite surveilance of Salmon Pak, seeing perhaps even people, why didn't you stop this?"

Well I am not afraid to admit that I read David Icke nor afraid to to say that though I read him with 50/50 "come on - get real"/"what if he is even partial right".

I am not one in favor of dismissing something in advance - if I do I force myself to consider it again and again.

It would not surprise me a lot if they actually or atleast some of CIA and even government knew what was coming and let it happen.
But it could also be they thought gimme a break - noone will do this that is just far out - which I though have to say for the CIA it´s not their job dismiss such claims but to investigate em.

But when you look at the opposition mounted even after what happened 9/11 it´s obvious that it would not have been easier to pull such things off without 9/11.

That they supported Bin Laden and muhajedin was bound in the fact Russia invaded Aghanistan. It was all about dirty covert warfare. After they left Aghanistan obvious it all backfired on them -muhajedins were still being trained - and what was worse, Osama was developing WMD and for what purpose - Whether he got so far as to develop WMD - and worse make caches around the world in the hands of sleeping cells is a subject of dispute - the way we get the answer may not be nice.

As for why I thought you read David icke - his views are easily recognizeable - i do not agree with him mostly but admire anyone with guts to stray off main stream thought. Freedom of speech is useless if everyone just cling to the same ideas.

Project for a New American Century did mention their change in politics were unlikely to take place unless some catalyzing event like pearl harbor took place.
But that was written before it came clear that a substantial selection of these people was to enter the US administration. Now a catalyzing event did take place but actually most of the goals stated in their report were already fulfilled or on the way to be fulfilled - military spending increased, "Star wars" or Anti ballistic defense program reuptaken, as for moving into a more beneficial geostrategic position now that´s what every great power had been doing continually. and a strategic though not necesarily concrete hold on the middleeast has been US politics virtually since the first oil crisis. As for Iraq their report actually state "that the geostrategic importance of Iraq trancends the issue of regime change". Now the US policy since 1990 has been regime change in Iraq -
what this is basically saying is that it´s more important that the oil of Iraq starts to flow out on the market than to change the regime in Baghdad - in the end the decision became to remove Saddam.

But getting the oil liberated to flow on the market could have been acheived with a change in the regime change policy. But this war wasn´t just about oil it was WOT, it was about changing the map of the middleeast, was about the hope that democracy could spread there, was about removing a threat to the security of region.

T Hansen

I like to think that my views do not belong to other people but to myself - like everybody else, I process a lot of information and think about it and then go with what seems right. I'm always ready to reconsider. As you are well aware, it is possible to reach the same conclusions as another person independently.

Best wishes

Pete

>> But it could also be they thought gimme a break - noone will do this that is just far out - which I though have to say for the CIA it´s not their job dismiss such claims but to investigate em.

Yes, more likely. It's completely ludicrous to imagine that someone in the US had the fore-knowledge, and the power to stop it, and didn't.

The most likely scenario is that they suffer from analysis paralysis. Way too few resources for the data coming in, what is monitored is monitored by low ranking people. Career politics comes into play. We do know that some low ranking folks in the FBI knew something was up, passed info around, but with so much info, who could connect the dots. When 999/1000 disturbing pieces of info turn out to be nothing, it's easy for the 1/1000 to slip through.

The Clinton admin politicized the FBI/CIA to an extent unheard of, which resulted in a mindset of terrorism as a criminal justice issue, and not a national security issue. Gorelick issued strict rules preventing cia info from being passed to the FBI. It was a recipe for disaster.

I'm amazed that some people can dismiss the obvious answer as a conspiracy theory, while they believe that Karl Rove and the neo-cons arranged to have 9/11 happen, just so they can have an excuse to invade Iraq, and to get big contracts for haliburton, and of course, oil. If oil was the goal, wouldn't it be easier to arrange a conspiracy to get Alaskan oil? Killing a few key senators is easier than arranging for a global conspiracy. If they knew, why would Cheney have been in the whitehouse, one of the targets?

With many complicated possibilites, the simplest answer is the most likely.

The facts stare at us plain as day. To say that saddam was not involved in terror is like saying the soviet union was not really communist. It contradicts what everyone in the the whole world said throughout the 90s, including Clinton, Kerry, UN, his neighbors, and every intelligence agency in the world. It also contradicts defectors and iraqi documents. And I'm a conspiracy nut for stating the obvious? No, the only reason to contradict this obvious reality is because this indisputable fact helps Bush.

The hoover institute is a very credible source:
http://husseinandterror.com/

plain as day:

fact: saddam invaded Kuwait

fact: UN authorized the use of force

fact: Saddam stays in power only by agreeing to terms requiring no-fly zone & wmd transparency

fact: Saddam violates terms by shooting at coalition planes enforcing no-fly zone, an act of war

fact: Saddam commits another act of war by trying to assasinate the US president

fact: Saddam refuses to show status of wmd programs

fact: saddam harbors, supports, and uses numerous terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda

fact: saddam operated a terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak, teaching how to take over airplanes.

likely: saddam is implicated in 93 WTC bombing, and act of war

likely: saddam is implicated in OK City, an act of war.

likely: iraqi intelligence provided fake identities for key al queda figures involved in 9/11

likely: iraqi agent met with Atta just before 9/11.

likely: Iraq Oil for Food Scam is the source of funds that made Al Qaeda possible.

Most reasonable conclusion: Iraq commited acts of war against the US, and the US has the right of self defence.

Ok it's nice to know that Saddam didn't like the US.

And that he was a terrorist. (From a western point of view)

Over there in the Middel East the US is the one doing terror.

Why?

Because the US doing to them what they are doing to the US. Waging war. They of course call it terror because that puts the enemy in a bad light.

There is a conflict of interest.
And it isn't just about the oil.

Western ideas, religion, economy and politics is so radicaly different from the what excist in the middle east that armed conflict is inevitable.

(And you can call it what you want, but i call armed conflict WAR. I don't care if they level towers or bombs barricades in a desertcity.
Its warfare.)

Anyway there is NO way that these two systems can get along, without one or both giving HUGE compromises.

So lets see how likely is it that any of these is going to give up what they hold dear and say: "You guys were right, our way of doing things are wrong."

NONE.... so they fight.

Some of you guys hold very strong feelings about the issues and thats fine.

Maybe you should get down there and help in the struggle against the ones you feel is the lesser.
Your effort might help tip the scales in favor of your view. And you might get an end to all the problems down there once and for all......

This is how fundamentalist think. Fundamentalist are practical people. They act on what they belive and when you have two sides with fundamentalist you get conflict.

When you have alot of people you get more of the practical sort and alot more conflict.

As long as there are people there will be conflict.
As long as there are practical people there will be armed conflict.
The solution is not to kill all the practical people since anyone can be practical once they get a certain mindset.
A very nasty, but effective solution would be to kill all people.
Which would generate a new conflict those in favor of ending the human race and those who oppose.
And I promise that that would be a major armed conflict.

So whats my point? I don't have a point!!! Points are for losers who need to be right and who happily would kill their neighbour so they can proclaim themself as VICTOR and pet their EGO.

These are the same people who would send other humans to consentrationcamps.

Who fling nuclear warheads into big cities to scare others to BOW down to them.

Who hates anyone who think, belive or does anything different from themself.

Who live by the rule: First myself then myself and if it's anything left thats for me too.

And with ca 6 000 000 000 of these running around..........

OOOOOPPS that sounded very much like a point....
lets make that 6 000 000 000 + 1.

Have a nice war...

Chris

If you want a war like you never seen before - simple.

We ( the western world ) just decide now we want to live in peace and to illustrate our good intentions we give all our weapons to the moslem world, China, North Korea each a fair and balanced share. After they killed every single one of us they will start annihilating each other eventually when about everyone is dead and gone there will be peace.

>> Have a nice war...

So, you make no distinction between the attacker and the attacked. Why did the US liberate Europe, since we were just being terrorists? Why did the norwegian resistance fight the Nazis, since they were being terrorists. No problem is ever solved by war, right?

«So, you make no distinction between the attacker and the attacked. Why did the US liberate Europe, since we were just being terrorists? Why did the norwegian resistance fight the Nazis, since they were being terrorists. No problem is ever solved by war, right?»

Lol, not right at all, I will remind you that the Soviets took Berlin, that Englishs, Canadians, Australians, ..., also liberate Europe without making use of it all the day like a fallacious argument (France does not argue with his decisive help in the American independence all the day). For the second world war, without Pearl Harbor the American help would have been limited to logistics... and we were occupied by a foreign occupying army which is the exact opposite ot the current Iraqi situation. Moreover the attackers was not at all iraq despite your misleading readings from blogs with a misinformation policy...

Best regards,
Sensi

«Why did the norwegian resistance fight the Nazis, since they were being terrorists.»

The nazis have called norwegian, french & others resistance "terrorists" while they used to kill only nazis (or just germans) soldiers... for similar examples see Iraq and Palestine (for those bunches who don't kill civilians but soldiers of an occupying army).

Best regards,
Sensi

Quote Gunnar:
"So, you make no distinction between the attacker and the attacked. Why did the US liberate Europe, since we were just being terrorists? Why did the norwegian resistance fight the Nazis, since they were being terrorists. No problem is ever solved by war, right?"

Distinction??? Two guys are having a problem. One is practical and attack the other FIRST.
Why? Because he knows thats the way, to get HIS way.

If he wins he has SOLVED his problem.
It's all about point of view.

Nothing has been solved for the other guy or the ones watching. So in a democratic sense you could say that nothing has been solved, except when the guy who attacks reprecents a majority. Then everything is okay, in a democratic point of view.

Conflicting points of view create conflict and lead to armed conflict(WAR)

That's the way things are and my distinction doesn't matter.

Attacker or attacked. Have a conflict and they both want a solution who favors THEM. Easiest way is to get rid of the other guy. Or hurt him so much that he gives up.

What many people is today, is in a state of denial of these simple facts. Just like an alcoholic denies that he drinks too much.

But it doesn't change the fact that people ARE having conflicts and SOLVES it with war.

You can go on and on forever about how war isn't the solution. But fact is that as long as people hold VERY different views war is the ONLY solution.

That can be DONE in the real world anyway. You can always make some grand teory on paper if YOU WISH.
But PEOPLE will NOT DO it.

Enjoy!!!

Chris

Quote T Hansen:
"If you want a war like you never seen before - simple.

We ( the western world ) just decide now we want to live in peace and to illustrate our good intentions we give all our weapons to the moslem world, China, North Korea each a fair and balanced share. After they killed every single one of us they will start annihilating each other eventually when about everyone is dead and gone there will be peace."

A nice teory, but it assumes to much. It is right that the middle east probably would kill of the west if they could. However I would NOT count on china, north korea, the middle east etc would not get along.

Their point of view isn't so different that they need to kill each other of. They in other words wouldn't have the level of conflict that we ENJOY.

So why do i use the word enjoy.

Well we have made our wars into entertainment. There are BIG money to be made in showing the masses how we are kicking our enemys ass. And if we don't we PRETEND to.

If we humans could just accept our own nature we might get somewhere. Where that is I don't know. If it is "better"? That I don't know eighter. But it certainly wouldn't be here.

I don't have a grand teory/religion or whatever to get us out of this mess because the mess is US.

Yes WE, as in everybody.

Instead we bikker over who did what to whom. And since he did that, I!!! have no faults, I!!! am therefore superior, and since I!!! am superior, I!!! can do what I!!! want to him.

I!!! Maybe if we stopped writing I as a capital and just "i".

Our is that a bit too WISHFUL. It is a solution who might get DONE. Though I!!! doubt it would have a big effect.

Have a nice day!

I!!! Chris

Pete, Paris:

You made some good points when you talked about how war goods were sold or given to Saddam in the 80's. However, you made a huge mistake in your writing of who did so. There is a list somewhere in a website that tracks weapons sales from country to country much like a Jane's website and what I found surprising as I thought the US was among the biggest dealers to Saddam was that the US ranked 11th. USSR and France were first and second and even Denmark and Belgium sold more stuff to Saddam than the US did. I never expected that just because of the difference in size of the industries.

What I think needs to be realized is that there appear to be several strains of politics in the Islamic world these days. Some like Pakistan or Afghanistan or the emerging Iraq are at least ambivalent about the US and the Coalition if not completely supportive; they do not much care for the western Europeans. There is a group that is willing to trade with the West but is sitting on the fence with regard to the Islamic terrorists; they are primarily business men and appear to be Islamic but are very secular with it. There is the group which is much like the "useful idiots" that Lenin talked about and they are very anti-Western but not into terrorism. There is a group whick is willing to do anything and sacrifice anything to destroy the West. There are the ones where the countries are so divided that it is like there are two really schizophrenic cultures fighting either actively or psychologically like Iran.

President Bush has talked about how Islam is a religion of peace from what he understands. I think he is right for the most part. we have quite a few Muslims here and we get along pretty well with them. My last landlady and landlord are an example. He is originally from Lebanon and she is from a wealthy and very social Saudi Arabian family. Of all places to live they live right in the middle of a large Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and get along very well. There is a big cab stand at the end of the subway line and all the cab drivers are Palestinians. They drive the Orthodox Jews home from the station and they get along very well. There are mosques and synagogues less than a block apart there. In 30 years I have heard of only one instance of any damage to the synagogue or mosque and that was 25 years ago. This type of Muslim is one we can work with and get the problems solved.

The problem is how does one deal with the type of Muslim who will send his children out to be a suicide bomber or the type of Muslim who kills the Dutch film maker and then sticks a 5 page letter to his dead body with a knife threatening Dutch politicians. How do you treat somebody who will do that. Do you handle it as if it were a criminal act or do you handle it as if it were an opening salvo in a war. Do you always have to wait for them to attack and then respond or do you try to root them out before they can attack.The answers to this will go a long way to solving the Middle East problem. Right now Europe is making one choice and the US and its coalition of allies is making the other choice. At some point we are going to have to join in one or the other.

>> The nazis have called norwegian, french & others resistance "terrorists" while they used to kill only nazis

Yes, of course, perception is reality. I see that now. For example, Jeffery Dammer was just hungry from his point of view. Jews in concentration camps were in fact sub-human, from the Nazi point of view, so it was ok. Pol Pot was doing a good job encouraging people not expect too much out of life. Jack the ripper was just a guy with a knife. Women shouldn't have been out at night anyways. There is no right and wrong, it all depends on your point of view. Let's not argue and bicker about who killed who.

Here's an idea: instead of following Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, ect. that all seem to cause lots of religion-related violence and wars and discrimination, let's all worship the Greek gods like Zeus and Apollo. Then we can all get along when we have one set of gods to worship! Heck, we can even pick favorites! *sparkle sparkle skipping in a field of marshmellows happiness*

/sarcasm

Gunnar, Maryland . . .

Sensi, Paris said: "The nazis have called norwegian, french & others resistance "terrorists" while they used to kill only nazis (or just germans) soldiers... for similar examples see Iraq and Palestine (for those bunches who don't kill civilians but soldiers of an occupying army)."

You said: "Yes, of course, perception is reality. I see that now. For example, Jeffery Dammer was just hungry from his point of view."

Someone said of American leftists: "They confuse a hamburger with a picture of a hamburger." Sensei, Paris seems to have the same problem.

How about this idea: "Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Ultimately, anything can be justified by anybody.

"Ultimately, anything can be justified by anybody."
Jupps, I agree, they can even justify a war on Iraq, as the same as WW2. Beats me where they see the similarities.

I did not catch this before now, as this thread sneaked away from my sight.

Anyway, Susan wrote: I seem to recall that only a couple of months ago you were defending the Iranian govenrment as an example of "Islamist democracy."

That you 'seem to recall' this means one of three things:

1. You are lying.
2. Illiteracy is more common in the United States than previously thought.
3. You suffer from some kind of illness that makes you recall stuff that never happened.

I have never defended Iran as a democracy. With the current rulers in Iran I will also never do that. I did, however, point out that Iran - unlike secular Muslim countries like for instance Iraq, has had actual political change as a result of elections. This does not make Iran democratic. It does help explaining the Iranian society and the certain degree of popularity that Iranian Islamist ideas has had abroad, though.

As a matter of fact, Susan, a handful of Arab countries also has elections, without being democratic. The difference is that the Iranian elections at one time had a real influence on Iranian politics. Not all mullahs liked that too much of course, and they've now hijacked the parliamentary process of Iran completely. But that's another story.

Also, Susan, you seem to fantasize a lot about me. I should perhaps be flattered.

But since the dreams you seem to have are somewhat odd, for instance you feel convinced that I do not care about Iranian dissidency, when - in fact - I not only read blogs written by Iranian dissidents, but also think and hope that Iran is going to see a new revolution within a decade, and that this will lead to an Iran closer to the ideals that created the Iranian revolution than to the ideas that later hijacked it.

Strawmen are of course nice to have for Susan, because they are so much easier to argue against.

Øyvind

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1482